Update: Ijaz insists his account of Q&A with Mitt about Muslims in the cabinet is accurate; Update: McCain comments
posted at 11:45 am on November 28, 2007 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
printer-friendly
If you’re bored with this story, as some commenters insisted they were in last night’s thread, good news — this is where you get to stop reading. If you’re not, here’s Jim Geraghty’s e-mail exchange with Mansour Ijaz about the precise question asked and answer given about having Muslims in the cabinet. Ijaz insists there was nothing more to Mitt’s answer than the bizarre bit about mathematical quotas recounted in his CSM op-ed. Although, if that’s true, why did he use an ellipsis at the beginning of Romney’s answer?
His summation of the incident:
Gov. Romney stated what he believed — and I think he gave a genuine answer to my question — because he thought he was in a sympathetic audience of supporters that would not challenge his stated policy goals and positions.
The moment he was challenged, he first tried subterfuge and then he essentially tried to rewrite the encounter. That is unacceptable political behavior in a man who seeks the highest office in our land.
It’s the eleventh hour but anyone hungering for a guest shot on the YouTube debate tonight could do worse than posting a question about this to YT. I’m sure CNN is dying to put the screws to Romney about it, especially since he was the one who balked at the idea of a YouTube debate early on. Exit question: Which Republicans, if any, will risk hammering Mitt on this? Some small part of the base probably approves of a “no Muslim appointees” policy; another part of it may not approve but may also be leery of any candidate who’s too insistent the other way. Rudy’s already viewed as too far left by some and can’t afford to go further; Fred and Huck are competing with Mitt for red-meat conservatives and probably don’t want to be seen as comparatively “squishy.” That leaves McCain, who’s got all the hawkish cred he needs and is looking for an opening to raise his profile. I hope he brings it up. The Dems surely will later.
Update: And here comes McCain.
My only point is we’ve got to highest and best qualified people. I’m proud of the Muslims who are currently serving in the United States armed forces, and my sense is that if they can serve in that manner, they can serve in any position of responsibility in America. If I read his appointment of a judge that he now wants to resign, under the thinking, ‘we needed more women’ — I just think appoint the most qualified individuals to positions of responsibility.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
I just can’t bring myself to care one way or the other here.
bj1126 on November 28, 2007 at 9:57 AM
What bothers me about Ijaz’ account is that he believes this to be a deciding factor:
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
Yeah, Ijaz is playing an identity politics game here. But re: the tasty irony, indeed.
Allahpundit on November 28, 2007 at 10:07 AM
This is where Mitt “mans-up” and says “I don’t care what a second class journalist says, I know what I said and meant. Now let’s move on, we have a country to run”.
But he won’t, he will waffle.
right2bright on November 28, 2007 at 10:09 AM
The question was loaded. Why would Mitt want to bounce around on this. Isn’t using religion as a litmus test supposed to be bad? Why pick someone who is there just because they are muslim? The question should be viewed for what it really was, not an important issue but an attempt to create an issue for a story.
mjkazee on November 28, 2007 at 10:17 AM
Zzzzzzzzzzz
liberrocky on November 28, 2007 at 10:19 AM
It would be if we weren’t at war with orthodox Islam. If Romney were somehow constrained by his minority religious status, that might be a reason to vote against him.
Dem’s to announce appointment of Muslim cabinet member and Supreme Ct. justice in 5,4,3…
JiangxiDad on November 28, 2007 at 10:30 AM
Doesn’t phase me, bro.
fogw on November 28, 2007 at 10:34 AM
Dude, if you are talking about the base, I suspect it is more than a small part. Could be wrong, though; my point of view is probably skewed by spending so much time on these blogs.
No Republican can hammer him on this. But the media can. It can only hurt him in the general election in my opinion. People can use it as a backdoor way to highlight Mitt’s “minority” status w/o appearing to sleazy. “Governor Romney, given your own religious minority status as a MORMON, how do you reconcile your statements…….”
RW Wacko on November 28, 2007 at 10:37 AM
The “no muslim cabinet appointees” debate will be helpful for our society. It gives us the chance to explain the risk we take in welcoming a murder cult into our society. We will also be albe to point out that we don’t want anarchist and communists as cabinet members either.
I think it is fully defensbile to take a candidate’s religion into account when voting–though one should weigh religion against other factors. I’m not voting for Romney in the primary partly because he is a Mormon, but he would get my vote if he were to be the nominee of the party. On the other hand, I’ll vote for Hilary before I’ll vote for an open borders Southern Baptist preacher. The open borders issue drives the decision as much as my desire for gay friendly GOP.
thuja on November 28, 2007 at 10:40 AM
AP weren’t you one of the ones jumping on the Dubai ports deal and freaking out over it?
bj1126 on November 28, 2007 at 10:42 AM
I’m not bored of this story, but I don’t see how that changes anything. Isn’t that what he’s been claiming since the start?
