New Confirmation Emerges That Mitt Said No Muslims In Cabinet
Okay, some unexpected new evidence has emerged that corroborates our account from earlier today that Mitt Romney said on an earlier occasion that he is opposed to having Muslims in his cabinet.
As you know, Romney is in a bit of a spot because of an account in the Christian Science Monitor by an Islamic businessman who claims Romney said that he "cannot see that a cabinet position would be justified" for a Muslim. Today Romney denied this version of events, saying that he had actually been asked whether he thought he needed a Muslim in his Cabinet to effectively counter Jihad, not whether he opposed the idea of having a Muslim in his Cabinet.
But as we reported earlier today, we located two GOPers in Nevada who say that Romney had in fact been asked a similar question and given a similar answer at another event three months ago. George Harris, a state GOP official, told us that he asked Romney at a private fundraiser if he would have any Muslims in his Cabinet. According to Harris, Romney's reply was "most likely not."
We've now discovered that there's a contemporaneous account of this episode in something called Liberty Watch Magazine, which Harris publishes. In the September 2007 issue is this account by Editor Mike Zigler:
...when Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney recently addressed a group of a prominent local conservatives at a Las Vegas fundraiser, George lobbed the first question: “If you are elected President,” he asked, “will you include any Muslim members in your cabinet?”In the seconds before former Massachusetts Governor Romney responded, you could have heard a pin drop.
His (admittedly, very smooth) answer in a nutshell? “Not likely.”
The rest of the account describes the surprise that local GOPers felt upon hearing that Mitt appeared so hostile to this idea. And again, this account is contemporaneous -- it was laid out well before this ever became controversial.
Comments (63)
NJ Lawyer wrote on November 28, 2007 12:30 AM:One would think that a person who claims that he has been the recipient of bias as a result of his religion would be more tolerant of the religion of others.
Some Guy in SLC wrote on November 28, 2007 1:30 AM:NJ Lawyer
I live in Salt Lake City and the Mormons are much like most other religious groups I've seen in my lifetime-if you're not one of them you don't count. One of the many reasons why I have no use for organized religion of any kind anymore.
RobbyLove wrote on November 28, 2007 1:36 AM:Slow news day, Josh?
Yossarian wrote on November 28, 2007 2:08 AM:RobbyLove, I don't think it was a slow news day Josh as much it is a slow thinking day for you. Romney is giving the bird to another minority religion while his own minority religion is an exclusive club of white males. Where is the Love Robby and Mitty?
RobbyLove wrote on November 28, 2007 2:31 AM:Lol. Nice. When you're done insulting me then maybe YOU can think for a sec.
Seems rather dubious to be spending this much time on a nothing story when we all know that the Repugs hate Muslims. This is news to get all a twitter about?
I suppose tomorrow they'll be reporting that there's snow in Alaska. Then there'll be another report confirming that a person actually SAW snow in Alaska. And then a another person will confirm that the snow is, in fact, white. And don't forget the "EXCLUSIVE" banner.
Egad.
JustaName wrote on November 28, 2007 2:47 AM:You're missing it, RobbyLove. Maybe we all "know" that "Repugs hate Muslims," but the Republican presidential candidates want to have things both ways and pretend that they stand for fairness and equality.
When they get caught in a lie that demonstates this hypocrisy, it's worth pointing out.
EH wrote on November 28, 2007 2:54 AM:Robby thinks we should just let sleeping bigots lie and not worry our preety little heads about such trifles. You're advocating that bigotry be met with bigotry back, which is just plain stupid.
Jim wrote on November 28, 2007 4:03 AM:"Not likely" was Romney's answer "in a nutshell"? In other words, this is Zigler's characterization of Romney's reponse, not a quote. This from a guy (Zigler) who's outraged that Ahmadinejad wasn't allowed lay a wreath at Ground Zero, which he considers unfair and insulting because he really, really just wants to get along with us. Every "update" to this story makes it less and less believable.
