Home » Posts tagged with » america (Page 108)
Don Lemon, CNN’s Gay-vangelist: Opines That Literal Bible Reading is ‘Naive’ and ‘Dangerous’

Promoted in the top left of CNN's Belief blog is an article by openly gay CNN anchor Don Lemon on “How I Learned to Stop 'Praying Away the Gay.'” Lemon spent this childhood praying for God to change his sexuality, but then he went to college and “common sense began to take hold and I realized that no amount of prayer would change me into something that wasn't natural to me.” He “learned” that the Bible should never be taken literally: As I got older I began to realize that all these people and institutions interpreted the Bible somewhat differently. I had a sort of epiphany: the Bible was about the lessons you learned, not about the events or words. When I became old enough, intelligent enough and logical enough to discern the difference between metaphor and reality, everything changed. I realized that Jonah living in the belly of a whale was a parable written in the same vein as Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. saying that he had “been to the mountaintop.” Neither Jonah nor King had actually been to those places. They were metaphors for lessons for those of us who cared to absorb them. So many of us, especially in the black community and in churches, tend to think that religious teachings happened word for word as they were written in Scripture. I think that's na

Continue reading …
Labour demands VAT rethink to remedy ‘flatlining’ economy

Ed Balls issues warning that UK recovery has stalled as gloomy retail figures are released Ed Balls, the shadow chancellor, has called for an emergency temporary cut in VAT to “jump-start” Britain’s “flatlining” economy that is performing at a slower rate than its major competitors. As new figures showed retail sales fell by twice the expected rate in May, by 1.4%, Balls accused the chancellor, George Osborne, of endangering the economy by embarking on a “rash and headlong lunge” at rapid deficit reduction. The shadow chancellor said there was still time to slow the pace of deficit reduction by reversing, on a temporary basis, the 2.5% increase in VAT introduced in January by Osborne. Increasing VAT from 17.5% to 20% was one of the main early measures of the chancellor’s plan to eliminate the structural deficit by 2015. In a speech at the London School of Economics, Balls called for a rethink. He said: “My suggestion to George Osborne is that, while he will not agree to reverse his mistaken VAT rise permanently, he should now reverse it temporarily until the economy is growing strongly again … Slowing down the pace of deficit reduction with a temporary VAT cut now would give the flatlining economy the jump-start it so urgently needs, boost jobs and be a better way to get the deficit down for the long term.” The intervention by Balls, which came as the gloomy retail figures were released, was quickly rejected by the government, which said that reversing the VAT increase would cost £12bn a year. At a question and answer session in Lincoln, David Cameron responded to those calling for tax cuts and more government spending and investment. “All you would be doing, if you did that, is making the problem of your deficit, of your overdraft, worse,” he said. Balls, in his first setpiece lecture since his appointment as shadow chancellor in January, was seeking to reframe the debate on deficit reduction. He accused Osborne of refusing to countenance an alternative so he could: • Blame Labour for failing to face up to tough decisions if the coalition plan worked. Balls said the plan to eradicate the structural deficit in this parliament “was primarily about electoral politics – rapid tax rises and spending cuts chiefly designed to fit a political timetable that gets the pain over early [and] makes Labour take the blame”. • Claim Labour would not have made any difference if the plan failed. Balls signed up to Alistair Darling’s plans to halve the deficit over four years when he was appointed shadow chancellor in January. The Treasury said the Darling plan would have led a re-elected Labour government to deliver about 85% of the cuts introduced by the coalition. Labour, according to the Treasury, would have cut £7 in every £8 proposed by the coalition, leading to £14bn in cuts this year compared with £16bn by the coalition. Balls remains committed to the Darling plan, although he believes it will become increasingly irrelevant. For the moment, he is challenging the chancellor to adopt the VAT cut as a middle course between the Darling and coalition plans to provide a stimulus. Balls said a failure to acknowledge that the recovery had stalled, after a reasonable performance in the first half of 2010, risked inflicting permanent damage on the economy. He said the “scale of the fiscal hit to demand and growth in Britain this year is unprecedented”, adding that, a year ago, the Office for Budget Responsibility “forecast growth of 2.6% in 2011 – they now predict just 1.7%”. He said: “Months – or years – of slow growth aren’t something that will be quickly repaired. It risks leaving a permanent dent in our nation’s prosperity – relative to how prosperous we might have been and how prosperous we are relative to other countries. Because economic history also teaches us that economies don’t simply bounce back to where they would have been.” Balls offered no apology for Labour’s spending either ahead of or during the banking crisis to prevent recession tipping into depression. He admitted he was still relatively isolated in his view that the markets would tolerate a less aggressive approach to the deficit and said it was too early to say whether his judgment, or that of Osborne, would be proved right. The shadow chancellor said the economic evidence so far was pointing in his direction, arguing: “Looking at growth across the EU over the last six months compared to the previous six months, we have gone from the top end of the economic growth league table to fourth from bottom, with only Denmark, Greece and Portugal below us. “Unemployment forecasts for the next four years have all been revised upwards. Inflation forecasts for the end of 2011 have risen sharply from 1.6% to 4.2% with a further increase next year, and the result of this slower growth, higher unemployment and higher inflation is that the government will have to borrow a further £46bn more than forecast after the spending review.” Balls expressed astonishment that Osborne had not thought more carefully about the “fork in the road” when he came to office last May: “He did not hesitate in making a rash and headlong lunge down the path of rapid deficit reduction.” The shadow chancellor was scathing about Osborne’s claims last year, as he hardened his deficit reduction plans, that Britain was facing a Greek-style sovereign debt crisis. Balls said: “That must have been the first time in history that a British chancellor has looked not to America, France or Germany, but to Greece, Portugal or Ireland for economic insights … We have the longest-term bonds of any country, which means we need to raise much less each year and are not so subject to short-term moods in the markets.” Nick Clegg, who campaigned during the general election against the “bombshell” of raising VAT, dismissed the speech. The deputy prime minister said: “The Labour party is now perilously close to terminally and permanently losing the confidence of the British people on the economy. “There appeared still to be no recognition whatsoever of the responsibilities of government when Labour was in power for 13 years, no recognition of the extent of the economic rebalancing exercise needed to get the country back on a sustainable footing, endless reference to a Plan B which to me means ‘bankrupt’ – intellectually bankrupt, fiscally bankrupt and politically bankrupt.” Treasury sources said: “This speech marks a step back for Labour and for Ed Balls. Rather than owning up to mistakes in the past and showing that he understood what went wrong, he said he is sticking to his strategy. “If he had delivered the speech David Miliband was intending to deliver as Labour leader, and acknowledge the scale of the deficit under Labour, then that would have shown the party is getting its act together.” Economic policy Economics Ed Balls George Osborne Nicholas Watt Patrick Wintour guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …
Ayman Al-Zawahiri Chosen By Al Qaeda To Succeed Bin Laden

