I got to thinking about my post last week about Mitt Romney. Maybe I have it wrong.
Maybe America needs him at this time. Now whether he can get elected is another matter and I think the same issues prevail. But here is my new thinking.
He is clean.
As far as I know and from what he says, he is living and has lived a “Mormon Standards” life. There is something to say about that. With the Anthony Weiner (Still cannot believe that name association) situation unfolding on top of the ones we already know about, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Charlie Rangel, Newt Gingerich, John Edwards, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Eliot Spitzer, et al, it seems that fidelity, honesty and soberness are character traits in seemingly short supply. Now there are some who say this behavior, outside of public life does not matter, it speaks volumes about the character of that person, doesn’t it? If they are willing to exhibit bad behavior and dishonesty to their spouse, family or trusted friends, why wouldn’t they do it to anyone including the American people?
I cannot speak for Mitt’s “honest dealings with his fellow man.” But I assume since I’ve never heard anything that he was a pretty straight arrow in the business world as well.
Also, I saw an interview he gave with Piers Morgan on CNN on the other night where Piers was trying to get him to reveal his personal beliefs about the Church and doctrine such as gay marriage. I thought he answered it pretty well. Mitt said, “I am not a spokesperson for the Church.” “If you want to find out what the Church teaches, go ask the Church.” And the one I really liked, “
“I separate quite distinctly matters of personal faith from the leadership one has in a political sense,” he said. “You don’t begin to apply the doctrines of a religion to responsibility for guiding a nation or guiding a state.”
So, I don’t know, maybe I need to cut Mitt a bit more slack. And I really admire Ann Romney, for her courage of facing her illnesses in the face of public life. And she seems like a very honest, upfront person who doesn’t cut Mitt much slack either.
Mitt and Ann Romney CNN Interview
The Republican field is getting bigger by the minute and Romney still leads. I am very curious to watch the first debate coming up this next Monday evening. It should be a real fun, “Rock’m, Sock’m” robot affair (the good kind).
Wheat & Tares 
I agree. I am a Democrat who supported President Obama’s campaign 100% I find that I can’t support him anymore. He lost me on the third war (libya) and now this talk of a fourth secret war in (Yemen). I don’t agree with Mitt on everything. But I can see him in the office. And I would sleep just fine.
Interesting thoughts, and you may be correct. My biggest issue with all these political scandals is the honesty thing. If a politician is willing to lie in their personal life, than i’m afraid they will in their public life, allowing for all sorts of undesirable consequences for those they represent.
I’d take a reasonable, honest leader who’s ideology I disagree with over a liar who professes my ideology any ol’ day. Perhaps that will be Mitt?
Jeff.
Good Post.
We have some very serious financial challenges in our country and the current president has made them worse. He has all of the networks, except Fox, pushing for him – doing his cheerleading. Trying to downplay how bad things really are. Desperately pushing a liberal agenda in the hope it will actually work. Liberal policies don’t work. Our country is being run by far left activists and attorneys. We need someone, anyone that has actually run a business. We need somebody that has had to make payroll with their OWN money.
We also need someone that can offer real hope. Not the false hope and big government changes imposed by Obama. We need someone that can put faith back in the hearts of the American people – someone that can create hope in the American Dream – real hope, not fantasy or just words and speeches. Whether you agree with Reagan’s policies or not, he inspired America. He gave us dreams and hopes in ourselves. He put the future of American in the hands of the people, not in the hands of Weiners. We need clear vision. As Solomon said ‘were there is no vision, people perish’. At the present time we have no vision. No leadership. No clear picture of where we are going. I think Mitt can offer that vision.
Jeff,
Barack Obama is also clean. No need to look at Mitt.
Dan,
How is that hope and change working for ya?
Actually quite well, Will. Barack Obama ended the war in Iraq. That’s all I asked out of him.
Romney is clean, but he will continue to be a shill and a puppet for the banking cartel and military-industrial complex.
Ezra Benson wrote,
“The root of all evil is money, some say. But the root of our money evil is government. The very beginning of our troubles can be traced to the day when the federal government overstepped its proper defensive function and began to manipulate the monetary system to accomplish political objectives. The creation of the Federal Reserve Board made it possible in America for men arbitrarily to change the value of our money. Previously, that value had been determined solely by the natural interplay of the amount of precious metals held in reserve, the value men freely placed on those precious metals, and the amount of material goods which were available for sale or exchange. (An Enemy Hath Done This, pp. 213-14.)
And as Charles Lindbergh Sr. warned us,
“This [Federal Reserve Act] establishes the most gigantic trust on earth. When the President [Wilson] signs this bill, the invisible government of the monetary power will be legalized….the worst legislative crime of the ages is perpetrated by this banking and currency bill. The financial system has been turned over to the Federal Reserve Board. That Board administers the finance system by authority of a purely profiteering group. The system is Private, conducted for the sole purpose of obtaining the greatest possible profits from the use of other people’s money. From now on, depressions will be scientifically created…”
“[This is] a conspiracy to violate the Constitution and laws of the United States…”
If Romney is President when the next, bigger bust occurs, he will endorse the printing of trillions to bailout the banks, prop up the ponzi schemes, and prevent the liquidation of debt-infested malinvestment.
He will also continue the wars, maybe even start new ones (or allow his Kissinger-like advisers to).
Though he promises to repeal Obamacare, in the grand scheme of things, he is no different than Obama. He might spend less than Obama, but very little. Nothing will change. We all know it. We must be prepared for the coming calamities in our families and communities. Don’t look to a politician, and don’t get caught up in all the rhetoric and false hopes. It’s a distraction. Only look to it as occasional entertainment, because it’s all political theater.
Like some around here, I am not anti-Obama. And like Dan, I think he has very high moral standards.
