Romney tells Israeli newspaper: The Arab Spring is Obama's fault
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 19, 2024, 06:57:39 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2012 Elections
  Romney tells Israeli newspaper: The Arab Spring is Obama's fault
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3
Author Topic: Romney tells Israeli newspaper: The Arab Spring is Obama's fault  (Read 9749 times)
Mr. Morden
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,073
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: July 27, 2012, 09:48:25 PM »
« edited: July 27, 2012, 09:52:46 PM by Mr. Morden »

http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_article.php?id=5207

So sayeth Romney:

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

So if Obama had been more like Bush, Mubarak would have offered free and fair elections without a fight, and they wouldn't have elected Islamists?
Logged
Joe Biden 2020
BushOklahoma
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 24,921
United States


Political Matrix
E: -4.77, S: 3.48

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: July 27, 2012, 09:56:20 PM »

Romney needs to fly home now and forget this trip.  It's not going too well. Sad
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,570


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: July 27, 2012, 09:58:52 PM »

Imagine the outrage if a Democratic Presidential nominee was lobbing these kind of lame attacks on a Republican President's foreign policy while overseas. The media would destroy them.
Logged
Mr. Morden
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,073
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: July 27, 2012, 10:03:13 PM »

Imagine the outrage if a Democratic Presidential nominee was lobbing these kind of lame attacks on a Republican President's foreign policy while overseas. The media would destroy them.

To be fair, this interview was conducted when Romney was still in the US, just before he left for the UK.  But the newspaper is only publishing it now, when he's about to arrive in Israel.
Logged
Darius_Addicus_Gaius
Rookie
**
Posts: 138
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: July 27, 2012, 10:42:25 PM »

Romney's not allowed to have that view?
Logged
memphis
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,959


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: July 27, 2012, 10:48:08 PM »

A Republican is concerned about the intersection of religion and politics? That's.....interesting.
Logged
Darius_Addicus_Gaius
Rookie
**
Posts: 138
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: July 27, 2012, 10:51:27 PM »

A Republican is concerned about the intersection of religion and politics? That's.....interesting.

What do you mean how so? Religion is politics over there. Are you trying to make a comparison to over here with the religious right? There is no comparison but I'm sure a political point could be scored by blurting that out. When we have car bombings in the name of Jesus taking place on the streets of our country then we'll talk. If that's not what you were trying to get at please explain.
Logged
Mr. Morden
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,073
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: July 27, 2012, 10:55:50 PM »


Of course he's allowed to have it.  It just strikes me as utterly bizarre.  First the GOP insists that the Arab Spring is a vindication of Bush's "freedom agenda" (as put forth in his second inaugural address), but now that Arab Spring has toppled some dictators and we have democratic elections, the fact that some of those elections have brought Islamists to power means that the Arab Spring was actually bad, and if only Obama had asked Mubarak for democratic elections nicely, he would have said yes....and the people wouldn't have elected Islamists?  Explain to me how that would have happened.

What seems to have happened here is that Romney was trying to appeal to his audience in this interview (Israelis and Americans who are nervous about the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt), but couldn't find the right way to thread the needle so that he could agree with them without making it sound like democracy in the Arab world is bad.
Logged
Bacon King
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,820
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.63, S: -9.49

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: July 27, 2012, 11:00:12 PM »

maybe this string of foreign policy gaffes is entirely intentional, in the hopes that everyone will forget about the fact that Romney still hasn't released his taxes
Logged
Darius_Addicus_Gaius
Rookie
**
Posts: 138
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: July 27, 2012, 11:01:47 PM »


Of course he's allowed to have it.  It just strikes me as utterly bizarre.  First the GOP insists that the Arab Spring is a vindication of Bush's "freedom agenda" (as put forth in his second inaugural address), but now that Arab Spring has toppled some dictators and we have democratic elections, the fact that some of those elections have brought Islamists to power means that the Arab Spring was actually bad, and if only Obama had asked Mubarak for democratic elections nicely, he would have said yes....and the people wouldn't have elected Islamists?  Explain to me how that would have happened.

What seems to have happened here is that Romney was trying to appeal to his audience in this interview (Israelis and Americans who are nervous about the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt), but couldn't find the right way to thread the needle so that he could agree with them without making it sound like democracy in the Arab world is bad.


