Displaying 2,701 To 2,730 Of 3,237 Comments KQuark……Yes, the comparison is not perfect because of Romney’s constant repackaging of himself. I suggest that Romney’s political, economic and social philosophy has been transformed by his need to tack to the right. While not the greatest source, the wikipedia article on his public policy positions illustrates his movement to the right in a whole range of issues. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Mitt_Romney I look at how he governed. He was a right of center in Mass. but since then has identified more and more with the deeply conservative wing of the GOP. Is he a neoco? He might be now but I do not know. They key identifiers for me are: Little on that list is readily identifiable with the historical Romney, although I admit that her rhetoric today is much less clear. » Posted By MurphTheSurf3 On October 26, 2011 @ 5:09 am Here is my version of your post. Hope you do not mind this sincere form of flattery: ======================= THE IDEAL G~O~T~P CANDIDATE 2 tablespoons birtherism Enjoy your Republican nominee with a glass of ice cold regret » Posted By MurphTheSurf3 On October 25, 2011 @ 6:09 pm Funk oh funk….Oh I love this Archive for blatant reposting…..HOORAY! » Posted By MurphTheSurf3 On October 25, 2011 @ 5:59 pm I don’t take it as far back as you do, but I do take it back quite a distance. The Reagan Revolution was much more about the workings of the Party than most guessed at the time. This is when Murdoch, Ailes, Rove et. al. emerged. This is when the GOP became the true Keynesians and borrowed to spend (hiding it in the “trickle down” theory). This is when the GOP became thoroughly aligned with the monied powers, the racist south, and the anti-Big East Southwest. George HW Bush tried to speak for a more moderate GOP when he yelled “voodoo economics” and when he tried to pay for the Gulf War. The GOP right dumped him for it. With those additions I now accept all of your other arguments. » Posted By MurphTheSurf3 On October 25, 2011 @ 5:57 pm FOR THE GOP: THIS IS THE BIZARRO WORLD VERSION OF 1964 Goldwater was the front runner but he could not get more than 30 to 35 percent of overall GOP vote. The problem was that he alarmed even some of his fellow partisans with his brand of staunch fiscal conservatism and militant anti-communism. He was viewed by many traditional Republicans as being too far on the right wing of the political spectrum to appeal to the mainstream majority necessary to win a national election. As a result, moderate Republicans recruited a series of opponents, including New York Governor Nelson Rockefeller, Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr., of Massachusetts and Pennsylvania Governor William Scranton, to challenge Goldwater. But Goldwater was VERY STRONG in the West and put together enough primary victories there to take the nomination (with California closing the deal). In the General Election, he was swamped by LBJ, taking just six states. TODAY THIS IS INVERTED. I think we are heading in the same direction, though. A moderate GOPer is being opposed by conservative GOPers. » Posted By MurphTheSurf3 On October 25, 2011 @ 5:14 pm Getting It Wrong In Afghanistan: Victory and Loss in 2002 and Today Those TP types put the Hitler Mustaches onto the wrong people on their posters. Hitler accused the Jews of being dictatorial, terrorists, conspirators, enemies of the people and war mongers. » Posted By MurphTheSurf3 On October 28, 2011 @ 12:21 pm Kilgore In my reading of neocon tomes it is clear that they are history adverse. Their “historical references” are typically mythical or allegorical. » Posted By MurphTheSurf3 On October 28, 2011 @ 11:00 am The ceremonial monarchy would only be of value if the rest of the traditional structure were in place. Your points about Iran are well taken. Hee is an interesting set of “clips” . Not well organized but perspective rarely seen. http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=northern_alliance While I have read a good bit on this, my friend who has very real connections to the life there says the NA is extraordinarily independent and uses everybody. He quotes one the NA tribal/militia leaders:”There are those who worry that we are easily purchased by the arms, money, intelligence from other powers….We know their names. We know their aims. And we will use them as we will.” The following article lays it out for me: http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/57411/milton-bearden/afghanistan-graveyard-of-empires Unfortunately its a premium article from the Council on Foreign Relations, but you get the thrust in the first few paragraphs. The Afghanis are quite willing to swallow up Iranian interests too. » Posted By MurphTheSurf3 On October 