President Obama to Rolling Stone: Mitt Romney stuck with conservative views from primaries
President Obama is seen on the cover of Rolling Stone magazine that hits newsstands April 27, 2012, in this image released by the magazine. / AP Photo/Rolling Stone
(AP) WASHINGTON - Offering riffs on Mick Jagger and reflections on race, President Barack Obama is capping a week devoted to courting young votes with a Rolling Stone magazine cover interview that segues from presidential musings on politics to foreign policy to pop culture.
Sounding an election-year theme, Mr. Obama tells the magazine that Mitt Romney can't disavow the conservative views he embraced as candidate during the Republican presidential primaries. At the same time, he acknowledges that he, too, is struggling against public skepticism because of the slow economic recovery.
The interview, conducted earlier this month by Rolling Stone publisher Jann Wenner, will appear in the issue of the magazine that hits newsstands Friday. The Associated Press obtained a copy of the interview ahead of publication.
Special Section: Election 2012
Mitt Romney sweeps primaries in five states
Obama: Agents involved in scandal "knuckleheads"
For Mr. Obama, the magazine interview and its cover portrait come as he reaches out to young voters with a two-day tour of three college campuses in key election swing states and an appearance Tuesday night on NBC's "Late Night with Jimmy Fallon."
Mr. Obama in the interview avoided characterizing Romney as a flip-flopper, a common criticism Romney faced during the Republican primary contests, and instead tagged him as a candidate who willfully embraces the Republican Party's most conservative views.
"I don't think that their nominee is going to be able to suddenly say, 'Everything I've said for the last six months, I didn't mean,'" Mr. Obama said. "I'm assuming that he meant it. When you're running for president, people are paying attention to what you're saying."
Mr. Obama's answer underscores an approach his advisers have been emphasizing lately, casting the race as one of sharp contrasts between two distinct candidates, parties and ideologies.
He said his own political burden is describing to Americans the progress that has occurred during his administration and how, if sustained, it could lead to economic security. "There's understandable skepticism," he said, "because things are still tough out there."
Discussing his relationship with the military, Mr. Obama said, in the clearest terms yet, that he had to rein in the Pentagon as he sought to close down the war in Iraq on schedule and re-focus the military effort in Afghanistan. He said that with the help of then-Defense Secretary Robert Gates, he made it clear to the military brass that "I very much believe in civilian control of our military, and that military decisions are in service of strategies and broader conceptions of diplomacy that are made here in this White House."
"They know I care about them and I respect them, and I think they respect me and listen to what I say," he said. "They understand that I'm the commander in chief."
He said the operation to kill Osama bin Laden illustrated the "constructive relationship" he has developed with the Pentagon.
On Iraq, he said he had fulfilled his promise to end the war responsibly.
"It wasn't as fast as some people would have liked," he said. "It was probably faster than some folks in the Pentagon would have liked."
Reflecting on whether there had been a change in racial politics since he became president, Mr. Obama said he has never accepted the idea that his election represented a "post-racial period."
Still, he said, he often hears people remark about the importance to black children of having an African-American president and African-American first lady.
"That's hugely important," he added, "but you shouldn't also underestimate the fact that there are a whole bunch of little white girls and white boys all across the country who just take it for granted that there's an African-American president. That's the president they're growing up with, and that's changing attitudes."
No interview with Rolling Stone is complete without cultural touchstones.
Mr. Obama recalled watching singer Mick Jagger rehearse for his appearance during a February White House tribute to the blues and was impressed by the respect the Rolling Stones frontman displayed toward lesser-known and younger musicians. He said Jagger recalled the generosity he had experienced upon meeting blues greats like Howlin' Wolf and B.B. King, and displayed "the sense of him wanting to do that same thing, that it all comes full circle."
As he often does, Mr. Obama said he is not a fan of television news, though he admitted to liking Comedy Central's "The Daily Show" with Jon Stewart, whom he called "brilliant." "It's amazing to me the degree to which he's able to cut through a bunch of the nonsense," the president said.