No that's not it. It's good to have free elections. It's bad to elect Islamists. Just because someone is elected to office doesn't mean that the people made the right choice. It just means they won "fair and square." Freedom in the Arab world is good as long as it stays as "freedom." The way I view it is as a work in progress. I don't think Romney would be wrong to call it that either. He's free to take my words too. In politics the bad guys can win.
Logged
H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY
Alfred F. Jones
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,063
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: July 27, 2012, 11:11:10 PM »


Of course he's allowed to have it.  It just strikes me as utterly bizarre.  First the GOP insists that the Arab Spring is a vindication of Bush's "freedom agenda" (as put forth in his second inaugural address), but now that Arab Spring has toppled some dictators and we have democratic elections, the fact that some of those elections have brought Islamists to power means that the Arab Spring was actually bad, and if only Obama had asked Mubarak for democratic elections nicely, he would have said yes....and the people wouldn't have elected Islamists?  Explain to me how that would have happened.

What seems to have happened here is that Romney was trying to appeal to his audience in this interview (Israelis and Americans who are nervous about the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt), but couldn't find the right way to thread the needle so that he could agree with them without making it sound like democracy in the Arab world is bad.


No that's not it. It's good to have free elections. It's bad to elect Islamists. Just because someone is elected to office doesn't mean that the people made the right choice. It just means they won "fair and square." Freedom in the Arab world is good as long as it stays as "freedom." The way I view it is as a work in progress. I don't think Romney would be wrong to call it that either. He's free to take my words too. In politics the bad guys can win.

The elections are free; the elections are fair. The people of Tunisia and Egypt have chosen Islam (I detest the words Islamism and Islamist) and you have no right to interfere with the democratic process.
Logged
memphis
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,959


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: July 27, 2012, 11:32:31 PM »

A Republican is concerned about the intersection of religion and politics? That's.....interesting.

What do you mean how so? Religion is politics over there. Are you trying to make a comparison to over here with the religious right? There is no comparison but I'm sure a political point could be scored by blurting that out. When we have car bombings in the name of Jesus taking place on the streets of our country then we'll talk. If that's not what you were trying to get at please explain.
Religion is politics for the GOP. Is fusing religion with politics is ok with you as long as it doesn't involve violence?
Logged
Darius_Addicus_Gaius
Rookie
**
Posts: 138
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: July 27, 2012, 11:34:50 PM »


Of course he's allowed to have it.  It just strikes me as utterly bizarre.  First the GOP insists that the Arab Spring is a vindication of Bush's "freedom agenda" (as put forth in his second inaugural address), but now that Arab Spring has toppled some dictators and we have democratic elections, the fact that some of those elections have brought Islamists to power means that the Arab Spring was actually bad, and if only Obama had asked Mubarak for democratic elections nicely, he would have said yes....and the people wouldn't have elected Islamists?  Explain to me how that would have happened.

What seems to have happened here is that Romney was trying to appeal to his audience in this interview (Israelis and Americans who are nervous about the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt), but couldn't find the right way to thread the needle so that he could agree with them without making it sound like democracy in the Arab world is bad.


No that's not it. It's good to have free elections. It's bad to elect Islamists. Just because someone is elected to office doesn't mean that the people made the right choice. It just means they won "fair and square." Freedom in the Arab world is good as long as it stays as "freedom." The way I view it is as a work in progress. I don't think Romney would be wrong to call it that either. He's free to take my words too. In politics the bad guys can win.

The elections are free; the elections are fair. The people of Tunisia and Egypt have chosen Islam (I detest the words Islamism and Islamist) and you have no right to interfere with the democratic process.

Ok? I never said I would interfere or that anyone should.
Logged
Darius_Addicus_Gaius
Rookie
**
Posts: 138
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: July 27, 2012, 11:36:40 PM »

A Republican is concerned about the intersection of religion and politics? That's.....interesting.

What do you mean how so? Religion is politics over there. Are you trying to make a comparison to over here with the religious right? There is no comparison but I'm sure a political point could be scored by blurting that out. When we have car bombings in the name of Jesus taking place on the streets of our country then we'll talk. If that's not what you were trying to get at please explain.
Religion is politics for the GOP. Is fusing religion with politics is ok with you as long as it doesn't involve violence?

You'd rather have violence? How is religion politics in the GOP? Please explain. Let me guess you're going to whine about Christmas decorations and mentioning the word God...rolls eyes.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: July 27, 2012, 11:39:17 PM »

Republicans appear to be in favor of democracy only if they like the results.
Logged
mondale84
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,307
United States


Political Matrix
E: -3.23, S: -3.30

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: July 27, 2012, 11:40:25 PM »

A Republican is concerned about the intersection of religion and politics? That's.....interesting.

