Armageddon Watch

The NY Times Magazine had this grim bit of reporting in their cover story "Will Israel Attack Iran?":

[Israeli Defense Minister Barak] warned that no more than one year remains to stop Iran from obtaining nuclear weaponry. This is because it is close to entering its “immunity zone” — a term coined by Barak that refers to the point when Iran’s accumulated know-how, raw materials, experience and equipment (as well as the distribution of materials among its underground facilities) — will be such that an attack could not derail the nuclear project. Israel estimates that Iran’s nuclear program is about nine months away from being able to withstand an Israeli attack; America, with its superior firepower, has a time frame of 15 months.

So Israel will have to do their thing by September or October, which is just before the US election.  Or, if they choose to defer to the US, then either Romney, Newt or the First Ditherer will have to make a decision within about ten weeks of their inauguration in 2013.

A few weeks back the Times described a different facet of the problems this creates for Candidate Obama:

Sanctions against Iran’s oil exports that the president signed into law on New Year’s Eve started a fateful clock ticking. In late June, when the campaign is in full swing, Mr. Obama will have to decide whether to take action against countries, including some staunch allies, if they continue to buy Iranian oil through its central bank.

After fierce lobbying by the White House, which opposed this hardening in the sanctions that have been its main tool in pressuring Tehran, Congress agreed to modify the legislation to give Mr. Obama leeway to delay action if he concludes the clampdown would disrupt the oil market. He may also invoke a waiver to exempt any country from sanctions based on national security considerations.

But using either of those escape hatches could open the president to charges that he is weak on Iran, which is viewed by Western powers as determined to achieve a nuclear weapons capability and which has drawn a tough response from Europe as well.

Republican candidates, led by Mitt Romney, have threatened to use military action to prevent Tehran from building a bomb, and have criticized Mr. Obama for not doing enough to stop it from joining the nuclear club.

“If we re-elect Barack Obama, Iran will have a nuclear weapon,” Mr. Romney declared in South Carolina in November. “And if we elect Mitt Romney, they will not have a nuclear weapon.”

But... but... but... Obama got Osama!  Personally.

Comments

[Jack is Back!]

Somewhat on topic but is The Won overplaying his SEAL bad guy take out and hostage rescue use?

If they think this is going to bolster his numbers against the Republican candidate since they don't have the same experience then will he risk doing more of it? Because, we all know that the more you do the more something negative could come down.

The same with an September to October hit on Iran. Has he got those same cajones to use the MOP? I doubt it because he won't have the same level of HUMINT clarity in Iran that he did for one house in Pakistan.

Bu the more emboldened this man-child becomes then I think he could be setting himself up for a big dose of lose.

[lyle]

“And if we elect Mitt Romney, they will not have a nuclear weapon.”

Bob Dole approves this message.

[Boatbuilder]

"...But using either of these escape hatches could open the president to charges that he is weak on Iran..."

He's heard those charges before, and dealt with them by issuing stern words to the effect that everybody should get along and we recognize the concerns of Iran and would like everyone to play nice. Especially Israel.

So no problem.

[Clarice]

definitely. No. {rpb;em. Words will solve it all.

[Ranger]

Hostage situation update:

US citizens seek refuge at Cairo embassy

I suspect they will be traded for money to buy food as Egypt runs out of hard currency to keep the imports flowing.

[sbw]

Thyphus must have tripped up on Clarice. My comment, if it isn't doubled:

"{rpb;em"

Even for Clarice that is a memorable Claricism.

[Sue]

{rpb;em

I speak fluent Clarice...no "problem".

[Captain Hate]

Well done, Sue; I need to upgrade my translator after the massive fail on that

[Long may he wave.]

Many happy returns of the compleanos for the best Vice-President evah.
==============

[Sara]

I don't know where the other candidates stand on the importance of Israel (hopefully they are all on the same page in this instance), but Mitt Romney has been taught since birth that the return to Israel and the rebuilding of the Temple are central to the 2nd coming of Christ. I have heard him on the campaign trail become very animated and determined when speaking of Israel as our greatest ally in the Middle East and that it is our duty to stand by Israel, etc.