I was only remarking about my own perception of Romney, not all out political warfare.
I do not recall mentioning the Federal Reserve in posts nor quoting dead guys who were right wing radicals.
Dan writes, “Actually quite well, Will. Barack Obama ended the war in Iraq. That’s all I asked out of him.”
Are you really that gullible? There are still 50,000 troops there, many more military contractors, and hundreds of Iraqis have died since his supposed “end” to the Iraq war. If that’s still not a war, then there are no wars going on throughout the entire world.
Jeff Spector,
“[One of the basic planks of socialism is] centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.” – Karl Marx
“The establishment of a central bank is 90% of communizing [socializing] a country.” – Vladimir Lenin
“Print is the sharpest and strongest weapon of our party.”- Joseph Stalin
And yet those who don’t want a government monopoly of money via central bank are the radicals.
what is it with Wheat and Tares that brings out all the right wing radicals? Your post was quite tame, Jeff. Is there some coding within the Wheat and Tares wordpress that acts sort of like a bug attractor?
“what is it with Wheat and Tares that brings out all the right wing radicals?”
I can’t figure it out. It is the quoting that just kills me.
I suggest we limit our comments to the subject of the original post.
iamse7en and like minded individuals can save their comments for Jeff’s upcoming post titled “Maybe I have it wrong about Ron Paul”
These are comments. I was commenting on the topic of Romney as President, because that was the topic associated with the article. I did not criticize his views, nor even comment on his views.
I’m a right-wing radical? A bug? Is it so radical to not want a banking cartel, where the Fed prints trillions to prop up our ponzi schemes? Is it so radical to not want to start unjust and unconstitutional wars? Perhaps it is, since everyone else is okay with both.
But of course, only name-calling. Dan thinks Iraq War is over. I show evidence to the contrary. His response? I’m a ring wing radical.
iamse7en,
dude, we have 50,000 American soldiers in Germany, a bunch of contractors and many Germans dead after the war “ended” and yet it did end. Silly right-wing radicals…nothing will bring you guys peace and rest to your souls. Not even when things are exactly as you want them. You’ll find something else to wrap your angst around.
LOL @ the war in Iraq being over. I’m in Iraq at the moment. You should tell the guys dropping mortars on us that the war is over, Dan. But yes, the process for us eventually all being out of here is in motion due to the 2007 surge.
Why are people so willing to accept that a politician can separate his personal beliefs and values about religion from his duties of public office, yet unwilling to accept a similar separation when it comes to bad personal habits?
I’m supposed to overlook the fact that Mitt has covenanted to give literally everything he possesses in this life, including his time and talents, to the building up of the church, but make a federal case out of the fact that someone cheated on his wife? That seems a bit inconsistent. I think mormons have a hard time understanding why anyone would hesitate to support a mormon candidate. If you don’t agree with mormon values, though, I think there are valid concerns. And can we please give the character issue a rest? As far as I know Reagan never cheated on his wife, but that didn’t seem to impact his truthfulness during the Iran-Contra scandal.
News Flash: Politicians lie. It’s what they do. They all do it in one form or another, whether they cheat on their spouses or not. Discussing so-called character issues is a waste of time. It also exposes the hypocrisy of those who tout character as a critical issue. As Dan has pointed out, Obama is as clean as anyone I can remember on the national stage, and I haven’t heard a single conservative give him an ounce of credit for it, just like they never uttered a word of criticism of Bush for his sketchy past. Let’s just stop pretending it matters. The only thing that matters to most people is the letter next to the name.
Dan,
Our troops are still in Iraq, they are still being killed, the enemy is also being killed. What in Hades is a war if this is not a war?! You MIGHT be able to say Obama scaled down the war, but he did not end it. The only difference is Obama SAID it’s over. Troops still there may not be called combat troops, but most are still being paid in combat wages and many are engaged in combat and lives are in danger, as evidenced by more and more reports of troop deaths.
brjones,
“I’m supposed to overlook the fact that Mitt has covenanted to give literally everything he possesses in this life, including his time and talents, to the building up of the church, but make a federal case out of the fact that someone cheated on his wife? That seems a bit inconsistent.’
I agree it is inconsistent, but it is because it makes no sense to compare the two.
One has nothing to do with the other. In a secular country where there are laws protecting behavior that may be against the tenets of a particular religion, our leaders must separate their own personal views because they covenant to upload the laws of the land in their oath of office.
So they have no choice really. they do have the choice to as to whether to be dishonest, cheat on a spouse of exhibit other bad behavior. That is not what people vote for.
The fact that politicians are inbreed liars is not excuse.
Jeff, I am also pleased that for all intents and purposes Mitt seems like a good clean guy.
But on the edges of ethics is his treatment of his own behavior, such as his claiming conservative credentials when it suits him despite his behavior to the contrary in the past.
Does spinning history rise to the level of marital infidelity? Perhaps the first is a necessary evil on the battle field of politics; clearly the second is not. The fact that Brother Mitt has not done the second does not make me feel better about his having done the first.
Paul,
That still bothers me the most. It is the same as saying every politician does it, but still….
But, does it become the better of two evils.
Don’t know.
You make a valid point, Jeff, but I still find the character issue very tiresome. Bush is, by all accounts, a devout christian, and he plunged us headlong into two wars at least in part because of his fanatical religious views. An idealogue is far more alarming to me than someone who has shown a willingness to lie in some situations.
Jeff:
Your definition of character bothers me because Paul — the apostle, not the commenter — couldn’t be considered as of good character, apparently, even 40 years after his Road to Damascus experience. Bush got drunk in the Viet Nam era; Laura got him straightened out a long time ago.
brjones:
Given that I used to have an office in the World Trade Center before REAL religious extremists put an airliner through my old floor, I tend to look for religious fanaticism a little farther to the extremes of the spectrum than George Bush. We now are in a war with Libya and expanding ops in Yemen without a Christian “extremist” in sight in Washington.
http://volokh.com/2011/06/09/latin-for-election-season/ says it all.
