by shamanic
Doesn't want to stand in the way of Hillary or Barack surrendering to al Qaeda. Dickhead.
Cernig:
Malkin liveblogged Mitt's speech and reacted with "Nooooo!"
The Malkinites have gone nutz in comments.
Does anyone really believe this was Mitt's conscience speaking? It looks pretty transparently organised by men in smoky backrooms in an attempt to re-unify a crumbling GOP coalition. The smell of BS coming from Romney as he implicitly backs the guy he was calling a liberal just the other day is overpowering. I suspect Romney will now be McCain's VP candidate and the religious Right will be left to go onanize themselves.
And hey, if Romney is stepping back to let McCain have a clear run just because of the War On (Some) terror, what happened to all the BS about Iraq not being as much of an issue as the economy?
Showing posts with label Mitt Romney. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Mitt Romney. Show all posts
Thursday, February 07, 2008
Watching conservatives speak at CPAC
by shamanic
This is just weird. Laura Ingraham is introducing Mitt Romney at CPAC and the lines and kudos and images she uses are just... weird. "I'm proud to be standing here. You are the foot soldiers of the Reagan Revolution!"
Okay, the Reagan Revolution happened decades ago. I mean, Ronald Reagan is all the way dead. Buried. In the ground. (That's not any kind of attack, just... fact.)
I don't generally watch these interest group gatherings from either side, but I'd be startled to hear a prominent Democratic advocate in the media get up in front of a liberal gathering and call the audience "footsoldiers in the FDR revolution", or Johnson's, or even Bill Clinton's. I think that we don't talk that way, and I think that we don't think that way. Am I wrong?
Anyway, it was a jarring thing to hear. She trashed McCain for a bit (Approximately: "It's not enough to say you were a footsoldier in the Reagan Revolution. We want to know what you've done for Conservatism lately." What you've done for conservatism lately? I mean, I know these are the true believers, but really?) then mocked Hollywood (they never get bored with that, one trick ponies), then introduced Romney, who at the moment has not dropped out.
Oh, he's going after the "culture of dependency". He's serious too: Mormons don't even drink coffee.
Support Newshoggers as we save the GOP from itself and build a better blog to tell you about it!
This is just weird. Laura Ingraham is introducing Mitt Romney at CPAC and the lines and kudos and images she uses are just... weird. "I'm proud to be standing here. You are the foot soldiers of the Reagan Revolution!"
Okay, the Reagan Revolution happened decades ago. I mean, Ronald Reagan is all the way dead. Buried. In the ground. (That's not any kind of attack, just... fact.)
I don't generally watch these interest group gatherings from either side, but I'd be startled to hear a prominent Democratic advocate in the media get up in front of a liberal gathering and call the audience "footsoldiers in the FDR revolution", or Johnson's, or even Bill Clinton's. I think that we don't talk that way, and I think that we don't think that way. Am I wrong?
Anyway, it was a jarring thing to hear. She trashed McCain for a bit (Approximately: "It's not enough to say you were a footsoldier in the Reagan Revolution. We want to know what you've done for Conservatism lately." What you've done for conservatism lately? I mean, I know these are the true believers, but really?) then mocked Hollywood (they never get bored with that, one trick ponies), then introduced Romney, who at the moment has not dropped out.
Oh, he's going after the "culture of dependency". He's serious too: Mormons don't even drink coffee.
Support Newshoggers as we save the GOP from itself and build a better blog to tell you about it!
Halperin says Romney to quit at CPAC
by shamanic
Sometimes Fox News says interesting things. Halperin is on now saying that Romney will bow out of race at his CPAC speech. We'll see.
Sometimes Fox News says interesting things. Halperin is on now saying that Romney will bow out of race at his CPAC speech. We'll see.
Wednesday, February 06, 2008
Post-Super Tuesday Thoughts
- Congrats to a good friend and former co-blogger for finally setting his wedding date. I heard about it last night
- Thanks for another good friend who threw together the Super Tuesday party --- a good thirty or so people showed up, lots of good beer, great cookies, better conversation and yelling at the TV and drunkenly explaining the proportional delegate allocation rules in even and odd Democratic districts --- good times
- The anti-Romney faction is very alive and well, with the McCain and Paul camps throwing West Virginia to Huckabee yesterday afternoon. All his work, and he was just able to secure the Canadian border states without actually having to live there.
- Obama I think had a better than expected night. I was not expecting him to be able to poach CT out from under Clinton, and I was slightly surprised at the very late victory in Missouri, but these figures were so close that the delegates will be a wash.
- Eyeballing the TV news crawl last night, it seemed like in every state that was reporting. Democratic turnout was massive compared to GOP turnout --- good news, especially in the purple and red states.
- The crowd I was with last night was young, highly educated, politically and policy active and overwhelmingly liberal --- and there were very few super strong candidate preferences, instead everyone was a happy leaner. There is still some momentum in the game.
