Say Anything Blog

Rob,

I suggest that a more accurate and appropriate title would be “Romney: No Ethnic or Religious Pandering in My Cabinet.”

I agree that Romney could have handled his answer more clearly and decisively, but this was obviously a “gotcha” question with no other purpose than to stir up controversy and make the candidate look bad.

“Capitalism is optimism monetized.”

His answer was not a good one. I think he was saying that if there was a high percentage of Muslims, he might select a Muslim in order to approve the image of his presidency. Since they are a small percentage (dealing only with selecting for a social group), they are not considered. I think it was a silly answer that reveals how he thinks. It is similar to his comment on what he would do if America suffered a serious attack. He said he would talk to the lawyers. Obviously, he would talk to the lawyers to make sure what he would do in response had legal grounding and justification. But it reveals his thinking process. He is transparent at least…

“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

but this was obviously a “gotcha” question with no other purpose than to stir up controversy and make the candidate look bad.

A “gotcha” question.  This was a softball question.  The answer should of been, “There will be no religious tests for service in my administration.”  He screwed this up all on his own.

The answer should of been, “There will be no religious tests for service in my administration.”

A silly answer.

Have you checked out some of the religions out there in the world?

How about who gives a lick what your religion is, just be qualified and competent?!  A dumb answer to a dumb question.

It was a gotcha question, just a stupid one that Romney should have knocked out of the park. For example, he could have said:

As a business man, I know how important it is to hire the right people to get the job done. It doesn’t matter what their race, gender or religion is if they are the best candidate.

A clear, concise answer that nails home one of the major themes of his campaign (CEO, business man, yada yada yada) while making it clear getting a Muslim in his cabinet is neither a priority nor out of the question.

But the governor does not believe that in order to effectively fight radical jihad you need to have Muslims serving in the Cabinet.”

The idea that you need a muslim in the cabinet to fight Islamic terrorists is beyond absurd.  No serious number of muslims have ever denounced muslim terrorism, so what would make a rational person think that having a muslim would be of any value.  To me permitting muslims to have a significant role in government is much like letting the fox in the hen house.

One of the most important talents for success in politics is the ability to make utter nonsense sound not only plausible but inspiring. Barack Obama has that talent. We will be lucky if we escape the catastrophes into which other countries have been led by leaders with that same charismatic talent.
-Thomas Sowell

ARE THERE SENSIBLE CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVES - CONSIDERATIONS IN THE STRUGGLE FOR HUMAN SURVIVAL

Are sensible categorical imperatives different during war time and peace time?
Example: When can Muslims be hired to check baggage on airlines?

What does the Spanish expression, “The only good Muslim is dead Muslim”, really mean? Hint: Why were all of the Muslims expelled from Spain; and not just the bad ones?