Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
If you want to see a royal book review beatdown, take a look at my colleague Spencer Ackerman's review of Mitt Romney's new book, No Apology: The Case For American Greatness. This is a first class ass whipping from the very first paragraph:
Mitt Romney's just-published book, "No Apology: The Case For American Greatness," is a bid to bolster the former Massachusetts governor's nonexistent national-security and foreign policy portfolio ahead of a possible 2012 presidential run. But a glance through the remarkable conflation of conservative shibboleths, paranoid global fantasies and deterministic myopia in "No Apology" makes it difficult to avoid the conclusion that the perennial GOP candidate might have been better off saying nothing at all.
He takes aim at Romney's central thesis:
Romney's central contention is that there are four "strategies" for global power: the United States' blend of benevolent, market-based hegemony; the Chinese model of political autocracy and unrestrained industry; Russia's energy-based path to resurgence; and the "violent jihadists," an agglutination of scary Muslims. Trouble in paradise, according to Romney, comes from President Obama's "presupposition" that "America is in a state of inevitable decline." As a result, Romney must warn the nation to continue to lead the world, lest one or more of these competitors overtake America. "[T]here can be no rational denial of the reality that America is a decidedly good nation," writes Romney, or perhaps a third grader. "Therefore, it is good for America to be strong."
Ouch. He hammer Romney for pretending that a bunch of disparate groups with big disagreements with each other is one monolithic threat to American hegemony:
So many things are wrong with Romney's view of an imperiled America that it is difficult to know where to begin. First, the idea that the U.S. is locked in a struggle for global supremacy with "violent jihadists" overlooks the exponential differences in economic resources, military strength, and global appeal between America and an increasingly imperiled band of Waziristan-based acolytes of Osama bin Laden. Al-Qaeda can attack us; it cannot displace the U.S. as a global leader. It manufactures nothing, trades with no one, and has absolutely nothing to offer anyone except like-minded conspiratorial murderers. In order to disguise these glaring asymmetries, Romney has to use an empty term -- "the jihadists" -- which he cannot rigorously define and with which he means to absorb the vastly different aims and ambitions of rival terrorist groups and separate nations like Iran."Violent jihadist groups come in many stripes across a spectrum," Romney writes, "from Hamas to Hezbollah, from the Muslim Brotherhood to al-Qaeda." But al-Qaeda exists because it considered the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt too accommodating of the Egyptian government; Hamas has literally fought al-Qaeda attempts at penetrating the Gaza Strip; and Sunni al-Qaeda released a videotape just this weekend that derides "Rejectionist Shiite Hezbollah." There is absolutely nothing that unites these organizations in any programmatic manner except Romney's ignorance, and the expansion of ignorance is insufficient to topple an American superpower.
And points out the absurdity of the notion that China and Russia will challenge America militarily any time soon:
The comparison between American and Russian or Chinese global power is less obviously stupid than between that of the "violent jihadists." But that is not saying much. The amalgamation of Wikipedia-level facts about Chinese economic and military growth and renewed Russian assertiveness "No Apology" provides does little more than demonstrate that the Chinese are modernizing and the Russians again desire a prominent global position. But the U.S.'s military advantage over the Russians and the Chinese is massive, and will remain massive for decades. In 2008 alone, the U.S. spent over $700 billion on its military. China spent $122 billion and Russia spent $70 billion. At one point in the text, Romney is forced to concede that the Council on Foreign Relations wrote that until at least 2030 there is "no evidence to support the notion that China will become a peer military competitor of the United States." He waves away that inconvenient fact:"On the other hand, Afghanistan fighters were certainly not a peer military with the Soviet Union, yet they defeated the Soviets -- not globally of course, but certainly in Afghanistan."
One could conclude from this analogy that the lesson for the U.S., then, is not to invade and occupy China.
The whole thing is worth reading. I'm a big fan of Spencer's writing and this is a perfect example why. He's able to combine erudition and a deep understanding of his subject with just the right amount of snark and ridicule. And he has the credibility on this subject to say of Romney's notions, "High school students at model U.N. conferences have proposed less ludicrous ideas."
Politics
Comments
Posted by: Deen | March 5, 2010 12:22 PM
Of course, it is hard to tell if Romney really believes this crap or is just pandering to the Sarah Palin supporting base of the Rethuglican Party.
Posted by: SLC | March 5, 2010 12:22 PM
SLC @ 2:
Good point.
Plus, it bodes even worse for the GOP in '12 if party candidates will be taking their intellectual cues from Palin and her underachiever-and-proud-of-it base.
Posted by: CHV | March 5, 2010 12:27 PM
How can you even talk about the future of global power and ignore the EU, which is currently the world's largest economy in the world? Not to mention that without US spending, NATO would still be the largest military force on the planet.
Posted by: penn | March 5, 2010 12:34 PM
'What the hell happened to the option of "peaceful coexistence"? "
Peaceful coexistence with Osama bin Laden will be possible only after his severed head is impaled on the White House fence for tourists to gawk at.
Spencer Ackerman is flat wrong about Obama's Iran policy. It has accomplished virtually nothing. NOTHING. Iran continues their policy of screwing over the United States by moving in slow baby steps toward test-firing a nuclear bomb. Each time one of those steps goes unanswered by the U.S. represents another triumph for Iran, and another show of weakness for the U.S.
We may not be able to stop Iran from getting a nuclear bomb. But if that should happen, we conservatives will gladly take Obama's political scalp as a consolation prize. His administration will be toast, just as Carter's was after the Iranian hostage crisis.
Posted by: sinz54 | March 5, 2010 12:36 PM
sinz54 @ 5:
So what's your master plan on the right regarding Iran? Yet another Mideast invasion? With what treasury and manpower?
Bush and Cheney did an outstanding job abusing the hell out of both over the needless boondoggle that was the Iraq War.
Posted by: CHV | March 5, 2010 12:41 PM
Something tells me that Spencer didn't really have to engage his "deep understanding of his subject" much at all while reading Romney's book.
