The Romney File
- Thread starter Tiassa
- Start date
Ann Romney says, “we have given all you people need to know” with respect to the Romney’s income tax filings. She goes on to say that if they released their tax returns we would all know what great people they are. And in the next breath she contradicts herself when she says that the reason the returns will not be released is because they contain material that would not reveal them to be the great people she previously proclaimed themselves to be.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.co...s-given-all-you-people-need-to-know-on-taxes/
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.co...s-given-all-you-people-need-to-know-on-taxes/
Romney's Foreign Policy: Even His Advisors Can't Explain It
Romney's Foreign Policy: Even His Advisors Can't Explain It
At some point, one wonders if Mitt Romney isn't just fucking with people.
No, really. If we set aside his bizarre refusal to disclose his tax returns, and specifically overlook his explanation of offshore accounts that would cast him as a foreign investor, and then decide that his incoherence about health care mandates as a tax or penalty or whatever don't matter, what do we have?
Perhaps it's best to let Ben Armbruster explain the problem:
Can Mitt Romney or his advisors actually explain his policy outlook without leaving people wondering, "Er ... um ... huh?"
I mean, I know the guy is running for president. He just ... I don't know ... he just doesn't seem to act like it. But what is more surprising is that his campaign doesn't seem to act like it, either.
I'm not averse to changing the nature of our political discourse, but Romney seems to be lowering the standards. Of course, that is the capitalist standard. After all, it's not lower standards; it's economization.
____________________
Notes:
Armbruster, Ben. "Romney Adviser Stumped When Asked For Specifics Of Romney’s Afghanistan Policy". ThinkProgress. July 19, 2012. ThinkProgress.org. July 19, 2012. http://thinkprogress.org/security/2...-for-specifics-of-romneys-afghanistan-policy/
Romney's Foreign Policy: Even His Advisors Can't Explain It
At some point, one wonders if Mitt Romney isn't just fucking with people.
No, really. If we set aside his bizarre refusal to disclose his tax returns, and specifically overlook his explanation of offshore accounts that would cast him as a foreign investor, and then decide that his incoherence about health care mandates as a tax or penalty or whatever don't matter, what do we have?
Perhaps it's best to let Ben Armbruster explain the problem:
Noting that Romney is about to embark on a short trip abroad later this month, host Luke Russert relayed a recent report that two top Republican senators couldn't explain Romney's Afghanistan policy and wondered if he has to be more specific. At first, Wall appeared confused, eventually saying — and in keeping with the Romney campaign's reported policy — she didn't want to "get into the details" and then tried to shift the conversation back to the economy:
RUSSERT: He was asked by the media what Mr. Romney's Afghanistan policy [is] and he goes, "What is it?" a Romney supporter and senior member of the Armed Services Committee said. "I think [Romney's policy is] 'listen to the commanders' and if it's that, that's OK with me." Does Mitt Romney have to have a more specific policy in Afghanistan prior to going on to this trip?
WALL: Well, you know, look, I think that overall — [pause] — overall, Gov. Romney has been clear about his plans and about this trip and about what his goals are and I think that when you look at protecting and securing the homeland, I think that that is, that's something that he has articulated over and over again. I'm not going to get into the details of that, I'm here to talk about, again, once again, the job situation, the economy, growth that we need and what this governor is planning on doing in that regard.
WALL: Well, you know, look, I think that overall — [pause] — overall, Gov. Romney has been clear about his plans and about this trip and about what his goals are and I think that when you look at protecting and securing the homeland, I think that that is, that's something that he has articulated over and over again. I'm not going to get into the details of that, I'm here to talk about, again, once again, the job situation, the economy, growth that we need and what this governor is planning on doing in that regard.
Can Mitt Romney or his advisors actually explain his policy outlook without leaving people wondering, "Er ... um ... huh?"
I mean, I know the guy is running for president. He just ... I don't know ... he just doesn't seem to act like it. But what is more surprising is that his campaign doesn't seem to act like it, either.
I'm not averse to changing the nature of our political discourse, but Romney seems to be lowering the standards. Of course, that is the capitalist standard. After all, it's not lower standards; it's economization.
____________________
Notes:
Armbruster, Ben. "Romney Adviser Stumped When Asked For Specifics Of Romney’s Afghanistan Policy". ThinkProgress. July 19, 2012. ThinkProgress.org. July 19, 2012. http://thinkprogress.org/security/2...-for-specifics-of-romneys-afghanistan-policy/
Romney Middlesex Pitch Fails
Romney Middlesex Pitch Fails
Sometimes the commentary is obvious.
With Republicans hammering President Obama over a controversial interpretation of his remarks about the relationship between a society and the success of individuals, Mitt Romney visited Middlesex Truck & Coach yesterday, hoping to capitalize on the outcry. Steve Benen explains:
Of course, it has been clear for some time that Romney is confused about the roles of government and society in the success of individuals and businesses. In January, the Los Angeles Times reported:
Bain invested $18.2 million in the company, and got $104 million for its stake several years later. But the state of Indiana and DeKalb County also put $37 million into Steel Dynamics, in the form of subsidies and grants. Local resident Suzanne Beaman opposed the public investment, and says the company "would have done fine without our tax dollars".
Tad DeHaven, of the Cato Institute, called the public investment by its name: "This is corporate welfare," he said, and called the deal "an example of the government stepping into the marketplace, picking winners and losers, providing profits to business owners and leaving taxpayers stuck with the bill".
In addition to over $23 million in property tax abatement, and over $13 million in tax credits, Steel Dynamics also benefitted from a 0.25% tax that helped pay for infrastructure development including road and railroad improvements. And, indeed, former CEO Keith Busse explained in a 1994 interview that $4.4 million in state tax credits helped seal the decision to build the company in Indiana.
David Stickler, who helped design the startup financing for Steel Dynamics, said that the public investment also encouraged larger private lenders to get involved: "What I've found," he explained, "is that the senior lending banks, especially lenders from overseas, take great comfort in the fact that the local and state government entities are showing a willingness to partner on the project."
Despite the success of the public interest in Steel Dynamics, Ms. Beaman is not convinced:
Meanwhile, Romney pressed his attack in Massachusetts yesterday, apparently oblivious to the fact that both Middlesex Truck & Coach and Steel Dynamics demonstrate President Obama's point. Or perhaps he is not oblivious; it could simply be that he hoped nobody would notice. It seems to be that kind of campaign for Mitt Romney.
____________________
Notes:
Benen, Steve. "The Middlesex Truck & Coach backstory". The Maddow Blog. July 20, 2012. MaddowBlog.MSNBC.MSN.com. July 20, 2012. http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/07/20/12858218-the-middlesex-truck-coach-backstory
Gold, Matea, Melanie Mason, and Tom Hamburger. "Mitt Romney no stranger to tax breaks, subsidies". Los Angeles Times. January 12, 2012. Articles.LATimes.com. July 20, 2012. http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jan/12/nation/la-na-bain-subsidies-20120113
Romney Middlesex Pitch Fails
Sometimes the commentary is obvious.
With Republicans hammering President Obama over a controversial interpretation of his remarks about the relationship between a society and the success of individuals, Mitt Romney visited Middlesex Truck & Coach yesterday, hoping to capitalize on the outcry. Steve Benen explains:
... a curious thing happened yesterday when the Republican appeared at a Massachusetts business in order to really drive the point home.
Maloney added, in reference to his business, "The government didn't help—at all."