Tuesday, February 05, 2008
Super Tuesday: Choosing Between Spinach and Broccoli
By Cernig
Newshogger researcher Kat writes that she ran across an interesting scientific article on the psychology of decision-making - DiscoveryChannel.ca - A scientist's guide to 'Super Tuesday'
"The article doesn't phrase it this way, but one part of it explains why our frequent forced-choice between least-worst candidates (though hopefully not this year) tends to result in fewer and fewer people bothering to vote," says Kat.
Newshogger researcher Kat writes that she ran across an interesting scientific article on the psychology of decision-making - DiscoveryChannel.ca - A scientist's guide to 'Super Tuesday'
"The article doesn't phrase it this way, but one part of it explains why our frequent forced-choice between least-worst candidates (though hopefully not this year) tends to result in fewer and fewer people bothering to vote," says Kat.
"If both the alternatives are attractive, then both provide reasons to choose," explain Anish Nagpal of the University of Melbourne and Parthasarathy Krishnamurthy of the University of Houston. "If both the alternatives are unattractive, neither one provides reasons to choose."Which has Kat thinking - "At this early hour of the morning on Super Tuesday, I still theoretically will have a choice this coming Nov. between some combination of Romney, McCain, Clinton, and Obama. Of those four, there's only one I'm willing to vote for. And I'm still not convinced that Obama even vaguely resembles a sundae."
Put more simply, there is no incentive to make a choice between two options to which you see no perceived benefit. (Say, having to choose between spinach and broccoli when you really want a triple-fudge brownie sundae.)
But the study also emphasizes that if a choice is difficult, it might not be the options that are causing the indecisiveness, but rather, the way in which the decision is framed. (Of the two vegetables, which do I like least?)
Previous research has indicated that asking people to actively choose among undesirable options leads to greater experienced conflict and greater decision difficulty, possibly leading to longer decision times.
The latest study found that people tend to have an easier time choosing among things they like than among things they hate.
The reverse held true when participants of the study were asked to reject an option; the decision time was quicker when researchers asked people to reject an option involving unattractive alternatives, than attractive alternatives.
Sunday, February 03, 2008
Bush & Romney Backer Suspected In French Insider Dealing
By Cernig
A friend of George Bush who has been a major donor to both Bush and Romney could face a criminal investigation into insider share dealing after selling £100million of shares just days before Societe Generale's rogue-trader losses were reported.
A friend of George Bush who has been a major donor to both Bush and Romney could face a criminal investigation into insider share dealing after selling £100million of shares just days before Societe Generale's rogue-trader losses were reported.
Robert Day, a member of the French bank's board, disposed of a million shares on January 9 and 10, plus a further 500,000 on January 18, according to official disclosures to Autorite des Marches Financiers (AMF), France's market regulator.Mr. Day, of course, has denied the allegations and through a spokesman said he had no idea the bank was in trouble until a board meeting on January 20, two days after the last of his share sales. What coincidentally convenient timing.
The £3.7billion losses at the bank were not disclosed to the public or investors until January 24, despite reports that Societe Generale bosses were aware of the crisis several days earlier.
The AMF is investigating after complaints by minority shareholders who claim some protected themselves at the cost of less influential investors. A source confirmed that Mr Day's share dealings are part of that investigation.
A file lodged with public prosecutor Francois Foulon also demands an inquiry into alleged insider trading and fraud.
The claims were submitted by Frederik-Karel Canoy, a lawyer acting for 100 shareholders, who alleges that Mr Day acted after consultations with "three or four" other key figures in the bank to discuss the looming crisis.
Their meetings were held at Paris restaurants rather than over the phone or by email, Mr Canoy claims.
Sunday, January 27, 2008
Mitt To Lead War Party Faction Of GOP
By Cernig
Mitt Romney is the new Rudy - and the new Fred too. While the rightwing religious nuts continue to support Huckabee, Mitt is swiftly consolidating the previously fractured War Party faction of the Republican Party under one belligerent tent.
From CNN's Political Ticker:
National Review has already endorsed Romney as have War Party mouthpieces such as Hugh Hewitt and Dean Barnett. Captain Ed did so today. With Cheney pulling Mitt's strings, via his daughter, it seems the neoconservatives have found their ideal pattsy...sorry, classic neoconservative right wing ideologue.
Mitt Romney is the new Rudy - and the new Fred too. While the rightwing religious nuts continue to support Huckabee, Mitt is swiftly consolidating the previously fractured War Party faction of the Republican Party under one belligerent tent.
From CNN's Political Ticker:
Liz Cheney, Vice President Cheney's daughter, plans to endorse Mitt Romney for president, three Republican sources familiar with the discussions tell CNN.This is significant mainly because Liz Cheney has always been "doing Daddy's business", as Lawrence Wilkerson once put it. If she joins Mitt's FP team then she'll be putting what the Financial Times once called the neoconservatives' trademark "combination of overstatement and ancestor-worship" into play to join Dick and Mitt's worldview's at the hip. ( Oh, and the route to Tehran lies through Damascus.)
