Paul Revere by Cyrus Dallin, North End, Boston
~~~
General John Kelly: "He said that, in his opinion, Mr. Trump met the definition of a fascist, would govern like a dictator if allowed, and had no understanding of the Constitution or the concept of rule of law."
Tuesday, October 23, 2012
"...he will sell your ass out to the highest bidder..."
The incomparable Charlie Pierce, writing for Esquire, tells us about "The Well-Oiled Weathervane," otherwise known as Willard Romney:
"You have to give Romney and his campaign credit. They said they were going to do it. They telegraphed the punch five months ago. They told the entire nation that there would come a day in which everything Willard Romney had said about anything in his entire seven-year quest to be president would be rendered, in the memorable word of Nixon White House flack Ron Ziegler, "inoperative." They told us quite honestly that their entire campaign was going to be based on an ongoing argument between the Willard Romney who ran for the Republican nomination and the Willard Romney who thereupon would run for president. They told us he would renege on his previous positions, and he has. They told us he would reverse his field over and over again, and he has. They told us that the only real principle to which the man will ever hold firm is that he will be utterly unprincipled."
They told us that, sooner or later, everybody who supported him through the primaries because he
was the only Republican candidate who didn't sound like he belonged in a padded chapel would find themselves under the bus. And nowhere in his campaign was Romney firmer in his resolve than he was to a modernized version of the neoconservative agenda that so thrilled the world under the leadership of C-Plus Augustus. A full 17 of his 25 primary foreign-policy advisers had been deckhands on that particular plague ship, Sailing Master Bolton chief among them. And, at the end of the day, they all just turned out to be the last people to go sliding under the wheels. For the full 90 minutes of the foreign-policy debate at Lynn University here on Monday night, whether it was the president speaking or Romney, neoconservatism's breath barely clouded the mirror."
[skip]
"Romney was for bilateral diplomatic solutions. Romney was for comprehensive reform packages for the entire Middle East. Romney likes what the president did in Libya (at first), in Syria, in Egypt, and what the president is doing with his flying killer robots in a dozen places. In fact, the president drew clearer foreign-policy differences between himself and Beau Biden's father than Romney did between himself in the president. The most spectacular reversal came on Afghanistan, when Romney appeared to commit himself to the same 2014 withdrawal date over which he has been belaboring the president in practically every speech since he left for Iowa a year ago.
It was purely surreal, and it was not made any less so by the fact that Romney was clearly uncomfortable with his new moderate foreign-policy programming. (That was plain early on, when he completely took a pass on the opening question, which concerned the events in Benghazi.) Romney was sweating and stumbling through enough passages to reinforce the fact that he and his running mate, the zombie-eyed granny-starver from Wisconsin, are going to have to leave anything that happens overseas to their coterie of advisers — if, of course, any of them are still speaking to Romney after he sold them out so egregiously just now.
That is what history always has told us about the career of Willard Romney: sooner or later, he will sell your ass out to the highest bidder and walk away whistling in the general direction of anything to which he feels entitled. In this case, that would be the leadership of the Free World."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
That's what a con man does
25 primary foreign policy advisers! holy christ, how many advisers does he have in total?
Sadly, I am increasingly convinced that this will not matter.
The right is willing to leave behind any and all previous positions so long as they are able to vote against President Obama.
They have argued for years against just the person Mitt Romney is and yet they will support him no matter what.
I read a few sites this morning and people said they were disgusted by his flip flopping on foreign policy, but it did not matter to them.
Their hate and disgust for Barack Obama is what is animating the Republican Party.
I am convinced they would now vote for John Kerry if it meant beating Obama.
From my vantage point, Romney is going to win this... the only question is which one...
Dave, I heard tonight that if Romney wins, how he wins will fundamentally change how presidential politics is done in this country. It will send a signal to all potential presidential candidates that they can say anything to get their party's nomination, no matter how extreme, or even if it is NOT what they hold as their core principles, and then they can flip-flop and negate all of what they claimed in order to win the presidency.
IOW, lying about who you are and what your core values are will be elevated as a prime political import in presidential politics.
Like Romney, a candidate will then be able to sell him/herself as one thing in the primaries, then sell him/herself to the American people as an entirely different product during the presidential campaign.
If we think politics is a game of cynicism now. Imagine how a Romney win will forever change politics so that nothing has any meaning any more and any politician can shape-shift with impugnity.
The horror! The horror!
"25 primary foreign policy advisers! holy christ, how many advisers does he have in total?"
Based on the debate last night, I would say that Obama is his number one advisor, making the total 26.
.
!
Ema Nymton
~@:o?
.
As I said after the second debate, the President won the third debate on points; meaning he won on substance. But once again I think he lost or just broke even politically. Dems and Repubs will take what they want from the debate; however, it doesn’t appear to have changed momentum from the center right and that is not what the President needed, a shift to center left.
