Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Have you used European healthcare???
No lies. It's the absolute truth. And the articles you read about how the U.S. spends the most money than every other nation on healthcare yet we get a SUCK system for that money for most of us but the rich, are absolutely CORRECT!
I doubt if you do know any otherwise you wouldn't be saying the things you do...
It is absolutely the TRUTH. Do you know European heathcare and yearly physical exams?? I know European healthcare. I used European healthcare. And I've used corporate U.S. healthcare. And our healthcare system, unless you pay for it from your pocket through the nose, SUCKS SUCKS SUCKS... there is no preventive care worth sh*t.... and is not just 3rd world country level... it's 4th... it sucks... and we pay for SUCK healthcare system, more than anyone in the world...
U.S. healthcare SUCKS, unless you have money...
Do you even know any people at the poverty level? How about anyone making 35K-40K a year? Well do you??
Who did you vote for in 2004???
Yes I lived in Europe and yes I know people in Europe.
>>>You are so clueless.
Yes you are.
How is that good for starting new business and creating new jobs??? Are Republicans now against job creation???
Nope. It's in the mind of big time conservatives and tea partiers too. Romney is a worthless clueless POS...
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=79598104
You do realize Bernanke was originally appointed by GW Bush and approved by GOP, don't you?...where was all this whining then?
Nope. These companies could hire massive amounts of people, but they are in bed instead with the GOP traitors...
U.S. has 3rd world healthcare for the majority of Americans. Only the rich get 1st class healthcare. The rest of Americans get no healthcare till they are in an emergency room. In Europe you get first class healthcare irrelevant if you are poor class, middle class, or upper class. Not here.
Corporate profits are highest EVER! And corporate bank accounts are massively filled with money... never in the history of the world has U.S. companies owned so much wealth.... EVER! And are going to get even more after Bernanke's pump Thursday....
Bryan Fischer, a big time conservative, Slams Mitt Romney's 'Lackluster Campaign'
Posted: 09/14/2012 1:22 pm Updated: 09/14/2012 5:08 pm
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/14/bryan-fischer-mitt-romney-campaign_n_1884625.html?ref=topbar
WASHINGTON -- Bryan Fischer, of the American Family Association, a conservative Christian group, slammed Mitt Romney on Friday for running a “lackluster campaign” void of any ideas and accused the campaign of “putting a bag over” vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan’s head.
“Mitt Romney right now should be leading by 10 or 15 points and the fact that he’s not is Mitt Romney’s problem,” Fischer told reporters at the Values Voter Summit in Washington, D.C. “It’s because he’s running such a lackluster campaign that has been so vague on ideas. What plan is he offering the American people?”
The host of the talk radio show "Focal Point" went on to say that the Republican Party’s conservative base lit up upon Ryan’s appointment to the presidential ticket. But instead of embracing the Wisconsin congressman’s vision and ideas, the Romney campaign chose to “put a sock in Paul Ryan’s mouth.”
“The biggest mistake is they put a bag over Paul Ryan’s head,” Fischer said, responding to a question from The Huffington Post on where the Romney campaign had gone wrong. “That’s the biggest mistake they made -- they put a sock in Paul Ryan’s mouth.
“When he came on board there was tremendous energy from the grassroots,” he continued. “It was the Ryan-Romney ticket. If it was still the Romney-Ryan ticket -- if he was still given the opportunity to be Paul Ryan -- I think they would be a hit.”
Conservatives have long criticized the Republican presidential nominee for running a campaign as nothing more than the “anti-Obama.” That seemingly changed when Romney announced Ryan as his VP, promising to change the course to a “substantive policy debate” and sparking what at first appeared to be a major shift in momentum.
But instead of engaging in a robust discussion on Ryan’s "path to prosperity," detailed in his controversial budget plan, the Romney campaign has mostly pushed the House Budget Committee chairman to adopt Romney talking points based squarely on President Barack Obama’s own shortcomings.
That decision, coupled with a refusal to talk about social issues, according to Fischer, is what has put Romney in a vulnerable spot, struggling to combat the president’s growing lead across key swing states.
Fischer said the extent of the Romney campaign’s control over what Ryan can and cannot express was evident in the vice presidential nominee’s speech before the summit Friday afternoon. Though Ryan’s speech was emphatically received by the crowd, Fischer criticized him for leaving out the one issue that matters most to the pro-family constituency: the sanctity of marriage.
“I was deeply disappointed today that Paul Ryan did not say one single solitary word about marriage. That disturbs me a lot,” Fischer said. “This is the safest place in America to talk about the institution of marriage, and he didn’t do it,” he said, noting that Ryan must have received “some kind of directive” from the top of the Romney campaign to not try and tackle gay marriage.