Firetag,
http://demint.senate.gov/public/
So because the 9-11 terrorists were more extreme than george bush, his religious views necessarily cannot be fanatical? I’d be curious to hear how you would categorize bush’s attempted recruitment of a foreign head of state into the war effort by quoting eschatological bible passages, if not fanatical. Don’t get me wrong I’m not a pacifist. I’m not even saying I disagree with bush’s wars. I’m saying taking our nation to war, and signing the death warrants of thousands of people, even in part based on religious beliefs, is exponentially more frightening to me than a politician cheating on his wife or lying about having done so.
Dan:
I could have sworn that was Barak Obama, not Jim DeMint, on the TV announcing we were going into air and missile strikes in Libya in an operation that would “last days, not weeks” and would be confined to protecting civilians. I’m pretty familiar with what Obama looks like; he is on TV every day. 😀
And I’m also pretty sure when the NY Times announced the expanded air campaign against the terrorists who had seized a Yemeni city in the turmoil there, they were quite clear that Obama, not DeMint, was the Commander in Chief calling the shots.
So if you want to make the case that US war policies are being driven by religious extremists, are you saying that Obama actually WAS paying attention to all the sermons being preached by Rev. Wright? ‘Cause the only way you can make the case that Libyan and Yemeni policy is being driven by Christian extremists is to call Obama a religious extremist. Pick your poison.
brjones:
What I’m saying is that if everyone but the 20-25% of the population (no time to check Pew for the exact number now) that constitutes “mainstream” liberal Protestantism is considered “extremist”, the latter term has no real meaning. In fact, it would make more sense to label evangelicals the American “mainstream” and anyone else a bit well, off-center.
Firetag,
You said:
There are many people who are “in sight” in Washington, besides Barack Obama. Should you rephrase your idea about Christian extremism, then I’ll change my comment. 🙂
As for Libya and Yemen, personally I don’t care about them. The bombing with Libya is being handled by NATO (showing that it’s an institution that no longer has much use in the world), and not by the US. So pinning it on Obama seems like politicking than telling the truth. As for Yemen, that’s a far more complicated situation than simply saying we’re waging a war against terrorists who seized a city there. Dunno though, those Yemeni guys might just wanna turn Yemen into the next Somalia. Jon will love that. His utopia is being expanded…
Personally I am more disturbed by what took place in Bahrain and Obama’s response. He ought to start taking the Fifth Fleet out of Bahrain and put them somewhere else. That should send the right message to Saudi Arabia vis a vis human rights.
I don’t disagree with your point, FireTag. I just don’t think bush is a good example. The transcripts of his telephone conversations with jacque chirac place him firmly in the category of religious extremist, in my opinion. It’s also a perfect example of why devout religious adherents make some people so uncomfortable. At the end of the day, religious beliefs will trump all other considerations for some people and all the reassurances about separation of religion and civic duty become meaningless.
Firetag,
“Bush got drunk in the Viet Nam era; Laura got him straightened out a long time ago.’
Not clear that is still true.
brjones,
I hear ya. I don’t like it that much. But I also like that these people we are supposed to trust have teen-aged sex minds, greed and power obsessed and no self control.
I can see that, Jeff. I guess if you’re looking for something to separate the candidates it makes sense to go for someone who seems like a better person.
Dan:
NATO? You’re kidding, right? NATO is running out of munitions. Their vaunted no-fly zone could barely man six fighters in the air at a time even at the beginning of the war. So do we pull out or escalate the US role? That decision point is coming soon.
And here’s another implication of Libya perhaps you should think about. Turkey just announced military intervention with ground troops in Syria tonight after the Syrians put in a 2 brigade attack force to wrench their Turkish-border region back from Muslim Brotherhood/Syrian army mutineers who seized control of the region at the beginning of the week.
The Turks will reportedly have three missions (according to http://debka.com/article/21015/
):
1. To stem the swelling stream of Syrian refugees fleeing massacre at the hands of government forces. Ankara has accepted over 3,000 refugees from Jisr al-Shughour who are desperate to escape certain slaughter; it is not prepared to take on tens or possible hundreds of thousands of Syrians fleeing from larger towns like Idlib, Maarat al-Numaana and the Kurdish regions abutting the Turkish border.
2. To mark out a military zone on the Syrian side of the border where the Red Crescent will set up camps for Syrian refugees to shelter under Turkish army protection;
3. Next week, the Turkish army will establish a military buffer zone in the Kurdish region of northern Syria near its main town, Qamishli.
The Erdogan government will be taking the chance of Assad deciding that the Turkish military incursion is an act of war. Fighting would then break out between the two armies.
The DEBKA concerns about Turkey-Syrian combat become more real if you realize that the seizure of the region occurred on the eve of a scheduled Syrian announcement that the protest movement throughout the country had been crushed. The protesters were in conference with the Muslim Brotherhood IN ANKARA at the time and reached an alliance agreement brokered by the Turks.
Do you think it might just be possible that the Turks are protecting their diplomatic investment, and just maybe trying to solve their long-term Kurdish problem in one big move?
Since Syria was trying last week to stir up a nationalist response against the “foreign occupiers” of Israel, do you think they might like the nationalistic distraction of a new “Ottoman invasion” instead?
Firetag,
well, I went back to review my comment and no, I was not kidding. Though I think you’re misreading my comment. I neither approved or disapproved of NATO’s action in Libya. I merely stated that it was NATO that was in command. Now you may think NATO is a defunct and outdated institution that cannot handle the troubles of today. I wholeheartedly agree with that premise. And there are others out there who think likewise. NATO’s days of summer are over, IMHO.
