Romney in 2007 on whether he’d reserve the right to go after Bin Laden in Pakistan: “Of course…[but] we keep our options quiet”

posted at 5:01 pm on April 29, 2012 by Morgen Richmond

Robert Gibbs is the latest member of the President’s re-election team to distort comments Mitt Romney made about going after Bin Laden in 2007. Via Politico:

Obama campaign adviser Robert Gibbs on Sunday defended the suggestion by the president’s reelection campaign that Republican rival Mitt Romney might not have ordered the raid that killed Osama bin Laden in Pakistan.

“Look, just a few years ago, President Obama – then a candidate – said in a speech that if we had actionable intelligence of a high-value target in Pakistan, we’d go in and get that high value target,” Gibbs said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”  “Mitt Romney said that was foolish. He wouldn’t do such a thing. That he wouldn’t move heaven and earth to get Osama bin Laden.”

Gibbs and other Democrats have focused on comments made by Romney in April 2007, where he said “it’s not worth moving heaven and earth spending billions of dollars just trying to catch one person”. The full context of Romney’s remarks demonstrate that he was actually calling for a more strategic and expansive approach in the fight against Al Qaeda and Islamic extremism. And that the ongoing effort to capture or kill Bin Laden should not be to the detriment of the larger goals.

But there is no reason for Romney’s accusers in the Obama campaign to parse over his words from April 2007. It turns out Romney was asked directly about this very scenario in the first Republican presidential debate in August 2007. Now I wonder why they haven’t highlighted this?

It’s wrong for a person running for president of the United States to get on TV and say we’re going to go into your country unilaterally. Of course America always maintains our option to do whatever we think is in the best interest of America. But we don’t go out and say “ladies and gentleman of Germany, if ever there was a problem in your country [and] we didn’t think you were doing the right thing, we reserve the right to come in and get them out”. We don’t say those things, we keep our options quiet.

While many of us might cringe at Romney’s characterization of Pakistan as a ‘friend’, his criticism of Obama’s public support for striking targets within Pakistan was an opinion widely shared at the time, and not only within the GOP. Here’s what Chris Dodd had to say on this:

Frankly, I am not sure what Barack is calling for in his speech this morning. But it is dangerous and irresponsible to leave even the impression the United States would needlessly and publicly provoke a nuclear power,” said Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn.

And Hillary Clinton:

Well, I do not believe people running for president should engage in hypotheticals. And it may well be that the strategy we have to pursue on the basis of actionable intelligence…might lead to a certain action…But I think it is a very big mistake to telegraph that and to destabilize the Musharraf regime, which is fighting for its life against the Islamic extremists who are in bed with al-Qaeda and Taliban. And remember, Pakistan has nuclear weapons. The last thing we want is to have al-Qaeda-like followers in charge of Pakistan and having access to nuclear weapons. So you can think big, but remember, you shouldn’t always say everything you think if you’re running for president, because it has consequences across the world, and we don’t need that right now.

And who better to have the last word than the always reliable Joe Biden:

Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware responded later in the debate, noting that the strategy Obama outlined was already U.S. policy.

“Everyone’s entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts,” Biden said. “It’s already the policy of the United States — has been for four years — that there’s actionable intelligence, we would go into Pakistan.”

This is the bottom line of course. As Biden revealed this was already the policy under the Bush Administration, even if it was not publicly discussed due to sensitivities with Pakistan. And there wasn’t a viable candidate on either side of the aisle in 2008 who would have been likely to change this. It’s also pretty likely that any one of them would have ultimately made the same “gutsy call” to raid Abbottabad that the President did, but I suppose a debate over this hypothetical is fair game. But what isn’t fair game is to misrepresent Romney’s comments from 2007. It’s clear he wasn’t ruling out going into Pakistan to get Bin Laden or other high value targets. The only thing he was opposed to was the same thing Hillary Clinton was opposed to which was Obama’s grandstanding over this issue at the expense of valid national security concerns. The fact that history now reflects more favorably on Obama’s position in 2007 does not change this. Nor does it change the fact that his campaign is blatantly misrepresenting Romney’s record.

Update: Added additional text to Hillary’s quote above. Note how closely Obama’s eventual choice for Secretary of State mirrored Romney on this question. (Romney’s comments were made on August 5th in Iowa and Clinton’s on August 7th in Chicago.)


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

You forgot to mention that the only one of those Democrats who was honest and straight with the American people ended up being president. See where honesty gets you??
Uppereastside on April 29, 2012 at 6:01 PM

Sure honey, tell me another one. This is like trying not to laugh Chuckles the clown’s funeral…

Buy Danish on April 29, 2012 at 7:51 PM

bluealice on April 29, 2012 at 7:46 PM

both mitt and obamas operatives actively sought to destroy Sarah, and prevented her from running.

mitt and obama are one and the same. they both want socialized medicine.

mitts supporters consist of mormons and people under the age of 26 living off their parents.

renalin on April 29, 2012 at 7:52 PM

thats right, and mitt was working hand in hand with obama to bring mitt down.

obamaromney will do what they have to do to keep their misbegotten plain alive.

if they both only cared half as much for the human unborn, i would respect them more.

renalin on April 29, 2012 at 7:41 PM

Psst. I have a message for you to take back to your Princess of the United States of America.

/It ain’t working.

Next!

Key West Reader on April 29, 2012 at 7:53 PM

Palin/West 2012

Pragmatic on April 29, 2012 at 7:55 PM

both mitt and obamas operatives actively sought to destroy Sarah, and prevented her from running.

mitt and obama are one and the same. they both want socialized medicine.

mitts supporters consist of mormons and people under the age of 26 living off their parents.

renalin on April 29, 2012 at 7:52 PM

Er. Snot working.

Next.

Key West Reader on April 29, 2012 at 7:55 PM

mitts supporters consist of mormons and people under the age of 26 living off their parents.

renalin on April 29, 2012 at 7:52 PM

Not even close..sorry.

bluealice on April 29, 2012 at 7:55 PM

I love Sarah, but…..SHE DIDN’T RUN!!!!.
bluealice on April 29, 2012 at 7:36 PM

You have to understand. According to ddrintn, she didn’t run because she was criticized for the Paul Revere kerfuffle. And it’s all my fault. I’m the Commander in Chief of the MittBots Army and they did as they were told, or something…

Buy Danish on April 29, 2012 at 7:55 PM

Obama got Osama because everybody kept mixing up his last name with Bin Laden’s first.

You know how annoying that can be.

profitsbeard on April 29, 2012 at 7:57 PM

Steve, Renalin, ddrintn, for pete’s sake. I was one of Sarah’s biggest supporters since ’08, but she didn’t run. I was disappointed greatly. But please, gentlemen, we really need to move on. I remember the feeling I had when Obama won on election night, and I’ve never forgotten it, purposefully, so that I would be prepared for the next election cycle in case we had a less than conservative candidate to keep me motivated. That cycle has arrived, and, we have a less than conservative candidate, but I want this man to LOSE.

