Romney falsely spins his anti-Muslim bigotry.
Romney falsely spins his anti-Muslim bigotry.
After facing intense scrutiny for his bigoted comments about Muslims serving in public office, Mitt Romney attempted to “clarify” his position during a campaign stop in Florida by saying he opposes religious quotas:
It’s something I rejected, number one. And number two, point out that haven’t given a lot of thought to the people I would have in my Cabinet. I don’t have boxes I check off in terms of ethnicity, and it’s not that I need a certain number of people representing ethnic groups. Instead, I would choose people based on their merits… I’m open to having people of any faith, ethnic group. But they would be selected based on their capacity and capabilities and what they could bring to the Administration, but I don’t choose people based on checking off a box.
In his spin, Romney conveniently forgets his original argument that a Muslim shouldn’t be given a cabinet position “based on the numbers of American Muslims [as a percentage] in our population.” As Matthew Yglesias points out, the original “account of Romney’s answer makes it seem as if Romney has no problem in principle with the idea of a Muslim quota,” but he “just doesn’t think there are enough American Muslims to justify a cabinet post.”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
I just don’t think there are enough American Mormons to justify a Romney presidency.
November 27th, 2007 at 2:50 pmPretty Mitty ain’t too bright, is he…?
But he shore is purty.
November 27th, 2007 at 2:52 pmWhat would happen if we applied Romney’s philosophy to lawyers? There are about 950,000 lawyers in the United States, so technically the government should contain only .3% lawyers as well.
November 27th, 2007 at 2:53 pmOooh, toasterhead, I like your math!
November 27th, 2007 at 2:55 pmAnd their religion matters because……..
Bush/Cheney
Hague Trials ‘09
Buck Fush
November 27th, 2007 at 2:56 pmAnother macaca moment brought to you by the GOP. Thanks for clearing that up for us, Mitt. Maybe the next President will give you a post on the new cabinet.
November 27th, 2007 at 2:56 pmYo! Someone stop this merry-go-round. I’m getting dizzy from all this spinning.
November 27th, 2007 at 3:00 pm6 – Nah, Bob – there aren’t enough Mormons in America to justify that.
Heheheh!
November 27th, 2007 at 3:01 pmWhenever Republicans make these claims against quotas someone should remind them that…
a) The Supreme Court Outlawed Quota systems in 1978 with the U.C. Regents v Bakke decisions. As a result the only time they can be used is under a consent decree – which is a form of punishment for an organization which has been caught actively discriminating against someone and specifically ignoring their merit.
b) That everytime they clamour for “Balance” in the media what they’re really saying is that they want a Quota System for Conservatives. who apparently don’t have the skill and “merit” to get high-profile media jobs on their own.
Vyan
November 27th, 2007 at 3:03 pmShut up shuttin’ up, Mitt.
Criminy…
November 27th, 2007 at 3:04 pmThis will be Mitt’s “Macaca Moment” – adios, Mitt!
November 27th, 2007 at 3:08 pmRomney falsely spins his anti-Muslim bigotry.
The only kind of spin that is, is about a 180.
Otherwise it doesn’t even resemble his previous comment with a few key words changed to alter the meaning, nothing about a mis-quote either, just a completely new statement.
November 27th, 2007 at 3:09 pmPersonally, I think all “Faiths” are based on institutionalized ignorance. However, for a freakin’ Mormon to even engage in a theological discussion strikes me as the height of idiocy. Heck, the creators of Judeo-Christendom at least went with “burning bushes”, clay tablets, and multiple plagues. But following a “religion” that one guy, literally, “pulled out of a hat” strikes me as insane. And, excluding Muslims, Jews, Atheists, or Baptists from one’s cabinet is not only shortsighted it’s, blatantly, unconstitutional.
Hasn’t Bushco demonstrated how damaging this approach can be? Wouldn’t any candidate benefit from a clear, early, commitment to hire people based on ability?
November 27th, 2007 at 3:12 pmpete
And, excluding Muslims, Jews, Atheists, or Baptists from one’s cabinet is not only shortsighted it’s, blatantly, unconstitutional.
Actually, if he’s using quotas, I would think he would need at least one Atheist and Baptist.
November 27th, 2007 at 3:16 pmseeing that mormons hold about the same percentage of the population as muslims….i guess he would be in favor if he was totally excluded from everyone’s else populace appeasing cabinets.
November 27th, 2007 at 3:18 pmAgain, will Hillary come out TODAY and say she will have a Muslim in her cabinet? Hell no is the answer. This is a no story since neither party will come out and say they will have a muslim in their cabinet.