When I have tried to counter paranoid claims that "Red China" is about to overtake the USA by pointing out the discrepancy in military spending, the retort that always comes back is "Yes, but everything is so much cheaper in China." (Probably true to some extent, but not five times cheaper.) Romney is tapping into a rich vein of right-wing fear and paranoia that is hard to dislodge, and he knows it.
Remember the fuss over Obama and Chavez shaking hands and the resulting hysteria from conservatives claiming that we were about to somehow cede our sovereignty to Venezuela? I loved Obama's reaction to that one.
To put it succinctly, Romney believes whatever he believes he needs to believe in whatever situation he finds himself in.
Posted by: tacitus | March 5, 2010 12:45 PM
Regarding Iran, is it confirmed that Achmed Chalabi was a spy for Iran? And isn't it likely that the new Iraqi government will be an ally of Iran?
Posted by: Naughtius Maximus | March 5, 2010 12:46 PM
And what, pray tell, should Obama be doing? The saber ratting of the neo-cons got us absolutely nowhere, and we already have a whole array of sanctions against Iran that the EU is constantly critical of.
Any further clampdown on Iran -- and especially any overt military action -- will simple strengthen the hand of the Iranian leadership since many of those who continue to protest the stolen elections will be forced to rally round the flag against a common enemy.
In any case, your thesis is wrong, even if your fears eventually come true. Iran isn't going to be setting off any nuclear devices until long after 2012, and thus will not be a factor in the next presidential election -- where it's very likely that domestic issues will continue to be the deciding factor in the outcome.
I agree that Iran is going to go nuclear one day, if they do not expressly change their minds. But I also thing it means squat in terms of being a threat to America. Becoming a nuclear power for Iran is not about the desire to attack America, or its neighbors, it's to gain the prestige that comes along with being a nuclear power. They want to be taken seriously, for their own foreign and domestic political reasons. The Mullahs are not going to commit suicide by using them as soon as they get them. They love all the trappings of power and privilege just as much as the next dictator.
Posted by: tacitus | March 5, 2010 12:59 PM
SLC @ 2:
But wouldn't a book be the wrong medium to try and reach that particular subset?
Posted by: Phillip IV | March 5, 2010 1:27 PM
You all sound like the ostrich with his head in the sand. If you don't see an immediate threat or problem then it does not need to be worried about for the long term. I think Romney is a genius at seeing a problem and then working to correct that problem. He balanced budgets in Massachusets he turned around a corrupt Olympics and had it be profitable and he turned countless businesses around and helped them make money again. I trust his insights much more than inexperienced Obama and those politicians in Washington that only care about their own self interests. Personaly I think those on the left are terrified of Romney and will tear him down any chance they get because they see him as a huge threat to them in 2012. Hopefully we get it right this time around and Romney will be our next President and he can start doing those things that will ensure that America continues to be the strong leader of the world as it has always been.
Posted by: MK in Arizona | March 5, 2010 1:29 PM
Tacitus @ 7:
>>>To put it succinctly, Romney believes whatever he believes he needs to believe in whatever situation he finds himself in.
Exactly.
Romney is a political windsock, and even Republicans know it which is why his recent CPAC appearance didn't exactly go over like gangbusters.
Posted by: CHV | March 5, 2010 1:32 PM
MK @ 11:
Who here is saying that Iran signifies no threat to the US?
The question is how to deal with them and their nuke program considering there are no good solutions, and a lot of bad ones to varying degrees.
Anyone who claims there is a magic bullet for dealing with Iran (or North Korea), and its potential nuclear capacities isn't living in reality, and that includes Romney - whom I regard as being terrifying as a kitten.
Posted by: CHV | March 5, 2010 1:38 PM
Okay, then, same question to you. What do you think we should be doing towards Iran that we're not already doing (isolation and sanctions)? And do you think our toppling of the Saddam Hussein helped or hindered Iranian ambition in the region. And what does Romney actually say needs to be done concerning Iran, if he's such a "genius".
(BTW: even if I am the greatest businessman alive, it doesn't mean I know the first thing about foreign policy. If there is one thing that is certain, it's that Obama knows far more about foreign policy a year into his presidency than Romney will ever know unless he himself ever does become president.)
Posted by: tacitus | March 5, 2010 1:41 PM
@Phillip IV - Zing! Personally, I think the best way of reaching the base would be for Romney to have his ideas printed onto the body of a NASCAR stock car.
Posted by: Imrryr | March 5, 2010 1:48 PM
The neocon saber-rattlers have a real problem with Iran. They'd like nothing better than to start a third war, as long as they don't have to fight it. (I think it completes a set or something.) But they can't come right out and say it because the vast majority of people, including military leaders, know it would be insane.
Posted by: Taz | March 5, 2010 2:02 PM
In 2007 Romney outlined a five-point plan on Iran: "tighter sanctions, diplomatic isolation, coordination with Arab allies, threat of a military response if Iran goes nuclear, and a global campaign against radical Islam."
In a 2009 op-ed Romney also stated: "The military option must remain on the table and that threat needs to be credible. Unfortunately for reasons that are unfathomable to me our government has signaled that the military option is effectively off the table. How can that be countenanced when an ally of the United States faces an existential threat?"
It all goes to the idea that we need to talk softly but carry a big stick. We need to give more funding to building back up our Military because a lot of the problems can be solved if these rougue countries see us as being serious in defending our allies such as Isreal and not a cowering "kitten" as Obama has behaved as he goes around the world demeaning the United States on his apology tour. North Korea, Iran and Russia must have been dancing with glee to see the weakness shown by Obama.
There may be no magic bullet to dealing with Iran but I will take Romney's idea of showing strength any day to Obama's "charm offensive." (Romney's quote)
Posted by: MK in Arizona | March 5, 2010 2:24 PM
Philip IV @10:
Not if the cover has one of our most American politicians and a patriotic title!
Posted by: Tacroy | March 5, 2010 2:28 PM
In a 2009 op-ed Romney also stated: "The military option must remain on the table and that threat needs to be credible. Unfortunately for reasons that are unfathomable to me our government has signaled that the military option is effectively off the table."