Stray Cat on April 29, 2012 at 7:59 PM

Get a life loser.

CW on April 29, 2012 at 6:38 PM

Painful defending an etch a sketch for a candidate isn’t it?

Uppereastside on April 29, 2012 at 8:02 PM

Del Dolemonte on April 29, 2012 at 7:16 PM

Killed OBL!

Wow. Our President Obama made up with the Seals, I guess.

Remember when they were just “flying around bombing people?”

Yes, they were In the Afghan T. when he said that.

And he made other remarks, too.

IlikedAUH2O on April 29, 2012 at 8:03 PM

THE REAL ROMNEY:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2877938/posts

Pragmatic on April 29, 2012 at 8:05 PM

Uppereastside

How is the call option of SBUX120519C00070000 you said you bought on April 13 working out for you?

galtani on April 29, 2012 at 6:12 PM

Wasn’t getting a good vibe before they reported so i sold my $65 and $70 May calls for a small gain. Thanks for asking though.
I might jump back in it now that the stock has receded to the $57 range.

Uppereastside on April 29, 2012 at 8:05 PM

I would rather have half an Obama (Romney) than the full Obama. With Mitt in office, there’s still hope for fixing America. Obama will kill America in a second term.

Gladtobehere on April 29, 2012 at 8:11 PM

mitts supporters consist of mormons and people under the age of 26 living off their parents.

renalin on April 29, 2012 at 7:52 PM

Whatever you say, goofnut.

JPeterman on April 29, 2012 at 8:12 PM

JPeterman on April 29, 2012 at 8:12 PM

another bot winning hearts and minds. lol.

renalin on April 29, 2012 at 8:14 PM

but I want this man to LOSE.

Stray Cat on April 29, 2012 at 7:59 PM

i know you do. the gope have done good work. lotta people in your boat.

think outside the box. be free.

if you vote for romney, its a vote for slavery.

renalin on April 29, 2012 at 8:18 PM

Uppereastside

How is the call option of SBUX120519C00070000 you said you bought on April 13 working out for you?

galtani on April 29, 2012 at 6:12 PM

Wasn’t getting a good vibe before they reported so i sold my $65 and $70 May calls for a small gain. Thanks for asking though.
I might jump back in it now that the stock has receded to the $57 range.

Uppereastside on April 29, 2012 at 8:05 PM

Calender call spreads the way to go. Like butter.

msupertas on April 29, 2012 at 8:26 PM

Uppereastside on April 29, 2012 at 8:05 PM

Kind of doubt your claim. The May call, both for 65 and 70, peaked on April 13, and had not gone near those levels since.

galtani on April 29, 2012 at 8:46 PM

i know you do. the gope have done good work. lotta people in your boat.

think outside the box. be free.

if you vote for romney, its a vote for slavery.

renalin on April 29, 2012 at 8:18 PM

I get the thinking – stick it to the establishment republicans. But I’m afraid that if he is re-elected there won’t be much of left of the fabric of this country, and that, would be slavery.

Stray Cat on April 29, 2012 at 8:52 PM

You forgot to mention that the only one of those Democrats who was honest and straight with the American people ended up being president. See where honesty gets you??
Uppereastside on April 29, 2012 at 6:01 PM

Umm, no he was the only one to openly say that he would violate the sovereignty of another nation to get Bin Laden. The other candidates were more circumspect; they did not commit one way or the other.

As far as honesty, During the 2008 presidential campaign, Obama repeatedly told voters that the health care overhaul would take place in a public forum, most notably on C-SPAN. Obama promise voters — on eight different occasions — that the health care debate would be transparent. Yeah that was honest.

So let’s look at some of those other things that Obama was honest about during the campaign and before:
a) Yeah, they can build a coal-fired electrical plant, but it’s going to bankrupt them because of the fees they will have to pay for the greenhouse gases they emit.
b) Under my plan, electricity prices will necessarily skyrocket
c) Petroleum is the energy of the past

Yeah, great campaign promises there. He really needs to drive those promises home during the campaign, right alongside his “got Bin Laden” advertising. Gasoline, $1.89 when he was inaugurated. $3.70 or more now and oil exploration and drilling on federal land is down, not up. His EPA is going after Natural gas production. His energy secretary is not interested in bringing down the price of gasoline. Promises kept!

AZfederalist on April 29, 2012 at 9:20 PM

Patrick Duval. That’s some funny stuff right there.

Rusty Allen on April 29, 2012 at 9:25 PM

Steve, Renalin, ddrintn, for pete’s sake. I was one of Sarah’s biggest supporters since ’08, but she didn’t run. I was disappointed greatly. But please, gentlemen, we really need to move on.

Stray Cat on April 29, 2012 at 7:59 PM

Oh, I have, man. This is Mitt’s show and I’m merely commenting on it the way the Mittfans commented on Palin for 3 years.

You have to understand. According to ddrintn, she didn’t run because she was criticized for the Paul Revere kerfuffle.

Buy Danish on April 29, 2012 at 7:55 PM

No, ‘bot. I said I think that’s when she decided she wasn’t going to run. It was the kicker, probably. The GOP had to go through this insane “the squish is gonna DO IT this time, babaayyyyyy!!” crap one more time. Actually, it was clear Romney was going to be the nominee as early as December 2008.

I get the thinking – stick it to the establishment republicans. But I’m afraid that if he is re-elected there won’t be much of left of the fabric of this country, and that, would be slavery.

Stray Cat on April 29, 2012 at 8:52 PM

So then if it’s sooooooo vitally important, why are we nominating yet another moderate sure-loser? And why am I supposed to act enthusiastic about it?

ddrintn on April 29, 2012 at 9:31 PM

^Correction: not why are “we” nominating, but why are YOU nominating. I’m no friggin’ Republican.

ddrintn on April 29, 2012 at 9:33 PM

The only person that makes my butt hurt is Obama. You and the rest of the butt hurt Palinista’s need to deal with that.

JPeterman on April 29, 2012 at 7:31 PM

Make us.

ddrintn on April 29, 2012 at 9:39 PM

Uppereastside on April 29, 2012 at 8:02 PM

The fact that you think you have any self-respect defending Obama is quite sad. Now come on say “panties” or “thong” one more time. You know you want to.

Make us.

ddrintn on April 29, 2012 at 9:39 PM

Still no life I see. Nobody loves you ….so sad.

CW on April 29, 2012 at 9:43 PM

Ddrintintin….

When you have something new to say with any sort of originality please let us all know. Zzzzzzzzzzzz.

CW on April 29, 2012 at 9:44 PM

It should have been obvious after the post about Mitt and sons saving those drowning people, but I guess every Romney thread will have the obligatory butthurt concern trolls up to and maybe beyond election day. Yipee. (Not talking about Uppereastside, because he actually supports a candidate in 2012)

Client Number Nine on April 29, 2012 at 9:55 PM

Still no life I see.

