The Romney File

[quadraphonics]

I doubt the GOP will die rather they will eventually discharge the fringe or keep it weak within its own party,

There is almost nothing left of the GOP except for said fringe. Whos is going to keep a lid on them?

and start moving their average opinion in line with the populace which has become increasing egalitarian and non-white.

If that happens, it will cease to be the same GOP in all but name.

The very fact they choose the most moderate candidate over tea party candidates is evidence of this.

The fact that said candidate is set to lose badly, and that his lack of appeal to the fringe base is a big part of that, suggests that the trend will go the other way.

 

[ElectricFetus]

There is almost nothing left of the GOP except for said fringe. Whos is going to keep a lid on them?

I disagree unless that fringe was sane enough to make the most "moderate" candidate they have their presidential candidate, of course he has had to flip-flop more then a pair of sandals to appease the fringe he nothing compare to other crazies they had running in the early primaries.

If that happens, it will cease to be the same GOP in all but name.

Not the first time political parties have evolved ideologies into near opposite of what their original ideals were, remember that the republicans were once anti-slave and democrats pro-slave, now democrats bleed egalitarianism and the republicans are the party of bigots, they were once the isolationists while the democrats were warmongers, now democrats are doves and republicans hawks. There was a time before Reagan were republicans called the idea of trickle-down economics "Voodoo" economics in open spit, but Reagan and the evangelicals pushed them into a new neo-conservative direction, now the tea-parties are pushing them somewhere else, somewhere dark and lynchy.

The fact that said candidate is set to lose badly, and that his lack of appeal to the fringe base is a big part of that, suggests that the trend will go the other way.

I honestly think he is going to win, they been able to con Americans into believe that A) the economy is worse off now then when he started and B) that it is at least partially Obama fault.

 

[quadraphonics]

I disagree unless that fringe was sane enough to make the most "moderate" candidate they have their presidential candidate, of course he has had to flip-flop more then a pair of sandals to appease the fringe he nothing compare to other crazies they had running in the early primaries.

If you assume that they selected the candidate that best matches the overall political disposition of the party, then you have a point. Except you immediately turn around and admit that Romney has no particular political platform and is openly courting the crazies.

The fact is that even the fringe knows that those types are unelectable, and is capable of holding their noses and nominating the most electable candidate they can. This amount to a sop to the center of the US electorate, but not the median GOP voter. Indeed, Romney has gone steadily more and more off into the fringe since being nominated.

Not the first time political parties have evolved ideologies into near opposite of what their original ideals were, remember that the republicans were once anti-slave and democrats pro-slave, now democrats bleed egalitarianism and the republicans are the party of bigots, they were once the isolationists while the democrats were warmongers, now democrats are doves and republicans hawks.

All true enough, but those are all examples of the parties ceasing to exist in all but name. I.e., the difference between my prediction and those observations is entirely semantic. We have what are effectively new parties, just using the old names.

I honestly think he is going to win, they been able to con Americans into believe that A) the economy is worse off now then when he started and B) that it is at least partially Obama fault.

Nah, Romney doesn't stand much chance short of some unexpected and dramatic development. Go check out intrade.com or the 538 blog at the NY Times.

 

[ElectricFetus]

If you assume that they selected the candidate that best matches the overall political disposition of the party, then you have a point. Except you immediately turn around and admit that Romney has no particular political platform and is openly courting the crazies.

The fact is that even the fringe knows that those types are unelectable, and is capable of holding their noses and nominating the most electable candidate they can. This amount to a sop to the center of the US electorate, but not the median GOP voter. Indeed, Romney has gone steadily more and more off into the fringe since being nominated.

The tea party may vary well be the next stage in the republican mind set, but the fact that even they could not vote for such a candidate is proof they aren't yet.

All true enough, but those are all examples of the parties ceasing to exist in all but name. I.e., the difference between my prediction and those observations is entirely semantic. We have what are effectively new parties, just using the old names.

Which is what has happened and will happen again, the republican parties present state will pass.

Nah, Romney doesn't stand much chance short of some unexpected and dramatic development. Go check out intrade.com or the 538 blog at the NY Times.

Better yet I'll bet you money! $50 I'll pay with paypal, I swear to *fucking* god!!! But of course you got to bet and not rescind! This way I win money when he wins and not feel so bad that he won... last time I was forced to shave my head when Obama won.