“If they won’t send a solid clear unambiguous message on social issues how do they expect to engage the pro-family community?” Fischer asked.
Ryan did, in fact, tout Romney's credentials on the issue of marriage during his speech -- but he stopped short of explicitly defining marriage as between a man and a woman, though Romney has repeatedly stated his opposition to gay marriage and civil unions.
“He’s solid and trustworthy, faithful and honorable," Ryan said of Romney. "Not only a defender of marriage, he offers an example of marriage at its best.”
Asked by HuffPost what Romney can do facing an uphill battle with the election just 53 days away, Fischer struggled to find his words.
“The question that conservative voters are asking: What does Mitt Romney stand for?” he said. “We know what Paul Ryan stands for. That’s why we were excited when he came on board, but the question remains what does Mitt Romney stand for.”
“Take the bag off of Paul Ryan’s head,” he added.
Fischer also stated that should Romney lose in November, conservatives “will be done ... finished.” In such a case, he called for the GOP to immediately get behind Rick Perry and start planning for 2016.
“If Barack Obama wins this election, the Republican Party as we know it is finished,” Fischer said. “It is dead, it is toast, you can stick a fork in it.”
Bryan Fischer, a big time conservative, Slams Mitt Romney's 'Lackluster Campaign'
Posted: 09/14/2012 1:22 pm Updated: 09/14/2012 5:08 pm
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/14/bryan-fischer-mitt-romney-campaign_n_1884625.html?ref=topbar
WASHINGTON -- Bryan Fischer, of the American Family Association, a conservative Christian group, slammed Mitt Romney on Friday for running a “lackluster campaign” void of any ideas and accused the campaign of “putting a bag over” vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan’s head.
“Mitt Romney right now should be leading by 10 or 15 points and the fact that he’s not is Mitt Romney’s problem,” Fischer told reporters at the Values Voter Summit in Washington, D.C. “It’s because he’s running such a lackluster campaign that has been so vague on ideas. What plan is he offering the American people?”
The host of the talk radio show "Focal Point" went on to say that the Republican Party’s conservative base lit up upon Ryan’s appointment to the presidential ticket. But instead of embracing the Wisconsin congressman’s vision and ideas, the Romney campaign chose to “put a sock in Paul Ryan’s mouth.”
“The biggest mistake is they put a bag over Paul Ryan’s head,” Fischer said, responding to a question from The Huffington Post on where the Romney campaign had gone wrong. “That’s the biggest mistake they made -- they put a sock in Paul Ryan’s mouth.
“When he came on board there was tremendous energy from the grassroots,” he continued. “It was the Ryan-Romney ticket. If it was still the Romney-Ryan ticket -- if he was still given the opportunity to be Paul Ryan -- I think they would be a hit.”
Conservatives have long criticized the Republican presidential nominee for running a campaign as nothing more than the “anti-Obama.” That seemingly changed when Romney announced Ryan as his VP, promising to change the course to a “substantive policy debate” and sparking what at first appeared to be a major shift in momentum.
But instead of engaging in a robust discussion on Ryan’s "path to prosperity," detailed in his controversial budget plan, the Romney campaign has mostly pushed the House Budget Committee chairman to adopt Romney talking points based squarely on President Barack Obama’s own shortcomings.
That decision, coupled with a refusal to talk about social issues, according to Fischer, is what has put Romney in a vulnerable spot, struggling to combat the president’s growing lead across key swing states.
Fischer said the extent of the Romney campaign’s control over what Ryan can and cannot express was evident in the vice presidential nominee’s speech before the summit Friday afternoon. Though Ryan’s speech was emphatically received by the crowd, Fischer criticized him for leaving out the one issue that matters most to the pro-family constituency: the sanctity of marriage.
“I was deeply disappointed today that Paul Ryan did not say one single solitary word about marriage. That disturbs me a lot,” Fischer said. “This is the safest place in America to talk about the institution of marriage, and he didn’t do it,” he said, noting that Ryan must have received “some kind of directive” from the top of the Romney campaign to not try and tackle gay marriage.
“If they won’t send a solid clear unambiguous message on social issues how do they expect to engage the pro-family community?” Fischer asked.
Ryan did, in fact, tout Romney's credentials on the issue of marriage during his speech -- but he stopped short of explicitly defining marriage as between a man and a woman, though Romney has repeatedly stated his opposition to gay marriage and civil unions.
“He’s solid and trustworthy, faithful and honorable," Ryan said of Romney. "Not only a defender of marriage, he offers an example of marriage at its best.”
Asked by HuffPost what Romney can do facing an uphill battle with the election just 53 days away, Fischer struggled to find his words.
