| Written by N.Z. | |
| Thursday, 02 August 2007 | |
| This morning, Ed Morrisey and I had the opportunity to interview former Massachusetts governor and current presidential contender Mitt Romney. We started with a discussion of Governor Romney's new "Surge of Support for the Troops " initiative, and continued into an overall discussion of the war effort. You can download the audio by clicking here (3MB mp3) or can listen online by simply clicking on the button below. I've also transcribed some key statements from the Governor below. Thanks to Governor Romney for taking the time to speak with us, and we hope to conduct similar interviews with other candidates in the near future. On what Americans should know about the surge:
On Iran and whether he believes Iran sees a stable Iraq as in their best interest: I think we would try and convince them that a stable Iraq is in their interest, but I think they have to be of two minds, because they have to say that anything that hurts America, they like. And of course the messier and the uglier Iraq is, the better they feel about it. They also of course are making a play to become the hegemonic power in the Middle East by achieving nuclear weaponry. And so I think that while a student of history in the Middle East might tell them that it would not be good idea for Iraq to erupt in massive civil war --- it might spill over your borders, you're going to have an enormous number of refugees coming to Iran from Iraq and that would not be good for you, that while those things might be true, and I'm sure weigh on their minds, they also have to recognize that they have a deep desire to destabilize or to weaken rather America and our strength in the region, and to be seen as a great champion of the Shia people in Iraq... they after all are providing improvised explosive devices, and have been providing as well apparently some military resources to help the insurgency as well as sectarian violence in Iraq. So I'm not as sanguine about them being our friend in this regard, I'd like to try to help them become convinced to become a factor towards stability. But I have to admit that my view is that Iran is one of the great threats that the world faces. That their jihadist philosophy, Ahmendijad's denial of the Holocaust, these combine to suggest that they are a very dangerous nation led by an evil person.On Ahmedinijad and Barak Obama: I do not agree with Barak Obama that the President of the United States in his first year of office ought to make a personal visit to Ahmedinijad. This is a person who ought to be indicted under the genocide convention for incitation to genocide. This is a person who should be shunned by the entire world, not dignified by a visit by the President of the United States. Comments (17)   written by David Pyle, August 02, 2007 Wonderful. This man is wonderful and will make an excellent President and comments like this only serve to cement that opinion.  written by Theo Marvin, August 02, 2007 Bring them home now. I cannot support any candidate who won't make that commitment.  written by Mark Bailey, August 02, 2007 The Iraqis know they are NOT a free people. Neither did they ever really ask for democracy. Our example won't make them want it any more. And of we think that dropping a few bombs on Iran will pacify them, we will be instead involved in a country that's more than double the size and population of Iraq. Both countries deserve their own government, not one sponsored by Exxon/Mobil.  written by David Walser, August 02, 2007 Thank you for the interview. It's good to hear candidates discuss serious issues at length. Very well done.  written by Jeff Brennan, August 02, 2007 Hey Theo and Mark At least give Mitt (and the interviewers) a thumbs up for getting a candidate to clearly articulate a position on something important. I mean the difference between this Victory Caucus & Mitt conversation and the YouTube Video Q&A with the Democrats is pretty dramatic. Better yet, be as honest as Mitt is about your position on the war. You don't really want the troops home or for us to give the Iraqi's what they really want. You want the President Bush led war to fail because you loathe him beyond measure. I'd respect that statement a lot more than the gibberish you posted. At least you had the guts to put a name with it.  written by Carolyn Goldstein, August 02, 2007 I think, that Governor Romney presents the right and knowledgeable approach. Furthermore, he returns a sadly, if not desperately, needed civility to the political arena.  written by AJ Gunderson, August 03, 2007 Ive got to hand it to Gov. Romney here....this man knows what he is talking about. I hear leadership in his voice. I agree with all that was said and believe that this man could solidify our status of the greatest nation on earth. Great interview!  