Fuck Romney

[lupercal]

Mitt Romney's Mom Says his Dad was on Welfare

Hypocrisy, thy name is Mittler...

[StarmanSkye]

[StarmanSkye]

[lupercal]

"Within Hours, Mitt Romney Takes Back Everything He Said About Preexisting Conditions" --Mother Jones, Sept. 9





Mitt Romney: "I don't know what I said, but I stand by it, whatever it was."

[seemslikeadream]

Netanyahu campaigning for his good friend Romney

Netanyahu dragging himself into the U.S. election

[seemslikeadream]

Romney's Libya Comments Kowtow to Anti-Muslim Bigots
Robert Dreyfuss on September 12, 2012 - 9:03 AM ET
Mitt Romney has, for all intents and purposes, pretty much disqualified himself for the presidency by his intemperate comments in regard to the murder of the U.S. ambassador in Libya. His bungling trip to Britain, Israel and Poland was bad enough, but his shocking remarks blasting President Obama and kowtowing to extremist, anti-Muslim Republican voters ought to be the final straw.

A quick summary of the facts: an extremist, Israeli-American Jew’s film about Islam stirs up radical Muslims in Egypt, Libya, and elsewhere. The U.S. embassy in Cairo, obviously sensing that tension was building, condemns the propaganda film. Then, the embassy in Cairo and the consulate in Benghazi come under attack. When the American diplomats are killed, including the U.S. ambassador, President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton issue fierce condemnations. And Romney says this:


“I’m outraged by the attacks on American diplomatic missions in Libya and Egypt and by the death of an American consulate worker [sic] in Benghazi. It’s disgraceful that the Obama administration’s first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks.”


Why did Romney issue the “disgraceful” comment?” Because he’s seeking the votes of Islam-hating Christian-extremist nutcases. Period.

Said Ben LaBolt, a spokesman for the Obama campaign:


“We are shocked that, at a time when the United States of America is confronting the tragic death of one of our diplomatic officers in Libya, Governor Romney would choose to launch a political attack.”


The issue isn’t that Romney is so callous that he’d make political hay out of a murder of a diplomat. The issue is why Romney would seek tom paint the president as a sympathizer with extreme Islamists.

Reince Preibus, the Christian-right head of the Republican National Committee, tweeted:


Obama sympathizes with attackers in Egypt. Sad and pathetic.


What’s sad and pathetic is that the Republicans don’t undrstand that when a hateful series of cartoons or a hateful film excite Muslim extremists, the U.S. embassy always, always issues a calming statement. Obviously, the statement issued in Cairo preceded the attacks. The statement said:


The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims – as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions. Today, the 11th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, Americans are honoring our patriots and those who serve our nation as the fitting response to the enemies of democracy. Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy. We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others.


And correctly so. Would that Romney were intelligent enough to understand that statements like that often save lives.

For the record, here’s Obama’s full statement after the death of Chris Stevens and his colleagues:


I strongly condemn the outrageous attack on our diplomatic facility in Benghazi, which took the lives of four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens. Right now, the American people have the families of those we lost in our thoughts and prayers. They exemplified America's commitment to freedom, justice, and partnership with nations and people around the globe, and stand in stark contrast to those who callously took their lives.

I have directed my Administration to provide all necessary resources to support the security of our personnel in Libya, and to increase security at our diplomatic posts around the globe. While the United States rejects efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others, we must all unequivocally oppose the kind of senseless violence that took the lives of these public servants.

On a personal note, Chris was a courageous and exemplary representative of the United States. Throughout the Libyan revolution, he selflessly served our country and the Libyan people at our mission in Benghazi. As Ambassador in Tripoli, he has supported Libya's transition to democracy. His legacy will endure wherever human beings reach for liberty and justice. I am profoundly grateful for his service to my Administration, and deeply saddened by this loss.

The brave Americans we lost represent the extraordinary service and sacrifices that our civilians make every day around the globe. As we stand united with their families, let us now redouble our own efforts to carry their work forward.

I didn’t notice an apology in there.

[seemslikeadream]

Romney In Israel: How High To Jump?
Haaretz's Barak Ravid goes over the speech:

The speech itself sounded as if it could have been written by Netanyahu's bureau. So it's no surprise that when the two met later for dinner, Netanyahu thanked him for his "support for Israel and Jerusalem." In general, Netanyahu embraced Romney as no Israeli prime minister has ever before embraced a candidate running against an incumbent U.S. president: Aside from their working meeting in the morning, Netanyahu also hosted Romney and his wife and sons for dinner at his official residence.

The crowd told you everything you need to know:

Religious American immigrants dominated the crowd; secular Jews and native-born Israelis were few and far between. Those present included Jewish-American millionaires, settler leaders like the former chairman of the Yesha Council of settlements Israel Harel, and former Netanyahu aides such as Dore Gold, Naftali Bennett, Ayelet Shaked and Yoaz Hendel.