The fact that our military are already overextended in two other wars, and thus unable to mess with another country as large as Iran, is "unfathomable" to Romney? That quote alone proves Romney is totally unfit to be Commander in Chief.
Posted by: Raging Bee | March 5, 2010 2:31 PM
...a cowering "kitten" as Obama has behaved as he goes around the world demeaning the United States on his apology tour.
Anyone have that one on their right-wing sound bite bingo card? Remember, the fact that it's complete bullshit doesn't matter. It still plays.
Posted by: Taz | March 5, 2010 2:31 PM
North Korea, Iran and Russia must have been dancing with glee to see the weakness shown by Obama.
Was Bush Jr. any less weak toward either of these countries? Were either of these countries more cooperative during Bush Jr's tenure than they are now?
Posted by: Raging Bee | March 5, 2010 2:35 PM
The book doesn't have to actually be read. It just has to exist, so the author can be invited on television to talk about it.
Posted by: Captain Mike | March 5, 2010 2:38 PM
MK @ 17:
>>>In 2007 Romney outlined a five-point plan on Iran: "tighter sanctions, diplomatic isolation, coordination with Arab allies, threat of a military response if Iran goes nuclear, and a global campaign against radical Islam."
So in other words, Romney has nothing new to offer on the subject because his grand solutions on Iran are either already in place or on-deck.
Posted by: CHV | March 5, 2010 2:48 PM
sinz54, comment 5 says: "Obama's Iran policy. It has accomplished virtually nothing..."
Now compare that to Bush's policy, which actually helped Iran so much by removing - at enormous cost in blood and treasury to the U.S. - a neighboring enemy; the U.S. invasion of Iraq is the biggest reason that Iran is now a bigger power in the Arabian gulf.
Remember the rule of holes: When caught in one, first stop digging.
Posted by: A | March 5, 2010 2:49 PM
"and a global campaign against radical Islam.""
Weird, lots of reactionaries get pissed when you imply they're engaging in another Crusade to liberate the holy land.
Posted by: JohnV | March 5, 2010 2:49 PM
MK, you must be kidding. Give more funding to build back up the military is your answer? We already spend more on our military than most of the rest of the world...combined. How much more would you like to pay into the military? I, actually, am more than happy to fund a strong military and have actually fought a war for this country, but I still find that statement ridiculous and laughably ignorant.
Posted by: Scott Reese | March 5, 2010 2:49 PM
Bee @ 19:
The best US military option toward Iran likely involves a cruise missile attack on key targets. Otherwise, a boots-on-the-ground invasion is all but unthinkable due to US military forces currently being stretched so thin, and Iran's leadership knows it.
Plus, were Iran to openly show off a nuclear arsenal you can bet that Israel would launch a preemptive attack before the US or its European allies did.
Posted by: CHV | March 5, 2010 2:52 PM
I think that when President Bush exemplified strength by not being afraid to go into both Afganistan and Iraq to defend America and these countries innocent civilians from oppresion that Iran, North Korea and Russia were taking notice and biding their time until we had a President like Obama who would demean these efforts. I felt much safer under Bush's watch than under Obama's. During the Bush years our enemies knew that he would take action if necessary which kept things more in check. What do you think they are afraid of now. That Obama will talk them to death?
Posted by: MK in Arizona | March 5, 2010 2:57 PM
I doubt even that would happen. Unless Iran is incredibly stupid (and all indications are that they are not), they will make it well nigh impossible for Israel to take out their nuclear capability without launching an all out assault. And while they might not fear retaliation from its Muslim neighbors, they could easily face Palestinian unrest of the level they have never seen before, to the point of destabilizing the country (or forcing a brutal crackdown that would further isolate them from their Western allies).
I really don't see a scenario where Iran needs to fear any military attack from abroad unless they actually begin war preparations themselves. (All bets are off though, should another neo-con or Sarah Palin become president.)
Posted by: tacitus | March 5, 2010 3:03 PM
Have any of you here even had the guts to actually read Romney's book or do you just go by the rants of one reviewer to get your opinions. His book is not an easy tabloid read like Palin's book but actually has reasoned, well researched ideas. Take some time and use some intellect to actually read it for yourself and see if you still hold the same negative opinions. Dare ya!
Posted by: MK in Arizona | March 5, 2010 3:05 PM
And what guarantee can you give us that the opinions expressed in his book will be the same ones he has in a week's time, let alone another two years?
He can't even stick to the same opinions in different news interviews within in the same week, or hadn't you noticed?
Posted by: tacitus | March 5, 2010 3:09 PM
I think that when President Bush exemplified strength by not being afraid to go into both Afganistan and Iraq...
He "exemplified strength" by starting an unnecessary war, and then letting BOTH wars deteriorate to the point where Obama now has to fix two whole broken societies with limited options and limited resources? I guess that makes sense, if you're the kind of person who thinks indiscriminate, incompetent, short-sighted warmaking equals "strength," even as it leaves our armed services weaker and overextended.
...that Iran, North Korea and Russia were taking notice and biding their time until we had a President like Obama...
This is an admission of Bush's failure: if those other countries could "bide their time," then his deterrent efforts didn't deter squat.
During the Bush years our enemies knew that he would take action if necessary which kept things more in check.
Excuse me for being rude, but HAWHAWHAWHAWHAWHAWHAW!!! Did you read even ONE decent newspaper during the Bush years? NOTHING was "kept in check" by his invasions: Iraq sank into civil war, al Qaeda bombed civilians all over the place, the Taliban continued to exert control over people and territory in Afghanistan, not to mention Pakistan, Islamist extremists continued to recruit and expand operations in places like Sudan, Somalia, Nigeria, Yemen, etc. (can you locate ANY of those places on a map?), Hamas and Hezbollah kept right on killing Israelis, and Saudi Arabia kept on spinelessly playing both sides, raising oil prices, funding extremists, and orchestrating fake outrage over cartoons.
I hate to break this to you, MK, but all that success you're blithering about is a figment of your imagination.