written by El-ahrairah, August 03, 2007 Theo, What part of leaving to soon is bad for the Iraqis and the United States don't you understand. Just saying that you want the troops home now without considering the consequences shows your total lack of understanding of world history, or to paraphrase Governor Romney, "your naivity is showing". Mark, You forgot to throw in there "Bush Lied! People Died!". Next time you want to spew anti-war, Democratic talking points, try and do it the right way. Oh, BTW, explain to me that if we invaded Iraq because to steal Iraqi oil, why is the price of oil more now than when we invaded? If the whole reason of the invasion was to take the Iraqi oil for the United States, shouldn't the price of oil be cheaper now? Oops, I forgot, it's all part of some evil Karl Rove secret plot that only tin-hat wearers like yourself have been able to decypher, right? I guess when the mothership comes to take you away, we'll all know the truth, right? written by Theo Marvin, August 03, 2007 Yes, I'm among the 65 percent of Americans who disapprove of George Bush's performance, and I thought the war was ill-advised from the beginning. I wonder: how many of you would be willing to give Bill Clinton the benefit of the doubt after 4 years of outrageous blunders and mismanagement in what's billed as so important a battle? Agreed: thumbs up to Victory Caucus for pinning Romney down on something. That's quite a feat.  written by Jonn, August 03, 2007 Mark: These guys have done a nice job of putting you in your place but a few more comments are in order. The people of Iraq and Iran do deserve their own governments, but what makes you think the regime of Ahmadinejad is wanted by the Iranian people? Or the bloody reign of Saddam was actually chosen by the Iraqis? Every human desires freedom, and the best government system to put that in place is democracy. So of course they want it. Is that not apparent by their voting en masse (better turnout then American elections)? And what about the Iraqi people rising up to participate in the fight against Al Qaeda? The Iraqi battalions and police are becoming more reliable and the citizens are turning against Al Qaeda oppression in their provinces. (btw, nice work El-ahrairah) Not only do they want freedom and democracy, but they are fighting for it. Oil companies have little to do with it. Do your research before espousing liberal talking points.  written by submandave, August 03, 2007 "I thought the war was ill-advised from the beginning" I will assume by "war" you are referring to the Iraq campaign. I'm curious as to your answers to a few questions: - Did you believe in 2002/2003 that Saddam Hussein either still had the WMD previously inventoried by UNSCOM or still had a weapons production capability? If not, upon what basis was this opinion formed? - If you believed Saddam had WMD/production capability, did you deem, post-9/11, that potential for him to use such weapons/knowledge to aid our enemies an acceptable risk? - If you did not believe Saddam had WMD/production capability, did you expect him to again pursue such weapons if sanctions were lifted? If not, upon what basis was this opinion formed? - Did you support UNSCR 1441, requiring Saddam to provide full accounting of his WMDs and programs? If so, what "serious consequences" other than regime change do you think would have been appropriate given Iraq's non-compliance? Do you think such lesser measures would have helped bolster the UN's and US's credibility or reinforced the impression of both as toothless paper tigers? - Given what we now know about Iraq's bribes via the Oil-for-Food programs, do you believe major benefactors (including France and Russia) would have supported your proposed actions? - If you did not favor forcible regime change, what was your preferred course of action vis-a-vis Iraq? Do you think we should have continued sanctions indefinitely? Should we have vetoed any UNSCR to lift sanctions? - If you preferred a containment approach to Saddam and Iraq, discuss the effects that having an intact Ba'athist Iraq requiring prolonged military presence would have on potential military options available to counter a nuclear Iran? Saddam was an enemy of the US and the battle for Iraq was a battle that had to be fought sometime. I think choosing to fight that battle before Iran achieved her nuclear ambitions was the right choice. I am not saying that military action against Iran is inevitable, but it is certainly a real possibility, and having a presence in Iraq from which to stage such action is a much better position of strength than having military assets tied up with containing a hostile army on the western flank of the area of operations. In fact, the stronger our military position is, the less likely military action against Iran becomes. Realistically, there is no victory scenario in the GWOT that includes an Iran or Iraq (or probably Syria and possibly KSA) under the same political regime as pre-9/11. Our goal is to effect such changes as peacefully as possible, but we must be ready to respond militarilly when necessary. Breaking up the Taliban and denying Al Queda its safe