Collaboration: "Why have Republican leaders abandoned their principles in support of an immoral and dangerous president?"

Wolfgang Leonhard and Markus Wolf were from similar backgrounds. Both were privileged members of the East German Communist ruling class. Why did Leonhard defect to the West, while Wolf stayed to climb the ladder as the East German spy chief?

Republicans Mitt Romney and Lindsey Graham both vociferously opposed Donald Trump in 2016. Why did Romney vote to find Trump guilty in his impeachment trial, while Graham has become perhaps The Donald's ranking bootlicker?

Collaboration versus dissent; how do they occur? The author explores the motivations involved, concentrating on collaboration. It's a long read and an extremely worthwhile use of your time. Thanks to FT for the nudge.

History Will Judge the Complicit, by Anne Appleaum (The Atlantic)

Two vicious Commie left wing news items for Boxing Day.

What a wonderful election year it turned out to be.

Tagg, You're It, by Charles P. Pierce (Esquire Politics Blog)

... So, when his son comes out now and tells us that Willard didn't "want" to be president, he says more than he planned on saying. He subtly reinforces that foundation of the basic problem that his father had as a political candidate -- namely, that the more you were exposed to Willard Romney, the less you wound up liking him.

On a more somber note, another little bit of history that tends to get ignored.

Largest Mass Execution in US History: 150 Years Ago Today, by Jon Wiener (The Nation)

December 26, 1862: thirty-eight Dakota Indians were hung in Mankato, Minnesota, in the largest mass execution in US history–on orders of President Abraham Lincoln. Their crime: killing 490 white settlers, including women and children, in the Santee Sioux uprising the previous August.

Mencken on teetotalism and the pecksniffian, barnyard Romney.

Words to remember as we trudge off to vote.

Teetotalism does not make for human happiness; it makes for the dull, idiotic happiness of the barnyard. The men who do things in the world, the men worthy of admiration and imitation, are men constitutionally incapable of any such pecksniffian stupidity. Their ideal is not a safe life, but a full life; they do not try to follow the canary bird in a cage, but the eagle in the air. And in particular they do not flee from shadows and bugaboos. The alcohol myth is such a bugaboo. The sort of man it scares is the sort of man whose chief mark is that he is scared all the time.

H.L. Mencken, "Alcohol", Damn! A book of Calumny, 1918

"How is Romney losing it? Let us count the ways."

Of course, there is a counter argument, as offered by a friend who unfortunately represents that saddest of all artificial human contrivances, the "young Republican." Surely there exists some manner of conversion or reversion treatment for such a horrible condition? You know, if they really want to get better?

Is Romney Unraveling?, by Charles M. Blow (New York Times)

Time is running out for Mitt Romney.

According to the latest polls, the most likely outcome of Tuesday’s election is that Romney will lose. If he does, it will likely be a bitter pill to swallow. He would have come so close only to have fate and circumstances step in at the final hour and give President Obama a boost.

How is Romney losing it? Let us count the ways ...

Mitt Romney: Not "big love," but "big lies," alongside sheep choosing to look the other way.

Cutting to the chase:

I recognize that Obama hatred is a real thing, but disliking the president so much that you would do harm to yourself by voting for someone who you admit you don’t trust seems to be taking things to extremes.

Mitt Romney's rapidly accumulating career lie tally strikes me as comparable to the upward arc of Barry Bonds's home runs. It is quite likely, although as yet not proven, that Bonds was juiced. We know that Romney refrains from alcohol, tobacco and caffeine (need we go any further?), but we don't know if that whole Mormon thing addresses steroid use. Surely testing is in order at this point, because the nose keeps growing.

Liberty to Lie, by Charles M. Blow (New York Times)

This election may go down in history as the moment when truth and lies lost their honor and stigma, respectively.

Mitt Romney has demonstrated an uncanny, unflinching willingness to say anything and everything to win this election. And that person, the unprincipled prince of untruths, is running roughly even with or slightly ahead of the president in the national polls.

