Mitt Romney's 'Long Day' Excuse Makes Sikh Slip-Up Even More Offensive - Do you think Mitt Romney should issue a real apology for his mistake?
Mitt Romney's 'Long Day' Excuse Makes Sikh Slip-Up Even More Offensive
I was kind of hoping Mitt Romney wouldn't say anything at all about the tragic Sikh temple shooting.
After all, it's not like we can expect sensitivity or compassion from
the man responsible for such cringe-worthy quotes as "I'm not concerned
about the very poor" and "I like being able to fire people who provide
services to me." (Can you imagine this guy giving a eulogy?!)
Unfortunately, the horrible crime did not escape Romney's attention. The
Republican presidential candidate expressed his, er, condolences
yesterday with the following statement:
"We obviously have challenges around the country. I was in Chicago earlier today. We had a moment of silence in honor of the people who lost their lives at that sheik temple.”
Ouch! Not even close, Mitt, not even close. You'd think at the very least the candidate would have issued a public apology for his blunder by now, but nope! No mea culpa from that dude. Instead, we get this pathetic excuse from Romney's spokesperson ...
"It was the end of the day," said spokesman Rick Gorka. Romney "misspoke" merely because he was fried from being on the campaign trail since 7 a.m., not because he doesn't know or care to know the difference between the words Sikh and sheik.
Oh, poor baby! Up since 7 a.m.! Yeah, you and the vast majority of the country, dude. That's part of the whole "working for a living" thing you clearly know nothing about. Because if you did know anything about working for a living, you'd also know that in most professions, using the "long day" excuse when you screw up usually gets you fired. Can you imagine a brain surgeon or a firefighter or a chef pulling the same pathetic line? "Sorry I forgot to sew that guy's head back up/drove the fire engine to the wrong house/used dish soap instead of olive oil, it was the end of a long day."
And we're supposed to trust this guy to lead our nation? "Sorry I bombed Sweden by accident, it was the end of a long day."
Yeah, that sounds like a great idea.
Do you think Mitt Romney should issue a real apology for his mistake?
Quoting matreshka:
He is running for prez he has to be used to being under the presssure of long days and comprehend what he is talking about.
Americans are really really lazy with their language. "No-ter Dame" kills me. Most don't take the time to learn how to pronounce common words from other languages, let alone pronounce their own native language correctly.
Quoting Meadowchik:Correct, I have heard it pronounced "seek." However, the correct pronounciation is neither "seek" or "sick:"
"A special note about the pronunciation of the word Sikh is in order because most English speakers tend to pronounce it as "seek." In fact, it should be pronounced "se-ikh." Both of the letters in the kh should be used, as with the name Mikhail Gorbachev."
http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/sikh/blfaq_sikh_index.htm
It appears that the article author cares more about pronunciation than sentiment. I have spoken in many different languages, often clumsily, and managed to communicate with people who don't speak English, and I have found that the biggest factor in communication is people being willing to communicate, and not getting hung up on unintentional mispeech.
Quoting 29again:
I've heard both words pronounced in different ways
sikh as sick and seek.
sheik as shake and sheek.
I personally don't think it is that big of a deal at this point.
Quoting timeforprogress:
Sisteract is not an Obama supporter.
And? My response to her still applies, as I have never seen her post similar anti-Obama posts.
Why does everyone want to assume that if we don't like Republican candidates that that must mean we automatically love the other team?
Well then by all means, if you oppose Obama as well, then spread the disgust around! I don't know about you specifically, but the poster I was speaking to has never during the GOP primaries or since then to my knowedge addressed her disgust for Obama, so there is an obvious bias.
This is not a football game where if one team loses than the other one is the winner, and everyone still has a great time watching. Every Time any one of the two parties wins we all lose. They are both terribly corrupted and out of touch with the needs of the middle class. The only class in America that actually creates growth by driving demand.
I totally agree that we are all affected by who is elected. I also greatly disagree with the PP's previous depictions of Romney, much of them seem to be canned, cynical, and misleading.