As for his own pop talents, Mr. Obama was matter-of-fact about his two acclaimed though abbreviated moments of public singing — once at the Apollo Theater in New York and the other at a blues tribute at the White House.
"I can sing," he said confidently. "I wasn't worried about being able to hit those notes."
Popular in Politics
- Obama prom pictures surface
- Drones, Gitmo part of broad Obama counterterrorism speech
- IRS' Lerner: "I have not done anything wrong" 797 Comments
- House passes GOP bill to speed Keystone XL pipeline approval
- Lawmakers push to punish sexual offenders in the military
- Christie: Keep politics out of Oklahoma disaster relief
- Former Miss America might challenge McConnell
- Amid scrutiny of commerce pick, White House confident about her fate
As the many referenced charts and graphs show, the trickle-down economic theory of tax cuts has never reduced the debt.
Indeed, the real world result of Republicans' "tax cut" strategy is already known: when Reagan became president -- and began to cut taxes -- the federal deficit was 2.5 percent of the national economy. When his term ended eight years later, the deficit increased to 5 percent of the economy. The interest payment on the debt in 1988 was $169 billion - compare this to $69 billion in 1981. Looks like "Reaganomics" didn't work so well!
(source: http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/07/20/presidents-and-their-debts-fdr-to-bush/reagans-deficit-dreamscape)
Can anybody suggest a Republican president from within 30 years who created a surplus by cutting taxes? Please recall 8 years under George W. Bush with his tax cut policy, a lack of strict regulations for private business and Wall Street. Consequently, many crooks had damaged our economy.
Now let us turn our attention to the current debate about the debt, keeping in mind the historical examples we have just presented. The Republican solution to our current debt consisting of spending cuts to programs such as Social Security, Medicare, and other entitlements could have serious negative affects on society and it is questionable if it is even constitutional to do so.
As a responsible voter I am so disappointed with many politicians' games. Do they have any knowledge about economics, social science, or national security...? It seems not when they refuse to raise the debt limit by even a feasible amount.
In fact, they even propose deep and unreasonable spending cuts in this current American economy -just barely rescued from a severe recession- when they should search for additional sources of revenue - such as a higher tax on wealthy citizens.... Do they know that many wealthy citizens are willing to pay more taxes for many reasons such as patriotism, fairness, moral obligation, and their own safety. Imagine that an agreement is not reached in two more weeks - then senior citizens and poor people will not have enough money to survive. What are their survival reactions? Will they commit crimes such as robbery, killing wealthier people... The lack of consumption will make business suffer and layoffs will be necessary. Consequently, many current workers will be out of work, increasing social unrest... More and more consequences will follow. Is it really an exaggeration for President Obama to describe such a scenario as "Armageddon"?
Good night, friends
Hey smoker -- the bush tax cuts have lowered our federal revenue by $4 Trillion and decreased GDP growth by $3.5 Trillion, which means we haven't had enough MONEY to pay our bills since 2001.
==========================================================================================================================================
Amazing you keep calling them the Bush tax cuts when it was Obama who signed the current tax cuts into law two years ao. Please don't come back with the lame exscuse Oabam was forced into extendeding them. Because Obama has always been for extending 99% of the tax cuts.
The only part he talks about not extending would work out to be about 20-40 billion a year. So yes Obama owns close to 4 trillion of the current tax cut deficits.
As for all your exscuses of how the republicans are meanies who block everything the dems try to do, It is sad the Dems didn't block more of what you acuse the repubs of doing when they were minority.
It is sad you are such blind partisan that can't see it isn't just hte republicans fault and the dems have no plan to address the deficits.
Even bush called them the bush tax cuts last week, and they will always be the damn bush tax cuts, no matter how much conservitards whine and cry about it, since it was bush that ran in 2000 on those stinking bush tax cuts and his GOP Congress that passed them with reconciliation in 2001 and 2003.
It is so sad you're such a highly-partisan poster, and cannot see the damage that the bush tax cuts have done over the past decade!
MORE OF THE SAME fuzzy math by conservitard repubicans??
