Dead Silence from Mitt Romney on Chen Guangcheng’s Arrival in U.S.

Posted: May 21, 2012 | Author: | Filed under: 2012 presidential campaign, China, Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, U.S. Politics | Tags: , , , , | 31 Comments

It’s been a couple of days now since blind Chinese activist Chen Guangcheng arrived at Newark on a flight from Beijing. Mitt Romney must have heard about it, but he’s said nary a word about it. I wonder why?

He had plenty to say back on May 3, in the midst of the crisis that took place during Secretary Clinton’s trip to China. Chen had managed to escape from house arrest and make it to the U.S. Embassy to ask for assistance. As State Department and U.S. Embassy staff struggled to negotiate an exit strategy for Chen, Romney, the all-but-official Republican nominee:

condemned the Obama administration’s handling of blind Chinese dissident Chen Guangcheng, calling the episode “a dark day for freedom” and “a day of shame” for President Obama if, he couched, reports are true that American officials communicated threats to Chen’s family….

Several times on Thursday, Romney couched his comments with disclaimers like “if the reports are true,” but the takeaway was clearly intended that the incident is a black eye for President Barack Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner.

Despite Romney’s impulsive catastrophizing, Secretary of State Clinton calmly continued her efforts to help Chen and his family get to the U.S. in a way that would also save face for Chinese officials. Chen was offered a law fellowship at New York University and a deal was struck: Chen could leave China on a student visa, and his departure wouldn’t be characterized as seeking asylum.

On May 9 in New Delhi, Clinton told an interviewer:

that the work she and others have done to establish multiple channels for dialogue over the last 3 1/2 years “created a level of personal relationships and understandings between individuals and our government institutions that is absolutely critical.”

Clinton suggested that China’s willingness to agree to a U.S. proposal to assist a prominent critic of the government’s one-child policy is an indication that taking a broader view of the relationship pays dividends in a moment of crisis.

“I’ve invested a lot and argued strongly” for keeping regular channels of communication open so that no one issue “predominates or undermines the potential for reaching agreement on other equally important issues,” the top U.S. diplomat told Bloomberg Radio.

This was a triumph for negotiation as opposed to the kinds of macho chest-pounding that Romney has been preaching so far.

Declining to comment on how the U.S. managed to craft a deal this time in a sensitive case involving a Chinese activist, Clinton said that “every high-level Chinese official that I met” last week “repeated back to me” words from a speech she delivered in Washington reflecting on Sino-U.S. relations in the 40 years since President Richard Nixon’s historic outreach to communist China.

Chinese officials, she said, echoed her view that “what we are trying to do — the U.S. and China — is unprecedented in world history. We’re trying to find a way for an established power and a rising power to coexist.”

Last night, Cheryl Isaac wrote at Forbes:

Chen posed a great challenge for Hillary Clinton because of two competing issues: the economic dialogue in Beijing had been her priority for a couple of years, her pledge to protect human rights—women’s rights nonetheless—another priority.

The confusion of the negotiation process did not help either. After escaping house arrest and seeking refuge at the American Embassy, Chen first decided to stay in China. Then later, he pleaded to be taken to America—putting Clinton in the difficult place of having to renegotiate an agreement that had been reached 24 hours prior; reports the Daily Beast’s Howard Kurtz.

People around the world stated their displeasure. In the U.S., she had Congressman Chris Smith (R-NJ) stating that Clinton did not keep Chen safe within the U.S. Embassy. In this video interview, Smith even admits to telling Chen—in a phone conversation—that the fact that officials were working day and night on his paperwork, was not a good sign…”

But Hillary pushed onward, made the right decisions, and was successful in her goal of helping Chen and his family.

Bravo, Madam Secretary! Where are macho Mitt’s congratulations? Has he apologized yet? I’ve googled, but can’t find any evidence that he has owned up to his bungling or even acknowledged this diplomatic achievement. Why am I not surprised?

Mitt Romney: “It is without question the largest one-time careless expenditure of government money in American history” Really?