Steve5117 wrote on November 28, 2007 5:11 AM:Every story about a hypocritical republican is important, no matter how small the person or the transgression.
michael wrote on November 28, 2007 6:14 AM:Romney's response conveys his desire to appeal to bigots in his party. It is appalling that such an attitude is not a bigger scandal and the fact that it is not demonstrates the bias against Muslims that many Americans carry to some degree.
justDave wrote on November 28, 2007 6:53 AM:Just a question - are there more Muslims or Mormons in the US? If "We don't need them because they're such a small minority" is the new argument....????
Anonymous wrote on November 28, 2007 7:06 AM:Seems rather dubious to be spending this much time on a nothing story when we all know that the Repugs hate Muslims.
Gov. Tim Kaine (D) of Virginia assigned a Muslim to a state immigration commission and you should've heard the outcry he got. Then, the fellow was forced to step down because he'd been caught on tape saying he supported the "jihad way" in the Middle East. However, when Kaine announced that he would replace the individual with another Muslim, there was even more uproar.
People need to see that the problem is not Islam or terrorism or illegal immigration with Republicans. It is pure old racism. The more of this that comes to the light of day, the better. TPM is performing a service because the mainstream news media is not going to focus on Republican racism.
TheraP wrote on November 28, 2007 7:07 AM:Somebody on another thread had the figures. I think it's something like twice as many Mormons to Muslims. But if you add Muslims and Jews together, that's about equal to Mormons. In other words, likely Mitt isn't ruling out Jews for being a minority... similar in size to Muslims.
In any case, as I've said before, if Mitt believes that people from a small minority should not serve in a "higher office," then he himself should seek a lower one - not the presidency.
rockgolf wrote on November 28, 2007 7:14 AM:Not to favor Romney, but can anyone think of a single American Muslim with the experience and credentials to take on a Cabinet post in either a Dem or Rep admin? I don't mean barely competent, but ready and able to take on a Cabinet-level post.
savvy wrote on November 28, 2007 7:34 AM:Rock,
When a First Lady can claim that she was basically a Sec or State and Sec of Treasure in her spouses' administration..experience and credentials are obviously not essential to cabinet level positions.
Even if experience and credentials were qualifiers what a person's religion is should not be a DIS qualifier, is the point of the thread.
However individuals who are discriminated against often have no problem discriminating against others just like most child abusers were abused children.
Once people live through and survive injustice and inhumane situations they typically do not find them that horrible as they themselves were able to survive them and often times they believe those adverse conditions molded their strength of character.
While that may sound perverse it is actually a very important skill that allows the human spirit to prevail and overcome god awful positions.
So while Mitt may have endured religious discrimination, he does not feel that has impacted his life negatively as he has been able to achieve and excell in spite of that discrimination.
Religious discrimination is unconstitutional in America but that does not stop it.
opulent wrote on November 28, 2007 7:47 AM:Now is the time for Obama to come out swinging against WJClinton's record when it comes to what policies he enacted during his term that were not beneficial to blacks.
It is also time for Marion Wright Edelman to speak out on how Hillary turned her back on children and families when she supported WJClintons welfare reform.
Now is the time for Obama to set the record straight on how Hillary despite being a Senator in NY and the Bronx having one of the highest rates of HIV in the nation for African America FEMALES she has not once in the entire time of her administration advocated for any programs or treatment to adress that health care crisis for the adults or children.
Now is the time for Obama to tell the truth to blacks about how the Clintons did not stand up for blacks either as President and First Lady nor as a Senator.
As Rev Lowry said 'do the deeds match the needs' and the record shows they do not.
thill wrote on November 28, 2007 8:12 AM:According to the 2001 American Religious Identification Survey, 1.4% Americans identified as Mormon, another 1.4% as Jewish (down from 1.8% in 1990) and 0.6% as Muslim (up from 0.3% in 1990!)
So, no, there are not twice as many Mormons as Jews, and there are fewer Muslims, but their number is growing rapidly, which should be taken into account in politics (in a positive way, I should add). In any case, all these groups are in fact small minorities.
