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

[Darius_Addicus_Gaius]

Romney's not allowed to have that view?

[Darius_Addicus_Gaius]

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.

[Darius_Addicus_Gaius]

Romney's not allowed to have that view?

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.

[Darius_Addicus_Gaius]

Romney's not allowed to have that view?

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.

[Darius_Addicus_Gaius]

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.

[Darius_Addicus_Gaius]

Romney's not allowed to have that view?

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.

[Darius_Addicus_Gaius]

Romney's not allowed to have that view?

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.

[Darius_Addicus_Gaius]

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.  

What was the accusation?

[Darius_Addicus_Gaius]

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.  

What was the accusation?

The accusation that Obama caused the Arab Spring, and led to the election of Islamists in the Arab world, by not simply asking dictators like Mubarak to hold free elections.

No one accused him of that.