harbor was a necessity. Likewise, it was essential to have Saddam and the Ba'athists out of power in Iraq before Iran achieved its nuclear ambitions. Neither of these were possible through non-military measures. written by Theo Marvin, August 03, 2007 Response to submandave: Thank you for the lengthy exam. The issue is really much less complicated than you've tried to make it. I believed from the beginning that a badly executed war would have worse consequences, in terms of our prospects in the "GWOT," than no war at all. I didn't trust George Bush's competence to execute a war effectively, so I didn't support the war. He's wonderful as the cheerleader-in-chief. But a chief executive he isn't. Which is why it's so important that we get it right in 2008. Again, kudos to Victory Caucus for providing this forum.  written by willis, August 03, 2007 "Both countries deserve their own government, not one sponsored by Exxon/Mobil." How do they get their own government, Mark? The one in Iran seized power in a revolution and decides what candidates the populace can vote on. The one is Iraq selected its on candidates and voted them into office. How does Exxon fit into this?  written by Geoff B, August 03, 2007 Theo, I notice you did not respond to submandave's questions. This is pretty typical of war opponents. They were "against it from the beginning" and are "against war." But of course when faced with the complicated facts of the actual history involved before the war they cannot come up with answers or alternatives. Life is about making difficult choices in complicated circumstances -- it should not be about criticizing the people who make those difficult decisions afterwards claiming that you always knew better. As for Romney's answers, they are of course well-presented and thoughtful. He will make a great president. I hope we are smart enough to elect him. written by Theo Marvin, August 03, 2007 Geoff, Again, I'm not "against war." What I'm against is callow and shockingly incompetent leaders taking us into wars that they're utterly unprepared to win. "Life is about making difficult choices in complicated circumstances." How does this noble-sounding rot square with the portrait of the administration's shoddy war planning that emerges in "Fiasco" or "The Assassin's Gate"? But the responsibility is never with those who actually make the policies, is it? It's obviously the fault of those who dare to criticize.  written by R H Martin, August 03, 2007 1/2 of me admires Romney - he did indeed articulate a position on Iraq that is clear, well thought out and better expressed than those of other candidates. The other 1/2 of me feels sorry for him. He just decided to tie himself to a 1 ton anchor and go swimming. The bald political fact is that a position to "stay the course" or something like it has already sunk McCain and will sink anyone foolish enough to follow his example. Add to that the mess over Gonzalez, the NSA surveillance program, the wreckage of the financial health of the federal treasury etc. etc. and what it adds up to is that any Republican candidate who tries to lug Bush and Cheny with them through the campaign is doomed. The Repiublican who rejects Bush and Cheney utterly and offers a credible conservative alternative has a chance in the general election - the elctorate is not as liberal as some Democrats would like to think, but unless a Republican gives them a respectable conservative alternative, the inevitable result will be a return to Democratic control of both the Executive and Legislative branches. |
Mitt Romney: The Victory Caucus Interview
The Fourth Republican Debate From Des Moines, Iowa
Local Coverage Of The Debate
Saturday, Aug 04, 2007 02:05 PM EDT
Click here to find out what time the debate will be broadcast on your local ABC station.
New on Mitt TV: "Why The Ames Straw Poll Is Important"
Saturday, Aug 04, 2007 02:00 PM EDTWhat They're Really Saying About Governor Romney's Campaign: Selected YouTube Videos
Saturday, Aug 04, 2007 01:32 PM EDT
Jim Cramer: Romney "Best Business Man In North America"
Lee Iacocca Praises Gov. Mitt Romney
Halperin: Governor Romney Best Funded And Best Organized
Forbes: Gov. Romney "Right On Target"
Todd: No One Has Run A Better Campaign Than Romney
Brinkley: There's a Bit of the Reagan Shine on Romney
Hewitt on Gov. Romney
Jim Cramer: Romney "Best Business Man In North America"
Lee Iacocca Praises Gov. Mitt Romney
Halperin: Governor Romney Best Funded And Best Organized
Forbes: Gov. Romney "Right On Target"
Todd: No One Has Run A Better Campaign Than Romney
Brinkley: There's a Bit of the Reagan Shine on Romney
Hewitt on Gov. Romney
The Romney Agenda: Selected YouTube Videos
Saturday, Aug 04, 2007 01:20 PM EDT
Gov. Romney: A Surge Of Support For Our Troops
Governor Romney: Time To Shore Up Ethics In Washington