What does this say about our country? What does it say about the value of virtue?

See also: The Big Lie. The Wikipedia article does a good job of tracing the "theory" of the big lie from Hitler's ravings in Mein Kampf through Goebbels's musings about England, although the conceptual dots are not connected to the present day. However, fascists being fascists ... well, you know.

The Economist for Barack Obama, again.

It isn't the ringing endorsement of 2008, but The Economist comes down on the side of the incumbent, and in the process of doing so this traditionally pro-business newspaper issues a damning (in typical understatement) indictment of the Romney non-plan:

"For all his businesslike intentions, Mr Romney has an economic plan that works only if you don’t believe most of what he says. That is not a convincing pitch for a chief executive."

NA Confidential on November 3, 2008: The Economist for Barack Obama: "This cannot be another election where the choice is based merely on fear."

Here is the link to the 2012 Obama endorsement, with a few selected passages.

Our American endorsement: Which one? America could do better than Barack Obama; sadly, Mitt Romney does not fit the bill

... A man who once personified hope and centrism set a new low by unleashing attacks on Mitt Romney even before the first Republican primary. Yet elections are about choosing somebody to run a country. And this choice turns on two questions: how good a president has Mr Obama been, especially on the main issues of the economy and foreign policy? And can America really trust the ever-changing Mitt Romney to do a better job? On that basis, the Democrat narrowly deserves to be re-elected ...

... Indeed, the extremism of his party is Mr Romney’s greatest handicap. The Democrats have their implacable fringe too: look at the teachers’ unions. But the Republicans have become a party of Torquemadas, forcing representatives to sign pledges never to raise taxes, to dump the chairman of the Federal Reserve and to embrace an ever more Southern-fried approach to social policy. Under President Romney, new conservative Supreme Court justices would try to overturn Roe v Wade, returning abortion policy to the states. The rights of immigrants (who have hardly had a good deal under Mr Obama) and gays (who have) would also come under threat. This newspaper yearns for the more tolerant conservatism of Ronald Reagan, where “small government” meant keeping the state out of people’s bedrooms as well as out of their businesses. Mr Romney shows no sign of wanting to revive it ...

... Many of The Economist’s readers, especially those who run businesses in America, may well conclude that nothing could be worse than another four years of Mr Obama. We beg to differ. For all his businesslike intentions, Mr Romney has an economic plan that works only if you don’t believe most of what he says. That is not a convincing pitch for a chief executive. And for all his shortcomings, Mr Obama has dragged America’s economy back from the brink of disaster, and has made a decent fist of foreign policy. So this newspaper would stick with the devil it knows, and re-elect him.

"Why a Romney win would be bad for America."

The plutocrats beg to differ. Perhaps that's the best reason of all to vote for Barack Obama.

Why a Romney win would be bad for America ... It's not necessarily about ideology; It's about the destructive opposition party behavior his victory would reward, by Steve Kornackim (Salon)

... The basic problem has to do with the behavior of Romney’s party over the past four years – reflexive opposition and obstruction rooted in electoral strategy, not ideology – and the lesson that politicians from both parties would draw if it results in a one-term Obama presidency.

"Ladies, Don't Fall for Moderate Mitt!"

Until Mitt Romney came along, I thought being religious precluded outright lying. And to think I wasted all those potentially devout years. Meanwhile, Romney has unveiled a new slogan: "Change We Can Deceive With."

I hear it is polling well with white male amnesiacs. That's bad enough, but let's hope women don't fall for it.

Ladies, Don't Fall for Moderate Mitt!, by Katha Pollitt (The Nation)

Dear Undecided Women Voters of America: It’s been fun watching you force the candidates to pay attention to the stuff men really don’t like to think about—equal pay and abortion and “legitimate rape” and all that. I love you, women! as Ann Romney likes to say. But we’re getting down to the wire now, and it’s time for you to make up your minds. Because face it, expecting to figure it out in the voting booth is not very considerate toward all the people who will have been waiting in line for hours to cast their ballot. Fortunately, despite Mitt Romney’s multiple, changing and contradictory statements, there are major differences between him and President Obama on all these issues.

