NeoCon Wet Dreams live in Romney
Posted: October 8, 2012 Filed under: 2012 elections, Foreign Affairs, Libya | Tags: American Century Imperialism, Belligerence, Mitt Romney, NeoCons 33 Comments
The one thing I don’t ever want to see again in my life time is a fiasco like the Iraq invasion. The same gang that brought us that costly and horrible misfortune is advising Mitt Romney. Romney waded in to the foreign policy arena today with a speech to Virginia Military Institute. He inkled a lot of the Cheney/Rummy/Wolfie/Bolton threats in a speech that you really need to read. Can we really afford more of this mass invasion of the Middle East in the name of oil and empty dreams of US imperialism?
Romney channeled their evil intent. Make no mistake about it. First, he’s riding a wave of lies about what happened in Benghazi. Second, he’s rattling sabers again.
The GOP candidate added that “the blame for the murder of our people in Libya, and the attacks on our embassies in so many other countries, lies solely with those who carried them out—no one else. But it is the responsibility of our President to use America’s great power to shape history—not to lead from behind, leaving our destiny at the mercy of events.”
He also laid out a broad foreign policy vision that called for the U.S. to “lead the course of human events” with “more American leadership.”
In other words, it was a boilerplate speech with nods to the neoconservative wing of the Republican Party, a wing that leads his foreign policy team as well. But asWired’s Spencer Ackerman notes , “the policies Romney outlines in his speech differ, at most, superficially from Obama’s.” Obama’s record on foreign policy is an aggressive one, with escalated drone strikes that have killed scores of civilians in Pakistan and Yemen and the continuation of the war in Afghanistan. Romney didn’t offer anything specific that was more aggressive than Obama, though his rhetoric was ratcheted up.
Romney indicates that all we need is a bit more military presence in the Middle East. At least we know where those $2 trillion dollars that none of the military folks want will actually go. Get ready to send your grandchildren to Iran.
When Romney says “the 21st century can and must be an American century” and that is the U.S.’s responsibility to steer the world towards “the path of freedom, peace, and prosperity,” that’s code for the maintenance of U.S. hegemony. Romney still believes that the U.S. should be able to shape the world as we see fit–the rest of the world who refuses to go along with it be damned. These ideas are particularly galling given that Romney was partly addressing the Arab Spring–a series of revolts that were decidedly against U.S. support for repressive dictatorships.
Romney also believes that in the case of Iran, “American support”–read meddling– for the opposition in that country would be helpful. But that ignores the fact that the Green movement in Iran did not want U.S. support and intervention.
The Republican candidate also lamented the fact that “America’s ability to influence events for the better in Iraq has been undermined by the abrupt withdrawal of our entire troop presence.”
Lastly, he hinted that U.S. involvement in Afghanistan could continue for years to come if he was president. “The route to more war – and to potential attacks here at home – is a politically timed retreat that abandons the Afghan people to the same extremists who ravaged their country and used it to launch the attacks of 9/11,” the candidate said. “I will evaluate conditions on the ground and weigh the best advice of our military commanders.”
Neocons in the US and Israel are dying to invade Iran. We’ve already implemented tough embargoes of the country. Evidently, this will never be enough for the likes of Romney and his neocon advisers. Romney offers to send more Navy into the region. He offers to further arm Israel and to extend free trade agreements to any one under the sole circumstance of not being aligned with ‘enemies’ . Hopefully, this is the Romney we will see at the next presidential debate. However, given the flip flops and lies of the last debate on the economy, I would assume that he may walk back his eagerness to display Neocon belligerence. Do we really want a few more wars and conflicts in that region. Haven’t the lessons of the Dubya presidency taught us enough already?
UPDATE: Okay, well this firms it up completely.
Romney’s New Freedom Agenda Draws Praise From Bushworld
“Terrific,” says Rumsfeld. “A kinder, gentler neocon.
Would you let any one you love vote for some one that just was praised by Donald Rumsfeld?
But it was Romney’s speech, and its echoes of the Freedom Agenda, that drew rave reviews from some of the leading avatars and supporters of the clear and combative foreign policy of Bush’s first term.
“Terrific, comprehensive speech by Gov. Romney,” Bush’s first term Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, tweeted “He knows America’s role in the world should be as a leader not as a spectator.”