Posted by: Raging Bee | March 5, 2010 3:21 PM
Here, MK, let me explain a couple of things about how foreign heads of state think:
First, fear does not always make them more compliant. It also doesn't mean we can actually predict or control their response.
Second, if it's perfectly obvious we can't do something due to predictable consequences, then the threat to do it won't be taken seriously.
Third, you can't just "act tough" and expect everyone else to drop their weapons and cower in fear. Look at the Israeli-occupied territories: Isreal can bomb the shit out of those people, for decades, and guess what -- they're still not cooperating. And those are places where Isreal has undisputed BOG control. We do not have undisputed BOG control in most of the Arab world (or even in most of Afghanistan), so how can you expect those people to jump through our hoops?
Posted by: Raging Bee | March 5, 2010 3:28 PM
MK - Are you really implying that after Bush got the US bogged down in two quagmire-like wars, draining our money and military resources, Russia thought "we'd better toe the line or he'll invade us too"? If anything, they were laughing. They would be much more concerned about a US whose military wasn't already overextended.
(Or maybe it was just the sight of the idiot on the air-craft carrier who forgot to loosen the straps on his flight suit that made them cringe in fear.)
Posted by: Taz | March 5, 2010 3:32 PM
@ MK: It doesn't take guts to read a book. I'm not interested in reading his book, which is a different matter entirely.
Posted by: Captain Mike | March 5, 2010 3:40 PM
Raging Bee are you serious in saying that Obama had to "fix" the wars? Do you remember anything about the surge working under Bush?! Thankfully Obama came to his senses when he finally got into office and realized that it would have been total devastation had he pulled out our troops like he said he wanted to do during the campaign. And you like to spew the idea that nothing was accomplished with the strong stance of the Bush years so what exactly do you think will be accomplished with Obama's show of weakness? It is just ridiculous to think that bowing and shaking hands is going to deter our enemies. Show me something of substance to show that Obama is keeping us safer.
Oh, and tacitus, it is quite hilarious to here you say that Romney has somehow changed his opinions recently. (Some actual facts would be nice) Obama is the king of saying one thing and doing another. First he wants transparency (healthcare debate on CSPAN) now he doesn't. First says he is against reconsiliation on health care now he is for it. First he wants Gitmo closed in one year now it still sits open. First, he wants a trial in NY and now I here they may go back to a military tribunal. He is great at promising things in a speech but is realizing that the reality is much different once in office. So, please let us not be hypocritical here.
Just go read Romney's book!
Posted by: MK in Arizona | March 5, 2010 3:42 PM
MK in Arizona, #36: Just go read Romney's book!
My usual rule of thumb: if an author's own supporters make him look like a moron, then the book isn't worth reading.
Posted by: Chiroptera | March 5, 2010 3:48 PM
Yea, Captain Mike, it would terrible to actually be a well rounded and well read person and look at all options in keeping our country strong. You just keep on following those same old tired liberal talking points and trash talking our country and see where that gets us.
Posted by: MK in Arizona | March 5, 2010 3:49 PM
So now we have come to name calling, huh? This is what happens when you have no actual facts to back up how your dear President Obama has done anything to help our country. Anything? All I have heard is how everyone else has bad ideas but I have yet to hear what Obama has done or ideas that he has had that you actually agree with.
Posted by: MK in Arizona | March 5, 2010 3:55 PM
Raging Bee are you serious in saying that Obama had to "fix" the wars?
Are YOU serious in saying they didn't need fixing when Obama came to office?
Do you remember anything about the surge working under Bush?!
I remember Bush ignoring, and then dumping, generals who told him, literally before day one, that he'd need a LOT more troops to do the job right then he was planning to send. The "surge" was Bush doing what he should have done from the start. Because he didn't do it when he should have, more Americans -- not to mention Iraqis -- died, and the place ended up being a bigger mess, than necessary.
...what exactly do you think will be accomplished with Obama's show of weakness?
This is not Obama's "show" of weakness; this is the REAL weakness of the REAL UNITED STATES brought about by incompetent, uncaring Republicans like you and your precious Dubya: cutting taxes, refusing to pay for anything, running up record-breaking deficits and national debt, overextending our military, shafting our allies, destroying our credibility, invading TWO countries and letting them degenerate into civil war, letting New Orleans die from willful neglect, and deregulating the banks until they were unable to function when our economy collapsed. None of this is a "show of weakness" put on by Obama. We really can't dictate terms to the rest of the world anymore.
Posted by: Raging Bee | March 5, 2010 3:56 PM
@ MK:
First, I suspect I'm considerably better read than you are.
Second, I'm quite well rounded. I can run, skeet shoot, and dance. I write professionally and fuck at a near professional level. I can cook, change diapers, chop wood, practice karate, sing, knit woolen handicrafts, paint, fence (foil, sabre, and epee), shoot baskets, draw, sculpt, mess around in photoshop, build a fire without matches, rewire sockets, do basic carpentry, study mathematics and imitate brass instruments by farting.
Third, I'm not an American.
Fourth, I haven't revealed anything about my politics to you. Stop assuming everyone you talk to (especially around here) can be neatly pigeonholed.
Fifth, there is a significant difference between "trash talking" and criticizing a path one perceives to be disastrous.
Sixth, Mitt Romney has shown himself to be champion of dumb assery on numerous occasions. He has nice hair, though.
Posted by: Captain Mike | March 5, 2010 4:00 PM
You just keep on following those same old tired liberal talking points and trash talking our country and see where that gets us.
Tha last time we had a "liberal" in the White House, it got us relative peace, prosperity, and a balanced budget. You got a problem with that?
And who, exactly, is "trash-talking" the COUNTRY? No one. How many times do I need to remind you that Republican policies are not "our country?"
Posted by: Raging Bee | March 5, 2010 4:02 PM
He is great at promising things in a speech but is realizing that the reality is much different once in office.
You mean like Bush Jr. promising "we do not torture?"