Figures quoted from:
DTM wrote on November 28, 2007 8:18 AM:These stories are important because many swing voters (mostly white suburban moderates) don't like to think of themselves as prejudiced. So, for a long time the Republicans carefully cultivated the idea that their policy was to be be "blind" to issues of color, religion, and so on. When they get off that message and show any sort of active prejudice, they turn off those swing voters (as, for example, former Senator Allen found out).
Tony wrote on November 28, 2007 8:42 AM:Are we arguing FOR the appointment of a Muslim to high office? I have serious reservations about token Muslims in high office. I am not concerned about Romney's comments about Muslims. I am concerned that he may carry this same mindset about all non-Mormons.
Religion has no place in government. From all accounts, Muslims are their religion, and we can read our newspapars everyday to learn how well they govern their home countries. I say 'no way' to appointing a Muslim. Let them earn it by winning elections.
No, say it isn't so. Mitt the flip, the leading republican nominee, is a racist? No that couldn't be possible. I mean the republican party has a lock on the south due to its forward looking economic and social policies, right. Not because they project wink and a nod racism. No the b actor wasn't a racist either. If I recall there were hundreds of thousands of welfare queens that were white driving caddies and willie horton was a white evangelical, right.
SGEW wrote on November 28, 2007 8:46 AM:. . . but can anyone think of a single American Muslim with the experience and credentials to take on a Cabinet post in either a Dem or Rep admin?
Zalmay Khalilzad, former Ambassador to Afghanistan and Iraq, and current Ambassador to the United Nations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zalmay_Khalilzad
He may not be the wisest choice (see, e.g., U.S. policies in Afghanistan, Iraq, and the U.N. during his tenure, but compare him with, say, Bolton and there's no real contest), but he certainly has the "experience and credentials to take on a Cabinet post."
Anonymous wrote on November 28, 2007 8:50 AM:Racism - that word gets tossed out whenever someone says anything, or thinks anything, unpopular about another person. It is a weak argument to suggest Romney is racist because he does not wish to appoint a Muslim to high office. Does he have to appoint a Muslim just so we don't call him a racist? The hypocrisy among us liberals is palpable.
Clearly he doesn't want a Muslim in his cabinet. He has said so. I really don't want to get into the 'substitute another race' game. Muslims have a lot to prove to America. So far, they have proven that their religion comes first. We get anxious about Bush pillaging our Constitution - imagine what a 'religious' Muslim could do to our freedoms.
Rockgolf:
Matthew Yglesias brought up the case of Zalmay Khalilzad, the current U.S. Ambassador to the UN and former Ambassador to Iraq. This was a position held by Madeleine Albright immediately prior to becoming Secretary of State. Also, he's a Republican.
jiminpdx wrote on November 28, 2007 9:01 AM:We need to let go of this issue. It's only going to help Romney if we keep harping on it.
opulent wrote on November 28, 2007 9:14 AM:oops, so sorry for that post...it is in the wrong thread
savvy wrote on November 28, 2007 9:20 AM:Anon
Racism is a part of this simply because the majority of Muslims are people of color. Is religious discrimiation racism. I do not know, but when folks discriminate agaisnt Jews it is viewed as anti-semitism.
Another thing is that none of the GOP would go to the NAACP nor Tavis Smiley debates.
Was that race or religious discrimination?
I think it is possible for the two to be intertwined.
When folks discriminate against Catholics is that racial if the folks are Irish Catholic, like the Kennedys, or would it simply be religious discrimination without regard for the NINA rules that prevailed in the early 1900's?
NitPicker1 wrote on November 28, 2007 9:35 AM:Romney is exhibiting religious bigotry here, not racism per se. I just took a quick mental survey of people I've personally known who are Muslim and their ethnicities and national origins are all over the place. They or their families were from Indonesia, Pakistan, India, various Arab states, Turkey, France, Persia (Iran), and a good number were African Americans from Texas. (Of course, if Romney conflates the Muslim religion with Arab ethnicity, as many Americans mistakenly do, it would be racism as well.)