Whether you consider it a plus or a minus, you can count on a President Romney to stand fast on defending Israel and supporting Israel against its enemies.

Here is an overview of why he (and all LDS members) believes what he does as to our duty toward Israel, all scripture based.

There is nothing in Romney's past that says to me that Romney would be reckless or knee-jerk about this, but he will be determined and undeterred, IMO.

[Extraneus]

I speak fluent Clarice

It made total sense to me, too.

[matt]

Crazy Joe Biden on the OBL raid:

"He got to me. He said, 'Joe, what do you think?' And I said, 'You know, I didn't know we had so many economists around the table.' I said, 'We owe the man a direct answer. Mr. President, my suggestion is, don't go. We have to do two more things to see if he's there,'" Biden recalled.

While the vice president did not explain what those two more things were, the next morning the president gave National Security Adviser Tom Donilon the "go" to launch the SEAL raid of the compound.

"He knew what was at stake, not just the lives of those brave warriors, but literally the presidency," Biden said.

The two things Joe thought they needed to do were:

1 - knock on the door and ask.

2 - Call the ISI and ask.

[Sue]

Matt,

Maybe you can explain to me what Biden meant by "so many economists around the table"?

[Old Lurker]

Me too. Scary, huh? I can even follow Narc most days.

[Extraneus]

Imagine the raw cunning required of a guy as dumb as Joe Biden to make it as far as he did?

[Sue]

I can't figure out what economists have to do with this discussion. I first saw it tweeted by Tapper. Maybe if I cared enough to find and read the entire thing, it might make sense. Especially if I plan on telling this story to my grandchildren when they ask for a fairy tale.

[henry]

Sue, consider "economists" as shorthand for people who hem and haw refusing to take a defined position one way or the other. Think Krugman, whatever happens, he warned about it with an "on the other hand" so he is always right.

[Heh che cheh.]

Not economists, communists.
=============

[GMAX]

raw cunning translates to "blind @ssed luck" in my JOM speak.

[Clarice]

It's "problem" __simple. Can't you guys read?

(sorry-- annual check up day interfered with my usual perfect proofreading.)

XOXOXO

[steve]

I figure the Israelis figure that Obama won't use military force against Iran. Thus the scenarios:

The Israelis won't attack before the election as the resulting 'rally round the President' would boost Obama's re-election chances.

If Obama loses, the Israelis won't attack, figuring that Romney (yes, Romney, not Gingrich) will act.

If Obama wins, the Israelis will attack in the days or weeks immediately following the election.

[MBH]

Obama got Osama just like Nixon put a man on the moon.

[matt]

what henry said. Apparently the day before the raid, the only stand up yes vote for a go ahead was Panetta. The rest hemmed and hawed.

Crazy Joe, being the great patriot and expert he is, voted "no", so he's not an economist. But we knew that. Nor a rocket scientist nor a vending machine repairman. That's why he's so perfect as Vice President.

He's the William J. Lepetomaine of the administration. Holder plays Taggart.

[Sue]

Look, I'm willing to give Obama credit for getting Obama simply because he could have said no and didn't. But stop acting like it was heroic. Any president sitting in his chair that didn't give that order to "go" would have been crucified.

[Sue]

Oh, wait. Joe Biden would have said no if he had been president, so maybe I should have a caveat here. Any president with any sense at all...

[Bill of Rights]

I really hope it doesn't come to another war. I'm tired of seeing good men and women die!

[centralcal]

You guys are cracking me up today!

Speaking Clarice-eese and Obama getting Obama (pretty accurate, Sue).

[lyle]

"...would have been crucified."

Personally, I think this takes the whole "Messiah" thing a bit too far...

[Threadkiller]

"{rpb;em"

That reminded me of an email that went around some years ago:

"From Cambridge University .

O lny srmat poelpe can raed tihs. I cdnuolt blveiee taht I cluod aulaclty uesdnatnrd waht I was rdanieg. The phaonmneal pweor of the hmuan mnid, aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, t he olny iprmoatnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be in the rgh it pclae. The rset can be a taotl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit a porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. Amzanig huh? yaeh and I awlyas tghuhot slpeling was ipmorantt! if you can raed tihs psas it on !!"

