Since I spent some time last night and earlier today commenting on the Romney/Ijaz interview, I feel now is a good time to flesh out my own opinions on the matter and explain them. Here at race42008.com, I have refrained from going overboard until I could get a better feel on the incident. Now, I don’t have all the facts, and am not willing to make a condemnation of either yet, but here are some points that I feel are relevent to the arguments being made in the comment sections here, and whether I feel these are fair or not.
I don’t buy it. I don’t believe Mitt Romney would say anything with the intention of marginalizing any religious beliefs purposefully. I don’t believe Romney has a bigoted bone in his body. This man has been campaigning for the last year asking people to accept him for his religion. I just don’t get this argument, at all.
I don’t buy it. Actually, it’s laughable. The democrats aren’t scared of Mitt Romney, at this point. From the time I’ve spent following the democratic spin, they actually want the candidate to be Thompson, Romney, or Giuliani. They are presently scared of Huckabee, and to a lesser extent, John McCain. Those are the ones they think that would hurt them because they would have a harder time discrediting them with their base. McCain, because he’s the media’s maverick, and Huckabee because he’s Huckabee. The democratic grassroot buy into the media spin on the GOP candidates hook, line, & sinker. They want the ones the media labeled the philandering cross dresser, the flip flopping flopping, or the serial snoozer. This is their smear mindset. It’s not reality, in my view, but that’s how they see this playing out.
#3 The “Mr. Ijaz is a Democratic Operative Shill” Argument
Let me this quick point… First of all, let me remind our Romney supporters how quick some of them were to jump onto anything that came out over the summer that put Fred Thompson in a negative light, not to mention some of the vile things Giuliani has been called since I’ve been here that have nothing to do with politics. I got jumped on for “attacking the messenger, not the message” on more than one occasion, so don’t accuse me of buying the democrat activist line.
Sorry folks, for once again, I don’t buy it. He’s obviously not a republican, but that doesn’t mean he’s a bad person. The National Review thinks highly enough of him to publish him, and I find the NR, though I don’t always agree with what they write, to be a magazine of high standards, when it comes to contributors. Jim Geraughty thinks highly enough of him to consider him reliable. Mr. Ijaz criticized the Clinton administration for ignoring “several opportunities to capture Osama bin Laden and his terrorist associates.”
In fact, it seems that he is the source for that argument to begin with. That’s a pretty damning claim from a “partisan democrat.”
In 2005, Ijaz wrote:
America’s Muslims largely failed to rise up to their citizenship responsibilities after the 9/11 attacks, often choosing instead to play the role of aggrieved victims. Their voices in America’s body politic are now marginalized as a result. Indeed, that moderate Muslims everywhere do not take meaningful steps to weed out Al Qaeda’s dangerous roots in their communities is a stunning failure of leadership and lies at the heart of the increasing distrust secular societies have for all Muslims.
He has been attacked from the left by groups, such as MediaMatters.
In fact, in his interview with the CS Monitor about the story in which the accusations against Romney have come from, Mr. Ijaz was complimentary of Fred Thompson, and although he felt Rudy Giuliani would not be willing to appoint Muslims, he did not criticize him for it. Obviously, neither man said anything that would offend him.
On the wikipedia page, it seems the negative things being posted are coming from the Clinton supporters who are angry about his remarks. The links provided do not lead to anything about him being fired from Fox. Since when has anyone here, that is responsible, relied on wikipedia for accurate information? There has been a wiki post war going on about his page. There is no source that confirms that he was let go from Fox News for anything, especially in 2000 because he was still a Fox News contributor as late as 2004.
I don’t have enough to think Mitt Romney made any comments in an attempt to portray Muslims negatively, my opinion is that he probably misspoke, or was misquoted, until something like a transcript shows up to prove otherwise.
UPDATE: TWO MORE WITNESSES CONFIRM THE ACCUSATIONS… Link
November 27th, 2007 at 6:14 pm
Ijas stands by his account.
http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=Zjk1NjAyNTlmOTczZGFkMDljMjUzOGZhYTkxMTg1NmU=
November 27th, 2007 at 6:17 pm
Author Lashes Out At Romney’s Explanation Of Anti-Muslim Rant
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/11/27/author-lashes-out-at-romn_n_74378.html
November 27th, 2007 at 6:17 pm
fair post . most likely mitt said something that wasnt smart. but, lucky for him it wasnt recorded in any way, so it will go down as a confusion, or a misunderstanding. mitt seems to be prone to saying the wrong thing occasionally, and given how much talking he has done in the last year, you are likely to make a mistake once in a while. however, this doesnt look like it will make much of a dent in the primary process, and the race will be decided in the voting booths of iowa, new hampshire, and south carolina.
November 27th, 2007 at 6:17 pm
Romney Denies Vowing No Muslims In Cabinet
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/27/politics/printable3544666.shtml
November 27th, 2007 at 6:19 pm
Disregard my “thoughts so far” part. Two republicans have come forward. I’m back in the very suspicious of Romney category.
November 27th, 2007 at 6:20 pm
See this link…
November 27th, 2007 at 6:24 pm
Watching the video of Romney’s press conference, I’d simply say that his answer is very straightforward, plausible, and he doesn’t give off any of the tell-tale signs of deception. Beyond that, I don’t know. With these two other witnesses, it’s clear that this won’t be settled until A.) Romney gives a more thorough response, or B.) We get a transcript from one of these meetings.
November 27th, 2007 at 6:25 pm
as for the second witness: again, without any official record of these statements, not much will come of it. although i dont doubt there could be video material that later surfaces on this subject. as for the comments that the witnesses claim to have heard, to quote chris rock, i’m not saying he should have done it, but i understand. it seems that non-muslims would be justified in being frustrated with moderate islamic communities and individuals. they are the ones who can help the most with the jihad problem, but they havent stepped up.
November 27th, 2007 at 6:26 pm
One of the witnesses is a former chairman of the Nevada Republican Party…
November 27th, 2007 at 6:27 pm
Mitt Romney and Ann Coulter at CPAC 2007 Backstage
Ann Coulter: You can’t get these sectarian wars going with us. We’re all Christians.
Mitt Romney: Yeah, that’s right. We’re not Sunni and Shiite, here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7uvUunV3MZM
November 27th, 2007 at 6:27 pm
Typical Tommy Boy. You start showing that you have some reasoning and then…read the small print…di you even read that story? The beef the lady had was he said there was no negotiating with them (jihadists). Is that racist? That is truth. When someone’s main goal is to kill you and all like you how do you negotiate with that? Twist, twist, twist, that is all you Romney haters do. You guys ought to change your screen names to the Topnotes.