Quoting Meadowchik:
Quoting Sisteract:
The government is not a business.
The goal of government is not to earn a profit.
Is that what people want? MR focusing on profit?
MR totally lacks self-awareness and sincerity. It's like he has no social skills or empathy.
These statements have been responded to before, over and over.
Many people have described Obama of being "aloof." I am sure you have some explanation for that. But it's obvious, atleast to me, that you are not willing to give Romney similar slack.
It's funn--albeit in a sad way--watching you're meme-for-most-posts evolve, Sisteract. It used to be "Romney is just Obama but in a more expensive suit."
As much as you said it, I still disagreed with the nonsense that Romney is the same as Obama. And I continue to disagree with the box you want to paint around Romney, which is a skewed, hollow, misleading picture.
They are common feelings about Romney that many of us who aren't happy with either of our choices feel. It is like he is made of plastic. His worldview is very limited. He has never had to truly face adversity and it shows. Many of us also have a huge problem with the way Romney and his cohorts have stacked our system in their favor, so that they pay a lower percentage of taxes and make tons of money.
I look at Romney and I don't see a man who loves his country. I see a man who loves money and power. Not what the lower and middle classes need right now. We need a leader that doesn't just pay us lip service, but that actually strives to build us back up from the bottom.
The middle class has been pulled apart for four decades now. The reason isn't because we don't work hard as the Republican mantra would have you believe. We still remain the most productive workers in the world. The problem is the greed at the top. It has led to a decline in good paying jobs, laws that favor big business, wild deficit spending, massive increase in police power, the top .04% paying ridiculously low tax rate, deregulation of key protections put in place
after the depression, and a severe decline in our infrastructure including public education. Oh and the issue nearest to my heart, the military has been seriously abused all for more profit and more power four the world elite.
While I will agree that Obama sucks, I will not agree that it is because he isn't enough like his opponent. Quite the contrary, I see both parties as being sides of the same coin. The super rich give money to both side, because either way it pays off big for them. Meanwhile, the rest of us struggle to stay ahead of rising costs hoping our kids can manage to have it easier, but that doesn't seem likely if we keep letting the system be stacked against us.
Quoting Meadowchik:
Quoting timeforprogress:
Sisteract is not an Obama supporter.
And? My response to her still applies, as I have never seen her post similar anti-Obama posts.
Why does everyone want to assume that if we don't like Republican candidates that that must mean we automatically love the other team?
Well then by all means, if you oppose Obama as well, then spread the disgust around! I don't know about you specifically, but the poster I was speaking to has never during the GOP primaries or since then to my knowedge addressed her disgust for Obama, so there is an obvious bias.
This is not a football game where if one team loses than the other one is the winner, and everyone still has a great time watching. Every Time any one of the two parties wins we all lose. They are both terribly corrupted and out of touch with the needs of the middle class. The only class in America that actually creates growth by driving demand.
I totally agree that we are all affected by who is elected. I also greatly disagree with the PP's previous depictions of Romney, much of them seem to be canned, cynical, and misleading.
Quoting Meadowchik:
Quoting Sisteract:
The government is not a business.
The goal of government is not to earn a profit.
Is that what people want? MR focusing on profit?
MR totally lacks self-awareness and sincerity. It's like he has no social skills or empathy.
These statements have been responded to before, over and over.
Many people have described Obama of being "aloof." I am sure you have some explanation for that. But it's obvious, atleast to me, that you are not willing to give Romney similar slack.
It's funn--albeit in a sad way--watching you're meme-for-most-posts evolve, Sisteract. It used to be "Romney is just Obama but in a more expensive suit."
As much as you said it, I still disagreed with the nonsense that Romney is the same as Obama. And I continue to disagree with the box you want to paint around Romney, which is a skewed, hollow, misleading picture.
It does not sound to me like you know much about Romney, actually.
Consider this anecdote from his time as Governor:
“And they said, ‘Well, Governor, you have to understand, if someone shows up for shelter and the homeless shelter is full, we simply tell them to go check into a hotel and we’ll pick up the bill.’ And I thought to myself” — and here he pauses before his punch line — “I bet the word gets around.” His audience chuckles.