CW on April 29, 2012 at 9:43 PM

Still in 8th grade I see. At the age of 40. So sad.

ddrintn on April 29, 2012 at 9:56 PM

You know, this really goes to show that Obama’s got balls and Romney doesn’t. It’s just too obvious. Problem is, all of Obama’s balls are in his golf bag. It’s pretty clear that his “decisiveness” in the bin Laden raid was nothing more than his backing down from his CIA and military advisers.

NOMOBO on April 29, 2012 at 9:58 PM

It should have been obvious after the post about Mitt and sons saving those drowning people,

Client Number Nine on April 29, 2012 at 9:55 PM

They were wearing life-jackets, except for the dog. But yes, I did feel a thrill of Mitt-devotion run through my soul on reading of his mighty exploits. “A paragon of human virtue” is how one of the Brethren described him. Oh, so true, so true.

ddrintn on April 29, 2012 at 9:59 PM

You know, this really goes to show that Obama’s got balls and Romney doesn’t. It’s just too obvious. Problem is, all of Obama’s balls are in his golf bag.

NOMOBO on April 29, 2012 at 9:58 PM

I thought they were sitting across the table from him with her hand on her mouth.

AZfederalist on April 29, 2012 at 10:04 PM


We don’t say those things, we keep our options quiet.

Unless you’re a Democrat…

… and either you are President and have nothing else to run on, or you are a Democrat with a Republican in the Oval Office, then anything is fine to pring in the New York Times.

Seven Percent Solution on April 29, 2012 at 10:06 PM

Ddrintintin….

When you have something new to say with any sort of originality please let us all know. Zzzzzzzzzzzz.

CW on April 29, 2012 at 9:44 PM

Ha! Who gets to decide? angryed?

Buy Danish on April 29, 2012 at 10:22 PM

They were wearing life-jackets, except for the dog. But yes, I did feel a thrill of Mitt-devotion run through my soul on reading of his mighty exploits. “A paragon of human virtue” is how one of the Brethren described him. Oh, so true, so true.
ddrintn on April 29, 2012 at 9:59 PM

Finally! The mask slips.

Buy Danish on April 29, 2012 at 10:24 PM

I thought they were sitting across the table from him with her hand on her mouth.

AZfederalist on April 29, 2012 at 10:04 PM

Geez, you’re so crude. But probably correct.

NOMOBO on April 29, 2012 at 10:37 PM

DDRINTN and the Freakazoids play the 10,000,000th rendition of
“Oh say can you please beg me to get off the ledge”

Followed by a tender devotional to SP originally done by Bob Seger
“Beautiful loser”

Bradky on April 29, 2012 at 10:45 PM

What mask?

Rusty Allen on April 29, 2012 at 11:09 PM

I would hope that Mitt would understand that our relationship with Pakistan has deteriorated since 2007. And the fault is with Pakistan, not us. Please tell me that Mitt understands this. DD

Darvin Dowdy on April 29, 2012 at 11:22 PM

Make us.

ddrintn on April 29, 2012 at 9:39 PM

good god man. You whine and moan more than a 13 year old girl.

We get it. You’re for Obama this election.

Ampersand on April 29, 2012 at 11:32 PM

Pragmatic on April 29, 2012 at 8:05 PM

Free Republic?? Hahaha…next you will be quoting Little Green Footballs. You should hang out with your brethren over there at Free Republic and let the grown-ups get Obama out of office.

Elizabetty on April 29, 2012 at 11:35 PM

good god man. You whine and moan more than a 13 year old girl.

We get it. You’re for Obama this election.

Ampersand on April 29, 2012 at 11:32 PM

Says one of those constantly whining about naysayers, as if Mighty Mitt can’t withstand it.

What mask?

Rusty Allen on April 29, 2012 at 11:09 PM

Good question. What mask?

Followed by a tender devotional to SP originally done by Bob Seger
“Beautiful loser”

Bradky on April 29, 2012 at 10:45 PM

You sure that’s not about Mitt?

ddrintn on April 29, 2012 at 11:44 PM

DDRINTN and the Freakazoids play the 10,000,000th rendition of
“Oh say can you please beg me to get off the ledge”

Bradky on April 29, 2012 at 10:45 PM

So true. Too funny.

bluegill on April 29, 2012 at 11:48 PM

Says one of those constantly whining about naysayers, as if Mighty Mitt can’t withstand it.

ddrintn on April 29, 2012 at 11:44 PM

if you say so…

You ABR Obama voters are such martyrs.

Ampersand on April 29, 2012 at 11:51 PM

DDRINTN and the Freakazoids play the 10,000,000th rendition of
“Oh say can you please beg me to get off the ledge”

Bradky on April 29, 2012 at 10:45 PM

So true. Too funny.

bluegill on April 29, 2012 at 11:48 PM

Why would I be on the ledge? I’m not the one staking everything on that sure loser.

ddrintn on April 29, 2012 at 11:52 PM

Why would I be on the ledge? I’m not the one staking everything on that sure loser.

ddrintn on April 29, 2012 at 11:52 PM

who ya going to vote for?

Ampersand on April 29, 2012 at 11:54 PM

You ABR Obama voters are such martyrs.

Ampersand on April 29, 2012 at 11:51 PM

You whine about non-existent whining, engage in yet another one of those “if you’re not a Mitt ass-kisser you’re an Obama voter” pieces of illogical garbage, and then say I’m making myself out to be a martyr. Tooooooo good.

ddrintn on April 29, 2012 at 11:55 PM

Why would I be on the ledge? I’m not the one staking everything on that sure loser.

ddrintn on April 29, 2012 at 11:52 PM

who ya going to vote for?

Ampersand on April 29, 2012 at 11:54 PM

Don’t know yet. I’m an undecided. Certainly not Obama. Want to use some more Alinskyite isolation and ridicule to win me over to Mitt? You ‘bots are still in a distinct minority, looking at the polls. You’re going to have to come up with some better campaign tactics, because Team O has that Alinsky stuff down pat.

ddrintn on April 30, 2012 at 12:00 AM

Romney’s supporters are almost uniformly loathsome and insufferable. Romney himself generates complete indifference and is wierdly representative of that quality, like a mannequin lathered with a tube of brylcreem, or one of those yellowing photos in the window of a barbershop of a man in a turtle neck and smoker’s jacket sporting the wet look. I still think Obama may lose, and the best chance of that is for Romney’s supporters to hide in a closet until mid-November 2012.

Ted Torgerson on April 30, 2012 at 12:08 AM

Don’t know yet. I’m an undecided. Certainly not Obama. Want to use some more Alinskyite isolation and ridicule to win me over to Mitt? You ‘bots are still in a distinct minority, looking at the polls. You’re going to have to come up with some better campaign tactics, because Team O has that Alinsky stuff down pat.

ddrintn on April 30, 2012 at 12:00 AM

I’ve never been a huge Mitt defender. I just find you ABR people tedious and boring.

I’m not trying to court you.