Posted by: Raging Bee | March 5, 2010 4:06 PM
Wow, I am done. You all have degraded to trash talking filth with not a single positive accomplishment or idea of Obama to back up any of your words. When you don't have anything positive to say about your own guy you can only spew hate for anyone else and their ideas. Heaven help you all and your closed mindedness. See ya!
Romney in 2012!
Posted by: MK in Arizona | March 5, 2010 4:18 PM
MK in Arizona, #44: Wow, I am done.
That's too bad. You and Rick and Lance have made this a very enjoyable blog today. I haven't accomplished a single thing at work today, I've been so enthralled. I hope you come back!
Posted by: Chiroptera | March 5, 2010 4:21 PM
Yep, typical right-wing troll: repeat a bunch of idiotic talking-points, watch them all get refuted, then pretend all he's seen is name-calling, then run away.
...not a single positive accomplishment or idea of Obama to back up any of your words.
"Our words" were not ABOUT Obama; they were about Bush and his disastrous incompetence. Why do we need to back them up by changing the subject?
Posted by: Raging Bee | March 5, 2010 4:26 PM
@Chiroptera: I know! I'm just glad I got my worked cleared away this morning, before I checked Dispatches.
@MK: I know you say you're done, but I'll believe it when I see it. In reference to your last statement, you're simply not making any sense. Stop assuming everyone you're talking to is some kind of brain washed Obamanaut. The author of this blog is routinely critical of the Obama administration's actual failures (of which there are many), rather than the failures you perceive.
Posted by: Captain Mike | March 5, 2010 4:27 PM
It's nice to know that I am not the only one.
Posted by: Chilidog | March 5, 2010 4:31 PM
@Raging Bee
"I guess that makes sense, if you're the kind of person who thinks indiscriminate, incompetent, short-sighted warmaking equals "strength," even as it leaves our armed services weaker and overextended."
President Bush is Bizarro Sun Tzu!!!!
Posted by: JohnV | March 5, 2010 4:37 PM
_I_ accomplished plenty while giving MK a lesson in foreign policy. And I didn't even accidentally paste any commentary into the work-related document (I checked). I RULE, slackers.
Posted by: Raging Bee | March 5, 2010 4:46 PM
@ Captain Mike
I bet you get a lot of interest from your eHarmony profile.
Posted by: Mandrake | March 5, 2010 4:52 PM
Ron Paul is our best hope. God help us if Palin or Romney get the GOP nod, and have an actual chance due to the apparent general dissatisfaction with Obama's administration.
I swore I'd never vote Republican, but if Ron Paul makes it to the hot seat, I will actively campaign for him.
Posted by: kacyray | March 5, 2010 4:53 PM
"There is absolutely nothing that unites these organizations in any programmatic manner except Romney's ignorance, and the expansion of ignorance is insufficient to topple an American superpower."
I'm going to have to disagree with Ackerman on this point. The expansion of ignorance is probably quite sufficient to topple American superpower. At least eventually.
If there's one thing that we can be hopeful about is that no one else seems to be acting all that smart either, at least for now. Actually maybe that's not something to be happy about hehe.
Posted by: Coriolis | March 5, 2010 4:53 PM
@52 -- Ron Paul? The guy who wants to disband the Federal Reserve? Cant wait to see how that works out.
Posted by: Dave | March 5, 2010 4:55 PM
52 - ron paul, the guy who was totally okay with letting racists post in his "newsletter" for so long? I'll never understand why he is mentioned as anything more than an antique.
Posted by: dean | March 5, 2010 5:14 PM
Frankly, this is a simple matter of differing opinion. Ackerman disagrees in a rather disagreeable way. I don't see the big rip. I think Romney's arguments are sound. I would disagree with Ackerman's assertions and personal attacks. Ackerman is definitely not in tune with conservative thought. I would argue that his argument is not with Romney or his book but with conservatism.
Posted by: Lori | March 5, 2010 5:52 PM
MK @ 28:
>>>I think that when President Bush exemplified strength by not being afraid to go into both Afganistan and Iraq to defend America and these countries innocent civilians from oppresion.
This is historical revisionism. Yes, the US was right to invade Afghanistan and go after those who attacked us on 9/11. That's a no-brainer. But don't tell me that he ordered Iraq be invaded to strike a blow for human rights, and free people from a dictator.
That's utter crap.
The invasion of Iraq was about three basic things: a) Oil; b) Trying to politically remake the Mideast into a Jeffersonian-style democracy, and; c) Bush trying to vindicate his father's legacy.
Making people free had nothing to do with it.
Posted by: CHV | March 5, 2010 6:08 PM
@54
I'm not sure he wants to disband the FR... I'm not sure he would even be able to do that, since the government doesn't own it. It's a conglomerate of private banks, and although it's run by the government, it doesn't have to be. He does want to cut all Federal ties to it, which couldn't happen soon enough. And if you've looked at the statistics of inflation since the government adopted the federal reserve system, you'd see why cutting ties to it would be a good idea.
He also wants to dissolve the IRS and go back to the gold standard. But the absolute most important thing he would do is end the most vicious, destructive domestic policy currently destroying America - the modern version of prohibition known as the Drug War.
That's real change, and in the right direction. That's what we need.
Posted by: kacyray | March 5, 2010 6:17 PM
" go back to the gold standard."
Right - because things were always perfect when we were on it, things will get better automatically. what a moron.
Posted by: dean | March 5, 2010 6:53 PM
I'm always mystified by these people who think the rest of the world will knuckle under if we just talk tough and threaten to invade everyone who looks at us crossways. Is that what they would do if another country treated us that way? Or would we only grow more stubborn?
How is it possible to maintain this notion that Americans are always brave and never back down from a challenge, but everyone else in the world is a coward who will back down as soon as challenged? Do some people just lack a Theory of Mind or what?
Posted by: Scott Hanley | March 5, 2010 6:58 PM
Ron Paul the creationist?
Posted by: Naughtius Maximus | March 5, 2010 7:05 PM
No, I'm afraid I don't.
