Given the fact that the lion’s share of terrorist incidents are caused by muslims, any candidate the refuses to reward their bad behaviour with a cabinet position warrants serious consideration.

michellemalkin.com

Allahpundit’s been tracking the brouhaha over remarks Mitt Romney apparently made about the presence, or lack thereof, of Muslims in his Cabinet. […] Read the rest »URL: michellemalkin.com…

I have nothing to apologize for.

Buy Danish on November 27, 2007 at 7:54 PM

Point: Proven.

Also, go back and read the post you originally responded to- it does not say what you think it says.

But he’d make a super VP, right r2b?

Hollowpoint on November 27, 2007 at 7:24 PM

Where I live, if I acknowledge that you provided facts to back up your statement, it is an acknowledgment that I was mistaken.

However, the fact remains that when you made your initial comment about the judge you implied that the mere fact of appointing a female judge made him a lackey for the PC police. That miscommunication was an error on your part, not mine.

I have nothing to apologize for.

Buy Danish on November 27, 2007 at 7:16 PM

Facts that contradicted what you said… yet all you did was thank me for providing facts without acknowledging that you were mistaken. Is that that a bit of projection on your part perhaps?

And you’d know all about admitting you’re wrong, wouldn’t you? Oh, wait…

Hollowpoint on November 27, 2007 at 7:03 PM

GFY! You know perfectly well that that was not the end of that thread. What you excluded:

Hollowpoint on November 27, 2007 at 2:33 PM

This is not the example you used originally, where we were led to infer that the mere act of appointing a single female Judge was done out of political correctness.

Thank you for providing some facts to back up your claim this time.

Buy Danish on November 27, 2007 at 3:23 PM

Even if it’s the truth, why would he have said that?

Esthier on November 27, 2007 at 7:03 PM

I wasn’t there and don’t know what he said, but it would make sense in the “diversity” context if the quote is accurate. We’ve all heard the PC police argue that important positions should have a gender and racial makeup that better reflect that of society in general. However Muslims represent a small percentage of the population, so you could argue that a diverse cabinet probably wouldn’t include a Muslim.

If the quote is accurate, it sounds like Mitt was looking for a way to say that he wouldn’t have a Muslim in that position but didn’t want to sound like a religious bigot (for obvious reasons) so he framed the answer as he did. As anyone who’s watched the debates can attest to, it wouldn’t be the first time a candidate gave an answer that doesn’t match the question.

Esthier on November 27, 2007 at 7:03 PM

Note the brackets in Ijaz’s quote:

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.”

We don’t even know exactly what Ijaz said he said :-)

However, if the quote is completely inaccurate or was fabricated out of whole cloth, don’t you think he’d say so specifically?

Hollowpoint on November 27, 2007 at 7:00 PM

See, that’s where you and I disagree. I believe he has said that by saying it’s not what he said. I believe had the context been the issue he would have said that instead.

Maybe I’m being too trusting of a politician, but as I’ve said previously, it’s just too stupid of a statement to be accurate. Either Mitt is really that stupid, in which case, how was he able to get even this far, or he didn’t say what he says he didn’t say.

I think you’re projecting.

Buy Danish on November 27, 2007 at 6:54 PM

And you’d know all about admitting you’re wrong, wouldn’t you? Oh, wait…

I don’t believe that Mitt knew the gender of the female Judge whom he selected. He received a blind file on 3 prospects without their names attached. She was selected based entirely on her qualifications and experience.

In any case, appointing one female Judge does not make one a slave to the diversity police.

Buy Danish on November 27, 2007 at 1:42 PM

The quote makes perfect sense if he interpreted the question as “will you apply diversity to your cabinet by including a Muslim in your cabinet?” As I pointed out earlier, he’s taken race and gender into account when making nominations in the past.

Hollowpoint on November 27, 2007 at 6:53 PM

Maybe so, but why would he flat out state that he would base his decision on pure statistics?

Doesn’t that seem odd at least?

I mean let’s say I ask people if they’d ever hire a black person. Would you expect anyone to respond that statistics would play a part in their decision?

Even if it’s the truth, why would he have said that?

Since when is NO, THAT’S NOT WHAT I SAID a “non-denial denial”?

I don’t deny that, but I don’t see that you’ve proven that Mitt has done that here.

Sure, it’s possible. I personally just don’t find it probable.

Esthier on November 27, 2007 at 6:51 PM

Of course I can’t prove it- that’s why this strategy of a non-denial denial is used in the first place. If tomorrow it turns out that someone recorded the exchange and proves that the quote was authentic, his clarification isn’t technically a lie since he didn’t specifically state that the quote was inaccurate. In that case, he can simply repeat that the quote didn’t accurately convey what he was trying to say even if it was accurate.

However, if the quote is completely inaccurate or was fabricated out of whole cloth, don’t you think he’d say so specifically?

Esthier on November 27, 2007 at 6:39 PM

Phew! It’s nice not to be a voice in the wilderness.

They do this all the time rather than admit they screwed up.

Hollowpoint on November 27, 2007 at 6:48 PM

I think you’re projecting.

Honestly, the only reason I don’t believe Mitt said that is because it’s a stupid response unless the question was, “Statistically do you believe you’ll have a Muslim in your cabinet?”

That’s the only way his response even makes coherent sense.

Esthier on November 27, 2007 at 6:42 PM

The quote makes perfect sense if he interpreted the question as “will you apply diversity to your cabinet by including a Muslim in your cabinet?” As I pointed out earlier, he’s taken race and gender into account when making nominations in the past.

They do this all the time rather than admit they screwed up.

Hollowpoint on November 27, 2007 at 6:48 PM

I don’t deny that, but I don’t see that you’ve proven that Mitt has done that here.

Sure, it’s possible. I personally just don’t find it probable.

I don’t read said to mean meant, and I don’t see why that conclusion must be drawn in this case. Mitt is on record saying that’s not what he said. That’s as clear as anything I can think of in saying he was misquoted.

Would he have to say those exact words or what?

Esthier on November 27, 2007 at 6:39 PM

Like I said, it’s just like the “I was taken out of context” excuse. An actual quote, out of context, doesn’t always convey what was actually said. Same thing here; if the quote was fabricated, it would be very easy for him to say so but he didn’t and gave a “clarification” instead. They do this all the time rather than admit they screwed up.

That’s the only way his response even makes coherent sense.

Mitt didn’t say the quote was inaccurate, only that he said (read: meant) something else even if the quote was correct.

Hollowpoint on November 27, 2007 at 6:26 PM

I don’t read said to mean meant, and I don’t see why that conclusion must be drawn in this case. Mitt is on record saying that’s not what he said. That’s as clear as anything I can think of in saying he was misquoted.

Would he have to say those exact words or what?

Hollowpoint on November 27, 2007 at 6:26 PM

Come on! You’re being too smart by half here.

If there’s a video we’ll soon know anyway. At the very least, there were other people in the room who may remember what was said.

What do you think this is?

“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.
Buy Danish on November 27, 2007 at 6:11 PM

It’s a politicians way of trying to convince people that what he said meant something other than what the quote actually conveyed. They do this all the time as damage control; however when misquoted they’re usually quick to say so. Mitt didn’t say the quote was inaccurate, only that he said (read: meant) something else even if the quote was correct. It’s the same as claiming a quote was “out of context” when in fact it wasn’t.

Notice he didn’t actually claim the quote was inaccurate.

Hollowpoint on November 27, 2007 at 5:29 PM

What do you think this is?

“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.