Governor Mitt Romney: "There are a lot of things about Washington that give me real pause. One, by the way, is just watching the scandalous behavior that has been alleged on both sides of the aisle, but frankly I'm particularly disappointed in our own. ... [W]e'll see how many are accurate, but I think we're going to have to find a way to demand a higher standard. There is no excuse for unethical conduct on the part of people who go to Washington to serve this country. One thing I'd like to add, if I'm lucky enough to be President, I will fight for a provision, for a law, which says that if you're convicted of a crime as a government employee or an appointee – you're convicted of a crime that involves violation of the public trust, you've done some kind of abuse of your position – that you get stripped of your pension. A lot of people go [to Washington] for pensions. We're going to take away their pensions if they violate our trust." (Governor Mitt Romney, Remarks At An Ask Mitt Anything, Urbandale, IA, 8/2/07)
Governor Romney On Protecting Our Children
Governor Romney: Conservatism Is A Philosophy Of Strength
Governor Romney: "Conservatism, Republicanism, it's a philosophy of strength. We believe in a strong military. We believe in a strong economy. We believe in strong families and values. We believe in the American people. ... The American people, of course, are the source of our strength – hard working, educated, risk taking, opportunity loving, God fearing American people. People who are willing to sacrifice for their families. People who will give of themselves for freedom, who love America. They've always been the source of our strength and they always will be!" (Governor Mitt Romney, Remarks At The 2007 Young Republican National Convention, Hollywood, FL, 7/7/07)
Governor Romney On The Republican Three-Legged Stool
Governor Romney: "I speak about three-legs to the Republican stool being necessary to win a general election, which is a conservative base in terms of military, economic and family and family values. ... I think we're better if we have a three-legged stool and if we have all parts of our campaign focused on those issues and that's exactly what I intend to do." (Fox News' "America's Newsroom," 6/6/07)
Governor Romney: Benchmarks for Washington
Governor Romney: "We're also going to have to do something we talk about in Iraq. We all talked about benchmarks. Well, how about benchmarks in Washington? Let's lay out what we're going to get done, and instead of just talking about the same old same old, let's streamline and make Washington more efficient." (Fox News Channel, Republican Presidential Candidate Debate, Columbia, SC, 5/15/07)
Governor Romney: Border Security Is Number One
Governor Romney: "[T]he people I speak with as I go to Republican events agree with me that there are three key rules that we have to follow. One is, we have to secure the border. Two is, we have to have an employment verification system to know who's here legally and who's not here legally. That's only fair to the employers to know who is who. And then, finally, for those people that are here illegally today, while it may be fine for them to apply for citizenship and to apply for permanent residency, that they should do so in line with everyone else and they should be given no advantage, no special privilege by having come here illegally." (Fox News' "Your World," 5/24/07)
Governor Romney: Reach Beyond The Shallow Water
Governor Romney: "If there ever was a time for great Americans, great and good Americans, Americans who are willing to cross into the deep waters of life, it is now. You cross into the deep waters of life by marrying and raising good children. There is no work more important to America's future than the work that is done within the four walls of the American home. ..." (Governor Mitt Romney, Remarks At Regent University, Virginia Beach, VA, 5/5/07)
Governor Romney: Making Savings Tax Free
Governor Romney: "I'd like middle-income Americans to be able to save their money and not have to pay any tax at all on interest, dividends or capital gains." (MSNBC, Republican Presidential Candidate Debate, Simi Valley, CA, 5/3/07)
New York Times: Romney Defends His Faith
August 4, 2007, 12:48 pm
Romney Defends His Faith
A clip of Republican Mitt Romney in a contentious exchange with a conservative Des Moines radio host over his Mormon beliefs is making the rounds today, offering something of a different critique about his religious faith.
Mr. Romney was interviewed on Thursday morning by Jan Mickelson, of WHO, who essentially challenged him on whether he was really a devout Mormon, a bit of a change from the usual questioning about his beliefs.
Mr. Mickelson pointed to Mormon doctrine discouraging abortion and questioned how Mr. Romney could have ever supported abortion rights. Until some two-and-a-half years ago, Mr. Romney has said that he was "effectively pro-choice," vowing to protect the law of the land in Massachusetts allowing abortion. But in a conversion story he has told many times at this point, when his state began debating the cloning of human embryos for stem cell research, he changed his view.