 

[quadraphonics]

Better yet I'll bet you money! $50 I'll pay with paypal, I swear to *fucking* god!!! But of course you got to bet and not rescind! This way I win money when he wins and not feel so bad that he won... last time I was forced to shave my head when Obama won.

If you want to wager on the outcome, I recommend using intrade.com. Shares for Romney victory current go for about $3.50. Which means that, if he wins, those shares will pay off to the tune of 200% profit!

 

[Tiassa]

Because It Couldn't Possibly Be Mitt ....

Because It Couldn't Possibly Be Mitt ....

After weeks of embarrassing themselves with gaffes, erroneous political calculations, and even a strong enough dose of indecency that fellow Republicans had harsh words for Mitt Romney, the GOP nominee's campaign has had enough ... of the press.

McKay Coppins explains:

As Mitt Romney finishes his second week of dismal news coverage — with slipping polls and a combustible international crisis driving the narrative that the campaign is flailing — the campaign's frustation with the media that covers it is approaching the boiling point.

Despite the usual sparring between press and campaign — and the occasional piece of red meat tossed to the conservative blogosphere — Romney and his senior aides had generally avoided the common Republican complaint that the mainstream media is fundamentally biased in favor of the Democratic Party. That has begun to change, however, with top aides now privately grumbling that they have given up the hope of a level media playing field ....

.... Officially, the campaign's response to the media's Romney-in-disarray storyline has been a cavalier shrug.

"Look, I know it exists, but it is neither a compelling message or an effective tactic," senior adviser Kevin Madden told BuzzFeed. "Instead, we just make sure to work hard, extra hard, to get the governor's message to voters. The voters are the ones who get to decide who wins this race. We remain focused on that task every day and we're confident in our mission."

But frustration is building behind the scenes, egged on by a conservative media and Twitter conversation that has blamed the media for accusing Romney of a premature response to the crises in Libya and Egypt.

The adviser, granted anonymity to criticize a press corps the campaign still relies on every day, went on to blame a "green room, green zone kind of divide," saying the national press, most of whom live in New York or DC, "pockets of prosperity," are isolated from the realities of the harsh economy — and therefore, unable to grasp Romney's message.

Instead, they are preoccupied by concerns akin to war reporters relaxing in the green zone: "Too much chlorine in the pool, the parties are going on too late, why can't we get the right flavors of Haagen Dazs? Most people aren't living in that world."​

And while there is, as Coppins notes, "at least a kernel of validity" to "complaints about [an] overhyped media narrative", it's also hard to ignore the fact that Romney's campaign is so clumsy as to seem slapstick.

.... When polls start to go south, every gaffe is amplified, and every misstep becomes a data point.

But the Romney campaign has also given plenty of fodder to the media in recent days, including an incendiary response to the attacks on the Libya consulate and Egypt Embassy that received bipartisan blowback. And Romney was the beneficiary of this type of coverage at the beginning of the summer: When Obama was in a weaker-than-expected position in the polls, the press corps and pundits piled on.​

While "blaming the press is often a first reflex for campaigns", it's one of those now-more-than-everisms of the GOP playbook:

"Here's how it works," [MIT economist David] Autor wrote in an e-mail. "1. You have a set of policies that you favor at all times and under all circumstances, e.g., cut taxes, remove regulations, drill-baby-drill, etc. 2. You see a problem that needs fixing (e.g., the economy stinks). 3. You say, 'We need to enact my favored policies now more than ever.' I believe that every item in the GOP list that you sent derives from this three-step procedure.

"That's not to say that there are no reasonable ideas on this list. But there is certainly no original thinking here directed at addressing the employment problem. Or, to put it differently, is there any set of economic circumstances under which the GOP would not actually want to enact every item on this agenda? If the answer is no, then this is clearly now-more-than-everism" ....

(Klein)​

Instead of policy solutions, though, this time it is a complaint. And we cannot say that there are no occasions on which media bias is a reasonable suggestion. But is there any bad news for the GOP which would not actually lead to them claiming media bias? I mean, what, Bill Kristol (National Review) and Peggy Noonan (FOX News) are tanking for Obama? When did that happen? Oh, right, apparently when they criticized Mitt Romney.