[Frau Bildung Bildet]

OT - Attention MA JOMers and cathyf:
Out of my area of comfort and I may the only one who is interested.
I've been trying to find out the parts of Romneycare that were actually Romney's. The Heritage Foundation's 2006 evaluation seemed very rosy and gave Romney credit for several aspects of the MA program. I don't know if Heritage ever did a follow-up report, but we know from Jane that something did go awry ("It's alive!"). My question is who is really responsible for it? Did Romney propose after a demand was made or before? What exactly was *his* plan?

Finally, the element of the Massachusetts bill that has attracted the most attention and dispute is the "personal responsibility" provision, also known as the "individual mandate."

From the outset, Governor Romney stated that requiring individuals to buy health insurance in the currently fragmented and overly expensive insurance market would be wrong and counterproductive. But he also argued that if the market could be reorganized to make coverage universally available and portable, deregulated at least enough to make it affordable for the middle class, and subsidized enough to make it affordable for the low-income, then there would be no reasonable excuse for anyone to forgo health insurance.

Romney also pointed out that to allow people to go without health insurance when they can expect someone else to pay the tab for their treatment is a de facto mandate on providers and taxpayers. Romney's plan was to take that option off the table, leaving only two choices: either buy insurance or pay for your own care. He proposed that those who want to go without coverage could place $10,000 in an interest-bearing escrow account, which providers could claim against if the individual did not pay medical bills.

Unfortunately, the state legislature changed that idea into a mandate: either buy coverage or pay a fine.
(Heritage Foundation)
LUN

[Jim,MtnViewCA,USA]

...explain to me what Biden meant by "so many economists around the table"

Ancient quip: if you want 5 opinions on a topic, ask 3 economists.

[Sue]

Personally, I think this takes the whole "Messiah" thing a bit too far...

Ewww...didn't even think of it or I might have re-worded.

Ancient quip: if you want 5 opinions on a topic, ask 3 economists.

Oh. I guess I missed that one.

[Clarice]

TK, I have absolutely no problem reading that. None whatsoever.I cannot explain why this is though.

If you recall, I was probably the first here to be able to decipher Narciso before he learned to format.

[lyle]

OT:

Over a three-month trial, the court heard repeated evidence that the three teenaged sisters had clashed with their conservative father on many issues.

Their father was so "conservative," he and his sons decided to...LUN

[lyle]

I was probably the first here to be able to decipher Narciso before he learned to format.

A task I'm still mastering. Peripatetic commas and all...

[donald]

Sitting on the Imperial Beach pier. Just had a really great swordfish sandwich and a pale ale 420. What is that round fence structure (Featured on John From Cincinnati) over by the strand?

I won $2,600.00 this morning playing blackjack at the Pachenga casino. Ha! Also when I left, I turned right and ended up driving through a really cool canyon.

[Benjamin Franklin]

It's telling that almost no direct references (quotes, asides, add-ins) seem to occur with Maguires' posts.

http://consortiumnews.com/2012/01/29/reagans-road-to-climate-perdition/

It's a pdf.

Iran has about 30 kilograms of 20% enriched uranium and under the worst case, (or best case, if you prefer) they, after 'wastage',have enough fissile material for two weapons.

Israel has approx 200.

[Benjamin Franklin]

wrong link...

http://www.armscontrol.org/files/Iran_Brief_10_2011_Mark_Fitzpatrick.pdf

[Threadkiller]

Donald:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wullenweber

In 1959, the U.S. Navy contracted with ITT FederalSystems todeploya worldwide network ofAN/FRD-10 HF/DF arrays based on lessons learned from the Bondville experimental array. The FRD-10 at NSGA Hanza, Okinawa was the first installed, in 1962, followed by eleven additional arrays, with the last completed in 1964 at NRRF Imperial Beach, CA. (Silver Strand) A pair of FRD-10s not equipped for HF/DF were installed in 1969 at NAVRADSTA(R) Sugar Grove

[Old Lurker]

Be sure to report those winnings to the IRS, Donald.

