1) Selling arms is not foreign aid.
2) Turkey is secular because of a very strict separataion between religion and state. (Laizism has been a fundament of modern Turkey since 1923.) You're not allowed to show religious symbols in schools and other official institutions. The Erdogan government tried to allow women to wear headscarves in universities, which is a pretty normal thing for Muslim women in most European countries. The Supreme Court decided that that law was against the laizist constitution.

It's important to understand that Turkey has something of unstable political history over the past several decades resulting in military coups of one dimension or another. Despite the military's subordination to civilian command on paper,it can be far from such inreality.

Turkey is officially and pretty much in practice a secular state. But, given the diverse elements of Islam such as we know to exist in the Islamic world, Turkey's population, politicians, and military have to be careful about what they say and do.

For years now I've characterized Turkey and Egypt as faux democracies because their militaries are always hovering around the edges (witness Egypt). Perry is, plaina nd simple, ignorant when it comes to international affairs. I'm embarrassed by him.

Although foreign aid is construed as monetary, selling and sharing military technology can be construed as aid. The Obama admin used this to put pressure on Turkey not too long ago. I guess there are pros and cons to Turkey's secularism and I agree he should not have used the word terrorist.

As result of the 90s military intervention, the civilian government was compelled to agree to certain standards of secularization (no headscarves for one). Secular or not, Turkey's strategic position as a buffer between Europe and part of the middle east could prove vital to the US and NATO's strategies. For that reason alone, Perry should not be characterizing its government.

"Turkey's envoy to the United States expressed disappointment and concern over comments made by Texas governor Rick Perry in Monday's GOP debate in which the candidate described Turkey's moderate Islamic leadership as Islamic terrorists. A Turkish American group also called on the candidate to apologize for his "appalling" and "uneducated" comments, which have been greeted with disbelief, ridicule and anger by Turkey's press corps."

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/envoy/turkis...-152639505.html

Turkey isn't just a NATO member, it's an original member. Why Perry picked on them as extremists-run and not say Pakistan or Saudia Arabia, both which can't exactly refute that charge.

Reminds me of what uber-billionaire Warren Buffett said weeks back, that something is wrong when his secretary has to pay a higher federal tax rate % than he does.

Attaboy Newt!

Newt jabs Romney on Taxes



Douchebag race master baiter, but I must admit that was funny. (And yes this sentence was intentional.)

Sen. John McCain's entire 200 page opposition research file on Mitt Romney from the 2008 GOP presidential campaign.

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2012/01/17/mccains_oppo_file_on_romney.html

Reuters notes that it's not just Mitt Romney's low 15% tax rate that might deter him from releasing his tax returns. (Some speculate his tax % might actually be lower than 15%.)



Chris Christie is also calling on Mittens to release the damn returns. (Or what, he'll do to him what he promised Iowa?)

Romney to bail on further GOP debates?

http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/article/will-frontrunner-romney-keep-debating/317361

I'm thinking of a word starting with "P" that rhymes with Wussy.

Mittens, you're the front-runner. You're going to be the nominee.

Yes you can't seem to do compete well with Newt or Santorum with the Insane Stupid vote, and you don't want to be embarrased again when people boo where your daddy was born. You win by default, backing your way into the nomination. Why stop that now?

If you can't hang with these crazy assholes in debate, what makes you think you can in the fall in debate with a competent adversary?

Ronnie,

You're hatred of Mittens is very trasparent. It's not because he's a Republican that you don't like him. It's that he's not Republican enough for you.

Now don't get me wrong. As a lifelong liberal Democrat, I'm ecstatic that you've left the insanity of neo-conservatism behind you. But you still have quite a bit of East Tennessee good old boy in you. If you didn't, you'd realize that Mitt's politics are a lot closer to Obama's than those other assholes. If we have to lose to someone (and I don't think we will), it's better to lose to Mittens than some religious zealot or some kook from the South.

It's very obvious that you have a thing for that tubby white haired fella from Georgia .

I don't know PB, IF Mitt IS considering not debating (and as tired as I am of them), and is the only one to NOT debate, I think he will come across as a chicken-shit. Just like with his taxes. It's not like we don't know he's rich. He might as well do it now rather than later.



TIS

Mitt=Gore=Kerry

Exactly.

But if we lose (and again, I don't think we will), I'd rather have any of those three flip-floppers than a Santorum or a Gingrich.

Speaking of election, they are suppose to have a final tally of the NH votes. If you recall, Mitt supposedly won by what, 8 votes? Turns out that Santorum may have won in the end. I'm hearing this afternoon we'll know. I wonder why the Republicans aren't charging voter fraud.

It won't change anything BUT it should be official and accurate.


TIS

Hey, he's a good ole Pennsylvania boy!

PB, you're assuming Mittens is Barry 2.0 based on past political history. I mean with that logic, why wasn't Obama as liberal as he was as State Senator and U.S. Senator? For better or worse, Obama sold himself as the liberal alternative to Dubya America.

He got HCR (warts and all) passed, he repealed the idiotic DADT, and came close to making immigration reform with DREAM before it died. (Bill lacked fences apparently.) Not to mention fulfilling plans that Dubya had set in motion, of getting the fuck out of two Middle-Eastern countries that are draining us with little investment in return. Or for that matter, the great (if underreported) bill he signed that gave the FDA real teeth to enforce some health standards. Or for that matter, in foreign policy doing what Dubya tried and failed to do for years: get both Russia and China onboard for Iran sanctions.