November 27th, 2007 at 6:28 pm
Tommy, when he said there was no negotiating with them, they’re radicals, etc., don’t you think it sounds like he is referring to the jihadists he had just mentioned. The question was about whether he needed a guide to help him work with the jihadists. He is saying that the jihadists are radical, not all muslims. He answered the question about needing a muslim in his cabinet by saying “probably not”, and then he went on to say why – because jihadists do not negotiate, are radical, etc. These two republicans just cannot hear well. It would have been a much bigger deal before now if he had really made racially insensitive remarks before a large crowd.
November 27th, 2007 at 6:28 pm
Tommy,
I’d find it odd that Ijaz apparently asked these questions in response to hearing from these two witnesses. If he went into the meeting with the express purpose of finding out whether or not Romney was bigoted, I’d tend to wonder even more about the exact phrasing of the question.
November 27th, 2007 at 6:30 pm
I cannot believe how many people want so badly to believe that Romney is a bigot that common sense goes out the door.
November 27th, 2007 at 6:31 pm
Matthew,
these were two seperate incidents. I’m now suspicious of both sides. of course, then Erik says typical, when I still haven’t condemned him. I’m saying that I think we should hear this out, but the others coming forward has piqued my interest.
Plus, Ijaz interviewed Thompson and Giuliani, personally, as well. I am not straight on the story yet.
November 27th, 2007 at 6:33 pm
I can Greg, though I don’t think Tommy is among them. But, it’s been clear for some time that has a very difficult time getting the benefit of the doubt from those that don’t support him. This isn’t necessarily a knock on them. If Romney hasn’t made people comfortable with him, then it’s likely his own fault and possibly speaks to his general electability. It may be unfair, but there it is.
November 27th, 2007 at 6:36 pm
Ok, now I see the part where he had been contacted by the people beforehand. This is getting stranger.
November 27th, 2007 at 6:36 pm
Did Ijaz ask Thompson and Giuliani if they needed a Muslim in their cabinet to guide them through the pitfalls of the dealing with the Middle East? I doubt it. I think the whole story is stupid. Romney said he doesn’t “need” a muslim in his cabinet, and he has referred to jihadists as radicals and people you cannot negotiate with.
November 27th, 2007 at 6:36 pm
What a waste of time and space – you know the Republican party is in trouble because or worthless posts like this – this is the type of useless banter that democrats engage in – nothing substantial here on issues or ideas.
November 27th, 2007 at 6:37 pm
I AM OFFICIALLY BOYCOTTING THIS WEBSITE.
November 27th, 2007 at 6:37 pm
Greg is right on the money. There is no way that Romney was referring to potential Muslim cabinet members when he said they’re radical and there is no negotiating with them. That makes no sense unless it is applied to the jihadists.
Man, Romney has been taking all kinds of ridiculous charges lately.
November 27th, 2007 at 6:38 pm
However, the people that have met Romney are comfortable with him. We’re just hearing from people who support other candidates and will beleive anything that anyone says about someone else. I guess it’s natural, but this has gone too far.
November 27th, 2007 at 6:39 pm
Hold on a minute there, JamesB,
I have posted serious discussion on issues and ideas recently, and got little feedback. The candidates are the ones that are engaging in the bickering. I have posted full policies, and got few responses on most items.
November 27th, 2007 at 6:41 pm
Greg,
100 million people will vote, the vast majority will never get to meet the candidate.
November 27th, 2007 at 6:41 pm
I’m not blaming you for anything Tommy, because you did afterall say that Romney doesn’t have a bigoted bone in his body. I think the explanation for Romney’s quote is easy enough – he was referring to jihadists. He even mentioned them just before his comment in question.
November 27th, 2007 at 6:43 pm
Call me crazy but I’m one of those old fashioned people who views rumors like these as a waste of time.
Real journalism is more than he said, she said. When someone produces evidence then we can talk. Just like with all the Western Watts nonsense that has since died down.
People need to keep their mouths shut until they know whether they’re spreading rumors or dealing in evidence and fact.
November 27th, 2007 at 6:50 pm
Tommy,
I don’t think that you are rooting for Romney to be a bigot but posts at Redstate with headlines “Romney’s done, good riddance” shows that you are a wee bit excited at the possiblility of bad news for Romney. I have no problem with people going after him for having different views than they do but it seems like there is an abundance of people holding thier breath waiting for a scandal to break. What I want to see is people actually debating over why their candidate will be better as POTUS. If Romney loses based on that then I am fine. Same goes for Gulianni, if he were to win because he could rally the people around him based on the ideas and plans he has then good for him and I would support him. I would hate to see any of these guys go out based on some BS charge like this that has no real evidence of what happened. If someone came out tomorrow saying that Rudy said or did something so opposite what we have all seen and heard then I wouldn’t even speculate about it. There are some here who no matter what it is they will pounce on it. That is my biggest beef.
November 27th, 2007 at 6:50 pm
Matthew E. Miller: “But, it’s been clear for some time that [Romney] has a very difficult time getting the benefit of the doubt from those that don’t support him. This isn’t necessarily a knock on them. If Romney hasn’t made people comfortable with him, then it’s likely his own fault and possibly speaks to his general electability. It may be unfair, but there it is.”
Has this sunk in to anyone, yet?
November 27th, 2007 at 6:50 pm
Tommy wrote: “I don’t believe Mitt Romney would say anything with the intention of marginalizing any religious beliefs purposefully. I don’t believe Romney has a bigoted bone in his body.”
Tommy, I agree with your first sentence, but vehemently disagree with the second.
Mitt Romney, back in February, said “we NEED to have a person of faith lead the country.â€
Today, when asked if he would be open to having a Muslim in his cabinet, Romney stated he would be “open to having people of any faith†serve in his administration.
Are you of the belief that Mitt Romney is open to having agnostics and atheists, people who are NOT of any faith, in his cabinet?
November 27th, 2007 at 6:51 pm
Metro, then why is Giuliani at 23% in this week’s poll. Giuliani, who is much better known than Mitt, cannot gain traction either.
November 27th, 2007 at 6:53 pm
Aron, Romney has had agnostics and atheists serving with him at Bain, on the Olympics boards, etc. Nice try.
November 27th, 2007 at 6:54 pm
Greg, different issue. I’m talking about how those who aren’t in Romney’s camp *HATE* the man.
The percentage who hate Rudy is quite small, but notable. The percentage who hate Mitt is huge.
November 27th, 2007 at 6:55 pm
Greg, those weren’t elected offices. Aron’s talking about Romney’s quotations regarding the Executive Branch.
November 27th, 2007 at 6:56 pm
BTW, #30 is another example of Rombot cherry picking. There is a reason we honest folk have the RCP averages/trendlines and refer to them.
November 27th, 2007 at 6:57 pm
Tommy, that link with the other two “witnesses” is rediculous. It’s purely digging whatever they can to bring Mitt down, just too many Mitt haters that cant see clearly through thier hatred. Total gutter polotics that just waste our time.