[Ranger]

they [Iran], after 'wastage',have enough fissile material for two weapons.

Israel has approx 200.

Posted by: Benjamin Franklin | January 30, 2012 at 04:41 PM

The issue with nukes isn't just that they exist, but who actually controls them.

The US, UK, and France all have nukes. They all went to war with Iraq, the US, and UK twice. Yet I don't think anyone ever feared that the US, the UK, or France would use their nukes in that/those wars.

Iran, by contrast, has a military (Republican Guard) dictatorship led buy a guy who has publicly state his goal is to "reveal the 12th Imam" to bring about the end of the world as we know it and usher in a world wide islamic caliphate. The same regime has stated that Israel will be destroyed. The current leader of Iran also made his bones by engaging in acts of political murder in foreign countries, so adherance to the nicities of internatinoal law seems to not be a concern of his. You can understand why some people might be worried about a regime like that having just one nuke, let alone two.

[centralcal]

Gee, OL, are you trying to spoil his fun?

[bgates]

"He knew what was at stake, not just the lives of those brave warriors, but literally the presidency,"

"At first I felt like, 'hey, roll the dice', you know? Worst that could happen is we end up with a few more dead navy guys or dead seals. (Are seals in the navy, or is that their own thing? Like the Rangers?)"

"But then Barack reminded me that there was a lot more at stake here, I mean vastly more important things, because this thing could end up really hurting his presidency. I hadn't until then been focused on the real importance. I mean, nothing could be more important than our brave men and women and seals (is it actually trained seals, like in the circus? I was never clear on that, whether they train 'em or just get wild ones and turn 'em loose). There's nothing more important than our men and women and...sea mammals in uniform, because they're out there every day, doing what Barack tells 'em to do, and wouldn't it be a better country if we were all that loyal? Just imagine."

"So don't misunderstand me, when I say the real important thing here is the presidency, that's because I'm just agreeing with all the guys with the guns who are out there fighting to protect Barack so he can do his job for America. I mean just trained killers, and they're all working for us. So keep that in mind."

[MaryD]

Beyond priceless, bgates!

[or somebody allied.]

That link claims that only two FRD-10 are left in existence, operated by Canadians. Is this a replacement?
========

[Sue]

Newt has been sued by Rude Music, Inc., for using Eye of the Tiger at political events. Why the hell do republicans continue to use music by people that hate them?

[PaulL]

I heard a few minutes of Romney being interviewed by Sean Hannity. Romney sounded eminently reasonable and capable. Until the topic changed to Gingrich, at which time Romney sounded like a hateful weasel.

[Eye on the Tiger.]

I like 'elephant cage' and 'krug' both.
=============

[cathyf]

He [Romney] proposed that those who want to go without coverage could place $10,000 in an interest-bearing escrow account, which providers could claim against if the individual did not pay medical bills.

Another shamandate. Insurance, if it has a policy limit at all, that is in the millions. The $10,000 is along the lines of what you would pay in insurance premiums in just a few short years. If you pay the premiums and then you don't get sick, you don't get any money. If you do the escrow thing and don't get sick, you get to keep the money. If you pay the premiums and you get some disease that costs the insurance company a million dollars, they pay up. If you get sick and it costs a million dollars and all there is is that $10,000 in escrow, then WE are left eating the $990,000 left after you pay up $10,000.

Think of it this way: the state sets up a lottery where you pick your numbers and get your ticket, and you put your dollar to buy the ticket into an interest-bearing escrow account. After the lottery picks the numbers (and you know whether your ticket won) you can decide whether to release the dollar from the escrow and claim your ticket (and prize), or to keep the dollar and give up the ticket. AFTER the numbers are chosen.

[matt]

it's called licensing, sue. And if they licensed the recording, screw 'em.

Same thing happened in the last election when a bunch of bubble headed musicians became quite perturbed when candidates with whom they disagreed used their tunes.

I would let everyone in the world know that Eye of the Tiger was my theme song and then dare those spoiled punks to sue.

If ever I ran for office I would use some of Public Enemy's stuff starting with Fight the Power and leading into Don't Believe the Hype while flashing Obama's photo on the screen just to piss em off.