Posted: May 18, 2012 | Author: | Filed under: 2012 presidential campaign, Psychopaths in charge, U.S. Politics | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , | 44 Comments

Mitt Romney mocks the people of New Hampshire for preserving historic landmarks

The title of this post is a quote from Mitt Romney’s speech this afternoon in Hillsborough, New Hampshire. Politico reports:

Mitt Romney used a 19th-century stone bridge here today to anchor his attacks against President Barack Obama, calling the 2009 economic stimulus the “largest one-time careless expenditure of government money in America’s history.”

“This is the absolute bridge to nowhere if there ever was one,” Romney told supporters as he motioned to the stone bridge behind him. “That’s your stimulus dollars at work — a bridge that goes nowhere. And so I hope that the president comes here, and takes a look at some of the stimulus program, there’s a long list by the way.”

Wow, the government must have really spent a lot of money for Romney to be this bent out of shape. Let’s see, how much stimulus money went into the bridge?

More than $150,000 from the federal stimulus bill was awarded to restore this one — which doesn’t cross a body of water and hasn’t had vehicle traffic in more than a century. Local officials say they want to turn the stone arch and its surrounding areas into a public park.

“It is without question the largest one-time careless expenditure of government money in American history, and the bad news is it was not just wasteful spending,” Romney continued. “It is wasteful borrowing as well because we still are going to be paying on that debt for years and years and years.”

Wait a minute! That has to be a misprint, right? Why just today Mitt and Ann Romney donated $150,000 to his presidential campaign. He must have meant $150 million went to the bridge. But no, the entire cost of the restoration was about $288,000, with the state providing the start-up funds.

What is Romney getting at here? Does he want to stop preserving historical sites and monuments? Is it really wrong for small towns like Hillsboro that are dependent mostly on tourism to want to preserve their historic sites and at the same time build lovely parks to attract visitors who might also spend their money in town? At the same time, the project provided much-needed jobs for New Hampshirites struggling to survive in a difficult economy.

The bridge that Romney complained about is named Sawyer Bridge, and it is one of the few remaining stone arch bridges in New England. The town of Hillsborough is home to four of them. From Huffington Post:

Romney’s attack on the $288,000 bridge restoration will run into several immediate challenges: Funding for the project was overwhelmingly supported by state Republicans, including a significant number who have now endorsed Romney for president. The infrastructure project created much-needed jobs during tough economic times. And it left behind a public park enjoyed by Granite State residents who take great pride in their early-American and colonial history — and who will be casting critical, swing-state votes in November. It’s a curious breed of conservatism that would find offense in the job-creating conservation of a stone arch bridge that is one of the earliest examples of dry-laid masonry vaults in New England.

I have to wonder, is Romney opposed to any federal support to preserve historic sites? What about the National Parks? Would Romney sell off that land if he were president? Would he open them to oil drilling and other kinds of industrial development?

Think about it. For Romney expenditure of $150,000 in federal stimulus funds represents “the largest one-time careless expenditure of government money in American history.” Really? I can think of some worse, more careless expenditures of government money. What about the Vietnam War? What about the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which Bush financed with borrowed money that was kept off-budget?

Just to get a sense of the financial cost of those wars, I located this paper by Stephen Daggett of the Congressional Research Service (PDF) that lists the costs of America’s wars in $2011 dollars. According to Daggett in 2011,

Since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, Congress has appropriated more than a trillion dollars for military operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere around the world. The House
and Senate are now considering an additional request for $33 billion in supplemental funding for
the remainder of FY2010, and the Administration has also requested $159 billion to cover costs of
overseas operations in FY2011.

That’s more than the cost war in Vietnam, which in 2011 dollars was $738 billion. At that time the war in Iraq had cost $784 billion and the war in Afghanistan had cost $321 billion. And Romney is whining about New Hampshire getting $150 THOUSAND to restore a historic bridge while creating jobs and increasing income from tourism?