November 27th, 2007 at 6:57 pm
Aron,
We also NEED a person with management experience to lead the country. We NEED a person who respects the sanctity of life to lead the country. We NEED a conservative to lead the country.
McCain doesn’t satisfy the first, Giuliani doesn’t satisfy the second, Clinton the third. But that doesn’t mean they’re disqualified. It means they are lacking in some manner, and we can do better.
November 27th, 2007 at 6:58 pm
Tommy,
“these were two seperate incidents.”
Yes, I know, but it sounds as though the first incident prompted Ijaz to initiate the second meeting. Note this part of the article.
“The businessman, Mansoor Ijaz, who has actively lobbied American officials on Mideast policy for many years, tells me that this is what prompted him to go to the event he described in the article and ask Romney the question again.”
I.e, some people told Ijaz Romney had said something bigoted, Ijaz asked Romney a question in response to this, and concludes that Romney is bigoted. Without providing any sort of transcript detailing the exact question he asked, or the full answer Romney offered. It just seems suspicious. I’d also note that this second account is quite a bit more threadbare and bizarre. They ask him if he’d consult with a Muslims adviser on national security and he says “something like” “you can’t negotiate with those people. They’re radicals”. Huh? That’s such an utterly implausible response, I’m not quite sure what to make of it. If Romney really responded in such a manner, he’s an imbecile of the highest order.
Here’s where things get complicated for me. Islamic issues are complex and intricate. Jihadi issues doubly so. I’ve heard Romney navigate these intricacies with consumate skill on numerous occasions. I’ve also heard him specifically talk about promoting the more moderate elements of Islam. Here’s a favorite line of his “because in the final analysis, only Muslims can deal with radical jihad”. Or this “we ought to promote moderate, modern muslim governments and peoples, and help them reject the extreme”. These are nearly verbatim quotes, off the top of my head. He’s said them that often; they’ve burned themselves into the back of my brain. So the account of these witnesses is utterly incongruent with that. It defies logic.
Secondly, as I said, Islamic issues are intricate and complex. I can imagine literally dozens of places in which Romney could have given that sort of answer. And I can imagine dozens of ways in which his questioners could have mis-interpreted precisely what was going on. For instance, what if they were talking about jihad, and Salaffi Wahabbism. Romney says something “the real difficulty is Salaffi Wahabbists”. His questioners, not quite sure what salaffi wahabbism is, and perhaps believing it synonymous with Islam, say “well, would you try to find one of these guys to advise you, so that you’re better able to understand jihad”. He then gives the stated response (approximately), his questioners miss the point entirely, and walk away offended.
That’s quite a bit more plausible then imagining Romney would say “you can’t negotiate with Muslims (in general)”, when he’s heretofore repeatedly referred to moderate Muslims. So let me go on the record here. I don’t buy it. Not for a moment. I have no idea if this second group of questioners are being intentionally deceptive. I’m not one to impune someone’s motives. But, it’s absolute nonsense to suggest he answered that sort of question in that sort of manner.
November 27th, 2007 at 6:59 pm
Who cares. Outspoken atheists and agnostics are too unpopular to serve in anyone’s cabinet. We may as well ask if people who consume rodents should be in the cabinet.
Of course people who consume rodents or are atheists can be in the cabinet they just have to keep their mouth shut so as to not embarass the President. I’m sure we’ve had a lot of atheist Cabinet members who had tact.
November 27th, 2007 at 6:59 pm
Thanks Tommy for keeping us informed. I swear, online sources and reporting are quicker and more responsive than traditional media. The two republicans who have come forward regarding possibly similar comments is disconcerting. I don’t think its reasonable to spin Romney’s comments to mean he was saying you can’t negotiate with jihadists (as opposed to muslims) because the person who heard described it as racist. Saying it about jihadists is reasonable and therefore would not have caused that reaction.
BTW, CBS did just report on this during the evening news.
November 27th, 2007 at 7:00 pm
Metro,
I love you thowing out sentences like “The percentage who hate Mitt is huge.” Did your polling research reveal this? What is the name of your polling firm?…What Ever I Say, Is True Polling, Inc. I say the that there is a small percentage of people who hate Romney and a large percentage of people who hate Rudy. The Romney haters are just much louder. Who’s right???
November 27th, 2007 at 7:04 pm
Metro is consumed by hate for Romney, and therefore he just assumes others are too. Well guess what, I don’t hate Giuliani, and I don’t hate Clinton. I disagree with their policies but I don’t hate them. How would it be to be a hater?
November 27th, 2007 at 7:04 pm
Erik, anyone who isn’t leading a sheltered life, and talks to a lot of Republicans, independents, and Democrats, know I am right about how most people feel about Mitt Romney.
If you’re LDS, you probably speak mostly to LDS, and non-LDS you speak to wouldn’t say such a thing to you about a prominent Mormon.
November 27th, 2007 at 7:05 pm
Greg,
What is your explanation as to why Romney believes in a religious test as a prerequisite to the presidency? How is the necessity to be a person of faith NOT a demonstrable example of bigotry against agnostics and atheists?
November 27th, 2007 at 7:05 pm
Matt, if Ijaz went in to establish if Romney was bigoted or not, don’t you think that would imply he was even more careful to choose his wording carefully, to establish the fact?
November 27th, 2007 at 7:06 pm
Sorry for the redundancy.
November 27th, 2007 at 7:07 pm
Metro, I talk to a lot of Republicans, independents, and Democrats. Heck, some of my best friends are socialists for crying out loud. I strongly disagree with them politically, but I don’t think that most of them hate Romney. Honestly, most people don’t know a lot about Romney. A lot of these people don’t see Romney as having a chance, and don’t think about him much beyond that. Those who do follow politics closely don’t hate Romney either anymore than they hate any given candidate. You would just like to believe that since you hate Romney, lots of other people do, or maybe you have a few people around you that also hate Romney. Guess what, that’s not reflective of the general mood of the electorate.
November 27th, 2007 at 7:07 pm
Aron,
I haven’t thought of that… More for me to chew on.
November 27th, 2007 at 7:07 pm
Metro…get a life. loser.
November 27th, 2007 at 7:08 pm
By the way, Tommy.
If you’re really holding out judgement until you see evidence (which I’m skeptical on), you should change that update tag line. Currently it sounds like you’ve got two witnesses confirming Ijaz’s partial quotes. In reality, the link reads like stuff from the rumor mill, and even more absent of anything concrete than Ijaz’s comments.
Quotes, man! Is it so hard to stick to quotes?
November 27th, 2007 at 7:10 pm
Metro,
Always good for a laugh. So not only do you hate Romney you hate mormons too? I talk to a lot of people of all religious backgrounds. Some will vote for him some won’t but your point about the hate for him doesn’t play out like you say.
BTW nice that you think that non-LDS folk would never dare share an opposing opinion. Is this ignorance on your part or are you trying to make it look like mormons are some kind of tyranical people?