What have we come to that a leading presidential candidate could even consider saying out loud that a person should be excluded from the higher levels of government *solely* on the basis of his or her religion? Despicable.
zed wrote on November 28, 2007 9:41 AM:After Newsweek did a cover story on Romney, and discussed his faith, Romney wrote this letter to them:
I am an American running for president, not a Mormon running for president, but I am also very proud of my faith. And I am not a cafeteria Mormon, choosing some parts to accept and reject—I am "true blue, through and through." My family and I are better people and far happier than we would have been without our faith. It is puzzling that when NEWSWEEK looks at me ("A Mormon's Journey: The Making of Mitt Romney," Oct. 8) what you mostly see is a Mormon. I would have thought that more important to my potential presidency would be my record as a governor, 25-year business leader, Olympic CEO, father, husband—and American.
So Romney wants people to see him as a whole person, not just as a Mormon. But when he looks at other people, he sees whether they are Muslim or not, and doesn't care for the whole person.
He is the most phony hypocritical person running for President. Quite the accomplishment.
Even Repugs who hate Muslims know that Romney violated several rules of the game here. Conservative politicians have developed a rather sophisticated code for deploying racist and anti-Muslim messages to their followers. Romney totally abandoned the code in favor of a strange, convoluted answer that seemed to credit "quotas" as legitimate method for making cabinet appointments.
Although overt anti-Muslim sentiments are generally okay for Republican primary voters, there should be at least some effort to distinguish between "bad Muslims" (e.g. Islamofascists) and "good Muslims" in delivering the attack. Romney didn't do that, even though the question asked about "qualified Muslims." Instead he went in a very odd direction.
Romney chose to frame his answer in the weird, "liberal" construct of "quotas" - a mistake that was only compounded when it came to light that he had already used that construct to explain why he WOULDN'T put a Muslim on his cabinet. This erased any advantage he could have gotten by appealing to anti-Muslim sentiments.
Don't get me wrong: lizard-brained Republicans would have appreciated it if Romney had answered the question with a direct attack on Muslims - but his quota answer was just plain confusing. The whole episode strongly suggests that Romney is not ready for primetime. And that's cause for concern for even the most anti-Muslim neocons.
Edgar Poe wrote on November 28, 2007 9:52 AM:In light of the percentage of Mormans living in the U.S., there seems to be no justification for a Mormon president.
DTM wrote on November 28, 2007 9:55 AM:I don't actually see many people arguing for the position that the President MUST appoint a Muslim to a Cabinet position. What I do see is a significant number of people suggesting that it shouldn't matter.
And again, I think that is the right position with swing voters. It may not be the right position with the Republican base, however.
owenz wrote on November 28, 2007 10:03 AM:jiminpdx wrote: "We need to let go of this issue. It's only going to help Romney if we keep harping on it."
Nonsense. Total nonsense.
1.) Religion is a sensitive issue for Romney. This episode raises a host of awkward questions for Romney with respect to religion.
2.) Romney awkwardly used "quotas" to frame his answer, which largely erases any advantage he would have gotten through a straight appeal to anti-Muslim bigotry.
3.) Romney lied about his response afterwards. Lying is bad. It makes candidates look bad, and creates many awkward questions.
4.) If pressed, Romney will almost certainly BACKTRACK on his answer, which will really hurt him with the lizard brain Republicans.
Even if the media cannot figure out who said what and when, it should press Romney on the topics of religious/racial quotas, whether he would appoint a qualified Muslim, and whether he lied. Ultra-conservative Republicans who hate Muslims understand that there are rules to the political game, and Romney is going to need some VERY slick answers to escape this situation without looking like a fool. It is sheer idiocy to assume that this episode "helps" Romney, when it actually exposes him as lying, amateurish hack who can't get his coded bigotry in order. Republican primary voters will NOT be happy if this story gathers steam.