27, 2011 @ 3:31 pm Reagan bailed on the Mujahedin in no small part because no one could lay out a path for beneficial engagement with them. The CIA re. them as useful tools for as long as the war in Afghanistan was a proxy war with the USSR. I suspect that the Bush neoconocracy was not happy with the Afghan connection to 9/11 but they had no choice but to take it on….but, they quickly moved to their target of choice, Iraq, for the reasons I laid out previously. » Posted By MurphTheSurf3 On October 27, 2011 @ 3:21 pm The note appeared at last! » Posted By MurphTheSurf3 On October 27, 2011 @ 1:35 pm Your first paragraph….who are you pointing to? the biggest sponsor? The Monarchy need not be hereditary. In Saudi Arabia the Monarch is selected from the ruling family (and in several cases likely candidates have been adopted into the family). The selection process requires the cooperation of the royal family, the circle of sheiks and the legislative parliament. Ahmad Shah Khan is 77. He has been an academic for most of his life. He has two sons in their late 40’s. But there are four other living sons of the deceased king. The youngest in his 50’s. I am told by a friend who knows Afghanistan intimately that the family is popular and that his role as the person of the state would be welcome. Several hundred thousand attended the king’s funeral rites were supposedly not public. » Posted By MurphTheSurf3 On October 27, 2011 @ 1:34 pm Never said it was new. The U.S. has been into carving empire from Foreign Soil since the Indian, Mexican American, and Spanish American Wars. But, I do think that the decision to try to for a client state in Asia was uniquely Bushian neoconnery. The CIA and its associated U.S. special forces who assisted the Mujahedin against the U.S.S.R. disengaged once the Soviets ran for the hills. Most of our reaches for territory have involved that which is contiguous or in easy reach by water. As to Zinn….know his work well. Used to teach from his text in a college course which compared textual approaches. » Posted By MurphTheSurf3 On October 27, 2011 @ 1:11 pm Khirad You wrote the following, but it is not appearing where I can post to it…so I do it here.” “I found this a trip to read, not because I didn’t know any of this, but the tone of how quickly perspectives and “friends” change. http://www.cacianalyst.org/?q=node/348” My response: IRAN IN AFGHANISTAN: THE MISSION TO UNDERMINE PAKISTAN Really great article and a fine website. Thanks. Your assessment that the shifting alliances are what define the events there is spot on. It is something very few commentators here seem to understand. We think in terms of well defined nation states. They do not. » Posted By MurphTheSurf3 On October 27, 2011 @ 8:11 am When you get a chance, tell us all some more about Oakland. I regard the matter as a police riot and nothing I have seen is arguing against that. There were certainly provocateurs at work in the Occupy crowd but there are ways for law enforcement to neutralize them (including developing alliances with the core organization of the demonstration) which are both more effective, humane and recognize the right of assembly and speech. =================== Back to your point. I am not suggesting that George HW Bush DID drop the ball. What I intended to convey was that the neocon club to which his dumb kid belonged (and was led by Cheney and Halliburton) claimed that HW had not finished the job. Of course this would have meant taking on NATO, the UN, the Saudi’s AND Hussein’s forces which while degraded were still formidable and his hold on power still strong. I regard the Kid Bush argument that we were finishing the job as just another one of the empty reasons provided to justify a grab for geopolitical power and oil…..A Iraqi client student harking back to the days of British and French imperialism was the goal. A failed goal. » Posted By MurphTheSurf3 On October 27, 2011 @ 5:42 am AQ and the Taliban had left the cities and the towns/villages closest to them under the initial assaults in 2001, but they remained firmly embedded elsewhere with strongholds in the AfPak borderlands. The Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld group has changed its focus to Iraq and had our effort in Afghanistan on maintenance. It has been the Obama administration’s renewed effort that has put us where we are now, for good or ill. » Posted By MurphTheSurf3 On October 27, 2011 @ 5:20 am The unfortunate thing is that we have backed the wrong horse in the race and when we pull out Karzai’s government will be attacked unless a shared power arrangement with the Northern Alliance in the lead can be brokered. » Posted By MurphTheSurf3 On October 27, 2011 @ 5:15 am Your analysis is logical but it lacks the data