Yesterday, TPM Election Central named two officials in the Nevada Republican Party that went on record as hearing Romney say that it was “not likely” that he would appoint a Muslim to either his cabinet or as an adviser on national security matters. This was just one day after Mansoor Ijaz’s Christian Science Monitor article brought this controversy to light.
Now comes word (also from TPM) that proof of Romney saying, two months ago, that it was doubtful that he would include any Muslims in a hypothetical Romney Administration. The magazine Liberty Watch is published by George Harris, one of the two people named by TPM:
So when Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney recently addressed a group of a prominent local conservatives at a Las Vegas fundraiser, George lobbed the first question: “If you are elected President,” he asked, “will you include any Muslim members in your cabinet?”
In the seconds before former Massachusetts Governor Romney responded, you could have heard a pin drop.
His (admittedly, very smooth) answer in a nutshell? “Not likely.”
Perhaps now Romney supporters won’t try to dig up dirt in order to discredit the messenger instead of dealing with the facts as they are.
November 28th, 2007 at 9:45 am
What else did he say?
November 28th, 2007 at 9:47 am
The problem with this account, is that I don’t see it as particularly bigoted. If someone asks you if you’d include Muslims in your cabinet, and you answer “probably not” or “not likely”, those answers in themselves tell you nothing. We must know why you likely wouldn’t include Muslims in your cabinet. That was the difficulty with both of original accounts; Romney’s apparent “why” seemed so outrageous. In Ijaz’s account, Romney wouldn’t appoint Muslims to his cabinet because he apparently quotas, and the Muslim population wasn’t large enough to deserve a spot. Later, he allegedly said that Muslims “could” serve at lower levels of his administration. In the second scenario (which was actually chronologically the first) Romney wouldn’t appoint Muslims because “you can’t negotiate with them”. Whatever that means. Those were the aspects of the accounts that were offensive. It wasn’t and isn’t offensive for Romney to say he probably wouldn’t appoint a Muslim to his cabinet. The Presidential Cabinet is quite small, and if one were planning to appoint a Muslim on the basis that they might be able to advise you on national security, it’s smaller still; limited to three positions. Secretary of Defense, Secretary of Homeland Security, and Secretary of State.
November 28th, 2007 at 9:59 am
I’d also note that that Liberty-Watch article chastises NYC for refusing to lay down a golden wreath for Ahmadinejad (sp?) earlier this year. It seems rather likely that if Romney had followed his simple “not likely” with something like, I don’t know, “You can’t negotiate with Muslims” the author might have mentioned something.
November 28th, 2007 at 10:03 am
Everyone needs to take a look at this.
http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NjY4NWQwM2I5Yzc2MTg5MDAwZDFjYjQ1NDUwNmJmN2E=
After reading this, especially the last paragraph in the context of the whole account by Ijaz, it seems completely palusible (and likely) that this is a missunderstanding. Ijaz admits that Romney could have incorrectly interperated his question which would explain the answer. If this is true, Ijaz has then misinterperated Romney’s answers.
Ijaz says that it was suggested he speak with Romney following this event to ask about the question for clarification, but chose not too.
Does anyone else think this has gotten completely blown out of porportion and that this is a complete misunderstanding?
November 28th, 2007 at 10:06 am
Summary: Ijaz asked a specific question, looking for a specific answer. Romney interpreted something different and gave his answer. A misunderstanding that is all….
November 28th, 2007 at 10:08 am
This was a general question without any qualifications of national security. Any smart candidate would have answered “yes, provided that person of muslim faith is otherwise qualified for the post under consideration”. Obviously Romney is not getting his money’s worth from his consultants.
November 28th, 2007 at 10:10 am
#4 JohioW,
“Does anyone else think this has gotten completely blown out of proportion and that this is a complete misunderstanding?”
Absolutely, YES! If this were Huckabee or Rudy no one would even care.
Metro always complains that this site is full of Romney worshipers but after watching the responses to this overblown hit piece I’d have to say that the site has turned anti-Romney.
November 28th, 2007 at 10:17 am
“Any smart candidate would have answered “yes, provided that person of muslim faith is otherwise qualified for the post under considerationâ€. Obviously Romney is not getting his money’s worth from his consultants.”
I largely agree here. Romney would have been better off responding just as you suggest. The question is, was the response he gave, without knowing anything else about his reasons for giving such a response, offensive. And on it’s face, I’d say no. If we take the other two accounts at face value, it becomes potentially troubling. But, I’ve already had real difficulties with Ijaz’s account, and I discount the other other account entirely.