CAIRO (AP) — Al-Qaeda has selected its longtime No. 2 to succeed Osama bin Laden following last month’s U.S. commando raid that killed the terror leader, according to a statement posted Thursday on a website affiliated with the network. Ayman al-Zawahiri, who will turn 60 next week, is believed to be operating from somewhere near the Pakistan-Afghanistan border. He is the son of an upper middle class Egyptian family of doctors and scholars. His father was a pharmacology professor at Cairo University’s medical school and his grandfather was the grand imam of Al-Azhar University, a premier center of religious study. In a videotaped eulogy released earlier this month, al-Zawahiri warned that America faces not individual terrorists or groups but an international community of Muslims that seek to destroy it and its allies. “Today, praise God, America is not facing an individual, a group or a faction,” he said, wearing a white robe and turban with an assault rifle leaned on a wall behind him. “It is facing a nation than is in revolt, having risen from its lethargy to a renaissance of jihad.” Al-Zawahiri also heaped praise on bin Laden, who was killed in a May 2 raid by U.S. Navy SEALs in the Pakistani garrison town of Abbottabad, and criticized the U.S. for burying him at sea. “He went to his God as a martyr, the man who terrified America while alive and terrifies it in death, so much so that they trembled at the idea of his having tomb,” he said. Al-Qaeda gave no details about the selection process for bin Laden’s successor but said that it was the best tribute to the memory of its “martyrs.” The statement announcing al-Zawahiri’s succession was filled with the terror network’s usual rhetoric, vowing to continue the fight against what it called “conquering infidels, led by America and its stooge Israel, who attack the homes of Islam.” The group also said it will never accept Israel’s legitimacy and will continue to support Muslims in Afghanistan, Iraq and North Africa. The al-Qaeda statement also stated the group’s support for this year’s popular uprisings in Egypt, Tunisia, Yemen, Syria and Libya. “We encourage the people of Islam to rise up and continue the struggle, persistence and devotion until all the corrupt and oppressive regimes imposed by the West are gone,” it said. WATCH:

Continue reading …
America for Sale: Is Goldman Sachs Buying Your City?