Posted by: Troublesome Frog | March 5, 2010 7:06 PM
CHV @27: Plus, were Iran to openly show off a nuclear arsenal you can bet that Israel would launch a preemptive attack before the US or its European allies did.
Ah, you mean like the US did with Russia in 1949? Or India did with Pakistan in 1998? You mean those preemptive nuclear strikes that turned out so well? Do you have any idea why the US actually has a nuclear capability?
Posted by: Scott | March 5, 2010 7:40 PM
kacyray @ 58
I would be very careful if I were you about getting involved in a discussion in this forum whilst advocating Ron Paul. While he has a lot of admirable libertarian policies, such as ending the drug war, his economic policy is naive at best, and disastrous at worst. Take your example of abolishing the IRS: I cannot even begin to understand how this would help anything. While complaining about taxes is as American as apple pie, abolishing the only organization than polices tax would result in chaos and total failure of the government. It boggles the mind how idiotic an idea this is; we complain on this forum all the time about police corruption and abuse, but NO ONE is doubting the necessity of cops.
In short, try to remember that whatever his good ideas, Ron Paul as a candidate is roughly in the same category as Jesus: his ideas are interesting to think about, and occasionally relevant, but the majority are as fantastical as walking on water and a religion that only helps people.
Posted by: Tamarron | March 5, 2010 7:44 PM
Scott @ 63 said
Dem Nazis!
I'm not very convinced by your examples, seeing as Israel has already conducted a preemptive attack to dissuade nuclear ambitions from an enemy. Plus the fact that it's f#$%ing Israel. I'm not saying I think it's terribly likely, rather that it's more likely than you think.
Posted by: Tamarron | March 5, 2010 8:03 PM
@61 "Ron Paul the creationist?"
I don't care if he's a flat-earther, so long as he impliments rational policy. Considering that he's a strict Constitutionalist, I would doubt that his personal beliefs would affect his policy decisions. I'm not saying I like everything about him...
@64
I've read "The Revolution", I've heard many of his public speeches, and I find his arguments compelling.
Clearly.
Ron Paul wants to eliminate the Federal Income Tax. He's not completely anti-tax, but he is certainly against that one.
I may have spoken out of turn about his wanting to eliminate the IRS - my memory is shaky on that. But I am convinced that the federal income tax was implimented under shady circumstances and should be eliminated.
I'm not saying that Ron Paul would make all the right moves, but I would prefer his approach to any of the other ones currently available. I also prefer his foreign policy.
Posted by: kacyray | March 5, 2010 8:03 PM
@sinz54:
Except that Iran could get a bomb, and it wouldn't change America's dominant position in the world one bit. Iran could get 10 bombs and it wouldn't change America's dominant position one bit. Iran could get 100 bombs and it wouldn't change America's dominant position one bit. Iran could even launch a bomb and nuke Miami, and it wouldn't change America's dominant position one bit, except that it would kill a lot of people, change the attitude of many more, and Iran would disappear in a flash of vapor the next day.
The same is true of the jihadis. America could be hit by 10 9/11 scale attacks in a single day, and it would not change America's dominant position one bit.
I don't think most Americans actually realize how powerful and resilient their country actually is.
Posted by: amphiox | March 5, 2010 9:02 PM
Interesting.
Posted by: Snoof | March 5, 2010 9:06 PM
I am the perfect candidate to be attracted to a Romney campaign. However his performance in the 2008 primary debates quickly disqualified him with m. He'd done zero homework on either economics or foreign policy and his arguments were mere talking points, and failed ones at that.
While I'd never vote for Ron Paul and strongly disagree with his foreign policy prescriptions; Rep. Paul's arguments in those primaries regarding the set of foreign policy premises we need to be cognizant of prior to even creating and then making a cogent argument revealed how vapid both Mr. Giuliani and Romney's understanding of foreign policy are. In fact it was like watching a Fox News viewer addict running for President.
While being a bit stunned regarding the two candidates I thought I'd end up supporting being so completely ill-informed, I had no idea how much lower the floor actually was until Sen. McCain picked his VP candidate.
Posted by: Michael Heath | March 5, 2010 9:16 PM
kacyray said:
The first Federal income tax was put in place o fund the Civil War and was quite popular. If you are referring to a later period, the 16th Amendment was easily passed by the states. It has been amended numerous times since, generally by large majorities in Congress.
So what shady circumstances do you have in mind? The Federal income tax is completely Constitutional. The only case holding otherwise is Pollack, and that was expressly overturned by the 16th Amendment.
Posted by: kehrsam | March 5, 2010 9:19 PM
I'm curious what those "shady circumstances" could be. The 16th Amendment was passed by both Houses of Congress, and debated in 45 states, 42 of whom voted in favor. It's hard to get more thoroughly vetted, and more thoroughly approved, than that.
Posted by: Scott Hanley | March 5, 2010 9:25 PM
I'm guessing that kacyray is one of those who believe that states trump the federal government and the Constitution, and would rather ignore that pesky Amendment that makes the states follow that same Constitution. Why people believe that we would be better off as a confederation of states instead of one country, I'll never understand. But then again, I have no problems with seeing the world governed by one body (ala Star Trek). May not happen, but I have no fears of the One World Government bogeyman. Not saying kacyray goes that far, but I suspect that the majority of Randroids are that way (again, not saying kacyray goes that far either, just trying to make a general point).
Posted by: Badger3k | March 5, 2010 9:25 PM
Wow.
"And if you've looked at the statistics of inflation since the government adopted the federal reserve system, you'd see why cutting ties to it would be a good idea."
No, Im afraid I dont see. And yes, I have looked at inflation statistics throughout the existence of our Republic, yet I have no idea what point you are trying to make here.
"He also wants to dissolve the IRS and go back to the gold standard."
If this is an attempt to make him look less stupid on economic issues, its counter-productive.
"But the absolute most important thing he would do is end the most vicious, destructive domestic policy currently destroying America - the modern version of prohibition known as the Drug War."
OK, thats a good idea. But even a stopped clock is right twice a day. Besides, how is he going to do it? Do you really think Ron Paul can convince 60 Senators and a majority of Representatives to look "Soft On Crime?"