“The question that conservative voters are asking: What does Mitt Romney stand for?” he said. “We know what Paul Ryan stands for. That’s why we were excited when he came on board, but the question remains what does Mitt Romney stand for.”
“Take the bag off of Paul Ryan’s head,” he added.
Fischer also stated that should Romney lose in November, conservatives “will be done ... finished.” In such a case, he called for the GOP to immediately get behind Rick Perry and start planning for 2016.
“If Barack Obama wins this election, the Republican Party as we know it is finished,” Fischer said. “It is dead, it is toast, you can stick a fork in it.”
Middle class is a 15 year blue color worker. A 15 year doctor or lawyer is not middle class.
Many doctors and lawyers pull 7 digit income. I know enough of them for that to be true. His post included "doctor and lawyers" and middle class. Shows how out of touch Republicans are. Just as out of touch as clueless POS Romney.
Middle class are doctors and lawyers with 7digit incomes??? ROTFLMFAO..... too funny....
Thanks for not answering...
So is your answer that all U.S. $40K workers should move out of the county???
Romney is a clueless POS.... he keeps proving it over and over and over...
And if it doesn't?? Would you agree with it?
Tell that to a $40K blue color worker...
If 200K-250K is middle class income, what is 150K?? or 100K?? Romney is a clueless POS....
So $199,999 is now low income??? Sorry to break it to you but Romney is a clueless POS....
BREAKING..Wisconsin Collective Bargaining Law Struck Down By County Judge
By SCOTT BAUER 09/14/12 07:46 PM ET
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/14/wisconsin-collective-bargaining-law_n_1885601.html
MADISON, Wis. — A Wisconsin judge on Friday struck down nearly all of the state law championed by Gov. Scott Walker that effectively ended collective bargaining rights for most public workers.
Walker's administration immediately vowed to appeal, while unions, which have vigorously fought the law, declared victory. But what the ruling meant for existing public contracts was murky: Unions claimed the ruling meant they could negotiate again, but Walker could seek to keep the law in effect while the legal drama plays out.
The law, a crowning achievement for Walker that made him a national conservative star, took away nearly all collective bargaining rights from most workers and has been in effect for more than a year.
Dane County Circuit Judge Juan Colas ruled that the law violates both the state and U.S. Constitution and is null and void.
In his 27-page ruling, the judge said sections of the law "single out and encumber the rights of those employees who choose union membership and representation solely because of that association and therefore infringe upon the rights of free speech and association guaranteed by both the Wisconsin and United States Constitutions."
Colas also said the law violates the equal protection clause by creating separate classes of workers who are treated differently and unequally.
The ruling applies to all local public workers affected by the law, including teachers and city and county government employees, but not those who work for the state. They were not a party to the lawsuit, which was brought by a Madison teachers union and a Milwaukee public workers union.
Walker issued a statement accusing the judge of being a "liberal activist" who "wants to go backwards and take away the lawmaking responsibilities of the legislature and the governor. We are confident that the state will ultimately prevail in the appeals process."
Wisconsin Department of Justice spokeswoman Dana Brueck said DOJ believes the law is constitutional.
The ruling throws into question changes that have been made in pay, benefits and other work rules in place across the state for city, county and school district workers.
Walker's law, passed in March 2011, only allowed for collective bargaining on wage increases no greater than the rate of inflation. All other issues, including workplace safety, vacation, health benefits, could no longer be bargained for.
The ruling means that local government and schools now must once again bargain over those issues, said Lester Pines, an attorney for Madison Teachers Inc. that brought the case.
"We're back to where we were before the law was enacted," he said.
Pines predicted the case would ultimately be resolved by the state Supreme Court.
"What's going to happen in the interim is unknown," he said.
The state Supreme Court in June 2011 ruled that the law was constitutional after it had been blocked by a different Dane County judge on a challenge over its passage being a violation of open meetings law.
Walker introduced the proposal in February 2011, six weeks after he took office. It resulted in a firestorm of opposition and led to huge protests at the state Capitol that lasted for weeks. All 14 Democratic state senators fled the state to Illinois for three weeks in an ultimately failed attempt to stop the law's passage from the Republican-controlled Legislature.
The law required public workers to pay more for their health insurance and pension benefits at the same time it took away their ability to collectively bargain over those issues. Walker argued the changes were needed to help state and local governments save money at a time Wisconsin faced a $3 billion budget shortfall.
Anger over the law's passage led to an effort to recall Walker from office. More than 930,000 signatures were collected triggering the June recall election. Walker won and became the first governor in U.S. history to survive a recall.
The lawsuit was among several filed against the law.