Introducing America for Sale, a new Huffington Post-Dylan Ratigan Show collaboration. In Chicago, it’s the sale of parking meters to the sovereign wealth fund of Abu Dhabi. In Indiana, it’s the sale of the northern toll road to a Spanish and Australian joint venture. In Wisconsin it’s public health and food programs, in California it’s libraries. It’s water treatment plants, schools, toll roads, airports, and power plants. It’s Amtrak. There are revolving doors of corrupt politicians, big banks, and rating agencies. There are conflicts of interest. It’s bipartisan. And it’s coming to a city near you — it may already be there. We’re talking about the sale of public assets to private investors. You may have heard of one-off deals, but what we’ll be exploring with the Huffington Post is the scale and scope of what is a national and organized campaign to shift the way we govern ourselves. In an era of increasingly stretched local and state budgets, privatization of public assets may be so tempting to local politicians that the trend seems unstoppable. Yet, public outrage has stopped and slowed a number of initiatives. While there are no televised debates around this issue, there is no polling, and there are no elections, who wins it will determine the literal shape of modern America. The Dylan Ratigan show is teaming up with the Huffington Post to do a three part series called “America for Sale”, showing the pros and cons, and the politics and economics, of a new and far more privatized government. On Wall Street, setting up and running “Infrastructure Funds” is big business, with over $140 billion run by such banks as Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, and Australian infrastructure specialist Macquarie. Goldman’s 2010 SEC filing should give you some sense of the scope of the campaign. Goldman says it will be involved with “ownership and operation of public services, such as airports, toll roads and shipping ports, as well as power generation facilities, physical commodities and other commodities infrastructure components, both within and outside the United States.” While the bank sees increased opportunity in “distressed assets” (ie. Cities and states gone broke because of the financial crisis), the bank also recognizes “reputational concerns with the manner in which these assets are being operated or held.” The funds themselves are clear when communicating with investors about why they are good investments — a public asset is usually a monopoly. Says Quadrant Real Estate Advisors: “Most assets are monopolistic in nature and have limited competitors, creating the opportunity for stable, long-term investment returns. Investment choices include economic assets and social assets.” Quadrant notes that the market size is between $12-20 trillion, roughly the size of the American mortgage market. “Given the market and potential return opportunities, institutional investors should consider infrastructure a strategic investment allocation.” As with mortgage securitizations, the conflicts of interest are intense. Pennsylvania nearly privatized its turnpike, with Morgan Stanley on multiple sides of the deal as both an advisor to the state and a potential bidder. As you’ll see, these deals are often profitable because they constrain the public’s ability to govern, not because they are creating value. For instance, private infrastructure company Transurban, now attempting to privatize a section of the Beltway around DC, is ready to walk away if local governments insist on an environmental review of the project. Many of them have clauses enshrining their monopolistic positions, preventing states and localities from changing zoning, parking, or transportation options. While the trend is worldwide, privatization of public infrastructure only came to America en masse in the 2000s. It is worth discussing, because where it has happened it has sparked deep and intense anger. In Chicago, protests flared as Mayor Richard Daley pushed the privatization deal through. In Wisconsin, recent protests and counter-protests around controversial Governor Scott Walker revolved around, among other issues, the privatization of state medical services. In Ohio, a controversy is swirling around the political proposal to put the turnpike up for sale, while in Indiana, the state toll road has been in private hands since 2006 (upsetting the truckers who are paying much higher tolls). The political organizing is intense – on the Republican side, conservative groups are aggressively driving it as a strategy for fiscal prudence. The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), the influential think tank that targets conservative state and local officials, has launched an initiative called “Publicopoly”, a play on the board game Monopoly. “Select your game square”, says the webpage, and ALEC will help you privatize one of seven sectors: government operations, education, transportation and infrastructure, public safety, environment, health, or telecommunications. On the Democratic side, the Obama administration has been encouraging Chinese sovereign wealth funds to invest in American infrastructure as a way to bring in foreign capital. It was Chicago Mayor and Democratic icon Richard Daley who privatized Chicago’s Midway Airport, Chicago’s Skyway road, and Chicago’s Parking Meters. Out of office after 22 years, he is now a paid advisor to the law firm that negotiated the parking meter sale. Ratings agencies are also in the game, rating up municipalities willing to privatize assets, or even developing potential new profit centers around the trend (see the chapter titled “Significant Debt issuance Expected with the Privatization of Military Housing” from this September 2007 Moody’s report). Over the next three days, we will explore what it means to have a government for profit, whether we get better roads when Goldman Sachs determines how much we pay in tolls. As we explore this topic, I hope we as Americans will be able to decide if we truly want to see America for Sale.