November 27th, 2007 at 7:11 pm
Metro,
Possibly. But, “you hear what you want to hear” and all that. It’s another variable, and one without a certain direction. If Ijaz came to the fundraiser with the intention of asking Romney this question, he may have been exceedingly careful. Or he may have been intending to trap Romney. Or he may simply have been primed (a psychological concept) to interpret Romney’s answer negatively. We simply don’t know. The only clue I see, is that Ijaz intended to ask this question, but has yet to produce a transcript or audio recording. Does that sound like someone who’s been “careful”?
November 27th, 2007 at 7:12 pm
Typical Tommy Oliver post. This is anything but fair or unbiased. This was a veiled hit piece – not as blatant as something from Rett or Deroy but a hit piece none the less. Who gives a S**T what Tommy Oliver thinks about this situation. Nice hit piece Tommy. Typical garbage from a guy who supports a lazy, going nowhere candidate.
November 27th, 2007 at 7:13 pm
Tommy,
I’ve got another possibility to add to your list: Romney’s not bigoted, and Ijaz isn’t a Democratic smear merchant, but Romney was just trying to say what he thought his audience would like to hear (he’s a politician, after all), and miscalculated.
November 27th, 2007 at 7:13 pm
Aron,
“What is your explanation as to why Romney believes in a religious test as a prerequisite to the presidency? How is the necessity to be a person of faith NOT a demonstrable example of bigotry against agnostics and atheists?”
As I understand it, Romney has never said that one needs to be religious to be president. He just said, “I think the American people want a person of faith leading the country”. That doesn’t mean he believes you have to be religious to be a president, that’s just his take on something he thinks the American people want. It may be true that the American public also want someone who is not Mormon to be president. Is it wrong to point that out? I don’t think so. Romney obviously believes that people could elect a Mormon but not an atheist. That not discriminatory any more than it is to say “I don’t think Americans will vote for a Mormon” (as Metro does), or “Americans aren’t ready for a black or woman president” as I’ve heard many pundits say.
November 27th, 2007 at 7:16 pm
Actually, Metro, the fact that these two other witnesses’ accounts to Ijaz apparently prompted his question *increases* the odds that we’re not getting the whole story on his conversation with Romney.
After all, were the exchange premeditated, Ijaz would surely have made sure to be able to record the conversation, or at least try to immediately afterward write down, word for word, both his question and Romney’s full answer. That’s what any intelligent interviewer would do.
The op-ed piece has neither. It paraphrases Ijaz’s own question (!), and has an ellipsis before Romney’s alleged quote. As Dafydd ab Hugh points out at length, both are never good things to do when recounting a conversation.
Bottom line: The news of the two other people increases the odds that Ijaz has a more-complete account of what transpired. Since he’s had more than 24 hours of media attention on the issue and hasn’t provided any such thing, there’s no reason now to assume his sincerity.
November 27th, 2007 at 7:17 pm
Emtee,
To expand on that, Romney used that line literally dozens of times. He said “need” instead of “want” a grand total of ONCE, as far as I’m aware. Way back when, when someone brought this up, I pointed that discrepancy out.
November 27th, 2007 at 7:24 pm
Just out of curiousity, how do Romney’s comments to bug mosques, bombard Iran, and “double” Guantanomo (sp?) play? My take is that he wants to appear tough and its hard to separate moderate and radical muslims. Giuliani does this by stressing his support of Israel. Hell, Obama did it by saying he was willing to bomb Pakistan even without their consent. My point is, all the presidential candidates want to appear tough and sometimes comments can sweep up the innocent with the guilty.
November 27th, 2007 at 7:26 pm
Tommy, shame on you,
Misunderstanding another person (like Romney or Clinton) is simply a cowardly way to express hatred.
November 27th, 2007 at 7:26 pm
I don’t think there’s much here, but I really think those who are attacking Tommy are doing him a discredit. This is obviously a complicated issue, and I see no reason to believe he’s being unfair. Everyone wants to get to the bottom of this; if you find his reasoning unpersuasive, say so. Explain why. I have no doubt he’s capable of being convinced.
November 27th, 2007 at 7:31 pm
WOW!! Now Romney is biased against atheists and agnostics! Geez, people give it a rest. The man has had enough ridiculous charges laid at his feet in the last couple of weeks that he doesn’t need any more of this stupidity.
What’s next, Romney is biased against goat herders and free range chickens?? Some operative overheard Romney in a restarant say “there ain’t no way I’m going to eat some thin scrawny piece of chicken like that,” after which Romney throws his fork down in disgust and leaves. Who needs Ijaz or Western Wats, I can make this crap up for free on my own.
November 27th, 2007 at 7:32 pm
Feltcher,
To clarify. Romney is open to bugging mosques which are suspected of promoting terror. And he doesn’t advocate bombing Iran, but refuses to remove it as an option in preventing their acquisition of nuclear weapons.
These aren’t oddball comments he has made trying to “sound tough”. These are positions he has clearly taken again and again.
November 27th, 2007 at 7:32 pm
Awesome, this is the best smear yet against Romney. I think it may work. It doesn’t matter if it is the truth just say he is a bigot and get a couple of friends and whammo! You knock him out. I do find it curious that Rudy ahs links to the gambling industry and all of these guys have similar links. Curious, ain’t it?
November 27th, 2007 at 7:33 pm
Emtee,
Romney did NOT say, “I think the American people want a person of faith leading the country.â€
Here is the full comment by Romney, in response to, ironically, an anti-Mormon bigot back in February:
“Let me offer just a thought, and that is…One of the great things about this great land is we have people of different faiths and different persuasions and I’m convinced that the nation does need to have people of different faiths, but we need to have a person of faith lead the country.”
November 27th, 2007 at 7:37 pm
What strikes me as funny about this whole debate is this: how many people honestly believe Romney is bigoted or even holds bigoted views about Muslims? I’ve been following Romney for a LONG time, and I can tell you it’s just not part of his character. Add that to the fact that he constantly asks others for tolerance and has thought about it probably more than most given he is used to people being intolerant of his religion.
It doesn’t make sense, and all the people that are trying to paint him as some sort of intolerant person are misinformed. I guess that’s politics–you get criticism/slander all over the place. It really is sad to me that people are so vicious in the desire to put candidates down to advance their agendas.
November 27th, 2007 at 7:37 pm
I thought I remember McCain saying some time ago that he can’t see anyone other than a Christian be president?
Does anyone remember that quote or something similar? (I might have taken it out of context)
If so, I don’t remember it getting this much attention…does anyone else?
November 27th, 2007 at 7:38 pm
Aron,
Any thoughts on comments #36 or #56? Given the context of the many times Romney has spoken on the subject, it seems a lot more reasonable that Romney’s use of the word “need” is actually a lot closer to the definition of “want” or “benefits from”.