But as it turns out, the backstory for Middlesex Truck & Coach is a little more complicated. Maloney later told the local CBS affiliate that he didn't have the capital to get his business off the ground, so he relied on an industrial-revenue bond through the government, giving the small business a low-interest loan that made the shop possible.
In other words, hoping to prove government doesn't help make small businesses possible, Mitt Romney picked a small business that wouldn't exist were it not for government. Perfect.
"This is not the result of government," Romney told reporters, referring to Middlesex Truck & Coach after he toured the shop. "This is the result of people who take risk, who have dreams, who build for themselves and for their families."
Company owner Brian Maloney, 69, agreed with Romney's assessment. "I take umbrage at the suggestion that people don't start and build businesses," Maloney said. "I started out with 500 bucks and worked with my hands to afford grad school at night. My wife supported me. Started a little body shop and was able to bring together people, one at a time."
Company owner Brian Maloney, 69, agreed with Romney's assessment. "I take umbrage at the suggestion that people don't start and build businesses," Maloney said. "I started out with 500 bucks and worked with my hands to afford grad school at night. My wife supported me. Started a little body shop and was able to bring together people, one at a time."
Maloney added, in reference to his business, "The government didn't help—at all."
But as it turns out, the backstory for Middlesex Truck & Coach is a little more complicated. Maloney later told the local CBS affiliate that he didn't have the capital to get his business off the ground, so he relied on an industrial-revenue bond through the government, giving the small business a low-interest loan that made the shop possible.
In other words, hoping to prove government doesn't help make small businesses possible, Mitt Romney picked a small business that wouldn't exist were it not for government. Perfect.
Of course, it has been clear for some time that Romney is confused about the roles of government and society in the success of individuals and businesses. In January, the Los Angeles Times reported:
As Mitt Romney defends his record running a private equity firm, he frequently points to a fast-growing Indiana steel company, financed in part by Bain Capital, that now employs 6,000 workers.
What Romney doesn't mention is that Steel Dynamics also received generous tax breaks and other subsidies provided by the state of Indiana and the residents of DeKalb County, where the company's first mill was built.
The story of Bain and Steel Dynamics illustrates how Romney, during his business career, made avid use of public-private partnerships, something that many conservatives consider to be "corporate welfare." It is a commitment that carried over into his term as governor of Massachusetts, when he offered similar incentives to lure businesses to his state.
What Romney doesn't mention is that Steel Dynamics also received generous tax breaks and other subsidies provided by the state of Indiana and the residents of DeKalb County, where the company's first mill was built.
The story of Bain and Steel Dynamics illustrates how Romney, during his business career, made avid use of public-private partnerships, something that many conservatives consider to be "corporate welfare." It is a commitment that carried over into his term as governor of Massachusetts, when he offered similar incentives to lure businesses to his state.
Bain invested $18.2 million in the company, and got $104 million for its stake several years later. But the state of Indiana and DeKalb County also put $37 million into Steel Dynamics, in the form of subsidies and grants. Local resident Suzanne Beaman opposed the public investment, and says the company "would have done fine without our tax dollars".
Tad DeHaven, of the Cato Institute, called the public investment by its name: "This is corporate welfare," he said, and called the deal "an example of the government stepping into the marketplace, picking winners and losers, providing profits to business owners and leaving taxpayers stuck with the bill".
In addition to over $23 million in property tax abatement, and over $13 million in tax credits, Steel Dynamics also benefitted from a 0.25% tax that helped pay for infrastructure development including road and railroad improvements. And, indeed, former CEO Keith Busse explained in a 1994 interview that $4.4 million in state tax credits helped seal the decision to build the company in Indiana.
David Stickler, who helped design the startup financing for Steel Dynamics, said that the public investment also encouraged larger private lenders to get involved: "What I've found," he explained, "is that the senior lending banks, especially lenders from overseas, take great comfort in the fact that the local and state government entities are showing a willingness to partner on the project."
Despite the success of the public interest in Steel Dynamics, Ms. Beaman is not convinced:
"It was something very upsetting to me," said Beaman, a longtime Republican activist. "I hated to see the people I thought were my friends go toward the liberal socialist mind-set under the guise of creating jobs. Our government shouldn't be in the business of buying or funding companies. That is contrary to the whole conservative mind-set."
Still, Beaman said she didn't hold the incident against Romney, questioning whether he had a "true understanding of economics."
"Did he do that knowing the full ramifications of where that type of government leads?" she said. "Probably not."
Still, Beaman said she didn't hold the incident against Romney, questioning whether he had a "true understanding of economics."
"Did he do that knowing the full ramifications of where that type of government leads?" she said. "Probably not."
Meanwhile, Romney pressed his attack in Massachusetts yesterday, apparently oblivious to the fact that both Middlesex Truck & Coach and Steel Dynamics demonstrate President Obama's point. Or perhaps he is not oblivious; it could simply be that he hoped nobody would notice. It seems to be that kind of campaign for Mitt Romney.
____________________
Notes:
Benen, Steve. "The Middlesex Truck & Coach backstory". The Maddow Blog. July 20, 2012. MaddowBlog.MSNBC.MSN.com. July 20, 2012. http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/07/20/12858218-the-middlesex-truck-coach-backstory
Gold, Matea, Melanie Mason, and Tom Hamburger. "Mitt Romney no stranger to tax breaks, subsidies". Los Angeles Times. January 12, 2012. Articles.LATimes.com. July 20, 2012. http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jan/12/nation/la-na-bain-subsidies-20120113
"Er ... um ... huh" not only is an adequate descriptor of Romney's foreign policy, but his economic policies as well.
Did Romney Advisor Just Play an Ethnic Card?
Did Romney Advisor Just Play an Ethnic Card?
Pundits and analysts on both sides of the Atlantic are scratching their heads, trying to figure the implications of a Mitt Romney advisor who spoke on the condition of anonymity with The Daily Telegraph. Jon Swaine explains:
The advisor, wrote Swaine, "spoke on the condition of anonymity because Mr Romney's campaign requested that they not criticise the President to foreign media".
But in a week when Mitt Romney told the Veterans of Foreign Wars that the United States is no longer the strongest nation in the world according to its military prowess, it would seem that the Republican presidential campaign is firing off its mouth without any regard to the implications of what they're saying.
The "Anglo-Saxon heritage"?
Did the Romney campaign really intend to suggest that their candidate is better positioned to work with Britain not because of anything about his education or work experience, but because he's white?
I doubt that is what they actually intended. Even the flaming liberals up in Seattle are unsettled. "Now you've gone and stepped in it, you guys," Paul Constant tells the Romney campaign. "You pushed the 'evil foreigner' thing one step too far."
Coming on the heels of John Sununu's public embarrassment after expressing his wish that Obama "would learn how to be an American", Constant's analysis of the Romney advisor's words are, perhaps, the best I've seen: "Wow. WOW. Wow."
To the other, Romney has some time before he's asked to explain that one during a debate. I, for one, am looking forward to the answer.
Because, in that sense that it's simply hard to believe a politician or campaign would actually take the xenophobic argument so far, it is very easy to believe that this is a gaffe in the classic context of accidentally revealing the truth.
No, the advisor probably did not mean to imply that Romney's whiteness makes him a better American president for the British. However, that advisor apparently failed to think his point through, and thus allowed an ugly truth to slip out. Such is the psychopathology of everyday life.
