1
   

More reasons Mitt Romney is unfit for president

 
 
Reply Mon 3 Dec, 2007 09:10 am
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/saturdayspin/341858_parvaz01.html

Defining who's 'qualified' in a diverse nation
Last updated November 30, 2007 4:53 p.m. PT

By D. PARVAZ
P-I COLUMNIST

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney's backside must be scorching hot, as it has spent a good amount of time this week in the hot seat. Among the issues he's had to battle is the account of what he said at a November fundraiser in Nevada.

According to an opinion piece published in The Christian Science Monitor this week, when Romney was asked by a Muslim businessman if he would "consider including qualified Americans (emphasis mine) 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."

The businessman, American-born Mansoor Ijaz, wrote that Romney responded, "...based on the number of American Muslims [as a percentage] in our population, I cannot see that a cabinet position would be justified." He continued that he'd consider Muslims as possibilities for "the lower levels" of his administration. Romney disputes this version of the events, and I'll get to that later. But first, let's take a look at this version of Romney's response. If we're to take it on face value, here's what we learn:

1) Different standards ought to be applied to Mormons and Muslims. The number of Muslims in America is estimated at around 5 million. There are about 5.5 million Mormons in America. So, going strictly by the numbers, if there aren't enough Muslims to justify a position for a qualified one in the Cabinet, then maybe we shouldn't have a Mormon in the White House, eh? Also, according to The Salt Lake Tribune, by Romney's logic, "his own father should never have been named Secretary of Housing and Urban Development. In 1969, when... the LDS Church had only 2,807,456 members worldwide and fewer in the U.S." Oh dear.

2) Romney thinks Muslims -- even qualified ones -- might be suited for "lower-level" jobs. Hardly an enlightened view. He surely wouldn't consider relegating himself to a similar fate.

But maybe Romney didn't say what Ijaz claims he did (although the National Review found a source to confirm Ijaz's version). Romney tried to clear things up on CNN, saying he told Ijaz, "No, I don't think you need to have a Muslim in the Cabinet to take on radical jihad any more than during the Second World War we needed to have a Japanese-American to help us understand the threat that was coming in Japan." Um. OK. Except it might've helped avoid that disgraceful internment episode. Also, there's more to the Muslim world than radical jihadists, namely, the 5 million non-jihadists living in this country, who might not be recognized as equals by Romney's administration. He also said that he didn't believe in considering an applicant's "ethnicity" when hiring.

Fair enough. But... Mitty, buddy, Habibi. Islam isn't an ethnicity. It's a religion. This is something a guy hoping to run a global superpower -- one that's trying to disabuse the Middle East of the notion that the wars it's waging there are rooted in hatred for the faith (one culture's jihad is another's crusade) -- ought to know. But this isn't about forcing Romney to hire someone on the basis of his or her religion. He was asked if he'd consider a qualified Muslim-American for a high-ranking position, and he said no -- based either on the demographic reason, as Ijaz claims, or for reasons that have something to do with his view of the Middle East as filled with nothing but violent fundamentalists. Sounds like Romney needs to clarify his clarification.

The National Journal blogs that at another Nevada event, Romney was asked if he'd consult a Muslim adviser when dealing with Middle East policies. The source quoted, Irma Aguirre, an ex-finance director of the Nevada Republican Party, as saying Romney said, "something to the effect of 'They're radicals. There's no talking to them. There's no negotiating with them.' " Another attendee confirmed that statement.

They weren't talking about a Cabinet position -- even getting an expert opinion doesn't seem palatable to Romney. Should he become president, comments such as those he's allegedly made will affect how the world's billion Muslims will see Romney.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Parvaz is an editorial writer and member of the P-I Editorial Board. E-mail: [email protected].
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 813 • Replies: 13
No top replies

 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Dec, 2007 09:48 am
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Dec, 2007 09:57 am
Romney and Bain Capital
Romney and Bain Capital
A timeline of the GOP presidential hopeful's path to wealth.
December 17, 2007

Romney and Bain Capital

1978: Mitt Romney joins Bain & Co., a Boston-based management consulting group founded by William W. Bain Jr.

1984: Romney tapped by the company founder to lead a spin-off called Bain Capital, a venture capital and private equity group.

October 1997: Bain Capital launches the Sankaty group of U.S.-based debt hedge funds. To assist U.S. tax-exempt and foreign investors, Sankaty organizes a subsidiary in Bermuda called Sankaty High Yield Asset Investors Ltd.

February 1999: Romney takes a leave of absence from Bain Capital. Bain Capital at midyear has $5.5 billion in assets under management, including $2 billion in the Sankaty funds, according to an independent evaluation.

