Romney spouted anti-Muslim bigotry previously.
Romney spouted anti-Muslim bigotry previously.
Former Fox News pundit Mansoor Ijaz first revealed Mitt Romney’s anti-Muslim bigotry in a piece in the Christian Science Monitor. But Greg Sargent reports that Romney has uttered his anti-Muslim bigotry previously — at another event in Las Vegas three months ago. Irma Aguirre, a former finance director of the Nevada Republican Party, asked Romney whether he would consider hiring a Muslim adviser. Aguirre reports, “[Romney] said something to the effect of, ‘They’re radicals. There’s no talking to them. There’s no negotiating with them.’ I can’t remember the exact words he used, but that was the explanation. We left thinking, ‘Wow, what a racist comment. He automatically assumed that all Muslims are radical.’”
UPDATE: HuffPost went back to Ijaz and asked him to comment on Romney’s explanation of his bigoted remarks. “This guy is lying now to the American people,” said Ijaz. “He probably never imagined someone would come out and write a piece the way I did. And I think he made a serious mistake in judgment in trying to disown what he said.”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Romney is a republican, so we shouldn't be surprised that he's also a bigot. It comes with the territory.
November 27th, 2007 at 6:41 pmWhat a "racist" comment? How does "race" figure in this? Not that it matters since the witness cant remember the exact words anyway.
Ill try to remember this religious outrage the next time ol' Mitt gets questioned about his Mormonism.
November 27th, 2007 at 6:42 pmWell, this would explain his initial comment about a Muslim cabinet member, the one he made before he came out with the new improved sanitized version.
I never really did understand the initial comment, but now I do. He would only have a Muslim cabinet member as a token if a significant percentage of his constituency demanded it. Otherwise, forget it.
Yup -- he's a bigot.
November 27th, 2007 at 6:43 pmBTW, Ijaz isnt exactly your non-partisan pundit, unless you consider how much he touts himself as the perfect muslum candidate for a cabinet position as a sign of his unbiased nature.
November 27th, 2007 at 6:44 pm*ALL* of today's Repukes make that same assumption.
Pretty Mitty ain't the only one, not by a long shot. He's just the latest one.
November 27th, 2007 at 6:45 pmMinnie, do us all a favor and shut up, ok? You're defending the indefensible.
November 27th, 2007 at 6:47 pmWhat a “racist†comment? How does “race†figure in this?
Comment by Minotaur — November 27, 2007 @ 6:42 pm
You're right -- bigotry against Muslims isn't a race issue, it's a religion issue. Irma Aguirre obviously misspoke.
But it's still bigotry, and if Romney actually made that comment, he needs a great deal of education.
November 27th, 2007 at 6:48 pmMitt's a liar and a bigot. This is not something we need more of in the leadership of this country. Romney has shown his true colors and I'd wager a bet that his campaign will take a downhill turn from here on.
November 27th, 2007 at 6:49 pmOh those GOLDEN PLATES are hidden in his SPECIAL UNDERWEAR and they make him cranky, so he takes it out on the muslims.
Bush/Cheney
Hague Trials '09
Buck Fush
November 27th, 2007 at 6:50 pmMitt's macaca moment and his campaign is certain to hit the skids from here.
November 27th, 2007 at 6:51 pmYou’re right — bigotry against Muslims isn’t a race issue, it’s a religion issue. Irma Aguirre obviously misspoke.
But it’s still bigotry, and if Romney actually made that comment, he needs a great deal of education.
Fantastic. Like I said, hopefully there will be no threads here at TP which reference Mitt's Mormonism in a questionable light.
November 27th, 2007 at 6:55 pmWhat a “racist†comment? How does “race†figure in this? Not that it matters since the witness cant remember the exact words anyway.
Ill try to remember this religious outrage the next time ol’ Mitt gets questioned about his Mormonism.
Comment by Minotaur — November 27, 2007 @ 6:42 pm
Hey, it's YOUR SIDE that keeps whining about all of the BROWNIES that are Muslims! Or did you think we weren't noticing, bigot girl?
November 27th, 2007 at 6:56 pmFantastic. Like I said, hopefully there will be no threads here at TP which reference Mitt’s Mormonism in a questionable light.