A coalition of unions filed a federal lawsuit in Madison in June 2011, arguing that the law violated the U.S. Constitution's equal protection clause because it exempted firefighters and police officers. A federal just upheld most of the law in March, but the rulings are under appeal.
Another lawsuit was filed in July 2011 by two unions representing about 2,700 public workers in Madison and Dane County. They also challenged the law on equal protection grounds. The case is pending.
Democrats and unions were ecstatic with Friday's ruling.
"As we have said from day one, Scott Walker's attempt to silence the union men and women of Wisconsin's public sector was an immoral, unjust and illegal power grab," said Phil Neuenfeldt, president of the Wisconsin State AFL-CIO.
The Democratic minority leader in the state Assembly called the ruling a huge victory for workers and free speech.
"This decision will help re-establish the balance between employees and their employers," said Rep. Peter Barca.
Republican Rep. Robin Vos, a staunch supporter of the law and the presumptive next speaker of the Assembly, called the ruling an example of the "arrogance of the judiciary."
"I'm confident it's a single judge out of step with the mainstream," Vos said. He said the law is working "and we'll continue to implement it."
Romney Tries to Defend Embassy Lies
By Jonathan Chait
http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/09/romney-tries-to-defend-embassy-lies.html
Under my administration, embassy websites will update at lightning speed, and all American flags will double in size.
Mitt Romney created his most recent campaign shitstorm by launching an attack that was, simultaneously, an absurdly disingenuous argument built upon a series of demonstrable lies. After an initial period of recrimination and lashing out at the media, Romney and his allies are insisting that he was absolutely correct all along. It is a remarkable testament to the party’s ability not just to engage in spin but create and sustain an alternate reality.
On Monday night, Romney issued this condemnation of Obama: “It's disgraceful that the Obama Administration's first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks.” The lies here are several: The statement was issued by an embassy staffer, not by Obama; It did not express sympathy with attackers; and it was not a “response” to the attacks but in fact preceded them.
Even if you strip out all the lies, the broader argument that Romney is now trying to wage is so completely silly he doesn’t believe it himself. The general thrust of Romney’s attack is that Obama has taken some unusual step by condemning the inflammatory anti-Muslim movie that sparked the protests in the Middle East, and that he, Romney, would refuse to acknowledge any of the protestors' legitimate grievances. In fact, even under the Bush administration it was completely standard diplomatic practice to pair up defenses of the free speech principle with condemnations of provocative attacks on religion. And in his interview with Stephanopolous, Romney — after defending his pack of lies — is forced to admit that he, too, condemns the movie:
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: How about the film that seems to have sparked all this, the Innocence of Muslims film? Secretary Clinton today said she thought it was disgusting. How would you describe it?
MITT ROMNEY: Well, I haven’t seen the film. I don’t intend to see it. I you know, I think it’s dispiriting sometimes to see some of the awful things people say. And the idea of using something that some people consider sacred and then parading that out a negative way is simply inappropriate and wrong. And I wish people wouldn’t do it. Of course, we have a First Amendment. And under the First Amendment, people are allowed to do what they feel they want to do. They have the right to do that, but it’s not right to do things that are of the nature of what was done by, apparently this film.
How is it an act of surrender for Obama to condemn a film but perfectly appropriate for Romney to do the same? What’s left of Romney’s position? What’s left is a desperate attempt to obscure the fact that Romney said a bunch of crazy and wrong stuff.
Attempting to piece together the shards of the Romney line comes conservative reporter Byron York. Sidestepping the clear lies in Romney’s attack, he insists that a follow-up statement by Hillary Clinton was also apologetic because it ordered its thoughts incorrectly, first condemning the video and then condemning the violence, rather than vice versa:
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton released a three-sentence statement, the first two sentences of which addressed possible offense to Muslims. "The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others," Clinton said. "Our commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. But let me be clear: There is never any justification for violent acts of this kind." Clinton's statement was: Regret, affirmation, condemnation, in that order.
It is odd to hang a giant claim of foreign policy doctrine upon this narrow point of literary structure. In any case, York’s narrow literary structural point is wrong. The usual structure in these kinds of statements is not to lead with your main point and follow up with caveats. It’s to place the caveats first, and the main point last. Compare these two passages:
“Byron York is a good reporter and a nice man, but this piece of logic is utterly daft.”
“This piece of logic is utterly daft, but Byron York is a good reporter and a nice man.”
The first one reads primarily an argument that York’s claim is daft, while conceding that he is a decent fellow in other respects. The second is a way of conceding the ridiculousness of his argument while defending him against the charge of being a terrible reporter and a bad person.