[Ignatz]

bgates by himself could bring Barry down were he widely read enough.

[Frau Wahlmusik]

Sue - Republicans are informed after they use the music. It's another form of political warfare.

We just need to have *all* music designated "R" or "D" or "I" or "C" so we won't have these unpleasant moments. I'm sure the government should and can take care of this for us. A music czar?

[lyle]

Bravo, bgates.

I would think whoever wrote or played Eye of the Tiger would be elated to get any publicity. As it is, I doubt there aren't 15 people alive who know who they are. Talk about one hit wonders.

[Clarice]

Yes, he could, Iggy. bgates is a true genius and I love reading his posts..they are boh wise and witty.

[Sue]

It drives me nuts. If you know, or even suspect, they are going to object to the use of their music, don't use it. If you don't quit after they ask you to, it looks bad on you, not them. However, in this instance, it looks like Newt has been using the song since 2009 and they are just now objecting.

[lyle]

In fairness, though, the syncopation in the opening riffs of the song is pretty impressive and damned hard to get right in a cover band. I speak from experience.

[Benjamin Franklin]

" it looks like Newt has been using the song since 2009 and they are just now objecting."

So, it qualifies as an 'easement'? lol

[Porchlight]

The lead singer of Survivor (the band who recorded "Eye of the Tiger") now does those "Real Men of Genius" ads for Bud Light. You know, the ads that used to make fun of "Real American Heroes" until 9/11 happened and they had to change it.

[Danube of Thought]

"the return to Israel and the rebuilding of the Temple are central to the 2nd coming of Christ"

There are many reasons for the US to support Israel. This is not one of them.

[Extraneus]

RNC Chair stands by his comparison of Obama to cruise ship captain

“We’re going to talk about our own little Captain Schettino, which is President Obama who’s abandoning the ship here in the United States and is more interested in campaigning than doing his job as president.”

[snip]

Pressed about whether the analogy was appropriate considering that the crash killed at least 16 people – with more than a dozen still missing – Priebus stood by the comments.

“The analogy was made and it was an analogy of leadership, that in a time of crisis, this president is leaving the White House and campaigning non-stop all the time,” Priebus said. “I think it’s pretty clear, but if people out there on the Democratic side want to make hay of it they’re going to be able to do it. The reality is that it’s a fair analogy in regard to leadership in a moment of crisis that this president is more interested in his own job, A number 1, than the jobs of millions of Americans out there hurting right now.”

[Extraneus]

Considering that the alternative is to only be allowed to use Country music, I agree with Matt: pay the license fee and use whatever song you want. Then vary Reagan's line about paying for the mike in the STFU response to the musicians.

[Extraneus]

Link on the Schettino quote.

[Barbara]

I heard a few minutes of Romney being interviewed by Sean Hannity. Romney sounded eminently reasonable and capable. Until the topic changed to Gingrich, at which time Romney sounded like a hateful weasel.

Paul,

I heard Romney being interviewed by Hannity and as you said he sounded "reasonable and capable." I thought his comments about Gingrich were appropriate and certainly not hateful or weaselly.

What stood out in the interview was the outtake of Sarah Palin excoriating the Republican establishment for apparently not backing her choice for the nomination. Her comments were disjointed and her voice was all over the place. Not necessarily shrill but like she was in search of an octave and couldn't light anywhere. It was close to jumping the shark.

[Sara]

I won $2,600.00 this morning playing blackjack at the Pachenga casino. Ha! Also when I left, I turned right and ended up driving through a really cool canyon.

Donald:

Next time wave. I live just a couple of miles from Pechanga.

[Barbara]

Correction: The outtake of Sarah Palin was played during Hannity's interview with John McCain.

[Sara]

There are many reasons for the US to support Israel. This is not one of them.

What does that have to do with why Romney may be inclined for more than strategic reasons to take a strong stance for supporting Israel?

[PaulL]

Barbara,

So does that mean you thought McCain was not a hateful weasel?