There is something seriously wrong with the way this man’s mind works.

Friday Afternoon Open Thread: Mitt Likes Music, Including This

Posted: May 18, 2012 | Author: | Filed under: 2012 presidential campaign, open thread, U.S. Politics | Tags: , , , | 9 Comments

A few days ago, The New York Times posted a funny mashup of Mitt Romney talking about all the things he likes. The video was created by The Gregory Brothers, a musical group that produces takeoffs on the news. I wish I knew how to embed it here, but you’ll have to go watch it the NYT site. Please watch it if you haven’t already. It’s really hilarious!

Here is the original 1994 interview in which Mitt earnestly told a young interviewer, “I like music of almost any kind, including this.” At the time, he was running against Ted Kennedy for the Senate.

Back in March, Romney listed his favorite songs on Spotify, which I think is an iPad app. Here’s Mitt’s playlist, which his campaign insist he drew up all by himself:

I am a Man of Constant Sorrow” by The Soggy Bottom Boys
Read My Mind” by The Killers
December, 1963 [Oh What a Night]” by Frankie Valli & the Four Seasons
Ring of Fire” by Johnny Cash
Somebody Told Me” by The Killers
The MTA (The Boston Subway Song)” by The Kingston Trio
Good Vibrations” by The Beach Boys
Desperado” by Clint Black
Crying” by Roy Orbison
Only You ” by Commodores
Runaway” by Del Shannon
It’s your Love” by Time McGraw
As Good As I once Was” by Toby Keith
Born Free” by Kid Rock
“Over the Rainbow” by Willie Nelson
“Stardust”
“In Dreams” by Roy Orbison
“Somebody Like You” by Keith Urban
“All-American Girl” by Carrie Underwood

Jim Farber, a reporter at the NY Daily News, notes that Mitt seems to like sad songs.

A man of constant sorrow who roams this world alone, doomed to realize his greatest loves only in dreams. Does this sound like the description of a man running for President?

….

Romney opens his 25 song list with The Soggy Bottom Boys’ version of that classic song of suffering “I Am A Man of Constant Sorrow.” He goes on to pepper the list with Clint Black’s cover of the Eagles’ ode to a shut-down loner “Desperado,” Roy Orbison’s uber-mopey “Crying” (along with his classic song of thwarted love “In Dreams”), Johnny Cash’s rumination on eternal damnation, “Ring of Fire,” and Willie Nelson’s take on the ultimate song of hopeless yearning, “Somewhere Over The Rainbow.”

Together, these selections suggest a guy whose soul may be far deeper, and less satisfied, than his public persona presents.

Farber also notes that there is only one female artist and one African American group represented on Mitt’s list. Some of the items also reveal Romney’s advanced age. Roy Orbison and Del Shannon were on the soundtrack of my late childhood (I’m just a couple of months younger than Romney).

I found a couple of other Romney- and music-oriented videos on Youtube. Who is Mitt Romney anyway?

This one is silly, but I really liked it: “Mitt Romney, I think I hate you.”

What do you have to say about all this, Mitt?

Open Thread: Mitt Romney, Busybody

Posted: May 15, 2012 | Author: | Filed under: 2012 presidential campaign, 2012 primaries, U.S. Economy, U.S. Politics | Tags: , , , , , , , | 20 Comments

In a speech in Des Moines, Iowa today, Mitt Romney sounded like a fussy old gossip, claiming that President Obama probably has a “beef” with Bill and Hillary Clinton.

Almost a generation ago, Bill Clinton announced that the Era of Big Government was over.

Even a former McGovern campaign worker like President Clinton was signaling to his own Party that Democrats should no longer try to govern by proposing a new program for every problem.

President Obama tucked away the Clinton doctrine in his large drawer of discarded ideas, along with transparency and bipartisanship. It’s enough to make you wonder if maybe it was a personal beef with the Clintons….but really it runs much deeper.