RockGolf wrote on November 28, 2007 10:05 AM:To those who responded: thanks, I hadn't been aware of Khalilzad. The follow-up question for Romney would then be would Khalilzad be considered for a Cabinet post, or would his religion disqualify him?
Jeff Hudsson wrote on November 28, 2007 10:46 AM:
If elected, Mitt Romney sees no room for Muslims in his cabinet. Now substitute Muslims for another religion, say Jews and what do you get?
http://www.pollsb.com/polls/poll/4109/if-elected-mitt-romney-sees-no-room-for-muslims-in-his-cabinet-now-substitute-muslims-for-another-religion-say-jews-and-what-do-you-get
Wow. Just. Wow.
What a waste of time and effort.........
Someone is bored.......
amosis wrote on November 28, 2007 11:18 AM:
Some times I wonder if religious human beeing have anything to do with politics.
None of them try to follow what is the base of any religion-Honesty,love, sharing -respect of others- They care for their own purpose which is to be famous and richer forgetting the poor who voted for them-
Also about not having any muslim in their cabinet-Mr hosni moubarek in egypt dont have any Christian in his cabit or even as a deputy.
Dont we consider that as racism?
I’m lifelong Democrat and not a troll – but I must say that TPM is way off the mark with this story. Romney’s response I believe was right on the mark. He was not saying that he would not appoint a Muslim to his Cabinet period, he was rejecting the argument that it would be necessary or helpful to do so considering the threat we face from Islamic radicals. Without having a transcript or a full account of the context from the Ijaz conversation, it is simply premature to judge the veracity of Romney’s response to the controversy compared to what he is purported to have said to Ijaz about the numbers of Muslims in the United States. That statement is truly the real source of controversy here. And without details, you are just playing gotcha. I don’t think that the comments from the two Republican Officials confirm Ijaz’s account.
In fact, I agree with Edog’s comment to Greg Sargent’s original piece that when Romney says,
“They're radicals. There's no talking to them. There's no negotiating with them.”
he was referring to the Jihadis, who, the premise of the question suggested are posing such a problem. This is consistent with Romney’s youtubed response to the controversy where he argues that appointing a Muslim to his cabinet is not necessary or helpful in fighting the problems the jihadi movement represents.
Do you really believe that Romney would say out loud that he thought that all American Muslims are radicals who you can’t negotiate with? The more likely way to interpret this whole controversy is that the lack of transcript and conflicting nature of the first-hand accounts makes it impossible to know what Romney meant by his comments. So you are building this whole scandal out of multiple layers of assumption and interpretation that does not seem to be justified.
A more parsimonious reading of the situation is that Romney was not saying that he would never appoint a Muslim to his cabinet – he was simply responding to the question that was posed to him:
“whether he would consider including qualified Americans of the Islamic faith in his cabinet as advisers on national security matters, given his position that "jihadism" is the principal foreign policy threat facing America today.”
And the answer he gave in his response after the controversy sounds perfectly reasonable to me. That is, no, given the threat facing America from jihadism, it would not be necessary or helpful to have a Muslim in particular to deal with this threat. Romney here is saying that there is nothing that a muslim knows, as a muslim, that gives additional insight versus some generic expert on Islamic terrorist. This is an anti-particularism position, not a racist one. I may not agree with it, and he may be wrong, but this is clearly a legitimate, reasonable position. Just a wrong one.
Seth
From Cenk Uygur:
"I don't think Mitt Romney is a racist, I think he just plays one on TV. He has repeatedly said that he would not have a Muslim in his cabinet. Does this mean he hates Muslims? No, it means Republican primary voters hate Muslims."
Did I, or did I not, post something similar earlier? And did I not get panned for it?
My central point is valid. Pointing out the obvious is not real news. This is just pandering to left-wingers.