____________________
Notes:
Swaine, Jon. "Mitt Romney would restore 'Anglo-Saxon' relations between Britain and America". The Telegraph. July 24, 2012. Telegraph.co.uk. July 25, 2012. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...on-relations-between-Britain-and-America.html
Constant, Paul. "Romney Adviser Says Obama Doesn't 'Fully Appreciate' America's 'Anglo-Saxon Heritage'". Slog. July 24, 2012. Slog.TheStranger.com. July 25, 2012. http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/ar...ully-appreciate-americas-anglo-saxon-heritage
Did Romney Advisor Just Play an Ethnic Card?
Pundits and analysts on both sides of the Atlantic are scratching their heads, trying to figure the implications of a Mitt Romney advisor who spoke on the condition of anonymity with The Daily Telegraph. Jon Swaine explains:
In remarks that may prompt accusations of racial insensitivity, one suggested that Mr Romney was better placed to understand the depth of ties between the two countries than Mr Obama, whose father was from Africa.
"We are part of an Anglo-Saxon heritage, and he feels that the special relationship is special," the adviser said of Mr Romney, adding: "The White House didn't fully appreciate the shared history we have".
"We are part of an Anglo-Saxon heritage, and he feels that the special relationship is special," the adviser said of Mr Romney, adding: "The White House didn't fully appreciate the shared history we have".
The advisor, wrote Swaine, "spoke on the condition of anonymity because Mr Romney's campaign requested that they not criticise the President to foreign media".
But in a week when Mitt Romney told the Veterans of Foreign Wars that the United States is no longer the strongest nation in the world according to its military prowess, it would seem that the Republican presidential campaign is firing off its mouth without any regard to the implications of what they're saying.
The "Anglo-Saxon heritage"?
Did the Romney campaign really intend to suggest that their candidate is better positioned to work with Britain not because of anything about his education or work experience, but because he's white?
I doubt that is what they actually intended. Even the flaming liberals up in Seattle are unsettled. "Now you've gone and stepped in it, you guys," Paul Constant tells the Romney campaign. "You pushed the 'evil foreigner' thing one step too far."
Coming on the heels of John Sununu's public embarrassment after expressing his wish that Obama "would learn how to be an American", Constant's analysis of the Romney advisor's words are, perhaps, the best I've seen: "Wow. WOW. Wow."
To the other, Romney has some time before he's asked to explain that one during a debate. I, for one, am looking forward to the answer.
Because, in that sense that it's simply hard to believe a politician or campaign would actually take the xenophobic argument so far, it is very easy to believe that this is a gaffe in the classic context of accidentally revealing the truth.
No, the advisor probably did not mean to imply that Romney's whiteness makes him a better American president for the British. However, that advisor apparently failed to think his point through, and thus allowed an ugly truth to slip out. Such is the psychopathology of everyday life.
____________________
Notes:
Swaine, Jon. "Mitt Romney would restore 'Anglo-Saxon' relations between Britain and America". The Telegraph. July 24, 2012. Telegraph.co.uk. July 25, 2012. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...on-relations-between-Britain-and-America.html
Constant, Paul. "Romney Adviser Says Obama Doesn't 'Fully Appreciate' America's 'Anglo-Saxon Heritage'". Slog. July 24, 2012. Slog.TheStranger.com. July 25, 2012. http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/ar...ully-appreciate-americas-anglo-saxon-heritage
Well it didn’t take long for Romney to stick his foot in his mouth. In his first major exposure on the international scene, Romney insults his international host and longtime US ally. While I think Romney has more grey matter than George Bush II or Palin; however that is not saying much.
Like Palin before him, Romney seems unable to think on his feet. It is really kind of funny. This is the man who proclaims a “no apology” approach to foreign policy and then spends most of his first day on the international scene apologizing to his British hosts. You gotta love it! You cannot find better comedy.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-07-27/romney-red-faced-after-olympics-gaffe/4158104/?site=sydney
http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/is-mitt-romney-worse-than-sarah-palin/question-2830303/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/26/boris-johnson-london-mitt-romney-video_n_1707280.html
http://slatest.slate.com/posts/2012...y_tied_to_u_k_by_anglo_saxon_connection_.html
Like Palin before him, Romney seems unable to think on his feet. It is really kind of funny. This is the man who proclaims a “no apology” approach to foreign policy and then spends most of his first day on the international scene apologizing to his British hosts. You gotta love it! You cannot find better comedy.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-07-27/romney-red-faced-after-olympics-gaffe/4158104/?site=sydney
http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/is-mitt-romney-worse-than-sarah-palin/question-2830303/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/26/boris-johnson-london-mitt-romney-video_n_1707280.html
http://slatest.slate.com/posts/2012...y_tied_to_u_k_by_anglo_saxon_connection_.html
No Apologies
Yes, the Romney Comedic Morbidity Party seems to be taking Britain by storm.
The running accounts from the Guardian and Telegraph would be hilarious, if they weren't so embarrassing.
I can't believe this is the GOP's candidate for president.
Wait a minute, it's Republicans: Yes, I can.
Still, though ... no apologies from me. Talk to the conservatives about that one.
____________________
Notes:
McCarthy, Tom. "Mitt Romney rebuked by David Cameron in London – the day in politics". The Guardian. July 26, 2012. Guardian.co.uk. July 26, 2012. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jul/26/mitt-romney-london-olympics-gaffe-live
Sanchez, Raf and Chris Irvine. "Mitt Romney in London: as it happened". The Telegraph. July 26, 2012. Telegraph.co.uk. July 26, 2012. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...295/Mitt-Romney-in-London-as-it-happened.html
Joepistole said:
Yes, the Romney Comedic Morbidity Party seems to be taking Britain by storm.
The running accounts from the Guardian and Telegraph would be hilarious, if they weren't so embarrassing.
I can't believe this is the GOP's candidate for president.
Wait a minute, it's Republicans: Yes, I can.
Still, though ... no apologies from me. Talk to the conservatives about that one.
____________________
Notes:
McCarthy, Tom. "Mitt Romney rebuked by David Cameron in London – the day in politics". The Guardian. July 26, 2012. Guardian.co.uk. July 26, 2012. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jul/26/mitt-romney-london-olympics-gaffe-live
Sanchez, Raf and Chris Irvine. "Mitt Romney in London: as it happened". The Telegraph. July 26, 2012. Telegraph.co.uk. July 26, 2012. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...295/Mitt-Romney-in-London-as-it-happened.html
The Brits seem to think Romney is worse than Palin, now that is quite an accomplishment!
“The British reaction to Mitt Romney has gone from openness, to skepticism, to mocking, to concluding that Mitt Romney is worse than Sarah Palin.
Daily Mail Political Editor James Chapman has been providing the world a play by play of Romney’s British implosion via his Twitter account. Romney started things off by criticizing London’s preparedness for the Olympics. He then forgot the name of British Labour Leader Ed Miliband, and then he admitted that he had been given a secret briefing by MI6. This led the British to ask aloud if they have another George W. Bush on their hands, “Romney blunders again by revealing he’s had (supposedly) top secret briefing by John Sawers, MI6 boss. Do we have a new Dubya on our hands?”
After his visit to Whitehall, Chapman offered two of the kinder reviews of Mitt Romney, “Serious dismay in Whitehall at Romney debut. ‘Worse than Sarah Palin.’ ‘Total car crash’. Two of the kinder verdicts.” Chapman also reported another verdict from British meet and greet with Mitt, “Another verdict from one Romney meeting: ‘Apparently devoid of charm, warmth, humour or sincerity’”.”
http://www.politicususa.com/romney-shambles-britain-proclaims-worse-sarah-palin.html
“The British reaction to Mitt Romney has gone from openness, to skepticism, to mocking, to concluding that Mitt Romney is worse than Sarah Palin.