While it is absolutely true that the middle class tax cuts were held hostage by the republicans, along with unemployment extensions, it was only a 2-year extension of the bush tax cuts (2011 & 2012) -- so that's only 20% of the $4 Trillion in revenue losses, or $800 billion, not your ridiculous $4 Trillion.
I just love how you republicans use your FUZZY MATH all the time!
Romney statement may be too good to be true, "The result has been a very long, very slow, very precarious climb to a point far short of American well-being. " .
Please look at some economic facts:
(1) Mr. Obama and Mr. Romney have been using the latest unemployment figures to bolster their pleas for votes. The U.S. unemployment rate fell from 9.1 percent last August to 8.2 percent in March, the lowest since about the time Mr. Obama took office.
(2) The Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) was around 8,550 at the end of 2008 but has risen above 13,000 by Friday, 04-20-2012 - 52% higher. A one million dollar investment in the market would earn about 520,000 dollars.
http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/2009-stock-market-where-will-the-dow-jones-end/question-218535/
(3) Yahoo Finance shows the DJIA opened on Clinton's Inauguration Day at 3255.99.
In addition to a budget surplus, William Jefferson Clinton left George Walker Bush with a DJIA of 10,587.59. That's a return of 226% or 15.9% annually.
Clinton continues to get 0 credit from the media, the Republicans, and the public in general for these fine achievements. In fact the Democrats lost the House, including Speaker of the House Tom Foley, as a thank you for their act in 1993 which led to the balanced budget, kept interest rates low throughout the 1990s, and enabled this
bull run.
Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_was_the_Dow_Jones_average_at_Bill_Clinton's_first_Inaugaration#ixzz1sgsAz7Bd
(4) Taxes were cut during Bush's administration, but increased under Clinton's administration.
(5) Obama inherited a free falling economy from Bush's administration. Because it takes time to stop the velocity of free fall, it may take at least 10 years to recover our economy. After 3 years of the Obama administration, the free fall is stopped and many indicators show our economy is gradually recovering. Obama's economic plan is seen to be working by some of the economic indicators above. Remember, there is no silver bullet to recover our economy right away as claimed by politicians.
(6) by Shallow_Rs_Are_CRET-_-Ns April 20, 2012 11:31 PM EDT
LMAO!...Romney is pulling at straws, trying to find something "that will stick" for his minion right-whiners out there (which isn't a hard thing to do considering the IQ of most contemporary Republicans).
Yesterday, Romney was trying to go after President Obama on manufacturing in the U.S., which was hilarious since everyone knows that:
(A) We lost 4.5 million "Made In America" manufacturing jobs the last time we had a Republican in the White House (named "Bush")...n
and...
(B) Starting in 2010, under President Obama and for the first time SINCE BILL CLINTON, the country has had annual net GROWTH in "Made In America" manufacturing jobs versus the annual net LOSSES we had EVERY SINGLE YEAR under the last Republican that was in the White House...
2010 = +210,000 "Made In America" manufacturing job growth
2011 = +233,000 "Made In America" manufacturing job growth
First 3 months of 2012 = +120,000 "Made In America" manufacturing job growth.
Question:
Is this evidence that taxation and spending should be a large concern for US voters? Does Romney have any economic record to counter the achievements of Obama's plan? What has Romney done on a national scale? Remember historical facts; tax cuts for wealthy people has not boosted the economy but rather created more deficit.
I keep hearing this same republican talking point every day.
While our economy has greatly improved since the 2008 implosion of the financial sector while the bush/cheney regime was still in power, we've seen 24-months of positive GDP growth and 4 million private-sector jobs created, and the DJIA has just about doubled over the past 3 years, I fail to see anything that willard robmee has proposed that will improve our still-fragile economy.
But.....I would like to hear exactly which POLICIES you neoliberal conservative republicans 'believe' has hindered our economy.
Please be specific, and leave the republican talking points behind!
Again DJ -- I would like to hear exactly which POLICIES you neoliberal conservative republicans 'believe' has hindered our economy.
Tell us DJ, which policies, and be exact, but leave the attacks behind!
He didn't attack you, but he did try to veer to an unrelated tangent, while ignoring (or being unaware of) facts from the past.
The Democrats never had a super majority that could have them getting around GOP filibusters and everything else...