In the end, it has to be the media, doesn't it? Because it couldn't possibly be Mitt Romney; he's running a brilliant campaign, and the media, in addition to being sold to Obama, just aren't smart enough to understand.

And ... well ... does it strike anyone else as odd that the campaign of a vulture capitalist worth a quarter-billion dollars might suggest that anyone is out of touch?

I mean, come on, really. On public radio, "first world problems" is an occasional joke, like the NPR story yesterday on all the problems Apple is causing its faithful users by changing the USB connector for iPhone 5.

The idea of Republicans ripping the press is nothing new. And while there are occasions for legitimate complaint about the press, one pretty much makes crystal clear that this is not one of them when ridiculing the press for being out of touch with everyone else because they have first-world problems, and doing so on behalf of a quarter-billionaire. This is a campaign that thinks speaking French is a significant foreign-policy qualification.
____________________

Notes:

Coppins, McKay. "Romney's Team Turns On The Press". BuzzFeed. September 13, 2012. Buzzfeed.com. September 13, 2012. http://www.buzzfeed.com/mckaycoppins/romneys-team-turns-on-the-press

Klein, Ezra. "GOP jobs plan: Old ideas, fancy new clip art". The Washington Post. May 26, 2011. WashingtonPost.com. September 13, 2012. http://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...y-new-clip-art/2011/05/26/AG3XZKCH_story.html

Henn, Steve. "New iPhone Plug Spells Inconvenience For Users, Change For Accessory Makers". All Things Considered. September 12, 2012. Transcript. NPR.org. September 13, 2012. http://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?storyId=161013923

Hastings, Michael, McKay Coppins, and Zeke Miller. "Obama's Plan To Use National Security To Beat Romney". BuzzFeed. September 11, 2012. BuzzFeed.com. September 13, 2012. http://www.buzzfeed.com/mhastings/obamas-plan-to-use-national-security-as-a-cudgel

 

[Bells]

The adviser, granted anonymity to criticize a press corps the campaign still relies on every day, went on to blame a "green room, green zone kind of divide," saying the national press, most of whom live in New York or DC, "pockets of prosperity," are isolated from the realities of the harsh economy — and therefore, unable to grasp Romney's message.

Instead, they are preoccupied by concerns akin to war reporters relaxing in the green zone: "Too much chlorine in the pool, the parties are going on too late, why can't we get the right flavors of Haagen Dazs? Most people aren't living in that world."[/font]​

The irony of blaming the media for not understanding the harsh realities...

Mitt Romney wants to use his past success in the private sector to help drive the nation's economy forward. But Romney's personal fleet of vehicles will move at a luxurious descent from the comfort of their own private elevator in Romney's new California home.

Politico reports that Romney's proposed renovations for his California beachfront property, located in the La Jolla community of San Diego, include a car lift for his four on-site cars and 3,600 square feet of underground living space. He's even spent more than $20,000 on a lobbyist to help expedite the approval process through the city government.

[Source]
​

Most people aren't living in Romney's world either.

And they would not have to blame the media if their candidate just learned to keep his mouth shut. Even after the disaster of his comments on 9/11 and the day after, he is still making it worse for himself:

In an interview with ABC News Thursday evening, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney suggested that, after it was all said and done, the Obama administration concluded that his criticism of their handling of yesterday's embassy attacks was, indeed, valid.

“What I said was exactly the same conclusion the White House reached, which was that the statement was inappropriate. That’s why they backed away from it as well,” Romney told George Stephanopoulos.

This is fairly impressive verbal gymnastics. Yes, the White House distanced itself from the initial statement put out by the U.S. Embassy in Cairo that condemned a crass anti-Muslim film that had been making the rounds on the Internet. And yes, Romney also criticized the issuance of that statement.

But Romney also accused the president of sympathizing with the rioters because of that initial statement, despite the fact that the embassy released it hours before the attacks took place. And while Romney may want to focus attention elsewhere, it was that specific attack on Obama that had Democrats, foreign policy experts, and a good chunk of Republicans criticizing his conduct. His statement didn't comport with the actual timeline of events.​

Which makes me wonder...

Is he trying to kill his own campaign? Because surely he cannot be this stupid? Is there no one amongst his campaign staff to say to him 'hey Mitt, maybe this may not be a good idea..?'.. Or possibly tied him to a chair and gagged him?

