The Romney File

[Syzygys]

Well, the purges are going up in flames.

But it didn't stop 20 or so states to enact voter supressing laws. an excellent example of Rep lies working.

On the other hand, is it really such a high standard asking for a picture ID* at the second decade of the 21st century??? Now if poor people has no money for picture ID, I would take it out from both parties campaign vault. Simple solution...

*most European countries have had picture IDs since the 80s or so. I guess they have more money. And it has nothing to do with freedom, with the internet we already lost that freedom.

 

[Tiassa]

RomBot's Past Catches Up With Him; Candidate Would Care If He Was Capable

RomBot's Past Catches Up With Him; Candidate Would Care If He Was Capable

Sometimes ... er ... right.

Zack Ford explains:

Boston Spirit magazine has dug a bit deeper into Mitt Romney's past interactions with LGBT people, particularly during his time as governor. Many of these stories are known: his firing of two state employees ostensibly for marrying their same-sex partners, his dissolution of the Governor's Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth, his blocking of an anti-bullying guide because it contained the words "bisexual" and "transgender," and his testimony against marriage equality to the Senate Judiciary Committee after the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled the state's ban was unconstitutional. But this new profile illustrates a more profound level of insensitivity to the experience of LGBT people than his past position statements suggest.

David Wilson and Julie Goodridge, two of the plaintiffs whose case led to the legalization of marriage equality in Massachusetts, described meeting with Romney to discuss their experiences. According to Wilson, "it was like talking to a robot. No expression, no feeling." At one point, Romney remarked, "I didn't know you had families." Goodridge recalls her final exchange with the governor, which proved to her that he had "no capacity for empathy":

GOODRIDGE: Governor Romney, tell me — what would you suggest I say to my 8 year-old daughter about why her mommy and her ma can't get married because you, the governor of her state, are going to block our marriage?

ROMNEY: I don't really care what you tell your adopted daughter. Why don't you just tell her the same thing you've been telling her the last eight years.​

Romney described the meeting to the press as "pleasant," as Goodridge cried.​

In truth, this tale probably won't hurt the former Massachusetts governor much in the presidential election. To the one, it's gay people, and thus hasn't much mileage among the self-described "independents" of the swing bloc whose primary voting criteria are myopic and self-centered, and, well, it's not going to get any traction on the right wing, so the whole thing amounts to preaching to the choir.

And in that swing bloc, well, the idea that Romney is mechanically cold and entirely clueless about people isn't exactly news. And, hey, he's made it this far, so why would the suggestion that Mitt Romney lied about his feelings (perhaps even by suggesting he has feelings) and treated constituents cruelly make any difference to those "independents" who demonstrably don't give a damn about their neighbors in society?

So it probably won't tarnish the shine on RomBot's golden breastplate.
____________________

Notes:

Ford, Zack. "Romney's Insensitivity To LGBT People: 'I Didn't Know You Had Families'". ThinkProgress. September 11, 2012. ThinkProgress.org. September 11, 2012. http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/...to-lgbt-people-i-didnt-know-you-had-families/

 

[joepistole]

‘The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims – as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions. Today, the 11th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, Americans are honoring our patriots and those who serve our nation as the fitting response to the enemies of democracy. Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy. We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others.” – US Embassy, Cairo 9/11/12

http://egypt.usembassy.gov/pr091112.html

This statement released prior to any of the recent attacks on the US embassy in Cairo and the attack on the American consulate in Libya.

Romney is now claiming that this statement was an apology for the events that transpired hours later. For starters, I don’t see anything in that statement that can be construed as an apology.

 

[Balerion]

‘The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims – as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions. Today, the 11th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, Americans are honoring our patriots and those who serve our nation as the fitting response to the enemies of democracy. Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy. We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others.” – US Embassy, Cairo 9/11/12

http://egypt.usembassy.gov/pr091112.html

This statement released prior to any of the recent attacks on the US embassy in Cairo and the attack on the American consulate in Libya.

