In all fairness to Mitt Romney, the news of his refusal to have a Muslim in his cabinet is nothing more than a headline grabbing stunt by the media. It is wrong to insinuate th at he wouldn’t have a Muslim in his cabinet, when the question was not as generic as one supposes from the headline.
The question was, would he have or feel the need to have a Muslim in his Cabinet ‘to help fight the extreme jihadists‘. His answer was, in my mind, the right one. NO.
ST. PETERSBURG, FL — At an availability with reporters here, Romney answered questions about today’s report suggesting that he would not appoint Muslims to his Cabinet. “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.” (source)
And the people in the media wonder why they aren’t trusted?
Seems to me that these days, the media is the story when it should simply be reporters informing people what others are saying or doing. It shouldn’t be about creating circulation or attention. Yet that is exactly what today’s media does, by mis-representing the truth, or creating an illusion that isn’t true.
Headlines are to grab a reader’s / viewer’s attention, but do they have to be misleading to accomplish that?
Instead of playing these stupid games, how about attacking the issues? Why make up stupid questions, designed to simply create a media flurry. This is about someone wanting to be President, and frankly whether it is Mitt Romney, Barak Obama, or Hilary Clinton, the media should be focussing on their policies, their platforms. Not whether or not a indicted ex police commissioner was a good con or speculating on whether Rudy Guiliani was aware of his dark side. Nor should it speculate on whether a judicial appointment by Mitt Romney was known to be a liberal or not.
The questions should be simple. Did Rudy Guiliani know that Kerick was a crook? If not, then let us move on. Did Mitt Romney know that his judicial appointment was going to release a known murderer, or had a yen to be lenient? If not, then let us move on.
I want to know why Mitt Romney wants to place his religious beliefs above another’s civil rights.
I want to know why Rudy Guiliani supported same sex marriage, now doesn’t.
I want to know why Rudy Guiliani supported a woman’s right to choice, and now supports making abortion harder for a woman to obtain.
I want to know how Mitt Romney can explain how he was proud of the cities in his state that supported Illegal Immigration, and who now professes to want to stop any city from being a sanctuary city.
These are the issues, and not mis representing what a man says. His answer to the question makes perfect sense. You don’t need to have a Muslim in cabinet to know how to deal with Islamic Extremists. The real question should be:
How does he plan to deal with Islamic Terrorism from extreme Muslims?
Mitt Romney Campaign Site
Rudy Guiliani Campaign Site