Mitt Romney's Muslim blunder - Political Forum

jeffh83 · 11-28-2007, 10:33 AM

If elected, Mitt Romney sees no room for Muslims in his cabinet. Now substitute Muslims for another religion, say Jews and what do you get?
If elected, Mitt Romney sees no room for Muslims in his cabinet. Now substitute Muslims for another religion, say Jews and what do you get?

SamInTheSouth · 11-28-2007, 11:05 AM

It would be somewhat absurd for him to appoint a Muslim to his cabinet unless they are someone who has consistently been outspoken against the radical element of their religion that saws off people's heads in front of their children for wearing western style pants.

Albinonewt · 11-28-2007, 11:05 AM

My Understanding is that Romney's point, that he was trying to make, was that he wasn't going to reserve a spot for a Muslim, not that he was unwilling to hire a Muslim.

Basically he was saying he wouldn't impose an Unconstitutional religion test for a position.

Albinonewt · 11-28-2007, 11:18 AM

On the other hand...

Quote:

NRO Exclusive: Mansoor Ijaz Details His Exchange With Romney
I spoke with Mansoor Ijaz — author of a Christian Science Monitor op-ed asserting that Mitt Romney said he would not consider Muslims to work in his Cabinet — yesterday, and we conducted the following interview by e-mail.
Q: You came to attend the Mitt Romney fundraiser in Las Vegas/Henderson Nevada by making a contribution, correct? For $100? This was on November 17?
Ijaz: Correct. I was in Las Vegas on business, a colleague asked me if I had met the governor before, or would I like to meet him, and consistent with my views that it's best to understand where a candidate is on the issues by meeting them personally, I took the opportunity to go see the governor. I had not met him previously.
Q: To the best of your recollection, the question you asked was, whether he would consider including qualified Americans of the Islamic faith in his Cabinet as advisers on national-security matters?
Ijaz: Precisely. The context was a Q&A session after his opening remarks to a gathering of some 150 or so attendees at the fundraiser. 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.
In my case, I asked that given in the Governor's opening remarks he had maintained "radical jihad" was the principal foreign-policy challenge our country was facing, would he consider including qualified Americans of the Islamic faith in his cabinet as advisers on national security matters to help craft and develop high-level policy?
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", and then he answered very directly, very bluntly and without any hesitation in thinking about his answer: "based on the numbers of American Muslims who live in our population, I cannot see that a cabinet position would be justified. But of course, I would imagine that Muslim advisers could serve at lower levels of my administration."
I would like to add that at no time did the Governor ever mention anything about Japanese Americans or how the US treated Japanese Americans after the Second World War in his answer to me in the public Q&A session, as he has now indicated to the press was the case.
Q: Is there any way that he could have misinterpreted, misheard, or misunderstood the question?
Ijaz: It is always possible that he did not understand what I asked. But my question was crystal clear, and so was his answer. There are many witnesses to what he said, and several have now come out in public to make clear that the way I described the encounter is the way it happened.
My question was framed with a clear intent of understanding where the governor stood on an important policy issue that he himself enunciated as the most pressing problem of our time. As a potential voter, I simply wanted to know whether in tackling the problem, he would use the expertise at a cabinet level of American Muslims who were qualified for the job.
Q: Was there anything else to his answer beyond what was described in the CSM piece?
Ijaz: No.
Q: What was the response of the people in the room to his answer?
Ijaz: After the formal Q&A came to an end, a number (perhaps as many as five) people came up to me and said I had asked a tough but important question, and several of the people commented that they were not very happy with the governor's response. One person suggested I go up to the governor privately and get deeper into the issue with him – I did not.
Ijaz offered a wrap-up of why he wrote the Christian Science Monitor piece, and why he feels the issue is so important.
It is our responsibility as citizens of this great country to raise up issues for debate with our potential political leaders. It is an even greater responsibility for us to insure that inconsistencies, hypocrisies and abnormalities in their positions, uncovered in the process of that debate, are brought to the public's attention for reconciliation. 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.
All I did today was raise the standard by which politicians must engage the ordinary citizens whose votes and financial support they seek. If Gov Romney now comes to the conclusion that American Muslims are valued potential candidates for the highest positions of authority on our national security policymaking bodies, much good will have come from the debate — even if he had to misstate the truth to save his political skin.
If he continues to obfuscate on such an important issue, the American people will have to judge whether he is the right man for the job. From my point of view, we have enough evidence in this one encounter on a controversial issue that he is "probably not" the best man for the job.
Romney offered his recollection of the Q and A to the press yesterday. In his account, the question was, " 'Did I need to have a Muslim in my Cabinet in order to confront radical jihad, or would it be important to have a Muslim in my Cabinet?'"

Troianii · 11-28-2007, 07:52 PM

It's irrelevant. I can't see any of the candidates getting a Muslim on their cabinet for any reason other than being politically correct, trying to show their support... Which is absolute crap, no one really cares. Bush has more blacks in his cabinet than any U.S. President has ever had, and he's still accused of letting everything that went wrong with Katrina go wrong because he hates blacks. The cabinet members and their backgrounds don't mean much, even if the press might like the diversity.

Besides that, it's improbable. Jewish would be probable because, as a group, they've been a prominent and educated minority in America for more than two centuries. They've been here, Muslims haven't. Muslims in America, for the most part, aren't Americans yet. Many, like the Mexicans, are still living in their homeland.

iTaliAN_ICe · 11-28-2007, 08:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Troianii

It's irrelevant. I can't see any of the candidates getting a Muslim on their cabinet for any reason other than being politically correct, trying to show their support... Which is absolute crap, no one really cares.

So a President couldn't possibly appoint a Muslim to a cabinet position because he or she is intelligent and well-qualified? Romney wasn't asked if he'd include a Muslim on his cabinet merely to seem "politically correct." He was asked if he'd even consider including one, and responded that he would not. I don't see why one's faith or lack thereof matters when they're being considered for a political position, but Romney apparently does.