Continue reading …
Pelosi’s Net Worth Grew 62 Percent Last Year, Media Mostly Mum

You would think that in a tough economy with 9.1 percent of the population unemployed and most people seeing continued decreases in the value of their homes the revelation of a political leader experiencing a massive rise in her net worth would be newsworthy. Apparently not, for the following report about former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's (D-Calif.) stunning one year financial windfall published by the Hill at 12:46 PM Wednesday received almost no interest from so-called “news” outlets from coast to coast: House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) saw her net worth rise 62 percent last year, cementing her status as one of the wealthiest members of Congress. Pelosi was worth at least $35.2 million in the 2010 calendar year, according to a financial disclosure report released Wednesday. She reported a minimum of $43.4 million in assets and about $8.2 milion in liabilities. For 2009, Pelosi reported a minimum net worth of $21.7 million. In this kind of economy with so many people struggling to make ends meet, such a story should have garnered a great deal of attention. Yet, despite this being prominently featured at the top of the Drudge Report shortly after the Hill published it, America's media collectively yawned. On television, the only report on this subject according to LexisNexis was done by Fox News's Sean Hannity Wednesday evening with guest Michelle Malkin. The on air news divisions of ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, NBC, and PBS completely ignored this stunning revelation Wednesday. I could also identify not one wire service report on the subject although the Associated Press did publish the following : New House Speaker John Boehner doesn't have as many millions as his predecessor, Nancy Pelosi, but like many new committee chairmen and other leaders, he has holdings in companies that have major financial stakes in the actions of Congress. For Boehner, that includes a portfolio of stocks in oil companies, financial firms, communication companies and pharmaceuticals. Holdings among other lawmakers include farmland, real estate and investments in high tech companies. When the Pelosis' assets were revealed, the AP chose not to divulge how much they had increased by: Former Speaker Pelosi, D-Calif., now the House's minority leader, also makes the perennial lists of Congress's richest. Much of her family's wealth is listed to her husband, Paul, including a commercial property in San Francisco valued between $5 million and $25 million. She reports as assets joint ownership with her husband of a home and vineyard in St. Helena, Calif., valued at between $5 million and $25 million. She's also a limited partner in residential real estate in Sacramento in the $5 million-$25 million range. Her husband reported capital gains of $1 million to $5 million last year from a sale of stock in Apple Inc. As for print media, they too were curiously disinterested in Pelosi's windfall. Most of the major papers skipped this news with the Washington Post doing the same thing as AP. Despite divulging what Pelosi's assets were at the end of 2010, the Post chose not to inform readers how much of an increase this represented from 2009: As she wound down her final days as House speaker, the estate of Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and her husband in the Napa Valley bore financial fruit for the couple, literally. The estate, worth at least $5 million, provided the Pelosis at least $5,000 worth of grape sales from the vineyard, according to financial disclosure forms for 2010. Now House minority leader, Pelosi and her husband, Paul, a San Francisco real-estate magnate and financial investor, are worth a minimum of $42 million with holdings spread across property investments in northern California and a litany of Fortune 500 companies, particularly regionally-based high-tech companies such as Yahoo! and EBay. I guess the Post didn't feel it was important to inform readers this represented a staggering 62 percent increase in one year. From what I can tell, other than Fox, Drudge, the Hill, conservative talk radio hosts and bloggers, the only major news outlet that found Pelosi's windfall important was Politico : A broad look at congressional disclosures shows that lawmakers enjoyed major gains in the stock market, which posted sharp increases last year. Others enjoyed a bump in the value of their real estate holdings, especially on the two coasts, where housing prices generally were more stable than in other regions. Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), for example, saw her minimum net worth soar from $21 million to more than $35 million. As for the rest of the media, it appears that a Democrat Speaker of the House seeing her net worth increase by 62 percent in one year as the rest of the nation struggled to make ends meet is just not newsworthy. Somehow I doubt that would have been the case if she had an “R” next to her name. Readers are advised that Fox News and MSNBC don't provide transcripts for all their broadcasts making it possible that other reports were done on this issue.