February 2001: Romney is listed in SEC documents as president and sole shareholder of the Sankaty company in Bermuda.

August 2001: Romney announces plans to retire from Bain Capital to run for governor of Massachusetts. Before he steps down, he invests in BCIP Associates III Cayman, a private equity fund organized in the Cayman Islands.

January 2003: He puts his financial holdings into a blind trust.

2003-2007: Romney's trustee continues to invest in the Cayman fund.

2006: The Cayman fund pays Romney more than $1 million in interest, dividends and capital gains. He retains a profit share in Bain Capital until 2009, as well as investments in more than 30 Bain funds.

2007: Bain Capital manages $60 billion in assets, including $23 billion in Sankaty funds.

Source: Los Angeles Times
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Dec, 2007 09:59 am
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Dec, 2007 10:40 am
Romney lied about his father marching with MLKtgbb
Romney fields questions on King - Campaign says claim not literal
December 20, 2007
BY TODD SPANGLER
FREE PRESS WASHINGTON STAFF

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney has said he watched his father, the late Michigan Gov. George Romney, in a 1960s civil rights march in Michigan with Martin Luther King Jr.

On Wednesday, Romney's campaign said his recollections of watching his father, an ardent civil rights supporter, march with King were meant to be figurative.

"He was speaking figuratively, not literally," Eric Fehrnstrom, spokesman for the Romney campaign, said of the candidate.

The campaign was responding to questions raised by the Free Press and other media after a Boston publication challenged the accuracy of Mitt Romney's account.

In a major speech on faith and politics earlier this month in Texas, Mitt Romney said: "I saw my father march with Martin Luther King."

He made a similar statement Sunday during an appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press." He said, "You can see what I believed and what my family believed by looking at our lives. My dad marched with Martin Luther King. My mom was a tireless crusader for civil rights."

Romney's campaign cited various historical articles, as well as a 1967 book written by Stephen Hess and Washington Post political columnist David Broder, as confirmation that George Romney marched with King in Grosse Pointe in 1963.

"He has marched with Martin Luther King through the exclusive Grosse Pointe suburb," Hess and Broder wrote in "The Republican Establishment: The Present and Future of the GOP."

Free Press archives, however, showed no record of King marching in Grosse Pointe in 1963 or of then-Gov. Romney taking part in King's historic march down Woodward Avenue in June of that year.

George Romney told the Free Press at the time that he didn't take part because it was on a Sunday and he avoided public appearances on the Sabbath because of his religion.

Romney did participate in a civil rights march protesting housing bias in Grosse Pointe just six days after the King march. According to the Free Press account, however, King was not there.

Broder could not be reached for comment Wednesday night.

The Boston Phoenix reported Wednesday it could find no evidence that Romney and King ever marched together.

Mitt Romney's older brother, Detroit attorney Scott Romney, said he recalls his father telling him the elder Romney marched with King, possibly in 1963, but he could not remember exactly when the event took place.

Fehrnstrom called the Romney brothers' recollection and the historical materials a "pretty convincing case that George Romney did march with Dr. Martin Luther King and other civil rights leaders in Michigan."

The governor's record was one of supporting civil rights. He helped create the state's first civil rights commission and marched at the head of a protest parade in Detroit days after violence against civil rights marchers in Selma, Ala., in 1965.

Mitt Romney's campaign planned today to further research George Romney's papers for evidence of his march with King.
----------------------------------------

Free Press Library Director Alice Pepper contributed to this report.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Dec, 2007 12:26 pm
That's such a perfect little Romney thing that it might really hurt him, even though it's relatively minor in and of itself.
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Dec, 2007 01:05 pm
Soz
sozobe wrote:
That's such a perfect little Romney thing that it might really hurt him, even though it's relatively minor in and of itself.


I detest Romney because he is a fraud. He's trying to buy the presidency and I would love to see him lose his millions in failure. He's an opportunist who will adapt his "beliefs" to whatever he thinks will win his election. His being a Morman is of no consequence to me other than he doesn't have the brains to recognize a cult. I'm tired of so-called businessmen who think they can govern best. Spare me from any more MBA idiots. Governing is not the same as running a business. Romney is not smart enough to understand that, but he doesn't care as long as his ego is rewarded.

BBB
0 Replies
 
engineer
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Dec, 2007 09:21 pm
Re: Soz
BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:
sozobe wrote:
That's such a perfect little Romney thing that it might really hurt him, even though it's relatively minor in and of itself.