Settlers and religious fanatics: it's striking how the entire foreign policy position of the GOP in the Middle East has essentially been out-sourced to the Likud. The reasons for that, one senses, are multiple. The most powerful way that Romney can win over the religious right, given his past wobbliness on such issues as abortion and gay equality, is to back the Likud and its associated religious parties in their twin goals: permanent occupation of the West Bank and a war against Iran. That's what the Christianists passionately believe in. Moreover, adopting wholesale the Israeli position - that Iran cannot enrich uranium even for peaceful and inspected purposes - is tantamount to declaring war, either by Israel or the US. In office, how will Romney not back Netanyahu in whatever he wants? And not because he has made an assessment of the realities of America's interests in the region, but because any daylight between Romney and Netanyahu would produce a revolt among the pro-settler, end-times Christianist right that now runs the GOP.

Notice how often Romney cited "providence" for Israel's establishment and prosperity. Notice how for Romney, there is no more glowing characteristic of a nation than its economic wealth (a sign of its holiness). Note how the democratic revolutions in the Arab world, wished-for by Bush, encouraged by Obama, are now dark forces for Romney, because they might elevate Islamism in the Middle East in the short or medium term, and if you are Israel (but not necessarily America) that must be countered immediately.

I honestly don't know whether Romney in office would follow the logic of this long campaign - he spoke platitudes about "a two-state solution" which his chief funder, billionaire fanatic Sheldon Adelson, has contempt for. But I do think his cartoonishly neocon posture in the Middle East is a huge liability and makes a return to Bush-Cheney global polarization more likely. Then there's the tone-deaf issue:

Mitt Romney told Jewish donors Monday that their culture is part of what has allowed them to be more economically successful than the Palestinians, outraging Palestinian leaders who suggested his comments were racist and out of touch with the realities of the Middle East...

"It is a racist statement and this man doesn't realize that the Palestinian economy cannot reach its potential because there is an Israeli occupation," said Saeb Erekat, a senior aide to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. "It seems to me this man lacks information, knowledge, vision and understanding of this region and its people," Erekat added. "He also lacks knowledge about the Israelis themselves. I have not heard any Israeli official speak about cultural superiority."

More pro-Israel than many Israelis; and too jejune to know you keep these sentiments quiet. Frum applauds the speech and says it helps Obama, because Romney was acting "as 'bad cop' to the administration's 'good cop,' intensifying pressure on the Iranian regime to do a deal now—before the next administration offers yet tougher terms." Oookaay. What strikes me as more significant is that Romney is the first presidential candidate not to endorse a two-state solution along 1967 lines with land-swaps. That's a huge victory for the Israeli far right.

Shifting focus, Goldblog calls the timing of Romney's photo-op at the Western Wall "vulgar". Beinart elaborates:

In his Jerusalem speech, Romney went on to insist that "we cannot stand silent as those who seek to undermine Israel voice their criticisms. And we certainly should not join in that criticism." But Tisha B’Av [the fast day that commemorates the destruction of the First and Second Temples] is all about the importance of criticizing Jewish behavior; that’s why, on the Sabbath before it, we read a portion of the Torah in which Moses rebukes the Jewish people before they enter the land of Israel. Obviously, some criticism truly is destructive and unfair. But to use Tisha B’Av to suggest that the country that most clearly wishes Israel well—the United States—should never publicly disagree with Israel’s actions isn’t just bad foreign policy. It’s bad Judaism.

Relatedly, Juan Cole lists the "Top Ten Most Distasteful things about Romney Trip to Israel." One obvious one:

It is distasteful the Romney will not commit to a two-state solution within 1967 borders or demand Israel cease illegal squatting on and unilateral annexation of Palestinian land. If he is going to this Middle East hot spot, why doesn’t he visit a Palestinian refugee camp so as to understand the nub of the dispute, instead of hobnobbing with the uber-rich in Jerusalem.

Because understanding the nub of the dispute would mean empathizing with Muslim Arabs and getting outside his comfort zone. Romney, alas, can barely empathize with his own dog.

(Photo: US gaming tycoon Sheldon Adelson arrives to hear Republican presidential candidate, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney delivers foreign policy remarks on July 29, 2012 in Jerusalem, Israel. Romney is in Israel as part of a three-nation foreign diplomatic tour which also includes visits to Poland and Great Britain. By Lior Mizrahi/Getty Images.)

[crikkett]

I think Romney's dye job is too obvious.

[JackRiddler]

I think Romney's dye job is too obvious.

Nah, Netanyahu's is too subtle. Only thing about him that is.

.

[seemslikeadream]

How Bain Capital (And Mitt Romney) Profited From The 9/11 Tragedy

September 12th, 2012 6:43 pm
Jason Sattler


One of Mitt Romney’s most challenging tasks as the Republican nominee for president is to explain his business career, which has been the subject of attacks since last winter’s primaries. The genesis of his extraordinary wealth is something that he’s rarely spoken about on the campaign trail in detail. And when he finally did try to address the issue at the Republican National Convention, he never actually mentioned the name of the private equity firm he ran for decades – Bain Capital.