Stop the orgy and move on to issues that will make in-roads with non-progressives! You're making it look like we progressives are defending the Islamists, and that will scare the poo out of independents in the general election! I can see the spin coming from the Repugs any day now! Let this one go!
Califlander wrote on November 28, 2007 1:36 PM:... but can anyone think of a single American Muslim with the experience and credentials to take on a Cabinet post in either a Dem or Rep admin? I don't mean barely competent, but ready and able to take on a Cabinet-level post.
Zalmay Khalilzad, a Muslim, currently serves as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. This post has been treated as a Cabinet-level position in prior administrations.
Anonymous wrote on November 28, 2007 1:37 PM:Being Muslim is a religious choice. Unfortunataly Muslims(majority) don't give their young an option of rejecting the Muslim religion. They just kill them. So really, it's not a choice. It's about allowing religion to define a race. Not all Muslims look alike but they do tend to think alike. And I have yet to feel secure that Muslims can be trusted to uphold our Consitutional values. So, keep them out of high office. Please. The next time I hear someone explain that Islam is a peaceful religion I am going to buy them a ticket to Afghanistan so they can experience the real deal. The small amount of Muslims in our country isn't enough for them to create a revolt....but as they continue to multiply we are assured that our Constitution will be beheaded in the name of Muhammed.
It's okay to dislike other religions.
It's like this for me: Muslims have to earn a place in our high offices - but their earning a place must not be that they immigrated to America. It must be earned by showing the rest of the world that they can put ignorance and hatred for others behind them - please read the following I copied over from drudgereport. Now tell me, if Muslims gain an organized clout in America - does their history show they will play nice with our Constitution?
---------------------------------------
"Jail threat: Gillian Gibbons has spent her third day in prison without charge, and could end up being caged for 10 years
A British teacher who faces 40 lashes after naming a teddy bear Mohammed has been charged with insulting religion, showing contempt for religious belief, and inciting hatred.
The grim news for Gillian Gibbons, 54, came as Islamic militants called for demonstrations after Friday prayers in a bid for tough action. (does not appear serenity is a product of their prayers)
"Khartoum north prosecution unit has completed its investigation and has charged the Briton Gillian (Gibbons) under Article 125 of the criminal code," SUNA state media said, quoting a senior Justice Ministry official.
It added the file would go before court on Thursday. Gibbons was expected to appear.
Mrs Gibbons has been accused of insulting the Prophet Mohammed after giving a class teddy bear the sacred first name.
Lawyers say the teacher, who is from Liverpool, could face 40 lashes, a fine, or six months in jail if convicted.
In London, a spokeswoman for the British Foreign Office said: "This has not been officially confirmed but we are urgently investigating."
Earlier on Wednesday, three British embassy officials and a teaching colleague from the Unity High School where Gibbons worked were allowed to visit her for more than 90 minutes.
"I can confirm that we have met Ms. Gibbons and she said she is being treated well," said British consul Russell Phillips.
"We remain in close contact with the Sudanese authorities on this case," he said, declining to give further details
RobbyLove -
It would scare the hell out of my liberal arse if progressives openly defend Islamists. What exactly is there to defend? It's a cult.
Romney is exhibiting religious bigotry here, not racism per se. I just took a quick mental survey of people I've personally known who are Muslim and their ethnicities and national origins are all over the place.
So -- if Romney had said he didn't see a place in his cabinet for brown-skinned people, that would not be racism because brown skin is characteristic of a variety of ethnicities and national origins??
Given that race is a rather arbitrary distinction in the first place, I'm not sure I see the real difference between racism and religious bigotry, or why it should make any difference which one you engage in.
bwindrip wrote on November 28, 2007 2:02 PM:Come on, kids. This is not a question of Mitt's attitudes on race; he belongs to the party of rich old white guys. No surprises here.
What's important is to constantly highlight what are, at best, flip-flops, at worst, outright lies.
Mitt is an empty suit who will say anything for your vote.
Piss on him publicly.