One of the sources says she will also serve as a senior adviser on foreign policy.
Cheney was formerly an adviser to Fred Thompson, who ended his presidential bid last week.
National Review has already endorsed Romney as have War Party mouthpieces such as Hugh Hewitt and Dean Barnett. Captain Ed did so today. With Cheney pulling Mitt's strings, via his daughter, it seems the neoconservatives have found their ideal pattsy...sorry, classic neoconservative right wing ideologue.
Friday, January 18, 2008
Wisdom of acting stupid -- Updated
Publius at Obsidian Wings is disappointed in Mitt Romney's decision to contort himself into a vaguely plausible caricature of an acceptable candidate to the GOP primary electorate, or at least a plurality there-of. I think Romney is making a smart straetgic decision within the context of an intermediate term losing dynamic for national Republicans.
The Republican base does not want competent right of center technocrats, they do not want to look at healthcare access and affordability through any lense other than tax cuts/expenditures, and the base thinks Iraq was, is and will remain a good idea and template for future US foreign policy. There is no space in the Republican field for the candidate that Publius wants to see.
Instead this is symptom of the positive feedback loop that I have been keeping an eye on.
I was discussing the House Republican caucus in that post, but the basic dynamic is the same as the Republican circular firing squad forms up and starts blazing away. The internal base dampeners and shock absorbers either have been defeated in primary and general elections, defected to independents or Democrats, or have become marginalized and apathetic. Publius is expecting Romney to run and win the GOP nomination as a friendly to social conservatives Rockefeller Republican. That faction lost their fight in the Republican Party decades ago, and Romney is not an idiot in knowing that.
So pass the popcorn.
shamanic adds:
I saw on the news the other evening that Rush Limbaugh has been going after McCain and Huckabee as fake Republicans or something because they've been attracting independent and Democratic support. More evidence of circular firing squads and incredibly insular thinking. Democrats, meanwhile, are waging a very public battle between a candidate with firm appeal to much of the base and a candidate whose appeal stretches far beyond traditional Dem constituencies. This is an interesting race, and an interesting time for both parties.
Romney is a BS artist doesn’t bother me per se. I’m a political junkie – verbal excrement is a passion. With Romney though, it’s not merely that he’s full of crap. It’s the particular nature of his full-of-crapness that bothers me – that really bothers me.
To riff from Ross Douthat, Romney deserves more intense scorn because he’s one giant opportunity cost. He’s clearly the most competent, wonkish, technocratic, and I would even say smartest candidate. The now disillusioned Douthat claimed he could have been the “thinking conservative’s candidate.” Coming from what Bush lovingly calls Taxachusetts, he had the potential to be a compelling “purple” candidate in an election where purple seems to be chic.....
Romney’s actions make it clear that he thinks GOP voters are slobbering idiots. His mindless nationalism and phony idiocy seem more appropriate for Stephen Colbert than for a serious presidential candidate.
The Republican base does not want competent right of center technocrats, they do not want to look at healthcare access and affordability through any lense other than tax cuts/expenditures, and the base thinks Iraq was, is and will remain a good idea and template for future US foreign policy. There is no space in the Republican field for the candidate that Publius wants to see.
Instead this is symptom of the positive feedback loop that I have been keeping an eye on.
the non-Southern, non-movement conservative caucus in the 2009 Congress looks to be miniscule. The internal dynamics will produce leadership elections of hard liners and bomb throwers for a couple of cycles, marginalizing the party nationally and further increasing the institutional power of resource extraction, social and political reactionaries within their own caucus.
I was discussing the House Republican caucus in that post, but the basic dynamic is the same as the Republican circular firing squad forms up and starts blazing away. The internal base dampeners and shock absorbers either have been defeated in primary and general elections, defected to independents or Democrats, or have become marginalized and apathetic. Publius is expecting Romney to run and win the GOP nomination as a friendly to social conservatives Rockefeller Republican. That faction lost their fight in the Republican Party decades ago, and Romney is not an idiot in knowing that.
So pass the popcorn.
shamanic adds:
I saw on the news the other evening that Rush Limbaugh has been going after McCain and Huckabee as fake Republicans or something because they've been attracting independent and Democratic support. More evidence of circular firing squads and incredibly insular thinking. Democrats, meanwhile, are waging a very public battle between a candidate with firm appeal to much of the base and a candidate whose appeal stretches far beyond traditional Dem constituencies. This is an interesting race, and an interesting time for both parties.