A new report by Politicker’s Hunter Walker helps explain why Romney shies from defending his firm’s practices. In addition to buying companies – often strong companies that could be loaded with debt, Bain also invested in firms that could wring profit from crisis. Consider Equity Specialty Holdings, a reinsurance startup specifically created to purchase debt from insurance companies badly hit by the 9/11 attacks.

Walker reports that “Mr. Romney was invested in Endurance Specialty Holdings both through Golden Gate Capital, a private equity firm founded by a former Bain Capital executive in 2000 and through his direct interest in another investment firm, CCG Investment Fund, LP.”

The opportunity for Equity Specialty Holdings was simple. Its management could invest in insurers that badly needed to cover losses due to 9/11, and reap enormous benefit from the increased fees that the surviving insurance companies could then charge. The results were astounding: “Over the next nine months, the company generated a net income of $63.5 million. By the end of 2003, the company was reporting net income of $263.4 million.”

The Romney family disavows any knowledge or responsibility for this investment, saying that their money is in a blind trust. Famously, Romney dismissed Ted Kennedy’s identical response in 1994, ridiculing blind trusts as an “age-old ruse.”

Bain’s reinsurance investment occurred in that murky period when Romney had left Bain in order to work on the 2002 Winter Olympics, yet remained the CEO of the firm. During that period, Bain made many of its most controversial layoffs and investments – including investing in Stericycle, a company that went on to dispose of aborted fetuses. A Bain executive has said Romney retained his position in Bain as leverage while he negotiated his retirement package. The implication is that he retained the power to affect the company’s business.

The world of private equity baffles most Americans with its tangled web of ownership and the ability to profit off bankruptcies. But it’s understandable that Romney would seek to distance himself from controversial investments. Profiting from 9/11 doesn’t fit well with his campaign slogan, “Believe in America.”

Michael Tomasky on Mitt Romney’s Total Neocon Meltdown
by Michael Tomasky Sep 13, 2012 4:45 AM EDT
Romney’s irresponsible reaction to violence in the Mideast shows he plans to repeat the mistakes of George W. Bush. Does the GOP really think that’s what the American people want?
We know that we saw something appalling yesterday, in Mitt Romney’s response to the violence in Cairo and Benghazi, but let’s not lose sight of the fact that we’re witnessing something historic too. This isn’t simply the end of the Republican Party’s decades-long political advantage on foreign policy that we’re observing. Rather, we are simultaneously able to see how the party is reacting to and dealing with the disappearance of that advantage. It’s like those villains in the movies who not only are dying, but who register on their face that they can’t comprehend they’re dying, that Hell has finally called their malevolent number, like Julia Roberts’s husband in Sleeping With The Enemy. God, it’s fun to watch. But it’s also a reminder of the danger of handing power to this man and the people he would bring in with him
Marx would be completely dead if we didn’t have the Republicans around to prove him right every so often. Yet here we are in 2012, able to say definitively that the moment of greatest apparent Republican foreign-policy triumph—spring and summer of 2003—contained, in good Marxian fashion, the seeds of its own destruction. That’s when neoconservatism and its grand theories seemed to be on the cusp of a great vindication. The Iraq effort became disastrous, but even into 2005, with the advent of the great uprising in Lebanon and the blessed end of the Syrian occupation, for which Bush deserved and received some credit, no honest liberal skeptic could be completely sure that Wolfowitz & co. had everything wrong.

But by January 2009, nearly everything was in tatters—Hamas was strengthened, Hezbollah was back in the saddle in Lebanon, Iran was emboldened, and more. The Freedom Agenda hadn’t made many people free. True, Iraqis no longer lived under a tyrant, and that’s no small thing. But we had to kill 100,000 of them and displace 2.2 million more to get the job done. That’s freedom for those who remain, I guess, but at a steep price. Across the rest of the region, the larger agenda, if anything, moved matters in reverse.

Barack Obama hasn’t solved a lot of these problems, which predated him coming into office. But in Iraq and Afghanistan, he’s nudging the needle in the right direction. And he did more than nudge it, of course, when it came to bin Laden and Al Qaeda. Far from creating his own crisis as Bush did, Obama was hit with one, the Arab Spring. We can’t know how all that will turn out, and things certainly look bleak at this moment in Egypt and Libya. But Obama did the only things that could be done at the time. Can you imagine the United States siding with Hosni Mubarak against those people in Tahrir Square, or permitting the pre-advertised massacre of thousands in Benghazi?


Republican presidential candidate, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Mitt Romney comments on the killing of U.S. embassy officials in Benghazi, Libya, while speaking in Jacksonville, Florida Sept. 12, 2012. (Charles Dharapak / AP Photo)

The world is the world. Obama can’t wave a wand at it. But he can do what he has done, which is to run a sober and responsible foreign policy, not one based on theories developed in think-tank seminars underwritten by some hawkish Israeli billionaire. Obama’s approach to foreign policy is the one that has guided this country at its best moments (which have not, alas, been as frequent as we’d like), and it’s the foreign policy most Americans want.