Continue reading …
Iran launches second satellite, state TV claims

Tehran says Rasad launch is to help produce high-res maps but move prompts concern over nuclear ambitions Iran has launched a satellite into orbit, state television reported, a move likely to raise concerns among those who fear Iran’s intentions and nuclear development programme. The report said the locally produced satellite, called Rasad, or observation, was launched successfully by a Safir missile on Wednesday. There was no independent confirmation of the launch or of the satellite achieving orbit. If successful, it would be the second satellite Iran has put into orbit. The first, named Omid, was launched in 2009 . The Iranian TV report said the new satellite is designed to produce high-resolution maps. Iran’s decade-long space programme has alarmed the west because the same technology that allows missiles to launch satellites can be used to fire warheads. Israel, the US and other nations allege that Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons, a charge Iran denies. The TV report said the Rasad satellite, developed by Iran’s aerospace agency, weighs 15.3kg and has been designed to orbit the Earth 15 times a day at a height of 160 miles. “Our glorious scientists successfully put Iran’s first image-collecting satellite into orbit,” the TV report said. Iran has made a series of claims about advances in its ambitious space programme in recent years. In 2010 , Iran announced it had successfully launched a rocket carrying a mouse, turtle and worms into space. Iran has also said it aims to put a man into orbit within 10

Continue reading …
Today in History for June 16th

Highlights of this day in history: Abraham Lincoln says America cannot remain divided over slavery; Valentina Tereshkova becomes the first woman in space; Deadly Soweto riots erupt in South Africa; Ballet dancer Rudolf Nureyev defects. (June 16)

Continue reading …

The National Wildlife Federation (NWF) will be honoring CNN's Anderson Cooper as a “Wildlife Hero” at its 75th Anniversary celebration June 15. A spokesperson for the organization confirmed that Cooper will be receiving the award for his coverage of the Gulf oil spill last year. The NWF identifies itself as “the nation's largest conservation organization,” working through education, preservation of habitats and ecosystems and protection of wildlife. The gala press release announced that the celebration will be “showcasing talented individuals who have used the arts to make a difference for wildlife and people.” Anderson Cooper's bio featured by the NWF includes the work he did on “Planet in Peril,” a CNN special from 2007 on the climate change debate which NewsBusters scrutinized . The federation's website also has a substantial page on global warming and its effects on wildlife. The organization states that global warming is “human caused” and is “happening now.” The NWF also says it wants to help transition America to a “clean energy economy.” Here is a bizarre NWF video about climate change featured on the group's website. Also, click here to see when Anderson Cooper donned a bunny suit and interacted with apes in his coverage of wildlife that aired last fall.