Anonymous wrote on November 28, 2007 2:10 PM:Anonymous wrote on November 28, 2007 1:37 PM:
"Unfortunataly Muslims(majority) don't give their young an option of rejecting the Muslim religion. They just kill them. So really, it's not a choice. It's about allowing religion to define a race. Not all Muslims look alike but they do tend to think alike."
Around the globe there are people of other races and faiths who are saying the same things about us.
I encourage them to take their heads out of their asses as well.
bwindrip wrote on November 28, 2007 2:14 PM:Sorry.
(Forgot to fill in the name & address when composing the last post that quoted Anonymous.)
slb wrote on November 28, 2007 2:17 PM:The next time I hear someone explain that Islam is a peaceful religion I am going to buy them a ticket to Afghanistan so they can experience the real deal.
Until very recently, a Muslim could have countered that he could send someone to Northern Ireland to see what a peaceful religion Christianity was.
And don't forget the horrific fighting in the former Yugoslavia. Atrocities committed on all sides, and some of those sides were Christian.
And there there was the Spanish Inqisition, not to mention the Crusades. I don't think I'd consider the Christian Crusaders to have been especially peaceful.
Don't know that I'd consider Pat Robertson to be especially peaceful, either.
JustaName wrote on November 28, 2007 2:22 PM:
Seth - the correct answer for Romney to have given is "I will hire the most talented people I can find for my cabinet without considering their religious or ethnic background. These are tough times and I will need tough, smart people on my team. Talent is the only prerequisite." How hard is that to say?
Tony and Anonymous - I get the strong feeling that you folks don't actually know any American muslims. When you begin by assuming that every member of a group of over a million people thinks the same way, you've just put your foot on the very slipperiest of greased slopes.
bwindrip -
Americans are not strapping bombs to ourselves. Americans aren't lashing blasphemists. Americans aren't beating our women. Americans aren't shooting the Muslims in our country. Americans may be viewed as pigs but we certainly aren't guitly of evil and hatred of others - like our Muslim brethren so happily exclaim and do so abundantly throughout Muslim controlled countries.
You Sir, are one of those progressive liberals who somehow thinks Muslims are a peaceful people. They have not proven so to me.
Justaname -
I do know a few Muslims-in-America - and though they are peaceful and kind - they also express irrational religious beliefs. Beliefs that make me cautious of having Muslims become an ever growing presence. It's like this - if we gave them a pen and paper and asked them to write a constitution - do I believe they would come up with an equivalent to our US Constitution? Heck no. I believe they would use their religion to frame their constitution. And from all my points of view, however limited they may be, the Muslim faith sorely lack respect for humanity. Ask a Muslim what should happen to a homosexual?
By the way, I am anti-religion as a whole, and I wonder why most people aren't.
SLB,
that was my quote you cited above. True, one could look in all directions to find persecution by religion. This does not mean we should raise another religion up. In America, Pat Robertson has great influence, but he is without power of our government, and without power over our constitution. He is nuts, and I equally denounce Christainity, just as I denounce Muslims, Catholics, and whomever else religion that believes they are greater than our US Constitution. So, true, Muslims suck, just as the other religions do. I do not trust any of them. I believe in God and I don't need a book, human, statue, wall, or anything else to help me along the path.
In Norther Ireland they don't flogg you for naming your teddy bear - Paddy.
Joe wrote on November 28, 2007 3:01 PM:The "STATED" goal of Islam is Dominance.
If you stand in their way it will be off with your head ( if they are allowed )
You cannot be a "Good American " and a "practising Muslim"
Joe,
I appreciate your drawing the line. I think democrats (myself included) have allowed ourselves to be defined as whatever the GOP is not. So, we openly allow ourselves to be bamboozled into believing the good in everyone and everything. Sure, we can find wonderful Muslim individuals, just as we can find wonderful Christians, Catholics, etc. BUT, where the rubber hits the road is when freedom is concerned. I do not believe Muslims have it in them to put freedom above all else. Therefore, it is our job to draw the line. We don't need to open our arms to Muslims. They need to open their arms to us. And that ain't-a-gonna happen. Come on people, the Vatican is freaking scary...and the Muslims are 10 times as freaky as Catholics.