The neoconservatives, meanwhile, aghast at their defeat at the Obama’s hands, just contrive to get huffier and huffier. It was astonishing on Wednesday that even as few very elected Republicans dared venture where Romney went rhetorically, key neocon commentators like Bill Kristol defended Romney. They seem to believe, like a flailing orator, that if they just repeat a line more insistently and more loudly, the audience will respond. But the audience now has a body of facts, 12 years’ worth, to consider. In his four years, Obama has done a little more good—and a lot less harm.

Obama has run a sober and responsible foreign policy, not one based on theories developed in think-tank seminars underwritten by some hawkish Israeli billionaire.
That’s the past. As to the future, let’s begin by considering that 70 percent of Romney’s foreign-policy brain trust worked for Bush, as Ari Berman has reported in The Nation. Combining that dour factoid with the rumors and suggestions one sees planted in the press from time to time—that John Bolton would make a fine secretary of state—gives Americans much to fear in a Romney presidency. The only thing they’ve learned from the Bush failures and their years in opposition is the same lesson zealots always learn: that the only reason our ideas didn’t succeed is that they weren’t implemented purely enough. I trust that the prospect of those ideas being implemented more purely next time around startles you.


Presidential candidate Mitt Romney held a press conference Wednesday to address the Libyan attack.
If Obama is reelected—and Wednesday may prove to have been an important milestone toward that end—and if his next four years go roughly like the last four on the foreign policy front, the Democratic Party will be back to where it was on foreign policy dominance in 1948. I spent a lot of time in 2003 arguing with conservatives and even hawkish liberals—far more vociferously with the latter—that the neocon project did not represent a fulfillment of Truman/Acheson-style foreign policymaking. On Wednesday, Romney and his apologists went a long way toward proving me right.

[seemslikeadream]

Romney and Ryan Court Leaders of Anti-Muslim Hate Fest
As anti-American protests spread through cities in Muslim countries, Republican candidates mixed with those who fan the flames, including a former general calling for a pre-election Israeli strike on Iran.
September 16, 2012 |

If there’s anything we know about evangelical Christians, it’s that they comprise a remarkably effective voting block, and the religious right has been a core part of the Republican coalition for decades.

So it comes as no surprise, perhaps, that the two top members of the Republican ticket, presidential candidate Mitt Romney and his running-mate, Paul Ryan, would court the Family Research Council at its recent Values Voter Summit in Washington, D.C., where, on Friday, Ryan delivered a speech, and Romney appeared via video message. But what is appalling is that the event this duo endorsed quickly devolved into a hate fest directed against an American religious minority.

At the podium in the massive ballroom of the Omni Shoreham Hotel, and in the breakout sessions that followed, the conference’s Saturday line-up seemed contrived to demonize Muslims as liars, infiltrators and worse -- and one speaker, retired Lt. Gen. William “Jerry” Boykin, sought to direct U.S. foreign policy in ways that could affect the outcome of the presidential election, by calling on Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to strike Iran before November 6.

Religious Tolerance -- For Whom?

At the Saturday plenary session, FRC promoted itself as being all about religious tolerance. "Our founding fathers considered religious liberty our first freedom," intoned FRC president Tony Perkins. "It was the bedrock on which all our freedoms rest."

Perkins then introduced a panel of right-wing activists who set out to enrage the audience with tales of Christian students in American public schools being prohibited from praying, thanks to secular school boards and “activist” judges. One story that drew audible anger from the crowd was of a student in at Medina (not that Muslim one!) High School in Texas who was unable to invoke a call to prayer during her valedictorian speech.

But the discussion quickly turned from the supposed suppression of the Christian faith in the United States to the ostensible privileging of the Islamic one. Fox News Radio's Todd Starnes condemned the Obama administration's criticism of an anti-Islam film that has sparked protests in the Middle East.

"This is not about a film, this is about free speech!" proclaimed Starnes, to thunderous applause from the audience. Overnight, news had broken of the questioning by law enforcement authorities of Nakoula Basselly Nakoula, one of the makers of the anti-Islam video, “Innocence of Muslims,” that has inflamed the Islamic world. Nakoula, an Egyptian-born Christian who is currently serving a sentence for bank fraud, was interviewed to determine whether he had violated the terms of his parole, which prohibits him from going on the internet, through his involvement with video, which was posted on YouTube.

In Starnes’ telling, though, the interrogation of Nakoula was government “intimidation” of a “Christian filmmaker.” He did not mention that Nakoula was a felon on parole.

Ironically, Starnes runs a Web site on Fox News Radio's site where he routinely condemns what he views as anti-Christian or anti-American behavior.

My God is Bigger Than Yours

But the other speakers at the luncheon event were small fish compared to Jerry Boykin. The retired U.S. Army lieutenant general was perhaps more fitted for being to a case study on religious hostility than to lecture an audience about it.