Monday, January 07, 2008
Desperate measures for Romney
By Libby
I know desperate times call for desperate measures, but this video is just shocking. It appears to be a Romney staffer, or at least a supporter, who is not just pulling a dirty trick, but is commiting a crime. It's illegal to steal political signs. Having been on the purchasing end of campaign paraphernalia, I can tell you those signs are not cheap. I don't know what the law is in New Hampshire, but I'm pretty sure that if they took enough of them, this could rise to a felony offense.
Thinking about the legal travails of some of his major staffers that have been revealed over the last few months, I have to wonder, is Romney a magnet for criminals?
I know desperate times call for desperate measures, but this video is just shocking. It appears to be a Romney staffer, or at least a supporter, who is not just pulling a dirty trick, but is commiting a crime. It's illegal to steal political signs. Having been on the purchasing end of campaign paraphernalia, I can tell you those signs are not cheap. I don't know what the law is in New Hampshire, but I'm pretty sure that if they took enough of them, this could rise to a felony offense.
Thinking about the legal travails of some of his major staffers that have been revealed over the last few months, I have to wonder, is Romney a magnet for criminals?
Sunday, December 23, 2007
One thing about Yankees...
by shamanic
They don't mince words. From the Concord Monitor of New Hampshire:
The Monitor's got it right though -- Mitt Romney is a nearly flawless GOP automaton candidate in his current incarnation, and he should be stopped. I'm still hoping that Republican voters recognize John McCain as the sane choice on their side and that he ends up the nominee.
They don't mince words. From the Concord Monitor of New Hampshire:
If you were building a Republican presidential candidate from a kit, imagine what pieces you might use: an athletic build, ramrod posture, Reaganesque hair, a charismatic speaking style and a crisp dark suit. You'd add a beautiful wife and family, a wildly successful business career and just enough executive government experience. You'd pour in some old GOP bromides - spending cuts and lower taxes - plus some new positions for 2008: anti-immigrant rhetoric and a focus on faith.Sidenote: There are two things I particularly love about this. First, the fact that something called "Reaganesque hair" is an actual political asset in America just cracks me the hell up.Second, and I've seen this bandied about a few times as the year has grown late, the idea that Republican candidates can be built from kits. Because after all, the "perfect" Republican candidate apparently just needs a string of anti-whatever bromides to pour from its mouth, and muscular, pivoting arms with hands molded in a functional grip for holding the terrorist-smiting (and tax smashing, and immigrant crushing) implement that is useful that day. Mitt Romney isn't far off. Mike Huckabee's hands are all wrong -- open to be pressed together in prayer. To the foreign policy Republicans, that's weakness. John McCain, like Bob Dole before him, doesn't have full use of his arms and hands, both having been badly injured in service to their country. Giuliani's hands are so covered in slime he'd never get a good grip on anything.
Add it all up and you get Mitt Romney, a disquieting figure who sure looks like the next president and most surely must be stopped.
The Monitor's got it right though -- Mitt Romney is a nearly flawless GOP automaton candidate in his current incarnation, and he should be stopped. I'm still hoping that Republican voters recognize John McCain as the sane choice on their side and that he ends up the nominee.
Friday, December 21, 2007
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
Thinking about polls
I think Mike Huckabee has a low probability of winning the general election in November. But that does not significantly differentiate him from the rest of the Republican field in my opinion. I think the entire field has a fairly low probability of winning the general election next year due to a combination of an internally divided along multiple axises Republican Party, President Bush as an anchor, rhetorical, policy and political as well low levels of enthusiasism and comparative fundraising success compared to Democratic candidates. Finally the stands a Democrat needs to be popular among the Democratic primary electorate universe are either fairly popular in general, or rather benign. However the stands Republicans need to make to win their primary nomination battle are significantly divergent from the stands they need to take if they are to win.
So when the CNN poll came out yesterday there was widespread analysis that this sinks his chance at the GOP nomination as he is beaten by all Democratic challengers. I disagree that this is the death knell of the Huckabee campaign on electability grounds for a couple of reasons.
The first is that electability so far has not played a determining role in either campaign this cycle. The following chart shows the CNN spreads in twelve match-ups.
McCain is the most 'electable' candidate, and John Edwards is the most 'electable' Democratic candidate according to these head to heads. Yet McCain is charitably in 4th place nationwide and in his firewall state of New Hampshire, is in 3rd place with a small chance of getting a net positive post-Iowa bounce. Edwards is in 3rd place despite being the most electable and liberal of the top three Democrats. His path towards winning is far clearer and has fewer dependencies than McCain but it is not a straight forward path to the nomination that Clinton has, or the double dependency path that Obama has.
Huckabee really is not performing much worse at this point in time in the head to heads than Romney, and only a couple points behind Guiliani. Both Guiliani and Romney have significant name recognition advantages at this time over Huckabee, but if Huckabee was to win the nomination, the first quarter billion dollars of advertising will bring his name recognition up to 95%. Once name recognition equalizes, soft Republicans who identify as independents or non-affiliated but vote 90% GOP will vote for their party's candidate. Nothing surprising there.