"Considering that he's a strict Constitutionalist, I would doubt that his personal beliefs would affect his policy decisions."
You dont think that being a Creationist reveals a rather large hole in his decision-making process?
"Ron Paul wants to eliminate the Federal Income Tax."
And fund the government how?
"I am convinced that the federal income tax was implimented under shady circumstances and should be eliminated."
Perhaps you could elaborate, because the history of the federal income tax seems fairly straight forward to me.
Posted by: Dave | March 5, 2010 9:30 PM
What the fuck is it with these paultards? Do they sit in their mothers' basements relentlessly googling Ron Paul's Holy Name 24/7 and rushing to defend it wherever it's mentioned?
I don't care if he's a flat-earther, so long as he impliments rational policy.
Have you taken ANY time to acquaint yourself with how creationists think? They're not capable of rational anything. Or honest anything. Or assimilating new information about anything. If Ron Paul has even one toe in that camp, he's worthless, at best.
But the absolute most important thing he would do is end the most vicious, destructive domestic policy currently destroying America - the modern version of prohibition known as the Drug War.
Right. Because nothing is more important than legalizing drugs. And withdrawing from the rest of the world and pretending it doesn't exist. Once that's done, the paultards will be in their own tax-free antebellum isolationist bubble-verse, too stoned to care about anything else, no matter what the human cost.
Posted by: Raging Bee | March 5, 2010 10:06 PM
Re MK
I think that when President Bush exemplified strength by not being afraid to go into both Afganistan and Iraq to defend America and these countries innocent civilians from oppresion that Iran, North Korea and Russia were taking notice and biding their time until we had a President like Obama who would demean these efforts.
Hey, anybody found those WMDs in Iraq that the lying, coke snorting, pot smoking, draft dodging drunk Dubya said were there? I thought not.
Posted by: SLC | March 5, 2010 10:15 PM
@68
Yes. I'm surprised at the question, actually.
I've yet to meet anyone who is rational across the board - in fact, I'm not sure such a person could exist. But to simplify the issue, I'll just point out that the majority of our country believes a jewish dude rose from the dead 2000 years ago and is going to come back on a white horse and lead a 1000 year war against the forces of evil.
Each week thousands of Catholics, who hold good jobs and are productive members of our society (which indicates that they are fully capable of rational though in at lease some areas) eat wafers that they believe are the literal flesh and blood of the same jewish guy mentioned above. Then they go home and lead lives that are otherwise perfectly rational. They feed their children, they love their wives, they fix the truck, they cook the steaks... all rational behaviors. They can read, write, play chess... one even got elected President.
The truth is that no miracle is any more or less "miraculous" than any other. It's no more irrational to believe in the myth of creationism than it is to believe in any other myth. They are all equally unfalsifiable and irrational.
Lots of otherwise rational people compartmentalize a section of their brain and reserve it for the irrational. My father, a creationist, has made many rational decisions in his life.
I'm really a bit astounded that you are under the impression that if someone holds an irrational belief, that they are fully incapable of irrational decision-making in any other part of their life. Did you stop to think even an inch below the surface on that one?
Posted by: kacyray | March 5, 2010 10:42 PM
Badger @72
God forbid that you think I'm a Randroid. I'd rather be thought a misogynist.
Rand was a troubled, tired old woman whose life served as the textbook example of the shortcomings of her philosophy. I acknowledge and appreciate the contributions she made to philosophy - particularly her theory of concepts. But I don't think I would've liked her, and to me Randroids are every bit as aggravating as your average Jehova's Witness.
I've been a Fundy (when I was young). I've also been an Objectivist (when I was less young). I've also been an Amway distributor. As you can see... I've made just about every mistake possible.
Posted by: kacyray | March 5, 2010 10:48 PM
Kacy - "Lots of otherwise rational people compartmentalize a section of their brain and reserve it for the irrational."
And that's the point.
If you have to resort to rationalisations to keep believing in the irrational, it'll effect your ability to process data rationally, particularly data that conflicts with those irrational beliefs. - Dingo
Posted by: DingoJack | March 5, 2010 10:54 PM
Kacy - "I've been a Fundy (when I was young). I've also been an Objectivist (when I was less young). I've also been an Amway distributor. As you can see... I've made just about every mistake possible."
See how you proved my point there? :D - Dingo
----------
"I lost my shirt, I pawned my rings
I've done all the dumb things" Paul Kelly
Posted by: DingoJack | March 5, 2010 11:00 PM
Dingo:
Don't look now, but you have your blind spots just as surely as everyone else, to include Ron Paul, myself, creationists, flat-earther, and cocksuckers like RagingBoner@74.
We all have instances of irrationality. None of us is immune to it. The best any of us can do is achieve some better proximity toward rationality than other. Kudos to you for striving toward the rational, but just try to remember as you go throughout your day that 100% of the people you encounter - people that are behaving perfectly rational at the time - hold some irrational belief.
I'm not exempt. Neither are you.
Posted by: kacyray | March 5, 2010 11:05 PM
Dingo@79:
I'm not proud of my past foolishness. :) I was raised by a family of YEC Fundies, so I forgive myself for that one. I think my Objectivist days more were a response to my fundamentalist family (after all, it's tough to leave a religion without feeling the need to replace it with something, eh?). The Amway thing, I have no excuse for.
I now identify myself as an advocate of reason, opponent of faith.
Posted by: kacyray | March 5, 2010 11:09 PM
@kacyray: And you're still anti-gay?
Posted by: Chris From Europe | March 5, 2010 11:12 PM
Kacy - nice to see that humour bypass is holding up. :)
"Don't look now, but you have your blind spots just as surely as everyone else, to include Ron Paul, myself, creationists, flat-earther, and cocksuckers like RagingBoner@74."
And I said this where exactly? Direct quotes please.
The whole point of quoting Paul Kelly was to emphasise the point that we all do dumb things. I have done things that make selling Amway look like the height of rationality. - Dingo
Posted by: DingoJack | March 5, 2010 11:26 PM
Chris @82
Dude, don't you know that sometimes an insult is just that? No point in taking it literally. I didn't literally mean that RB is a cocksucker.