Now, if you believe that the only issue that matters is the economy, and you believe that giving tax breaks to the wealthiest people and firing public sector workers is the way to fix it, you can stop reading right now.

"Romney sounded like he was taking history at one of those Jesus-on-a-dinosaur middle schools that 'Bobby' Jindal has opened in Louisiana."

Last evening I was watching the baseball game whilst idly perusing Twitter to observe reactions to the presidential debate. It occurred to me that while Barack Obama thoroughly trouncing Mitt Romney in a foreign policy exchange was the entirely expected outcome, numerous topics of genuine importance to the planet were being excluded from the discussion.

About the time in San Francisco that the propaganda exercise known as "let's forever sully the seventh inning stretch with nonsensical renditions of 'Nonexistent God Bless America' rather than Woody Guthrie's far more sensible 'This Land Is Your Land'" commenced, two thoughts surfaced.

1. When the Romney voters stop buying cheap Chinese crap at Wal-Mart, maybe I'll take them seriously.

2. American exceptionalism is bullshit. It always has been, and it always will be. A god that doesn't exist chose us to lead the world, and so now we're absolved of thinking about much of anything short of pounding on our chests and being boorish.

Here is more on Romney's debacle, courtesy of Charlie Pierce and John Nichols.

Nothing Is Foreign to the Liar Willard Romney Anymore: A Report from the Flippy-Floppy Final Debate of 2012, by Charles P. Pierce ("The Politics Blog" at Esquire)

... That is what history always has told us about the career of Willard Romney: sooner or later, he will sell your ass out to the highest bidder and walk away whistling in the general direction of anything to which he feels entitled. In this case, that would be the leadership of the Free World.

... Romney sounded like he was taking history at one of those Jesus-on-a-dinosaur middle schools that "Bobby" Jindal has opened in Louisiana. And yet, this abysmal ignorance may not come to matter a damn.

A discussion of foreign policy that did not mention climate change. (Four debates and nary a mention. Somebody else is going to have to tell the polar bears.) A discussion of foreign policy that mentioned teacher's unions exactly as many times — once — as it mentioned the Palestinians, and I am not making that statistic up. A discussion of foreign policy that did not mention hunger, or thirst, or epidemic disease, but spent better than ten minutes on The Fking Deficit. (Here Romney cited in defense of his position that noted political economist, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.) A discussion of foreign policy that was all about threats, real and imagined, and wars, real or speculative, and weapons, and how many of them we should build in order to feel safe in this dangerous world. (Romney actually argued that we should go back to the "two-war" strategy that we followed throughout the Cold War. Against whom in god's name does he think we'll be fighting the second war?)

At The Nation, Nichols echoes Pierce's annoyance as to what was omitted. The plan fact is that precious few Americans are sufficiently informed about the world, and do not possess the means to consider it even if there was a reality television show devoted to foreign policy.

Foreign Policy Really Is Foreign to Mitt Romney, by John Nichols (The Nation)

... Undecided voters surveyed by CBS agreed, indicating in a snap poll that Obama had won the commander-in-chief test by a staggering 53-23 margin. That was a wider margin than Romney got after the first debate that was broadly seen as his big win.

All of this was good news for Obama, if not necessarily for the national discourse. In too many senses, Monday night’s debate was a confirmation of the bipartisan consensus on foreign policy that so frustrates Americans who want a broader debate on fundamental questions of war and peace, globalization and human rights. And it was a reminder that alternative candidates, such as Green party presidential nominee Jill Stein and Libertarian Gary Johnson, should have been included in these debates.

President Obama in Fairfax, Virginia: "Romnesia."

Romnesia: "Obamacare covers pre-existing conditions."

A Romney apple landing fairly far from the tree.