But getting beyond the horserace, one has to wonder what the objective of the Republican Party and its primary stakeholders is for this election cycle. It is analytically absurd to assign singular motives and objectives to an combined, collective decision making body such as a political party, but it is convienent shorthand.
Right now it looks like 2008 will be a very tough year for Republican candidates. Assuming that we don't get two straight 'freak' elections, I think it is safe to assume that some GOP challengers will beat Democratic incumbents somewhere (Georgia is the best bet), but overall, the betting line is for the Democrats to win expanded majorities in the House and Senate as well as the White House.
If that is the case, then an objective of winning the intra-party faction fight which has been simmering for a while is a high value and obtainable objective. The nominee is the de facto party leader and the coalition behind the nominee is the de facto flagship coalition within the party. Huckabee represents a significant faction within the GOP, and it is one that has threatened to bolt in order to demonstrate its own importance.
If a significant proportion of Republican decision and opinion leaders, and more specifically theo-/social conservative opinion leaders believe that this is a losing year for the general election nominee irregardless of who the nominee is, then the incentive to win the intra-party fight and support Huckabee no matter what becomes far stronger which will ensure that he stays in for a while.
So when the CNN poll came out yesterday there was widespread analysis that this sinks his chance at the GOP nomination as he is beaten by all Democratic challengers. I disagree that this is the death knell of the Huckabee campaign on electability grounds for a couple of reasons.
The first is that electability so far has not played a determining role in either campaign this cycle. The following chart shows the CNN spreads in twelve match-ups.
McCain is the most 'electable' candidate, and John Edwards is the most 'electable' Democratic candidate according to these head to heads. Yet McCain is charitably in 4th place nationwide and in his firewall state of New Hampshire, is in 3rd place with a small chance of getting a net positive post-Iowa bounce. Edwards is in 3rd place despite being the most electable and liberal of the top three Democrats. His path towards winning is far clearer and has fewer dependencies than McCain but it is not a straight forward path to the nomination that Clinton has, or the double dependency path that Obama has.
Huckabee really is not performing much worse at this point in time in the head to heads than Romney, and only a couple points behind Guiliani. Both Guiliani and Romney have significant name recognition advantages at this time over Huckabee, but if Huckabee was to win the nomination, the first quarter billion dollars of advertising will bring his name recognition up to 95%. Once name recognition equalizes, soft Republicans who identify as independents or non-affiliated but vote 90% GOP will vote for their party's candidate. Nothing surprising there.
But getting beyond the horserace, one has to wonder what the objective of the Republican Party and its primary stakeholders is for this election cycle. It is analytically absurd to assign singular motives and objectives to an combined, collective decision making body such as a political party, but it is convienent shorthand.
Right now it looks like 2008 will be a very tough year for Republican candidates. Assuming that we don't get two straight 'freak' elections, I think it is safe to assume that some GOP challengers will beat Democratic incumbents somewhere (Georgia is the best bet), but overall, the betting line is for the Democrats to win expanded majorities in the House and Senate as well as the White House.
If that is the case, then an objective of winning the intra-party faction fight which has been simmering for a while is a high value and obtainable objective. The nominee is the de facto party leader and the coalition behind the nominee is the de facto flagship coalition within the party. Huckabee represents a significant faction within the GOP, and it is one that has threatened to bolt in order to demonstrate its own importance.
If a significant proportion of Republican decision and opinion leaders, and more specifically theo-/social conservative opinion leaders believe that this is a losing year for the general election nominee irregardless of who the nominee is, then the incentive to win the intra-party fight and support Huckabee no matter what becomes far stronger which will ensure that he stays in for a while.
Could a Democrat win Utah in '08?
by shamanic
If Huckabee goes after Romney's Mormonism and ends up the nominee, is it possible that the Democratic nominee could win Utah in 2008? Discuss.
If Huckabee goes after Romney's Mormonism and ends up the nominee, is it possible that the Democratic nominee could win Utah in 2008? Discuss.
Thursday, December 06, 2007
Romney: No JFK?
by shamanic
Dammit, I missed Romney's speech. From the coverage I've seen in the blogosphere and briefly stomaching some CNN, I get the feeling that the speech wasn't really intended for me, but rather for Christian evangelicals who need to be persuaded to back a Mormon.
Did you see it? Is that what it was about?
Update By Cernig
Here's the transcript.
Basically, it's pure GOP pap. Here's the big throwout to the base:
"The founders proscribed the establishment of a state religion, but they did not countenance the elimination of religion from the public square. We are a nation 'Under God' and in God, we do indeed trust."
But Jonah Goldberg (!) points to two major problems:
1) It's all about the Peoples of The Book - nada about Hindus, or Budhists, or agnostics. Is it still OK to be a pagan American or a non-believing American in Romney's vision? Probably, but he doesn't say and that was a glaring gap.