Romney is now claiming that this statement was an apology for the events that transpired hours later. For starters, I don’t see anything in that statement that can be construed as an apology.

I think he was under the same impression the rest of us were, which is that the statement came after the attacks. Or he wasn't, and was simply being dishonest. Either way, the way it was reported in the press made it sound as if the statement was made in the aftermath. Of course, you're being dishonest if you say you can't see how such a comment could be construed as an apology. Even Obama realized it can be, and disavowed the statement:

"The statement by Embassy Cairo was not cleared by Washington and does not reflect the views of the United States government,"

Further, the embassy in Cairo actually Tweeted today that it stood by its comments, in effect making them exactly that--an apology. They've since deleted the Tweet, but the damage is done as far as I'm concerned. In the face of violence, our priority should not be to chastise those expressing their opinions, but to condemn those who react to such expression violently. Obama and his administration did that, to their immense credit.

 

[quadraphonics]

I think he was under the same impression the rest of us were, which is that the statement came after the attacks.

Who is "the rest of us?" Fox News viewers? Nobody outside of the GOP bullshit machine ever thought that. You are trafficking in a canard invented by the Romney campaign to score political points by undermining the Commander in Chief during a time of danger to US citizens and personnel overseas, on Sept. 11th of all days.

 

[Tiassa]

A strange way of putting it

Further, the embassy in Cairo actually Tweeted today that it stood by its comments, in effect making them exactly that--an apology. They've since deleted the Tweet, but the damage is done as far as I'm concerned. In the face of violence, our priority should not be to chastise those expressing their opinions, but to condemn those who react to such expression violently. Obama and his administration did that, to their immense credit.

The tweet from Cairo I found interesting is the one where they chastised their critics, and reminded that they can not defend freedom of speech and criticize bigotry.

That a response to an event is disproportionate does not mean the event was proper. And that's what you and your fellow Romney supporters overlook. I actually used to think this sort of apath was willful, but recent years suggest more strongly that the behavior is pathological.

Say what you want about being viewed as a Romneyite, but when you go pitching the FOX News line like that, I'm not sure what else you would expect.

Remember that fellow Republicans were heavy in the first wave of criticism against Romney. Whether we count that as genuine wisdom or simply political cynicism, it still reminds that this whole critique of the Obama administration's response to events in Egypt and Libya stands on shaky ground.

 

[Balerion]

The tweet from Cairo I found interesting is the one where they chastised their critics, and reminded that they can not defend freedom of speech and criticize bigotry.

Calling Mohammad a "womanizer and pedophile" is not bigotry. That Muslims take offense to these kinds of criticisms does not mean the criticisms are bigoted. It just means that they took offense.

That a response to an event is disproportionate does not mean the event was proper. And that's what you and your fellow Romney supporters overlook. I actually used to think this sort of apath was willful, but recent years suggest more strongly that the behavior is pathological.

Here you go again. I voted Obama in 08, and I'm going to do it again in November. Just because I'm not an apologist for liberals like you and your crony Joe doesn't mean I'm for Romney.

Say what you want about being viewed as a Romneyite, but when you go pitching the FOX News line like that, I'm not sure what else you would expect.

From you? Not much more than this. You jumped on an opportunity to accuse me of being a Romneyite in spite of the fact that I've said multiple times that I'm not. This is you attempting to obfuscate the argument again, nothing new. And Fox News wasn't the only source that portrayed the comments out of Cairo as coming after the attacks.

Remember that fellow Republicans were heavy in the first wave of criticism against Romney. Whether we count that as genuine wisdom or simply political cynicism, it still reminds that this whole critique of the Obama administration's response to events in Egypt and Libya stands on shaky ground.

Did you not read the part where I applauded Obama's response? He made it clear that the comments out of Cairo were not representative of his views, and then he made his views perfectly clear. But yeah, we'll just ignore that because it doesn't make me look like the Romney supporter you need me to be in order to dismiss my criticisms out of hand.