Continue reading …

Most of the Village thought Romney had a pretty easy time at the CNN debate because none of the other candidates would attack Mittens for his years of flip flopping positions. No one attacked Romney. Surprisingly, Mitt Romney’s position as putative GOP front runner was not directly attacked or challenged by anyone. CNN’s moderator John King tried to goad Pawlenty into explaining why he characterized the Obama healthcare law as “Obamaneycare” and Pawlenty was not eager to take the bait. There were also no direct attacks on Romney’s abortion record. Perhaps the candidates think its too early to go negative. It’s too early for the game show candidates to go on the offensive this early in the game. However, the niceties of these early stages do not extend to the rest of the GOP players. They really dislike Romney as much as we do. Goober Graham is in a huff over Mittens position on the Afghanistan war and called him Jimmy Carter, which is a slur in Republicanese.. A leading Republican voice on national security said Tuesday that presidential contender Mitt Romney risks looking like Jimmy Carter if he doesn’t take a stronger stance on Afghanistan. Sen. Lindsey Graham (S.C.), who supported Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) against Romney in the 2008 presidential primary, leveled one of his party’s most stinging insults at the 2012 front-runner in response to Romney’s statements in Monday’s New Hampshire debate. He directly challenged Romney’s suggestion that the conflict in Afghanistan was a war of independence, and added: “From the party’s point of view, the biggest disaster would be to let Barack Obama become Ronald Reagan and our people become Jimmy Carter.” Graham was not alone in his skepticism about Romney. Sen. James Inhofe (Okla.), a senior Republican member of the Armed Services Committee, also voiced dismay with the former Massachusetts governor’s characterization of the Afghan war. In the debate, Romney said he believes the withdrawal of American troops from Afghanistan should be based on security conditions there instead of political or fiscal considerations. But he also appeared to undercut the rationale for U.S. involvement by suggesting that American troops are fighting a war for Afghan independence against Taliban influence. Romney said: “Our troops shouldn’t go off and try to fight a war of independence for another nation. Only the Afghanis can win Afghanistan’s independence from the Taliban.” Graham retorted on Tuesday, saying this is not a war of independence, this is a war to protect America’s national vital security interests.” Predictably the Neocons are up in arms over this because they need war to survive. Mitt Romney’s Afghanistan remark stuns GOP pals Danielle Pletka, vice president for foreign and defense policy studies at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, said her inbox was flooded Tuesday morning with emails calling Romney’s comments a “disaster.” “I’d thought of Romney as a mainstream Republican – supporting American strength and American leadership, but this doesn’t reflect that,” she said. “Romney has proven himself a little bit of a weathervane and I guess he senses that positioning himself in this place is good for his campaign — attempting to appease Ron Paul’s constituents without actually being Ron Paul.” “You can’t really triangulate on these issues. Either you think we’re fighting a war we need to win or you think we ought to bring all the troops home, but he said it all there,” Pletka said. Other Republicans did not want to be quoted out of party loyalty and fear of the front runner. Many other Conservative groups are lining up against Romney in a big way. TNR’s Sahil Kapur : For several conservative organizations, antagonism toward Romney runs so deep that they are actually gearing up to wage campaigns against him. Probably the most prominent group targeting Romney is FreedomWorks, the Dick Armey-led conservative organization. The group has been increasingly vocal about its opposition to the former governor of Massachusetts. “Romney has a record and we don’t really like it that much,” Adam Brandon, FreedomWorks’ communications director, recently told The Huffington Post . Now the group is threatening to unleash part of its $25 million treasure trove in an attempt to sink his candidacy. — Working parallel to Steinhauser and FreedomWorks is Alaskan Joe Miller, the Tea Party favorite who won his state’s Republican nomination for the U.S. Senate in 2010 before losing to Lisa Murkowski in the general election. Miller has taken it upon himself to launch a new “Stop Romney” campaign that’s hoping to raise and spend as much as $500,000 on television and radio ads attacking Romney as an unscrupulous opportunist—all of which will be funneled into his most critical early primary state. “We’re going to put all our focus on New Hampshire,” says Bryan Shroyer, executive director of Miller’s Western Representation PAC, which has over 250,000 supporters and spent heavily to back conservatives in 2010. “ — Finally, social conservatives are rejuvenating their battle against Romney. Last time around, the religious group American Right To Life ran ads in key primary states decrying Romney’s pro-life conversion as a “fairy tale.” This cycle, the group intends to run ads in Iowa and South Carolina in a self-proclaimed effort to “decimate” Romney’s campaign early on. “We plan to repeat our strategy that worked in 2008, which was to blanket those states with TV ads letting the conservative Christian base know that Mitt Romney supports the killing of unborn children,” American Right To Life spokesman Bob Enyart told me. Romney has Dick Armey, psycho like Joe Miller and the Religious Right out to dirty him up. Most Liberals want out of Afghanistan and so did Romney. Now he’s c hanging his tune to calm the waters, but the attacks will continue to go on against him. I’ve said since 2008 that Romney was the natural GOP choice in 2012, but he’s going to be roughed up by his own people for a long, long time.