Meanwhile, National Review editor Rich Lowry writes a column defending Romney, based on the premise that the accusation against Romney is presupposes he should not discuss foreign policy at all:
The old complaint about Romney was that he didn’t talk about foreign policy; the newly minted complaint about Romney was that he did talk about foreign policy. … If this isn’t the time to talk about this record, when is the right time? For the press, politics doesn’t stop at the water’s edge. It stops wherever is most convenient for Obama’s reelection campaign.
Yeah, that'll show those nasty reporters arguing that Romney is not allowed to criticize any aspect of Obama's foreign policy. Likewise, what's the deal with everybody getting furious with James Holmes for going to the movies? Lots of people go to the movies!
Romney himself, in an interview with George Stephanopolous, now insists that his real problem is not the initial statement by the embassy condemning the anti-Muslim film but the fact that it stayed online too long:
MITT ROMNEY: Well, early on, with the developments in Egypt, the embassy there put out a statement which stayed up on their website for, I think, 14-15 hours.
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: But before the protestors had breached the wall.
MITT ROMNEY: Well, it first went up before they breached the wall. But it stayed up. And they reiterated the statement after they breached the wall, even after some of the tragedy in Libya, the statement stayed up.
So the proof that Obama “sympathizes” with people who attacked the U.S. embassy is that, the in the wake of the attacks, the embassy staff didn’t take down a statement attempting to preempt the attacks from its website quickly enough. Under a Romney administration, embassies under siege will update their anodyne website statements within seconds, even if they may be distracted with such tasks as not getting murdered by violent mobs. Indeed, Romney believes that the increase in website-statement-updating he will usher in is important enough to justify his larger claim that he Stands Tall against our enemies while Obama apologizes to them.
Romney: 'Middle class-Income' Is $200K to $250K
What a clueless POS Romney is.... ROTFLMFAO... too funny....
BREAKING..Obama Widens Lead Over Mitt Romney By 7 Points: Poll
Reuters | Posted: 09/13/2012 5:49 pm
* Lead growing over past week
By Alina Selyukh
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/13/obama-romney-poll_n_1882354.html
WASHINGTON, Sept 13 (Reuters) - President Barack Obama widened his lead over Republican challenger Mitt Romney to 7 percentage points in a Reuters/Ipsos poll of likely voters on Thursday, the latest survey to show the Democrat ahead in the run-up to the Nov. 6 election.
The daily online poll asked 990 likely voters over the previous four days which candidate they would pick if the vote took place today, with 48 percent choosing Obama and 41 percent picking Romney.
The gap has been widening since Obama grabbed the lead in the rolling poll on Sept. 7 when he scooped up 46 percent of likely voters to Romney's 44 percent after the Democratic convention.
"What that really means is that Obama is in good shape," said Ipsos pollster Julia Clark, attributing some of Obama's uptick to the slowly improving sentiment toward the direction of the country shown in Wednesday's telephone poll.
Among all 1,231 registered voters surveyed online, Obama led with 45 percent to Romney's 39 percent.
Thursday's online poll also found far more registered voters preferred the incumbent's policies and approach on taxes (41 percent picked Obama, 30 percent Romney), healthcare (44 percent Obama, 28 percent Romney) and Social Security (39 percent Obama, 27 percent Romney).
Asked which of the candidates had a better plan, policy or approach to the war on terrorism, more registered voters again favored Obama: 39 percent to Romney's 25 percent.
Foreign policy moved to the center of the campaign this week after four Americans, including an ambassador, were killed in Libya as protests raged in Benghazi and Cairo in neighboring Egypt against an anti-Islam film made in the United States.
The two candidates ranked closely on the U.S. economy: 36 percent said Obama's approach was better, versus 35 percent for Romney. Obama held a slight lead of 38 percent to Romney's 35 percent on jobs and unemployment, despite poor unemployment figures last Friday.
But 35 percent of registered voters found Romney's policies and plans on the federal deficit were better than Obama's. Thursday's poll showed Obama with 31 percent.
Independents - a key voting bloc - favored neither of the candidate's policies on many issues.
"Neither candidate has established credibility on these issues," Clark said. "Neither candidate is really doing it for these independents."
Asked for whom they would vote for in Thursday's poll, the small pool of independents preferred Romney with 35 percent to Obama's 26 percent, which Clark attributed to their high focus on economic issues.
The precision of Reuters/Ipsos rolling daily online polls is measured using a credibility interval. In this case, the poll has a credibility interval of plus or minus 3.2 percentage points for all respondents. (Editing by Alistair Bell and Peter Cooney)
Why The Vileness Matters
September 12, 2012, 7:11 PM
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/12/why-the-vileness-matters/
I haven’t weighed in on Romney’s awesomely awful intervention on events in Egypt and Libya; with even Republicans joining in the chorus of shocked disapproval, not much I can add.
But maybe I can say something about why this matters for the campaign.