What do you mean how so? Religion is politics over there. Are you trying to make a comparison to over here with the religious right? There is no comparison but I'm sure a political point could be scored by blurting that out. When we have car bombings in the name of Jesus taking place on the streets of our country then we'll talk. If that's not what you were trying to get at please explain.
Religion is politics for the GOP. Is fusing religion with politics is ok with you as long as it doesn't involve violence?

You'd rather have violence? How is religion politics in the GOP? Please explain. Let me guess you're going to whine about Christmas decorations and mentioning the word God...rolls eyes.

Are you serious right now? If you aren't, please stop. If you are, please get help.
Logged
H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY
Alfred F. Jones
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,063
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: July 27, 2012, 11:44:15 PM »


Of course he's allowed to have it.  It just strikes me as utterly bizarre.  First the GOP insists that the Arab Spring is a vindication of Bush's "freedom agenda" (as put forth in his second inaugural address), but now that Arab Spring has toppled some dictators and we have democratic elections, the fact that some of those elections have brought Islamists to power means that the Arab Spring was actually bad, and if only Obama had asked Mubarak for democratic elections nicely, he would have said yes....and the people wouldn't have elected Islamists?  Explain to me how that would have happened.

What seems to have happened here is that Romney was trying to appeal to his audience in this interview (Israelis and Americans who are nervous about the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt), but couldn't find the right way to thread the needle so that he could agree with them without making it sound like democracy in the Arab world is bad.


No that's not it. It's good to have free elections. It's bad to elect Islamists. Just because someone is elected to office doesn't mean that the people made the right choice. It just means they won "fair and square." Freedom in the Arab world is good as long as it stays as "freedom." The way I view it is as a work in progress. I don't think Romney would be wrong to call it that either. He's free to take my words too. In politics the bad guys can win.

The elections are free; the elections are fair. The people of Tunisia and Egypt have chosen Islam (I detest the words Islamism and Islamist) and you have no right to interfere with the democratic process.

Ok? I never said I would interfere or that anyone should.

You said that it was bad who the Tunisians and Egyptians elected.
Logged
Darius_Addicus_Gaius
Rookie
**
Posts: 138
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: July 27, 2012, 11:58:34 PM »


Of course he's allowed to have it.  It just strikes me as utterly bizarre.  First the GOP insists that the Arab Spring is a vindication of Bush's "freedom agenda" (as put forth in his second inaugural address), but now that Arab Spring has toppled some dictators and we have democratic elections, the fact that some of those elections have brought Islamists to power means that the Arab Spring was actually bad, and if only Obama had asked Mubarak for democratic elections nicely, he would have said yes....and the people wouldn't have elected Islamists?  Explain to me how that would have happened.

What seems to have happened here is that Romney was trying to appeal to his audience in this interview (Israelis and Americans who are nervous about the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt), but couldn't find the right way to thread the needle so that he could agree with them without making it sound like democracy in the Arab world is bad.


No that's not it. It's good to have free elections. It's bad to elect Islamists. Just because someone is elected to office doesn't mean that the people made the right choice. It just means they won "fair and square." Freedom in the Arab world is good as long as it stays as "freedom." The way I view it is as a work in progress. I don't think Romney would be wrong to call it that either. He's free to take my words too. In politics the bad guys can win.

The elections are free; the elections are fair. The people of Tunisia and Egypt have chosen Islam (I detest the words Islamism and Islamist) and you have no right to interfere with the democratic process.

Ok? I never said I would interfere or that anyone should.

You said that it was bad who the Tunisians and Egyptians elected.

It is but it's out of our control. I never said to interfere though. No one should think I was suggesting that.
Logged
Mr. Morden
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,073
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: July 28, 2012, 12:04:33 AM »


Of course he's allowed to have it.  It just strikes me as utterly bizarre.  First the GOP insists that the Arab Spring is a vindication of Bush's "freedom agenda" (as put forth in his second inaugural address), but now that Arab Spring has toppled some dictators and we have democratic elections, the fact that some of those elections have brought Islamists to power means that the Arab Spring was actually bad, and if only Obama had asked Mubarak for democratic elections nicely, he would have said yes....and the people wouldn't have elected Islamists?  Explain to me how that would have happened.

What seems to have happened here is that Romney was trying to appeal to his audience in this interview (Israelis and Americans who are nervous about the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt), but couldn't find the right way to thread the needle so that he could agree with them without making it sound like democracy in the Arab world is bad.


No that's not it. It's good to have free elections. It's bad to elect Islamists. Just because someone is elected to office doesn't mean that the people made the right choice. It just means they won "fair and square." Freedom in the Arab world is good as long as it stays as "freedom." The way I view it is as a work in progress. I don't think Romney would be wrong to call it that either. He's free to take my words too. In politics the bad guys can win.