 

[Bells]

They should have gone with rope and a gag...

As the anti-American sentiment spreads throughout parts of the Middle East, the thing to do is to stand firm and not attempt to inflame the situation further. Unfortunately, Romney doesn't quite get that yet. After the disaster of the last few days, the man just cannot shut up.

“As we watch the world today, sometimes it seems that we’re at the mercy of events instead of shaping events, and a strong America is essential to shape events,” Romney told about 2,700 supporters in a suburban park.

“The world needs American leadership. The Middle East needs American leadership and I intend to be a president that provides the leadership that America respects and will keep us admired throughout the world.”

It defies logic..

Talk about inflaming the situation further. What is he thinking?

Does he want this to get worse? More people to die?

 

[joepistole]

Romney is a typical right wing chicken hawk. He is good with war and blood as long as it is not his blood.

 

[Tiassa]

Romney Campaign Wants Obama Removed From Kansas Ballot

Romney Campaign Wants Obama Removed From Kansas Ballot

Well, it's not official, but when a Birther who is also your campaign's immigration advisor who is also the Kansas Secretary of State, it's not hard to read the tea leaves:

Kansas election officials said Thursday that they want more information before deciding whether to remove President Obama from the state's November ballot.

The all-Republican State Objections Board heard arguments Thursday on a claim from a Manhattan resident that Obama is not eligible to be president because his father was from Kenya. The resident, Joe Montgomery, also questions whether Obama has a valid birth certificate.

The notion that Obama was born anywhere other than in Hawaii has long been discredited, and the White House released his long-form birth certificate last year. Hawaii officials also have repeatedly confirmed his citizenship.

The Kansas board is led by Secretary of State Kris Kobach, an ardent voter-ID proponent who during his successful 2010 campaign once suggested Obama should produce his long-form birth certificate.

The board, which would have the final say on the ballot absent a court challenge, plans to meet again Monday and may rule then. Time to make changes is running out, however, as ballots to overseas military personnel must be mailed before the end of September ....

.... [The] Kansas board — including Kobach, Attorney General Derek Schmidt and Lt. Gov. Jeff Colyer — said Thursday it wants certified documents from Hawaii and two other states that have looked into the issue.

After Kobach's assertion in 2010, an aide attempted to clarify Kobach's stance and said he didn't subscribe to "birther theories." Kobach said Thursday the board is obligated to do a thorough review of Montgomery's objections and not make "a snap decision."

"I do think the factual record could possibly be supplemented," Kobach said during the meeting.

Specifically, Kobach said the board would like certification from Hawaii officials that the long-form birth certificate made public by the White House and available online is authentic. Hawaii officials have repeatedly stated that it is and even sent Arizona official verification of Obama's birth records amid an inquiry there.

(Hanna)​

One wonders how this is supposed to play out. Arizona, as with the entire Birther movement, rejected the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution, and then got what it wanted from Hawaii. Now Kansas, led by a Romney campaign advisor, wants to reject Hawaii, and would like to double-check Arizona's work. How, exactly, is this going to go? Will it be Washington state or California? Illinois or New York? Which will be the last state to say, "Hawaii, we still reject Full Faith and Credit. Oh, and you other forty-eight states? Pony up, so we can double, triple, and even forty-eightfold check your work."

The whole Birther thing was silly from the outset. From the absurd to the outer limits to the twilight zone, the whole thing has slipped into the realm of the ineffably stupid.

And that is important to remember if one is inclined to suggest that Secretary of State Kobach is simply doing his job. To the one, he's well-established as a policy extremist; he loathes President Obama; and he's a high-ranking advisor to the Romney campaign who is said to be responsible for the GOP nominee's pivot from supporting the idea of a DREAM Act to a self-deportation agenda. To the other, he's using his office to entertain Birthers.

The weird thing about it, and where the post headline is slightly inflated, is that there really is no way Kansas is going to kick President Obama off the ballot. In the first place, he's a sitting president. And perhaps more importantly, the Birther issue is smoke and vapor, and is factually settled. Nor will it affect the average voter in any significantly positive way; and there is a high risk of annoying the remaining swing vote.

Why do it at all, then?