November 27th, 2007 at 3:24 pmRoger_Roger
Again, will Hillary come out TODAY and say she will have a Muslim in her cabinet? Hell no is the answer. This is a no story since neither party will come out and say they will have a muslim in their cabinet.
But will Hillary come out TODAY and say that she won’t have a Muslim in her cabinet? Because that’s what Romney did.
November 27th, 2007 at 3:29 pmOoooh, Ranting Roger pulled his string again!!!
Dayum, Roger – how many of those Republican Talking Pointsâ„¢ *do* you have in there??
November 27th, 2007 at 3:30 pmAgain, will Hillary come out TODAY and say she will have a Muslim in her cabinet? Hell no is the answer. This is a no story since neither party will come out and say they will have a muslim in their cabinet.
Comment by Roger_Roger — November 27, 2007 @ 3:24 pm
Completely irrelevant.
November 27th, 2007 at 3:31 pmBesides, RR, not a single one of the Democratic candidates is STUPID enough to say something as utterly and cluelessly bigoted as what that idiot Mitty said….
Duh.
November 27th, 2007 at 3:32 pmComment by Roger_Roger — November 27, 2007 @ 3:24 pm
And that’s this week’s edition of Republican Talking Points.
Next week, tune in for Clinton did it II
November 27th, 2007 at 3:34 pmComment by Roger_Roger — November 27, 2007 @ 3:24 pm
Of course not. Hillary, unlike Mitt, isn’t an imbecile. As such she won’t point out totally bogus reasons for not naming a Muslim as well.
November 27th, 2007 at 3:34 pmThe new America, like it or not get-rich-quick Reps, is going to be great in 2009 — and for the coming decade.
President Clinton
VP Obama
We’ll wait for the righties to register http://www.thinkregression.org at the beginning of Clinton/Obama’s second term. Should be fun.
November 27th, 2007 at 3:38 pmTurn off the spigot of the bigot.
November 27th, 2007 at 3:40 pmI wonder why Mitt didn’t say he’d check with his lawyers first?
November 27th, 2007 at 3:40 pmMitt’s attempt at damage control is exactly what he should have said when he was first asked the question, which covers the two obvious points he needed to cover — 1) it’s premature to speculate on who will be in my cabinet, and 2) when I do select my cabinet, religion will not be a factor.
Unfortunately, because Mitt botched his initial response, he revealed himself to be gaffe-prone, not to be trusted to speak without consulting his handlers, and having some bizarre ideas about ethnicity and quotas. None of which are qualities people want in a president.
November 27th, 2007 at 3:43 pmWant a platform for Romney to replenish the millions he’s personally spent on his pathetic campaign? Vote for him. Or JulieAnnie. Or Fred.
Want to keep your home and job? Vote progressive.
November 27th, 2007 at 3:46 pmYou all know the only error Mitt made was actually saying what all the Dem canidates are thinking. Either way, Mitt if for Socialist health care so I can’t support him.
November 27th, 2007 at 3:48 pmComment by Roger_Roger — November 27, 2007 @ 3:48 pm
What’s wrong with public health care? Do you have a problem with policing services, teachers and firefighters, all of which are vital public services?
November 27th, 2007 at 3:52 pmUnfortunately, because Mitt botched his initial response, he revealed himself to be gaffe-prone, not to be trusted to speak without consulting his handlers, and having some bizarre ideas about ethnicity and quotas. None of which are qualities people want in a president.
Comment by missmolly — November 27, 2007 @ 3:43 pm
missmolly, I have to take exception to your reasoning here. In my experience, gaffe-prone and not to be trusted to speak without consulting his handlers sounds EXACTLY like what Republicans nominated for President the last two elections. And, by some specialized calculations at least, their candidate won.
November 27th, 2007 at 3:53 pmYou all know the only error Mitt made was actually saying what all the Dem canidates are thinking.
Comment by Roger_Roger — November 27, 2007 @ 3:48 pm
Psychic powers? Or just dirt stupid?
November 27th, 2007 at 3:54 pmComment by gummitch — November 27, 2007 @ 3:54 pm
Dirt stupid is putting it nicely. His brain is soaked in mud.
November 27th, 2007 at 3:56 pmThanx RX2 for demonstrating, once again, what progressives are fighting. If you had a clue you would object to Mitt, and Mike (I didn’t descend from no monkey) Huckabee, because they have divorced themselves from critical thinking. But, that’s the problem with neocons. They continue to throw unquestioned support to imbeciles because they are “politically acceptable”. How very sad.
November 27th, 2007 at 3:56 pmComment by Lt. Progressive — November 27, 2007 @ 3:52 pm
Neocons only believe in allocating tax dollars to killing people. Helping people never occurs to them.