 

[quadraphonics]

Calling Mohammad a "womanizer and pedophile" is not bigotry.

One wonders what your definition of "bigotry" is, in the first place.

That Muslims take offense to these kinds of criticisms

Way to stump for the GOP/Romney framing, wherein you conflate the actions of a tiny, unrepresentative minority with "Muslims" in some kind of clash-of-civilizations ideation. And right in the middle of stumping for more "standing up for our values" and "fighting to defend America." All straight out of the GOP worldview and tactics.

Here you go again. I voted Obama in 08, and I'm going to do it again in November. Just because I'm not an apologist for liberals like you and your crony Joe doesn't mean I'm for Romney.

That is exactly what one would expect a pro-Romney concern troll to say. And the fact of you coming here on-message for the Romney campaign and engaging in energetic defenses of such, in multiple threads at ones, speaks for itself, totally regardless of who you claim you will vote for. If you aren't an actual concern troll, then you are definitely a useful idiot. Either way, you're carrying water for Romney.

And Fox News wasn't the only source that portrayed the comments out of Cairo as coming after the attacks.

The only source for that claim is the Romney campaign itself. That outlets other than Fox News would repeat those uncritically is bad on them, but hardly evidence that any reasonable person should regard them as legitimate.

Did you not read the part where I applauded Obama's response? He made it clear that the comments out of Cairo were not representative of his views, and then he made his views perfectly clear.

I also read the part where you immediately moved on from that little disclaimer, and returned to pounding your fist on the table over the original Romney complaints, rejected the President's rejection of said comments, and generally repeated the Romney campaign line on this issue - repeatedly and energetically, without any prompting. You are behaving exactly as a classic concern troll on this matter.

But yeah, we'll just ignore that because it doesn't make me look like the Romney supporter you need me to be in order to dismiss my criticisms out of hand.

The time for you to pretend that you are fooling anyone about not being a pro-Romney activist here is long past. Deal with it.

 

[joepistole]

I think he was under the same impression the rest of us were, which is that the statement came after the attacks. Or he wasn't, and was simply being dishonest. Either way, the way it was reported in the press made it sound as if the statement was made in the aftermath. Of course, you're being dishonest if you say you can't see how such a comment could be construed as an apology. Even Obama realized it can be, and disavowed the statement:

Ah, No. I am not being dishonest. I see no apology in the embassy press release. Please do show me the words in that release that would lead one to believe that an apology was being offered - offered for events that had not yet occurred.

Additionally the so called evidence you offered was no evidence at all. It didn’t validate the claim that the press release was an apology.

This is you yet again demonstrating your ignorance or partisanship.

 

[joepistole]

You are behaving exactly as a classic concern troll on this matter.
.

Walks like a duck, looks like a duck, squawks like a duck, it must be a duck.

 

[Balerion]

Ah, No. I am not being dishonest. I see no apology in the embassy press release. Please do show me the words in that release that would lead one to believe that an apology was being offered - offered for events that had not yet occurred.

What the hell are you talking about? Events that had not yet occurred? I didn't say they were apologizing for the attacks, I said they were apologizing for the offense. And they were. Where the mix-up comes is in the reporting that the statement was made after the attacks, making it appear that their initial reaction to the attacks was to apologize for the offense caused. That they apologized is not in question, only when they apologized.

Additionally the so called evidence you offered was no evidence at all. It didn’t validate the claim that the press release was an apology.

This is you yet again demonstrating your ignorance or partisanship.

Read it again, Joe. I don't know what to tell you.

 

[joepistole]

What the hell are you talking about? Events that had not yet occurred? I didn't say they were apologizing for the attacks, I said they were apologizing for the offense. And they were. Where the mix-up comes is in the reporting that the statement was made after the attacks, making it appear that their initial reaction to the attacks was to apologize for the offense caused. That they apologized is not in question, only when they apologized.