Much of the exchange occurred when they are not on the air, but the radio show had a camera that was taping Mr. Romney, something he clearly did not know.
In the video clip, Mr. Romney seems clearly irritated that Mr. Mickelson is trying to inform him of the particulars of his church's beliefs.
Mr. Romney explained that while his church bars individual members from getting abortions or encouraging that practice on a personal basis, it is an entirely different matter when it comes to the stances Mormons who are public officials take. He gives the example that he is barred as a member of the church from drinking alcohol, but that does not mean he should make that the law of the land for others.
Mr. Mickelson also questioned Mr. Romney about his knowledge of other aspects of Mormon beliefs, including whether Jesus Christ will appear in his second coming in Missouri.
Mr. Mickelson's point was that Mr. Romney should not be distancing himself from his church's beliefs because that is even more of a turnoff for Christian conservatives who disagree with Mormon theology.
But Mr. Romney lashed back that Mr. Mickelson is "trying to tell me I'm not a faithful Mormon."
This is actually a question that comes up with surprising regularity among Christian conservatives on the trail, who wonder if Mr. Romney is a "cafeteria Mormon" and not even faithful to his own church. It is illustrative of the delicate balancing act that Mr. Romney must do with regard to his faith among Christian conservatives he is courting who are troubled by his church's teachings.
Mr. Romney assured Mr. Mickelson that he is committed to his church, pointing out he served as bishop of his ward, the Mormon equivalent of a Roman Catholic parish, and president of his stake, a collection of wards.
But he pointed out, as he has time and time again, that he is not "running as a Mormon," so the specific doctrines of his church should not be a part of the discussion.
Here is the link.
Pakistan Fires Back At Obama
Officials Criticize Presidential Hopeful For 'Irresponsible' Comments on Military Strikes
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan, Aug. 3, 2007
Pakistani protesters burn a U.S. flag to condemn U.S. presidential hopeful Barack Obama's remarks, Friday, Aug. 3, 2007, in Karachi, Pakistan. Pakistan criticized Obama for saying that, if elected, he might order unilateral military strikes inside this Islamic nation to root out terrorists. (AP Photo/Shakil Adil)
Pakistan Fires Back At Obama
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan, Aug. 3, 2007
(AP) Pakistan criticized U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama on Friday for saying that, if elected, he might order unilateral military strikes against terrorists hiding in this Islamic country.
Top Pakistan officials said Obama's comment was irresponsible and likely made for political gain in the race for the Democratic nomination.
"It's a very irresponsible statement, that's all I can say," Pakistan's Foreign Minister Khusheed Kasuri told AP Television News. "As the election campaign in America is heating up we would not like American candidates to fight their elections and contest elections at our expense."
Also Friday, a senior Pakistani official condemned another presidential hopeful, Colorado Republican Tom Tancredo, for saying the best way he could think of to deter a nuclear terrorist attack on the U.S. would be to threaten to retaliate by bombing the holiest Islamic sites of Mecca and Medina.
Obama said in a speech Wednesday that as president he would order military action against terrorists in Pakistan's tribal region bordering Afghanistan if intelligence warranted it. The comment provoked anger in Pakistan, a key ally of the United States in its war on terror.
Many analysts believe that top Taliban and al Qaeda leaders, including Osama bin Laden, are hiding in the region after escaping the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan in 2001.
President Gen. Pervez Musharraf has come under growing pressure from Washington to do more to tackle the alleged al Qaeda havens in Pakistan. The Bush administration has not ruled out military strikes, but still stresses the importance of cooperating with Pakistan.
"There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again," Obama said. "If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf will not act, we will."
The Associated Press of Pakistan reported Friday that Musharraf was asked at a dinner at Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz's house on Thursday about the potential of U.S. military operations in Pakistan. Musharraf told guests that Pakistan was "fully capable" of tackling terrorists in the country and did not need foreign assistance.
Deputy Information Minister Tariq Azim said no foreign forces would be allowed to enter Pakistan, and called Obama irresponsible.
"I think those who make such statements are not aware of our contribution" in the fight on terrorism, he said.
Pakistan used to be a main backer of the Taliban, but it threw its support behind Washington following the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks.
Since then, Pakistan has deployed about 90,000 troops in its tribal regions, mostly in lawless North and South Waziristan, and has lost hundreds of troops in fighting with militants there.