[Sara]

PAUL RYAN via Facebook:

The public sector should not enjoy special treatment at the expense of those in the private sector. After all, the tax dollars of hardworking families across the country finance the compensation of government workers. Restraining the explosive growth of the federal bureaucracy is critical to spur private sector economic growth and job creation.

CBO Confirms Federal Workers Enjoy Advantages Over Private Sector Counterparts

[Barbara]

So does that mean you thought McCain was not a hateful weasel?

Paul,

LOL. It might look like I got my interviews mixed up, but no. I did hear Romney and he sounded fine. The Sarah clip was in another interview.

Now as for McCain, "hateful weasel" sounds just about right.

[Benjamin Franklin]

"Now as for McCain, "hateful weasel" sounds just about right."

Gingko takes the 'War Face' award if he wasn't a virgin.

[MarkO]

Man. If you can make Mitt Romney sound like a hateful weasel, you've been letting some blood. It does seem, however, that Newt is about bled out.

Hasn't this been fun?

[jimmyk]

Another shamandate.

In addition to cathyf's excellent argument, my impression is that very few of the people deciding whether or not to buy insurance have a spare $10,000 to put in escrow. They are trying to make down payments on houses or tuition payments.

We've really created the problem by making insurance unaffordable by weighting it with requirements to provide free this and that, plus providing a free alternative, and then being shocked that some people want to opt out.

[Danube of Thought]

"What does that have to do with why Romney may be inclined for more than strategic reasons to take a strong stance for supporting Israel?"

Seems to me that you offered the fact that Romney had been taught that from birth as one of those "more than strategic reasons." For my part, I don't think that one's religious belief as to the preconditions for the second coming of Christ should be a factor in determining whether and how to support Israel.

[Sara]

Until the topic changed to Gingrich, at which time Romney sounded like a hateful weasel.

As you might expect, I have a hard time thinking Romney could be hateful.

According to the news this morning, the public in Florida perceive Newt's negative ads targeted at Romnney to be much meaner than those of Romney's targeting Newt, according to a poll.

I do know that on the campaign trail Romney does not pound Gingrich, where it seems that all Gingrich does is trash Romney with charges of being a liar, a corporate raider, a MA liberal, etc. Mitt has spent alittle more than double Newt in Florida on ads, but over several months. Newt dumped $5 million's worth in just the last week or so. But, Mitt has not had the advantage of free publicity the same as Newt, who seems to be on every Fox show being interviewed. Yesterday I saw him 4 in row, some double segments.

In fact he is on right now trashing Romney again, saying there is no difference between Romney and Obama. OMG, he says Republicans won't sit by and allow George Soros to pick Romney as the next president. George Soros? C'mon.

[OldTimer]

Sara, Soros has stated that there's not much difference between Romney and Obama in LUN, maybe that's what Gingrich was elucidating.

[Benjamin Franklin]

"Newt dumped $5 million's worth in just the last week or so. "

I know where he got it from, Sara.

http://www.accuracy.org/release/gingrich-gets-another-5-million-via-pro-israeli-casino-mogul-adelson/

[Clarice]

Todd Pain's joining Newt on the campaign trail.

[narciso]

L'Chaim, Adelson also backed Freedom Watch, one of the few voices in favor of our military's efforts, in the face of the Soros onslaught, the Levick group and other like minded offensives.

[Danube of Thought]

Peter Wehner:

"The single most important idea, when it comes to fundamentally changing Washington, is the budget plan put forward by Representative Paul Ryan last April. When most massive-scale-of-change conservatives were defending Ryan’s plan against scorching criticisms from the left, Gingrich described the plan as an example of 'right-wing social engineering.' It was Gingrich, not the rest of us, who was counseling caution, timidity, and an unwillingness to shape (rather than follow) public opinion. (The Medicare reform plan Gingrich eventually put out wasn’t nearly as bold and far-reaching as the one put out by Governor Romney.)

"So much for Mr. Fundamental Change.