Daily Mail Political Editor James Chapman has been providing the world a play by play of Romney’s British implosion via his Twitter account. Romney started things off by criticizing London’s preparedness for the Olympics. He then forgot the name of British Labour Leader Ed Miliband, and then he admitted that he had been given a secret briefing by MI6. This led the British to ask aloud if they have another George W. Bush on their hands, “Romney blunders again by revealing he’s had (supposedly) top secret briefing by John Sawers, MI6 boss. Do we have a new Dubya on our hands?”
After his visit to Whitehall, Chapman offered two of the kinder reviews of Mitt Romney, “Serious dismay in Whitehall at Romney debut. ‘Worse than Sarah Palin.’ ‘Total car crash’. Two of the kinder verdicts.” Chapman also reported another verdict from British meet and greet with Mitt, “Another verdict from one Romney meeting: ‘Apparently devoid of charm, warmth, humour or sincerity’”.”
http://www.politicususa.com/romney-shambles-britain-proclaims-worse-sarah-palin.html
I wonder if Romney has any Polish jokes for his visit to Poland? 
Romney Edges Further on Xenophobe Line
Romney Edges Further on Xenophobe Line
American politics too often focuses on superficial things, and, even more, prefers to take them one at a time.
But when we put multiple issues side by side, a different—often entirely different—picture emerges.
For instance, there is the Crescent Scare spectre raised by Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) and her cohorts, Reps. Gohmert (R-TX), Westmoreland (R-GA), Franks (R-AZ), and Rooney (R-FL). What does this have to do with Mitt Romney? Well, nothing, and that is becoming problematic.
Steve Benen notes, of Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA), appearing on CBS this morning:
The split is unusual because, as Benen notes, the GOP is historically unified: "For all of its faults, the Republican Party excels in several areas—most notably message discipline and internal cohesion."
And as the rift grows while Bachmann & Co.'s would-be Crescent Scare spreads overseas and trickles down to local domestic politics, the Republican presidential candidate, as is his wont, remains silent. For all Romney's criticism of Obama's leadership, the GOP nominee is passing on this opportunity to lead. For all his talking points about how secretive Barack Obama's presidency is—and regardless of how flaccid those attacks are when juxtaposed with fact—it seems the Republican nominee is unwilling at this point to share his perspective on the proposition of a foreign association infiltrating the United States government.
Still, though, one can reasonably say, "So, what?" After all, Romney is simply playing politics no matter how inept we might think his game.
But at the same time, his campaign is trying desperately to find a way to push the Obama-as-foreigner line; indeed, it would seem former New Hampshire Governor John Sununu's big sin in saying he wishes Barack Obama would learn how to be an American is that it was too explicit.
Meanwhile, Mitt Romney's campaign managed to touch off a controversy in England before he even arrived: "We are part of an Anglo-Saxon heritage," an advisor told a British newspaper, "and [Mitt Romney] feels that the special relationship is special. The White House didn’t fully appreciate the shared history we have."
Since landing, the GOP nominee has managed such a poor performance that our British neighbors are enjoying something of a joke, the Twitter hashtag #romneyshambles°.
Indeed, certain details might become hard to pick out of the wreckage of the Romney World Tour, Day One. Jon Swaine, of The Telegraph, in reporting about the "Anglo-Saxon heritage", also noted:
Say what? A bust of Winston Churchill?
Well, naturally, after three years of high-intensity Obamanoia from the right wing, one might forget that episode, but Mitt Romney himself is making it important again. Sara Murray explains for the Wall Street Journal:
When President Obama moved into the Oval Office, he included among his chosen decorations busts of President Abraham Lincoln and Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. Naturally, this incensed the hardline right. Glenn Beck, for instance, was furious:
And Mike Huckabee, incorrectly asserting that Obama grew up in Kenya, rekindled the fake controversy nine months later:
And nine months after that, the conspiracy theory reached the top of the House of Representatives.
The reality, of course, is that the Churchill bust was loaned to the White House for the duration of President Bush's first term, and then extended through his second term; that extension expired in January, 2009. It is said that British officials did extend an offer to the new president to establish another temporary loan, but it is unclear why Obama turned them down.
Enter the conspiracy theories.
Some might suggest that Romney's words to British donors was simply an appeal to mend fences after spending his first day horrifying his hosts, but this would overlook that campaign advisors raised the issue as part of their suggestion that Romney would be a better American president for the British because he is white.
Which raises the obvious question about the strangeness of Romney's campaign this year: You mean he won't say anything to help guide his party, one way or another, through the Crescent Scare controversy fracturing Republican ranks, but is willing to rekindle the Churchill bust conspiracy theory?
Either point on its own says little. The Romney campaign has a strange notion of risk aversion, as seen in the tax records controversy, Romney's insistence that his budget proposal cannot be scored, mysterious foreign policy outlook, and other issues. It is, in this sense, understandable that Romney would want to stay clear of the Crescent Scare, even if, as the standard-bearer of the GOP in 2012, he could lead Republicans out of the mess Bachmann et al. have made. And of course, taken on its own, the Churchill bust issue could simply be seen as an appeal to Britons he first unsettled, then offended, then mortified.
But taken together, juxtaposed in contrast, his silence on the Crescent Scare and willingness to pander to a conspiracy theory that reached as high as the Office of the Speaker of the House can reasonably be taken to suggest that the Romney campaign really is trying to calculate a xenophobic appeal intended to exploit Obamanoiac conspiracy theories that have driven the tinfoil wing of the Republican Party.
____________________
Notes:
° #romneyshambles — The short version is that a British television show called The Thick of It included in one scene the word "omnishambles", which was simply a cute word in the middle of a profane argument between political operatives until Labour Party leader Ed Milliband hauled it out earlier this year to describe the proposed Cameron budget.
Works Cited:
Benen, Steve. "The Bachmann dividing line". The Maddow Blog. July 27, 2012. MaddowBlog.MSNBC.MSN.com. July 27, 2012. http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2012/07/27/12990648-the-bachmann-dividing-line
Resnikoff, Ned. "#romneyshambles explained". Lean Forward. July 26, 2012. LeanForward.MSNBC.com. July 27, 2012. http://leanforward.msnbc.com/_news/2012/07/26/12974537-romneyshambles-explained
Swaine, Jon. "Mitt Romney would restore 'Anglo-Saxon' relations between Britain and America". The Telegraph. July 24, 2012. Telegraph.co.uk. July 27, 2012. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...on-relations-between-Britain-and-America.html
Murray, Sara. "Churchill Bust in Spotlight at Romney Fundraiser". Washington Wire. July 26, 2012. Blogs.WSJ.com. July 27, 2012. http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/07/26/churchill-bust-in-spotlight-at-romney-fundraiser/
Gertz, Matt. "Obama's grandfather + Churchill bust = Wacky Beck conspiracy". Media Matters for America. June 29, 2010. MediaMatters.com. July 27, 2012. http://mediamatters.org/blog/2010/06/29/obamas-grandfather-churchill-bust-wacky-beck-co/166993
Maloy, Simon. "Huckabee The Latest Fox Newser To Promote Race-Baiting Obama-Churchill Smear". Media Matters for America. March 2, 2011. MediaMatters.org. July 27, 2012. http://mediamatters.org/blog/2011/03/02/huckabee-the-latest-fox-newser-to-promote-race/177084
Kasperowicz, Pete. "Boehner: We'll take Churchill bust in the Capitol". Floor Action Blog. December 18, 2011. TheHill.com. July 27, 2012. http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/200187-boehner-well-take-churchill-bust-in-the-capitol
Shipman, Tim. "Barack Obama sends bust of Winston Churchill on its way back to Britain". The Telegraph. February 14, 2009. Telegraph.co.uk. July 27, 2012. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...ton-Churchill-on-its-way-back-to-Britain.html
Romney Edges Further on Xenophobe Line
American politics too often focuses on superficial things, and, even more, prefers to take them one at a time.