One might suggest ego, but that's not much of a reason, given the risk analysis. Pulitzer Prize-winning cartoonist David Horsey gave some thought to the swing bloc:

Polls indicate 98% of Americans have made up their minds about the choice between President Obama and Mitt Romney. That makes the 2 percent who are still thinking it over (or failing to think about it at all) a prime focus of attention for both campaigns and for the media and pollsters who are following the race for the White House.

In reality, though, it is not even 2 percent of voters who are getting the attention, it is a much smaller subset of that small electoral sliver: undecided voters in the eight states that are still not solidly in one camp or the other. There are actually so few voters in play that all the tens of millions of dollars being spent on attack ads might be better spent by simply paying each one of these vacillating voters for their vote. Maybe $50,000 each would do the trick ....

.... Judging by some of the statements undecided voters have made to the news media, though, it may be that all these overtly mendacious attack ads meant to sway them are simply having a dispiriting effect. Rather than making a choice, the undecideds may decide that both candidates are unworthy of their support and they may not vote at all.​

Romney's path to victory comes down to a state-by-battleground-state fight. Perhaps the red-meat strategy is projecting that voter enthusiasm—rallying the hardline right—promises better returns than fighting for that small electoral sliver.

Mitt Romney will win Kansas, which rates R+12 on the cook PVI; it's governor, U.S. Senate delegation, and Congressional Representatives are all in the Republican column.

But what about other states? How did Barack Obama win North Carolina? How did he win Indiana?

Indiana is leaning Romney; the GOP needs high voter turnout among hardline conservatives to seal the win there. Pennsylvania leans Obama; the GOP needs high voter turnout among hardline conservatives to have a chance. Wisconsin, Iowa, Colorado, Florida, North Carolina? They're toss-ups. Even Nevada is considered toss-up. Ohio? Toss-up. No matter how it goes, Romney needs high voter turnout among hardline conservatives in order to win this election.

And what if that need outweighs the small electoral sliver Horsey describes?
____________________

Notes:

Hanna, John. "Kansas board delays decision on Obama, ballot". The Wichita Eagle. September 14, 2012. Kansas.com. September 14, 2012. http://www.kansas.com/2012/09/14/2488381/kansas-board-delays-decision-on.html

Horsey, David. "Undecided voters are a tiny cohort that may not matter in the end". Top of the Ticket. September 13, 2012. LATimes.com. September 14, 2012. http://www.latimes.com/news/politic...-tt-undecided-voters-20120912,0,5745322.story

 

[quadraphonics]

As the anti-American sentiment spreads throughout parts of the Middle East, the thing to do is to stand firm and not attempt to inflame the situation further.

The thing for America's leadership to do, you mean. Mitt Romney is not a national leader. He's just a trust fund prince who wants to win a big popularity contest.

Talk about inflaming the situation further. What is he thinking?

He is thinking that maybe he can exploit this situation to boost his chances of election.

Does he want this to get worse? More people to die?

He does not care about those things at all.

 

[quadraphonics]

One wonders how this is supposed to play out. Arizona, as with the entire Birther movement, rejected the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution, and then got what it wanted from Hawaii. Now Kansas, led by a Romney campaign advisor, wants to reject Hawaii, and would like to double-check Arizona's work. How, exactly, is this going to go? Will it be Washington state or California? Illinois or New York? Which will be the last state to say, "Hawaii, we still reject Full Faith and Credit. Oh, and you other forty-eight states? Pony up, so we can double, triple, and even forty-eightfold check your work."

The whole Birther thing was silly from the outset. From the absurd to the outer limits to the twilight zone, the whole thing has slipped into the realm of the ineffably stupid.

It is, of course, stupid from one perspective. But this has never really been about the facts or the process. It's simply about sending the (kind of coded) message: Obama is some kind of alien interloper, and the GOP is the white man's bastion against such. The fact that they're perfectly willing to lump the state of Hawaii into the "outsider" category is troubling, but should hardly surprise. The target audience here doesn't respect Hawaii as anything more or less than a (white) American colony.

 

[Tiassa]

Well, it is Mitt Romney, after all

Does he want this to get worse? More people to die?

Probably. In a purely capitalistic proposition devoid of any genuine morality and subject to a strictly rational consideration guided by ethical boundaries dedicated to winning the election, more people dying in this international debacle is a good thing.