So Romney made a simple change: The newest arrival got a shelter bed, and the person there the longest went to a hotel. Before, the state was renting an average of 500 hotel rooms a night, at a cost of $20 million per year. Afterward, that line item fell to zero. “And the tens of millions of dollars we saved we were able to use to get people into permanent housing.” This did provide a pathway to a stable, independent life, homeless advocates said.
“Incentives,” Romney exclaims, “have impact.”
And that’s it.
He doesn’t conjure a vision of a child shivering under an overpass. He doesn’t declare that what drives him is the belief that in the United States, families should not sleep on the street. He doesn’t float some bold, untested idea. But those uncertain about where to locate Romney’s core convictions — or if he has any — might consider whether they are embedded in this example. "
So Romney made state spending more efficient, so more of it could then be directed to permanent housing for the homeless. Romney authorized hundreds of millions in spending for permanent housing during his term, and he balanced the budget, creating surpluses. Romney worked to build and pass Romneycare to insure everyone. His aims are exactly the same as candidate for president, it's just the means which are different, because what is appropriate at the state level is not always workable at the federal level.
So, if you really question Romney's motives, look at his record as Governor. He worked to make citizens lives better, to be more effective, to cut governmenet waste and corruption, to increase business opportunity in his state, so that jobs could then increase. He worked to improve education.
In managing the Olympics, Romney stood to the task of raising the tremendous amount of funds needed to face the expanded security risks after 9-11 and again he created a surplus.
No real candid, thorough analysis of Romney could doubt his love of country or his desire and efforts to help people; he has been serving people his whole adult life, either privately, or as a public servant or volunteer.
I have stated the facts to Sisteract before, facts which by any objective standard support the claim that Romney cares for America, works in the interest of the citizens, rich AND poor, AND middle class, but they seem to fall on deaf ears. Surely you are not naive enough to notconsider the possibility that perhaps Romney's opposition wants you to see him as some unfeeling greedy rich guy, they don't want you to examine his life in full and his record. That's the tape Obama and supporters keeps playing, over and over. Watch out and be wary. It's flat-out wrong.
Quoting timeforprogress:
They are common feelings about Romney that many of us who aren't happy with either of our choices feel. It is like he is made of plastic. His worldview is very limited. He has never had to truly face adversity and it shows. Many of us also have a huge problem with the way Romney and his cohorts have stacked our system in their favor, so that they pay a lower percentage of taxes and make tons of money.
I look at Romney and I don't see a man who loves his country. I see a man who loves money and power. Not what the lower and middle classes need right now. We need a leader that doesn't just pay us lip service, but that actually strives to build us back up from the bottom.
The middle class has been pulled apart for four decades now. The reason isn't because we don't work hard as the Republican mantra would have you believe. We still remain the most productive workers in the world. The problem is the greed at the top. It has led to a decline in good paying jobs, laws that favor big business, wild deficit spending, massive increase in police power, the top .04% paying ridiculously low tax rate, deregulation of key protections put in place
after the depression, and a severe decline in our infrastructure including public education. Oh and the issue nearest to my heart, the military has been seriously abused all for more profit and more power four the world elite.
While I will agree that Obama sucks, I will not agree that it is because he isn't enough like his opponent. Quite the contrary, I see both parties as being sides of the same coin. The super rich give money to both side, because either way it pays off big for them. Meanwhile, the rest of us struggle to stay ahead of rising costs hoping our kids can manage to have it easier, but that doesn't seem likely if we keep letting the system be stacked against us.Quoting Meadowchik:
Quoting timeforprogress:
Sisteract is not an Obama supporter.
And? My response to her still applies, as I have never seen her post similar anti-Obama posts.
Why does everyone want to assume that if we don't like Republican candidates that that must mean we automatically love the other team?
Well then by all means, if you oppose Obama as well, then spread the disgust around! I don't know about you specifically, but the poster I was speaking to has never during the GOP primaries or since then to my knowedge addressed her disgust for Obama, so there is an obvious bias.