2)It would have been a great speech (from a Republican point of view) had he already won the nomination. But there wasn't a whole lot in there about why he should get the nomination in the first place. Sure, a President shouldn't be judged on his faith - but at the moment he's only contesting for the GOP's nomination and Republicans have every right to apply a religious litmus test if they want to for their own party's nominee. He may not have overcome that wish mong many members of the evangelical base.
For the first time ever, I agree with Jonah. He must really dislike Romney.
Dammit, I missed Romney's speech. From the coverage I've seen in the blogosphere and briefly stomaching some CNN, I get the feeling that the speech wasn't really intended for me, but rather for Christian evangelicals who need to be persuaded to back a Mormon.
Did you see it? Is that what it was about?
Update By Cernig
Here's the transcript.
Basically, it's pure GOP pap. Here's the big throwout to the base:
"The founders proscribed the establishment of a state religion, but they did not countenance the elimination of religion from the public square. We are a nation 'Under God' and in God, we do indeed trust."
But Jonah Goldberg (!) points to two major problems:
1) It's all about the Peoples of The Book - nada about Hindus, or Budhists, or agnostics. Is it still OK to be a pagan American or a non-believing American in Romney's vision? Probably, but he doesn't say and that was a glaring gap.
2)It would have been a great speech (from a Republican point of view) had he already won the nomination. But there wasn't a whole lot in there about why he should get the nomination in the first place. Sure, a President shouldn't be judged on his faith - but at the moment he's only contesting for the GOP's nomination and Republicans have every right to apply a religious litmus test if they want to for their own party's nominee. He may not have overcome that wish mong many members of the evangelical base.
For the first time ever, I agree with Jonah. He must really dislike Romney.
Thursday, October 25, 2007
US Designates, Sanctions, Iran Guards Force & Banks
By Cernig
Well, we knew this one was coming:
The IAEA continues to say it has no evidence that Iran has a nuclear weapons program. Iran is a supporter of groups designated as terrorists by much of the Western world - which is a legitimate grievance against Iran - but then again so does Pakistan, and more so, and Pakistan already is a nuclear state. But we don't see sanctions against Pakistan - we see military aide. For much of the rest of the world, this only serves to illustrate American exceptionalism - the rules don't apply when the US doesn't want them to.
We don't see Mitt Romney proposing "bombardment" of Pakistan:
Maybe Putin is just suffering from BDS, but somehow I peg him as a more calculating type than that. It's just possible that he is worried about America's belligerent attitude, realising along with Kevin Hayden that "sanctions are not diplomacy and assertions aren't evidence." Like Kevin, he may just see today's action as state-sponsored unilateral hijacking of assets that sets a dangerous precedent for future US action against other states - including his own. It isn't as if the Cheneyites have been circumspect about their intentions to shift the blame from one target to another - and Moscow has certainly been on their radar as one of their targets.
That's all speculation, of course, if a reasonable reading of pasts statements. Those of us outwith the innermost administration circle would all do well to harbour some sceptical uncertainty about the Bush administrations long-term aims for Iran. At the very least because the experience of the lead up to invading Iraq demands it.
But as usual, there are some folks, not too far distant from a big white building in Washington D.C., who will make out like bandits from all the uncertainty.
Well, we knew this one was coming:
The Bush administration imposed sweeping new sanctions against Iran Thursday - the harshest in nearly three decades - cutting off key Iranian military and banking institutions from the American financial system for Tehran's alleged support for terrorism and nuclear weapons ambitions.The Counterterrorism blog fills in the exact details:
In the broadest U.S. unilateral penalties on Iran since the takeover of the U.S. Embassy in 1979, the administration slapped sanctions on Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps, a main unit of its defense ministry, three of its largest banks and eight people that it said are engaged in missile trade and back extremist groups throughout the Middle East.
Today, the State Department designated the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and the Ministry of Defense and Armed Forces Logistics (MODAFL) for their proliferation activities. The Treasury Department also designated numerous Iranian parties for proliferation concerns: nine IRGC-affiliated entities and five IRGC-affiliated individuals; two state-owned banks, Bank Melli (its biggest) and Bank Mellat; and three individuals affiliated with Iran's Aerospace Industries Organization (AIO). The Treasury Department also designated the IRGC-Qods Force (IRGC-QF) under for providing material support to the Taliban in Afghanistan and other terrorist organizations, and also designated Iran's state-owned Bank Saderat as a terrorist financier. Moreover, elements of the IRGC and MODAFL were listed in the Annexes to U.N. Security Council Resolutions 1737 and 1747, which leads to a freeze on their assets by all member nations.Now, back to the AP for some ridiculous Bushie spin:
At the same time, they stressed that offers for negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program remain on the table and that the sanctions are not a sign of imminent military action. The U.S. officials insist - over Iranian denials - that the nuclear program is a cover for atomic weapons development.That's one seriously brass neck you have there, Condi. The US position is that it won't enter face-to-face open negotiations unless Iran suspends enrichment - which is demanding the end-point of negotiations as a start point, hardly good faith, as well as denying Iran its right under the NPT.