But when we put multiple issues side by side, a different—often entirely different—picture emerges.
For instance, there is the Crescent Scare spectre raised by Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) and her cohorts, Reps. Gohmert (R-TX), Westmoreland (R-GA), Franks (R-AZ), and Rooney (R-FL). What does this have to do with Mitt Romney? Well, nothing, and that is becoming problematic.
Steve Benen notes, of Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA), appearing on CBS this morning:
Cantor was given an opportunity to do the right thing, but instead he effectively defended Bachmann. In the bigger picture, this creates two large, distinct GOP camps, both of which have notable Republican leaders.
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), for example, condemned Bachmann's offensive effort, and soon after, House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) characterized Bachmann's accusations as "pretty dangerous." Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.), one of the House's most conservative members, offered criticism of his own, and the leaders of the House Intelligence Committee went out of their way to make clear that Bachmann's accusations are not supported by any evidence that has been presented to Congress and that the committee did not sanction Bachmann's crusade.
On the other hand, Romney campaign advisor John Bolton is on Bachmann's side, as are Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh. Eric Cantor, apparently, seems to fall into this camp, too.
And where's Mitt Romney, ostensibly the Republican Party's national leader? To date, he hasn't said a word on the controversy.
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), for example, condemned Bachmann's offensive effort, and soon after, House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) characterized Bachmann's accusations as "pretty dangerous." Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.), one of the House's most conservative members, offered criticism of his own, and the leaders of the House Intelligence Committee went out of their way to make clear that Bachmann's accusations are not supported by any evidence that has been presented to Congress and that the committee did not sanction Bachmann's crusade.
On the other hand, Romney campaign advisor John Bolton is on Bachmann's side, as are Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh. Eric Cantor, apparently, seems to fall into this camp, too.
And where's Mitt Romney, ostensibly the Republican Party's national leader? To date, he hasn't said a word on the controversy.
The split is unusual because, as Benen notes, the GOP is historically unified: "For all of its faults, the Republican Party excels in several areas—most notably message discipline and internal cohesion."
And as the rift grows while Bachmann & Co.'s would-be Crescent Scare spreads overseas and trickles down to local domestic politics, the Republican presidential candidate, as is his wont, remains silent. For all Romney's criticism of Obama's leadership, the GOP nominee is passing on this opportunity to lead. For all his talking points about how secretive Barack Obama's presidency is—and regardless of how flaccid those attacks are when juxtaposed with fact—it seems the Republican nominee is unwilling at this point to share his perspective on the proposition of a foreign association infiltrating the United States government.
Still, though, one can reasonably say, "So, what?" After all, Romney is simply playing politics no matter how inept we might think his game.
But at the same time, his campaign is trying desperately to find a way to push the Obama-as-foreigner line; indeed, it would seem former New Hampshire Governor John Sununu's big sin in saying he wishes Barack Obama would learn how to be an American is that it was too explicit.
Meanwhile, Mitt Romney's campaign managed to touch off a controversy in England before he even arrived: "We are part of an Anglo-Saxon heritage," an advisor told a British newspaper, "and [Mitt Romney] feels that the special relationship is special. The White House didn’t fully appreciate the shared history we have."
Since landing, the GOP nominee has managed such a poor performance that our British neighbors are enjoying something of a joke, the Twitter hashtag #romneyshambles°.
Indeed, certain details might become hard to pick out of the wreckage of the Romney World Tour, Day One. Jon Swaine, of The Telegraph, in reporting about the "Anglo-Saxon heritage", also noted:
The two advisers said Mr Romney would seek to reinstate the Churchill bust displayed in the Oval Office by George W. Bush but returned to British diplomats by Mr Obama when he took office in 2009. One said Mr Romney viewed the move as “symbolically important” while the other said it was “just for starters”, adding: “He is naturally more Atlanticist”.
Say what? A bust of Winston Churchill?
Well, naturally, after three years of high-intensity Obamanoia from the right wing, one might forget that episode, but Mitt Romney himself is making it important again. Sara Murray explains for the Wall Street Journal:
As he pulled in checks from at least 250 attendees, Mr. Romney also inserted himself into British politics by saying he would return the bust of Winston Churchill to the White House. When President Barack Obama had it removed in 2009 it caused a minor kerfuffle in the U.K.
“It tugs at the heart strings to remember the kind of example” that Churchill set, Mr. Romney said, “and I’m looking forward to the bust of Winston Churchill being in the Oval Office again.”
“It tugs at the heart strings to remember the kind of example” that Churchill set, Mr. Romney said, “and I’m looking forward to the bust of Winston Churchill being in the Oval Office again.”
When President Obama moved into the Oval Office, he included among his chosen decorations busts of President Abraham Lincoln and Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. Naturally, this incensed the hardline right. Glenn Beck, for instance, was furious:
Do you remember when we gave the big statue back, the bust of Churchill? Right after Obama got in. It didn't make sense to me, hasn't made sense to me. Any clues, any clues why this gift from the English after 9/11 was boxed up and sent back? I haven't figured out a reason. Why does Obama harbor animosity towards the British? I don't know. Why would he return the bust?
(qtd. in Gertz)
(qtd. in Gertz)
And Mike Huckabee, incorrectly asserting that Obama grew up in Kenya, rekindled the fake controversy nine months later:
What I know is troubling enough. And one thing that I do know is his having grown up in Kenya, his view of the Brits, for example, very different than the average American. When he gave the bust back to the Brits .... The bust of Winston Churchill, a great insult to the British. But then if you think about it, his perspective as growing up in Kenya with a Kenyan father and grandfather, their view of the Mau Mau Revolution in Kenya is very different than ours because he probably grew up hearing that the British were a bunch of imperialists who persecuted his grandfather.
(qtd. in Maloy)
(qtd. in Maloy)
And nine months after that, the conspiracy theory reached the top of the House of Representatives.
House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) has introduced a resolution calling for a bust of former British Prime Minister Winston Churchill to be placed in the U.S. Capitol, and the House is expected to approve the resolution on Monday.
If passed, the resolution would once again return Churchill to a prime spot in the nation's capitol. President Obama in 2009 famously returned a bust of Churchill that was in the White House back to Britain, sparking complaints that Obama seemed to be diminishing the primacy of the U.S.-British relationship.
(Kasperowicz)
If passed, the resolution would once again return Churchill to a prime spot in the nation's capitol. President Obama in 2009 famously returned a bust of Churchill that was in the White House back to Britain, sparking complaints that Obama seemed to be diminishing the primacy of the U.S.-British relationship.
(Kasperowicz)
The reality, of course, is that the Churchill bust was loaned to the White House for the duration of President Bush's first term, and then extended through his second term; that extension expired in January, 2009. It is said that British officials did extend an offer to the new president to establish another temporary loan, but it is unclear why Obama turned them down.
Enter the conspiracy theories.
Some might suggest that Romney's words to British donors was simply an appeal to mend fences after spending his first day horrifying his hosts, but this would overlook that campaign advisors raised the issue as part of their suggestion that Romney would be a better American president for the British because he is white.