I made a joke earlier about the idea that Mitt Romney speaks French being a significant foreign-policy qualification. The article I linked to came out on the eleventh, but before the Libya and Cairo stories took over the cycle:

Romney foreign policy advisor Robert O'Brien called the Obama campaign's tactic a transparent ploy to distract from the sagging economy, including a recent jobs report that was "a disaster for them."

"It doesn't surprise me that they're raising foreign policy because it's another distraction from the Administration's terrible economic record," O'Brien told BuzzFeed. "They're going from one shiny object to the next."

O'Brien scoffed at the Obama campaign's claims of foreign policy strength, and pointed to what he sees as serious vulnerabilities. Obama's "reset" with Russia has been a "failure" O'Brien said, and "his administration should be embarrassed by it."

O'Brien conceded that the Bin Laden killing was great—"yes he gave the order and the Navy SEALs carried it out"—but said there was "not really another success story to point to." And, he cautioned not to underestimate Romney's foreign policy credentials.

"The Governor is an extraordinarily well-traveled businessman, he lived overseas as a young man, he speaks French, he understands the world and he's written extensively about foreign policy and national security," he continued. "The idea that he's this naive guy at 65 years old, given his experience heading the Olympic Winter Games and everything else, I just don't think that's going to play."

(Hastings et al.)​

All things considered, Mr. O'Brien's words manage to travel that strange realm where astounding, ironic, and hilarious all overlap on the Venn diagram. It is a strange realm because grim is yet another range that includes this intersection.

Let us think about it for a moment.

In the first place, this is not the first time the Romney campaign has dismissed foreign policy as a distraction. Romney himself has drawn specific criticism from Bill Kristol on this point. But O'Brien is so ironically coincidental. The question of international business experience versus foreign policy in public service is actually a very interesting issue to watch roll around the political playing field. Almost any politician can go either way on it at any time; cynicism is actually not wrong to suggest that it simply depends on who one is running against. At least, that's how it seems. To the other, does he really want to rely on primacy over recency in associating Romney's name with the Olympics? He speaks French? You mean, so he can refuse to speak to French Socialists? Okay, I'll tell you what: If Romney promises to make Francophone Africa the center of his we're-not-at-war foreign policy aid mission, I'll count speaking French as a significant foreign-policy qualification.

And, you know, it is what it is. Without reality intruding so rudely, O'Brien's talking points wouldn't be worth paying attention to.

But this came right before Romney set the presidential arena alight in such a manner as to leave many of his fellow Republicans aghast with a blunder of offenses against foreign policy comprehension and the general dignity of statecraft so great that the campaign is left complaining that anyone in the media noticed.

Oh, right. And it also came right after ... well, Kirit Radia explains for ABC News:

Russian President Vladimir Putin said today that Mitt Romney's characterization of Moscow as the United States' "number one geopolitical foe" has actually helped Russia.

The Russian leader said Romney's comments strengthened his resolve to oppose NATO's plan for a missile defense shield in Eastern Europe, a system Russia believes will degrade its nuclear deterrent. The U.S. insists the system is aimed at Iran, not Russia.

"I'm grateful to him (Romney) for formulating his stance so clearly because he has once again proven the correctness of our approach to missile defense problems," Putin told reporters, according to the Russian news agency RIA Novosti.

"The most important thing for us is that even if he doesn't win now, he or a person with similar views may come to power in four years. We must take that into consideration while dealing with security issues for a long perspective," he said, speaking after a meeting with Serbian President Tomislav Nikolic, according to Interfax news agency.​

And the thing is that while Putin may be a megalomaniac, and probably delights in popping off during our election—

Putin also waded into the U.S. election in an interview last week with state-controlled Russia Today television. Putin called President Obama "a very honest man" and said after their meeting at the G20 in Los Cabos, Mexico, he believed he could strike a missile defense deal with him, saying Obama's willingness to deal appeared "quite sincere."

Obama caused some controversy when he was caught on an open microphone at a summit in South Korea in March telling then-Russian President Dmitri Medvedev he would have more room to negotiate missile defense after the November presidential election.

During the same interview with Russia Today last week, Putin said he could work with Romney, but also expressed concerns about the GOP nominee, or someone with similar views, taking over the reins of the missile defense shield.

