More on Romney and the Embassy Attack

I liked this summary from digby: There’s a good reason why the country is polarized. Most of the major US daily papers, and an assortment of lesser ones, ran editorials today condemning Romney in the strongest terms. The thirteen different pullquotes really are amazingly harsh; taken in aggregate they’re kind of breath-taking. Meanwhile, in “Bizarroworld”, as digby puts it, an assortment of strained defenses were offered up by people like Rumsfeld and Rush and the various make-believe journalists at Fox.

I’m sure it makes a certain kind of sense for the more extreme elements in the right-wing media and punditry to make the best case they can; their audience is, after all, substantial, and I’m sure they’ll be able to sell lots of gold coins and adjustable beds or whatever else it is those poor suckers have coming to them. But the rest of the country is under no obligation to view it with anything but disgust and disdain, and I expect the polls coming out in the next week will show that they’ve done exactly that.

Swing voters may be unhappy about the economy, but that doesn’t mean they’re suicidal. Romney isn’t fit to lead, and his actions over the last 48 hours have made that starkly clear.

A couple of longer items I liked:

A recurring theme of some of the best commentary I’ve seen is this: In trying to muddy the facts and gin up tribal animosity aimed at Muslims (allegedly) and Obama (particularly), Romney is allying himself with the same sorts of religious extremists on both sides who want nothing so much as to provoke more violence, since their cynical analysis tells them that in a more violent world their own message will win more converts.

Screw that.

5 Responses to “More on Romney and the Embassy Attack”

  1. knarlyknight Says:

    Screw that? But it worked so well for the Bush during his two terms.

    Question for the wwnj’s: Since socialism can generally be defined by how much control is exerted by government over the economy, e.g. how much tax income is collected and then spent on capital and labour projects dictated by government, and Mittens wants to increase funds spent on the military even more, doesn’t that mean Mittens is a Socialist?

  2. NorthernLite Says:

    Can someone explain this:

    Mitt says about the film makers, “They have a right to make it, but it’s not right.”

    The Cairo Embassy statement that Mitt condemned and called an apology said:

    “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.”

    So the Embassy confirmed the “universal right of free speech”, but rejected those that abuse it. And they didn’t actually apologize for anything.

    Isn’t what Mitt is saying now essentially EXACTLY the same message contained in the embassy statement that he went nuclear over? A statement made by people looking out the window at an angry mob?

    So it seems when Romney finally gathers all the facts, he agrees with Obama. Interesting.

  3. knarlyknight Says:

    Yes, Mittens is saying exactly the same thing as what he condemned the Embassy for saying. (Except Mittens also ads platitudes: “We will not hesitate to defend our American principles!” (quoted from memory, forgive me if its not exact.)

    Yes, the Embassy’s statement was composed while looking over the angry mob and was apprently, per Obama, not preapproved as per usual custom with the Administration. Under those circumstances, the Embassy staff should be aplauded for such a diplomatic, professional and cool statement. (Wonder what kind of statement Mittens would have come up were he in an embassy surrounded by an angry mob?)

    No, Mittens does not agree with Obama. To do so would be to admit we live in a universe of facts, logic and reason.

  4. enkidu Says:

    How can anyone look at that statement and think this is some form of ‘apology’.

    I think many folks inhabit a consensual base-line reality while there is a decided human effort to build alternatives to this reality narrative.

    Looks like Kansas might be removing Obama from the ballot. Go birthers!


    knarly, at some point, I’d like to ask you about vacationing in the Vancouver area: in specific if you have any local knowledge of renting a place (mb on islands?) and kayaking around the area. Just a thought (anniversary coming up, and if I don’t want to sleep in the treehouse for a week I’d better come up with something good)

  5. knarlyknight Says:

    Sure Enk… I have lots of local knowledge of the Island, less so of the Vancouver area.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.