Enrique on November 28, 2007 at 1:39 PM

I’ve seen nothing to indicate that only Christians are uncomfortable with Muslims in the government. Atheists here have commented on that as well.

I’d agree that the Right is more likely to agree with the potential pandering on the subject more than the Left, but it’s your own ill opinions of Christians that have you insisting that it’ll only be Christians.

who cares?

I think the right – qualified – high-profile figure, articulating the case for U.S. foreign policy, who was a Muslim could persuade a lot of his or her fellow Muslims that the war on terror isn’t a war on Islam.

It occurs to me that Ijaz is confused about Cabinet positions, and was thinking in terms of this role, recently held by Karen Hughes:

Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs

The Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs is a position within the U.S. Department of State that is intended to help ensure that public diplomacy is practiced in combination with public affairs and traditional diplomacy to advance U.S. interests and security. The Under Secretary oversees three bureaus at the Department of State: Educational and Cultural Affairs, Public Affairs, and International Information Programs. Also reporting to the Under Secretary are the Office of Policy, Planning and Resources for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs and the Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy.

The position was created on October 1, 1999, after legislation the year before had abolished the United States Information Agency and the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, during the Clinton administration. The current Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs is Karen Hughes.

I’m not sure who makes these appointments. The President or the Secretary of State.

I think the right – qualified – high-profile figure, articulating the case for U.S. foreign policy, who was a Muslim could persuade a lot of his or her fellow Muslims that the war on terror isn’t a war on Islam.

It’s amazing how many people really don’t get it. The problem isn’t just islam although that is the gasoline on the fire. The problem the West has is with with the Third World which is a high percentage muslim. It’s not politically correct to say but you take the combination of a society that is a couple hundred years behind the West in social development and throw in a violent cult that has always played to those who feel downtrodden and we get jihad. The mobs that scream for American blood would just as quickly string up a westernized muslim as they would George Bush. If it were as easy as Geraghty makes it sound lets put Thomas Sowell, Bill Cosby and Clarence Thomas on tv for a week straight and solve all the problems with black culture.

Oh, and let’s not forget that this was outside by a pool and even Ijaz said it was difficult to hear:

I was the third questioner he called on. Because we were outside around a swimming pool and the questioners did not have microphones, Gov Romney took each question and then condensed and repeated it over his mic to make sure the larger audience understood what had been asked.

Why didn’t he ask a follow-up question if it was so danged important – important enough to write an Op-Ed to the CSM over?:

One person suggested I go up to the governor privately and get deeper into the issue with him – I did not.

Two Republicans have backed up Ijaz’s account so far.

Hollowpoint on November 28, 2007 at 3:19 PM

Remaining anonymous?

LOL.

Of course, all of this is just taking Ijaz at his word, isn’t it? And what reason do we have to do so?
Vanceone on November 28, 2007 at 12:11 PM

Two Republicans have backed up Ijaz’s account so far.

Now for the meat, which comes here:

He started his reply by restating the question, in which he said to the audience something like “the question is whether I would have Muslim advisers on policymaking where “jihad” is concerned – I then stopped him and clarified once more what my question was, “actually Governor, whether you would bring Muslim American advisers into your cabinet in policymaking roles”

So it is Ijaz himself who changed the question from a Muslim policy maker on “jihad” to the more benign “advisors in policymaking roles”.

The latter description could easily have been interpreted by Romney as more of a community outreach role, and in that context talking about percentages of the population could make some sense.(If Romney did in fact respond as Ijaz claims)

Indeed, I wonder what Ijaz imagines this person’s cabinet level title would be? Secretary of _______________?

My only point is we’ve got to highest and best qualified people. I’m proud of the Muslims who are currently

Oh….my…..God. McCain, the ultimate opportunist.
Pander alert…Pander alert.

All politicians are liars, even those who pose as journalists and are thinking of entering into a political career.

The only difference is one of the two men’s ideologies sanctions lying.