Ampersand on April 30, 2012 at 12:08 AM

Ted Torgerson on April 30, 2012 at 12:08 AM

sweet jeezus that’s a lot of crazy there. That’s one for the archives.

I’m thinking there may be more than one Ron Paul groupies in the ABR camp…

Ampersand on April 30, 2012 at 12:10 AM

Lots of crazy today.

Rusty Allen on April 30, 2012 at 12:30 AM

I still think Obama may lose, and the best chance of that is for Romney’s supporters to hide in a closet until mid-November 2012.

Ted Torgerson on April 30, 2012 at 12:08 AM

Well, at least the Mittbots. … and they were the ones who so excoriated those who supported Palin.

Though you’ve got to admit, the mittbots have been so gracious in victory. /s

Yeah, I’m going to vote for Mitt because we absolutely have to get the marxist in chief out of the white house. Anybody who says there is no difference between the two is in desperate need of a glass belly button. Romney is no prize, but I know he does not hate this country and that we will be able to primary his @$$ in 2016 if he turns out to be horrible. I’m not so sure that we will even have elections if Jugears gets another 4 years, or if we do, what we will be able to salvage after a full 8 years of Obama.

Yep, I’ll be voting for Obama, but it will be in spite of the mittbots, not because of them.

AZfederalist on April 30, 2012 at 12:39 AM

AZfederalist on April 30, 2012 at 12:39 AM

ALERT! ALERT!

That should have said, I’ll be voting for ROMNEY! NOT OBAMA!

/good heavens, what did I say?

AZfederalist on April 30, 2012 at 12:40 AM

I had to laugh when I saw leadership at the bottom.

Romney and leadership now that is something we can all laugh about.

Keep up with the good jokes.

oldyeller on April 30, 2012 at 12:42 AM

Frankly, I am not sure what Barack is calling for in his speech this morning. But it is dangerous and irresponsible to leave even the impression the United States would needlessly and publicly provoke a nuclear power,” said Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn.

Proof that even a broken clock is right once in a while.

I agree with the sentiment and that is why I still think 0bama acted dangerously when he took out Osama. If Bush had done this the 0bamaGanda media would have crucified the man.

PS: I’m still waiting to be impressed by Mittens.

DannoJyd on April 30, 2012 at 1:47 AM

I think Obama proved to be right. I’m not a fan of the man, but saying you would take action is part of the preparation for taking action. And ultimately, “gutsy call” or not, Obama did take the needed action.

David Blue on April 30, 2012 at 2:16 AM

I’m the Commander in Chief of the MittBots Army and they did as they were told, or something…

Buy Danish on April 29, 2012 at 7:55 PM

I await your further orders :-)

MJBrutus on April 30, 2012 at 6:53 AM

AZfederalist on April 30, 2012 at 12:40 AM

I’m enthusiastic about Mitt and think that he will be a remarkably great POTUS. I think that he is the perfect man for the times we are in.

That said, I appreciate that while you don’t feel as I do, you do have a good sense of perspective and recognize that while you may not look forward to a Romney administration, there is no comparison to the catastrophe that is PBHO.

MJBrutus on April 30, 2012 at 6:57 AM

What mask?
Rusty Allen on April 29, 2012 at 11:09 PM

Methinks he’s got a problem with Mormons. What else could “the Brethren” refer to? It would help explain the unhinged intensity of his loathing and resentment. Unless he’s referring to former colleagues and he thinks they’re like some evil cabal of “Brethren” like in some John Grisham novel, or something.

CC: ddrintn

Buy Danish on April 30, 2012 at 7:30 AM

Then in an October 2008 presidential debate with John McCain, Obama declared simply. “We will kill bin Laden. We will crush al Qaeda. That has to be our biggest national security priority.”
But from the beginning, candidate Romney like the GOP’s eventual nominee John McCain not only opposed but mocked Obama’s approach. While McCain blasted Obama’s hard line on Al Qaeda’s safe havens in the tribal areas (“Will we risk the confused leadership of an inexperienced candidate who once suggested invading our ally, Pakistan?”), Romney protested:

“I do not concur in the words of Barack Obama in a plan to enter an ally of ours… I don’t think those kinds of comments help in this effort to draw more friends to our effort…”There is a war being waged by terrorists of different types and nature across the world,” Romney said. “We want, as a civilized world, to participate with other nations in this civilized effort to help those nations reject the extreme with them.”

Leading from behind

plewis on April 30, 2012 at 7:44 AM

I’ve never been a huge Mitt defender. I just find you ABR people tedious and boring.

I’m not trying to court you.

Ampersand on April 30, 2012 at 12:08 AM

So why did you respond, genius?

Methinks he’s got a problem with Mormons. What else could “the Brethren” refer to? It would help explain the unhinged intensity of his loathing and resentment. Unless he’s referring to former colleagues and he thinks they’re like some evil cabal of “Brethren” like in some John Grisham novel, or something.

CC: ddrintn

Buy Danish on April 30, 2012 at 7:30 AM

You really are one hell of a despicable ‘bot. Some time, Buy Danish, when you can be bothered to be diverted from your pearl-clutching routine, just do a little search around here and see what I’ve said about Romney’s religion. Just like the O-bots, some Mittbots (particularly the more loathsome ones like this specimen Danish here) have to try to put people on the defensive with constant “bigotry” tests.

I wasn’t aware that the term “the Brethren” was Mormon-specific. Were you? Of course you weren’t.

ddrintn on April 30, 2012 at 7:46 AM

Romney protested:

plewis on April 30, 2012 at 7:44 AM

For his entire pathetic political career the guy has been on every side of just about every issue you can imagine. It’s laughable. And this is the most electable thing going in the GOP. LOL

ddrintn on April 30, 2012 at 7:57 AM

You really are one hell of a despicable ‘bot. Some time, Buy Danish, when you can be bothered to be diverted from your pearl-clutching routine, just do a little search around here and see what I’ve said about Romney’s religion.

I’m likely going to vote for Romney – although he seems at times to be doing his best to make me not vote in the presidential race. I think he’ll be a care-taker president at best, and a slightly to the left president at worse. But, he likely would still be much better than Obama. (all bets are off when Romney pivots on immigration and supports an amnesty, which I fully expect to happen).

But I love this “bigotry” talk on the right. I’d like to make a couple of points about that.

1) are we now exactly the same as the left – if someone has an opinion different than us, we are going to call them racist/bigot/etc? Is that the new normal for conservatives?

2) when did it become off-limits for conservatives to consider religion and religious beliefs? Are we now also joining the left in the idea that religion can’t be discussed at all, mentioned, or otherwise considered at all in any facet of our lives? If a devout wahhabi imam ran for president, could we take his religious beliefs into account? Who gets to decide whether or not we can consider someone’s religious beliefs in deciding whether or not we want to vote for them for president?

All in all, I’m disheartened by how quickly many on the right are to pick up the mantle of victim-hood and religious intolerance usually carried by the left.