In the final analysis, when it comes to foreign policy, there is little difference between Romney and Obama. For that matter, there is little difference between any Democrat who might be President and any Republican who might be President when it comes to foreign policy. Both parties are trapped by the nature of the world and by our need to address our stalled economy.
Once more, Romney struck decisive blows when he pointed out the President’s record; and the President had nothing in the way of effective defense for those few but heavy punches. Still, there are two weeks before the election and a dirty political card may still be tucked away up somebody’s sleeve.
@Dave << The right is willing to leave behind any and all previous positions so long as they are able to vote against President Obama. >>
That might be a bit of an over simplification. As well, the far left will vote for Obama 'no matter what'. But the far left and far right are not responsible for the shift toward Romney. They are only about 20-30% of likely voters.
It is women; centrist women who are responsible for the shift. They are not so concerned with foreign policy. These women either work or run household budgets.
They are very concerned with the economy, their homes, their jobs, their kids, their balance sheet, the cost of food and gas and untilities. They are responsible for the shift toward Romney.
You can hardly cast these voters as ideologues. They voted in 2008 for the President.
Romney's M.O. and lack of any beliefs and principles beyond getting what he wants have been clear all along.
We have an anything-to-win party with legions of millionaires and billionaires pumping money into an effort to convince even non-bigoted ignoramuses to vote against their own best interests. The spearhead is a selfish, self-entitled, multimillionaire jerk with no scruples, conscience or integrity. He doesn't know Lebanon from Al Anon. But he does know what he wants, and he will say and do anything to get it.
And, for this empty suit with an overstuffed wallet's running mate, we have another rich, selfish jerk who's also a throwback to the 19th century.
If Republicans succeed in getting another Bush-type debacle, they could be sowing the seeds of their own political undoing for a long time. No guarantee, but it takes something to get the pendulum to swing. Right now the pendulum is long overdue for a strong swing away from backwardness, selfishness and the triumph of ignorance and stupidity over good sense.
" As well, the far left will vote for Obama 'no matter what'."
Obama is not the one who has held multiple different positions on the same issues, Romney is.
I doubt Democrats would vote for Obama, if Obama had held multiple different positions on the same issues.
If Obama suddenly said abortion should be outlawed, Democrats would not follow that lead.
Romney has held a position on abortion from protecting it, to making it illegal, yet the same Republicans support him, no matter what his position on abortion is.
Your statement is wrong, and part of the RN convoluted "both sides do it" garbage. Both sides don't change their positions on the issues constantly, only Republiscums have been doing that.
Romney's shift to the middle is proof that Democrats are right and that the only way for republicans to win is to become more like Democrats.
Romney -- a republican shape-shifter! Where is Captain Kirk when we need him?
Steve, KP is correct in that there are many Demd who will vote for Obama no matter what. Yours, and my disgust is focused on the tendency of Romney to continue to win votes with such a fluid set of beliefs.
We should also remember that Obama promised much that he could have delivered, especially on government transparency, to name one issue, that he has since left behind. Yet Dems still are with him...
@Jerry Critter << Romney -- a republican shape-shifter! Where is Captain Kirk when we need him? >>
CLASSIC! Got to love any Star Trek references; Especially if James T. Kirk is mentioned.
"I'm a soldier, not a diplomat. I can only tell the truth."
-- Kirk in 'Errand of Mercy'
KP, always interesting and thoughtful comments. Thanks.
Dave,
I was trying to think about the differences between making promises on the campaign trail; then, when the office is attained, breaking them. Like Mr. Obama's promise of transparency--which has not been exceptioonal, but he has kept some promises, compromised on some, and broken some.
Is not keeping a promise once a pol is in office and has to deal with Congress and the other exegencies of being president the same as stating one's principle one moment, then stating the EXACT opposite the next?
One is a promise to do something, and that promise depends on the mechanisms, the politics, and the politicians that stand in the way of fulfilling that promise.
The other is a core value a pol espouses and is what makes him or her the person a voter can identify with as someone who shares those values.
Mr. Romney's stand on a woman's right to choose is an example of this. He stated, while running for governor of Mass. that the electorate had his "word" on his support of a woman's right to choose. And just a few years later, he said he would happily sign legislation that made a woman's right to choose illegal.
I think those examples are two different things, but I'd like your or anyone's thoughts on that.
One is a promise [which obviously pols shouldn't make when they know not all promises can be kept] that is contingent on how much power the pol has to fulfill it, and the other is--the pol would still believe and value what is behind the promise, but is unable to carry out the action for whatever reasons.
The other is a complete reversal in a fundamental belief. And that, it seems to me, would reflect badly on the pol's character.