November 27th, 2007 at 3:58 pm#33 Your fight for a new system of socialized medicine that has proven to be worse then the current system we already have is a bad fight. We only need to look to Europe and Canada to realize we don’t want that system. They wait longer, the wealthy come to America, and more people die in their system. Sure not everyone has health coverage, but everyone gets health services none the less. When you look at the statistics, we get better care then they do. It is a no brainer.
November 27th, 2007 at 4:00 pmYou all know the only error Mitt made was actually saying what all the Dem canidates are thinking.
Comment by Roger_Roger — November 27, 2007 @ 3:48 pm
Wow, Roger_Dodger you can tell what the Dem Candidates are thinking?
November 27th, 2007 at 4:02 pmWhy the hell are you here? You should be off buying lotto tickets, Mr. Psychic
Comment by ralph the wonder llama — November 27, 2007 @ 3:53 pm
Good point. It IS exactly what we’ve had for the past two terms. Of course, the number of Americans who want this has eroded somewhat. I believe there’s hope for 2008 — that America will look at Romney’s clumsiness and say, “OMG, not another one! Make it stop!”
November 27th, 2007 at 4:05 pmWhen you look at the statistics, we get better care then they do. It is a no brainer.
Comment by Roger_Roger — November 27, 2007 @ 4:00 pm
In those systems, everyone is covered. In the US, people without insurance are NOT covered.
You are an idiot.
November 27th, 2007 at 4:07 pmComment by Roger_Roger — November 27, 2007 @ 4:00 pm
Um. You might want to try reading something you can comprehend. “Curious George” perhaps?
My point is that Mitt’s obvious break with reality, based on his devotion to an arcane cult, disqualified him before I needed to consider his position on anything else. Same for the majority of the Republican candidates. They’re a bunch of dangerous lunatics in my estimation.
I might add that I don’t, currently, support anyone from either side. But, I will vote against anyone who places hypothetical Gods above real live people.
November 27th, 2007 at 4:07 pmEither way, Mitt if for Socialist health care so I can’t support him.
Comment by Roger_Roger — November 27, 2007 @ 3:48 pm
Um…”Socialist” health care? I wasn’t aware that Romney or any other candidate was supporting that. I’m not even really sure what that is.
November 27th, 2007 at 4:08 pmI’m not even really sure what that is.
Comment by missmolly — November 27, 2007 @ 4:08 pm
Neither are they. It’s a strawman, just like “leftists” and scary brown people.
November 27th, 2007 at 4:12 pmSure not everyone has health coverage, but everyone gets health services none the less.
Comment by Roger_Roger — November 27, 2007 @ 4:00 pm
Could you please elaborate on the “everyone gets health services”? I know several people who don’t, simply because they can’t afford to pay for health care out of their own pocket, or they can’t get health insurance due to pre-existing conditions, or they HAVE health insurance and still can’t pay for their health care.
I think you mean “everyone gets health services as long as they can pay for them.” Or perhaps you mean “everyone gets health services in an emergency room as long as it’s a life or death situation — of course, they may to have file bankruptcy once they get the bill.”
November 27th, 2007 at 4:14 pmComment by missmolly — November 27, 2007 @ 4:14 pm
I think we’re wasting our time. I have come to the conclusion that Roger is dumb and the other Roger is dumber.
November 27th, 2007 at 4:26 pmRoger, dearheart, perhaps you ought to consider adding Republican Talking Pointâ„¢ number 13 to your (somewhat limited) repertoire:
“HILLARY DID IT!!!”
November 27th, 2007 at 4:28 pm36 – Amazing, isn’t it?
The Republicans not only know *exactly* what the Democratic candidates are thinking – but what the TERRORISTS are thinking as well!!
Amazing. Just …friggin’ amazing.
November 27th, 2007 at 4:31 pmComment by Roger_Roger — November 27, 2007 @ 4:00 pm
No need to take pointers from Europe or Canada. We can make public healthcare as efficient as, let’s say, the U.S. postal service, the American way.
November 27th, 2007 at 4:36 pm“HILLARY DID IT!!!â€
Comment by Leftside Annie — November 27, 2007 @ 4:28 pm
He’ll save that for when Jeb runs for president in 2012 or 2017.
November 27th, 2007 at 4:38 pmHere’s an interesting article which sums up my doubts about Romney, Huckabee, and religious fanatics in general.
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/11248
November 27th, 2007 at 4:46 pmpete
Here’s an interesting article which sums up my doubts about Romney, Huckabee, and religious fanatics in general.
I really, really like Huckabee. I’d like to have a drink with the man, he seems like a really good, likable person who wants to do right.