You're arguing against a point that I didn't make.  I'm specifically talking about how Romney suggested that if Obama had pressed Mubarak for democratic elections, that a) he would have agreed, and b) they wouldn't have elected Islamists.  Explain how that's at all realistic.
Logged
Free Palestine
FallenMorgan
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,022
United States
Political Matrix
E: -10.00, S: -10.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: July 28, 2012, 12:06:50 AM »

Oh f#ck Romney.
Logged
Darius_Addicus_Gaius
Rookie
**
Posts: 138
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: July 28, 2012, 12:15:35 AM »


Of course he's allowed to have it.  It just strikes me as utterly bizarre.  First the GOP insists that the Arab Spring is a vindication of Bush's "freedom agenda" (as put forth in his second inaugural address), but now that Arab Spring has toppled some dictators and we have democratic elections, the fact that some of those elections have brought Islamists to power means that the Arab Spring was actually bad, and if only Obama had asked Mubarak for democratic elections nicely, he would have said yes....and the people wouldn't have elected Islamists?  Explain to me how that would have happened.

What seems to have happened here is that Romney was trying to appeal to his audience in this interview (Israelis and Americans who are nervous about the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt), but couldn't find the right way to thread the needle so that he could agree with them without making it sound like democracy in the Arab world is bad.


No that's not it. It's good to have free elections. It's bad to elect Islamists. Just because someone is elected to office doesn't mean that the people made the right choice. It just means they won "fair and square." Freedom in the Arab world is good as long as it stays as "freedom." The way I view it is as a work in progress. I don't think Romney would be wrong to call it that either. He's free to take my words too. In politics the bad guys can win.

You're arguing against a point that I didn't make.  I'm specifically talking about how Romney suggested that if Obama had pressed Mubarak for democratic elections, that a) he would have agreed, and b) they wouldn't have elected Islamists.  Explain how that's at all realistic.


What point is that? Maybe Mubarak would've agreed but we'll never know. Welcome to politics where one politician makes things sound so easy in order to belittle his opponent. Both parties do that.
Logged
So rightwing that I broke the Political Compass!
Rockingham
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 547


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: July 28, 2012, 12:46:10 AM »

A Republican is concerned about the intersection of religion and politics? That's.....interesting.

What do you mean how so? Religion is politics over there. Are you trying to make a comparison to over here with the religious right? There is no comparison but I'm sure a political point could be scored by blurting that out. When we have car bombings in the name of Jesus taking place on the streets of our country then we'll talk. If that's not what you were trying to get at please explain.
The one's doing the car bombings aren't the "Islamists" getting elected to high office though. The Tunisian "Islamist" party in particular seems quite harmless- not meaningfully more theocratic then the Republican party in states like Utah.
Logged
Free Palestine
FallenMorgan
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,022
United States
Political Matrix
E: -10.00, S: -10.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: July 28, 2012, 12:54:29 AM »

A Republican is concerned about the intersection of religion and politics? That's.....interesting.

What do you mean how so? Religion is politics over there. Are you trying to make a comparison to over here with the religious right? There is no comparison but I'm sure a political point could be scored by blurting that out. When we have car bombings in the name of Jesus taking place on the streets of our country then we'll talk. If that's not what you were trying to get at please explain.
The one's doing the car bombings aren't the "Islamists" getting elected to high office though. The Tunisian "Islamist" party in particular seems quite harmless- not meaningfully more theocratic then the Republican party in states like Utah.

They're actually pretty progressive.

It's important to remember that the ruling party in Turkey is Islamist.  Islamism doesn't necessarily have a worse connotation than Christian Democracy (like Merkel's party).

Ok and what's your point? I don't think anyone ever suggest the U.S. was an imperialist nation for looking out for our own interests. Are you saying we are? If not then what is your point?

What that fellow was saying was that democracy doesn't deserve to be defended unless it promotes things that America likes.
Logged
Mr. Morden
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,073
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: July 28, 2012, 12:56:16 AM »

Welcome to politics where one politician makes things sound so easy in order to belittle his opponent. Both parties do that.

Welcome to the Atlas forum, where we discuss the foolishness of such dumb accusations, like the one Romney made here.  Wink
Logged
Darius_Addicus_Gaius
Rookie
**
Posts: 138
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: July 28, 2012, 12:58:53 AM »

Welcome to politics where one politician makes things sound so easy in order to belittle his opponent. Both parties do that.

Welcome to the Atlas forum, where we discuss the foolishness of such dumb accusations, like the one Romney made here.  Wink


What was the accusation?
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.061 seconds with 13 queries.