President Obama is an old school liberal whose first instinct is to see free enterprise as the villain and government as the hero. America counted on President Obama to rescue the economy, tame the deficit and help create jobs. Instead, he bailed out the public-sector, gave billions of dollars to the companies of his friends, and added almost as much debt as all the prior presidents combined.

ROFLMAO!! Obama, “an old school liberal?” This guy is a laff riot!

At the Washington Post, Nia-Malika Henderson interpreted Romney’s odd invoking of the good old days of the Clinton administration as another effort to link Obama with Jimmy Carter. Henderson writes:

The strategy, of course, is obvious, if a little heavy handed—paint Obama as more like Jimmy Carter, rather than as a New Democrat in the mold of Clinton.

Clinton has already emerged as one of Obama’s most visible surrogates, appearing in a video marking the death of Osama bin Laden, and will likely be used to gin up support among so-called Reagan Democrats—white, blue collar workers, particularly—and Romney can perhaps mute some of Clinton’s power by suggesting that Clinton isn’t all in with Obama. (It’s a beef, not a bromance, Romney suggests.)

But by invoking Clinton, Romney risks poking the bear in some ways, and perhaps even casting himself as a version of Clinton. Praising Clinton, even in a backhanded way, isn’t exactly a way to solidify support among the religious right.

I don’t know about the reaction from the religious right, but Bill Clinton worked a few digs about Romney into his speech today at the Pete Peterson conference (why Clinton shows up for these things, I’ll never understand, but that’s for another post). According to the National Journal, Clinton said that Romney

shot himself in the foot with the broad tax-cutting budget he suggested during the primary. He said Romney should accept projections that his plan for deep tax cuts would add billions to the deficit while requiring huge cuts to Medicare, Medicaid and non-defense spending.

“If I were in his position I would, I think, use the Congressional Budget Office numbers saying my plan increased the debt and say that no responsible president can pretend an independent analysis of his numbers don’t matter,” Clinton said. “That’s, I think, his his best avenue back to the real world.”

Clinton also offered a few verbal pats on the head to Romney.

“I feel a lot of sympathy for him,” he said. “The whole primary was about finding somebody who was true conservative, but they’re going to vote for him anyway.”

Good one, Bill!

Monday Reads

Posted: May 14, 2012 | Author: | Filed under: Big Pharma, morning reads | Tags: , , , | 41 Comments

Good Morning!

Okay. Get ready to drag out your smallest possible violins for this UK Guardian article:Lagging at school, the butt of cruel jokes: are males the new Second Sex? Here’s the teaser subtitle: “They work longer hours, face economic insecurity and suffer worse health. Now their feckless ways are lampooned in the media. A controversial new book argues that men increasingly face a prejudice that dare not speak its name.”  Poor babies!

You might not have realised it, but men are being oppressed. In many walks of life, they are routinely discriminated against in ways women are not. So unrecognised is this phenomenon that the mere mention of it will appear laughable to some.

That, at least, is the premise of a book by a South African philosophy professor which claims that sexism against men is a widespread yet unspoken malaise. In The Second Sexism, shortly to be published in the UK, David Benatar, head of the philosophy department at Cape Town University, argues that “more boys drop out of school, fewer men earn degrees, more men die younger, more are incarcerated” and that the issue is so under-researched it has become the prejudice that dare not speak its name.

“It’s a neglected form of sexism,” Benatar says in a telephone interview. “It’s true that in the developed world the majority of economic and political roles are occupied by males. But if you look at the bottom – for example, the prison population, the homeless population, or the number of people dropping out of school – that is overwhelmingly male. You tend to find more men at the very top but also at the very bottom.”

The American men’s rights author Warren Farrell calls it “the glass cellar”. There might be a glass ceiling for women, Farrell once told the Observer, but “of the 25 professions ranked lowest [in the US], 24 of them are 85-100% male. That’s things like roofer, welder, garbage collector, sewer maintenance – jobs with very little security, little pay and few people want them.”

Okay, I hope you haven’t lost your meal and coffee!