Yes, it is intolerance for you to tell me that I cannot rely on my own religious beliefs when forming an opinion of Mormonism. For you to tell me that I simply must accept Mormonism as the same as any other denomination of Christianity, and that I cannot have an opinion about it because to do so would be “bigotry” is, in itself, religious intolerance.

You see, religion by its very nature generally requires one to believe their own religion is correct and others not correct. Thus, my religion requires me to look at what another religion believes and decide whether that is a “christian” religion or not. It does not matter to me what the adherents of that other religion say, but what their professed beliefs are. If the professed beliefs are inconsistent with Christianity as my religion sees it, then according to my religion, the other religion is not a christian religion. To tell me I’m not allowed to form this belief or make decisions based on this belief is itself depriving me of religious freedom and intolerant of my religious beliefs.

so, are we a party of adults who allow others to form beliefs based on their own, or are we like the left, trying to crush all independent thought and all religious consideration under the banner of “tolerance”.

Monkeytoe on April 30, 2012 at 8:07 AM

ddrintn on April 30, 2012 at 7:46 AM

You chose to use the word “Brethren”. Now that you’ve stated it had no religious connotation, instead of spewing bile why don’t you explain what you meant by it.

Buy Danish on April 30, 2012 at 8:11 AM

Is it you intention to continue to dump on every Romney thread from here on out?

Probably.

Serious question. What is your motive? What do you hope to accomplish?

bluealice on April 29, 2012 at 7:17 PM

Catharsis. Sweet, sweet catharsis.

ddrintn on April 29, 2012 at 7:22 PM

Steve, Renalin, ddrintn, for pete’s sake. I was one of Sarah’s biggest supporters since ’08, but she didn’t run. I was disappointed greatly. But please, gentlemen, we really need to move on.

Stray Cat on April 29, 2012 at 7:59 PM

Oh, I have, man. This is Mitt’s show and I’m merely commenting on it the way the Mittfans commented on Palin for 3 years.

ddrintn, you really are making a fool of yourself. You are taking things too personally.

You now campaign against our presumptive nominee (Romney) and hope for an Obama win because you’re still pouting over some criticism that Sarah Palin received? This is your way of giving payback to some blog readers who have disagreed with you in the past? Kind of nutty, if you ask me. Your contributions here are beyond petty. For the longest time I just figured you were a high school kid, but now I think you probably are an adult who is… don’t know how to put this… not quite right.

I feel bad for the MANY decent Sarah Palin fans who have to be associated with you.

Sarah Palin, an honorable and decent woman who knows we must defeat Obama by electing Mitt Romney, would be the first to call out your disgusting, unhelpful behavior. Sarah Palin would probably want nothing to do with you or your Obama-supporting commentary. Your overzealous fandom is not only making you look ridiculous, but is also at least in a small way bringing shame on Palin by association.

bluegill on April 30, 2012 at 8:16 AM

Monkeytoe on April 30, 2012 at 8:07 AM

Let’s cut to the chase here. The use of the word “Brethren” has religious connotations and ddrintn used it in a pejorative manner. Why oh why did I get the distinct impression he was mocking his religion? If he wants to mock his religion, fine, but he should at least own up to it rather than attack me for noting his odd choice of words. If he misspoke, and inadvertently chose the wrong word to express a thought, he can offer a correction.

Buy Danish on April 30, 2012 at 8:24 AM

I just don’t understand why people think Obama & a Democrat Congress are good for this country.
I’m not saying Republicans are a hell of a lot better.
But here we have the Liberal’s dream before last little election when things started turning Red & what did they do?
Put us into unprecedented debt, racked up unemployment, caused the economy to tank to historic lows, cause even more people to become dependent upon the federal govt, engage in UnConst. power grabs left & right, & all we hear is slobbering adoration from the media that is supposed to be unbiased.
We deserve in America, to fail, if this is what ‘Americans’ really want out of their government.
I am taking the fight to my state.
There is no other way anymore.
I’m positive Romney will win. But there are too many waiting in line for their handout, bcs BY GOD THEY’RE TAXPAYERS, TOO!
They paid their share & they’re gonna get them some medicare & social security & some food stamps & some grants & some FEMA money damm!t!
It falls to the states to save this country.

Badger40 on April 30, 2012 at 8:30 AM

The use of the word “Brethren” has religious connotations and ddrintn used it in a pejorative manner. Why oh why did I get the distinct impression he was mocking his religion? If he wants to mock his religion, fine, but he should at least own up to it rather than attack me for noting his odd choice of words. If he misspoke, and inadvertently chose the wrong word to express a thought, he can offer a correction.

Buy Danish on April 30, 2012 at 8:24 AM

Let’s say for the sake of argument that he doesn’t like the religion and doesn’t like Romney because of the religion. So?

Religion is not the same thing as race. Religion is a set of beliefs that a person chooses, much like a political ideology. Indeed, religious belief can have a large effect on a person’s political ideology and character.

Thus, why would it be wrong to not like a candidate because of the candidate’s religion?

That makes one a “bigot”? We must always ignore a person’s religious beliefs? Is that the right’s new standard? Race and gender make sense to ignore, as they have no real bearing on a person’s beliefs. They are merely incidents of birth and are not indicative of what a person believes. But religion is in fact a set of values and beliefs. It is not irrelevant to the question. I’m not saying I’m basing my decision on religion, b/c I’m not. But so what if someone else does?

And, by the way, “Brethren” is used in many more realms than the religious. I’ve used it / heard it used regarding professions, etc. So, I’m not sure your case is so open and shut on that one word alone. You are looking for something to hang your conclusion of “bigotry” on. But that is frankly irrelevant to my point. My point is that it is not “bigotry” to refuse to vote for a presentational candidate based solely on religion. I think it is entirely justifiable. There are plenty of social cons who vote for republicans based solely on the voters’ religious views regarding abortion and gay marriage. Do we call them bigots? Why can they vote on their religious beliefs but someone who doesn’t want to vote for a Mormon candidate cannot?

We on the right used to argue for MORE religion in politics and public policy, not less. Now it appears we are arguing for NO religion in any public debate.

Monkeytoe on April 30, 2012 at 8:38 AM

Nope to the GOPe!

Jayrae on April 30, 2012 at 8:57 AM

Who is this Morgen Richmond? Please keep him. I find his posts more empowering and hopeful in contrast to the Eeyoorism of AP….

;)

Omega_Rage on April 30, 2012 at 8:59 AM

Who is this Morgen Richmond? Please keep him. I find his posts more empowering and hopeful in contrast to the Eeyoorism of AP….
;)
Omega_Rage on April 30, 2012 at 8:59 AM

Agree 100%! More from Morgen Richmond, please.

bluegill on April 30, 2012 at 9:09 AM

Palin/West 2012; if not, it will be Gary Johnson for me!