Mittens isn't Clinton, who visibly sold himself in '92 as a "New" Democrat, who was pro-choice and pro-HCR and all that, but also was for fiscal responsibility. With swagger, charisma, and the fact his party was tired of losing nationally...he prevailed.

Now imagine if Clinton had that Arkansas record for fiscal moderate conservatism, but on the national stage sold it down the river as being a major mistake of his after the base went insane and said outright this was an unacceptable mistake.

Mittens is now selling himself as a Reagan conservative, totally disowning his one term as a moderate GOP Governor in a very blue as hell state. His most remarkable achievement in that administration, one which in saner times would've been a great national campaign selling point...it's his greatest political achievement as an executive, and he treats it an albatross, or the local leper.

I don't perceive the guy as someone who can mold, shape the party to whatever directions he aspires to. If people think Obama is weak-kneed (which at times, I think they might be accurate), Mittens suffers from the same ailment. Dreaming him as the sane warden of an insane asylum is quite optimistic, to say the least. He'll be as effective as the warden of Arkham Asylum, if he even tries. And I really doubt it.

Quite frankly, what has Mittens offered in current campaign in his America that's uniquely his in proposal? The only one I heard was his idea to tie the Federal wage into the CPI, which is an interesting, compelling idea. (Or has he disowned that too during the primaries and I missed it?) Otherwise he's selling himself as the American CEO who can get jobs back, unemployment down, and kill that evil Obamacare that's a bastard grandchild of his.

But that last line, that's the party speaking. A party that really invests public debate time and money in fighting the great evils of evolution and gay people, the latter trying to get equal civil rights being the greatest threat in America today. A party that doesn't want just war with Iran, they want Iraq 2.0, unilateral invasion and occupation. Because we have another trillion dollars and thousands of good folks left to spare. Remember Mittens mentioning two magic words at a debate: "regime change!"

Once upon a time, Romney championed a rather conservative approach to national HCR, which inspired Obamacare. It's not great, it's got flaws, but it's a start. The first foot in the door, which I hope is further reformed and expanded in the future to make it better. He could've sold himself as an Eisenhower Republican: Big government isn't evil and bad in general or principle, just only the big obtruse, unefficient, money-sucking agents of our government.

No he's a Reagan Republican, selling the 1980s for 2011. He's Reagan without the charm, grace, or inspiration. Or cool compelling new proposals.

(Plus he's an asshole. I don't hate him because he's an asshole, I don't like him because he's an asshole. Clinton was an asshole, but do people immediately think that? Of course not. Big difference.)

One of the things that all of these posts are missing is the acknowledgement that there is a tremendous difference between campaigning for President and being President. Running for President requires appeal to a limited constituency; being President requires appeal to quite an expanded constituency. Romney and all of the Republican candidates are pursuing party delegate votes, something President Obama doesn't have to do.

Exactly. And four years ago, when the shoe was on the other foot, Obama and Hillary nearly tore the party apart. Cooler heads finally prevailed, and now they work together (although I suspect it's an uneasy truce).

I'm not sure if that will be the case with the Republicans this year. I don't think Gingrich would mind splitting the party by going out in a blaze of glory.

The cleavages in the Republican Party are wider than those in the Democratic Party. The reaction of the South Carolinian audience in the last debate to some of the candidate's statements is solid evidence of that. As Perry stated, South Carolina is at war with the federal government. However, much of that war is generated by South Carolinian and southern prejudices and a parochial outlook that has festered since the Civil War.

If you vote Democrat, I'm gonna break that window, Sheriff.

Barney Fife: "You break that window Ernest T. Bass and you'll have to pay for it yourself."

Ernest: "No I won't."

Barney: "Yes you will. If the Republicans win the White House they'll be sure to cut out the $25 million that North Carolina receives annually from the federal government in law enforcement funding."

What do you think about this idea, pushed in some circles-mostly Bill Keller's- that Obama should drop Biden as VP and instead put Hillary there.

Iowa Governor due to speak shortly saying that, after vote count, Romney did NOT win Iowa, but Rick Santorum did. (Where are the voter fraud people now?)

Also, they are reporting that the Governor will endorse Newt.


TIS

Well Rick Perry is now out. There goes a lot of entertainment value.

I don't think that's a good idea at all. As stupid as Biden has been, Hillary could chase away the Independents and Obama Republicans that loathe her so much.

He won't do it. If he didn't want her on the ticket in 2008, he certainly doesn't need her now.

PB - I apologize for going off on ya like that. I tried to read what I wrote, but came off as too much in the heat of the moment, mindless partisan fury. I'm sure I have a decent argument in there somewhere, just needs some trimming and bacon.

Anyway, what to watch tonight: Debate or Newt's ex-wife exposing him on ABC? Let me get the popcorn.

What if the GOP field were superheroes?

http://thedisplacedplainsman.blogspot.com/2011/12/republican-candidates-and-super-heroes.html

This I couldn't resist posting. I can't help myself, this is crack.

As a Democrat, I won't be voting for any Republican candidate. However, I am amused at the criticisms leveled at Romney and, for that matter, at other Republican candidates. For one, I don't care that his IRS tax rate is only 15%. Why would I? I don't care that he has changed his opinion regarding a number of issues. I've changed mine on some of them over the years. Wouldn't one be quite pedantic to do otherwise? Wouldn't one want a President who is responsive to a changing American environment?

Tea Party aligned Congressional members have learned that merely being in office does not achieve one's objectives. The most successful politicians learn that it's all about compromise. I see Romney as a compromiser and Gingrich and Santorum as ideologues and Gingrich having been Speaker of the House should know better.