As a Massachusetts resident under the recent Mitt governorship, I say good riddance to Mitt Romney. Yes, he will backtrack his answer as he has backtracked on so many other issues for which he once stood while the governor of the state of Massachusetts. A PHONY - we do not need him in the highest office of the nation.
Massachusetts Resident wrote on November 28, 2007 4:28 PM:As a Massachusetts resident under the recent Mitt governorship, I say good riddance to Mitt Romney. Yes, he will backtrack his answer as he has backtracked on so many other issues for which he once stood while the governor of the state of Massachusetts. A PHONY - we do not need him in the highest office of the nation.
RandyR wrote on November 28, 2007 6:47 PM:Phil said,
In Norther Ireland they don't flogg you for naming your teddy bear - Paddy.
No, but try going to Missouri and naming the class Teddy Bear Jesus Christ and see how long you keep your job. Followed shortly by your house burning down, perhaps with you in it.
Religious, Christian extremism is as endemic to the good old USA as it is to Arabia.
Adara wrote on November 28, 2007 8:30 PM:"Anonymous wrote on November 28, 2007 2:23 PM:
Americans aren't beating our women."
That's hilarious! "Violence against women isn't a problem in the United States." Are you kidding? Just because a lot of Americans aren't brown or Muslim doesn't mean that misogyny doesn't exist or manifest violently.
Some of you people need to wake up, or if somehow you're already alert, you need to read a book. Islam is, indeed, a religion of peace, just like several others (most, probably). I'm no apologist for crazy people, and I understand that fools who blow up buildings aren't following their religion; they're taking verses out of context to manipulate impressionable people into cronies at their own disposal to meet personal agendas. Go ahead and call these insane screw-up terrorists what they are, but don't miss the target by calling their religion and all Muslims the problem. The Middle East would have imploded by now if Islam was the problem--it's been 1400 years since that religion's start.
mr campbell wrote on November 29, 2007 2:12 AM:the problem with this story, is the readers' comprehension of the English language. Unfortunately, Romney speaks it.
"not likely" Means that a possibility exists, but is UN-likely, given any set of circumstances.
"not likely" does NOT mean "no"
So.....stuff it kiddies.
Anonymous wrote on November 29, 2007 12:07 PM:Romney is a phony, Period. Flip-Flop is his political agenda and strategy for gaining your vote.
asdf wrote on January 4, 2008 7:23 AM:)
celentanno wrote on January 4, 2008 7:31 AM:Hi? i thin it easy
Eden Carroll Weis wrote on January 20, 2008 12:28 PM:I really think your dumping junk on a man over what Mormons in Salt Lake do is fair nor pertinent. He never was a Mormon from Salt Lake, but attended a church in Michigan as a child with his parents, his father was a political giant and beloved by most of the people of the state black, white, as well as other ethnics. Apparently your opinion isn’t widely held in NV, because he received fifty percent of the support in the state. They have twenty two states to go. Anyway, the candidates are running out of cash.
I would listen to Obama, but he uses a million words when one hundred would suffice I guess you are all independently wealthy as he wants to use a big slice of your check to pay for taking care of the poor. Romney proposed a 255 billion in tax cuts for his economic stimulus. Much greater than what Bush offered. I believe he would bring home the soldiers from Iraq, but keep a strong defense. God only knows what Obama would do for our military beyond bring the soldiers home from Iraq, Young soldiers have a hard time making it off base. Many want apartments off base, because they are married with children. Under Clinton if she followed her husband’s example I am afraid she would cut back the military and close bases like Bill did. I remember the base in Austen, TX closing and how the whole area of town suffered terribly without their business. The soldiers didn’t get raises under him either. Obama has little experience and he would bring change alright change for the worst. If he wins though at least we will get rid of him here in Illinois.