Romney’s speech offers a new Republican articulation of the Bush doctrine of moral clarity, wielded — as Romney said — “wisely, with solemnity and without false pride” to “make the world better—not perfect, but better.”
“What’s not to like?” asked Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol, a leading foreign policy hawk and backer of Bush’s war in Iraq, who called the speech “kinder, gentler neocon.”
Kristol’s fellow travelers on the neoconservative right were ebullient.
“Kristol could have written it himself,” said Michael Goldfarb, an aide to Senator John McCain’s 2008 campaign who now chairs the conservative Center for American Freedom. “Strong on defense, strong on foreign involvement and aid, strong (and courageous) on Afghanistan and Iraq.
“For all the talk about fissures in the party — the [Project for a New American Century] guys are the ones who will be toasting the Republican candidate tonight,” he said, referring to a group that pushed in the 1990s for, among other things, an invasion of Iraq.
A range of leading Bush Administration foreign policy figures also embraced the speech.
“Mitt Romney understands that the best way to preserve international peace and security is for America to lead from the front,” said former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton, a figure who never entirely shared the neoconservative worldview. “President Obama believes that American strength is provocative, that we are too much in the world, and that a U.S. recessional is necessary and appropriate. This is exactly opposite of what we need. It is not our strength that is provocative, but our weakness, which our adversaries worldwide interpret to mean it is safe to challenge us. We need to reverse this dangerous American decline, and return to Ronald Reagan’s philosophy of ‘peace through strength.’ It has worked throughout our history, and it will work again under President Romney.”
Jamie Fly, who served in the Pentagon and National Security Council in the second Bush term and now heads the Foreign Policy Initiative, praised Romney for making clear that “the answer is not to lead from but to be every clear.
Fly said he heard “hints” of Bush’s Freedom Agenda rhetoric in Romney’s speech, “but any time the governor ventures that sort of territory, it is tempered by recent events.”
ARGHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!
Open Thread: Romney Will Pay for Massive Tax Cuts, Reduce Deficit, by Firing Big Bird
Posted: October 4, 2012 Filed under: 2012 presidential campaign, just because, open thread, Surreality, U.S. Politics | Tags: Big Bird, Federal Budget, Mitt Romney 54 CommentsPBS funding represents 0.00014% of the budget!!
This meme needs to stick to Romney! Bin Laden vs. Big Bird.
Mommy, why does Mr. Romney want to get rid of Big Bird?
Excuse me, Mr. Romney, but what did I ever do to you?
Will Big Bird be thrown ino the street homeless?
No, Mitt Romney will have him for dinner, of course.
Live Blog: Elizabeth Warren vs. Scott Brown, Massachusetts Senate Debate, Round 2
Posted: October 1, 2012 Filed under: 2012 elections, U.S. Politics | Tags: Dancin' Dave Gregory, Elizabeth Warren, live blog, Massachusetts Senate Debate 2, Mitt Romney, Scott Brown 81 CommentsGood Evening!! The second debate between Elizabeth Warren and Scott Brown will take place tonight from 7-8PM at the Tsongas Center at the University of Massachusetts Lowell. There will be a live audience of more than 5,000 people. Unfortunately, the debated will be moderated by Dancin’ Dave Gregory.
The debate will air live on C-span and will be live streamed at a number of sites, including C-Span and Mass Live.
Mass Live sees audience reaction as one of the five things to watch for in the debate. The first debate was held in a studio without a live audience. How will that affect the debaters? The audience will be told not to react, but they probably will anyway. The other four things to watch for (supposedly) are (commentary is mine):
(1) How will the candidates deal with the endless, boring Native American “issue”? Will Brown continue to claim he can psychically determine another person’s ethnic heritage? Will Warren find a way to smack him down for good? Maybe she should try raising her voice.
(2) “Brown’s perceived aggressiveness”: He has been criticized quite a bit for his boorish behavior in the first debate, but will he tone it down? I’m betting no, because he just can’t stand losing to a girl.
(3) Will Dancin’ Dave allow any actual issues to be addressed, like maybe foreign policy? I sure hope so, because I think it would be a hoot to see Brown try to talk about something complex and still make sense. And maybe he’ll tell us more about those meetings with kings and queens and how he talks to Hillary Clinton on the phone all the time.