Dunno, and frankly don’t care. If Congress doesn’t like it, they could do something about it. But as for me, it’s not something I care about.
Good on Turkey. Syria needed to learn its actions have negative consequences. Nice to see a local power do something about it. And if I recall, Turkey is a member of NATO…
Dan:
I get what you have against the Syrian government, but I find it hard to understand what you have against the Syrian and Turkish people if the Syrian and Turkish military start in on each other.
The Arab spring has so far resulted in three civil wars (using the 1000 dead informal criterion scholars often uses to designate such things) and not one transition to democracy. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan continue, and Afghanistan has actually morphed into AF-Pak, but why should anyone be concerned?
And I thought I was the one who didn’t have the eyesight to avoid tripping over things right in front of me. 😀
Wonder what Mitt will say about the Church’s position on immigration?
Firetag,
I don’t think I agree with you on your point of saying there is “not one transition to democracy” in this Arab spring.
http://middleeast.foreignpolicyblogs.com/2011/03/26/challenges-of-egyptian-transition-to-democracy/
There is a transition. What the end result will be is not yet known, but it’s certainly moving in the right direction. Certainly the military junta of Egypt know they must strive for more democracy in Egypt or possibly lose American support (a key element, as this gentleman notes rightly).
and in terms of Tunisia,
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=37860&Cr=tunisia&Cr1=
Seems to me both countries are progressing just fine. The dictator of Yemen fled to the safety of Saudi dictatorship, and we have no idea what will come in Yemen. It’s not going to be pretty, I don’t think, but it’s better than the nasty guy who was in charge. Like I said earlier, Bahrain is the one that troubled me earlier. Could be that I saw a video of a guy with his brains blown out by Saudi forces intent on stopping Shi’ite majority in Bahrain from gaining any kind of legitimacy. After all, Shi’ites are natural Iranian allies….and we can’t have Shi’ites have any kind of legitimate power anywhere. It’s one of the reasons we had such troubles in Iraq. Saddam Hussein was Sunni, but the Shi’ites were natural allies with Iran. What to do? Fight both, of course! Silly Americans.
As for Syria and Turkey, why I am totally fascinated by your concern for civilians. I may be wrong, but I thought you were a big fan of the original war in Iraq…
Dan:
I am always concerned about civilians. I’m always concerned about soldiers. I just don’t buy into the fallacy of assuming that the enemy of my enemy is my friend, or that the Muslim Brotherhood are really baby secularists and reformers just held back from enlightenment by the evil West. I’ve heard that prediction, never realized, about every “people’s” government of the left for the last forty years.
If I have to choose between a psychopath pointing his guns away from me and a psychopath pointing his guns toward me, I’ll choose the former, thank you. You seem to have a bias for the latter, although I have no clue why.
It would be better to prevent the rise of psychopaths in the first place, but we seem to have passed the event horizon on that for the Mideast a long time ago.
see, you call them psychopaths, all of them. easier to kill psychopaths than human beings. Methinks you’ve got it wrong on the Muslim Brotherhood, and they’re not “leftists” either.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Muslim_Brotherhood_in_Syria
You also have it wrong on the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria. No doubt though, the editors of this part in wikipedia are terrorist sympathizers…maybe we should check the conservapedia entry on the Muslim Brotherhood…
http://www.conservapedia.com/Muslim_Brotherhood
Hmmm, that seems to be more of what you’re saying.
I gotta say, the brilliance of Conservapedia is that we get to see the difference between what’s actual reality (found in Wikipedia), and what conservatives think (found in Conservapedia). It’s brilliant. I say, keep it up conservatives.
I guess you’ll to spell it out for me Dan on the discrepancies between the Muslim Brotherhood as described in Wikipedia vs. Conservapedia, I did my best to read both and where the Wikipedia obviously contained more historical references to the group and lots history it didn’t really mention much about its current political involvements and beliefs. I’m not arguing that the Conservapedia one is correct, but it did seem to address the current political issues facing the Middle the East and I did see that it had references to support its claims. It may just be because I’m not very educated on the Middle East politics but I couldn’t see the discrepancies I just saw different kinds of information. Normally in Wikipedia there is a controversies section that at least present the other sides viewpoints and valid points, and if I’m reading a page where there are obvious different points of view and I don’t see that I pretty much know this page isn’t complete so to blindly say that Wikipedia is actual reality may be a bit of a stretch — but I would hate for you think that I am any way throwing my support of Conservapedia just because I say that.
Awright, stick to the friggin’ OP!!!!
It seems there are but a few things we can reasonably speculate will happen if it’s Mitt vs. Barry in ’12….
1) Each ideological end of the spectrum will hold their respective noses and trump their man. Few die-hard liberals or conservatives will proverbially “pick up their toys and go home”.
2) Each will represent himself towards the fictional “centre”, as if SOMEHOW it’s a good thing to be less than committed to one’s ideals, in order to capture the undecided. Like the production of sausage, it’s ugly and would spoil your appetite if you had to see it.
3) And Mitt will continue to SMILE through it all, and my “inner Klingon” will still be uncomfortable at trusting him. (the fictional Klingons are wary of trusting men that smile “too much”).
4) As for Barry, I can trust that he’ll always render a good speech and LOOK Presidential, but his governance, especially in foreign and/or military matters, will severely lack. It merely remains to be answered if Mitt would do even worse or not. Sad to say, there is potentially worse than Mr. Obama.