No, you are lying. This is what you wrote. There was no mention of “offense”.

I think he was under the same impression the rest of us were, which is that the statement came after the attacks. Or he wasn't, and was simply being dishonest. Either way, the way it was reported in the press made it sound as if the statement was made in the aftermath. Of course, you're being dishonest if you say you can't see how such a comment could be construed as an apology. Even Obama realized it can be, and disavowed the statement:



Further, the embassy in Cairo actually Tweeted today that it stood by its comments, in effect making them exactly that--an apology. They've since deleted the Tweet, but the damage is done as far as I'm concerned. In the face of violence, our priority should not be to chastise those expressing their opinions, but to condemn those who react to such expression violently. Obama and his administration did that, to their immense credit.

http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2...of-libya-reaction-still-doesnt-make-sense.php

The embassy’s press release was a statement of American values. It was not an apology as Romney and you are claiming. The bottom line here is that the embassy’s press release can in no way be honestly construed as an apology as you and Romney have done. Romney has issued another lie and so have you.

Read it again, Joe. I don't know what to tell you.

How about some truth for a change?

 

[Tiassa]

Another way to travel

The time for you to pretend that you are fooling anyone about not being a pro-Romney activist here is long past. Deal with it.

We do owe Balerion some consideration; I tagged him as a Romneyite in order to make a point.

The problem I have with certain forms of "nonpartisan" or "independent" politicking is that very often these allegedly fair and balanced people leave their thumbs on the scales. In this sense, the rush to be "fair", as such, results in granting one side of a dispute too much weight in order to make the arguments "equal" according to subjective criteria. They're trying to plus-one, minus-one equally, which results in a strange form of quota by which a dishonest or inaccurate construction is measured as equal to a factually correct one.

The phenomenon seems to derive from the idea that balance is to grant an equal number of positive and negative considerations to the argument regardless of merit. That is, to constantly point out the faults of the one without maching to the faults of the other is unfair. In other words, we might as well say evolution is just a theory no more or less viable than intelligent design. You know, as in setting aside facts and inflating the credibility of intellectual excrement in order to be "fair".

It could easily be that our neighbor does not recognize that he appears to be making this mistake.

 

[Balerion]

We do owe Balerion some consideration; I tagged him as a Romneyite in order to make a point.

The problem I have with certain forms of "nonpartisan" or "independent" politicking is that very often these allegedly fair and balanced people leave their thumbs on the scales. In this sense, the rush to be "fair", as such, results in granting one side of a dispute too much weight in order to make the arguments "equal" according to subjective criteria. They're trying to plus-one, minus-one equally, which results in a strange form of quota by which a dishonest or inaccurate construction is measured as equal to a factually correct one.

The phenomenon seems to derive from the idea that balance is to grant an equal number of positive and negative considerations to the argument regardless of merit. That is, to constantly point out the faults of the one without maching to the faults of the other is unfair. In other words, we might as well say evolution is just a theory no more or less viable than intelligent design. You know, as in setting aside facts and inflating the credibility of intellectual excrement in order to be "fair".

It could easily be that our neighbor does not recognize that he appears to be making this mistake.

Well, if it comes off that way, it isn't my intention. I loathe the kind of thinking that requires one bad thing to be said about each side for any point to be valid (ie - "Bush's tax cuts were unfair" is not valid unless I also say "Clinton's DOMA was a setback in the struggle for gay civil rights"), and I'm certainly not attempting to engage in such a discussion here, either. I frankly don't know how this is even applicable to the subject at hand. I don't know who in the embassy made that statement, and I don't care. I applauded the president for his comments, and suggested that Romney was being dishonest. Where is the balanced score sheet in this case?