(4) The last “issue” is Scott Brown’s trumped-up attacks on Warren for doing legal work for some corporations, including Travelers’ Insurance. Brown has demanded that Warren release the names of all the clients she has worked for. But Brown refuses to release his client list, because he’s a man and Warren is just some female who is inexplicably trying to take his Senate seat away.
I’ll add one more thing to watch for: Will Warren explicitly tie Brown to Mitt Romney and the Republican Party? In the last debate, she repeatedly said that she supports President Obama but she didn’t confront Brown on whom he is supporting. She needs to do that, repeatedly and explicitly.
The latest polls by The Boston Globe and Boston University’s NPR station WBUR both show Warren still ahead of Scott Brown by 43-38 and 46-44 respectively.
Just a couple of links on the Native American “controversy.” The Washington Post did a fact check last week in which they found Scott Brown guilty of two Pinocchios. Only two?
Brown said that Warren “checked the box claiming she was Native American” when she applied to Harvard and Penn, suggesting the Democratic candidate somehow gained an unfair advantage because of an iffy ethnic background. But there is no proof that she ever marked a form to tell the schools about her heritage, nor is there any public evidence that the universities knew about her lineage before hiring her.
The senator’s debate comments also suggest Warren actively applied for positions with Harvard and Penn, but the evidence suggests the schools recruited her because of her groundbreaking research and writings on bankruptcy. Harvard, in fact, did not give up on her after she first turned down a tenured position with the university.
Some might assume that Warren listed herself as a minority in the law school directories to attract offers from top schools, which would be a pro-active measure. The explanation that she was reaching out to other Native Americans — when she was merely listed as a “minority” — certainly appears suspicious, but there is no conclusive evidence that she used her status in the listing to land a job.
But Warren appears to have been well-qualified for the teaching positions and excelled once she was hired.
Gee, no kidding. I think the problem Brown is having is that Warren is far more intelligent, educated, and professionally accomplished than he is. But she’s a girl! So it doesn’t count.
Today the WaPo published an article on Why the Native American heritage fight isn’t hurting Elizabeth Warren. Because it’s idiotic? The article doesn’t really answer the question in the headline–just provides poll results that demonstrate that Massachusetts voters aren’t a moronic as Scott Brown.
A Boston Globe poll released Sunday showed Warren leading Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) 43 percent to 38 percent. A deeper dive into the survey’s crosstabs reveals that most voters aren’t swayed by the tussle over Warren’s ancestry….
More than eight-in-ten likely voters (86 percent) have at least some familiarity with the Native American heritage story. Of those with at least some knowledge of it, about seven in ten (71 percent) said the story would have no impact on their vote for Warren, while 24 percent said it would make them less likely to vote for the Democratic nominee.
Among voters who are undecided about whether they support Brown or Warren – a crucial subset of the electorate — nearly three-in-four (74 percent) said the story would have no impact on their vote for Warren, while nearly one-in-five (19 percent) said it would make them less likely to vote for her.
It is that 19 percent of voters that Brown is playing for.
Boston Mayor Tom Menino has released a video ad supporting Elizabeth Warren. Menino isn’t much of a public speaker, but he controls a powerful political machine.
I hope at least some Sky Dancers will be watching the debate. I won’t be able to comment for the first half, but I’ll be watching on C-span and will join in for the second half. Please give your reactions in the comments if you’re watching! The results of this race will affect all of us, whether we live in Massachusetts or not.
Late Night Open Thread: Ann Romney Worries About Mitt’s “Mental Well Being”
Posted: September 28, 2012 Filed under: 2012 presidential campaign, Mitt Romney, open thread, U.S. Politics | Tags: Ann Romney, gaffes, Mental health, Mitt Romney, Reno NV 18 CommentsI thought the Romney campaign had decided to give Ann Romney a time out after her meltdown last week in which she snapped at a radio interviewer:
“Stop it. This is hard. You want to try it? Get in the ring,” she said. “This is hard and, you know, it’s an important thing that we’re doing right now and it’s an important election and it is time for all Americans to realize how significant this election is and how lucky we are to have someone with Mitt’s qualifications and experience and know-how to be able to have the opportunity to run this country.”…
…“It’s nonsense and the chattering class…you hear it and then you just let it go right by,” she told Radio Iowa. “…Honestly, at this point, I’m not surprised by anything.”