5) But at least, unless SOMEHOW there’s some skeleton that hasn’t been dug up on either gentleman yet, it’ll be a dull election for the tabloid folks. Gee, they both can keep it in their respective pants! (yawn!). I guess Bravo will dredge up a “Real Housewives of Dallas” or something to that effect to break up the boredom.
Of course, I strongly doubt that here in the great state of Californicate, the electorate will awaken to how badly its fared under Democratic party dominance (my presidential vote is and will foresee-ably be wasted due to the Democrat candidate being virtually assured of getting CA’s 58 electoral votes). And if the Republican party can offer few better answers than a womanizing body builder with a penchant for banging the help, then CA will continue to default to the party of the jackass. So for myself and fellow “Californicators”, the quadrennial Presidential election is but a token intellectual exercise. At least Prop 8 kept it mildly interesting last go-around.
Peggy Noonan in the Saturday Wall Street Journal had a number of things to say.
Jeff discussed private character as an indicator of public virtue, but took it for granted that virtue is something we would want in a leader. I wonder how true that is (for Americans in general, not Jeff in particular).
Machiavelli is no moral authority, but he’s hard to beat as an exponent of political realism and, hey, I’ve got to quote someone! (but I’ll put the quote at the end). For Machiavelli, it’s good for a ruler to be virtuous up to a point, but it is a great weakness to lack the moral flexibility to turn to vice when needed.
Taking two US presidents as examples, Abraham Lincoln imprisoned of thousands of Union citizens without trial, spent money without congressional authorization, and not least, made many decisions with terrible consequences in waging the war. The condemnation these actions might incur is largely outweighed by saving the Union and the Emancipation Proclamation. But the basis for those accomplishments was effectiveness, in particular winning the war. The same moral decisions would be viewed very differently if he had lost.
Jimmy Carter is an example of a different type, perceived as personally devout and sincere, but as president, naive, ineffective, and weak.
In the immediate present, it is not difficult to find evidence that many Americans are looking for a streak of ruthlessness in their president. He (or she, but probably not really in this context) is the living icon of American power, and constraints on that power, including moral constraints, make a lot of us uneasy. Someone unfamiliar with Americans might think that Hiroshima and Nagasaki would raise troubling moral questions, but instead of soul searching we engage in justification, on the basis of necessity. Truman himself said, essentially, that he had no second thoughts. Would (or should) a candidate who showed distress when asked about the morality of Truman’s decision win votes, or lose them?
Machiavelli:
…it is unnecessary for a prince to have all the good qualities I have enumerated, but it is very necessary to appear to have them…[paragraphs later]…that he may appear to him who sees and hears him altogether merciful, faithful, humane, upright, and religious. There is nothing more necessary to appear to have than this last quality…. Every one sees what you appear to be, few really know what you are…
Carey,
Must I really spell it out for you?
In the real entry (wikipedia), the editors attempt to portray the Muslim Brotherhood in a historical, factual fashion. It allows the group to present itself as who they claim they are and then what others think of them. In the conservapedia, it is solely from the point of view of the American Right, including the faux shock that James Clapper would dare claim that the Muslim Brotherhood was not EEEEVVVIILLLLL!
Yes, the “committee” was shocked, SHOCKED that someone dared say anything about Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood that painted them with a human face. Harder to have hate toward someone who seems human. And of course, note that the conservapedia’s entry writes (without attribution or references) that the Muslim Brotherhood “co-opted pro-democracy protests in Cairo’s Tahrir Square” even though this was not the case at all. That’s because reality tends to make a conservative look stupid. Can’t have that. The Narrative is that the Muslim Brotherhood is a nasty terrorist organization hellbent on destroying Israel, and we cannot have anything that paints them with more color than that. That’s modern conservatism for you, Carey. Not interested in reality. Only fiction.
Wall Street Journal just had an interesting story about the first Christian governor in Egypt.
He has been blocked from taking office in his province. Seems that while 39% of the population is Copt, a 3% representation of Copts in governor’s jobs is too much. /Sigh.
Dan:
Which democratic secularists do YOU think were trying to rape and beat to death the blonde female CBS news reporter in the middle of Tahrir Square while screaming “Jew!” on a night when Mubarak security forces didn’t dare show their face in the crowds?
Firetag,
It was obviously the Muslim Brotherhood. Only they are wicked enough to do that!
Dan:
Again, your framework for judgement seems backward. One dosen’t assume wickedness or virtue for any group (Christians, Muslims, the left, the right, the rich or the poor) and then presume a crime to justify collective punishment. One instead infers the presence of wickedness on the basis of observing an atrocity and noting who had means, motive, and opportunity.
The atrocity in the middle of the square was undeniable. It was no more possible for “secular democrats” to have done it than it would have been possible for secular democrats to do such a thing in the middle of the Republican Presidential Convention.
Conclusion: the people controlling the rebellion are NOT secular democrats. They do not want to tear down the throne; they want to sit on it, and they are quite willing to kill secular democrats in order to, and/or after they, succeed.
In the name of heaven can we please focus on the post? It has completely gone off the tracks.
Sorry if I’ve offended anyone.
RE: #44
Yes, Dan sometimes others don’t immediately get the point your making and need it spelled it.
I took the time to your posts and read the links, that you used as the supporting evidence of your conclusions, and I didn’t then nor I do I now see how they justify your tone nor your conclusions.
In fact, the only example you came back with was a current quote from Conservapedia that contained a retired Air Force Colonel differing with the current administration, and Col. Oliver North’s commentary to that. Obviously, you disagree with North but I didn’t find what he said beyond the scope of a different opinion which I think is pretty much par for the course of middle East politics.
Its that I can argue whether your correct or not since I don’t really have a lot of experience in this particular area, all I can say is you come so hostile and make such extreme allegations that you don’t come off as credible.