"In that case, the system will definitely be directed at Russia," he said, according to a transcript posted on Putin's official website.

After Romney's "geopolitical foe" comment last spring, Medvedev chided him for being stuck in the 1970s.​

—the plausibility of his argument is sound, and the only real question is the propriety of saying it right now, instead of waiting until November 7.

Okay, so, on the international stage in recent weeks, Romney has embarrassed himself in three European countries directly, offered Vladimir Putin a chance to get in on our election, and then waded into the foreign service attacks with breathtaking ineptitude.

But, you know, never mind the examples in effect. The former Massachusetts governor did some business overseas while in the private sector. And he did church mission work in France. And he speaks French. Oh, yeah, and the Olympics; he obviously learned a lot about foreign policy by organizing the Salt Lake City Olympics. You know ... which is why he gave the British such good advice on the London games.

Didn't O'Brien say something about "going from one shiny object to the next"?

Mitt Romney speaks French, you know. Sure, it looks like he's inept because he keeps screwing up, but, hey, he speaks French.

Look at the birdie!
____________________

Notes:

Hastings, Michael, McKay Coppins, and Zeke Miller. "Obama's Plan To Use National Security To Beat Romney". BuzzFeed. September 11, 2012. BuzzFeed.com. September 14, 2012. http://www.buzzfeed.com/mhastings/obamas-plan-to-use-national-security-as-a-cudgel

Radia, Kirit. "Putin Thanks Romney for Calling Russia No. 1 Foe". OTUS. September 11, 2012. ABCNews.Go.com. September 14, 2012. http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/09/putin-thanks-romney-for-calling-russia-no-1-foe/

 

[Captain Kremmen]

Let me introduce myself. My name's Mitt Romney.
I used to run a company selling office supplies.................................

 

[parmalee]

Originally Posted by Tiassa View Post

But, hey, I'm a leftist, which means I'm not part of the Balerion political spectrum, so what does my opinion count for?

???

See what happens when you disagree with the political boss here at Sci?

Well honestly, what do you expect? When you write:

And if the leftists you know call them right-wing, those leftists are probably communists or socialists.

the implications are apparent: you regard communists and socialists as some sort of nutters--am I right?

In my experience many--perhaps a majority--of self-identified Leftists also embrace some flavor of socialism, communism, or anarchism. I mean, that's kinda what a Leftist does, isn't it? You know, advocating for lofty ideals like Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity and whatnots. But your rhetoric suggest that you exclude such persons and their opinions from your consideration.

 

[parmalee]

Originally Posted by TiassaThat's kind of how I see the Democrats. They're playing a stupid game most days, but they're still trying to play a fair game. Republicans are trying to stack decks, load dice, and prescribe different rules to the various players.

I'm mostly in agreement with you here, but where I see the Democrats abandoning such principles is on the international/global playing field; of course, it goes without saying that the Republicans are far worse in this regard.

I've spent a fair bit of time in developing countries; in fact, I was actually living in San Cristobal de las Casas on January 1, 1994. After being introduced to Matching Mole's Little Red Record and Henry Cow's In Praise of Learning in my impressionable teens, this was undoubtedly the experience which most shaped my political convictions.

While I personally am no victim of Globalization (as in "corporate globalization" or neoliberalism), I've seen and known many--both within human communities and within the "wild." Yet from my vantage point, both Democrats and Republicans embrace such whole-heartedly, and while I certainly do not dispute the veracity of this:

If the Democrats were liberal and did their jobs, then our society would improve, life get better, and so on.

If Republicans do their jobs, then society becomes more stratified, justice erodes, and "America" is replaced by a massive game of King of the Hill.

it's the "our" part that really concerns me.

I'm reminded of this passage from Keynes:

Perhaps it is not an accident that the race which did most to bring the promise of immortality into the heart and essence of our religions has also done most for the principle of compound interest and particularly loves this most purposive of human institutions.

I see us free, therefore, to return to some of the most sure and certain principles of religion and traditional virtue – that avarice is a vice, that the exaction of usury is a misdemeanour, and the love of money is detestable, that those walk most truly in the paths of virtue and sane wisdom who take least thought for the morrow. We shall once more value ends above means and prefer the good to the useful. We shall honour those who can teach us how to pluck the hour and the day virtuously and well, the delightful people who are capable of taking direct enjoyment in things, the lilies of the field who toil not, neither do they spin.