"Unfortunately, the Iranian government continues to spurn our offer of open negotiations, instead threatening peace and security," through its nuclear program, production and export of ballistic missiles and backing for Shia insurgents in Iraq, the Taliban in Afghanistan, Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza, Rice said.
The IAEA continues to say it has no evidence that Iran has a nuclear weapons program. Iran is a supporter of groups designated as terrorists by much of the Western world - which is a legitimate grievance against Iran - but then again so does Pakistan, and more so, and Pakistan already is a nuclear state. But we don't see sanctions against Pakistan - we see military aide. For much of the rest of the world, this only serves to illustrate American exceptionalism - the rules don't apply when the US doesn't want them to.
We don't see Mitt Romney proposing "bombardment" of Pakistan:
``If for some reasons they continue down their course of folly toward nuclear ambition, then I would take military action if that's available to us,'' Romney told a crowd of doctors and nurses during a question period that followed a health care speech.But other than the sociopathic right, most have reacted negatively to this new example of Bush administration willingness to abandon rhetoric about international co-operation as soon as things don't go the White House's way.
He added: ``That's an option that's on the table. And it's is not something which we'll spell out specifically. I really can't lay out exactly how that would be done, but we have a number of options from blockade to bombardment of some kind. And that's something we very much have to keep on the table, and we will ready ourselves to be able to take, because, frankly, I think it's unacceptable for Iran to have nuclear weapons.''
Said former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards: ``I learned a clear lesson from the lead-up to the Iraq War in 2002: If you give this president an inch, he will take a mile and launch a war. Senator Clinton apparently learned a different lesson.''Even some Republicans are unhappy:
...In a statement Thursday, presidential rival Chris Dodd echoed Edwards' argument.
``The aggressive actions taken today by the administration absent any corresponding diplomatic action is exactly what we all should have known was coming when we considered our vote on the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment, and smacks, frankly, of a dangerous step toward armed confrontation with Iran,'' Dodd said.
Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel says the new, unilateral U.S. sanctions against Iran will not work and will only drive the Iranians closer together.Putin sees a maniac push for violence:
The Republican says unilateral sanctions rarely succeed and that direct engagement is the way to deal with Iran.
"Why worsen the situation and bring it to a dead end by threatening sanctions or military action," Putin said in a veiled reference to the U.S. push for harsher international sanctions against Tehran.Which statement comes ominously close to rumors that Putin told Iran that Russia will involve itself should the US unilaterally attack.
"Running around like a madman with a razor blade, waving it around, is not the best way to resolve the situation," the Russian leader said.
Maybe Putin is just suffering from BDS, but somehow I peg him as a more calculating type than that. It's just possible that he is worried about America's belligerent attitude, realising along with Kevin Hayden that "sanctions are not diplomacy and assertions aren't evidence." Like Kevin, he may just see today's action as state-sponsored unilateral hijacking of assets that sets a dangerous precedent for future US action against other states - including his own. It isn't as if the Cheneyites have been circumspect about their intentions to shift the blame from one target to another - and Moscow has certainly been on their radar as one of their targets.
That's all speculation, of course, if a reasonable reading of pasts statements. Those of us outwith the innermost administration circle would all do well to harbour some sceptical uncertainty about the Bush administrations long-term aims for Iran. At the very least because the experience of the lead up to invading Iraq demands it.
But as usual, there are some folks, not too far distant from a big white building in Washington D.C., who will make out like bandits from all the uncertainty.
Crude oil for December delivery rose $1.88, or 2.2 percent, to $88.98 a barrel at 12:11 p.m. on the New York Mercantile Exchange. Futures climbed to $89.10, the highest since reaching a record $90.07 on Oct. 19. Oil is up 45 percent from a year ago.
Brent crude oil for December settlement rose $1.75, or 2.1 percent, to $86.12 a barrel on the London-based ICE Futures Europe exchange. Brent reached $86.32, the highest since trading began in 1988.
``The U.S. has had sanctions against Iran since 1979 and it's not like we are just hearing for the first time about Turkey's intention to rout the Kurdish rebels in northern Iraq,'' said Tim Evans, an analyst with Citigroup Global Markets Inc. in New York. ``What the headlines do is keep these issues front and center for anyone trading in this market.''
Thursday, September 27, 2007
Romney uses gays as a wedge issue again
by shamanic
Please note that this post contains language inappropriate for 2nd graders. And perhaps offices. You were warned.
A uniter he ain't: Today Mitt Romney laid into Democrats on whether kids should be exposed to the notion of gays in elementary school. According to a question in last night's Dem debate, a teacher in a Massachusetts school read her second grade class a story about a prince who marries another prince, prompting failed legal action on the part of some parents. Gay couples can marry in Massachusetts, after all.