There will probably be some voters moved directly against Romney by this spectacle, and none moved toward him. Yes, there are quite a few Americans who are willing to believe that the man who has been president for three and a half years — and who killed Bin Laden — actually sympathizes with terrorists. But everyone in those fever swamps is already an Obama-hater, and Romney has just made himself look small and hysterical to everyone else.
But the real impact probably comes via the press.
I’ve seen some comparisons between Mitt Romney’s position right now and that of George W. Bush after the Democratic convention in 2000, and by the numbers there is some resemblance. But what really happened in the final months of that election? The answer — not a popular one with journalists, but very obviously true to anyone who lived through it — was that the press took sides. Reporters liked Bush and didn’t like Gore, and as a result they treated Bush with kid gloves while gleefully passing on every smear against his opponent (“Gore says he invented the internet!” No, he never did).
That probably wasn’t going to happen this time in any case. But now Romney has really ensured that everyone in the news media, the GOP propaganda organs aside, is going to view him with distaste and alarm — as well they should.
Romney could still win, but he has just made it even harder for anyone to consider him suitable for the job.
Mitt’s shameful Libya statement
This is what happens when one party spends four years convincing itself the president is something he isn’t
BY STEVE KORNACKI
http://www.salon.com/2012/09/12/mitt%E2%80%99s_shameful_libya_statement/
Mitt Romney Response To Libya, Egypt Attacks Called 'Irresponsible,' 'Craven,' 'Ham-Handed'... by Republicans
The Huffington Post | By Jack Mirkinson
Posted: 09/12/2012 10:37 am Updated: 09/12/2012 11:39 pm
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/12/mitt-romney-libya-egypt-media-reactions_n_1877266.html
Many members of the media reacted with puzzlement and criticism to Mitt Romney's continuing criticism of the White House response to the deadly attacks in Libya and Egypt.
The Romney campaign drew fire on Wednesday morning for issuing a blistering statement condemning the American embassy in Egypt for speaking against an incendiary anti-Muslim film, even though the embassy made the statement before any attacks had taken place. NBC's Chuck Todd, for instance, called the statement "irresponsible" and a "bad mistake." ABC's Jake Tapper said that Romney's attack "does not stand up to simple chronology."
CNN's Peter Hamby also criticized the response:
@PeterHambyCNN
Peter Hamby
Clinton issued statement condemning violence at 10pm EST Tues night. Yet Romney camp still went ahead w/ claim O "sympathizes" w/ attackers
September 12, 2012 1:20 pm via Twitter for BlackBerry® Reply Retweet Favorite
National Journal's Ron Fournier called Romney's actions "ham-handed" and "inaccurate."
Conservative pundit Erick Ericson, while disagreeing with Todd's response, also warned Romney to be "cautious."
Despite that criticism, Romney continued this line of attack in an appearance on Wednesday morning, saying that the White House had made a "severe miscalculation."
This drew a fierce response from analyst Mark Halperin:
@MarkHalperin
Mark Halperin
Unless Mitt has gamed crisis out in some manner completely invisible to Gang of 500,doubling down=most craven+ill-advised move of '12
September 12, 2012 2:33 pm via Twitter for BlackBerry® Reply Retweet Favorite
Other reporters were similarly baffled. "The Romney campaign's politicization of the embassy attacks is even worse than I expected," Foreign Policy writer Blake Hounshell tweeted.
Speaking on Fox News, conservative columnist Peggy Noonan was also blunt. "I don't feel that Mr. Romney has been doing himself any favors in the past few hours," she said. “Sometimes when really bad things happen, when hot things happen, cool words or no words is the way to go.”
"If you think the eye-rolling at Romney is just coming from the MSM, call up some Republican foreign policy hands," BuzzFeed's Ben Smith added.
Joe Scarborough responded to Smith's tweet:
@JoeNBC
Joe Scarborough
@BuzzFeedBen I've been inundated with emails and calls from elected GOP leaders who think Romney's response was a mistake. Not today.
September 12, 2012 3:00 pm via Twitterrific Reply Retweet Favorite
Later, the editorial board of the Washington Post weighed in, with a piece headlined, "Mr. Romney’s rhetoric on embassy attacks discredits his campaign." Romney's approach, the board said, was "stunning."
Kiss POS Romney Goodbye...When You Learn They’re Not Ready
JOSH MARSHALL SEPTEMBER 12, 2012, 10:56 AM 263318
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2012/09/when_you_learn_theyre_not_ready.php
Some moments show you when a candidate is ready or not to become President of the United States. I suspect last night will become one of those moments for Mitt Romney. The verdict will not be positive.