Pragmatic on April 30, 2012 at 9:23 AM

This is just another ruse to exploit the ignorance of their base. Anyone who saw the Situation Room during the Seal Team 6 operation to kill Bin Laden could obviously by see the completely clueless look on Obama’s face, he was the last person in charge of the raid. If these liberal loons can pull off this charade of Obama being a “leader” again, the United States will deserve what they get and the dumbing down of the American people will be confirmed. His only role for this gang of thugs is as a campaigner and to keep out of their way.

volsense on April 30, 2012 at 9:37 AM

It’s damn depressing to open a thread and see the comments section taken up with a childish war between nutball anti-Romney pro-Palin posters and equally nutball anti-Palin pro-Romney posters.

Sarah didn’t run, Romney won the nomination fair and square, and most importantly, like it or not, he’s our best hope for preventing Dear Liar from having another four years to destroy the country and turn it into a European-style economic basket-case…or worse.

Obama’s UBL ad is a pathetic and desperate reach, and I can’t imagine anyone but Dem Party hacks buying into it…and even they don’t believe it in their heart of hearts. It goes to show how ugly the campaign will be and how stupid liberals get when they know they’re about to lose power.

Next.

DRayRaven on April 30, 2012 at 9:51 AM

Angryed has no friends, his wifeMOMMY makes him sleep on the couch in the basement and the poor fella is just frustrated or maybe constipated.

JPeterman on April 29, 2012 at 6:20 PM

Fixed it for you.

You are welcome.

Gunlock Bill on April 30, 2012 at 10:18 AM

“And, by the way, “Brethren” is used in many more realms than the religious. I’ve used it / heard it used regarding professions, etc. So, I’m not sure your case is so open and shut on that one word alone”
Monkeytoe on April 30, 2012 at 8:38 AM
BS, this had one purpose, to disparage the beliefs of Romney. Your case about the rights of people to form religious opinions is correct, but also irrelevant to that commenter being called out. It wasn’t a religious argument, discussion, or any form of either. It was basically a statement to the effect of “who cares if Romney pulled some Mormons out of a lake?”. That’s exactly how it was intended and how it was received. Anyone with a half-functioning frontal lobe knows that. Religious debates are something quite different. Taking pot shots at an uplifting story because of distain for a persons faith is cheap, at best.

Rusty Allen on April 30, 2012 at 10:25 AM

Monkeytoe

And, by the way, “Brethren” is used in many more realms than the religious. I’ve used it / heard it used regarding professions, etc.

Please use the word “brethren” in a complete sentence to demonstrate your understanding of how the word may be used in a non-religious context. This use of the word must reasonably apply to Romney in the context ddrintn used when he quoted a specific commenter who used the phrase “paragon of human virtue” here:

Say what you will about Romney’s conservatism. Between this, finding his partner’s daughter, and his amazing home life, we’ve nominated a paragon of human virtue and behavior to the presidency.
KingGold on April 26, 2012 at 6:47 PM

How is commenter “KingGold” Romney’s “brethren”? Thanks in advance!

Second, the example you provided earlier of Wahhabbi sects is nonsensical. Bin laden and Mitt Romney? Really? Can you cite a single example of Mitt Romney imposing his religion on anyone as Governor? The Romneys could not be more tolerant of individual choices people make in their lives.

Buy Danish on April 30, 2012 at 10:27 AM

Arianna on Monday criticized the Obama campaign for questioning whether or not Mitt Romney would have killed Osama bin Laden in a recent attack ad.

Appearing on ‘CBS This Morning’, she said, “Using the Osama bin Laden assassination, killing, the great news that we had a year ago, in order to say basically that Obama did it and Romney might not have done it … to turn it into a campaign ad is one of the most despicable things you can do.”

She compared the ad to one that the Hillary Clinton campaign aired during the 2008 election.

Rusty Allen on April 30, 2012 at 10:36 AM

I love Sarah, but…..SHE DIDN’T RUN!!!!.

bluealice on April 29, 2012 at 7:36 PM

I did too, . . .

Until she quasi-endorsed Newt.

What will the ABR Palinistas do when she finally gets around to endorsing Romney?

Popcorn please.

Gunlock Bill on April 30, 2012 at 10:41 AM

But, but… Obama has a big stick, let me tell you.

nitzsche on April 30, 2012 at 11:06 AM

Second, the example you provided earlier of Wahhabbi sects is nonsensical. Bin laden and Mitt Romney? Really? Can you cite a single example of Mitt Romney imposing his religion on anyone as Governor? The Romneys could not be more tolerant of individual choices people make in their lives.

Buy Danish on April 30, 2012 at 10:27 AM

Good lord. Talk about not understanding what I wrote. I did not “compare” Mitt Romney to Wahhabbi. I was using that to illustrate that it is not beyond the pale to use a candidate’s religious beliefs to judge the candidate. Indeed, for some that is a major consideration. And, it is completely valid.

As far as “brethren” – I did not follow whatever exchange you are talking about, I was just noting that despite your claims, it does not apply only to religion and is often used for other contexts. For your edification, I offer that the term was thrown around all of the time when I was at Army JAG school by the instructors to refer to fellow JAG attorneys. It was common parlance. I have also often heard it used by judge’s referring to attorneys generally in civilian practice. I have heard it used in my college days to refer to fellow fraternity members. I have heard it used in other context as well. It has entered the common parlance and is used beyond religion.

As far as this bit of silliness:

Can you cite a single example of Mitt Romney imposing his religion on anyone as Governor? The Romneys could not be more tolerant of individual choices people make in their lives.

I never made that claim and do not make that claim now. I don’t believe Romney ever did do that. Instead, I argued that religious beliefs often inform and instruct people’s political beliefs/philosophy and therefore is fair game to consider in considering a candidate and doing so does not make one a “bigot”.

I was arguing that conservatives throwing around “bigot” because someone disagrees with you is as juvenile and unintelligent as when a leftist does it – calling every conservative racist if they don’t support affirmative action, or some other nonsense. And I was arguing over this new “rule” that one cannot consider a candidate’s religion without question in the name of “tolerance” which is asinine. What is religion but a form of philosophy? Are we not allowed to consider someone’s philosophy when voting?

My point was pretty clearly made, yet you somehow claim that I am arguing that Romney “imposed” his religious beliefs on anyone? I further quite clearly conceded, for the point of the argument that drr____ (whatever his name is) did not like Romney’s religion as you seem to believe. My point was “so what”? Why is that wrong?

I’m not arguing that there is anything wrong with Romney’s religion or Mormons in general. I even – grudgingly – intend to vote for Romney. I’m simply arguing against the sophomoric tactic of calling anyone who considers Romney’s faith when deciding whether to vote for him a “bigot”. Of course we can take someone’s faith into consideration when voting.