That would be totally insulting to actual butt-pirates.
Posted by: kacyray | March 6, 2010 1:48 AM
Not sure what you mean. Until this very comment, I haven't quoted you at all. But apparently we're allowed to misrepresent, add words to what people say, misquote, and take all kinds of liberties with what other people say here.
Don't believe me? Check out the "Trading Bibles for Porn" post and watch as wes put all kinds of words in my mouth. Everyone treated him like a hero.
When in Rome, eh?
Posted by: kacyray | March 6, 2010 2:05 AM
Kacyray @77 - Damn, my mistake - I forgot what the Paul fanatics were called and mistakenly brought up Rand (I think I was also thinking of Rand Paul when I typed that). Sorry for the mixup. That's all we need are those kooks also joining the show.
Anyway, can one be completely reasonable and still be delusional in some aspect of their life? Yes, but not if their delusion is all-encompassing as creationism is. It's a really strong form of reality-denailsm that has to ignore virtually all of known science and critical thinking. If you meet a creationist, they're a loon that I wouldn't want to trust with a piece of string, let alone any position of authority over anyone. There's a difference between thinking an invisible man watches everything you do, every minute of the day, and wants you to practice ritual cannibalism and ... er, what was my point?
Sorry - with the amount of reality denial you need to be a creationist, there's not much hope you could be rational period - irrationality of that magnitude tends to bleed into everything you do and think. Why do you think he appeals to the most vile and delusional members of society, such as the teabagger/birther/truther/racist/conspiracy nutjobs? They're not known for supporting rational thought or policies that are good for the country, just their own inbred little group.
Posted by: Badger3k | March 6, 2010 4:07 AM
Ah, Mitt Romney - the Mormon equivalent of Sarah Palin. My guess is that he gets his ideas from his magic underwear.
Posted by: MadScientist | March 6, 2010 6:30 AM
Ron Paul is not just a creationist. He's an enabler of all sorts of so-called alternative medicine and supplements (scams).
Posted by: llewelly | March 6, 2010 6:43 AM
Ron Paul is also an AGW denialist, and he has racist connections.
Posted by: llewelly | March 6, 2010 6:48 AM
The Neo-con approach to foreign policy assumes that all other nations are actually wimps who will cower in fear when America takes off its shirt and shows its guns. While speaking softly and carrying a big stick is a good general approach, the Neo-cons actually like to yell loudly, no matter how small their stick gets (i.e., over-extension of U.S. troops).
For a perfect example of their misguided approach, consider that N. Korea was much closer to developing a nuclear bomb after the 8 years of the Bush administration than at the end of the Clinton administration, even though Clinton was negotiating with them, while Bush took a hard-line stance. While Clinton was negotiating, N. Korea had its program shut down--and the cost to the U.S. of accomplishing that shut down was miniscule. When Bush took office, he announced that he wouldn't negotiate with dictators, and in response N. Korea immediately started up its program again--then kept it going until Bush began to negotiate.
Neo-cons behave like nothing else so much as bullied adolescents who develop fantasies of stomping on all others and making them cower. The fact that it never works that way perpetually escapes their notice. They have cowered,* so they assume that if the tables were turned all others would cower. The Germans, both in WWI and WWII, also thought they could control populations through ruthless oppression, but they never succeeded in squashing the resistance movements. A lesson of history lost on asshats like Romney.
----
*And notably it's the Neo-cons who are particularly scared of terrorists, while the rest of us live our lives without worrying much about it. They put on a brave front, but the are actually responding out of a never-ending, gut-wrenching, pants-wetting fear. They are cowards at heart.
Posted by: James Hanley | March 6, 2010 11:43 AM
KacyRainman:
A misogynistic anti-gay Paultard calling someone else a cocksucker? I think Raging Bee will prolly answer that insult better than I ever could.
James Hanley:
Bravo!
BTW, a nice lady lawyer said this about me:
"That said, democommie's intellectual capacity is vast, as is his capacity for beautifully tended scorn. Like an ice sculpture of righteous snark."
I would ask her to marry me, but a.) She probably doesn't already live under a bridge and b.) I think she's seen my photogravatar enough times to know it's not trick photographpy.
Posted by: democommie | March 6, 2010 5:11 PM
I've been a Fundy (when I was young). I've also been an Objectivist (when I was less young). I've also been an Amway distributor. As you can see... I've made just about every mistake possible.
And you're still making the same mistake you were making before: swinging from one ridiculous extreme to another to another, and never getting any closer to reality.
Posted by: Raging Bee | March 6, 2010 5:33 PM
PS: "RagingBoner," eh? Methinks kacyray is taking an interest in the wrong part of me, ifyouknowwhatimean...
Posted by: Raging Bee | March 6, 2010 5:43 PM
Neo-cons actually like to yell loudly, no matter how small their stick gets (i.e., over-extension of U.S. troops).
The most laughable example of this is when I heard one civilian-militant-wannabee bragging about how our troops in both Iraq and Afghanistan meant the Iranians were "surrounded." I tried to explain that those troops were kinda tied down with other things, and weren't in a position to make a pincer-attack on Iran, but he didn't seen to get it.
Posted by: Raging Bee | March 6, 2010 5:47 PM
No. You have an endless array of insults to choose from, and you pick one that's not only juvenile by seventeen-year-old standards, but one that's strikingly homophobic. The fact that you chose that particular epithet says something about you, either that you consider "cocksuckers" to be vile enough to deserve an insulting term named for them, or that you assumed Raging Bee would not want to be associated with such people. Either way, it reflects poorly on you. Homophobe or not, misogynist or not, I think it's safe to say that you're an asshole. This will be my last communication with you on this blog.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | March 6, 2010 6:16 PM
I can see the campaign posters now:
Mitt Romney: a Harold Stassen for the Twenty-First Century!!
Posted by: ChicagoMolly | March 7, 2010 1:59 AM