Subscribe via RSS Feed

All Good Things…

[ 17 ] July 31, 2012 |

The Alyona Show has ended. Say what you will (and by this I mean “make every entirely reasonable critique of RT”) about the sources of funding and oversight, Alyona was willing to have guests and tackle subjects that could be found nowhere else on television.  I can’t think of another show of its type that would do a short segment about the Zumwalt class destroyer.  Best wishes to Alyona and her producer in their next endeavor.

Speaking of Russia, see this Dan Nexon post on the origins of Romney’s anti-Russia rhetoric.  I’d place my bets on numbers 2 and 3; anti-Russia sentiment is convenient, low stakes rhetoric for Romney, and those surrounding him seem resoundingly committed to a (hysterical) anti-Moscow position.  I’m not sure I’d use the term “steeped,” because I don’t have a sense of what Romney actually thinks; the think tank network that effectively constitutes the modern Republican foreign policy establishment is in many ways structured to prevent candidates from straying from a very narrow strip of “hawkish” orthodoxy.

Comments (17)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Barry Freed says:

    I’d love to see some reporter make Romney squirm by asking him if he supports Pussy Riot.

  2. burritoboy says:

    Nexon’s number 4, I think, is more plausible than it appears. For a very powerful (though perhaps numerically small) segment of Republicans (call it the Dick Cheney faction if you want), they see the US as primarily as a sort of platform for energy corporations (properly freedom-loving capitalist energy corporations, of course). Thus, in this view, the problem with Russia is that Putin Inc. is a competitor to those freedom-loving energy corporations.

  3. jeer9 says:

    what Romney actually thinks

    Not to get all epistemological, but I don’t believe there’s been any evidence of that activity occurring in the person named. It belongs in quotation marks like steeped and hawkish.

  4. Joel Patterson says:

    As a Massachusetts voter who lived through the 4-year term of Gov. Romney (who spent the last 2 years in New Hampshire and Iowa), I would tell you that what Romney thinks is basically, “What can I say now that will help me become President?” It’s pretty clear from his actions as Governor that he was interested in having the job, not doing the job.

    • BigHank53 says:

      What makes you think the Presidency would be different with regards to the having and not doing part?

      Though something tells me we’d be more grateful for a do-nothing Romney than an ambitious one.

  5. wengler says:

    Ah crap. I watch this every day.

    I figured she’d end up in some other venue. I’m guessing RT pays little and she is a good host and ‘on-air personality’ just waiting to be co-opted.

    Now I gotta go somewhere else for drones, Wikileaks and space sh%t.

  6. Pith Helmet says:

    Best wishes to Alyona and her producer in their next endeavor.

    Fuck, she’s going to that shithole HuffPo.

  7. James E. Powell says:

    The major component of any Republican’s ‘foreign policy’ profile requires that he make bellicose speeches about some enemy that is a threat and to declare that the Democrat is ‘soft’ and ‘weak’ with respect to that enemy’s threat. In cases where there is no enemy or threat, the Democrat is soft, weak, and naive for failing to acknowledge that enemy’s threat.

    Look, Republican voters do not know much about anything to do with the state of the human race outside of their small, homogeneous social circles. They know even less about the world outside of the United States. So it’s pretty simple to tell them that there is an enemy and that they should be afraid. They are already afraid of so much, they just need a name or a phrase to associate with their fears.

    So the Republican candidate invariably gives bellicose speeches about countries that everybody hates, like Iran, or imaginary threats, like Russian resurgence.

    • ironic irony says:

      “They know even less about the world outside of the United States.”

      It’s not that they know even less about the world outside of the U.S., it’s more that they don’t want to know.

      I agree that the whole “be afraid!!!!” is the main thing that drives them. That, and “change it bad!!!”

      I figure that anytime someone wants to tell me who my “enemy” is supposed to be, that is when I start looking at what kind of underhanded shit that person is trying to do.

  8. ironic irony says:

    “neoconservatism 3.0 — a recasting of the great ideological struggle away from Islamism to the ‘axis of authoritarianism’, of which Russia is a major hub”

    So the same fuckers who want to make the US into some authoritarian/fascist/father-knows-best-and-everyone-else-knows-their-place kind of place want to call Russia the bad guy*???

    Shit, that’s like Hitler calling Stalin an asshole.**

    *I am no fan of Putin.
    **Sorry about that. Godwin’s and stuff….

  9. Nexon is very generous in his #2 – heh heh, heh heh – by attributing the shift from a focus on Islamism to one on Russia as an intellectually-derived exercise.

    Romney wants to hit the old “Democrats are soft on ___________” button, like Cheney and Rove did, but there is no way in hell the Republicans are going to challenge him directly on issues of terrorism and the Islamic world. So, Russia makes the best available stand-in.

  10. I have to wonder if towing the line on Syria finally got to her.

  11. Jon Pennington says:

    A simpler explanation may be that Romney is going after the geezer voting bloc, which either doesn’t know or doesn’t care that the Cold War is over.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

  • Switch to our mobile site