That said, Christian Fundy who wants to take back the nation for Jesus?
Scary!
November 27th, 2007 at 4:58 pmComment by Roger_Roger — November 27, 2007 @ 4:00 pm
To what do you attribute the better overall health statistics of so many of these nations with this terible socialized medicine when compared to the states for the States with its far superior system?
November 27th, 2007 at 5:01 pmComment by Squegeeboo — November 27, 2007 @ 4:58 pm
The Huckster is a dangerous fanatic and is totally separated from “the reality based community”. No more. No less.
I might enjoy meeting him but, I would feel better if he were bound and/or behind a sturdy fence.
November 27th, 2007 at 5:02 pmComment by Roger_Roger — November 27, 2007 @ 4:00 pm
To what do you attribute the better overall health statistics of so many of these nations with this terible socialized medicine when compared to the states for the States with its far superior system?
Comment by dbadass — November 27, 2007 @ 5:01 pm
Now, now, don’t be confusing R2 with actual facts. R2’s got his talking points memorized and if he has to start thinking about what he’s writi g, he’ll never meet his quota.
The US is best, and that’s that. Right, R2?
November 27th, 2007 at 5:33 pmThere’s really no need to nitpick Romney’s words or actions. By virtue of his affiliation with the republican party, and that alone, Romney proves he is unfit to serve as president of the United States. No republican will ever serve as president again thanks to the actions of one George W. Bush. That’s really all we need to know.
November 27th, 2007 at 5:39 pmComment by cold_hard_left — November 27, 2007 @ 5:32 pm
It would be difficult for TP to quote a story that came out after their’s. Also, I don’t see how. inaccurately, identifying the original author as a “Democratic fund raiser with a political agenda” serves to mitigate Mitt’s comments. Other than to brain dead, neocon, trolls.
Thanx for providing a link to a story which makes Romney look worse.
November 27th, 2007 at 5:46 pmAnd here’s another link on the subject:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/11/27/author-lashes-out-at-romn_n_74378.html
November 27th, 2007 at 6:35 pmThe problem with this entire argument about Romney’s comments is this: Who is going to get upset by them? Republicans who might vote for the guy? Hardly. They are not really fans of Muslims generally and don’t really want to see them in the cabinet. Democrats and Independent voters? Very few of them are going to rate this very high among the man’s many faults.
Arguably, by giving the whole business a lot of play (not that it isnt interesting–sort of) you are providing a lot of GOOD press for Romney.
Why is a man named Mitt? Why didn’t he stick with Willard?
November 27th, 2007 at 7:21 pmI wonder if he thinks there are enough women in America to justify a woman president? Or enough gays to justify a few gay Congressmen, or if he thinks maybe that has nothing to do with some representation? Ask Barney Franks and Hillary if actual numbers in the population translate to number of Congress seats. (If his Mormonism shouldn’t matter, then neither should someone’s Muslim religiosity). In truth, he’s exposed himself as just another white Christian conservative man who thinks white Christian conservative men should rule the world.
November 27th, 2007 at 7:27 pmRoger roger–
I don’t get it. Mormonism is not the original arcane cult, its just a cartoon version of the earlier arcane cult. And in any event, all religions are pretty arcane when you get down to it and put a “hypothetical god” above people.
So what is the beef about Romney that isnt equally valid for any candidate?
nrglaw
November 27th, 2007 at 7:27 pm… and thank you Tender Chicken, “By virtue of his affiliation with the republican party, and that alone, Romney proves he is unfit to serve as president of the United States.”
Truer words were never written.
November 27th, 2007 at 7:28 pmTender Chicken–Ah I wish it were true. Sadly, the wheel always turns. I watched Nixon resign in 1974 and I’m here to tell you that Republicans never go away for good.
nrglaw
November 27th, 2007 at 7:32 pmComment by nrglaw — November 27, 2007 @ 7:27 pm
Um, I think you were responding to me. I specifically object to professed Mormons, Scientologists, Cultists, and extreme fundamentalists of any religion.
In the case of Mormonism, it’s considered “wacky” even by most “legitimate” religions. I can’t imagine the credulity it takes to believe there is ANY validity to the Mormon faith. John Smith, literally, pulled it out of a hat and people who know this still believe.
I am forced to accept that American politicians must give lip-service to Judeao-Christian beliefs in order to participate. I gravitate towards candidates who aren’t “preachy” as the least among evils.
I can’t imagine a professed atheist, or agnostic, winning a national election. While this fact depresses, and disgusts, me I have to play the cards as they’re dealt.
November 27th, 2007 at 8:35 pm