|
Romney, warmist?
John Dempsey writes:
If Mitt Romney is, as you say, the Republican with the best chance of defeating Obama, I think he may have exponentially decreased his prospects by stating the following in New Hampshire yesterday:LA replies:
I’m amazed that he would say this. Given the current state of the warming issue, in which Republicans such as Pawlenty who have previously taken a pro-warming position have had to back away from it now that so many of the warming claims have been shown to be false or fraudulent, this is almost the political equivalent of saying he’s for Obamacare. For him to make such a statement, without even qualifying it by referencing the fact that leading warmist claims have been discredited over the last couple of years, also suggests that he hasn’t even been aware of that extremely important development.John Dempsey replies:
It was quite a shocker. It sounds like something that might have come from the pandering of Newt Gingrich in one of his early morning epiphanies, but not Romney. I think it will be very harmful to his candidacy.LA replies:
Except who the heck does he think he’s pandering to? A vast hidden Republican base that believes in global warming? LA writes:
The worst thing that Romney has said was his statement to a reporter in June 2009 that jihadism has absolutely nothing to do with Islam. This goes beyond all other delusional statements about Islam that Westerners have made. The “conservatives” position on Islam is that Islam is fine, except for that tiny minority of jihadists who have “perverted” the religion. The left’s position on Islam is that Islam is fine, period, and if some Muslims adopt an extremist version of their religion and commit terrorist acts from time to time, it is because they have been driven to it by American / Israeli / Western oppression. But Romney took the unique stand of stating categorically that jihadism is an entirely separate entity from Islam. This suggests deeply delusional thought patterns (which, in the view of reader M. Mason in the above linked thread, are connected with Mormonism).John Dempsey writes:
I didn’t recall the Romney quote on jihadism vs. Islam that you posted. All I can say is “wow.” It floored me, even though it shouldn’t have been all that surprising. After all, that is the quintessential neocon position, isn’t it?LA replies:
No. It is WORSE than the neocon position. The neocon position, or rather the mainstream conservative position, is that jihadism is a perverted form of Islam. The Romney position is that jihadism is an entirely separate entity from Islam, that jihadism has NOTHING to do with Islam. Romney’s position is uniquely delusional.John Dempsey replies: I don’t know that this is entirely accurate. What about the Pentagon’s report on the actions of Maj. Nidal Hasan? They kept total separation between jihad and Islam. The fact that Hasan was a Muslim strictly prohibited them from even mentioning his jihadist actions at Ft. Hood, even as he shouted “Allahu akbar” during the rampage. They turned themselves inside-out in order to avoid any connection.LA replies:
The Pentagon report on the Fort Hood massacre did not separate Islam and jihadism; it simply covered up both of them. It didn’t even mention that Hasan was a Muslim, let alone that he was an outspoken jihadist.James N. writes:
I’ve never been a fan of Mitt Romney as a potential President. Posted by Lawrence Auster at June 04, 2011 10:08 AM | Send Email entry |