I detest Romney because he is a fraud. He's trying to buy the presidency and I would love to see him lose his millions in failure. He's an opportunist who will adapt his "beliefs" to whatever he thinks will win his election. His being a Morman is of no consequence to me other than he doesn't have the brains to recognize a cult. I'm tired of so-called businessmen who think they can govern best. Spare me from any more MBA idiots. Governing is not the same as running a business. Romney is not smart enough to understand that, but he doesn't care as long as his ego is rewarded.

The sad thing is that he is not a fraud. His early work in Mass. on healthcare was excellent and the desire he showed to go out and find a really good solution and then push it even when it was not popular is something we need in the White House. At one time he was a moderate Republican, a species once plentiful, but now endangered and close to extinction. But all that is gone. He is running away from any trace on moderation in his record, pandering to the worst elements of intolerance and bigotry in his party and is clearly unfit for President because of it. Too bad.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Dec, 2007 09:57 pm
Re: Soz
BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:
sozobe wrote:
That's such a perfect little Romney thing that it might really hurt him, even though it's relatively minor in and of itself.


I detest Romney because he is a fraud. He's trying to buy the presidency and I would love to see him lose his millions in failure. He's an opportunist who will adapt his "beliefs" to whatever he thinks will win his election. His being a Morman is of no consequence to me other than he doesn't have the brains to recognize a cult. I'm tired of so-called businessmen who think they can govern best. Spare me from any more MBA idiots. Governing is not the same as running a business. Romney is not smart enough to understand that, but he doesn't care as long as his ego is rewarded.

BBB


Do you also detest Senator Clinton because she is a fraud? Or are you a fraud?
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Dec, 2007 10:37 pm
Okie
Okie, look in the mirror and you will see an involuntary fraud.

BBB
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Dec, 2007 10:42 pm
Senator Clinton made 100,000 on a 1,000 dollar investment as a political favor by a crony, obviously not an honest deal, so if you cared about fraud, you would apply the same yardstick, but you obviously are not, so the obvious conclusion is your article is not about fraud, but politics.

And as so many people have suggested, why don't you post the link instead of posting reams of mostly pointless drivel, as if the stuff was so earth shaking?
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Dec, 2007 10:51 pm
Okie
Okie, your response continues to make my point.

BBB
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Dec, 2007 01:03 pm
BBB, you continue to post lengthy opinion articles, which are obviously partisan opinions, then you imply that is the final word as to what the conclusion should be by everyone about a candidate, and if anyone disagrees, we are ignorant. If other people posted lengthy opinions as you do, imagine the reams of opinions to wade through.

To look at your articles, the first one implies that since Romney does not expect to choose a Muslim on his cabinet, then he is unqualified to be president, is that the conclusion? I think that is a rather stupid conclusion, as how many presidents have chosen Muslims up to now? I think his stated reason was probably not the best answer, because we should not appoint cabinet positions based on percentage of a group of the population. I would imagine however, that he may provide a better answer next time. That column was pretty much scraping the bottom of the barrel to find a criticism of a candidate to find grounds to unqualify someone.

The second column says that since Romney has used legal tax shelters, he is unqualified. Another lame excuse in my opinion. Lets go onto the next one.

The third one says that Romney uses legal ways to make money. Gee, that is a surprise.

The fourth one says he is focused on the bottom line, and sometimes lays off people, etc. , and he is intense and perspires when he mulls over business decisions. Now there is another disqualifier?

The last one says that there is doubt that Romney saw his father march with MLK, etc. He now clarifies that the statement was figurative and he didn't personally see the two of them together side by side. It has been verified that his father did march with Civil Rights marches at least once, plus Romney's brother confirms a similar story about his father marching with MLK, so he may have, there is no proof that he did not, plus there is proof that he did march with at least one civil rights march. But because a newspaper cannot find proof that they marched arm in arm yet, Romney is a liar. Who is the liar here? But beyond that, I wish Romney would not see it necessary to enter into that kind of stuff, as I think it is unnecessary pandering, but until his claims are disproven, I don't see it as a negative. And his claims have been proven to an extent.

BBB, I know your side is desperately looking for a limb they can place any Republican on, and then they will begin to start sawing. And this is the method used against any Republican candidate that they think has the strongest chance to beat your savior, Senator Clinton. As I have pointed out, I think it is obvious that this is all political spin, because you fail to apply the same yardsticks to your own candidate.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Dec, 2007 02:49 pm
Update, score one for Mitt Romney, add more strikouts to BBB's batting average. Witnesses have come forward in regard to Romney marching with MLK.

http://youdecide08.foxnews.com/2007/12/22/witnesses-say-mitt-romneys-father-martin-luther-king-marched-together/
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » More reasons Mitt Romney is unfit for president
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 09/30/2024 at 02:33:00