Which raises the obvious question about the strangeness of Romney's campaign this year: You mean he won't say anything to help guide his party, one way or another, through the Crescent Scare controversy fracturing Republican ranks, but is willing to rekindle the Churchill bust conspiracy theory?
Either point on its own says little. The Romney campaign has a strange notion of risk aversion, as seen in the tax records controversy, Romney's insistence that his budget proposal cannot be scored, mysterious foreign policy outlook, and other issues. It is, in this sense, understandable that Romney would want to stay clear of the Crescent Scare, even if, as the standard-bearer of the GOP in 2012, he could lead Republicans out of the mess Bachmann et al. have made. And of course, taken on its own, the Churchill bust issue could simply be seen as an appeal to Britons he first unsettled, then offended, then mortified.
But taken together, juxtaposed in contrast, his silence on the Crescent Scare and willingness to pander to a conspiracy theory that reached as high as the Office of the Speaker of the House can reasonably be taken to suggest that the Romney campaign really is trying to calculate a xenophobic appeal intended to exploit Obamanoiac conspiracy theories that have driven the tinfoil wing of the Republican Party.
____________________
Notes:
° #romneyshambles — The short version is that a British television show called The Thick of It included in one scene the word "omnishambles", which was simply a cute word in the middle of a profane argument between political operatives until Labour Party leader Ed Milliband hauled it out earlier this year to describe the proposed Cameron budget.
Works Cited:
Benen, Steve. "The Bachmann dividing line". The Maddow Blog. July 27, 2012. MaddowBlog.MSNBC.MSN.com. July 27, 2012. http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2012/07/27/12990648-the-bachmann-dividing-line
Resnikoff, Ned. "#romneyshambles explained". Lean Forward. July 26, 2012. LeanForward.MSNBC.com. July 27, 2012. http://leanforward.msnbc.com/_news/2012/07/26/12974537-romneyshambles-explained
Swaine, Jon. "Mitt Romney would restore 'Anglo-Saxon' relations between Britain and America". The Telegraph. July 24, 2012. Telegraph.co.uk. July 27, 2012. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...on-relations-between-Britain-and-America.html
Murray, Sara. "Churchill Bust in Spotlight at Romney Fundraiser". Washington Wire. July 26, 2012. Blogs.WSJ.com. July 27, 2012. http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/07/26/churchill-bust-in-spotlight-at-romney-fundraiser/
Gertz, Matt. "Obama's grandfather + Churchill bust = Wacky Beck conspiracy". Media Matters for America. June 29, 2010. MediaMatters.com. July 27, 2012. http://mediamatters.org/blog/2010/06/29/obamas-grandfather-churchill-bust-wacky-beck-co/166993
Maloy, Simon. "Huckabee The Latest Fox Newser To Promote Race-Baiting Obama-Churchill Smear". Media Matters for America. March 2, 2011. MediaMatters.org. July 27, 2012. http://mediamatters.org/blog/2011/03/02/huckabee-the-latest-fox-newser-to-promote-race/177084
Kasperowicz, Pete. "Boehner: We'll take Churchill bust in the Capitol". Floor Action Blog. December 18, 2011. TheHill.com. July 27, 2012. http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/200187-boehner-well-take-churchill-bust-in-the-capitol
Shipman, Tim. "Barack Obama sends bust of Winston Churchill on its way back to Britain". The Telegraph. February 14, 2009. Telegraph.co.uk. July 27, 2012. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...ton-Churchill-on-its-way-back-to-Britain.html
Really good conversation about the Mittens, starting halfway down:
http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/x8ubw/whats_wrong_with_mitt_romney_his_disastrous/
http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/x8ubw/whats_wrong_with_mitt_romney_his_disastrous/
Ouch!
Ouch! (When you're not doing yourself any good.)
With everything "London! London! London!" at the moment, it is entirely possible to overlook another of Mitt Romney's image problems for a day or two. But that would probably mean overlooking the point altogether, too.
That's about as little of the article as I can give you without leaving out any important details.
For Mitt Romney, it seems to be a period in which his chosen route grates on nearly everyone. This is problematic, not necessarily in terms of losing Republican voters to Obama, but, rather, to indifference. The longer this slapstick goes on, the more frequently and intensively he humiliates himself, the closer and closer some of what we might call—and no, it is neither oxymoronic nor paradoxical—the pillar of integrity, come to deciding to screw it and stay home. Part of the right wing's power has, for over thirty years, been the religious right. Ronald Reagan brought to bear the electoral force of evangelical Christianity. But the Party has long had to balance an insanely difficult line between the swing bloc and the pillar of integrity—the crazy right wingers who actually believe the monumentally insane things they say—insofar as they risk chasing away the swing for policy reasons in order to retain the pillar, but also risk losing enthusiasm within the pillar in order to accommodate the swings. Voter enthusiasm among the hard-right voting wing is a tenuous thing. Certes, there is the Tea Party, but there are millions of conservative voters constantly at risk of buckling under the spectacle of a candidate who cannot possibly beat the opposition. Some will go third party; some will simply stay home. The thing is that for them, Mitt Romney poses a huge risk of being many things they dislike about Democrats; and then there is the additional spectre of ineptitude hanging over him. Ordinarily, it is a question of assurances; with Mitt Romney, the question seems much more unsettling, as if it is the question of what the question itself should be.
It's an interesting turn. Mitt Romney has been withholding as much as he can possibly afford—and more, if we look at it from a moderate or liberal perspective—and this is really starting to annoy prominent conservatives. Whether these media figures are properly responding to, or inherently discouraging, this obscure but vital bloc of the Republican base is yet to be figured.
While the point is, in its obscurity, not the worst of news, neither can it be seen in any positive light. The net value is negative for Mitt Romney. And in the end, it could be a political death by a thousand self-inflicted cuts.
____________________
Notes:
Rogin, Josh. "Kristol tells Romney not to short change national security". The Cable. July 25, 2012. TheCable.ForeignPolicy.com. July 27, 2012. http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/p..._romney_not_to_short_change_national_security
Ouch! (When you're not doing yourself any good.)
With everything "London! London! London!" at the moment, it is entirely possible to overlook another of Mitt Romney's image problems for a day or two. But that would probably mean overlooking the point altogether, too.
Presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney was criticized Tuesday for giving a national security speech light on details, and today a top Republican pundit called on him to stop downplaying the importance of national security on the stump.
Weekly Standard editor William Kristol called out Romney today for what he sees as the candidate's unhelpful statements on national security priorities. Kristol references a Wall Street Journal article in which Romney is said to quote former Secretary of State James Baker saying that President Ronald Reagan decided not to have any national security meetings in his first 100 days as president, after Baker convened one meeting related to Latin America.
"And after the meeting, President Reagan called me in and said, 'I want no more national-security meetings over the next 100 days-all of our time has to be focused on getting our economy going,'" Romney recalled Baker saying, according to the Journal.
Kristol actually reviewed the archives of Reagan's meetings from the Reagan Foundation records and said the anecdote was either false or that Reagan's comments were never meant to be taken literally.
"In fact, I'll buy Jim Baker a very good dinner next time he's in Washington if he or anyone else can find a 100-day stretch (or a 10-day stretch) of the Reagan presidency in which President Reagan was involved in no national security meetings," Kristol wrote. "To say nothing of the fact that he ran for the presidency highlighting national security issues, and was a historic president in large part because of his national security accomplishments.