Comment by Minotaur — November 27, 2007 @ 6:55 pm
Hey, we treat ALL RELIGIONS with EQUAL DISDAIN WHEN THEY TRY TO SHOVE IT OTHERS, or hadn't you noticed, bigot boy? But the difference is that we wouldn't call for someone to JUST BE EJECTED because we're a WHITE CHRISTIAN NATION - which is what MiieatHead was stupid enough to say!
As for YOUR DEFENSE OF A BIGOT - well we're not surprised that ONE BIGOT would DEFEND ANOTHER
November 27th, 2007 at 6:58 pmAs for YOUR DEFENSE OF A BIGOT - well we’re not surprised that ONE BIGOT would DEFEND ANOTHER
Comment by republicans hate facts — November 27, 2007 @ 6:58 pm
Why am I a bigot?
November 27th, 2007 at 7:02 pm“[Romney] said something to the effect of, ‘They’re radicals. There’s no talking to them. There’s no negotiating with them.’
I find it ironic that this is what they said about Mormons in the 19th century.
November 27th, 2007 at 7:04 pmWhy is it considered bigotry to point out the craziness of fundamentalist religious beliefs but NOT bigotry to say you'd NEVER vote for an athiest?
November 27th, 2007 at 7:06 pmMormons believe that Jesus came to America and that Native Americans are the lost tribe of Israel. I think anyone who believes that is a crackpot. Does that make me a bigot?
November 27th, 2007 at 7:07 pmI find it ironic that this is what they said about Mormons in the 19th century.
Comment by Ret. Col. Jack Ripper
Absolutely true. Even into the 20th century, Mormons are still trying to lose their 'cultish' perception. If I were Romney, I would steer very clear of throwing mud on any other religion.
It would be great if we could choose a candidate based on their ability and their ideas - not their religion.
OT - I saw a statistic which suggests the American people would choose a gay candidate before they would choose an athiest candidate. I don't know what this means except we are still trying to avoid engaging in a battle of ideas. We would rather debate internal and personal issues (religion, gay, etc) than real issues.
November 27th, 2007 at 7:16 pmThis romney got thrown out of Boston. He's no series winner. And loosers go home to the praire.
November 27th, 2007 at 7:18 pmMaybe someone needs to simplify it for Romney and ask him to expound on the differences between Sunni, Shi'it and Kurds and if Kurds are Sunni or Shi'it. Also ask him the merits of Secular vs. Fundamentalist branchs and which is which.
November 27th, 2007 at 7:20 pmSO, Mitt is just playing to the Fear and Smear repugs; he knows that is a way to endear himself to the wacko righties.
November 27th, 2007 at 7:20 pmStratman: "We would rather debate internal and personal issues (religion, gay, etc) than real issues."
And, by some strange coincidence, the issues almost always favor Democrats and liberals. Bush cultists: if you don't believe me, go to Pollingreport.com and click on any of the issues to see where the majority of Americans stand on them.
November 27th, 2007 at 7:23 pmOT - I saw a statistic which suggests the American people would choose a gay candidate before they would choose an athiest candidate.
Comment by StratRat — November 27, 2007 @ 7:16 pm
Either would be a great choice for a presidential candidate. I'll take a gay athiest, someone who doesn't pander to religious whackos, and also doesn't practice bigotry. Wouldn't that be refreshing? Imagine what we could get done in our country if religious pandering and bigotry were taken off the table. Imagine.
November 27th, 2007 at 7:23 pmRomney does know if hes elected he will have to hold Bandar's hand, right?
November 27th, 2007 at 7:23 pmWouldn’t that be refreshing? Imagine what we could get done in our country if religious pandering and bigotry were taken off the table. Imagine.
Comment by Tender Chicken
That is why I brought it up. I was sad that good Americans will discuss somebody's sexual preference before even knowing what their political positions are. Seems as though we are going about the wrong way to choose the right candidate.
November 27th, 2007 at 7:26 pmWe've already had at least one gay president and, some of his closest associates felt that George Washington was a closet athiest.
November 27th, 2007 at 7:29 pmI’ll take a gay athiest, someone who doesn’t pander to religious whackos, and also doesn’t practice bigotry. Wouldn’t that be refreshing?
I'm imagining...and all I see is that you are under the naive impression that gays, atheists and gay atheists are somehow unable to be bigots.
Can a black atheist hate latinos or a gay white guy hate buddhists?