Monkeytoe on April 30, 2012 at 11:14 AM

This is an idiotic debate.
Who knows how Romney would have handled it.
He can’t even be sure how he’d of handled it.
Obama’s advantage on all this is that it isn’t a hypothetical
And also, the mission succeeded – when there was a very good chance it might not have – which would have brought about gleeful cheering in these quarters.
(And I don’t mean for not getting OBL – but for Obama ‘failing’).
Just a pile of political b.s. by all involved in this ‘story’.

verbaluce on April 30, 2012 at 11:14 AM

I would rather have half an Obama (Romney) than the full Obama. With Mitt in office, there’s still hope for fixing America. Obama will kill America in a second term.

Gladtobehere on April 29, 2012 at 8:11 PM

With you 100%.

I honestly think Mitt’s business experience gives him the best chance of fixing the current CF of the budget deficit, the national debt, high unemployment, a lackluster economy and an inane energy policy.

I don’t see how anyone can argue with your statement even if they disagree with mine.

talkingpoints on April 30, 2012 at 11:30 AM

Get BIn Laden: ROMNEY’S IDEA

Auto bailout: ROMNEY’S IDEA

shakey shakey etch a sketch

Dave Rywall on April 30, 2012 at 11:43 AM

Get BIn Laden: ROMNEY’S IDEA

Auto bailout: ROMNEY’S IDEA

shakey shakey etch a sketch

Dave Rywall on April 30, 2012 at 11:43 AM

.
Transform the USA into a Centralized Euro-Socialist with a Marxist twist : YOUR BOY – Barry MESSIAH the OBAMUNIST

FlaMurph on April 30, 2012 at 12:06 PM

Get BIn Laden: ROMNEY’S IDEA

Auto bailout: ROMNEY’S IDEA

shakey shakey etch a sketch

Dave Rywall on April 30, 2012 at 11:43 AM

Everyone wanted to get Bin Laden. Indeed, intelligence had been working hard on it for years, which led to finding him and to the event where O could “give the order” that nobody, except maybe Ron Paul, would have declined to give. When you have to run on the idea that saying “ok” to a mission that every single person in America would have said “ok” to, you know you have a terrible, terrible record.

Why doesn’t he run on the “courageous” decision to have ice cream with apple pie? Or the “valiant” decision to wake up in the morning? Obama is nothing but a sick joke. Ignorant, incompetent and silly. Easily taking over the mantle of worst president from Carter. In 100 years, people will be amazed that anyone voted for someone no experience or any demonstration of intelligence or ability.

The auto bailout was a terrible idea.

How many lies has Obama told in a 4 year period? Is GITMO closed? Renditions stopped? Did he have the healthcare debate on C-SPAN? Was the individual mandate – that Obama ran against, included? In fact, has Obama said anything in 4 years that he did not contradict within 10 days of saying it?

Etch-A-Sketch. That fits Obama even more so than Romney. And I don’t even like Romney.

Monkeytoe on April 30, 2012 at 1:31 PM

At least Santorum stood a chance of winning. Mitt does not.

Steveangell on April 29, 2012 at 5:28 PM

No way.

totherightofthem on April 30, 2012 at 3:03 PM

That No way refers to Santorum’s chances, not Romney’s btw.

totherightofthem on April 30, 2012 at 3:03 PM

I’m agnostic on whether or not Romney can take it. He’ll take it with my vote, if he does. And, if he loses, he’ll lose with my vote, too. It’s either Romney or 4 more years of Muslim Brotherhood members in committee appointments at DHS and elsewhere.

totherightofthem on April 30, 2012 at 3:05 PM

bayam on April 29, 2012 at 6:55 PM

All the proof we need to support the Ancient Alien theorists is the Internal Revenue Code. It’s clearly written in some extraterrestrial language-all 70,000 pages of it.

totherightofthem on April 30, 2012 at 3:13 PM

Good lord. Talk about not understanding what I wrote. I did not “compare” Mitt Romney to Wahhabbi. I was using that to illustrate that it is not beyond the pale to use a candidate’s religious beliefs to judge the candidate. Indeed, for some that is a major consideration. And, it is completely valid.
Monkeytoe on April 30, 2012 at 11:14 AM

Why are you putting quote marks around a word I didn’t use? You have repeatedly put the word “bigot” in quotes and now you’ve added the word “compare”.

You think it’s reasonable to bolster your argument by citing the most extreme possible example, a religious sect whose goal is to destroy our democracy, destroy Israel, kill infidels, terrorize and behead non-believers, fly planes into buildings, establish a worldwide Caliphate, yadda yadda yadda, as if this has some bearing on Romney’s candidacy? I think it’s incredibly lame and not at all a “valid” example.

On the other hand it is fair to talk about the mentoring of Obama by Jeremiah Wright because that “church” was a Marxist, racist, anti-American cesspool. Meanwhile, I’m not aware of a single Mitt supporter ever using Sarah Palin’s Pentecostal connections as a reason to question her suitability for office. Pentecostals are not without controversy but since she does not impose her private religious beliefs on those she governs, it’s a non-issue, as one would hope it would be for Romney.

As far as “brethren” – I did not follow whatever exchange you are talking about, I was just noting that despite your claims, it does not apply only to religion and is often used for other contexts.

I never made the claim it only has one meaning! But there was no other way to explain his comment in the context of his idiotic comment, something he called me “despicable” for suggesting.

As far as this bit of silliness:
Can you cite a single example of Mitt Romney imposing his religion on anyone as Governor? The Romneys could not be more tolerant of individual choices people make in their lives.

Really? What’s “silly” about that? You go on to say:

I never made that claim and do not make that claim now. I don’t believe Romney ever did do that. Instead, I argued that religious beliefs often inform and instruct people’s political beliefs/philosophy and therefore is fair game to consider in considering a candidate and doing so does not make one a “bigot”.

You contradict yourself. You admit he doesn’t impose his religious philosophy on those he governs, say it’s “silly” of me to mention that he doesn’t do that, but go on to say it’s “fair game” to consider his religious philosophy. So which is it?

I’m not arguing that there is anything wrong with Romney’s religion or Mormons in general. I even – grudgingly – intend to vote for Romney. I’m simply arguing against the sophomoric tactic of calling anyone who considers Romney’s faith when deciding whether to vote for him a “bigot”. Of course we can take someone’s faith into consideration when voting.

Nothing I said was “sophomoric”. ddrintn’s “brethren” remark was not a respectful comment, it was a disparaging jab at his religion. While it’s fair to consider a candidate’s faith and how it would affect his governing philosophy, one would hope one could do it without insulting the candidate or his supporters because of their religion. Since you don’t like that word “bigotry” (which I did not use) is there another word you’d prefer?

Buy Danish on April 30, 2012 at 4:17 PM

Monkeytoe and DDRINTn have been taking some tough punches from BD.

Looks like they played the part of pietranonio…

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/boxing/tony-pietrantonio-takes-punch-ll-remember-long-time-183510057.html

Bradky on April 30, 2012 at 4:42 PM

Buy Danish, I don’t think you understand the point I am trying to make. Perhaps it is my fault.

You contradict yourself. You admit he doesn’t impose his religious philosophy on those he governs, say it’s “silly” of me to mention that he doesn’t do that, but go on to say it’s “fair game” to consider his religious philosophy. So which is it?