But this latest one could be even more damaging. Today Ann told an interviewer that she is worried about her husband’s “mental well being.”
Here’s Ann Romney’s full quote (video at the link)
“I think my biggest worry would be for his mental well being. I have all the confidence in the world of his ability, his decisiveness, his leadership skills, his understand of the economy, his understanding of what’s missing right now. The pieces that are missing to get the jump started. So for me I think it would be the emotional part of it.”
WTF?! Is Mitt on the verge of a nervous breakdown or something? Is there something more we need to know? This man is running to be President of the U.S., Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, with control over nuclear weapons.
Honestly, I don’t know what to think about this. Mitt Romney faces his first presidential debate against President Barack Obama next Wednesday. Does Ann really think she’s helping?
Saturday Reads: Mitt Romney’s Religion, Politics, and Taxes
Posted: September 22, 2012 Filed under: 2012 presidential campaign, morning reads, U.S. Politics | Tags: 60 Minutes, apostasy, David Twede, excommunication, J.R.R. Tolkien, Mitt Romney, Mormon church, Scott Pelley, tax returns, The Hobbit 75th anniversary 44 CommentsGood Morning!!
Everyone is still talking about Mitt Rommey’s taxes and his struggling campaign. I have some interesting reads on those subjects, but first I want to all attention to a story from The Daily Beast yesterday by Jamie Reno that I think deserves more attention. The Mormon church in Florida is threatening to excommmunicate one of their prominent members who has written some negative on-line articles about Mitt Romney.
David Twede, 47, a scientist, novelist, and fifth-generation Mormon, is managing editor of MormonThink.com, an online magazine produced largely by members of the Mormon Church that welcomes scholarly debate about the religion’s history from both critics and true believers.
A Mormon in good standing, Twede has never been disciplined by Latter Day Saints leadership. But it now appears his days as a Mormon may be numbered because of a series of articles he wrote this past week that were critical of Mitt Romney.
On Sunday, Twede says his bishop, stake president, and two church executives brought him into Florida Mormon church offices in Orlando and interrogated him for nearly an hour about his writings, telling him, “Cease and desist, Brother Twede.”
Twede posted the letter he received from his stake president on his blog, Prozacville. His excommunication hearing “for apostasy” is to take place September 30. Twede wasn’t using his real name on-line, but the church learned his identity from someone at a pro-Mormon website, Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research.
So apparently the Mormon church is not as neutral in this election as it has claimed. In fact, ABC News recently reported that the church has been working to get Mormons registered in swing state Nevada.
In a provocative move within a religious organization that has sought to display strict political neutrality, an official of the Mormon church has disseminated a presentation across the key swing state of Nevada that urges members to vote and speak “with one voice” in the coming Presidential election that pits Mormon Mitt Romney against President Barack Obama.
“Any Mormon would understand exactly what’s being said there,” said Randall Balmer, a Dartmouth religion professor who has studied the church’s handling of Romney’s presidential bids. “This is very thinly coded language.”
Personally, I think this is very creepy. The church seems to be quite involved in this election–trying to encourage votes for Romney and at the same time attempting to silence critics of the prominent Mormon candidate.
If the Romney campaign was hoping that releasing Mitt’s 2011 tax returns along with a vague “summary” of his returns for the past 20 years, they will be disappointed. Most tax experts aren’t buying the “summary,” and lots of them are trying to figure out exactly what Romney is trying to pull this time.
I thought this piece in USA Today by Rick Newman was very helpful (h/t Dakinikat). Newman reads between the lines of the official release and finds some oddities. First, somehow $7.2 million disappeared from Romney’s income between January when he filed an estimate and now on his official return.
Between January and October of this year, Romney’s adjusted gross income for 2011 fell by $7.2 million. And it dropped by nearly $8 million compared with his AGI in 2010. His federal tax liability also fell, by similar proportions.
The most likely explanation is that Romney’s accountants transferred income from Romney’s personal return to one of the three trusts that also generate considerable income, almost all of it from investments. It will take a detailed examination of the 2010 and 2011 documents to figure out what changed, but here’s a clue: Romney’s campaign has begun to focus on the “personal” tax rate paid by Romney, rather than the tax rate that might be associated with the trusts and his total income from all sources.