But beware! The time for all this is not yet. For at least another hundred years we must pretend to ourselves and to every one that fair is foul and foul is fair; for foul is useful and fair is not. Avarice and usury and precaution must be our gods for a little longer still. For only they can lead us out of the tunnel of economic necessity into daylight.

(emphasis mine)
http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/economics/keynes/1930/our-grandchildren.htm

That just doesn't sit well with me. But then I've got very different notions about "scarcity" and such, more along the lines of Marshall Sahlins or Stanley Diamond.

I admit I'm living in a sort of fantasy world, though I certainly don't expect liberals, or Democrats, to ever embrace the notion that "property is theft," let alone post-humanism. I just wish they were more mindful of both the world that exists beyond U.S. borders as well as that within which lacks the sort of eloquent voice which is easily transcribed.

I realize that you were speaking to another sort of "fairness" here, and I'm very much in agreement with you on that, but I don't think that this is entirely unrelated.

 

[billvon]

also[/i] embrace some flavor of socialism, communism, or anarchism.

Agreed. So do right wingers. (Ask a right winger if we should shut down the federal highway system, fire all the cops, close the national parks and end veteran's healthcare, for example.)

 

[quadraphonics]

Agreed. So do right wingers. (Ask a right winger if we should shut down the federal highway system, fire all the cops, close the national parks and end veteran's healthcare, for example.)

Yeah, the whole "socialism" thing is just a codeword for people to signal which identity politic they identify with. "I'm a rugged mountain man who wrings profit from the very Earth, and I don't need no Nanny State getting in my way! Alls I need is some good, old-fashioned entrepreneurial gumption and my Medicare, my Social Security check, police to prevent these thieves from burglarizing my house, firemen to prevent that forest fire from gutting my business, make-work military-industrial projects nearby so that people here have money to spend at my business, and be lots of roads, power, sewage and utilities so that we enjoy a high standard of living! Ayn Rand!"

 

[parmalee]

Agreed. So do right wingers. (Ask a right winger if we should shut down the federal highway system, fire all the cops, close the national parks and end veteran's healthcare, for example.)

Sure, just so long as no one calls it by any of those names.

But honestly, I see present day right-wingers as more enamored of fascism. Were I an outsider wholly unfamiliar with American politics reading that prior sentence, I'd think that's ludicrous--or at least hyperbole. But...

The only Liberty Republicans concern themselves with is freedom in the marketplace; otherwise, they are enemies of Liberty. As for Equality, I think Orwell expressed the GOP stance best in Animal Farm: "“All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.” And Fraternity: yeah, sure--just so long as you're not gay, female, pregnant and female, black, Mexican, Muslim, poor...

And I'm not sure that I agree with you on that national parks bit: maybe they don't want to close them altogether, but they've certainly no objections to opening them up for purposes wholly unrelated to conservation/preservation.

 

[quadraphonics]

But honestly, I see present day right-wingers as more enamored of fascism.

Kind of. While fascism is a hard-right ideology, it seems to differ a bit from modern American conservatism in how it relates to labor. Where fascism worked by capturing and co-opting the labor unions, our conservatives seem to want to just destroy them entirely. I tend to think that makes them less threatening than the old fascists, since it's a Quixotic pursuit that means they'll never get into a position to exert totalizing influence on the polity.

And I'm not sure that I agree with you on that national parks bit: maybe they don't want to close them altogether, but they've certainly no objections to opening them up for purposes wholly unrelated to conservation/preservation.

Depends on which wing of the movement you are talking about. Your "business conservative" type guy would love nothing more than to pillage them all. But your libertarian NRA-member hunter type very much wants a lot of genuine preservation so that they have ample, healthy places in which to hunt, and generally experience the country as lone, free men communing with the land. Can't be rugged and self-sufficient if there are no deer for you to hunt for food, nor any wild places you can go to be free of civilization, eh? Conservationism in the USA is not really a left-wing cause - it walks on two legs (left-wing environmentalists and right-wing hunters), which is what makes it so effective. This is one reason that the left has a lot of trouble confronting the right over gun rights issues - the environmentalist wing of the left is in an alliance with the NRA wing of the right.