November 28th, 2007 at 10:22 am
I don’t think Mitt’s an anti-Muslim bigot. But I do think he assumed those who attended his fundraiser to be such and answered accordingly. Shameful!
November 28th, 2007 at 10:23 am
I agree with everyone that Romney’s answer could have been A LOT better. He didn’t necessarily have to respond “yes” and be done, but he could have left out the word “lower” when describing the levels of his administration and could have said something like he has said the last day.
In my college days I studied, in depth, the communication behaviors of people and this is a classic case. One person was asking one question and the person on the recieving end heard something else. The questioner had a preconcieved answer he wanted to hear, but since the person being asked the question “heard” something else, the answer the question got was “unacceptable”.
Again, a complete communication misunderstanding. But, Romney could have answered the question a heck of a lot better.
November 28th, 2007 at 10:31 am
I must admit though, Ijaz’s NRO interview does seem somewhat credible. I’ve seen a number of Romney’s Q & A sessions, and he does occasionally repeat questions, so that the audience can hear precisely what was asked. But, I’d note a few things. Ijaz’s account of his second question (his clarification to the question that Romney initially misunderstood) is substantively different from the question he presented in the article.
Here it is, in Ijaz’s own words “actually Governor, whether you would bring Muslim American advisers into your cabinet in policymaking roles”. Notice there’s no consider here. He asks bluntly “would you bring Muslim American advisers into your cabinet”. This sounds an awful lot more like the question Romney claims he was asked. I do find it strange though that Ijaz’s initial question asked about potential Muslim National Security cabinet members, while his clarified questioned asks simply about “policymakers”.
Finally, I’d note that when someone repeats a question to the audience, it’s usually because they believe the audience didn’t hear it; i.e, it was potentially inaudible. Given that Ijaz had to correct Romney once (i.e, he didn’t hear the question properly), it doesn’t seem at all unlikely that Romney misunderstood a second a time (especially if, as I noted, the clarified question was substantively different from the original question).
November 28th, 2007 at 10:33 am
Romney has an incredibly easy out in this situation…al he has to do istalk about what role his administration might have for U.N. Ambassador Zalmay Khalizad and this whole thing is over. And for what it’s worth, someone should ask him about Kahlizad just to clear the ai
November 28th, 2007 at 10:36 am
This is what I am talking about Matthew E. Miller. Since Ijaz asked two questions (and they both were not the same) he was expecting an answer to one of the two, which one we don’t know. Romney heard two different questions as well and answered one of them – it most likely was not the one Ijaz was wanting an answer too.
Romney most likely didn’t clearly understand or misinterpreted the question which has make this non-issue and issue.
November 28th, 2007 at 10:51 am
LJ, how is this comment bigoted?
“not likely†that he would appoint a Muslim to either his cabinet or as an adviser on national security matters.”
And also, how is this comment here bigoted?
“that it was doubtful that he would include any Muslims in a hypothetical Romney Administration.”
You know what, it is doubtful that I may hire an Eskimo any time this year. Does that make me a bigot?
Try and spin all you want, but there simply is no macaca moment here.
November 28th, 2007 at 10:57 am
Romney: OUT OF TOUCH WITH THE REAL WORLD. Just like George w. Bush.
November 28th, 2007 at 11:04 am
Come to think of it, it is unlikely that I’d hire a Mormon for that matter..
November 28th, 2007 at 11:10 am
I think this thing is starting to help Romney. He can credibly say that
his remarks were misinterpreted, but on the other hand, there are a LOT
of people on the Republican side who think that the entire world of Islam
is a serious threat to freedom in general- just listen to Michael Medved,
or if you can stand it, to Michael Savage. The comment that Ijaz attributed
to Romney seems entirely out of character and Romney’s response has confirmed
that, and the most reasonable conclusion is that this is a misunderstanding.
However, the fact that he ran with this without getting any other confirmation
alont with his comments at the campaign spot prove that he wants to derail
Romney’s candidacy. It will not work.
November 28th, 2007 at 4:59 pm
I read the account from the two “officials” – and it was another sound bite without context. Meeting was arranged by the officials and Ijaz with an obvious agenda. Not convincing.
November 29th, 2007 at 2:21 am
[...] http://race42008.com/2007/11/28/more-on-romney-and-muslims/Â LJÂ 11-28-2007 [...]
November 29th, 2007 at 6:22 pm
Mitt Romney is being accused of Religious Bigotry?
He has been suggesting that everyone else is bigoted because we should not talk about Mormons, but here he expresses his views of Muslims in general.
Listen to this episode of the Hot Conflict Radio show discussing Mitt Romney on Islam.
http://www.hotconflict.com/blog/2007/11/mitt-romney-isl.html