November 27th, 2007 at 7:29 pmThis is how the Reverend Doctor Bird Wilson, an Episcopal minister in Albany, New York described the nation's Fouding Fathers in 1831: "The founders of our nation were nearly all Infidels, and that of the presidents who had thus far been elected [Washington; Adams; Jefferson; Madison; Monroe; Adams; Jackson] not a one had professed a belief in Christianity....
November 27th, 2007 at 7:31 pm    "Among all our presidents from Washington downward, not one was a professor of religion, at least not of more than Unitarianism."
It's just that us Athiest's are just good people, and don't hold to superstition beliefs, just be good and do good, it is an easy way of life.
But because we don't conjure up "Magical Golden Plates", and "Ghosts" and "only Believers will go to heaven" way of thinking, the Believers think we are evil or something. Well, sorry, if you believe that then, guess what? You are the evil one, go figure.
I don't like voting for anyone who believes in Magical Invisible Faeries in the Sky, it's shows that they are not critical thinkers and are superstitious, which is bad.
Example = Bush thinks (or fakes) that God told him to attack Iraq.
How much sense does that make?
Atheists for President.
Buck Fush
November 27th, 2007 at 7:33 pmGay people can hate gay people and black people can hate black people - it's usually a product of self-loathing. The current Republican party, for example, is filled with self-loathing closeted gay men who pass laws to restrict the rights of gay people.
November 27th, 2007 at 7:37 pmInteresting that CNN was all agog about Barak's admission to drug experimentation as though it's negative to do so. Isn't it about time that this country and those who think they deserve the highest office in it begin by telling the truth about themselves? It would be refreshing for us to have a candidate who is not a liar about who they are for a change.
November 27th, 2007 at 7:42 pmI’m imagining…and all I see is that you are under the naive impression that gays, atheists and gay atheists are somehow unable to be bigots.
Can a black atheist hate latinos or a gay white guy hate buddhists?
Comment by Cake Incorporated — November 27, 2007 @ 7:29 pm
Craig and Foley both demonstrate that Gays can be bigots - but they're usually bigoted republicans first... That's kinda the point.
November 27th, 2007 at 7:43 pmI'd vote for a gay athiest too. At least we wouldn't be electing a major liar.
November 27th, 2007 at 7:43 pmI don’t like voting for anyone who believes in Magical Invisible Faeries in the Sky, it’s shows that they are not critical thinkers and are superstitious, which is bad. -BB
Heh. Can you see your brain-waves? [Radio Frequency/Electro Magnetic Radiation] or the lines of magnetic flux around the earth?
BTW I'm not superstitious.
IT WAS TOTALLY INVISIBLE....
November 27th, 2007 at 7:50 pmhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kryptos
We need virtuous leaders. Ours have lost that key quality.
November 27th, 2007 at 7:51 pmIt's a twofer:
1. Romney is shown to be what he is; and
2. Fox New's Giuliani bias is shown again.
November 27th, 2007 at 7:55 pmIT WAS TOTALLY INVISIBLE….
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kryptos
Comment by Xisithrus — November 27, 2007 @ 7:50 pm
Not really, because instruments can detect it, and it has an observable and testable effect. Some creatures can even SEE many of these frequencies in the visible spectrum. When you can TEST for those faeries, and come out with a faerie radar, come back and see us. Then we won't think you're a lunatic kook. Ok son?
November 27th, 2007 at 8:06 pmWe need virtuous leaders. Ours have lost that key quality.
Comment by Xisithrus — November 27, 2007 @ 7:51 pm
LOST? When exactly did they have this supposed virtue that was lost? And please don't confuse some fake religious mumbojumbo with VIRTUE like most of the morons do.
November 27th, 2007 at 8:07 pmMansoor Ijaz? Isn't he the one who fabricated that lie about Bill Clinton missing 3 opportunities to "capture Osama bin Laden on a silver platter"? Something tells me his masters want to kill off the Romney campaign.
Romney's a racist. Most Republicans are. But I'm not going to take anything that prevaricator says at face value.
November 27th, 2007 at 8:57 pmInteresting that CNN was all agog about Barak’s admission to drug experimentation as though it’s negative to do so. Isn’t it about time that this country and those who think they deserve the highest office in it begin by telling the truth about themselves? It would be refreshing for us to have a candidate who is not a liar about who they are for a change.