The idea that Romney actually means atheism to be a literal disqualification for office is indefensible.
November 27th, 2007 at 7:41 pm
Matt, I completely disagree with you about Tommy and discrediting him. Why did he even bother to write this piece except to try to attack Romney and remind us all that Thompson is still running for President – I mean seriously, why did he even bother to throw those comments about Romney supporters jumping on Thompson early in the summer? The post brought nothing productive to this debate. He discredited himself by even bothering to post this.
November 27th, 2007 at 7:41 pm
Jack,
McCain: “I just have to say in all candor that since this nation was founded primarily on Christian principles, personally, I prefer someone who has a grounding in my faith.”
Groups criticize McCain for calling U.S. ‘Christian nation’
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/01/mccain.christian.nation/index.html
November 27th, 2007 at 7:44 pm
Aron,
I’ve already responded to this. Romney said “need” a grand total of once. If you’d like, I could go back and dig up my response to this some months ago pointing this out. Though, it’s in the comments section, so I wouldn’t know exactly where to begin. But, I’m game. Alternatively I could simply look at past Romney speeches. Either way, I’m quite certain I’m correct: Romney said Americans “want a person of faith” more then a dozen times. He said we “need” a person of faith once. One would generally judge such a statement a mere inadvertence; but in anti-Romney land it becomes concrete proof of religious extremism.
You know, G.K. Chesterton came to believe in Christianity in no small part because he saw it being attacked from all sides. He saw individuals offer contradicting explanations for their dislike of the religion. I wouldn’t be entirely surprised if Romney finds support along a similar pathway. Either Romney’s a liberal, or he’s an conservative extremist. And whenever I hear his critics throw “whatever sticks” sort of contradicting arguments out there, I’m moved to defend him. Odd, that.
November 27th, 2007 at 7:45 pm
Candidate Romney’s Religious Test
by Alan Dershowitz
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alan-dershowitz/candidate-romneys-religi_b_41678.html
November 27th, 2007 at 7:47 pm
Aron,
You kept ignoring the same explanations last time you were beating this drum months ago.
When I see someone continually bring something up, and ignore particular responses, it’s usually a good indication of them simply using an attack line they don’t actually believe in.
November 27th, 2007 at 7:47 pm
Rough week for Romney, though, when it comes to bias scandals.
1.) The notorious phone calls, which everybody (except his supporters) seems to think his campaign might have been behind somehow, even if they don’t want to come out and say it. There’s an investigation about it, and we surely haven’t heard the last on this.
2.) Chris Hitchens writes a column for Slate questioning the Mormon Church’s sketchy and relatively recent history with African-Americans. We’ll hear more about this for sure.
3.) The current scandal about Muslims in the Cabinet. This should drag on until at least this weekend, especially with more “witnesses” coming forward.
That’s a lot of identity politics baggage for a candidate to be carrying around 1 month out from the start of the primaries.
November 27th, 2007 at 7:51 pm
Matt,
Google:
“we need to have a person of faith lead the country” — 717 results
“we want to have a person of faith lead the country” — 0 results
November 27th, 2007 at 7:52 pm
Tommy, I have always respected you even though you are wrong on this piece. The story will pass just as the push polls have, with no adverse effect on Romney. They dont have it on tap, so its a he said/he said story. I dont believe Romney to be a bigot, and those that know him or hear him wont believe it either.
November 27th, 2007 at 7:52 pm
I’m no Romney fan, but I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt. He may very well have said that he would not appoint a Muslim to his cabinet, but I’m quite sure he would not say something to the effect of all Muslims are crazy and can’t be reasoned with, surely that was a mix-up or misquote.
As others have pointed out, around the time of his transformation from blue-state Mitt to red-state Mitt, Romney said he would be in favor of bugging mosques. While I do not thing he is a bigot or racist in anyway, Romney does seem to think that part of him becoming a conservative meant developing foot-in-moth disease in regard to Muslims.
November 27th, 2007 at 7:55 pm
whats ironic really is some of the most bigotted people on this site, fools like Metro and others, are crying “bigot” from the top of their lungs at Romney. What a joke. They have bashed mormons, and have made every Romney success a “mormon conspiracy that the MSM will someday unearth”, yet they want so bad for someone like Romney to wear the title of BIGOT like they do. Sorry, it wont happen.
November 27th, 2007 at 7:56 pm
Aron,
Google: “want a person of faith to lead the country”. (594 Results). He was saying Americans want a person of faith, not “we want a person of faith”.
November 27th, 2007 at 7:58 pm
Ah, that’s rich. When google queries can replace good old fashioned debate of ideas.
Aron, the first 10 hits I checked were all about the same article. And as Emtee said,Romney’s exact words don’t match your second search term.
Good grief.
November 27th, 2007 at 8:00 pm
Bullmoose,
What is foot-in-mouth about suggesting that mosques which promote terror be bugged. THAT is what Romney suggested.
Are you in favor of coddling certain mosques that promote the killing of Americans?
November 27th, 2007 at 8:02 pm
Tommy,
I went to the link with the two “new witnesses”. It was another supposed sound bite with no context around it:
“They’re radical. There’s no talking to them. There’s no negotiating with them.”
Like heck he was referring to all Muslims in a grand sweeping measure. The only Muslims you have to negotiate with are the radical jihad ones. Why would you be negotiating with anyone else? Until you come up with complete conversations, speeches, recordings, transcripts etc. – You’re just happily a part of the vicious rumor mill trying to pretend to be objective. And I don’t buy into the sudden “change of heart”, that you were giving Mitt the benefit of a doubt until “this” article/link. It is a sloppy, loose connection with no more veracity, or solid grit than the first article. You don’t fool me.
November 27th, 2007 at 8:03 pm
Also, about Mosques being bugged, I’d like to point out that it has already been done several times in America in Mosques suspected of terrorism. (And in fact, is probably being done as we speak). Is there widespread opposition to this?
November 27th, 2007 at 8:05 pm
With all this talk about the difference between “want” and “need”, I think we’re missing the point: that Romney uses the generalization of “faith” because he knows his own is a bit out of the mainstream and looked upon with suspicion by many, while he himself has apparently scratched a few other faiths (including one with almost 2 billion adherents worldwide) off the list of which ones are acceptable.
November 27th, 2007 at 8:05 pm
Tommy, I ditto #26.
November 27th, 2007 at 8:06 pm
Emtee,
To back that up.
“as I go around the country, the overwhelming majority of people I meet welcome a person of faith. They WANT a person of faith to lead the country.”
“People WANT a person of faith who actually believes that there is a creator and believes that we’re the family of humankind. And they’re not terribly concerned about the brand of faith, as long as the values are shared.â€
“Most people in South Carolina WANT a person of faith as their leader,”
Just three easily found (i.e, top 5 search results) separate examples of Romney saying WANT, rather then need. In contrast, all of the references to “need” are from one single quote. Again, it was an obvious inadvertence, and he clarified afterwards.