"So, reminder to Mitt Romney: With respect to the presidency, national security isn't a bug; it's a feature," Kristol said.
Romney's use of the anecdote also upset former Bush advisor Marc Thiessen, who wrote on the website of the American Enterprise Institute that Romney's use of the anecdote shows a misunderstanding of the presidency and the world the next president will inherit ....
Weekly Standard editor William Kristol called out Romney today for what he sees as the candidate's unhelpful statements on national security priorities. Kristol references a Wall Street Journal article in which Romney is said to quote former Secretary of State James Baker saying that President Ronald Reagan decided not to have any national security meetings in his first 100 days as president, after Baker convened one meeting related to Latin America.
"And after the meeting, President Reagan called me in and said, 'I want no more national-security meetings over the next 100 days-all of our time has to be focused on getting our economy going,'" Romney recalled Baker saying, according to the Journal.
Kristol actually reviewed the archives of Reagan's meetings from the Reagan Foundation records and said the anecdote was either false or that Reagan's comments were never meant to be taken literally.
"In fact, I'll buy Jim Baker a very good dinner next time he's in Washington if he or anyone else can find a 100-day stretch (or a 10-day stretch) of the Reagan presidency in which President Reagan was involved in no national security meetings," Kristol wrote. "To say nothing of the fact that he ran for the presidency highlighting national security issues, and was a historic president in large part because of his national security accomplishments.
"So, reminder to Mitt Romney: With respect to the presidency, national security isn't a bug; it's a feature," Kristol said.
Romney's use of the anecdote also upset former Bush advisor Marc Thiessen, who wrote on the website of the American Enterprise Institute that Romney's use of the anecdote shows a misunderstanding of the presidency and the world the next president will inherit ....
That's about as little of the article as I can give you without leaving out any important details.
For Mitt Romney, it seems to be a period in which his chosen route grates on nearly everyone. This is problematic, not necessarily in terms of losing Republican voters to Obama, but, rather, to indifference. The longer this slapstick goes on, the more frequently and intensively he humiliates himself, the closer and closer some of what we might call—and no, it is neither oxymoronic nor paradoxical—the pillar of integrity, come to deciding to screw it and stay home. Part of the right wing's power has, for over thirty years, been the religious right. Ronald Reagan brought to bear the electoral force of evangelical Christianity. But the Party has long had to balance an insanely difficult line between the swing bloc and the pillar of integrity—the crazy right wingers who actually believe the monumentally insane things they say—insofar as they risk chasing away the swing for policy reasons in order to retain the pillar, but also risk losing enthusiasm within the pillar in order to accommodate the swings. Voter enthusiasm among the hard-right voting wing is a tenuous thing. Certes, there is the Tea Party, but there are millions of conservative voters constantly at risk of buckling under the spectacle of a candidate who cannot possibly beat the opposition. Some will go third party; some will simply stay home. The thing is that for them, Mitt Romney poses a huge risk of being many things they dislike about Democrats; and then there is the additional spectre of ineptitude hanging over him. Ordinarily, it is a question of assurances; with Mitt Romney, the question seems much more unsettling, as if it is the question of what the question itself should be.
It's an interesting turn. Mitt Romney has been withholding as much as he can possibly afford—and more, if we look at it from a moderate or liberal perspective—and this is really starting to annoy prominent conservatives. Whether these media figures are properly responding to, or inherently discouraging, this obscure but vital bloc of the Republican base is yet to be figured.
While the point is, in its obscurity, not the worst of news, neither can it be seen in any positive light. The net value is negative for Mitt Romney. And in the end, it could be a political death by a thousand self-inflicted cuts.
____________________
Notes:
Rogin, Josh. "Kristol tells Romney not to short change national security". The Cable. July 25, 2012. TheCable.ForeignPolicy.com. July 27, 2012. http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/p..._romney_not_to_short_change_national_security
Last edited:
Well at least Romney hasn't managed to get any shoes thrown at him yet.
http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q...EF21B7CD0C198A8D33E4EF&view=detail&FORM=VIRE1
http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q...EF21B7CD0C198A8D33E4EF&view=detail&FORM=VIRE1
Aside from Romney’s recent gaffs, he and his staff have been busy cutting and pasting President Obama’s words from his past public appearances and misrepresenting those comments. In other words Romney and his crew have been lying to the American people. Unfortunately lying is nothing new for Republicans.
Messaging Saturation
Joe, I know we've talked about it before. I get it. I really do. But I'm asking you, as a fellow Democratic supporter, to recognize two points.
Taken together, all I mean to suggest is that it's okay to lay off on the whole Mendacious Mitt bit every now and then ... especially when there is something more impressively inept in the spotlight.
Joepistole said:
Joe, I know we've talked about it before. I get it. I really do. But I'm asking you, as a fellow Democratic supporter, to recognize two points.
• Romney's dishonesty is the sort of thing that only has so much effect; it is so frequently an issue that you need to account for the fatigue factor.
• Additionally, I would plead that you consider the magnitude of the competency issue at present. Mitt Romney is a fuckup in England, among the people that should be his political kin. Holy shit. He needs to pull off a quintuple-axel, or some crazy shit, in Israel and Poland in order for this foreign policy stunt to be anything but a disaster.
• Additionally, I would plead that you consider the magnitude of the competency issue at present. Mitt Romney is a fuckup in England, among the people that should be his political kin. Holy shit. He needs to pull off a quintuple-axel, or some crazy shit, in Israel and Poland in order for this foreign policy stunt to be anything but a disaster.
Taken together, all I mean to suggest is that it's okay to lay off on the whole Mendacious Mitt bit every now and then ... especially when there is something more impressively inept in the spotlight.
It Could Be Worse
It Could Be Worse: At Least It's Not London
Gershom Gorenberg notes, for The Daily Beast:
Compared to the London debacle, this is hardly the worst slip-up the campaign could make. But Romney is also boxed in by the water's edge. Gorenberg suggests that "the risks of the visit are much greater than the potential profit". To the one, there is the custom of not criticizing his own American government from overseas; to the other, "Keeping that rule with the Israeli press will only be harder than it was with the British, since Romney's point in coming is to spotlight his claim that Obama has mishandled relations with Jerusalem."
In advance of his arrival, Romney hinted that he would end American opposition to Israel's invasive settlement of Palestinian territories:
Meanwhile, back at home, pollster Jim Gerstein made the point in a J Street conference call that only seven percent of American Jews included Israel among their two most important issues in the 2010 midterm vote. With Obama winning among American Jews, indeed, fourteen percent better than the broader electorate, it's hard to figure who, aside from evangelical Christian voters, Romney is pitching to. This certainly makes sense in terms of maintaining right-wing voter enthusiasm, but is there a broader cost? The tactic, "would have made sense in the Republican primaries", Gorenberg suggests. But, "In the general election, those aren't swing votes either."
In a liberal critique, it is hard to understand what Romney hopes to achieve with his current foreign policy tour. Even overlooking the disastrous London run, which included headlines calling him a "twit" or noting his "humiliating" rhetorical recalibration after managing to offend his hosts, and tweets comparing him to Mr. Bean, it is hard to figure just who Romney is pitching to.
