I think we have a winner

Maybe Mitt Romney is too much of a cheapskate to loan himself money like Hillary had to do.

I remember when the husband of one of the candidates surrendered several tons of American weapons to terrorists in Sudan.

Of course, then the Republicans said it was just a trivial “wag the dog” airstrike to distract them from the very important business of an impeachment over a blowjob.

Any suggestions as to Romney’s motive? I’m serious. Assuming a man who could turn a silver spoon into a silver mine isn’t stupid, he must realize what he said is a massive pile of horse plop. I’ve never been close enough to a billionaire to know whether their disdain for honest opinion is so great as to see a whopper like that as a freebie, but on the assumption even the stinking rich desire the good opinion of honest people, Romney must want something pretty badly to say what he said. Any guesses?

rb,

Even assuming Mitt is no smarter than Bush, can we assume that being part of the gang, so mindless partisans would still like him, was sufficient motive to say something so vile? I’m really curious about why people in politics, and people who admire them, are so casually dishonest. Getting something for your trouble I understand, but they seem to sully themselves well past the point that it does them any good.

I remember when the Republican administration secretly sold tons of armaments to Iran, in an era when actual Iranian terrorists were holding actual Americans hostage.

Really? Do you also remember that the hostages were freed the day Reagan took office? His administration must truly have worked at warp speed to get those tons of armaments sold in the minutes between his official swearing in and the hostage release. Iran-contra was a clusterf**k, but let’s not rewrite history.

As for Romney’s statement — this is a preview of the campaign to come, particularly if Obama is the nominee (as looks likely — to me, anyway). McCain will almost certainly characterize Obama’s plan for unconditional withdrawal of all U.S. forces from Iraq as quickly as possible as, well, unconditional surrender.

Obama has said that prevention of genocide would be no reason to stay in Iraq, and correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t believe he’s ever said that he would keep forces U.S. forces in Iraq to prevent Iraqi government from being overthrown by Al Qaeda. So McCain may make some headway with the ‘surrender’ charge.

I would say that Obama’s position on the war on terror is at least a bit schizophrenic at this point. He’d pull out of Iraq, but redouble efforts in Afghanistan and has said he would carry out bombing raids in Pakistan with or without the permission of the Pakistan government. What’s the rationale? Is Al Queda less invested in Iraq than Afghanistan? Is the war in Iraq going worse than the one in Afghanistan? Are the Iraqi people less worthy of defense from Al Queda? Is the U.S. obligation to the Iraqis less than to the Afghans? Yes, the justifications for the two wars were very different, but why is that the critical factor now?

Of course, Obama may well modify his position on Iraq if and when he secures the nomination. And the same arguments would not apply to Hillary in the first place.

“Vlkh wy bck n 2005, skng fr nstncs f prmnnt “cmmnttrs mk[ng] grgs clms tht sbstntl sctn f ths wh ppsd th wr r, n fct, rtng fr th thr sd.””

““f fght n n my cmpgn, ll th wy t th cnvntn, wld frstll th lnch f ntnl cmpgn nd mk t mr lkly tht Sntr Clntn r bm wld wn. nd n ths tm f wr, smply cnnt lt my cmpgn, b prt f dng srrndr t trrr.”

Nw spps tht h’s nt qt syng tht Clntn nd bm spprt th trrrsts”

n thr wrds, y rn’t vn mkng yr wn pnt.

Sk

Slocum- the “arms for hostages” trades undertaken by the Reagan administration took place several years after he took office. You do remember this, right?

Re: 7, 8, 13 and others: We must never forget that stupidity hath it’s complex forms.
Self delusion is a common one.
I heard the clip cited above and was furious, that it equated opposing the war in Iraq to weakness on terrorism and surrendering to terrorism.
And Matt @ 14, it has been suggested and appears possible Reagan’s people intervened to keep the Embassy hostages captive to hurt Jimmy Carter and help Reagan.
( see http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/092106a.html 0

Wow, slocum, that’s embarrassing. Joel Hanes was referring to completely different hostages.

And you know, some of the top counter terrorism minds have stated that trading Iraq for a larger focus in Afghanistan Pakistan IS the best move the US can make, so …

The Iraq war will end as it began, as a republican party war designed to improve republican electoral prospects. The depravity is so galling that most are afraid to even consider the possibility.

but I don’t believe he’s ever said that he would keep forces U.S. forces in Iraq to prevent Iraqi government from being overthrown by Al Qaeda..

This is pure fantasy and as idiotic as worrying that NYC will be subject to sharia law under the global caliphate. It’ll never happen.

Why? Because Al Queda is wildly unpopular in Iraq. To the extent they have “influence” there at all, it’s as terrorists. We’ve seen that Sunni Iraqi and Sunni Kurds have been hunting them down — something that wouldn’t stop regardless of what the feel about the US occupation. And the Shiite majority would never ever let them live either. Hatred of foreign influences might be one thing that cuts across the Iraqi people.