necessary to draw the conclusions you offer. So here goes…. After the fall of the communist Mohammad Najibullah-regime in 1992, several Afghan political parties agreed on a peace and power-sharing agreement (the Peshawar Accords). The Peshawar Accords created the Islamic State of Afghanistan and appointed an interim government for a transitional period. The Accords ignored both traditional government and social structure (the villages and Islam). Why? The desire of those negotiating the terms to create a secular, modern state. But Pakistank Saudi Arabia and Iran each back opposing parties/militias in the supposed unified national government. The result was civil war. In 1991, the Taliban (a movement originating from Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam-run religious schools for Afghan refugees in Pakistan) had also developed in Afghanistan as a politico-religious force, reportedly in opposition to the tyranny of local regional governors. Operating as religious vigilantes, its militia became known for rigting wrongs. By 1994, the Taliban was engaging in front assaults on centers of power that were regarded as impossibly corrupt. The Taliban took control of 12 of 34 provinces not under central government control, disarming the heavily armed population. Militias controlling the different areas often surrendered without a fight. The Taliban spread from the North to the South with Kabul being among the last of cities to fall. Ahmad Shah Massoud, the Defense Minister, consolidated the remnants of the Pashtun controlled Peshawar Accord government and attempted to negotiate with the Taliban. This failed. The Taliban, now backed by Pakistan, Iran and Saudi Arabia, founded the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan. Within months, the imposition of extraordinarily harsh religious law, corruption equal to that of the previous government, general mistreatment of those in areas who had not backed the Taliban from the start and the lessening of support from Pakistan, Iran and Saudi Arabia led to the creation of the United Front, the Northern Alliance under Ahmad Shah Massoud and Abdul Rashid Dostum, two former enemies, centered on the provinces of Badakhshan, Kapisa, Takhar and parts of Parwan, Kunar, Nuristan, Laghman, Samangan, Kunduz, Ghōr and Bamyan holdig 30 percent of the population. The war between Taliban and Northern Alliance forces erupted in 1996 and continued to 2001. The Taliban became known for brutal treatment, including massacres of civilians, and as a front for Pakistani designs on Afghanistan. That reputation remains to this day. In all of this Ahmad Shah Massoud emerged as a heroic national leader who offered a vision of a return to traditional Afghan society: tribal/village orientation, conservative (not radical) religious practice, the monarchy as a symbolic center, cities as market/educational/modernist centers. That vision was widely accepted. Massoud’s assassination on September 9, 2001 (at the age of 48) was the result of a Taliban, Al Qaeda, Saudi, Pakistani effort and seems to have been connected to a planned series of destabilizing attacks, one of which was 9/11. The result was a widespread breaking out of massive resistance which welcomed the NATO sanctioned U.S. invasion. Massoud was dead, but his vision for the country drove the Northern Alliance, who were then cut out of the deal in the Loya Jirga. » Posted By MurphTheSurf3 On October 27, 2011 @ 5:12 am Caru….you got it…..read my longer response to AdLib above to see some additional comments on this theme with a direct comparison between Iraq and Afghanistan. » Posted By MurphTheSurf3 On October 25, 2011 @ 3:19 pm My point is that Afghanistan was NOT the war they wanted for the very reasons you point to. No easily exploited natural resources, not in the middle east, very difficult terrain, hostile neighbors who also happen to be our “allies” and a “nation” that had long resisted even the most bacic of nationalist organizing principles. BUT, when the Taliban fell apart so easily and AQ was on the run….I suggest that the power and money mongers in the BushAD said “why not!”