Romney's statement:
1. Out of touch? Looking at the polls over the last few years, Americans are pretty evenly split on whether gays should have equal rights to form legally sanctioned relationships, whether that be through domestic partnership, civil unions, or marriage. We all know which side has the momentum, Mr. Out of Touch.
2. Let's just cut Romney's reaction to this: "Not one candidate was uncomfortable with young children learning." It sure would suck if your kids were exposed to ideas in school, wouldn't it? Golly, next thing you know they'll be wantin' to go to college or sumthin.
3. This is a subject that should be left to parents! Why, exactly? There's a thing happening in society, Mr. Romney. Is it inappropriate for students to hear about it at school? Hey, I know, how about the kids with gay parents and the kids with straight parents have a war. How about that? That'll settle the issue.
4. Let's pass the Federal Marriage Amendment. Delicately, Mr. Romney: Fuck you. You want to make sure I never have equal rights in my own country? And you want to be president? This statement demonstrates that you are absolutely unsuited for the task, you dick. Drop out now.
5. Change in Washington... blah blah... ultra liberal base... Democrats... blah blah. Shut your pie hole Mitt. In answer to the question, "Is our childrens learning", the answer should always be yes. Sometimes they'll learn things that disquiet their elders, but it is a fact that in America, unlike Iran, there are gay people. Perhaps Ahmadinejad's country would be more suited to your tastes, Mitt.
Please note that this post contains language inappropriate for 2nd graders. And perhaps offices. You were warned.
A uniter he ain't: Today Mitt Romney laid into Democrats on whether kids should be exposed to the notion of gays in elementary school. According to a question in last night's Dem debate, a teacher in a Massachusetts school read her second grade class a story about a prince who marries another prince, prompting failed legal action on the part of some parents. Gay couples can marry in Massachusetts, after all.
Romney's statement:
"Last night's debate was just the latest example of how out of touch the Democratic presidential candidates are with the American people. Not one candidate was uncomfortable with young children learning about same-sex marriage in the second grade. This is a subject that should be left to parents, not public school teachers. We need to strengthen our families by passing a federal marriage amendment and also insisting on marriage before having children. Change in Washington requires Democrats with the courage to stand-up to their ultra liberal base and do what's right for our children."Hey, I'm the blogger here. I'll take it apart for you.
1. Out of touch? Looking at the polls over the last few years, Americans are pretty evenly split on whether gays should have equal rights to form legally sanctioned relationships, whether that be through domestic partnership, civil unions, or marriage. We all know which side has the momentum, Mr. Out of Touch.
2. Let's just cut Romney's reaction to this: "Not one candidate was uncomfortable with young children learning." It sure would suck if your kids were exposed to ideas in school, wouldn't it? Golly, next thing you know they'll be wantin' to go to college or sumthin.
3. This is a subject that should be left to parents! Why, exactly? There's a thing happening in society, Mr. Romney. Is it inappropriate for students to hear about it at school? Hey, I know, how about the kids with gay parents and the kids with straight parents have a war. How about that? That'll settle the issue.
4. Let's pass the Federal Marriage Amendment. Delicately, Mr. Romney: Fuck you. You want to make sure I never have equal rights in my own country? And you want to be president? This statement demonstrates that you are absolutely unsuited for the task, you dick. Drop out now.
5. Change in Washington... blah blah... ultra liberal base... Democrats... blah blah. Shut your pie hole Mitt. In answer to the question, "Is our childrens learning", the answer should always be yes. Sometimes they'll learn things that disquiet their elders, but it is a fact that in America, unlike Iran, there are gay people. Perhaps Ahmadinejad's country would be more suited to your tastes, Mitt.
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
Romney wants to act like a Republican
by shamanic
Which he's been doing a fairly good job of this year: anti-gay (unlike in the past), pro-life (unlike in the past), anti-earmark (unlike in the past), anti-immigrant (not sure, but I'm going to guess: unlike in the past).
Really, Romney's latest ad is just classic: "When Republicans act like Democrats, America loses." God forbid the GOP get over its inherent homophobia, its hatred of people of color, its loathing for effective governance, and start acting like Democrats. Watch his lame ad - which I'm sure speaks loudly to the few who continue to be committed to the Republican party - here.
Which he's been doing a fairly good job of this year: anti-gay (unlike in the past), pro-life (unlike in the past), anti-earmark (unlike in the past), anti-immigrant (not sure, but I'm going to guess: unlike in the past).
Really, Romney's latest ad is just classic: "When Republicans act like Democrats, America loses." God forbid the GOP get over its inherent homophobia, its hatred of people of color, its loathing for effective governance, and start acting like Democrats. Watch his lame ad - which I'm sure speaks loudly to the few who continue to be committed to the Republican party - here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)