Comment by patooty — November 27, 2007 @ 7:42 pm
Gay athiest drug users, that's the ticket! See if you can get Hillary to champion that. I'm sure the majority of Americans will be right with ya on that. Yep, progs are good people all right. ;)
November 27th, 2007 at 8:59 pmComment by upright left — November 27, 2007 @ 8:59 pm
I wonder about those people you knowand care about, family, extended family, friends.... Some of them have a lot of personal issues. A bunch have struggled with alcohol and other addictions. Some have anger issues, depressions, demons. More than a few are adulterers Most have weird sexual fantasy. Some are gay. I wonder if they trust you and think that you are family. I wonder how you feel knowing you despise you own. Must be weird
November 27th, 2007 at 9:31 pm"They're radicals.....There's no talking......There's no negotiating......"
As one overzealous fundie to another, it seems like the neocons and Muslims should have a lot in common to talk about.
November 27th, 2007 at 9:39 pmI wonder how you feel knowing you despise you own. Must be weird
Comment by dbadass — November 27, 2007 @ 9:31 pm
Despise? Reread my post, bud. I didn't say that I despise anyone. You wouldn't be attributing your feelings to others, would ya? ;)
November 27th, 2007 at 9:48 pmAs one overzealous fundie to another, it seems like the neocons and Muslims should have a lot in common to talk about.
Comment by MapleStreet — November 27, 2007 @ 9:39 pm
Rather like all the similarities between progs and osama's last message. ;)
November 27th, 2007 at 9:49 pmNo I can't image that I would be. See I am part of the majority of the United States of America and I have no problem with gays, athiests, or drug users and neither does anyone else when it is one of "theirs".
November 27th, 2007 at 9:52 pmMitt's a dangerous man, that's all we have to know. Upright left is a simple-minded bigot, that's all that needs be said.
November 27th, 2007 at 9:56 pmDespise? Reread my post, bud. I didn’t say that I despise anyone. You wouldn’t be attributing your feelings to others, would ya? ;)
Comment by upright left — November 27, 2007 @ 9:48 pm
Actually, you did, using the standard wingtard code word Hillary. Nice try, but your lies are as transparent as your ignorant bigotry.
November 27th, 2007 at 9:58 pmNo I can’t image that I would be. See I am part of the majority of the United States of America and I have no problem with gays, athiests, or drug users and neither does anyone else when it is one of “theirsâ€.
Comment by dbadass — November 27, 2007 @ 9:52 pm
Right, bud. The majority has no problem with gays, athiests and drug users running the country. That's why there are so many candidates claiming those traits. Just because I wouldn't vote for those people doesn't mean I despise them, bud. It just means I don't think they would be the best choice for the office. I wouldn't vote for Kucinich. He's a bit of a nut. But I don't despise him. See, it's possible to recognize a person's limitations without hating him. ;)
November 28th, 2007 at 8:02 amActually, you did, using the standard wingtard code word Hillary. Nice try, but your lies are as transparent as your ignorant bigotry.
Comment by Lefty Patriot — November 27, 2007 @ 9:58 pm
Sorry, bud, I didn't realize "Hillary" and "despise" were synonymous. How about if I change it to Barack. See if he'll campaign on the gay, athiest, drug user ticket. Better? ;)
November 28th, 2007 at 8:06 am"It just means I don’t think they would be the best choice for the office"
It's "atheist," not "athiest."
And why should lack of belief in a sometimes jolly, sometimes ferocious SantaGod make someone less qualified for any office (apart, say, from that of minister/priest/whatever)?
November 28th, 2007 at 10:45 amIt’s “atheist,†not “athiest.â€
And why should lack of belief in a sometimes jolly, sometimes ferocious SantaGod make someone less qualified for any office (apart, say, from that of minister/priest/whatever)?
Comment by bernard quatermass — November 28, 2007 @
Absolutely right, bud. I just thought ya'll preferred athiest since your fellow libs used it in all their posts. You are the first to object. Libs can generally be counted upon to attack a typo, but I guess it's only when the poster disagrees with them.
I have to agree with you about the unfitness of anyone who believes in "a sometimes jolly, sometimes ferocious SantaGod." Generally, though, all other things being equal, I would prefer a representative who has faith in the one true God over one who believes everything came from nothing. ;)
November 28th, 2007 at 4:09 pm