Of course you do, but that’s because of your own prejudices against Christians. You prejudge us based on your own prejudices.

My own prejudices against the faithful notwithstanding, I’m saying GOP candidates have to pander to Christians’ prejudices to get votes. That’s an objectively true statement. It’s the same way Dem candidates have to pander to African-Americans’/lawyers’/union members’ prejudices to get votes.

If Romney didn’t already have the “flip flop” or “will say anything” labels sticking to him, this would probably hurt him WORSE because it would be such a shock coming from a front-runner. As it is, it is another dent in the armor.

The issue may be controversial, but it’s hardly relevant. At issue, essentially, is whether a presidential candidate should use a person’s religion when making his cabinet picks. If Romney thinks otherwise, well that’s some tasty irony.

Slublog on November 28, 2007 at 10:06 AM

The issue is how does Mitt respond to a charge of bigotry. I say go on the attack and say your words were twisted. But I am a Fredhead so you might not want to listen to me.

Basically, he’s what John Kerry would have been, had Kerry run an electability.exe program and come up with “Conservative” as the result.

You just said it all, and quite well, Mark. As Bob Grant used to say: Fake. Phony. Fraud. There’s simply no conservative “there” there.

Although his detractors would say that’s the whole point. To muff one this easy, he must have been speaking from the heart.

That he has a heart at all would be a revelation to many. And maybe not a bad one. He’s always struck me as detached, over-calculating, and wholly without any substantive grounding principles. Basically, he’s what John Kerry would have been, had Kerry run an electability.exe program and come up with “Conservative” as the result.

Gosh — it was such a softball question.

Yeah, it really was. Although his detractors would say that’s the whole point. To muff one this easy, he must have been speaking from the heart.

Hypothetical America: Based on the numbers of American Mormans who live in our population, we cannot see that an executive branch position would be justified. But of course, we would imagine that Mormans could serve at lower levels of the government.

Gosh — it was such a softball question. Honestly, his retreat to the liberal art of racial/gender/religious quotas makes me question his conservatives bona fides more than it makes me think he’s bigoted. There’s an established conservative answer to this question: “I will consider all qualified individuals. I’m not going to seek out someone of a certain demographic, nor will I disqualify someone for being a member of a certain demographic. Next question please.”

Overall, I get the impression this was a clumsy attempt to pander to the prejudices of practicing Christians.

Enrique on November 28, 2007 at 10:51 AM

Of course you do, but that’s because of your own prejudices against Christians. You prejudge us based on your own prejudices.

Maybe he’s feeling the heat from Huckabee – the “real” Christian is the primary – and he thinks the best way to shore up evangelical votes is to send voters the signal that Muslims will be persona non grata in a Romney administration.

Enrique on November 28, 2007 at 10:51 AM

You’d think that might be the case, but doesn’t this whole scandal date to way before the Huck surge, now that we know about the other “witnesses?”

Romney could easily have just said “Obviously, I’m going to choose advisors and cabinet members based on experience and merit, but I’m not going to resort to tokenism for its own sake. Of course I would hire qualified Muslim-Americans, although I don’t think that it would be appropriate to have a cabinet-level position devoted explicitly to relations with Muslims worldwide, that would be handled within State Department.”

But he didn’t say that, his first instinct was to deny Muslims from his cabinet. And while there’s nothing offensive about saying you aren’t going to have affirmative action for your cabinet, Mitt’s first response wasn’t to say that he would only pick a cabinet based on merit – his first response was “No Muslims.” That smells of desperation.

Maybe he’s feeling the heat from Huckabee – the “real” Christian is the primary – and he thinks the best way to shore up evangelical votes is to send voters the signal that Muslims will be persona non grata in a Romney administration.

Overall, I get the impression this was a clumsy attempt to pander to the prejudices of practicing Christians. If he was running in the Dem primary, obviously he wouldn’t have to do that.