POLITICS

Debate Fact-Check: The Second Presidential Debate Between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney

Updated: October 17, 2012 | 4:21 p.m.
October 16, 2012 | 9:20 p.m.

Moderator Candy Crowley (center) applauds as President Obama (right) shakes hands with Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney at the start of the presidential debate at Hofstra University on Oct. 16, 2012, in Hempstead, N.Y. ((AP Photo/Pool-Michael Reynolds))

Romney on job creation:

Mitt Romney said that his economic plan would create “12 million jobs in four years.” But economic forecasters believe that the economy will add that many jobs in four years regardless of who’s in the White House. Moreover, in a recent campaign ad, Romney promises that his energy independence plan would create over 3 million jobs; his tax reform plan would create 7 million jobs; and “expanding trade, cracking down on China and improving job training” would create the remaining 2 million jobs. That math doesn’t make sense, according to Washington Post fact-checker Glenn Kessler. “The candidate’s personal accounting for this figure in this campaign ad is based on different figures and long-range timelines stretching as long as a decade — which in two cases are based on studies that did not even evaluate Romney’s economic plan,” Kessler reports.

Romney on contraception:

Romney said Obama was “completely and totally wrong” when he said Romney would allow employers to decide whether a woman gets contraception coverage. That statement is not entirely accurate.

Romney did support an amendment from Sen. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., which would have allowed employers to opt out of providing any health care coverage that they say violates their conscience or religious beliefs. That amendment might have allowed a broad swath of companies beyond those associated with the Catholic Church to decline to provide coverage for contraceptives (or many other medical procedures) for their employees.

Romney on assault weapons ban:

Responding to a question about assault weapons, Romney said, “We, of course, don't want automatic weapons, which is already illegal in this country.”

The federal ban on assault weapons — first enacted in 1994 under former President Clinton — expired in September 2004, during the George W. Bush administration.

Romney might have misspoken in his characterization of “automatic weapons,” i.e., machine guns. Those weapons are legal but they are heavily regulated such that they almost never show up in gun control debates. They almost never show up in street crime, either. The types of weapons that the candidates were asked about in the debate, specifically AK-47s, are semi-automatic devices, also known as assault weapons.

It should also be noted that as Massachusetts governor, Romney signed into law an assault weapons ban ensuring that AK-47s, UZIs, and Mac-10 rifles were permanently prohibited in the state, regardless of federal laws.

Romney on number of people in poverty:

Romney said that since Obama took office, there are 3.5 million more people in poverty. Almost but not quite. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, there were 43.6 million people in poverty in 2009, (the year Obama took office) up from 39.8 million in 2008. By 2011, there were 46.2 million people living in poverty, which makes for an increase of 2.6 million from 2009 to 2011. Census data for 2012 are not available yet.

 

 

 

Get the latest news and analysis delivered to your inbox. Sign up for National Journal's morning alert, Wake-Up Call, and afternoon newsletter, The Edge. Subscribe here.


More By These Writers
Katy O'Donnell's Pic
Katy O'Donnell
Staff Writer, Budget, Taxes, and Trade
kodonnell@nationaljournal.com
Stacy Kaper's Pic
Stacy Kaper
Staff Writer, Economics
skaper@nationaljournal.com
Leave A Comment
The National Journal Group has the right (but not the obligation) to monitor the comments and to remove any materials it deems inappropriate.
Comments powered by Disqus
Follow National Journal
Related Content
Expert Opinions
Transportation Experts

Oops! Judge Slams Local Public-Private Deal

May 17, 2013

Latest Response by Robert L. Darbelnet: Public Scrutiny Essential

Energy Experts

Should Washington Go Small on Energy and Climate Policy?

May 17, 2013

Latest Response by Jack Gerard: Minor Policies, Major Consequences

Energy Experts

Should Washington Go Small on Energy and Climate Policy?

May 16, 2013

Latest Response by Jonathan Silver: Woefully Little, Better Than Nothing

More Expert Opinions »
Columns
Charlie Cook: The Cook Report

Republicans Should Go Easy on Obama, At Least in Public

May 16, 2013
As a tactical matter, a subterranean campaign will score more direct hits on the president.
Ronald Brownstein: Political Connections

How the White House Scandals Could Hurt Republicans, Too

May 16, 2013
By enraging the base and strengthening the faction least willing to compromise with Obama, the IRS and Benghazi affairs could hurt a GOP shot at the presidency.
Norm Ornstein: Washington Inside Out

Eric Cantor’s Caucus Thwarts His Push for an Alternative Agenda

May 16, 2013
Cantor has learned that the tea-party movement he helped foster won’t fall in line behind his efforts to push an alternative conservative agenda.
More Columns »