Firetag,
dude, I don’t think you know much about Egypt. Sorry to say. Egyptian men are very sexist. The situation in the square got out of hand because of the excitement of the moment and because of the underlying anger at Israel. It has nothing to do with politics or religion in Egypt. It was very sad that Laura Logan was attacked so viciously, but it wasn’t something coordinated by anyone, nor any black mark against any particular group except Egyptian men celebrating “freedom” rather raucously. But you’re showing your bias against the Muslim Brotherhood by trying to link that vicious attack against Laura Logan on them. There is no evidence of that except in your mind, Firetag.
And my comment about how the Muslim Brotherhood are obviously wicked was sarcastic. I clearly think you’re point that the MB caused that Logan needed to be gang raped is utterly stupid.
That’s a terrible conclusion. You assume that “secular democrats” in any country would obviously NEVER sexually assault a woman. You assume that the protesters at Tahrir Square were educated middle class men who would never do something like this. Only those dastardly religious Muslims would do this! Only the ones who follow Allah would dare rape a woman in public. That’s what you’re saying. Utterly ridiculous, Firetag.
Furthermore, while it is obvious that the Muslim Brotherhood wants to have some say in the politics of Egypt, there is no indication that they want to take over the country.
http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/02/09/egypt.muslim.brotherhood/
Of course, they’re Muslim, therefore they are natural liars and power seekers. Clearly.
Carey,
um, dude, James Clapper is the current director of national intelligence. He’s a retired Air Force colonel. He’s telling you the position of the current administration. It is the disgraced Oliver North that differs (shockingly!). Frankly I don’t know why conservatives listen to someone like Oliver North, a liar and a criminal. But hey, that’s what you guys want…
Nothing will satisfy you, thus I won’t proceed further.
Dan,
You know I was originally just just asking you to elaborate a little since I didn’t fully understand how the sources your provided supported your claims. I guess its just easier to get angry and label people so you more easily dismiss them — Ironic though since that is actually the point you are trying to make.
Carey,
That’s not the point I am making. I am saying that conservatives don’t base their worldview on facts. The conservapedia point of the Muslim Brotherhood (while obviously not as elaborate or descriptive as the wikipedia), decides to use its spare information on projecting the conservative bias on the MB. And it takes a swipe at Obama by criticizing the Director of National Intelligence daring to compliment the MB on being rather reasonable and not the boggeyman conservatives want people to think MB is. This has nothing to do with anger or with labeling. It’s about how the conservative position is not based in actual reality.
I did find a more expansive entry for the MB on Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_Brotherhood
and it does contain the criticisms section and much more of the type of information I was expecting. I hadn’t realized the link you provided as just a brief summary of the MB history.
There isn’t just one set of facts when discussing organizations that are rooted in religious politics especially in the middle East, so to take such a hard line as saying “conservatives don’t base their worldview on facts.” comes off as being a way too partisan.
Carey,
The first link I provided was a history of the MB in Syria to show Firetag that he has misrepresented who the MB in Syria are. I then posted the conservapedia of the general MB to show that Firetag’s position is the common belief among America’s conservatives vis a vis the MB. The American conservative position on the MB ignores their words and their non-violent actions within any of the countries they’re in, to try and paint them as utterly evil. Not unlike some who identify America solely by the military actions we take around the world, wouldn’t you say, Carey? There are people out there who ignore the good things America does and tries to project what America is solely by its violent actions. That’s what America’s conservatives do to the Muslim Brotherhood. If we judge America solely by our violent actions, we’re a pretty damn evil place.
Dan:
It would be nice if you didn’t try to base your opinions of what I think on a wiki I’d never even heard of until you mentioned it.
As to your point about Egyptian men:
“Sorry to say. Egyptian men are very sexist. The situation in the square got out of hand because of the excitement of the moment and because of the underlying anger at Israel. It has nothing to do with politics or religion in Egypt.”
Really? Substitute Mormon, Christian, Congressman, or Socialist IMF head for Egyptian, and then try to justify it as the excitement of the moment. That behavior is sick, no matter their religion or politics.
There are more than a billion peace loving Muslims on the planet. You can stop trying to make apologies for those who aren’t, especially when they kill far more Muslims than they’ve ever managed to kill Christians, Jews, or democratic secularists.
Firetag,
I don’t know what we’re arguing about. I agree with you here. Why are you trying to pin the rape on the Muslim Brotherhood?
I’m trying to get you to acknowledge that there is actually something (quite a lot of them, in fact) to be seriously worried about in the forces being unleashed in the Arab world and the organizations in position to gain control of that power, particularly from the point of view of someone concerned with peace, human rights, and justice.
Since I’ve still got Crossan — hardly anyone’s idea of a conservative Christian –at my desk from work on recent posts, and he’s got a whole section on the cultural anthropology of the Mediterranean societies, let me quote from some of his sources:
“‘Unlike [pastoralism in] Central Asia…pastoralism in the Mediterranean was challenged by the continuous expansion of agriculture for centuries preceding the industrial revolution. Because transport by sea was easy, Iron Age technologies for the production of agricultural surpluses diffused into dry and mountainous zones that might otherwise have remained pastoral, broken only by scattered communities of marginal, autochthonous cultivators. Particularly on the less arid European side, landlords devoted vast regions to the production of wheat for export, simply because of the facility with which it could be transported by sea… In much of the Mediterranean, pastoralism and agriculture coexisted, competing for the same resources in a way which fragmented the social organization of each type of community and blurred the boundary between them. In the absence of the state, pastoral communities, and agricultural communities in their midst developed their own means of social control — the codes of honor and shame — which were adapted to the intense conflict that external pressures had created within them and between them’. We are dealing, in other words, with a harsh ideology for an equally harsh ecology, with limited and unstable social unities arising from limited and unstable natural resources…concern with honor arises when the definition of the group is problematical, when the social boundaries are difficult to maintain, and internal loyalties are questionable. Shame, the reciprocal of honor, is especially important when one of the contested resources is women, and the comportment of women defines the honor of social groups….Honor and shame, then, could be defined as the ideology of small, discrete, and unstable groups competing permanently for basic resources that are attained insecurely and maintained precariously, but where conflict must be reluctantly transposed into cooperation for the most precious resource of all, marriageable women.” (pages 12-15 of The Historical Jesus)
Earlier (page 8), Crossan shows how this same cultural development shows up throughout Genesis, where the question is asked “repeatedly, but implicitly, ‘How closely related must you be in order to be one people and how other must you be in order to be a spouse? Other sex? Other family? Other lineage? Other tribe? Other nation?'”
So you have cultures evolved for several thousand years for selfish, competitive dominance that treat “others” and their own females as having no right to dignity unless they submit to the temporarily dominant male group. And then God and/or plate tectonics plays a great joke: He puts these cultures on top of huge pools of petroleum and critical trade routes precisely at the point of all time when petroleum technology feeds, clothes, and houses most of the planet and humanity first acquires weapons with global reach.
Personal honor DOES matter, but it is not the concept of honor that evolved in the Med, which is based on the continual accumulation of power and the lamentation of your enemy’s women. That should have gone out with Conan the Barbarian, even if Arnold apparently never got the memo.
Firetag,
Again, what the hell does the Lara Logan rape have to do with the price of tea in China! Or in other words, you still have no answered why you claim the Muslim Brotherhood had anything to do with her rape.
“There are more than a billion peace loving Muslims on the planet. ”
Total B.S. Total, absolute B.S. A poll in Pakistan shortly after the 2001 attack showed positive support for Bin Laden. You have a lot of people damaged by that whore of the earth known as Islam.
Dan:
I have told you why several times. Means, motive, and opportunity. If you wish to suggest that it was done by “secular democrats”, feel free, but then you should ask yourself why we should want to see such “secular democrats” in power any more than Islamists.
It’s so much nobler to be murdered by the politically correct social group.
Will:
You underestimate how many Muslims there are. You can easily have more than a hundred million jihadists, and still have over a billion peace-loving Muslims. But your broader point on the scope of the problem is certainly correct and something about which the idealistic among the American left (in whose number I include Dan) remain in stubborn denial. A conservative estimate from Gallup suggested only 7% of Muslims might “support” Islamists — but that’s still more jihadists than there were Germans in WW2.
Firetag,
Show me your evidence. Show me where you have evidence the Muslim Brotherhood planned to rape Lara Logan.
Firetag,
Hmmm, so if I find at least 7% of Christians who support actions against Muslims who are (in the words of Will and others like him) the “whore of the earth”, then you’ll agree with me that we’re no different than Muslims are? The point being that you’re trying to paint Muslims as somehow more evil than we are because at least 7% of all Muslims in the world support (whatever the hell that word means) Islamists. That of course doesn’t factor in the inherently different Muslim cultures (from Indonesia, to India, to the Middle East, to Africa, to Central Asia, to Europe, to the Americas), and their differing reasons for supporting whatever “Islamists” means. That’s like trying to gauge in all of the Christian world if there is support for those who wish to limit, harm, or even kill Muslims. Methinks I can find 7% of all the Christian world that would support the Christian version of “Islamist.”
Frankly when it comes to idealism, I’m not the idealist here. YOU are. You’re the one projecting upon Muslims actions they didn’t plan (the rape of Lara Logan) in an attempt to paint them more evil than you. Well good on you, high and mighty self-righteous. Let me get you your throne.
My oh my, I don’t think i’ve a post go this off-topic before…..
#62: Will You have a lot of people damaged by that whore of the earth known as Islam.
I haven’t checked this post for several days. Wow. It certainly has nothing to do with Mitt Romney.
And Will, this is the most offensive comment I have seen on this blog since it started. I know a number of Muslims and they are without a doubt some of the best, most honest, most caring people I know. I had dinner at a friend’s house this past week (who happens to be Muslim) and he has given millions to charity here in Utah. And these aren’t charities designed to help only people of his own faith, but charities who help ALL people, regardless of religion, race, or anything else.
I have read the Qu’ran. I have felt the Spirit testify of truth in the Qu’ran. There are hundreds of millions of great Muslims who have also been touched by the truths in the Qu’ran and who have become better people through that touch.
I’m thankful that the actions of Bin Laden and crew represent Islam as much as comments like yours represent Mormonism, because if Mormons were as narrow-minded and judgmental as that comment might suggest, I would be gone tomorrow.
If you can’t tell, I am absolutely ashamed that a comment like that is even on this blog.
getting back on topic, it seems Romney is not as squeaky clean as y’all thought…
Mike,
I’m sure some of the people are great, but as for the religion I’ll stick with Nephi on this one – “that Great Whore who sits on many waters…. the mother of all abominations.”
Dan,
If Romney keeps ads like this up, he can win:
Mike:
YOU are seeing people as individuals without condemning or exonerating an entire religion. That is the crux of where I think Will and Dan in perverse agreement: we must ignore evil lest we tarnish those who are good (Dan), or we must condemn all lest evil triumph (Will), because we can not discriminate.
What we must do is learn to tell the difference between that which should be treasured and allowed to bloom and that which must be opposed as morally wrong — regardless of who does it.
Firetag,
What is your evidence that the Muslim Brotherhood planned and executed the rape of Lara Logan?
Dan:
Proceed directly to comment 53 and recycle through the DO loop.
You are the only one who suggested it had to be “planned” after we BOTH agreed that the behavior was rampant in the culture that controlled the Square. It was a rape of opportunity. Where we differ is that you think if you call it “democracy”, it’s less evil. No, it isn’t. Most people do not commit rapes of opportunity in a public place, because most publics don’t give people such opportunities in public. That requires real education in hating.
After all, I’ve argued with you for two years now and haven’t even moved to disemvowel you.
so you’re not actually accusing the Muslim Brotherhood of the rape. You’re just saying that only religious Muslims would rape a blond woman who they thought was Jewish.
I’m saying that no one else but Islamists or your supposed “secular democrats” had means or opportunity because only the Islamists or “secular democrats” had control of the square by the night the rape occurred. By that point, no group of agents of Mubarak could have gotten into and out of the crowd alive.
Further, what would be the motive of your “secular democrats”? Do you think Google executives rape blonde women they think are Jews in public? Is that what you’re arguing?
Who do you think did it, Dan? The Smurfs?
Stop ignoring inconvenient facts because they don’t conform to the myth of multiculturalism.
Firetag,
There’s no doubt the men who raped Lara Logan were Egyptian, as to the rest, you’re only assuming. You have no evidence that anyone associated with the Muslim Brotherhood had any kind of hand in that atrocity. You have no evidence that any religious Muslim had a hand in that atrocity. You’re assuming. You have no facts.
Well, then, Death to Papa Smurf, and Smurfette had better watch her back. 😀
dude, don’t go around accusing people you don’t like with a rape they never sanctioned.
You still have provided no alternative viable theory of the crime, Dan. Random Egyptians in a square dominated by the revolutionary forces? That should make everyone feel so much safer.
So it’s Papa Smurf.
Unless it was rampaging Boston Bruins fans in the midst of Vancouver last night.
Or Anthony Weiner e-mailed himself in.
By continuing to defend, defend, and defend the politically correct but ridiculous, you only make yourself look the same.
yes, random Egyptians in a square dominated by revolutionary forces drunken with the taste of freedom of their dictator capitulating to their demands. Frankly I don’t know why you think that’s a safe environment. It’s NOT. It wasn’t just Lara Logan who was assaulted during the whole revolution. Other American reporters were assaulted too. It was a rough place and a rough time. You are under the impression that a random event like that has a rational explanation. It doesn’t. No one planned it. It was a random event. It’s terribly awful that it happened to such a good reporter as Logan (who will have a very hard time doing such reports in the Middle East again). But it was a random event.
Who do you think I am defending here? I am only defending the wrongfully accused. You have no evidence that the Muslim Brotherhood committed the awful act. Yet you continue to blame them. Shame on you, Firetag. You’re just as bad as Will and Jon.
“Yes, random Egyptians in a square dominated by revolutionary forces drunken with the taste of freedom of their dictator capitulating to their demands. Frankly I don’t know why you think that’s a safe environment. It’s NOT. It wasn’t just Lara Logan who was assaulted during the whole revolution. Other American reporters were assaulted too. It was a rough place and a rough time.”
If there is one thing everybody reading this understands, it is that I DO NOT think the Middle East was or is a safe place. What do you think comment 32 was about anyway? More power certainly tempered the other Islamist fundamentalist movements didn’t it? And the dictatorships of the Middle East today WERE yesterday’s revolutionaries drunk with power.
These events aren’t random when they keep happening — like the burning of the Coptic churches — they are SYSTEMATIC. And systematic actions become the moral responsibility of the leaders who find it convenient not to act against them.
Was it a rough time when the theocracy in Iran turned on its people in 2009, or as it backs, with continued military support by the same storm troopers they used in 2009, the slaughter of Syrian civilians today? It was just “random patriotic Iranians” rising up to preserve the political power of their faction, of course.
So, when those on one side of the spectrum do it, it’s evil, but on the other side of the political spectrum, it’s no harm, no foul.
you think I’m giving anyone a break? By all means, go over to Egypt and prosecute those who raped Lara Logan. Search the individuals out. It’s not the Muslim Brotherhood who did it. It’s not the Islamic religion that condones that kind of action. Stop blaming the wrong people for that action. Blame the individuals who committed the heinous act. No institution did it. And stop being drunk with hate toward Muslims.
“And stop being drunk with hate toward Muslims.”
That’s always your final answer, isn’t it Dan?
If I speak out against Muslims who murder and enslave other Muslims because the second group isn’t as radically fundamentalist as the first group, it’s because I hate Muslims.
If I speak out against the KKK, it must be because I hate Christians.
I repeat: credible polls make it impossible for any well-read person to successfully argue that there are less than several tens of millions of Muslims who are perfectly willing to kill and enslave other people of ANY FAITH because of THEIR perverted interpretation of the Muslim faith. Organizations that immediately ally themselves with Hamas, as the Brotherhood does, fall into that group; after all, Hamas came to power in Gaza by conducting a surprise coup against the PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY that started with dynamiting a tunnel under PA headquarters and ended with throwing PA prisoners off the roofs of tall buildings.
Stop accusing people of hate because you don’t want to acknowledge the problem Islamic fundamentalists pose.
I’ve never had a problem acknowledging Islamic fundamentalists pose a great problem for the world to solve. But I don’t use that as an excuse to lay blame on any group an ugly rape that they did not cause. To use your KKK example, it’s like blaming the KKK for white men at a protest in the South beating up on a black man. Sure, the KKK is reprehensible on their own, but unless I actually have evidence that they had a hand it in, I cannot blame them for the beating. There are many fundamental problems with the Muslim Brotherhood, but they did not cause the rape of Lara Logan. Let it go dude. You’re making yourself look really stupid.
Poor Dan. Every day he’s looking dumber and dumber. Here’s another one for you to weep over.
Not bad for a war you say has ended! Bravo, Dan, bravo!