Romney ‘clarifies’ his support for religious discrimination

Following up on an earlier item, the Christian Science Monitor ran a report today from diplomat Mansoor Ijaz who recently asked Mitt Romney whether he would consider a Muslim-American for a cabinet post. Concluding that Muslims are too small a religious minority to qualify for a cabinet post, Romney said he would not.

The report quickly made the rounds, and at least at first, the Romney campaign didn’t deny the accuracy of Ijaz’s report. Romney spokesman Kevin Madden said this morning that “they weren’t focused on the composition of a Cabinet … but the governor does not believe that in order to effectively fight radical jihad you need to have Muslims serving in the cabinet.”

It was an odd explanation — according to Ijaz, that wasn’t the question at all. Apparently, though, Romney and his campaign have decided they like their version of the question better, so they’re going to go with it.

At an availability with reporters [in St. Petersburg, Fla.], Romney answered questions about today’s report suggesting that he would not appoint Muslims to his Cabinet. “No, that’s not what I said. His 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?’ And I said no, I don’t think you need a Muslim in the Cabinet to take on radical jihad any more than we needed a Japanese American to understand the threat that was coming from Japan or something of that nature.”

Romney continued, “It’s something I rejected, number one. And number two, point out that haven’t given a lot of thought to the people I would have in my Cabinet. I don’t have boxes I check off in terms of ethnicity, and it’s not that I need a certain number of people representing ethnic groups. Instead, I would choose people based on their merits… I’m open to having people of any faith, ethnic group. But they would be selected based on their capacity and capabilities and what they could bring to the Administration, but I don’t choose people based on checking off a box.”

Depending on whom you believe, Romney appears to be playing fast and loose with the facts.

Here, again, is Ijaz’s account:

I asked Mr. Romney whether he would consider including qualified Americans of the Islamic faith in his cabinet as advisers on national security matters, given his position that “jihadism” is the principal foreign policy threat facing America today. He answered, “…based on the numbers of American Muslims [as a percentage] in our population, I cannot see that a cabinet position would be justified. But of course, I would imagine that Muslims could serve at lower levels of my administration.”

If this account is accurate, Romney a) expressed support for religious discrimination; b) endorsed a religious quota system for his cabinet; and c) is now lying about what he said. Indeed, there’s a huge difference between Ijaz’s account of what Romney said, and Romney’s new version of what he said.

To clairfy, there’s nothing particularly wrong with Romney’s “revised” answer. Indeed, if he had said this in response to Ijaz’s question in the first place, there wouldn’t be a controversy.

The Romney campaign, at least this morning, wasn’t prepared to challenge the original quote because campaign officials didn’t have a recording or a transcript. Within a few hours, though, they changed direction, and argued that an entirely different exchange occurred in Las Vegas.

Who’s right? I have no idea, but I can’t wait to find out if Mansoor Ijaz happened to record the exchange. I get the sense the Romney campaign either assumes Ijaz doesn’t have a recording, or is willing to gamble on the possibility.

Stay tuned.

Maybe your “sense” is correct, but for me, Romney knows prejudice on this matter swings his way. I get the sense Mr. Romney and his encampment were merely showing how tough they’d be on the Muslim faith if elected. Now, any obfuscation from this fact works in his favor as it becomes a he said, she said argument – with the he (Romney) on the side of Christianity and the she on the side of what is for some ardent Christian faithful the evil Islam. Romney has created a very effective straw man from which to derive emotional profit, on his way to the Republican nomination. -Kevo

  • If this account is accurate, Romney a) expressed support for religious discrimination; b) endorsed a religious quota system for his cabinet; and c) is now lying about what he said.

    In other words, he’s following GOP SOP.

    Maybe I’m older and crankier. Maybe nearly eight years of Republican Thuggery has burnt me out, but this year’s crop of Republican candidates seems especially vile and without any merit whatsoever.

  • So now they don’t think there is a recording, so the story changes? I find this reprehensible that he would automatically exclude anyone but since he brought it up, the Mormon population is not large enough in this Country that someone from that Church should be running for President. How does he like those apples?

    Not voting for anyone who panders, flip flops, and is less than honorable which is Mitt Romney through and through. He cannot even asnwer this truthfully.

    It also came out he was an Independent during the Reagan/Bush years and we don’t need to go back to those times while trying to convince people he is the 2nd coming of Reagan. He lies to suit the purpose and now he is getting caught on it. About time!

  • “…the governor does not believe…”

    Mitt Romney is not a governor anymore. Protocol dictates that for offices held by only one person at a time, only that person can claim the title. Thus, Bill Clinton is no longer “Mr. President” but Hillary will be “Senator” for life.

  • I can’t wait to find out if Mansoor Ijaz happened to record the exchange. — CB

    Given what we know about the maladministration and — by extension — about the entire GOP (from the head does the fish begin to stink), I’d think that, by now, everyone interviewing a Repub candidate would have enough sense not only to record everything those scoundrels say, but have a camera recording their lip movement as well. Belt and suspenders; double insurance that they cannot weasel out of what they actually said. They can still weasel out by saying they expressed themselves poorly, they misunderstood the question, etc, but a Marplish attitude is indicated in dealing with that scum.

    Of course, IIRC, monsieur Ijaz himself is a Repub, so maybe he thinks the best of them all and trusts them not to change their views midstream.

  • Religious discrimination is contrary to our constitution, as is religious persecution, as is religious intervention in our government. Hence any law implicitly based on religious law without rational, docmumented justificatiion is unconstitutional.

  • Comments are closed.