Bigotry in the GOP Primary
by KevinNovember 27th, 2007
This is a revealing exchange:
I asked Mr. Romney 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. He answered, “…based on the numbers of American Muslims [as a percentage] in our population, I cannot see that a cabinet position would be justified. But of course, I would imagine that Muslims could serve at lower levels of my administration.”
The only reasonable answer to that query — indeed, the only answer that a decent person would expect anyone tho even conceive of — is “of course, if I felt that person was the best person available for that position.” But Mitt didn’t say that. He could not bring himself to admit that a Muslim could be as qualified, as deserving, as American as anyone else in the country. Mitt did this for one of two reasons. Either he, himself, is bigoted against Muslims or he knows that a large portion of the GOP primary voters are bigoted against Muslims and he cannot afford to lose those votes. I suspect that it is the latter, but either way it is revealing.
A top contender for the Presidency has just declared that a Muslim, simply becasue of his religion, cannot possibly be considered for a Cabinet position. That is bigotry, pure and plain and simple. And whether it is his own personal bigotry or the reflected bigotry of the voters he hopes to attract, it is still repugnant and in a decent world would prevent him form getting elected dog catcher, much less President.
Categories: Politics |
It also means that he intends to dole out Cabinet positions to score political points - giving some to representatives of groups he thinks “deserve” them, and categorically denying them to others who have the wrong religion or degree of political clout.
I’m certain he would come out strongly against any suggestion of affirmative action in filling positions with under-represented groups, because he’s “against quotas” - but he has no qualms about instituting an exclusionary quota system based explicitly on population percentages for minority religious groups. I wonder what country clubs he belongs to. For that matter, I wonder what decade he belongs to.
“It also means that he intends to dole out Cabinet positions to score political points”
LOL Like that’s never happened before.
[...] Lean Left reacts to Mitt Romney’s answer to the question of whether he would consider Muslims qualified to serve in his cabinet as president: The only reasonable answer to that query — indeed, the only answer that a decent person would expect anyone tho even conceive of — is “of course, if I felt that person was the best person available for that position.” But Mitt didn’t say that. He could not bring himself to admit that a Muslim could be as qualified, as deserving, as American as anyone else in the country. Mitt did this for one of two reasons. Either he, himself, is bigoted against Muslims or he knows that a large portion of the GOP primary voters are bigoted against Muslims and he cannot afford to lose those votes. I suspect that it is the latter, but either way it is revealing. Share and Enjoy: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages. [...]
Aren’t we glad that liberals never express any bias against a person because of his religious beliefs? What a bunch of hypocrites!
So..using Romney’s logic, since Mormons comprise only about 2% of the total US population, is a Mormon justified in filling the top job?
I’m actually surprised that someone who has had to battle suggestions that a Mormon may not be appropriate as president, or that some of our friends on the Christian Right would not vote for a Mormon solely for reasons of his [Romney's] religious affiliation, wouldn’t be more sensitive to the issue. Wasn’t he the one who said those types of biases are the reason we’re struggling to stabilize Iraq, and have no place in a mature democracy like the US?
Odd thta Ijaz dontated to the democratic party before making up this story. Here is the response from Romney:
“No, that’s not what I said. His question was, Did I need to have a Muslim in my Cabinet in order to confront radical jihad, or would it be important to have a Muslim in my Cabinet?’ And I said no, I don’t think you need a Muslim in the Cabinet to take on radical jihad any more than we needed a Japanese American to understand the threat that was coming from Japan or something of that nature.” - Romney
You are not saying that liberals don’t always tell the truth, are you? That won’t be tolerated by the tolerate crowd.
Go on, Fred, let it out. Say ‘liar’. We promise not to laugh any harder than usual.