And Mitt is claiming the opposite. Nothing’s changed here.
If Mitt is asked at the debate, he’ll just say what he’s been saying, that he doesn’t pick people based on their religion.
Only a video or audio recording could possibly break this story.
Esthier on November 28, 2007 at 10:47 AM
Sounds like he answered analytically thinking mathematically - quota, but doesn’t want it to sound like it. Both sides spinning, but that seems to me to be the likely middle ground.
Spirit of 1776 on November 28, 2007 at 10:47 AM
I suspect that the real danger in this episode for Romney is not really that Republican primary voters will be turned off by mild to moderate anti-Muslim sentiment, but that it keeps the topic of religion in the news, and will make him have to answer for his own all that much more often. Romney has used a vague discussion of “faith” and values an asset for his campaign so far, but it could turn into a major problem for him if people start talking about specific faiths, their doctrines, and fitness for high office. I suspect some of this is already happening, and is the reason behind the Huck surge. If this scandal lives another week or so, it could be a big problem for Mitt. I think he gets one chance to set the record straight, and there’s only one answer that will really put an end to the whole thing: “I’ll appoint the most qualified person regardless of their faith.”
Big S on November 28, 2007 at 10:49 AM
I’m not bored with this subject, for what it’s worth. And if I was bored with it, I sure wouldn’t post a comment that I was bored with it, I just wouldn’t post a comment at all, because I’m not a tosser. (Well, I suppose that’s subjective…)
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.
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?”
Big S on November 28, 2007 at 10:54 AM
Of course you do, but that’s because of your own prejudices against Christians. You prejudge us based on your own prejudices.
Esthier on November 28, 2007 at 10:56 AM
Romney better hope that America doesn’t think how he does:
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.”
Mark Jaquith on November 28, 2007 at 11:22 AM
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.
Allahpundit on November 28, 2007 at 11:25 AM
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.exeprogram and come up with “Conservative” as the result.Mark Jaquith on November 28, 2007 at 11:57 AM
The way this Teddy Bear incident is going,
it’s good to see an American is not thinking,
but actually saying it,good for Mitt Romney.
canopfor on November 28, 2007 at 12:11 PM
Of course, all of this is just taking Ijaz at his word, isn’t it? And what reason do we have to do so? Especially since, if I’m understanding this correctly, the first in time report (back in August) didn’t report this? And suddenly we have this blitz?
Vanceone on November 28, 2007 at 12:11 PM
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.
Mike H on November 28, 2007 at 12:46 PM
You can see this coming a mile away. The media narrative is that Mitt is a closet bigot. The only thing that matters is how Mitt handles it. I hope he is smart enough to answer it directly and not let it fester.
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.
Bill C on November 28, 2007 at 1:03 PM
Ijaz has done this sort of thing before. Andy McCarthy at NRO chronicles his own experience here.
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.
sulla on November 28, 2007 at 1:05 PM
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.
Enrique on November 28, 2007 at 1:39 PM
He said, he-said. YAWN!!
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.
awake on November 28, 2007 at 2:12 PM
Oh….my…..God. McCain, the ultimate opportunist.
Pander alert…Pander alert.
right2bright on November 28, 2007 at 2:16 PM
Didn’t McCain have an earlier quote where he excoriated Romney for his response (I remember wondering at the time if Ijaz was on his team)? Now he is basically mirroring Mitt’s explanation as to what happened. I’ll see if I can dig McCain’s earlier quote up…
Now for the meat, which comes here:
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 _______________?
Buy Danish on November 28, 2007 at 2:50 PM
Two Republicans have backed up Ijaz’s account so far.
Hollowpoint on November 28, 2007 at 3:19 PM
Remaining anonymous?
LOL.
awake on November 28, 2007 at 3:29 PM
I would prefer if he did NOT pick any Muslims for his cabinet. So, one possible vote from me if he meant what the guy thinks he said. McCain on the other hand, has moved yet further away from my vote.
In fact, is there not a SINGLE candidate whom we can actually feel strongly about voting for?? I mean out of this entire country, these people are the best we can do?? Really? Ugh. There is something seriously wrong with our political and legislative system if this is the best we can do.
KMC1 on November 28, 2007 at 4:57 PM
Maybe Hollowpoint could fill in the blank for us based on Ijaz’s description of the position of “Muslim advisors in your cabinet in policy making roles”. Secretary of___________?
Oh, and let’s not forget that this was outside by a pool and even Ijaz said it was difficult to hear:
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?:
Buy Danish on November 28, 2007 at 4:57 PM
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.
peacenprosperity on November 28, 2007 at 5:18 PM
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
I’m not sure who makes these appointments. The President or the Secretary of State.
Buy Danish on November 28, 2007 at 5:31 PM
i don’t believe that muslims belong in America.
who cares?
madmonkphotog on November 28, 2007 at 6:28 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.
Esthier on November 28, 2007 at 7:24 PM