Had they actually had such power for 2 years, things may or may not be different due to the number of "Blue Dog Democrats", who are also called "Republican-Lites".
- Spending increased by 29.49%.
- Tax revenues increased by 85.58%.
Roughly, Clinton increased spending by 30% and so clearly spending was not reduced. However, by balancing this spending with tax increases, Clinton was able to go from a $290,335,000 annual deficit to a $236,151,000 annual surplus! (as shown in the chart below). Keep in mind spending wasn't cut at all, it was even increased!
[ SEE the diagram on http://thephantomrepublican.blogspot.com/2006/04/did-bill-clinton-really-create-budget.htm ]
ClintonAdministrationSurplus.bmp
We would only be returning to the 1990's tax rates that brought us prosperity and 22 million jobs created, and the top marginal rate on the wealthiest Americans would only increase 4%, but with spending cuts, it would balance our budgets well-before 2040.
Considering that there is absolutely no difference between a direct spending program and a refundable tax credit like ryan's idiotic budget, it's no wonder that he and the republicans cannot balance the budget until 2040 -- 28 years from now -- and he still has absolutely no details at all on what tax loopholes he would omit!
At least if the moronic republicans could throw lobbyist grover nitwitt out of their sinking boat, and ended the temporary bush tax cuts that have only decreased federal revenue by $4 Trillion and lowered GDP growth by $3.5 Trillion, we could balance the federal budget and lower the budget deficits much sooner!
But unfortunately, mittens has endorsed the 'lyin' ryan' budget, and will give us MORE OF THE SAME failed "supply side economic insanity" that has been proven to be a huge failure since 1981!
Hey REDgurl -- You're correct that JFK was indeed a Democrat, but the fact is that the republicans BLOCKED his DEMAND SIDE tax cut proposal in 1963.
In 1964, Johnson was able to get the DEMAND SIDE tax cuts through Congress despite almost all republicans voting against them, and lowered the top marginal rate from 91% down to 77%.
Why do you suppose the republicans voted against the tax cuts?
A vote for willard mittens robmee, is a vote for expanding the military-industrial complex and more tax cuts for the top 1% -- which means much larger budget deficits and an evaporating middle class!
========================================================================================================================================
See my post below where I describe how when Obama and the Democrats pushed their payroll tax cut they managed to give an 11 times larger tax cut to someone making a million dollars then someone who is making $60,000.
Then come back and try telling me how only the republicans are the pimps for 1% with a straight face.
Conservative propaganda. 1.1T of the 1.3T deficit was handed to Obama by Republicans and is not his doing - and in fact he has done a better job of recovering the economy than anyone (with a working brain and knowledge of economics) expected. And saying that things may not be great under Obama does not imply they WOULD be better under a Republican - in fact, based on the House Republicans we can definitely state things would be MUCH WORSE for most Americans, including the youth, if Republicans were allowed to implement their agenda.
========================================================================================================================================
Even if what you say is true which it really isn't since democrats have held the majority in the house since 2006. So if Obama was handed a deficit it came from a democratic control House.
But setting that fact a side! What has Obama done in three years to lower the deficit? Where is Obama and the dems budget showing they balanced the budget?
The democratic Controlled senate hasn't passed a budget or even presented a Democrat budget in 1100 days!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Your second statement that nothing has been done to lower the deficit is a fallacy, post hoc ergo propter hoc. Obama and the Democrats would have implemented many things to reduce the deficit - especially by expiring the Bush tax cuts on the rich - which Republicans have prevented. Democrats would also cut defense spending much more, which Republicans have prevented. So it is conservative propaganda, 100% fact free, to claim that "nothing has been done" and blame Obama.
Finally, the Democratically controlled Senate could have passed a useless budget resolution (as the House has) except that REPUBLICANS filibuster them. If you want to blame someone for no Senate resolution, it would be the Republicans. But since you don't understand government let me explain - only the House can author spending bills. By passing bills that they know in advance will never be approved, they are wasting everyone's time. And if they were willing to actually negotiate and do their jobs, we would have budgets - but they aren't.