"The reality is that conservative/"establishment' opposition to Gingrich generally falls into three categories. One is that if he won the nomination, he would not only lose to Barack Obama, but he would sink the rest of the GOP fleet in the process. A second area of concern is that Gingrich is temperamentally unfit to be president –he’s too erratic, undisciplined, and rhetorically self-destructive. A third area of concern is the suspicion that the former House speaker is not, in fact, a terribly reliable conservative, that he is not philosophically well-grounded (see his attachment to Alvin Toffler for more)."

[MaryD]

"Todd Pain's joining Newt on the campaign trail."

That's it. The Palins have become a parody on the level of a political Farkel Family.

Sorry if I'm showing my age,

[Danube of Thought]

Careful, donald. They spotted an 18-foot Great White at IB the other day.

[Sara]

Seems to me that you offered the fact that Romney had been taught that from birth as one of those "more than strategic reasons." For my part, I don't think that one's religious belief as to the preconditions for the second coming of Christ should be a factor in determining whether and how to support Israel.

Well then I didn't make myself clear. The given is that there are excellent strategic reasons, but in Romney's case, there is also a deep-seated belief that it is our duty as well.

Do you really think Romney strikes you as the type to go to war over his personal beliefs? Isn't that why there is such confusion about his early position on abortion, when he said he wouldn't allow his personal belief to override his duty under US law as defined by the Constitution?

[narciso]

Could you be a little more obscure, how about the Partridge's or the Brady Bunch,

[Benjamin Franklin]

Where's TK? Digging up some more birfer corpses, no doubt.

[Jack is Back!]

OT: Frederick's buddy, Cardinal-designate Tim Dolan responds to the Regime's mandating Catholic institutions include the cost of sterilization, abortion and contraceptives in their health care plans for employees.

Dolan is evidently a baseball fan:) But probably more so for the Cardinals than the Yankees.

[Jack is Back!]

Weird. Cardinal Dolan's response

[Ranger]

This may have a big impact on the odds of a future strike on Iran:

Syria's Assad will go, says US, as UN vote nears

Activists say 95 people were killed across Syria on Monday in cities including Damascus and Homs.

The White House said President Bashar al-Assad had lost control of Syria, adding "he will go".

From what I have seen, the basic US policy is to hope that the Iranian government collapses before they get operational nukes.

There already seems to be an active resistance within Iran that now has allies in the Republican Guard. I suspect there are elements within the Army and now the RG that fear the development of nukes in Iran will spark a strike against them. They also know that such a strike will probably not just target the research and production facilitiesd, but also take out Iran's ability to refine oil, which would collapse the Iranian economy and set the entire country back about 50 years. The resistance in Iran wants to remove the current regime before that happens.

If Assad goes down, the regime in Iran will take a major blow to its prestige as well, as Assad is a their major ally in the region. The resistance in Iran may find more allies near the top of the current regime.

[(Another) Barbara]

Todd Pain's joining Newt on the campaign trail.

That's sad, and poorly considered. As was her public comment about how voters should choose Newt to annoy a liberal.

I have liked and admired her in the past and doubtless will continue, but for other than her political prowess.

[centralcal]

This just came across Twitter. Thought some of you might be interested. I have no comments or thoughts about it.

Romney For Governor Issues 2002

It is his original web page via the Way Back Machine.

Meanwhile, I shall return to polishing GeeGee.

[Danube of Thought]

In addition to what Ranger said, bear in mind that since it developed nuclear weapons the U.S. has fought two very costly wars in Korea and Vietnam, and engaged in a number of lesser armed conflicts, without ever using them. Israel has repeatedly been attacked by its neighbors, and has had Scud missiles fired into its territory, without using them.

Having watched the Islamic Republic in action, I would have at least two concerns. One would be the anonymous detonation in the city of its own choosing; the other would be nuclear blackmail: "we have smuggled an atomic weapon into New York City. Remove all your troops from Muslim lands by the end of the month or we will detonate it."

[Extraneus]

If Romney gets the nomination, conservatives sniping at him will probably help his election prospects. They'll vote for him anyway, but he can more easily appeal to people who hate the tea party types than a true conservative warrior could.

It's just a fact of life that Democrats can have a far left-wing candidate that they support ideologically. Republicans can't nominate someone who'll slay the big-government redistribution behemoth, at least not yet. (And I'm not talking about Gingrich. I'm talking about potential candidates who weren't even able to make it that far.)