As I noted last night, when the full scale of the events in Cairo and Benghazi remained unknown, the Romney campaign let fly a crude political attack both blaming the Obama administration for the attacks and suggesting that the President actually sympathized with them. This was after it was known that an as yet-unnamed Foreign Service Officer (later identified as Sean Smith) had died.
The statement read as follows …
“I’m outraged by the attacks on American diplomatic missions in Libya and Egypt and by the death of an American consulate worker in Benghazi. It’s disgraceful that the Obama administration’s first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks.”
This was followed shortly by another attack from one of Romney’s prime surrogates, RNC Chair Reince Priebus, explicitly accusing the President of sympathizing with the attackers.
Romney’s attack was not only ill-judged and ill-timed, it was actually based on what appears to be a demonstrable falsehood. Romney, or folks writing in his name at his campaign, claimed that the administration’s first response to the attacks was to issue a press release condemning the anti-Islam film which had helped trigger the attack. This they picked wholesale from the right-wing blogosphere.
In fact, according to all available press reports and the account of the State Department, the press release in question came from the US Embassy in Egypt and preceded the attacks. So to claim it was a response to the attacks was simply false. So while American diplomats were dying in the field, Romney pops up with an egregious attempt to politicize the deaths with a flat out lie.
Behind the curtains a more chaotic and rash picture emerges.
The statement from the Romney campaign was initially released by Romney press secretary Andrea Saul at 10:09 PM — but under an embargo until midnight on September 12th. In other words, it was embargoed until September 11th was over.
Then a few minutes later at 10:24 PM the embargo was lifted and reporters were told they could use the statement immediately. There was no clear explanation of the change.
Bear in mind, this was all happening while attacks on US personnel abroad were ongoing. According to a statement released this morning by the White House, the President was told last night that Ambassador Chris Stevens was unaccounted for. Only this morning did he learn that Stevens had died in the attacks that were on-going last night.
The campaign also authorized Romney’s top foreign policy advisor to give a blistering interview attacking the president while the attacks were continuing.
Politics is hardball. Everything is, in some sense, fair. But campaigns are also a prism into the judgment and steadiness under pressure of a person who would be president. This was amateur hour for the opposition campaign last night, reminiscent of John McCain’s rash call four years ago to cancel the presidential debates and the campaign itself to deal with the unfolding economic crisis. There was nothing ignoble or dishonorable about McCain’s suggestion. It just showed a certain rashness that was widely viewed as unpresidential.
Romney’s moment was quite different — rash and shameful. Not worthy of a president. Crass, undignified and troubling on many levels.
Mitt Romney Drops His 3 a.m. Phone Call
3 SEP 12 2012, 2:07 PM ET
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/09/mitt-romney-drops-his-3-am-phone-call/262285/
Fair warning for what's ahead: I once worked for a Democratic president. As I say in a discussion with Ta-Nehisi Coates included in our new Atlantic eBook, in this election I prefer the Democratic position to the Republican in economic policy, in foreign policy, and in social policy. Weigh that as you may.
On the basis of the past 18 hours, I will now say that I also strongly prefer the Democratic presidential candidate to the Republican on temperamental grounds. Mitt Romney's response to the murder of American diplomats in Libya was his "3 a.m. phone call" moment, and what it revealed was not good.
The 3 a.m. phone call is shorthand for the unforeseen emergency that requires both a quick reaction and the beginning of longer second- and third-stage responses. Often the most important immediate decision is not to react immediately. There are times when every minute counts, but not usually. The first impulse, the first wave of fragmentary information, the first set of available options -- these often turn out to be misleading.
People at the operational level inside the U.S. government had to respond immediately to news of the attacks and chaos in Egypt and Libya. But U.S. officials did not have to say anything in public right away. And they didn't. This morning, first Hillary Clinton and then Barack Obama expressed sentiments appropriate for a nation whose interests and people had been attacked.
Each began by talking about the commitment and sacrifice of the Americans who serve their country overseas; then they condemned the violence of the attack; then they promised justice; then they affirmed America's belief in free expression of all views but said that this could never be an excuse for violence. They spoke for the country, and its values, and the people it had lost.
Mitt Romney could have waited, as they did. When he spoke, he could have said essentially the same thing as they did. We honor the people who serve us. We condemn the violence they endured. We express sorrow and support to their families, and we affirm belief in our values. Americans disagree on many issues, including foreign policy, but those disputes can wait until another day.
But that is not what he said. When he first heard about the violence and protests last night, he rushed to condemn the administration before anyone knew fully what was going on. After he had had a few hours to think, he dug himself in far deeper with a graceless press conference whose dominant theme was partisan criticism of the administration.