November 27th, 2007 at 8:06 pm
Aron, how about this? What if Romney had said: “Americans need a conservative to lead this country”? Does that somehow imply bigotry against those that aren’t conservative? Absolutely not, just as Romney is not arguing that atheists need not apply. Also, Romney has put agnostics/atheists into positions around him. He’s not being intolerant.
November 27th, 2007 at 8:07 pm
Romney: “I think the American people want a person of faith to lead the country. I don’t think Americans care what brand of faith someone has.”
…As long as they are a person of faith, right, Mitt?
November 27th, 2007 at 8:07 pm
I won’t say anything for sure, but it doesn’t look like this story is going anyplace. We are now more than 24 hours out from the story, and neither Mr. Ijaz or anybody else has been able to produce anything even remotely resembling a transcript of the converstation. In addition, considering that Romney is about the last person you could tie to bigotory, the possibility that he simply misspoke, and the possibility that he never said it in the first place, it seems unlikely that, even if there WERE a transcript, it would be very hard to use it to do any serious damage to Romney.
I’ve been doing some thinking about his reported statements, and I think many people may have jumped the gun. Unlike Geroge Allen’s “Macacca moment”, this statement, even as reported, does not really imply bigotory, or that Romney does not believe Muslims should be in his cabinet. To me, the way he supposedly used the word “justify” suggests two possibilities:
1) Considering that Muslims make up an extremely small section of the population, Romney may think that the liklihood of a Muslim happening to be the most qualified candidate is unlikely, in which case he may have meant to say that the question could be justified, or he simply may have used bad wording.
2) Romney knows that he answers to the American people, and possibly believes, not without justification, that an attempt to appoint a Muslim would result in a backlash (remember the Dubai port deal?) – making appointing a Muslim politically impossible.
Not trying to be a Romney appologist, but the fact that no new evidence has appeared to support the “Romney is a bigot” claim, I think we have to consider that the situation may be different than face-value.
November 27th, 2007 at 8:09 pm
I don’t know how this is going to play out but it seems that if Romney was bigoted against Muslems for religion sake, then the percentage of population shouldn’t matter. He just wouldn’t have any in his cabinent.
I am waiting to see if there is more to the transcript or context.
November 27th, 2007 at 8:10 pm
Aron,
Keep on dodging peoples’ comments and extrapolating from a single quote.
November 27th, 2007 at 8:11 pm
In other Romney news today Gov Romney announced the support of Kentucky Sec of State Trey Grayson. He is the only state-wide, state-level republican to be re-elected in Kentucky in 35+ years. He is considered by many to be a rising start nationally and most certainly in Kentucky. Kentucky is the state second in my heart as that is my wife’s homeland and where I met her. Grayson also won handily in his most recent election just a couple month’s back even while simultaneously the sitting GOP Governor Fletcher lost the state by 8% points. Grayson will not be taking any position in the campaign due to his standing as an elections official in the state.
November 27th, 2007 at 8:12 pm
Big S,
I see absolutely nothing wrong with preferring a person of faith in a leader, but then frankly, I’ve never been on the “it’s bigoted to question Mormonism” train. I think their are persuasive reasons why one might refuse to vote for someone on the basis of religion; I simply don’t think Mormonism, moderate Islam, atheism, or agnosticism qualify. That said, while I’d happily vote for an atheist or agnostic who was right on the issues, I would in fact prefer a Christian who was right on the issues. I guess I’m one of those American people Romney repeatedly referenced, and apparently a bigoted one that.
November 27th, 2007 at 8:16 pm
Aron – who do you support?
November 27th, 2007 at 8:26 pm
My money is on a organized smear. This is the best one by far and it will get legs!!! It is so good that I think Mitt will not recover. Even though it is based on lies, who cares? As Rush Limbaugh has said in the past: It is the seriousness of the charge that matters, not the truthfullness of it.
I do find it interesting that Mitt was asked a similiar question by the press and he gave a standard benign answer and yet “programmed” Mitt becomes “unprogrammed”? That does not jive at all with we have seen with the Mittster who is very careful and scripted with his statements.
November 27th, 2007 at 8:29 pm
People
If I was sitting around waiting for the opportunity to bash Mitt, I would’ve been all over the push poll story, the judge story, which happens to fill up my google revelence. You know, these links:
But I wasn’t. I didn’t post about either, and I didn’t even comment about them, because I don’t think they are really fair criticism for Romney.
November 27th, 2007 at 8:30 pm
#86 Aron
Yes Aron that’s right, in “God we trust”. It’s minted on our money, is the money bigoted too?….
November 27th, 2007 at 8:32 pm
Matthew E. Miller,
I’m not saying that it’s bigoted to want somebody of faith. I just object to the use of the generality “faith” in the campaign if a.) he really only means certain faiths, and has ruled out others as fit for people in leadership positions and b.) he takes offense at any specific discussion of his own faith.
November 27th, 2007 at 8:32 pm
I don’t see how this is an issue. An avowed atheist can’t get elected for most high offices based on the American people’s strong dislike of them.
November 27th, 2007 at 8:34 pm
Tommy: Can’t you find anything positive about Fred to post?
November 27th, 2007 at 8:41 pm
oof, Bill O’Reilly sticking it to Romney over Daniel Tavares.
November 27th, 2007 at 8:43 pm
In basketball this is called an “and one.”
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/189/
November 27th, 2007 at 8:43 pm
JamesB,
Yes, but I went through about 4 drafts working on this today that I missed a bunch. I’ve got to catch up.
November 27th, 2007 at 8:45 pm
86, HA. there’s a power punch right there.
November 27th, 2007 at 8:46 pm
Also,
Who reads my Fred posts anyways? It ain’t swaying any of our race42008 readers minds. Hell, I put hours of effort into his social security rollout, and then about two days later, one of our regular readers who was on the site that day said he didn’t know about it.
November 27th, 2007 at 8:47 pm
Hi,
Why can’t it be as simple as Romney is completely scripted and handled and when someone asks him a question that he isn’t prepared for, he speaks his mind which obviously gets him into trouble. Hence the well documented changing of his stand on issues like abortion.
November 27th, 2007 at 8:47 pm
In all seriousness,
I haven’t posted much fred today because I’ve been busy working on a large rollout on his tax plan critiques, and haven’t finished it yet.
November 27th, 2007 at 8:50 pm
AND…. WHen I check my folder to get back to working on it, it’s gone.
November 27th, 2007 at 8:51 pm
Lost in this discussion is what muslims themselves think. I googled it (of course) and came across a press release by CAIR, an arab/muslim organization, that is calling on Romney to meet with muslims about his alleged comments. I also came across a WSJ article (Oct 2007) talking about the difference in the way the two parties talk about terrorism. The GOP is more likely to link Islam to terrorism than the dems.