Maybe we'll have a stealth candidate someday, or maybe it'll be too late.

[MarkO]

Self-restraint is a weakness, not a virtue.

[Benjamin Franklin]

" One would be the anonymous detonation in the city of its own choosing; the other would be nuclear blackmail: "we have smuggled an atomic weapon into New York City. Remove all your troops from Muslim lands by the end of the month or we will detonate it.""

A valid concern. But, they won't announce their culpability. Even if it is a covert threat, the signature from the blast would result in their annihilation, and they know it.

[MarkO]

Wait. There's no war. The troops are coming home, just in time to vote.

[Ignatz]

--Self-restraint is a weakness, not a virtue.--

May I suggest Ozzy Osbourne as your first exhibit?

[JM Hanes]

Frau:

The following doesn't directly answer the question you posed, but it does seem to speak to some of Romney's priorities. I thought it would be interesting to check out the reaction of folks here at JOM, when Romneycare was actually enacted. My Google search string wasn't really up to that particular task, but I did run across this excerpt from an AEI analysis of the Romney plan in a Sept. 2007 thread. Unfortunately the original link has gone dark. Also unfortunately, Typepad is going to make me post it in two pieces:

The centerpiece of Mr. Romney's plan is to attack the tax code's discrimination against cost-effective private insurance. He proposes to allow individuals to deduct out-of-pocket health-care expenditures from their taxable income, allow individuals who purchase health insurance premiums on their own--rather than through their employer--to deduct health insurance premiums, and to expand Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) by eliminating the requirement that a qualifying health plan contain a high deductible.

....Mr. Romney's proposal to allow individuals to deduct out of pocket medical expenses is a significant advance in this 30-year progression to a level tax playing field between out-of-pocket expenses and insurance. And a more level tax playing field would encourage individuals to choose health plans with lower premiums and higher copayments for their routine health-care purchases. With more "skin in the game," individuals would exert more control over their choice of health-care services. The health-care savings would be large. We estimate that a proposal such as Romney's would reduce private health-care spending by 6%.

(cont.)

[matt]

I wonder how Hezbollah figures into the current mess in Syria. They have had fighters involved on the government's side, but if Syria loses Assad, Hezbollah is going to lose their puppetmaster and probably their arms pipeline.

Iran also loses their transshipment point for arms as well as their only dependable ally. Ahmadinnerjacket must be staying up late between these events and his own war with Khameini who we are told is even more conservative.

[JM Hanes]

AEI analysis, Part II;

Some critics have argued that allowing out-of-pocket expenses to be tax-deductible will raise, not lower, health-care spending because the policy will make the price of direct medical-care purchases cheaper relative to all other goods and services. As our empirical analysis with Daniel Kessler demonstrates, the critics are wrong. The cost-reducing impact on health-care expenditures of individuals shifting into health plans with higher copayments swamps by a large margin the cost-increasing impact of making out-of-pocket purchases cheaper.

The benefits don't stop with reducing the growth in health costs. As employer premiums decline, the savings will accrue to workers in the form of higher money wages. In competitive labor markets, workers--not employers and not insurance companies--bear the burden of paying for employer-provided health-insurance premiums. Although employers might write the check for premiums, workers ultimately pay by foregoing money wages.

We estimate that making out-of-pocket expenses tax deductible, combined with Mr. Romney's other proposals, will reduce the average premium of employer-provided family health plans by around $2,300 per year. Workers' wages will rise by this amount on average. To be sure, higher out-of-pocket expenses will offset part of this increase--$1,000 of it. But workers will still experience a net increase of $1,300 in (taxable) income. Mainly because of this economic effect, we estimate that the U.S. Treasury's revenue loss will be modest--about $10 billion per year.

[MarkO]

Iggy, I prefer the French in WW II or the USA, these days.

Ozzy. What a territory.

[Ignatz]

--Even if it is a covert threat, the signature from the blast would result in their annihilation, and they know it.--

Counting on the rationality of Twelvers doesn't seem particularly prudent to me.