This is not a football game where if one team loses than the other one is the winner, and everyone still has a great time watching. Every Time any one of the two parties wins we all lose. They are both terribly corrupted and out of touch with the needs of the middle class. The only class in America that actually creates growth by driving demand.
I totally agree that we are all affected by who is elected. I also greatly disagree with the PP's previous depictions of Romney, much of them seem to be canned, cynical, and misleading.
Quoting Meadowchik:
Quoting Sisteract:
The government is not a business.
The goal of government is not to earn a profit.
Is that what people want? MR focusing on profit?
MR totally lacks self-awareness and sincerity. It's like he has no social skills or empathy.
These statements have been responded to before, over and over.
Many people have described Obama of being "aloof." I am sure you have some explanation for that. But it's obvious, atleast to me, that you are not willing to give Romney similar slack.
It's funn--albeit in a sad way--watching you're meme-for-most-posts evolve, Sisteract. It used to be "Romney is just Obama but in a more expensive suit."
As much as you said it, I still disagreed with the nonsense that Romney is the same as Obama. And I continue to disagree with the box you want to paint around Romney, which is a skewed, hollow, misleading picture.
Meh. I see how that could happen if you aren't familiar with what sikh and a sheik.
It isn't mine nor Sisteract's jobs to convince ourselves that Romney is this person you want us to believe he is. It is Romney's job to connect with us, and so far he hasn't connected. What are his plans? How does he plan to repair the 40 years of decline that has been adversely affecting the middle class? With more tax breaks and deregulation for big business? Whats that Einstein said about insanity?
Quoting Meadowchik:It does not sound to me like you know much about Romney, actually.
Consider this anecdote from his time as Governor:
“And they said, ‘Well, Governor, you have to understand, if someone shows up for shelter and the homeless shelter is full, we simply tell them to go check into a hotel and we’ll pick up the bill.’ And I thought to myself” — and here he pauses before his punch line — “I bet the word gets around.” His audience chuckles.
So Romney made a simple change: The newest arrival got a shelter bed, and the person there the longest went to a hotel. Before, the state was renting an average of 500 hotel rooms a night, at a cost of $20 million per year. Afterward, that line item fell to zero. “And the tens of millions of dollars we saved we were able to use to get people into permanent housing.” This did provide a pathway to a stable, independent life, homeless advocates said.
“Incentives,” Romney exclaims, “have impact.”
And that’s it.
He doesn’t conjure a vision of a child shivering under an overpass. He doesn’t declare that what drives him is the belief that in the United States, families should not sleep on the street. He doesn’t float some bold, untested idea. But those uncertain about where to locate Romney’s core convictions — or if he has any — might consider whether they are embedded in this example. "So Romney made state spending more efficient, so more of it could then be directed to permanent housing for the homeless. Romney authorized hundreds of millions in spending for permanent housing during his term, and he balanced the budget, creating surpluses. Romney worked to build and pass Romneycare to insure everyone. His aims are exactly the same as candidate for president, it's just the means which are different, because what is appropriate at the state level is not always workable at the federal level.
So, if you really question Romney's motives, look at his record as Governor. He worked to make citizens lives better, to be more effective, to cut governmenet waste and corruption, to increase business opportunity in his state, so that jobs could then increase. He worked to improve education.
In managing the Olympics, Romney stood to the task of raising the tremendous amount of funds needed to face the expanded security risks after 9-11 and again he created a surplus.
No real candid, thorough analysis of Romney could doubt his love of country or his desire and efforts to help people; he has been serving people his whole adult life, either privately, or as a public servant or volunteer.
I have stated the facts to Sisteract before, facts which by any objective standard support the claim that Romney cares for America, works in the interest of the citizens, rich AND poor, AND middle class, but they seem to fall on deaf ears. Surely you are not naive enough to notconsider the possibility that perhaps Romney's opposition wants you to see him as some unfeeling greedy rich guy, they don't want you to examine his life in full and his record. That's the tape Obama and supporters keeps playing, over and over. Watch out and be wary. It's flat-out wrong.