November 27th, 2007 at 8:51 pm
103, it’s pretty hard to get excited about thompson when he seems so unexcited himself. besides, thompson is basically mccain’s ideological acolyte without the military cred.
November 27th, 2007 at 8:53 pm
If you need help Tommy, give me a shout.
November 27th, 2007 at 8:54 pm
Tommy: I was a little harsh in my earlier post (#19). I appreciate your civility and view points on this web site.
November 27th, 2007 at 8:55 pm
Feltcher – CAIR is a terrorist supporting organization. They are a danger to this country and it’s leaders should be arrested and deported for crimes against this country. The last organization any politician in this country should consider sitting down with is CAIR.
November 27th, 2007 at 8:56 pm
http://www.opinionduel.com/debate/?q=NDk=
Check out the tactics Mansoor Ijaz uses in this duel with NRO’s Andy McCarthy.
Quote from Andy McCarthy:
I am feeling Mitt Romney’s pain. I have debated Mansoor Ijaz — in an “Opinion Duel” organized by NRO. I repeatedly found that he accused me of saying things I hadn’t said while he took positions that were unresponsive, at times incoherent, and consistently wedded to an agenda which he pursued no matter the course of the debate. Don’t take my word for it — unlike Mitt, I have a transcript, which is here. Judge for yourselves. I think, within the confines of his agenda, he means well, but I would not take him to the bank as a raconteur.
November 27th, 2007 at 8:59 pm
Tommy,
Your posts have certainly done a good deal to allay my early Fred skepticism. Don’t shortchange your efforts. He’s not my first choice but then, I don’t really have a first choice. I can imagine a scenario where I end up backing him. So I’m sure you’re turning some heads. But, it’s sometimes not as interesting to comment on long policy proposals.
November 27th, 2007 at 9:00 pm
86, That’s just as statement of fact Aron. Have you ever seen the poll that asked people who they couldn’t vote for. Atheists were right up there at the top. I think they outnumbered Mormons by a pretty good margin.
November 27th, 2007 at 9:04 pm
#103 Tommy. . .trust me, a lot of us are reading them. I may not comment on your posts outlining FDT’s positions but that’s not because I haven’t read them. I actually look forward to that type of post, on all the candidates, rather than the attack or gotcha posts that seem to show up too often. Aside from doing my own research, I really depend on the supporters of each candidate to explain to me why I should vote for their guy, and you do a great job here educating me on where FDT stands.
November 27th, 2007 at 9:10 pm
I will admit that I haven’t spent a lot of time researching my thesis, but it seems to me that this site has morphed from “covering what will be the most exciting political race of a generation” (first line of the site statement of purpose) into the premier hit Mitt Romney discussion site on the internet. I try to at least give cursory attention to all of the posts. It has become increasingly clear that any post that starts as either a positive story about Romney or something unrelated to him will be quickly threadjacked into unrelated diatribes against Romney, while anti-Romney stories (posted most often by front page supporters of other candidates) explode in vitriol.
Whether or not Mitt Romney is nominated by our party or elected by his countrymen, those of you who have gone out of your way to personalize your animus of Romney or your thinly veiled contempt of his beliefs have done both yourselves and your country a disservice. To those of you who have simply disagreed with his policies, I congratulate you. You are evidence of the best reasons why our system of government is the best in the world.
November 27th, 2007 at 9:11 pm
James,
Thanks.
November 27th, 2007 at 9:28 pm
Irish,
You single out the so-called “mittnots,” but what about the “mittbots.” In my estimation there is a lot of pushback against pro-Romney posts. This happens to every candidate, but to Romney more often because there is a plurality of Romney supporters.
As to making it personal, a voter’s preference is always in part determined by a personal connection or revulsion. When you hear a voter ask, “how do we beat the bitch,” I’d say its personal. I have not heard Romney called anything similarly offensive.
November 27th, 2007 at 9:28 pm
This is Romney Vs. Rudy site. You can’t exactly say its a site that’s devoted to attacking Romney when half of the poster and good number of front page posters are Romney supporters. Rudy gets a fair number of hits too. I’ll admit Romney has few rude people ( who need to get a life) who are obsessed with him, mainly Sampo, TLG, and Metro. However, thats only three people. It seems to me most of the supporters of other candidates are pretty fair to Romney. Tommy seems like one of the fairest of all the guys actually. Anyway Romney and Rudy are both going to get attacked ( and supported) more than other candidates because they are the only candidates represented much on this site.
PS. I guess I left out Huckabee supporters which seeem to be pretty well represented on this site. and right now Huckabee supporters would see Romney as more of a threat than Rudy.
November 27th, 2007 at 9:34 pm
118, Feltcher,
you don’t find sleazy, slimy, plastic, inauthentic, liar, panderer and too many others to count offensive?
Sad for you, I guess.
And what would you have Romney supporters do if not push back against accusations that are provably false? Bend over, grab our ankles and say “Thank you, Sir. May I have another?”?
November 27th, 2007 at 9:45 pm
“Why can’t it be as simple as Romney is completely scripted and handled and when someone asks him a question that he isn’t prepared for, he speaks his mind which obviously gets him into trouble. Hence the well documented changing of his stand on issues like abortion.”
Why can’t it be as simple as a bad quote or a poorly-worded comment?
Your comment shows either a clear bias against Romney, or, well, I can’t really think of anything else. Accepting your idea would mean naming Romney as some kind of bumbling, bigoted, inexperienced idiot. None of those titles can seriously be applied to Romney by anybody who doesn’t have an ax to grind.
November 27th, 2007 at 10:00 pm
I just read the transcript of that debate, and I’d have to agree with Andy. Ijaz seems to have, possibly inadvertently, missed the point repeatedly, and continually argued against straw-men. I’d tend to believe that Islam can be reformed, but I was utterly unpersuaded by any of Ijaz’s arguments. I had to dig quite a bit to find any serious argument. I also notice that Ijaz seems to have a real obsession with having “need hundreds, even thousands [of Muslims]to rise into positions of real responsibility”. This obviously isn’t a passing concern for him.
November 27th, 2007 at 10:08 pm
Irish,
I do not find inauthentic, plastic, panderer, or even ken doll offensive or personal. The question is, are they an accurate characterization.
Sen Hatch, who is LDS and supports Romney, said he has to address the flip-flopping. Is that personal and offensive? He also thinks Romney needs a Kennedy speech. Does that mean he’s picking on Romney?
November 27th, 2007 at 10:14 pm
“Is that personal and offensive?”
No, because its a piece of advise on campaigning, or else something that Hatch has personal concerns about. Do you really think that either of those are equatable to the insults constantly hurled by the likes of Metro?