There is a difference between considering someone’s religious philosophy as it may relate to his political philosophy versus “imposing” his religion on others. You challenged me to find an example where Romney imposed his religious beliefs on someone else. I said I didn’t think he did and that is irrelevant to the point. And I called it silly because it is completely irrelevant to the point I made and is a complete straw-man non-sequitor.

You contradict yourself. You admit he doesn’t impose his religious philosophy on those he governs, say it’s “silly” of me to mention that he doesn’t do that, but go on to say it’s “fair game” to consider his religious philosophy. So which is it?

there is no contradiction there. I said it was silly of you to claim I was stating that Romney forced his religion on people. That was your implication by challenging me to come up with a time he did it. As I stated, it is a completely irrelevant straw-man argument. I am not saying that you consider a candidates religion because he may impose it on us – I’m saying that religious beliefs tend to inform and drive political beliefs (as well as character) and therefore are a valid issue to consider when voting.

Indeed, You admit I am correct in the point I am making:

While it’s fair to consider a candidate’s faith and how it would affect his governing philosophy, one would hope one could do it without insulting the candidate or his supporters because of their religion. Since you don’t like that word “bigotry” (which I did not use) is there another word you’d prefer?

I don’t like the word bigotry here for the arguments I’ve repeatedly made. It’s a silly claim. It can only be “bigotry” if you believe that considering a candidate’s religious beliefs is somehow off limits. That we aren’t allowed to consider or discuss a candidate’s religious beliefs. I note you say certain things, like Jeremiah Wright, are worthy of consideration. Are you the ultimate arbiter of what religious issues can and cannot be considered when voting?

As far as calling someone a bigot – you might not have said it – I was responding generally after perusing the comments. I see a bunch of pro-Romney people calling anyone who doesn’t like Romney a bigot and I think it is silly and is dragging conservatives down the same sick victim mentality identity politics as the left uses.

As for brethren, as I stated, I was not responding to the actual debate your were having but to your comment where you basically said or implied that the word “brethren” was only used in religious connotations and therefore ipso facto was evidence of some kind of something or other. I was simply pointing out that it is not remotely true that brethren is only used in religious connotations. Whether the other commentator meant it as an insult or not I have no idea, I did not even see what he wrote.

Regardless, why do you believe using the word “brethren” is insulting and derogatory? If someone calls someone else one of Romney’s brethren – that’s insulting? Why?

You think it’s reasonable to bolster your argument by citing the most extreme possible example, a religious sect whose goal is to destroy our democracy, destroy Israel, kill infidels, terrorize and behead non-believers, fly planes into buildings, establish a worldwide Caliphate, yadda yadda yadda, as if this has some bearing on Romney’s candidacy? I think it’s incredibly lame and not at all a “valid” example.

On the other hand it is fair to talk about the mentoring of Obama by Jeremiah Wright because that “church” was a Marxist, racist, anti-American cesspool. Meanwhile, I’m not aware of a single Mitt supporter ever using Sarah Palin’s Pentecostal connections as a reason to question her suitability for office. Pentecostals are not without controversy but since she does not impose her private religious beliefs on those she governs, it’s a non-issue, as one would hope it would be for Romney.

Yes, as I stated I was using an extreme example to make a point – that religious beliefs are fair game. That was exactly my point – if you can use the Wahhabi Imam’s religious beliefs to consider in whether to vote for him, why not Romney’s? That doesn’t mean the two believe even remotely the same things. It’s just pointing out that the rule you seek to impose is, again, silly. If religious beliefs are fair game, they are fair game. Not just the ones YOU say are fair game.

that does not mean I was comparing Romney to Wahhabi. I really don’t know how much clearer to say it. As I said again and again, I plan to vote for Romney. Obviously I don’t think he is a Wahhabi.

Further, I’m not sure what Palin or Pentecostal connections has to do with anything. I would have no problem with someone considering it in determining whether to vote for her if she were running for something. You then say:

she does not impose her private religious beliefs on those she governs, it’s a non-issue, as one would hope it would be for Romney.

Which again misses the point. The issue isn’t whether they “impose” their religious views on others. It is how their religious views inform their own philosophy, values, ideology and character, which in turn can tell us something about how they would govern. You are stuck on this “impose” thing – when I have said nothing about it. I am talking about considering religious faith as part of what one considers in a candidate and I am responding to the general tenor of Romney supporters to start screaming “bigot” or “intolerance” on anyone who dislikes Romney in the first instance, and to anyone who even dares mention LDS in the second. To me, that’s idiotic. Considering someone’s faith in determining whether to vote for them is perfectly valid.

If someone came on and said something like “we should round up all the Mormons” – yes, that is bigotry and should not be tolerated. But, if someone says “I can’t vote for a Mormon candidate for president because Mormons believe ‘X’” which is contrary to my own religious beliefs” – that is perfectly valid. You and I may not like that decision, but it is a valid reason for someone not to vote for a candidate and is not bigotry. People make choices based on their own religious beliefs all the time. Sometimes, one person’s religious beliefs conflicts with another’s. And it is perfectly valid for someone to make a decision based on that conflict of beliefs.

It is no different that someone saying “I am not going to vote for “x” because “x” is pro-choice and abortion is against my religion.”

Monkeytoe on April 30, 2012 at 5:05 PM

Monkeytoe and DDRINTn have been taking some tough punches from BD.

Looks like they played the part of pietranonio…

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/boxing/tony-pietrantonio-takes-punch-ll-remember-long-time-183510057.html

Bradky on April 30, 2012 at 4:42 PM

We are obviously not reading the same english language.

What punches have I taken? BD’s points have wholly missed the mark, are self-contradicting, and don’t respond to my points at all. Except for where he admits I am correct.

Regardless, none of you seem to read what I wrote. I am planning to vote for Romney. I’m taking offense at the pro-Romney crowd trying to turn everything into a leftist game of “call everyone who disagrees with me a bigot”.

Monkeytoe on April 30, 2012 at 5:07 PM

Which again misses the point. The issue isn’t whether they “impose” their religious views on others. It is how their religious views inform their own philosophy, values, ideology and character, which in turn can tell us something about how they would govern. You are stuck on this “impose” thing – when I have said nothing about it. I am talking about considering religious faith as part of

As a follow up, an elected official imposing their religious views on the electorate through law is a completely different issue. That is a discussion of the 1st Amendment and the prohibition of the gov’t from establishing religion, which has been bastardized into the “separation of church and state”. That is not what I am talking about at all.

Back to my point, and trying to use something that doesn’t inflame like the Wahhabi example apparently did, I would want to know, for instance, if a candidate was a Mennonite. Because Mennonites are pacifists. I don’t think I’d be able to vote for a commander in chief whose religion instructed him that the use of force was always wrong. Thus, the person’s faith is clearly valid in that instance to consider when voting. As it is in all instances.

Monkeytoe on April 30, 2012 at 5:16 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3