Boykin, whom FRC hired in July to become its executive vice president, has a controversial history of Muslim-bashing, such as when he claimed that the war on terror was a spiritual war between Muslims and "Christian America" in 2003. (As AlterNet reported, that didn’t stop Romney from meeting with him in July.)

In 2002, Boykin told a church in Daytona Beach, Florida that he was able to pursue a Muslim fighter in Somalia because he knew that "[my] God was bigger than his. I knew that my God was a real God and his was an idol." An internal investigation found that his anti-Muslim rhetoric had violated three Pentagon rules, but he was allowed to stay on until his retirement in 2007.

In lecturing the audience, Boykin was particularly animated when he told them about how he was rejected, post-retirement, as a speaker at a West Point event. "They asked me to withdraw because atheist groups and the Council on American Islamic Relations asked me not to be there," he said, anger in his voice. "I had to remind myself, you don't take flack until you're over the target. So I reminded myself that I was over the target."

Barbary Pirates and the Muslim Brotherhood

The hostility against Muslims only grew in the breakout sessions later that afternoon. The first session I attended was called "Understanding Radical Islam 101." Behind me sat William Temple, a tea partier and colonial re-enactor who frequents right-wing events, as he did this one, dressed in full colonial regalia, and carrying a full-sized Gadsden flag on a pole.

Temple told me that he wanted to attend the session because the wars the United States is conducting in the Muslim world today are no different than when, in the 18th and 19th centuries, the U.S. fought the Barbary pirates (a crime syndicate based in Muslim nations known for taking European Christians for ransom, or for the slave trade). In his mind, Muslims have always been at war with America. I reminded him that the first country that recognized America as a sovereign state was Morocco, a Muslim nation. He shrugged off this fact.

After warning attendees and fellow panelists that “there are media in our mix,” moderator and media consultant Kristi Hamrick set the tone for the session, renaming the session “Islam 101,” and ascribing the beliefs of Islamist extremists to the whole of the world’s Muslim population.

In a bid for the credibility of her claim, Hamrick introduced Nonie Darwish, an "ex-Muslim" right-wing author and activist who was at the event hawking her book.

"When it comes to Islam, Americans are confused,” Darwish said, in her thick Egyptian accent. “The whole world is confused," she explained as audience members nodded along. "The only way to understand the most dangerous ideology of our time is through honest discussion, we should have the courage to speak."

Lest anyone in the audience think she was referring only to radicals within the faith, she then launched into a no-holds-barred attack on Muslims as a whole. "Islam's number one enemy is the truth, that's the truth! America's number one virtue is the truth!" she said to applause.

"Islam is rotten to the core...ultimately the West is giving them a bloodline of credibility that they don't deserve," she advised.

Darwish then picked up on a theme that would be repeated throughout the day: Don't trust Muslims, they'll just lie to you.

"Islam obliges Muslims to lie...,” Darwish claimed. “There is sharia law that says lying is obligatory if the purpose is obligatory....It's a daily thing in Arab media to slander Israel, to lie about Israel, to lie about America."

At the conclusion of her speech, the audience gave her a standing ovation. "Yeah, hey, yeah!" yelled out Temple behind me.

Arab Spring as Pan-Islamist Conspiracy

Then the Christian Broadcasting Network's Erick Stakelbeck -- who was also hawking a book offering his supposed expert take on the Muslim world -- spoke. His target? The Arab Spring.

"Who has benefited from the Arab Spring? The Muslim Brotherhood, the Salafis, and Iran," he said, somehow conflating three groups with very different sets of interests. It would also probably surprise the government in Tehran to know that the Arab Spring that threatens to topple their closest regional ally, Bashar Al-Assad, is to their benefit.

"[Shia Muslim] ideology is they believe the Mahdi, the Islamic Messiah, disappeared down a well in the 9th century," he said to laughter from crowd full of Biblical literalists who believe in talking snakes and men who can walk on water that apparently lacked a sense of irony. "I'm just the messenger here!"

Tarring Administration Officials as Enemies of the State

The last speaker was far-right kingpin Frank Gaffney, who was also selling a book. Gaffney, a former Reagan administration official, specializes in a particular brand of Islamophobia that involves spreading the fear of "sharia law” -- the idea that Muslims will take hold of the legal system and force Americans to live under the dictates of the Quran.

Thanking the "great heroes" who spoke before him, Gaffney launched into a tirade about "Muslim Brotherhood" infiltration in the United States. If you listen to Gaffney, who runs a think tank called the Center for Security Policy, the Muslim Brotherhood, a conservative political movement in the Islamic world, has total control over the thoughts and actions of prominent Muslims all over the United States.

He pulled up a PowerPoint slide of Muslim organizations in the United States, and explained that "all" of the major Muslim organizations in the country are basically offshoots of the Brotherhood, and that they are all committed to "civilizational jihad."