But a controversial strategy to make peace with militants and use tribesmen to police Waziristan has fueled U.S. fears that al Qaeda has been given space to regroup.
In Pakistan's national assembly on Friday, Minister for Parliamentary Affairs Sher Afgan said he would bring on a debate next week on recent criticism of Pakistan from several quarters in the U.S., including Tancredo's remarks.
It was a matter of "grave concern that U.S. presidential candidates are using unethical and immoral tactics against Islam and Pakistan to win their election," Afghan said.
Tancredo told about 30 people at a town hall meeting in Osceola, Iowa, on Tuesday that he believes that a nuclear terrorist attack on the U.S. could be imminent and that the U.S. needs to hurry up and think of a way to stop it.
"If it is up to me, we are going to explain that an attack on this homeland of that nature would be followed by an attack on the holy sites in Mecca and Medina. Because that's the only thing I can think of that might deter somebody from doing what they otherwise might do," he said.
Pakistan Fires Back At Obama
Officials Criticize Presidential Hopeful For 'Irresponsible' Comments on Military Strikes
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan, Aug. 3, 2007 Pakistani protesters burn a U.S. flag to condemn U.S. presidential hopeful Barack Obama's remarks, Friday, Aug. 3, 2007, in Karachi, Pakistan. Pakistan criticized Obama for saying that, if elected, he might order unilateral military strikes inside this Islamic nation to root out terrorists. (AP Photo/Shakil Adil) Pakistan Fires Back At Obama
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan, Aug. 3, 2007
(AP) Pakistan criticized U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama on Friday for saying that, if elected, he might order unilateral military strikes against terrorists hiding in this Islamic country.
Top Pakistan officials said Obama's comment was irresponsible and likely made for political gain in the race for the Democratic nomination.
"It's a very irresponsible statement, that's all I can say," Pakistan's Foreign Minister Khusheed Kasuri told AP Television News. "As the election campaign in America is heating up we would not like American candidates to fight their elections and contest elections at our expense."
Also Friday, a senior Pakistani official condemned another presidential hopeful, Colorado Republican Tom Tancredo, for saying the best way he could think of to deter a nuclear terrorist attack on the U.S. would be to threaten to retaliate by bombing the holiest Islamic sites of Mecca and Medina.
Obama said in a speech Wednesday that as president he would order military action against terrorists in Pakistan's tribal region bordering Afghanistan if intelligence warranted it. The comment provoked anger in Pakistan, a key ally of the United States in its war on terror.
Many analysts believe that top Taliban and al Qaeda leaders, including Osama bin Laden, are hiding in the region after escaping the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan in 2001.
President Gen. Pervez Musharraf has come under growing pressure from Washington to do more to tackle the alleged al Qaeda havens in Pakistan. The Bush administration has not ruled out military strikes, but still stresses the importance of cooperating with Pakistan.
"There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again," Obama said. "If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf will not act, we will."
The Associated Press of Pakistan reported Friday that Musharraf was asked at a dinner at Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz's house on Thursday about the potential of U.S. military operations in Pakistan. Musharraf told guests that Pakistan was "fully capable" of tackling terrorists in the country and did not need foreign assistance.
Deputy Information Minister Tariq Azim said no foreign forces would be allowed to enter Pakistan, and called Obama irresponsible.
"I think those who make such statements are not aware of our contribution" in the fight on terrorism, he said.
Pakistan used to be a main backer of the Taliban, but it threw its support behind Washington following the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks.
Since then, Pakistan has deployed about 90,000 troops in its tribal regions, mostly in lawless North and South Waziristan, and has lost hundreds of troops in fighting with militants there.
But a controversial strategy to make peace with militants and use tribesmen to police Waziristan has fueled U.S. fears that al Qaeda has been given space to regroup.
In Pakistan's national assembly on Friday, Minister for Parliamentary Affairs Sher Afgan said he would bring on a debate next week on recent criticism of Pakistan from several quarters in the U.S., including Tancredo's remarks.
It was a matter of "grave concern that U.S. presidential candidates are using unethical and immoral tactics against Islam and Pakistan to win their election," Afghan said.