That is to say, even if his London show went well, what is the domestic benefit? Even setting aside the minor scheduling mistakes in Israel, what is the domestic benefit? And while we cannot leave Poland out of the equation, how, what is the Romney campaign seeking there? The most apparent stake is in reviving the missile shield discussion, which Romney attempted to do Tuesday last, when speaking before the Veterans of Foreign Wars. Yet Slovak Foreign Minister Miroslav Lajcak, discussing the issue with The Wall Street Journal, wondered why the Republican nominee is trying to pick that particular bone:
The Romney critique of the Obama administration's dealings with the missile shield—
—might not charm the Poles. After all, while reactions to the missile shield were mixed, the greater portion of Polish society disdained the original proposal. In 2009, a senior advisor to Prime Minister Donald Tusk told Reuters, "If this system becomes reality in the shape Washington is now suggesting, it would actually be better for us than the original missile shield programme." Romney's abandonment narrative does not exactly work, and it is not something he can push publicly while in Poland.
At the outset, the idea of a "charm offensive" wasn't the worst idea in the world. But Romney's dearth of charm and excess of offense defines the opening of his foreign policy tour; it is hard to figure just how he can manage a spectacular recovery in Israel and Poland. Still, though, the show must go on.
____________________
Notes:
Gorenberg, Gershom. "Mitt, Are You Sure This Trip Was a Good Idea?" The Daily Beast. July 27, 2012. TheDailyBeast.com. July 28, 2012. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/07/27/mitt-are-you-sure-this-trip-was-a-good-idea.html
Barnes, Julian E. "Slovak Foreign Minister Chides Romney on Missile Defense". Washington Wire. July 26, 2012. Blogs.WSJ.com. July 28, 2012. http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/...gn-minister-chides-romney-on-missile-defense/
Jones, Gareth. "Poland sees merit in new Obama missile plan: aide". Reuters. September 24, 2009. Reuters.com. July 28, 2012. http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/09/24/us-shield-poland-idUSTRE58N1Z120090924
It Could Be Worse: At Least It's Not London
Gershom Gorenberg notes, for The Daily Beast:
Even before he gets to Israel this weekend, Mitt Romney has discovered the perils of trying to look like a statesman overseas while running for office at home ....
.... It seems no one on his staff checked a Jewish calendar and noticed that he'd spending most of his time in Israel on the fast day of Tisha B'Av. His big fundraising event was originally scheduled for Sunday evening—just after the fast ends, but close enough to spark a public outcry that surprised the campaign, according to a Republican strategist. The event was moved to Monday morning.
.... It seems no one on his staff checked a Jewish calendar and noticed that he'd spending most of his time in Israel on the fast day of Tisha B'Av. His big fundraising event was originally scheduled for Sunday evening—just after the fast ends, but close enough to spark a public outcry that surprised the campaign, according to a Republican strategist. The event was moved to Monday morning.
Compared to the London debacle, this is hardly the worst slip-up the campaign could make. But Romney is also boxed in by the water's edge. Gorenberg suggests that "the risks of the visit are much greater than the potential profit". To the one, there is the custom of not criticizing his own American government from overseas; to the other, "Keeping that rule with the Israeli press will only be harder than it was with the British, since Romney's point in coming is to spotlight his claim that Obama has mishandled relations with Jerusalem."
In advance of his arrival, Romney hinted that he would end American opposition to Israel's invasive settlement of Palestinian territories:
This might satisfy hawkish Jewish voters already on his side. In other capitals, it will raise concern about the potential president as an elephant in a china shop.
Romney also told Shavit that U.S.-Israel disagreements should only be expressed in private. That's not just criticism of Obama; it's a jibe at every Republican president since Israel was founded, including GOP semi-deity Ronald Reagan. Outside of AIPAC, it should worry American voters: Romney has promised that he will tie his right hand behind his back before dealing with Israeli actions that could hurt U.S. interests.
Romney also told Shavit that U.S.-Israel disagreements should only be expressed in private. That's not just criticism of Obama; it's a jibe at every Republican president since Israel was founded, including GOP semi-deity Ronald Reagan. Outside of AIPAC, it should worry American voters: Romney has promised that he will tie his right hand behind his back before dealing with Israeli actions that could hurt U.S. interests.
Meanwhile, back at home, pollster Jim Gerstein made the point in a J Street conference call that only seven percent of American Jews included Israel among their two most important issues in the 2010 midterm vote. With Obama winning among American Jews, indeed, fourteen percent better than the broader electorate, it's hard to figure who, aside from evangelical Christian voters, Romney is pitching to. This certainly makes sense in terms of maintaining right-wing voter enthusiasm, but is there a broader cost? The tactic, "would have made sense in the Republican primaries", Gorenberg suggests. But, "In the general election, those aren't swing votes either."
In a liberal critique, it is hard to understand what Romney hopes to achieve with his current foreign policy tour. Even overlooking the disastrous London run, which included headlines calling him a "twit" or noting his "humiliating" rhetorical recalibration after managing to offend his hosts, and tweets comparing him to Mr. Bean, it is hard to figure just who Romney is pitching to.
That is to say, even if his London show went well, what is the domestic benefit? Even setting aside the minor scheduling mistakes in Israel, what is the domestic benefit? And while we cannot leave Poland out of the equation, how, what is the Romney campaign seeking there? The most apparent stake is in reviving the missile shield discussion, which Romney attempted to do Tuesday last, when speaking before the Veterans of Foreign Wars. Yet Slovak Foreign Minister Miroslav Lajcak, discussing the issue with The Wall Street Journal, wondered why the Republican nominee is trying to pick that particular bone:
"People have moved on," said Miroslav Lajcak, the minister of foreign affairs and deputy prime minister, in an interview with The Wall Street Journal. "We are in a different situation now. We are discussing a different project. I see no reason to revisit discussions from three years back."
The Romney critique of the Obama administration's dealings with the missile shield—
"It began with the sudden abandonment of friends in Poland and the Czech Republic," Mr. Romney said. "They had courageously agreed to provide sites for our anti-missile systems, only to be told, at the last hour, that the agreement was off."
—might not charm the Poles. After all, while reactions to the missile shield were mixed, the greater portion of Polish society disdained the original proposal. In 2009, a senior advisor to Prime Minister Donald Tusk told Reuters, "If this system becomes reality in the shape Washington is now suggesting, it would actually be better for us than the original missile shield programme." Romney's abandonment narrative does not exactly work, and it is not something he can push publicly while in Poland.
At the outset, the idea of a "charm offensive" wasn't the worst idea in the world. But Romney's dearth of charm and excess of offense defines the opening of his foreign policy tour; it is hard to figure just how he can manage a spectacular recovery in Israel and Poland. Still, though, the show must go on.
____________________
Notes:
Gorenberg, Gershom. "Mitt, Are You Sure This Trip Was a Good Idea?" The Daily Beast. July 27, 2012. TheDailyBeast.com. July 28, 2012. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/07/27/mitt-are-you-sure-this-trip-was-a-good-idea.html
Barnes, Julian E. "Slovak Foreign Minister Chides Romney on Missile Defense". Washington Wire. July 26, 2012. Blogs.WSJ.com. July 28, 2012. http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/...gn-minister-chides-romney-on-missile-defense/
Jones, Gareth. "Poland sees merit in new Obama missile plan: aide". Reuters. September 24, 2009. Reuters.com. July 28, 2012. http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/09/24/us-shield-poland-idUSTRE58N1Z120090924
Agreed, although frankly both parties lie.
Romney has been busy misrepresenting Obama's statement that "if you have a business, you didn't build that, someone else made it happen". Honestly, I don't get what fuss is: if you have a business, your workers built it. The people who built the building built it. The people who built the roads for you to transport goods built it. The people who create the environment that you can even have a business in, built it. Nobody is an island.