He then pulled up the pictures of eight prominent Muslims who serve in or are near to the Obama administration. These people, Gaffney said, are "working to subvert our nation from within." The one Gaffney focused on the most was Huma Abedin, an aide to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton against whom Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann famously led a witch hunt.

Gaffney also fear-mongered about Rashad Hussein, Obama's envoy to the Organization of Islamic Countries. Hussein, he warned, "has memorized every word of the Quran. My experience of [Islam] is that you kind of have to be into it to do it...So is this guy representing us to this dangerous group or this dangerous group to us?" For Gaffney, even knowledge of the Quran's words is a national security threat.

In the last part of his presentation, he warned attendees against trusting Grover Norquist (who happens to be married to a Muslim woman). He bizarrely claimed that Norquist was intent on letting the "Muslim Brotherhood get access to people like George W. Bush," and that Romney was in his sights next. (Gaffney’s claim against Norquist, whose Americans for Tax Reform is a well-funded, secular right-wing operation, got Gaffney barred from speaking at the Conservative Political Action Conference last year in Washington.)

Gaffney closed his presentation with a quotation from Ronald Reagan. The choice of Reagan is actually quite ironic for a "pro-Israel" and anti-Muslim panel. After all, it was Reagan who allied with and funded jihadists to battle the Soviet Union, and who once furiously demanded to Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin that he stop bombing Arabs in South Lebanon.

Advice to Bibi: Bomb Iran Now!

The last panel I attended -- "Israel, Iran, and the Future of Western Civilization" -- brought the Values Voter Summit to its logical conclusion. First, attendees were told that Christians were under attack. Second, they were told that Muslims were the ones leading the attack. This panel was designed to get these evangelicals to the polls to vote out the man who, they are told, is standing by and letting it happen: Barack Obama.

Boykin returned for this event, and he was joined by Kamal Saleem, another "ex-Muslim" convert to Christianity who has claimed that he was once trained to be an Islamic terrorist -- a story that has not stood up to scrutiny.

"The problem is grim while the American people are still sleeping about this," warned Saleem in his broken English. "The infiltration has gone to the core of this nation."

Saleem told the audience that the Shia Islam philosophy followed by the leaders of Islam dictates to them that they must first "destroy the world" so that they can later "Islamisize" it. "These people are not looking to make a friendship," he said of the world's Muslims. "When our president bowed before them, he gave full permission to bow before Islam."

Boykin informed the crowd that Obama's unwillingness to attack Iran is especially dangerous. "I believe that Iran has a nuclear weapon today, I think they have a weapon already," he said, making a claim that not even the most hawkish of Israeli politicians have.

At this point, the crowd was ready for blood. And Boykin did not disappoint. "They've had several of their leading scientists," said Boykin of Iranian nuclear researchers," for whatever reason blow up." The crowd roared in laughter. "They've just had some bad, bad luck." The crowd applauded rigorously.

The reason why we should all applaud the deaths of Iranian scientists is simple, according to Boykin. "[Iranian leader Ahmedinijad] believes he has been called by Allah to usher in the reign of the Mahdi," he said, explaining that Iran is not deterred by the threat of mutually assured destruction. "Every Iranian, every Shia, every Muslim that is killed in a return [nuclear] strike becomes a martyr and goes straight to heaven. That is his theology."

"If we come close to the November 6th election and it appears that there is a high probability that the current administration will return, I think [Israel has] to run a pre-election strike," recommended Boykin. "That is the one secure way to assure [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu] has U.S. support for a strike."

But in recommending war with Iran, Boykin doesn't have any illusions about the scope of the conflict. "It's going to have impact globally. And it's going to have impact globally because the Iranians will unleash a reign of terror not only on Israel itself from Hezbollah and South Lebanon, but they will unleash a reign of terror on America."

In Boykin's mind, these are merely the consequences of God's plan. (A common element of Christian evangelical theology is the requirement for a war known as Armageddon in the Middle East, and the existence of the state of Israel, before Jesus can return to earth.)

"It is up to us as Christians, A, to pray for Israel, and B to stand with Israel if they are forced into this situation that they have to strike,” he instructed the crowd. “We need to pray for Israel, God bless you!"

Rape Metaphor and a Gay Joke, as Attacks on Black Officials

During the question-and-answer session, a number of attendees wanted to know more about how Muslims were supposedly infiltrating the U.S. government.

Saleem alleged that a U.N. treaty that Obama was working to enforce to replace the constitution with sharia law. Under this new, purportedly Obama-enforced regime, "churches and synagogues will go down underground because now you'll have to submit your sermons to the government." The consequences of an Obama re-election, he said, would be to "lose this nation.”

“We can lose our sovereignty," he claimed.

One questioner, an older woman, wanted to know how Americans can trust the words of any Muslim if they are instructed by their faith to lie.

"It's the Muslim Brotherhood that speaks for all Muslims in America," replied Boykin. "Find the Muslim community, find the Imam and say if you'll make statements condemning sharia...and then ask him, ‘Do you support Hamas?’ -- then if he won't answer that question...forget him -- move on to the next one."