Newman also notes that the Romney representatives are emphasizing the word “personal” when they refer to Romney’s tax returns, suggesting that some kind of fudging is going on.
Romney hasn’t released tax documents prior to 2010, but some tax experts think his overall tax rate could have been very close to zero during at least a couple of years, possibly because of capital losses suffered during the stock-market wipeout of 2008, which zeroed out earnings for many investors.
The Romney campaign now says that since 1990, “the lowest annual effective federal personal tax rate” Romney paid was 13.66 percent. In other words, the rate on what might be characterized as his personal income never fell below that threshold.
But that doesn’t account for the three trusts, or other investment vehicles that may have existed prior to 2010. And it’s unusual to limit the claim to “personal” taxes when Romney has acknowledged other types of income. So it’s possible that the effective tax rate on the trusts was very low at some point—and maybe even zero, which would have indicated a net loss for the year.
Greg Sargent talked to another expert, Roberton Williams, of the Tax Policy Center, about the 20-year summary and Romney’s claim that “Over the entire 20-year period, the average annual effective federal tax rate was 20.20%.” Sargent learned from the campaign that this represents an average of Romney’s tax rates over the 20 year period.
Williams tells me that this is a far less meaningful way to calculate the overall rate than the second way, which actually calculates the real tax rate Romney paid over the period.
Here’s why: The first way obscures the fact that income may have fluctuated quite markedly from year to year. If Romney paid his lowest rates in a number of the higher income years, the overall 20 percent figure would overstate the rate he actually paid over the whole period. Williams provided the following purely hypothetical example:
“Let’s say you have 10 years in which you paid 13 percent in taxes, and 10 years in which you paid 27 percent,” Williams told me. “If you average those rates, you’ll get an overall rate of 20 percent. But if the 13 percent years were high income years, and the 27 percent years were low income years, then his total taxes paid as a share of total income over the 20 years would be less, perhaps significantly less, than 20 percent.”
Yet in that scenario, the Romney campaign would be claiming, by its chosen metric, to have paid 20 percent.
This is very troubling, and I’m sure more detailed analyses will be coming. You have to wonder why Romney didn’t just keep stonewalling instead of raising lots more questions about his taxes.
There have been lots of stories this week about what Romney should do to rescue his flailing campaign, but the candidate himself says there no problem. At least that’s what he told Scott Pelley of CBS’ 60 Minutes.
Scott Pelley: You are slipping in the polls at this moment. A lot of Republicans are concerned about this campaign. You bill yourself as a turnaround artist. How are you going to turn this campaign around?
Mitt Romney: Well, actually, we’re tied in the polls. We’re all within the margin of error. We bounce aroun — week to week– day to day. There are some days we’re up. There are some days we’re down. We go forward with my message, that this is a time to reinvigorate the American economy, not by expanding government and raising taxes on people, but instead by making sure government encourages entrepreneurship and innovation and gets the private sector hiring again.
Scott Pelley: Governor, I appreciate your message very much. But that wasn’t precisely the question. You’re the CEO of this campaign. A lot of Republicans would like to know, a lot of your donors would like to know, how do you turn this thing around? You’ve got a little more than six weeks. What do you do?
Mitt Romney: Well, it doesn’t need a turnaround. We’ve got a campaign which is tied with an incumbent president to the United States.
Scott Pelley: Well– as you know, a lot of people were concerned about the video of the fundraiser in which you talked about the 47 percent of the American people who don’t pay taxes. Peggy Noonan, a very well-known conservative columnist, said that it was an example of this campaign being incompetent. And I wonder if any of that criticism gets through to you and whether you’re concerned about it at all….
Mitt Romney: I’ve got a very effective campaign. It’s doing a very good job. But not everything I say is elegant. And I want to make it very clear, I want to help 100 percent of the American people.
In non-political news, yesterday was the 75th anniversary of the publication of J.R.R. Tolkien’s The Hobbit. Corey Olson has written a history of Tolkien’s beloved book. Check it out at The Daily Beast. It’s quite interesting.
It’s getting late and I need to get this post up, so I’ll end there.
















Recent Comments