You calling me a Romneyite is just plain lazy. Whether you believe I'm a liberal or not (the one thing I do try to say for myself is that I'm a liberal rather than a Democrat), I"ve given no cause for you to believe I'm for Romney. I don't defend him. I disagree with his positions. Where you and I clash is that I don't pretend that my side does no wrong. Perhaps you don't realize you protect your boys like they're your children, but you do. Perhaps you don't realize that the left gets it wrong, but they do. No, "the left" is not so organized and willing to sacrifice integrity as the right is--no one denies the right is a machine--but that isn't to say there's no left and that people within it don't play the game just like anyone else.

 

[joepistole]

Well, if it comes off that way, it isn't my intention. I loathe the kind of thinking that requires one bad thing to be said about each side for any point to be valid (ie - "Bush's tax cuts were unfair" is not valid unless I also say "Clinton's DOMA was a setback in the struggle for gay civil rights"), and I'm certainly not attempting to engage in such a discussion here, either. I frankly don't know how this is even applicable to the subject at hand. I don't know who in the embassy made that statement, and I don't care. I applauded the president for his comments, and suggested that Romney was being dishonest. Where is the balanced score sheet in this case?

You calling me a Romneyite is just plain lazy. Whether you believe I'm a liberal or not (the one thing I do try to say for myself is that I'm a liberal rather than a Democrat), I"ve given no cause for you to believe I'm for Romney. I don't defend him. I disagree with his positions. Where you and I clash is that I don't pretend that my side does no wrong. Perhaps you don't realize you protect your boys like they're your children, but you do. Perhaps you don't realize that the left gets it wrong, but they do. No, "the left" is not so organized and willing to sacrifice integrity as the right is--no one denies the right is a machine--but that isn't to say there's no left and that people within it don't play the game just like anyone else.

It that is so why are you making excuses for Romney? Why are you lying in order to support Romney?

 

[Balerion]

It that is so why are you making excuses for Romney? Why are you lying in order to support Romney?

What excuses? What lies?

 

[joepistole]

What excuses? What lies?

Yeah what excuses, what lies?

 

[quadraphonics]

We do owe Balerion some consideration; I tagged him as a Romneyite in order to make a point.

[...]

It could easily be that our neighbor does not recognize that he appears to be making this mistake.

I explicitly included exactly such consideration in the post you responded to there:

If you aren't an actual concern troll, then you are definitely a useful idiot. Either way, you're carrying water for Romney.

To that: frankly I find the concern troll interpretation to be more charitable.

 

[quadraphonics]

I applauded the president for his comments, and suggested that Romney was being dishonest. Where is the balanced score sheet in this case?

If that was the sum total of what you'd said, there would be no issue. But the fact is that that portion of your output was marginal, and seems to be nothing more than a cheap disclaimer that you can point to when people call you on going on to energetically hew to the Romney line over several subsequent posts in multiple different threads.

I"ve given no cause for you to believe I'm for Romney.

Other than all of the ones that people have been pointing out as the basis for their observation that you are very clearly and energetically pushing exactly the Romney campaign's rhetoric on this issue, you mean.

I don't defend him. I disagree with his positions.

On this matter you have energetically, and without prompting, defended exactly Romney and his precise positions. That is why people are observing that you are carrying water for Romney.

Where you and I clash is that I don't pretend that my side does no wrong.

Standard conservative concern troll rhetoric. You're just digging yourself in deeper with this stuff.

 

[quadraphonics]

I didn't say they were apologizing for the attacks, I said they were apologizing for the offense. And they were.

Here's the statement in question:

The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims – as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions. Today, the 11th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, Americans are honoring our patriots and those who serve our nation as the fitting response to the enemies of democracy. Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy. We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others

I do not see any "apology" in there - it's a condemnation of the shitheads who made this movie in order to offend people, along with a reiteration of American values.

That said, I see little problem with the prospect of apologizing for deliberately offensive provocations targetted at the population of the country this embassy serves, in the first place. The main problem being that such would imply some responsibility for such on the part of the US government, which there is none.

Moreover, what is the point of the embassy getting into an outrage contest with the provocateurs whipping up anti-American sentiment in Egypt and elsewhere? That's not in our national interest.