Tancredo told about 30 people at a town hall meeting in Osceola, Iowa, on Tuesday that he believes that a nuclear terrorist attack on the U.S. could be imminent and that the U.S. needs to hurry up and think of a way to stop it.
"If it is up to me, we are going to explain that an attack on this homeland of that nature would be followed by an attack on the holy sites in Mecca and Medina. Because that's the only thing I can think of that might deter somebody from doing what they otherwise might do," he said.
Mickelson in the Morning
Video note! After some debate, here's the re-posting of Thursday's intense exchange with Gov Mitt Romney. A technical note... All of the in-studio presidential interviews are video taped for later webcasting. Normally, as in this case, they are shot with two fixed cameras by the webcaster. He and the cameras are highly visible. The cameras are mounted on tripods just a few feet from the guest and host. Most of the time the interviews are mixed down for time and composition, as in the recent Senator John McCain interview. In this case the complete one camera feed was posted so no later issues of "editing" could be raised. ( and because Mickelson looks crappy on camera... ed. note)
Direct download: mickelson-2007-08-03.mp3
Category: podcasts -- posted at: 6:28 PM
Here are more comments:
Category: podcasts -- posted at: 6:28 PM
Here are more comments:
Thanks WHO and Jan for re-posting the video. The exchange of ideas was interesting.
posted by: j on Fri, 8/3 09:00 PM EDT
Jay,
Could you share with us the back story on how this video became public? Did Romney know he was being video taped? The whole thing smacks of unfair treatment of your guest. I'm not referring to your "hard" questioning of Romney. I'm referring to videoing someone when they are unaware and broadcasting what was supposed to be a private conversation -- off the record -- between you and your guest. That may be standard procedure in Iowa, but it's considered underhanded at best in other parts of the country. If that's NOT what happened, if Romney knew his comments were being recorded for broadcast (or he gave his permission for their broadcast after the fact), we should know that. If it is what happened, if you violated your guest's trust, we should know that, too.
By the way, I don't think Romney came off poorly in the exchange. It's the surreptitious nature of the recording that's distasteful.
Could you share with us the back story on how this video became public? Did Romney know he was being video taped? The whole thing smacks of unfair treatment of your guest. I'm not referring to your "hard" questioning of Romney. I'm referring to videoing someone when they are unaware and broadcasting what was supposed to be a private conversation -- off the record -- between you and your guest. That may be standard procedure in Iowa, but it's considered underhanded at best in other parts of the country. If that's NOT what happened, if Romney knew his comments were being recorded for broadcast (or he gave his permission for their broadcast after the fact), we should know that. If it is what happened, if you violated your guest's trust, we should know that, too.
By the way, I don't think Romney came off poorly in the exchange. It's the surreptitious nature of the recording that's distasteful.
posted by: David Walser on Sat, 8/4 03:57 AM EDT
Jan,
Please forgive my typo! I know your name and don't know how "Jan" became "Jay" in my post, above.
Please forgive my typo! I know your name and don't know how "Jan" became "Jay" in my post, above.
posted by: David Walser on Sat, 8/4 04:09 AM EDT
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
Popular Posts
-
This is my mom's mom's life history. Also check out the ongoing projects for my dad , mom , and and dad's mom . Typ... -
Best reasons to agree : +6 Its hard to understand yourself very well without trying to figure out parents. Your kids will want to know a... -
Best reasons to agree : +1 The Art Institute of Chicago is bigger, and bigger museums are better. the second largest art museum ... -
Killer whales should not be kept in captivity. Reasons to agree : Over seas zoos are cooler, because they let you have more of ... -
Best Videos that agree : +2 Best reasons to agree : + Kids eat things they should not eat. Kids lick bird poop off slid...
-
Reasons to agree : +7 Their is little risk of falling off a trampoline if you have netting. Trampolines are no more dangerous than... -
Images that agree : Friday Morning Walk around the block. Grandma didn't get as many hugs last time. She is very happy this t... -
Background : Before James loved animals, he loved trains. He spoke about them all the time. In particular was a train movie we got from the... -
Reasons to agree : +7 Young kids will never catch geese. Geese can bight back. They have sharp teeth. Geese are overpopulated. For inst... -
Best reasons to agree : +5 Drugs addiction will often kill you. Drugs addiction often causes people to live on the street. Drugs will ...