The NYT had a good article up this weekend on the human costs or “disaster” of unemployment.

In 2007, before the Great Recession, people who were looking for work for more than six months — the definition of long-term unemployment — accounted for just 0.8 percent of the labor force. The recession has radically changed this picture. In 2010, the long-term unemployed accounted for 4.2 percent of the work force. That figure would be 50 percent higher if we added the people who gave up looking for work.

Long-term unemployment is experienced disproportionately by the young, the old, the less educated, and African-American and Latino workers.

While older workers are less likely to be laid off than younger workers, they are about half as likely to be rehired. One result is that older workers have seen the largest proportionate increase in unemployment in this downturn. The number of unemployed people between ages 50 and 65 has more than doubled.

The prospects for the re-employment of older workers deteriorate sharply the longer they are unemployed. A worker between ages 50 and 61 who has been unemployed for 17 months has only about a 9 percent chance of finding a new job in the next three months. A worker who is 62 or older and in the same situation has only about a 6 percent chance. As unemployment increases in duration, these slim chances drop steadily.

The result is nothing short of a national emergency. Millions of workers have been disconnected from the work force, and possibly even from society. If they are not reconnected, the costs to them and to society will be grim.

Unemployment is almost always a traumatic event, especially for older workers. A paper by the economists Daniel Sullivan and Till von Wachter estimates a 50 to 100 percent increase in death rates for older male workers in the years immediately following a job loss, if they previously had been consistently employed. This higher mortality rate implies that a male worker displaced in midcareer can expect to live about one and a half years less than a worker who keeps his job.

Here’s a great lesson on bullying from Michael Cohen at Alternet on “What we Learn from Mitt Romney’s Disgusting Teenage Bullying”.

There is a disturbing inference in Romney’s words – namely, that the blame should be placed as much on the sensitive shoulders of those who were hurt and offended, rather than the person who might have been responsible for inflicting pain upon them. What is missing from Romney’s non-apology is the recognition that pranks, hijinks, assaults or whatever you want to call them, can leave psychic scars that stay with the victim for years to come.

Indeed, one of the most heartbreaking elements of the Post story is that 30 years after it took place, one of the perpetrators, David Seed accidentally ran into Lauber at O’Hare International Airport and tried to apologize for not doing more to help his classmate. “It was horrible,” Lauber recounted. He went on to explain how frightened he was during the incident, and acknowledged to Seed, “It’s something I have thought about a lot since then.”

Here’s a follow-up to the Big Pharma drug pushers that try to market their miracle cures to us via their Snake Oil TV ads. It seems it really isn’t good for whatever ails ya!

The pharmaceutical company will pay $1.5 billion to settle criminal and civil liability charges for promoting the drug Depakote for uses not approved by the Food and Drug Administration.

The drug is a neurological medicine labeled to treat mania, epilepsy and migraines, and can lead to life-threatening and deadly pancreatitis in children and adults.

The money will be distributed among 49 states and will go toward consumer protection, health care and other services.

Well, first it was MS touting Obama’s feminist bona fides.  Now it’s Newsweek calling Obama the ‘first gay president’.  Okee dokee then.

The cover of Newsweek magazine this week proclaims President Obama “the first gay president.”

The cover pictures Obama with a rainbow-colored halo over his head. The New Yorker’s cover for this week, likewise, is an image of the White House, with the iconic columns on its South portico arranged in the colors of the rainbow — a prominent symbol for gay rights.

The Newsweek cover goes a step further by adding the religious symbol of a halo above Obama’s head.

Obama said this week that he is personally comfortable with same-sex marriage — the first time a sitting president has taken that position.

Newsweek’s “first gay president” cover story is written by Andrew Sullivan, a blogger at Newsweek and the Daily Beast, who is openly gay.

The moniker evokes Toni Morrison’s description of former President Bill Clinton as “the first black president.”

Well, I think I’ve done enough damage this morning.  What’s on your reading and blogging list today?

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →