My Photo


  • Creative Commons License

« Breaking Bad: "Gliding Over All" the invisible lines and immaterial connections | Main | Nailed it! »

Wednesday, 12 September 2012


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Gospodin Dangling-Participle

"Now watch this drive."


Thanks. I switched over from "would" and neglected to follow through.


The thing is, the embassy statement Romney claims is "sympathizing with those who had breached our embassy in Egypt" was put out before the protests began (apparently in anticipation of protests after the online film appeared). Talking Points Memo has been all over this (WSJ has also noted the timeline of events), and it seems the only support Romney's getting is from his own campaign and Reince Preibus.

But the original statement was about the U.S.'s stance on religious tolerance -- so he's not only using American deaths in a cravenly anachronistic attempt to score some tone-deaf political points, but he's also wandering backwards into a discussion about how the U.S. should handle religious diversity.

Does the first Mormon candidate want to get into a religious tolerance debate based on his own bloody-minded opportunism? If so, does the most prominent face of Mormonism in the U.S. today want his religion to be characterized by such bloody-minded opportunism?

...this can't end well...


There's something a little subgenius about Romney...


My eyes! My eyes!

Jonathan Dresner

As I said at the other place:

I’m having a hard time being entirely rational about this. I didn’t like Romney before, and he’s got some of the most dangerous allies in American politics, but this hurts more.

I studied under former diplomats, and studied with future ones, and Romney’s attack is deeply offensive, lousy policy, and continued evidence of his intellectual bankruptcy.

Why should American religious intolerance, as demonstrated by the anti-islamic movie, not be noted as damaging — in this age of global communication — the reputation of the American government and majority of Americans who are not at all anti-Islamic? This is what a diplomat does: explain, build relationships, present arguments that advance US interests. An American diplomat is not a apologist for all things American, but an agent of the US government whose job is to advance American (not Christian) interests.

In addition to being in bad taste, Romney’s statements suggest (confirms, etc.) that he doesn’t really understand the nature of diplomacy, the job that he’s applying for.


For the meme --

Top Image:

"I pray for the strength to change what I can, the inability to accept what I can't,"

Bottom Image:

"And the incapacity to tell the difference."


My head, you've tied it in knots!


Getting a bit repetitive, are we?
There are examples of the current administration trying to call the sky red and expecting the faithful agree.
The latest one is the press secretary attributing the attacks on US embassies to the film posted on YouTube and saying that it has nothing to do with administration policy in the middle east
There are a whole host of others for instance:
We can keep spending way more than the government earns through taxes and other
revenues with no consequence
The ACA will have no impact on cost or quality of health care to seniors
Printing more money will create jobs
Our support for Israel is unwavering....and then not agreeing to meet with the
Israeli prime minister
Two faces are not unique to a particular political party

The comments to this entry are closed.