All along, Mitt Romney's flip-flop waffling has seemed to me an extension of the sacred and periodically correct business axiom, "The Customer Is Always Right." It's nothing new to base one's political campaign on telling voters what they want to hear, whether the sales pitch is contradictory or not, although Mitt's pitches are noteworthy for the sheer bottomlessness of their lies and contrivances.

Romney Is Attacked by His Father’s Longtime Aide, by Michael Barbaro (The Caucus blog at New York Times)

A longtime aide to George W. Romney issued a harshly worded critique of Mitt Romney, accusing him of shifting political positions in “erratic and startling ways” and failing to live up to the distinguished record of his father, the former governor of Michigan ...

... “While it seems that Mitt would say and do anything to close a deal – or an election,” he wrote, “George Romney’s strength as a politician and public officeholder was his ability and determination to develop and hold consistent policy positions over his life.”

This is not the safe version to watch at work.

What better way to begin October than Samuel L. Jackson's succinct advice for everyday living, and voting?

Thank you Richard.

The tragic tedium of teetotal.

An article I was reading last night reminded me:

"Mitt Romney does not drink for religious reasons."

This was vexing, and so I turned immediately to my own scriptures, where W.C. Fields provided the ethical guidance I was so earnestly seeking:

"Never trust a man who doesn't drink."

Case tested and closed. Does it imply (as I joked on Facebook) that I'm a one-issue voter? Maybe, maybe not, but I'm not about to stand in Romney's way as he rushes to offer second, third and eighteenth issues to justify my vote against him. Yesterday, many of his own ideological supporters were feeding me anti-GOP ammo, like David Brooks of the New York Times. For a while there, it seemed too good to be true, and I thought I was on "Candid Camera."

Then I remembered: The candid camera was focused on Romney.

Folks, this is David "Right Wing Apologist" Brooks, not Michael Moore or Mother Jones, and with a pop culture reference as solid as William Claude Dukenfield.

Thurston Howell Romney

 ... There are sensible conclusions to be drawn from these facts. You could say that the entitlement state is growing at an unsustainable rate and will bankrupt the country. You could also say that America is spending way too much on health care for the elderly and way too little on young families and investments in the future.

But these are not the sensible arguments that Mitt Romney made at a fund-raiser earlier this year.

At Forbes: "The Lost Soul Of Mitt Romney."

Whenever we learn of people maimed or killed while performing in their lines of duty, as in the topical sense of the four Americans targeted and murdered by radical Muslims in Libya, our reaction is one of respect for their sacrifice, sorrow for their survivors, and surely a thoughtful and principled pause for reflection.

Above all else, it is a time to examine our own consciences: In such a scenario, how do we, as thinking human beings, react to episodes of calculated barbarism, knowing all the while that the root desire of the perpetrators, whether secular, religious, psychotic or merely criminal, is for us to react with anger, out of blind fear, so as to unleash the chaos that was the attacker's beginning aim.

And then -- according to Forbes, mind you; not Mother Jones -- there's Mitt Romney. Naturally, I'm concerned with the implications of Romney's latest expression of moneyed unsuitability. But on both broader and more personal levels, it remains fascinating and sad to ponder the costs of blind ambition. How would I react? How would any of us?

I'm brooding over this one.

I’m sure the irony of our Ambassador’s death at the hands of such a mob is completely lost on Governor Romney who has now cashed in the decency I have always ascribed to the man in exchange for his willingness to do anything—and say anything—if it helps him capture the prize he so intensely seeks. No doubt, the Romney campaign tells itself that trading their souls is the price they must pay for the greater good. No doubt, they convince themselves of some wisdom they find in speaking first and thinking later if that is what must be done to save the American people from themselves.

Nash trees Romney, old fascist white folks get irate.

Matt carries this one off with restraint and good taste, which of course I would not be capable of doing, nor would attempt, which inevitably places him squarely in the path of the typically enraged cadre of local white Republicans, with their "let's help those poor rich guys" venom, as expressed through aliases, hoods, masks and various other cowardly rejoinders.