Continue reading …

Most of the Village thought Romney had a pretty easy time at the CNN debate because none of the other candidates would attack Mittens for his years of flip flopping positions. No one attacked Romney. Surprisingly, Mitt Romney’s position as putative GOP front runner was not directly attacked or challenged by anyone. CNN’s moderator John King tried to goad Pawlenty into explaining why he characterized the Obama healthcare law as “Obamaneycare” and Pawlenty was not eager to take the bait. There were also no direct attacks on Romney’s abortion record. Perhaps the candidates think its too early to go negative. It’s too early for the game show candidates to go on the offensive this early in the game. However, the niceties of these early stages do not extend to the rest of the GOP players. They really dislike Romney as much as we do. Goober Graham is in a huff over Mittens position on the Afghanistan war and called him Jimmy Carter, which is a slur in Republicanese.. A leading Republican voice on national security said Tuesday that presidential contender Mitt Romney risks looking like Jimmy Carter if he doesn’t take a stronger stance on Afghanistan. Sen. Lindsey Graham (S.C.), who supported Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) against Romney in the 2008 presidential primary, leveled one of his party’s most stinging insults at the 2012 front-runner in response to Romney’s statements in Monday’s New Hampshire debate. He directly challenged Romney’s suggestion that the conflict in Afghanistan was a war of independence, and added: “From the party’s point of view, the biggest disaster would be to let Barack Obama become Ronald Reagan and our people become Jimmy Carter.” Graham was not alone in his skepticism about Romney. Sen. James Inhofe (Okla.), a senior Republican member of the Armed Services Committee, also voiced dismay with the former Massachusetts governor’s characterization of the Afghan war. In the debate, Romney said he believes the withdrawal of American troops from Afghanistan should be based on security conditions there instead of political or fiscal considerations. But he also appeared to undercut the rationale for U.S. involvement by suggesting that American troops are fighting a war for Afghan independence against Taliban influence. Romney said: “Our troops shouldn’t go off and try to fight a war of independence for another nation. Only the Afghanis can win Afghanistan’s independence from the Taliban.” Graham retorted on Tuesday, saying this is not a war of independence, this is a war to protect America’s national vital security interests.” Predictably the Neocons are up in arms over this because they need war to survive. Mitt Romney’s Afghanistan remark stuns GOP pals Danielle Pletka, vice president for foreign and defense policy studies at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, said her inbox was flooded Tuesday morning with emails calling Romney’s comments a “disaster.” “I’d thought of Romney as a mainstream Republican – supporting American strength and American leadership, but this doesn’t reflect that,” she said. “Romney has proven himself a little bit of a weathervane and I guess he senses that positioning himself in this place is good for his campaign — attempting to appease Ron Paul’s constituents without actually being Ron Paul.” “You can’t really triangulate on these issues. Either you think we’re fighting a war we need to win or you think we ought to bring all the troops home, but he said it all there,” Pletka said. Other Republicans did not want to be quoted out of party loyalty and fear of the front runner. Many other Conservative groups are lining up against Romney in a big way. TNR’s Sahil Kapur : For several conservative organizations, antagonism toward Romney runs so deep that they are actually gearing up to wage campaigns against him. Probably the most prominent group targeting Romney is FreedomWorks, the Dick Armey-led conservative organization. The group has been increasingly vocal about its opposition to the former governor of Massachusetts. “Romney has a record and we don’t really like it that much,” Adam Brandon, FreedomWorks’ communications director, recently told The Huffington Post . Now the group is threatening to unleash part of its $25 million treasure trove in an attempt to sink his candidacy. — Working parallel to Steinhauser and FreedomWorks is Alaskan Joe Miller, the Tea Party favorite who won his state’s Republican nomination for the U.S. Senate in 2010 before losing to Lisa Murkowski in the general election. Miller has taken it upon himself to launch a new “Stop Romney” campaign that’s hoping to raise and spend as much as $500,000 on television and radio ads attacking Romney as an unscrupulous opportunist—all of which will be funneled into his most critical early primary state. “We’re going to put all our focus on New Hampshire,” says Bryan Shroyer, executive director of Miller’s Western Representation PAC, which has over 250,000 supporters and spent heavily to back conservatives in 2010. “ — Finally, social conservatives are rejuvenating their battle against Romney. Last time around, the religious group American Right To Life ran ads in key primary states decrying Romney’s pro-life conversion as a “fairy tale.” This cycle, the group intends to run ads in Iowa and South Carolina in a self-proclaimed effort to “decimate” Romney’s campaign early on. “We plan to repeat our strategy that worked in 2008, which was to blanket those states with TV ads letting the conservative Christian base know that Mitt Romney supports the killing of unborn children,” American Right To Life spokesman Bob Enyart told me. Romney has Dick Armey, psycho like Joe Miller and the Religious Right out to dirty him up. Most Liberals want out of Afghanistan and so did Romney. Now he’s c hanging his tune to calm the waters, but the attacks will continue to go on against him. I’ve said since 2008 that Romney was the natural GOP choice in 2012, but he’s going to be roughed up by his own people for a long, long time.

Continue reading …