I would think though if you are running for POTUS, and a tragedy like this strikes that you might familiarize yourself with at least one of them. Certainly, you would apologize for misspeaking not make excuses for it. :)
Quoting JakeandEmmasMom:Meh. I see how that could happen if you aren't familiar with what sikh and a sheik.
You don't HAVE to do anything.
However, in order to have a logical argument, you must have support for your argument. By no objective standard is Romney the picture that you both paint of him. Maybe one problem of the past 40 years is of people going on feelings with considering evidence. Doing so is not good, and continuing to do so would align with that definition of insanity.
Romney has a plan to boost middle class:
"Mitt's plan for a stronger middle class focuses on five points: building energy independence, ensuring Americans have the skills to succeed, opening markets that work for America, cutting the deficit, and championing small businesses."
http://www.mittromney.com/blogs/mitts-view/2012/08/mitt-romneys-plan-stronger-middle-class01
Quoting timeforprogress:
It isn't mine nor Sisteract's jobs to convince ourselves that Romney is this person you want us to believe he is. It is Romney's job to connect with us, and so far he hasn't connected. What are his plans? How does he plan to repair the 40 years of decline that has been adversely affecting the middle class? With more tax breaks and deregulation for big business? Whats that Einstein said about insanity?
Quoting Meadowchik:
It does not sound to me like you know much about Romney, actually.
Consider this anecdote from his time as Governor:
“And they said, ‘Well, Governor, you have to understand, if someone shows up for shelter and the homeless shelter is full, we simply tell them to go check into a hotel and we’ll pick up the bill.’ And I thought to myself” — and here he pauses before his punch line — “I bet the word gets around.” His audience chuckles.
So Romney made a simple change: The newest arrival got a shelter bed, and the person there the longest went to a hotel. Before, the state was renting an average of 500 hotel rooms a night, at a cost of $20 million per year. Afterward, that line item fell to zero. “And the tens of millions of dollars we saved we were able to use to get people into permanent housing.” This did provide a pathway to a stable, independent life, homeless advocates said.
“Incentives,” Romney exclaims, “have impact.”
And that’s it.
He doesn’t conjure a vision of a child shivering under an overpass. He doesn’t declare that what drives him is the belief that in the United States, families should not sleep on the street. He doesn’t float some bold, untested idea. But those uncertain about where to locate Romney’s core convictions — or if he has any — might consider whether they are embedded in this example. "So Romney made state spending more efficient, so more of it could then be directed to permanent housing for the homeless. Romney authorized hundreds of millions in spending for permanent housing during his term, and he balanced the budget, creating surpluses. Romney worked to build and pass Romneycare to insure everyone. His aims are exactly the same as candidate for president, it's just the means which are different, because what is appropriate at the state level is not always workable at the federal level.
So, if you really question Romney's motives, look at his record as Governor. He worked to make citizens lives better, to be more effective, to cut governmenet waste and corruption, to increase business opportunity in his state, so that jobs could then increase. He worked to improve education.
In managing the Olympics, Romney stood to the task of raising the tremendous amount of funds needed to face the expanded security risks after 9-11 and again he created a surplus.
No real candid, thorough analysis of Romney could doubt his love of country or his desire and efforts to help people; he has been serving people his whole adult life, either privately, or as a public servant or volunteer.
I have stated the facts to Sisteract before, facts which by any objective standard support the claim that Romney cares for America, works in the interest of the citizens, rich AND poor, AND middle class, but they seem to fall on deaf ears. Surely you are not naive enough to notconsider the possibility that perhaps Romney's opposition wants you to see him as some unfeeling greedy rich guy, they don't want you to examine his life in full and his record. That's the tape Obama and supporters keeps playing, over and over. Watch out and be wary. It's flat-out wrong.
The most pressing social issue today is the economy
Obama: NSA secret data gathering 'transparent'
- Cafe Steph
on Aug. 8, 2012 at 7:26 PM