. We did the U.S.S.R. one better, we getter a Asian client state, there is rich earth/heavy metals there, and we get to claim a “democratic victory.” Thus, the Western-Like, Western-Oriented government….which the key play, the Northern Alliance, walked away from and lacking the unifying principles of the monarchy and a moderate, but traditional Islamic leadership. The Sultanate and Caliphate, if you will. With the job done, the BushAD turned to Iraq because it did meet its criteria for a desired client state. Daddy Bush may have dropped the ball in Kuwait and Iraq, but sonny would not. But, not only was Iraq much more difficult than they ever imagined, but Afghanistan proved to be just as troublesome. Failure for George, Dick, and Donald on both fronts. » Posted By MurphTheSurf3 On October 25, 2011 @ 3:17 pm Your first paragraph summary is spot on. Karzai has been a puppet but not our puppet. He is the servant of the monied interest in Afghanistan, in the U.S., and elsewhere. He is ready to flee the country at the drop of a hat. I love the foreign press. Glad you brought them into the discussion. » Posted By MurphTheSurf3 On October 24, 2011 @ 8:04 pm Clinton is working on multiple fronts: Karzai’s government, the Northern Alliance, the Pakistani Civilian Government, the Pakistani Military, the Haqqani Network (the AQ successor) and tribal leadership along the Af-Pak border. I think she would love to bring the entire thing to a peaceful end before she leaves office. While she has said she wants out….I have doubts that this is an absolute decision. If she is on the verge of the kind of accomplishment that cements one’s legacy in the history books, she will extend her service. » Posted By MurphTheSurf3 On October 24, 2011 @ 8:01 pm Emerald1943 Hi Em….. Rambling but well considered. I think we can agree that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld really meant U.S. Client State when they spoke of creating a functioning democracy in Afghanistan. Afghanistan as a forward base for Asian operations and as a source of rich earth, heavy metals was a great prize. Of course, Iraq, being in the center of the Middle East, having huge oil resources and being unfinished business from Daddy Bush’s years, was the more tempting and ultimately distracting goal. I see the State Department working on multiple fronts seeking to restore the authority of the Northern Alliance and supporting its vision for the nation which is why Karzai keeps trying to destabilize his own relationship with the Alliance (in hopes that the tremors will affect ours). What kind of society do the leaders of the Northern Alliance want? Rurally focused, tribal, traditional Muslim, xenophobic. They do not want to be part of the international community. They do not want to be in the 21st, or 20th century. Thus, women would not have much of a role in their society. BUT, the Alliance’s leaders believe there is a place for forward looking and forward thinking persons….the cities. Remember the Northern Alliance overthrew Taliban government in the cities and installed secular government. They recognized the top four cities of Kabu, Kandahar, Herat and Marar-i Sharif as essential, non tribal and “modern” as necessary. Women had an emerging role there until the rise of the Taliban in 1995. That will continue I suspect under Northern Alliance hegemony. I thank you for your comments. » Posted By MurphTheSurf3 On October 24, 2011 @ 7:49 pm I “bank” at a credit union. There re lots of reasons. But this is one of them. Smallest foreclosure rate in the midwest because they planned ahead. The board decided not to get into the MacMansion business 10 years ago and emphasizes small family homes in traditional neighborhood settings. It created a “projected means” policy to govern home loans and never used the easy money scales promoted by Fannie and Freddie. Less than .5 Percent of their personal and commercial properties are “under water.” They make a lot less money on the foreclosure loop but their new member rate of growth is huge. And now my every present question: WHY DOES ANYONE IN THE MIDDLE OR LOWER CLASSES VOTE FOR ANYONE IN THE GOP? Even the “good” ones are part of an increasingly bad system. Friends tried to get a college loan from the Credit Union but they were refused because the loan required require projected payments which family income and likely employment for the young woman in question were too low. What impressed me is that the bank offered a advisory conference where they laid out alternative colleges which fit the family’s profile. That was two years ago and its working out fine. My point: when they want to, they can do it right and make money. » Posted By MurphTheSurf3 On October 22, 2011 @ 9:52 am A Radical Economic Solution – Stop Paying Banks For Credit Card Debt Thank you. » Posted By MurphTheSurf3 On October 22, 2011 @ 11:05 am Why I “bank” at a credit union. FREE Online Bill Pay 1.75 billion in assets Smallest foreclosure rate in the midwest because they planned ahead. The board decided not to get into the MacMansion business 10 years ago and emphasizes small family homes in traditional neighborhood settings. It created a “projected means” policy to govern home loans and never used the easy money scales promoted by Fannie and Freddie. Less than .5 Percent of their personal and commercial properties are “under water.” Amazing really. Friends tried to get a