Welcome to the club, and good work, Matt. Too bad Kozarovich screwed me, and we're not still twin terrors in newsprint. It was great fun while it lasted.

NASH: A letter to the GOP nominee (Pop-Up Digest)

 ... If you have been reading my weekly column over the last few years you probably think that this letter is not sincere. It is true that many of my positions usually come from the left and many of my readers would consider me a liberal. While some people believe this is a dirty word and use it as a person that doesn’t like America, and wants to destroy it, I think nothing could be further from the truth. I believe in a strong America that is the world leader in everything, not just childhood obesity and the number of hours that we watch television.

Money porn at the GOP confection.

There's porn, and there's food porn. Maybe even beer porn.

Then there's money porn, otherwise known as the GOP platform.

Frank Rich on the National Circus: Chris Christie, New Jersey Sun King

... This is the same patrician stance that both Romneys always take: That we, the little folk, should just “trust” them — and not worry ourselves about the fine details, whether those details pertain to their unreleased tax returns or the specifics of his policy initiatives should he be elected president. No reason to believe that this noblesse oblige tactic will fly any better today than it has so far. And as for this notion that Ann Romney can fix Mitt’s “likability” gap by giving him a transfusion of humanity, that’s a fool’s errand. Indeed, the Romney gurus seemed to have embraced a Wizard of Oz strategy for filling in the blanks of Mitt’s public persona — Ann Romney was to give her brainy hubby a heart and Chris Christie was to imbue Mr. Etch A Sketch with courage. Don’t they realize that this makes Mitt the Tin Man?

"Mitt Romney doesn't drink beer, because his God forbids it."

Thanks to MN for the link.

"It’s no wonder that Mr. Romney does not want to take full responsibility for his running mate’s ideas."

A white conservative (Romney) picks another white conservative (Ryan), and the nation yawns. Conservatism ... it's just SO damned white, or as Frank Rich wrote, "Strange as it seems this ticket really is the current GOP's idea of diversity."

The Romney-Ryan Plan for America, a New York Times editorial

Less than 24 hours after Mitt Romney chose Paul Ryan as his running mate on Saturday, his campaign was already trying to distance itself from Mr. Ryan’s politically toxic budget plan.

Duh: According to Diamond, "Romney Hasn’t Done His Homework."

Are we surprised that Romney's millions distracted him from the non-paying task of reading? Has there ever been a more out-of-touch candidate from a major American political party? GHW Bush springs to mind, but the teetotaling Romney surely distances him when it comes to sheer aloofness from reality. Thanks to JV for the link.

OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR: Romney Hasn’t Done His Homework, by Jared Diamond (New York Times)

... It is not true that my book “Guns, Germs and Steel,” as Mr. Romney described it in a speech in Jerusalem, “basically says the physical characteristics of the land account for the differences in the success of the people that live there. There is iron ore on the land and so forth.”

That is so different from what my book actually says that I have to doubt whether Mr. Romney read it.

As Olympics begin, Romney is in gold-medal gaffe form.

Well, what do you expect from the sort of candidate who'd receive an endorsement from Floyd County's illustrious GOP cadre ... and far too many of the county's so-called Democrats?

Prompted by my friend JV's quip elsewhere, I devoted a Facebook status update yesterday to thanking Groucho Marx for clearly anticipating the advent of the buttoned-down, teetotaling, flip-flopping Mitt Romney:

"He may look like an idiot and talk like an idiot but don't let that fool you. He really is an idiot."

More ammunition in defense of Groucho's assertion comes from abroad, specifically the UK, where even the conservative politicians chortle at the Mittster.

Oh, Mitt: those Romney gaffes in full ("US News Blog" at The Guardian)

From criticising the biggest sporting event Britain has held in over 40 years, to "looking out of the backside of 10 Downing Street", Mitt Romney's first foreign trip of his presidential candidacy hasn't gone quite as well as he might have hoped. As the former Massachusetts governor continues to gaffe his way across London, here's a round-up of Romney's red-facers. So far.