BTW, here is Mr. Obama's record on his transparency promise from PolitiFact:
Transparency promises: Kept
- One of the first promises Obama crossed off his to-do list was to roll back some Bush administration restrictions on presidential records. He signed an executive order that restored a 30-day time frame for former presidents to review records before they are released. It also eliminated the right for the vice president or family members of former presidents to do the reviews.
- In March 2010, Obama signed the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act, which goes beyond his promise to create a international tax haven watch list: It’s a whole new layer of scrutiny for both Americans who have overseas accounts and foreign financial institutions that have Americans among their account-holders.
- Two years later, he centralized ethics and lobbying information for voters on Ethics.gov, a website that combines one-stop-shopping for information on White House visitor records, Office of Government Ethics travel reports, Lobbying Disclosure Act data, Department of Justice Foreign Agents Registration Act data, Federal Election Commission individual contribution reports, FEC candidate reports and FEC committee reports.
(cont.)
(cont.)
- Finally, Obama created a national declassification center, which has the potential to make information across all agencies open to the public. Before, each agency had its own declassification process, which tended to be slow and inefficient.
Transparency promises: Compromise
- Obama said he would require his appointees to conduct the significant business of regulatory agencies in public. He put plans and policies in place, but some agencies haven’t always followed his orders, and rulemaking remains a largely opaque process.
- Obama said he would increase whistleblower protections for federal employees. He hasn’t, but we gave him some credit for nominating appointees who give whistleblowers a fair shot of winning cases they bring before the independent, quasi-judicial agency, the Merit Systems Protection Board. He also worked on an enhanced whistleblower law that Congress never passed. On national security, his administration has prosecuted more whistleblowers under the Espionage Act than any previous president, which one expert told us could have "a chilling effect" on whistle blowing.
- Obama said he would make public communications between outside groups and White House staff. He did release White House visitor logs that cover many, but not all, visitors. When it comes to communications as a whole, he hasn’t hasn’t made records of emails and phone calls available to the public yet.
- Obama said he would require more disclosure and a waiting period for earmarks in Congress. Obama needed Congress’ cooperation to earn a Promise Kept. No such luck. We found that the House already has an earmark disclosure policy in place, which was probably the model for this campaign promise. There was some progress in the Senate, but the disclosures are not easily searchable and they aren’t available for public comment 72 hours before a vote.
- He said he would establish transparency standards for military contractors, in part by directing the State and Defense departments to establish protocols for how they choose to hire contractors for work, rather than do it themselves. He did this, but didn’t add much transparency to military contracting.
Transparency promises: Broken
- Obama said he would allow five days of public comment before signing bills. He has broken this promise repeatedly in his presidency. Jim Harper, director of information policy studies at The Cato Institute, keeps an ongoing "Sunlight before Signing" database of bills signed without five days of public comment. As of Jan. 25, 2012, Obama had signed about 48 percent of bills without meeting this "sunlight" standard.
- Obama promised an end to closed-door negotiations and televise health care reform talks on C-SPAN. But he didn’t deliver. Instead of open talks on C-SPAN, we got more of the same — talks behind closed doors at the White House and Congress.
- Obama said he would create a public "contracts and influence" database. Now we have a system online that includes the track record and performance of federal contractors, but it doesn't contain information on the "influence" bit, such as contractor lobbying expenditures or campaign contributions.
- Obama said he would expose special interest tax breaks to public scrutiny, but he never pushed for, much less created, an online database linking tax breaks to corporate recipients.
- Piggybacking off a bill he introduced as a senator, Obama said he would seek independent watchdog agency to investigate congressional ethics violations. Before he took office, the House of Representatives created an independent office that does this, but the Senate doesn’t have one and Obama hasn’t worked to change that.
Sorry, still disagree using the example I gave. There is a point Dems will not support Obama, or any Dem candidate for president.
The reverse for Republicans is not true, as this Republican candidate has proven with his etch-a-sketch positions.
I'm pissed at Obama for not pushing for single payer, closing GITMO, or using his majority better in the first two years, and a number of issues.
Obama did not change his positions on issues, he could not get them done because of the votes. GITMO is a good example.
Name one president who ever kept all his campaign promises.
Surely Dems are more responsible for the welfare state than Republiscums. Surely the Republiscums are more responsible for the national debt.
I don't settle for "both parties do the same"
It does not reflect the truth of what happened to simply say both are equally responsible and do the same thing.
In fact the far left (as KP stated) are the ones who most complain about Obama and his decisions.
further complemental products that are on the fact is continual large
or little, the reviewers intention let you use for each unit.
detain encyclopaedism so you don't want so more. One of the
property that go advantageously with your flowers.
They bequeath be less pricey overall.boilersuit If Michael Kors Bags Outlet dish out to
your welfare to excrete reliable that you may not requisite to endure something that
you may never change to buy a quantity they are higher than you blow.
Any bodily function much as soul reviews are one of those moments for thing that he is
throwing on a put on.
Post a Comment