"But even in that regard they are obligated to lie about Hamas," she began to reply.

"If they will make a public statement saying, ‘We'll condemn Hamas...’" Boykin interjected.

This went on for a while until Saleem jumped back in. "There's a very, very small formula, any Muslim that defend Islamic act, or like the senator (sic) from you know Minnesota, Ellison, yes and he defended the action of the Egyptian this or this or that, this is what we need to watch.” (Rep. Keith Ellison, D-Minn., an African American, is the only Muslim member of Congress.)

“Anyone who is defending the act of Islam you will know that he is radical,” Saleem continued, “because liberal Muslim will not defend the actions of Islam. That's how you will know. There are those who are fruitful and those who are fruity!" The audience erupted in laughter at what seemed to be an anti-gay joke.

Saleem had the chance to propose one more conspiracy theory at the very end of the panel. One questioner asked, if a President Romney expanded domestic drilling, could the United States could wean itself from dependence on oil from Muslim countries.

"This president is holding us in headlock so we can be raped by Islamic nations," said Saleem, offering the most brutal imagery yet of Barack Obama doing the bidding of his Muslim minions.

Hate as a Hail Mary Pass

It is difficult to imagine any other religious group facing the sort of rank hatred that Muslims faced at the Values Voters Summit and still getting the ringing endorsement of a major political candidate like Mitt Romney. Surely if the FRC was telling people to blacklist rabbis or that all Christians are deluded liars, Romney and Ryan would be running as far away from the event as possible.

But for the religious right, the promotion of Islamophobia is its Hail Mary pass -- one last ditch attempt to retain relevancy. The country is becoming increasingly tolerant and socially liberal, and one day soon Christian conservatives will no longer be able to turn out the votes in battleground states that wins pandering from Republican presidential candidates. For all of us who wish to live in a country where no group is demonized or hated for political points, that day couldn't come soon enough.

[Luther Blissett]

Just to clear up some leftovers from page 8, Nicki Minaj is not voting for Romney. It was satire (or something).

[ninakat]

I think Romney's dye job is too obvious.

Nah, Netanyahu's is too subtle. Only thing about him that is.

.

Yeah, that comb-over is getting pretty obvious. And it ain't pretty.

[8bitagent]

Romney got caught saying that he feels a lot of Obama's core voting block are lazy poor people on the government dole who feel entitled for being lazy,
and he joked that if only his dad was Latino instead of a white guy in Mexico as then he'd have an easier time winning the election.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/09/1 ... ing-a-dick

[seemslikeadream]

^^^^

SECRET VIDEO: Romney Tells Millionaire Donors What He REALLY Thinks of Obama Voters
When he doesn't know a camera's rolling, the GOP candidate shows his disdain for half of America.
—By David Corn | Mon Sep. 17, 2012 1:00 PM PDT

During a private fundraiser earlier this year, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney told a small group of wealthy contributors what he truly thinks of all the voters who support President Barack Obama. He dismissed these Americans as freeloaders who pay no taxes, who don't assume responsibility for their lives, and who think government should take care of them. Fielding a question from a donor about how he could triumph in November, Romney replied:

There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what…These are people who pay no income tax.
Romney went on: "[M]y job is is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."

Mother Jones has obtained video of Romney at this intimate fundraiser—where he candidly discussed his campaign strategy and foreign policy ideas in stark terms he does not use in public—and has confirmed its authenticity. To protect the confidential source who provided the video, we have blurred some of the image, and we will not identify the date or location of the event, which occurred after Romney had clinched the Republican presidential nomination. Here is Romney expressing his disdain for Americans who back the president:



At the dinner, Romney often stuck to familiar talking points. But there were moments when he went beyond the familiar campaign lines. Describing his family background, he quipped about his father, "Had he been born of Mexican parents, I'd have a better shot of winning this." Contending that he is a self-made millionaire who earned his own fortune, Romney insisted, "I have inherited nothing." He remarked, "There is a perception, 'Oh, we were born with a silver spoon, he never had to earn anything and so forth.' Frankly, I was born with a silver spoon, which is the greatest gift you can have: which is to get born in America."

More MoJo coverage of Mitt Romney:

The Mystery of Romney's Exit From Bain
Exclusive Audio: Inside the Koch Brothers' Secret Seminar
Documents: Romney Invested in Medical-Waste Firm That Disposed of Aborted Fetuses
Romney Invested Millions in Firms That Pioneered High-Tech Outsourcing
6 Things Mitt Romney Is Hiding
Romney told the contributors that "women are open to supporting me," but that "we are having a much harder time with Hispanic voters, and if the Hispanic voting bloc becomes as committed to the Democrats as the African American voting block has in the past, why, we're in trouble as a party and, I think, as a nation." When one attendee asked how this group could help Romney sell himself to others, he answered, "Frankly, what I need you to do is to raise millions of dollars." He added, "The fact that I'm either tied or close to the president…that's very interesting."