It’s absurd on its face. Might as well ask Obama if he’s coming out in favor of Bush’s Mars Exploration program.

This is what happens when you actually believe the US propaganda that every bad thing that happens in Iraq is a direct result of Al Queda.

Bad people might run Iraq, but bad people might be running Iraq right now, regardless of what we’re doing.

fardels bear,

good point, although, to be fair, Reagan was confused a lot by that point in his presidency.

He might have thought he was trading arms for postages at that point.

Any suggestions as to Romney’s motive? I’m serious. Assuming a man who could turn a silver spoon into a silver mine isn’t stupid, he must realize what he said is a massive pile of horse plop. I’ve never been close enough to a billionaire to know whether their disdain for honest opinion is so great as to see a whopper like that as a freebie, but on the assumption even the stinking rich desire the good opinion of honest people, Romney must want something pretty badly to say what he said. Any guesses?”

Posted by kharris

Romney was serving the GOP’s interest. At this point, he had little prospect of getting the election. His withdrawal pretty much hands it to McCain, with little further bother and cost to McCain or the GOP. He lost the competition, and is supporting the winners. By dropping out now, and supporting McCain, he’s making himself right with the powers-that-be in the GOP.

Bubba: “He did choose to waste a sizeable chunk of his own fortune to carry on adopt the dream of one of the worst presidents ever. I don’t see much wrong in thinking he’s kinda dumb.”

He’s got a lot of money to burn. That monetary loss is nothing which will cause him other than intellectual grief, and the moneycons will probably make it up to him.

I heard another creepy part excerpted on NPR. Romney warned that unless a Republican leads the nation, the U.S. will become “the France of the 21st century [pause for loud boos from the audience], still a great nation but not a superpower.”

This is the kind of stuff that makes the world hate us and think we’re idiots. And they are right — it’s idiotic.

How did this guy ever get elected governor of Massachusetts? His demeanour today was strongly suggestive of this being the real Mitt, someone who truly believes that the USA is under siege with Europe in terminal decline and being outperformed economically by Asia. And also far more up for culture wars than he had previously let on (note the sections of the speech about marriage and the family). He got tagged as a liberal for having moderated some of this stuff while governor, and for the health insurance reform, but maybe the latter was just businessman Mitt seeing that it was the only way to go. So did Mass. elect a phony liberal? And why didn’t he run his campaign as this type of conservative?

If you need a name for the award, try the Tailgunner Joe award. All Mitt needed was a list of 53 terrorist accomplices. He projects the same air of absolute indifference to the truth covered by crowd-pleasing rhetoric.

“Cynicism, sarcasm, orgasm. In France I could run on that slogan and win.”

Woody Allen.

(With this slogan: “Cynicism, Sarkozy, orgasm”, of course).

Romney’s “France of the 21st century” line is old. He first used it in 2005:
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2005/11/16/romney_joins_a_chorus_of_france_bashers/

We had a great representative in Illinois, Dan Rostenkowski. When he was in Chicago, you could call his office, and he’d answer the phone personally– and deliver if you wanted those potholes on your street fixed. Anyway, he got caught with his hand in the till. He stonewalled up till the last, and did a few months in the pen. When asked why politicians lie he said “Most of the time, it works.”

I met Reagan and heard him speak in, oh, about 1986. He was a powerful personal “presence”, to be sure, but he completely blew his speech (he mixed up the 3×5 index cards. Really). He pulled it off by ad-libbing his way through it, but he was starting to lose it even then. I felt sorry for the guy, but it made us wonder who was really running things in DC.

How did this guy ever get elected governor of Massachusetts?

Assuming this speech reflects anything like the real Mitt Romney(which itself assumes there is any such thing) as opposed to what he perceives that the knuckle draggers at CPAC want to hear, he lied and misrepresented himself.

But it’s just as likely that this is simply another case of his telling his audience what he thinks they want to hear.

Is there still time for a late entry from George W. Bush?

We believe our nation has the right to defend itself — even if sometimes others disagree

Before his exit speech at the Sociopaths R Us conference, the press was reporting his staff quoting that he was leaving due to lack of delegates and funding.
We all witnessed Romney’s saying nothing of the kind to his minions while bashing slutty breeding Americans motivated by porn. He never mentioned his problems with delegates and funding…(a photo capture shows him flipping the bird during his uncouth “rant” (others noted his Freudian BLUE tie).

Secondly, didn’t he say that he “suspended his campaign”? If he did only “suspend” he then is not obliged to release his delegates to another candidate, right? Seems a bratty move but considering the parsing of his speech he sounded more like a guy lecturing his party’s base about what they weren’t going to get by not voting for him – his tone was more of a man feeling betrayed.
If my memory holds, “suspending the campaign” was a deliberate obstinate act since delegates are key at this time.

the U.S. will become “the France of the 21st century”

Why not – the U.S. of 2008 is behaving not unlike the France of 1808.

Sadly, the compliment that is this animosity of a certain part of the US opinion against France is mostly undeserved.

The elections municipales are coming soon, though : all hope is not lost.