November 27th, 2007 at 10:19 pm
Irish Right,
Mitt Romney came off as pretty authentic here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_w9pquznG4&feature=related
November 27th, 2007 at 10:19 pm
This is a bit ironic because my cousin’s husband Atif is a big Romney supporter and a Muslim. He’s been trying to get me to switch over to the Romney bandwagon and now these rumors start.
November 27th, 2007 at 10:20 pm
John #119,
While I certainly partially agree with you that this has become a Rudy v Romney site (far more a v Romney site than anything else), that was not what it was established to be. There was, at one time, an air of discussion as opposed to the stench of personal attack.
November 27th, 2007 at 10:28 pm
I love this site, because there is no attempt to censure good hearted discussion even if it wrong headed.
November 27th, 2007 at 10:32 pm
What’s interesting about the Youtube piece is that Romney empatically used the words “devoted” and “dedicated” to “honoring (his) word” on……. “a woman’s right to choose.”
His Democrat opponent was accusing him of flip flopping back then, by citing Ted Kennedy- who accused Romney of flip flopping way back in 1992.
I never knew that Romney’s daily abortion flip flops were so transparent for so long. He’s been getting hit for his constantly changing positions for at least 15 years!!!
November 27th, 2007 at 10:32 pm
“I love this site, because there is no attempt to censure good hearted discussion even if it wrong headed.”
I might be treading in dangerous waters here, but wasn’t there a mass deleation earlier this year?
November 27th, 2007 at 10:33 pm
“empatically” should be “emphatically”
November 27th, 2007 at 10:41 pm
Act,
Do you really take what Metro says about Romney seriously? I don’t. I don’t think there is a mormon conspiracy or that LDS is funding his campaign. And whatever has been the history of LDS as far as racism, I believe they are trying to atone and in that regard they are no different than the catholic church.
At the same time, though, Romney supporters should respect that not everyone believes all his political conversions are genuine or that he is the best candidate to come along since Lincoln.
November 27th, 2007 at 10:46 pm
MWS it was uncanny watching Romney speak with such sincerity and passion about “a women’s right to choose” (choose what steak or fish? oh dead baby).
November 27th, 2007 at 10:56 pm
Pretty impressive the way that example of flipping gets trotted out so often. No Romney supporter (in his right mind, at least) will argue that he has changed his position 180 degrees on “a woman’s right to choose”. You can accept the reason, or not, for the change. However, only if you assume that the change is less than authentic is it an example of insincerity. I have always been able to accept the fact that many aren’t willing to accept that. Perhaps I can accept it since I have gone through that same positional change.
November 27th, 2007 at 10:57 pm
Hmm… Do I take it seriously? yes. Do I think the statements are completely idiotic and unhelpful to the political debate? yes.
So why do I take him seriously? Because, there are hundreds of others with the same stances, and I be D****d if I let their stupid rantings go uncontested.
November 27th, 2007 at 11:05 pm
I = I’ll
–
The idea that just because Romney was passionate then means he is any less passionate now – or less honest now – is absurd. A few years ago, I could have talked passionately against the Death Penalty – but then there was an event in my local area that caused a 180-degree reversal almost overnight. Now, I can speak jsut as passionately in favor of the Death Penalty.
November 27th, 2007 at 11:20 pm
I am against the death penalty, but whole heartedly endorse it for baby Grace’s killers. Indeed, I would be tempted to get a group together to storm the jail and hang them.
November 27th, 2007 at 11:26 pm
Wow, #125.
Mitt really DOES come across as authentic then, on that topic! I’m shocked. He hasn’t appeared authentic on a SINGLE topic this year.
This confirms what I thought early in 2007 before I paid much attention to the race and still liked Mitt Romney: Mitt Romney is a social liberal at heart.
November 27th, 2007 at 11:27 pm
Which just makes him a deceitful shyster now.
November 27th, 2007 at 11:32 pm
Metro welcome back. No defense of your earlier comments?
November 27th, 2007 at 11:32 pm
And here i was just about to comment how nice it had been without any personal attacks lately … my bad.
November 27th, 2007 at 11:39 pm
Act and Irish Right,
I might be more inclined to believe Romney’s conversion if it were just that- a singular conversion. But in reality, it has been conversionS. The guys been all over the map, and his opinions always seem to conincide with the prevailing opinion of his immediate constituancy.
Now if Romney goes back to Massachusetts, runs on a pro-life platform, and gets his @ss kicked for it, then I will take back everything I’ve said or implied about his sincerity, and will whole heartedly embrace his conversion.
Until then, I’m not willing to make the Presidency the first test of his sincerity.
November 27th, 2007 at 11:43 pm
MWS,
I can respect that. And put that way, while i may disagree with you, there is nothing wrong with your position. Please note, however, the words and terms you did not use.
November 27th, 2007 at 11:45 pm
as I stated earlier. Metro and the other Mittnots are much like the “void of any real ideas” Democrats. The Dems hate Bush and no of nothing except that Bush sucks. Dito for Metro and the other mittnot idiots. We cant have a REAL debate about Romney v Rudy or early state v bigger states. Instead we just get Metro and others in their agenda driven, anti mormon, uneducated, pointless, thoughtless, bigotted comments.
November 27th, 2007 at 11:50 pm
You dont hear dialouge about Rudy’s record, or positions, instead we hear phony, plastic, used car salesmen, and everything coming back down to a mormon conspiracy.
The irony to hear someone uneducated, bigotted fool like Metro tell us that Mitt is a bigot. Ridiculous. If people dont like Mitt because of his positions, thats fine. So Mittnots, here is a suggestion. Get a life, study your candidate, figure out why he or she makes the best president in the arena of ideas. Then tell us why. I have been intellectually honest about Rudy. I like him, but he isnt my 1st choice. I have stated why.
November 28th, 2007 at 12:17 am
Actually I think the best way to deal with trolling is to ignore it. You guys should try ignoring the more obnoxious Romnots, I think might get tired of not getting attention.
November 28th, 2007 at 12:36 am
husky, I’ve written at length about Rudy’s candidacy.
I also feel compelled to offset the fact that half the posts here are pro-Romney while only 12.8% of Republicans support him. Especially when he is such a vile candidate. I write for the casual reader/lurker, not to change anybody’s mind here.
November 28th, 2007 at 12:46 am
Come on guys! This is the best smear yet! Run with it, I know you have it in you!
November 28th, 2007 at 2:05 am
#123 Feltcher:
You are dis-ingenuine, shallow, inconsistent, and maybe even a rag doll.
Gee, I’m glad I could say that without being personal or offensive, it’s after all, accurate.
November 28th, 2007 at 9:00 am
To me its more important that I am not a stepford wife whose womb has been cursed to produce children who look inbred.
November 30th, 2007 at 1:14 pm
Romney says “no” to religious tests for office and Ijaz says “yes”. Seems clear to me.