In short, when faced with a 3 a.m. test, he reacted immediately, rather than having the instinct to wait. And after he waited, he mistook this as a moment for partisanship rather than for at least the appearance of statesmanlike national unity. The irony, of course, is that resisting the partisan impulse today would have been the greatest possible boost to his horse-race prospects two months from now.
Think of this temperament and these instincts in a command role, and with stakes much higher than they were today.
As I say, for me this is one more reason to prefer the Democratic to the Republican candidate this year. But I think I would have felt as strongly about Barack Obama, Joe Biden, or Hillary Clinton if they had used their speeches today mainly to attack the GOP for policies that had allegedly brought on this tragedy. And would have said so.
You never know when these moments will come, or what they will expose when they do. Mitt Romney has shown us something that will be hard to forget.
__
* I will be off the grid for the next eight hours so cannot follow changing developments, but will check again this evening. I see that Molly Ball has weighed in to similar effect.
Mitt Romney Drops His 3 a.m. Phone Call
3 SEP 12 2012, 2:07 PM ET
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/09/mitt-romney-drops-his-3-am-phone-call/262285/
Fair warning for what's ahead: I once worked for a Democratic president. As I say in a discussion with Ta-Nehisi Coates included in our new Atlantic eBook, in this election I prefer the Democratic position to the Republican in economic policy, in foreign policy, and in social policy. Weigh that as you may.
On the basis of the past 18 hours, I will now say that I also strongly prefer the Democratic presidential candidate to the Republican on temperamental grounds. Mitt Romney's response to the murder of American diplomats in Libya was his "3 a.m. phone call" moment, and what it revealed was not good.
The 3 a.m. phone call is shorthand for the unforeseen emergency that requires both a quick reaction and the beginning of longer second- and third-stage responses. Often the most important immediate decision is not to react immediately. There are times when every minute counts, but not usually. The first impulse, the first wave of fragmentary information, the first set of available options -- these often turn out to be misleading.
People at the operational level inside the U.S. government had to respond immediately to news of the attacks and chaos in Egypt and Libya. But U.S. officials did not have to say anything in public right away. And they didn't. This morning, first Hillary Clinton and then Barack Obama expressed sentiments appropriate for a nation whose interests and people had been attacked.
Each began by talking about the commitment and sacrifice of the Americans who serve their country overseas; then they condemned the violence of the attack; then they promised justice; then they affirmed America's belief in free expression of all views but said that this could never be an excuse for violence. They spoke for the country, and its values, and the people it had lost.
Mitt Romney could have waited, as they did. When he spoke, he could have said essentially the same thing as they did. We honor the people who serve us. We condemn the violence they endured. We express sorrow and support to their families, and we affirm belief in our values. Americans disagree on many issues, including foreign policy, but those disputes can wait until another day.
But that is not what he said. When he first heard about the violence and protests last night, he rushed to condemn the administration before anyone knew fully what was going on. After he had had a few hours to think, he dug himself in far deeper with a graceless press conference whose dominant theme was partisan criticism of the administration.
In short, when faced with a 3 a.m. test, he reacted immediately, rather than having the instinct to wait. And after he waited, he mistook this as a moment for partisanship rather than for at least the appearance of statesmanlike national unity. The irony, of course, is that resisting the partisan impulse today would have been the greatest possible boost to his horse-race prospects two months from now.
Think of this temperament and these instincts in a command role, and with stakes much higher than they were today.
As I say, for me this is one more reason to prefer the Democratic to the Republican candidate this year. But I think I would have felt as strongly about Barack Obama, Joe Biden, or Hillary Clinton if they had used their speeches today mainly to attack the GOP for policies that had allegedly brought on this tragedy. And would have said so.
You never know when these moments will come, or what they will expose when they do. Mitt Romney has shown us something that will be hard to forget.
__
* I will be off the grid for the next eight hours so cannot follow changing developments, but will check again this evening. I see that Molly Ball has weighed in to similar effect.
>>>under capitalism when you see all the economically non-productive service jobs being more lucrative... you can be sure something is wrong....
Are you talking about all the non-productive financial sector jobs that got us into this mess??? BTW, they were ALL PRIVATE jobs, and they were a LOT MORE lucrative than public sector jobs...
Boy, you sure are right... capitalism works.... LMFAO... too funny...
Is Romney on drugs?? Cause nothing else can explain his criminal stupidity... even Republicans can see that...
Pundits Condemn Romney Response To Middle East Attacks
Mitt Romney Response To Libya, Egypt Attacks Called 'Irresponsible,' 'Craven,' 'Ham-Handed'
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/12/mitt-romney-libya-egypt-media-reactions_n_1877266.html
What a worthless POS Romney is... never have I seen such a POS... and neither has the GOP foreign policy official....