college loan from the Credit Union but they were refused because the loan required require projected payments which family income and likely employment for the young woman in question were too low. What impressed me is that the bank offered a advisory conference where they laid out alternative colleges which fit the family’s profile. That was two years ago and its working out fine. My point: when they want to, they can do it right and make money. » Posted By MurphTheSurf3 On October 22, 2011 @ 8:35 am Re. the moral obligation. The Federal Trade Commission receives more complaints about debt collectors than any other industry. In 2010, the Federal Trade Commission received 140,036 complaints about in-house or third-party debt collectors, 27% of all complaints the agency received, according to its most recent annual report on the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, which regulates the business. That’s up from 119,609 complaints, or 22.8% of all complaints, in 2009. Of those complaints, 49% alleged harassment, 16% complained about abusive language and 4% claimed the collectors threatened violence. » Posted By MurphTheSurf3 On October 22, 2011 @ 7:53 am LIVE BLOG: GOP Debate in Las Vegas LOOKING BACK ON LAST NIGHTS GOP SMACKDOWN WWF- Republican Style Romney and Perry are polar opposites, representing two distinct brands of conservatism. The GOP’s identity crisis has been going on for years and the emerging GOTP simply confirmed the battle. Last night’s clash between the establishment and the populist wing laid it out in no uncertain terms. Whoever prevails will determine whether Tea Party-influenced populism translates to national elections and deep control of the Party pushing out what is left of the old centrist establishment. Which does the GOP care more about: purity or mass appeal? Romney is a smug bastard, Perry is a dimwit—sums up the source of the personal rift. The way the two candidates embody their respective prototypes is uncanny. Romney is the cold, corporate, buttoned-up, practical, paternalistic, East Coast elitist patrician who only looks comfortable in a Brook’s Brothers Suit. He has no hope of capturing the public’s imagination with a cult of personality but will comfort both moderate Republicans and one-percent banker types who see themselves reflected in his perfectly coiffed, barbered, tanned, and body-trained visage. Perry is a fiery, folksy, populist, reactionsty, willing-to-go-there conservative with a Texas drawl that appeals to Tea Party frustration and diehard right-wingers, especially social conservatives and Obamacare-haters. What is also clear is that the more this great rift becomes public the less likely it is than any reconciliation between the sides can take place. The teavangelists vs. Gopatricians. Which one is better for the Obama reelection bid? Which one is better for the nation- as in having a real choice? » Posted By MurphTheSurf3 On October 19, 2011 @ 3:50 pm Love it. Will clip and pass along. Brilliant really. » Posted By MurphTheSurf3 On October 18, 2011 @ 7:14 pm The only real winners tonight were…. A) The Venetian Hotel B) The Obama Campaign » Posted By MurphTheSurf3 On October 18, 2011 @ 6:53 pm SOOOOOOOOO…. Who Won Who Lost And Why? » Posted By MurphTheSurf3 On October 18, 2011 @ 6:48 pmComments Posted By MurphTheSurf3
a) opposition to social safety net programs
b) national government as defender of the nation and promoter of American democratic models via military action; including embracing preventative war.
~~~”a tendency to see the world in binary good/evil terms
~~~low tolerance for diplomacy
~~~readiness to use military force
~~~emphasis on US unilateral action
~~~disdain for multilateral organizations
~~~focus on the Middle East
~~~an “us versus them” mentality
c) state centeredness in almost everything else
d) rejection of the principles underlying the Democratic Party especially as it is associated with the Left.
e) rejection of efforts to shape the economy or social structure in ways labeled as liberal/progressive
f) a focus on American exceptionalism
1 dash of Bircherism
3 cups of fascisism
5 big dollops of Obamaphobia
4 teaspoons of tea “in teapot size steeping bags”
2 pounds of corporate minionship
1 ounce of “christianity” as Old Time Triumphalism
2 drams of ultra-nationalism
1 gallon of Dominionist Faith
FREE eStatements
FREE 24/7 Internet account access
UNLIMITED Check writing privileges
DISCOUNT of .25% APR on consumer loans*
DISCOUNT of $350 on mortgage closing costs*
FREE Express Checkcard
VERY LOW COST Overdraft Options
Serves 9 counties
168,000 members
22 branches
Open Board Meetings on Policy
E mails to board members
Transparent holdings records
Committed to small business loans, home loans
«« Back To Stats Page
Home Stats