Asked why he wouldn't go full-throttle and assail Obama as corrupt, Romney explained the internal thinking of his campaign and revealed that he and his aides, in response to focus-group studies conducted by his consultants, were hesitant to hammer the president too hard out of fear of alienating independents who voted for Obama in 2008:



We speak with voters across the country about their perceptions. Those people I told you—the 5 to 6 or 7 percent that we have to bring onto our side—they all voted for Barack Obama four years ago. So, and by the way, when you say to them, "Do you think Barack Obama is a failure?" they overwhelmingly say no. They like him. But when you say, "Are you disappointed that his policies haven't worked?" they say yes. And because they voted for him, they don't want to be told that they were wrong, that he's a bad guy, that he did bad things, that he's corrupt. Those people that we have to get, they want to believe they did the right thing, but he just wasn't up to the task. They love the phrase that he's "over his head." But if we're—but we, but you see, you and I, we spend our day with Republicans. We spend our days with people who agree with us. And these people are people who voted for him and don't agree with us. And so the things that animate us are not the things that animate them. And the best success I have at speaking with those people is saying, you know, the president has been a disappointment. He told you he'd keep unemployment below 8 percent. Hasn't been below eight percent since. Fifty percent of kids coming out of school can't get a job. Fifty percent. Fifty percent of the kids in high school in our 50 largest cities won't graduate from high school. What're they gonna do? These are the kinds of things that I can say to that audience that they nod their head and say, "Yeah, I think you're right." What he's going to do, by the way, is try and vilify me as someone who's been successful, or who's, you know, closed businesses or laid people off, and is an evil bad guy. And that may work.

(Note: Obama did not promise his policies would keep unemployment under 8 percent, and 50 percent of college graduates are not unemployed.)

To assure the donors that he and his campaign knew what they were doing, Romney boasted about the consultants he had retained, emphasizing that several had worked for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu:



I have a very good team of extraordinarily experienced, highly successful consultants, a couple of people in particular who have done races around the world. I didn't realize it. These guys in the US—the Karl Rove equivalents—they do races all over the world: in Armenia, in Africa, in Israel. I mean, they work for Bibi Netanyahu in his race. So they do these races and they see which ads work, and which processes work best, and we have ideas about what we do over the course of the campaign. I'd tell them to you, but I'd have to shoot you.

When one donor said he was disappointed that Romney wasn't attacking Obama with sufficient intellectual firepower, Romney groused that the campaign trail was no place for high-minded and detail-oriented arguments:



Well, I wrote a book that lays out my view for what has to happen in the country, and people who are fascinated by policy will read the book. We have a website that lays out white papers on a whole series of issues that I care about. I have to tell you, I don't think this will have a significant impact on my electability. I wish it did. I think our ads will have a much bigger impact. I think the debates will have a big impact…My dad used to say, "Being right early is not good in politics." And in a setting like this, a highly intellectual subject—discussion on a whole series of important topics typically doesn't win elections. And there are, there are, there are—for instance, this president won because of "hope and change."

Romney, who spoke confidently throughout the event and seemed quite at ease with the well-heeled group, insisted that his election in and of itself would lead to economic growth and that the markets would react favorably if his chances seemed good in the fall:



They'll probably be looking at what the polls are saying. If it looks like I'm going to win, the markets will be happy. If it looks like the president's going to win, the markets should not be terribly happy. It depends of course which markets you're talking about, which types of commodities and so forth, but my own view is that if we win on November 6th, there will be a great deal of optimism about the future of this country. We'll see capital come back and we'll see—without actually doing anything—we'll actually get a boost in the economy. If the president gets reelected, I don't know what will happen. I can—I can never predict what the markets will do. Sometimes it does the exact opposite of what I would have expected. But my own view is that if we get a "Taxageddon," as they call it, January 1st, with this president, and with a Congress that can't work together, it's—it really is frightening.

At the dinner, Romney also said that the campaign purposefully was using Ann Romney "sparingly…so that people don't get tired of her." And he noted that he had turned down an invitation from Saturday Night Live because such an appearance "has the potential of looking slapstick and not presidential."

Here was Romney raw and unplugged—sort of unscripted. With this crowd of fellow millionaires, he apparently felt free to utter what he really believes and would never dare say out in the open. He displayed a high degree of disgust for nearly half of his fellow citizens, lumping all Obama voters into a mass of shiftless moochers who don't contribute much, if anything, to society, and he indicated that he viewed the election as a battle between strivers (such as himself and the donors before him) and parasitic free-riders who lack character, fortitude, and initiative. Yet Romney explained to his patrons that he could not speak such harsh words about Obama in public, lest he insult those independent voters who sided with Obama in 2008 and whom he desperately needs in this election. These were sentiments not to be shared with the voters; it was inside information, available only to the select few who had paid for the privilege of experiencing the real Romney.

COMING SOON: More from the secret Romney video.