Another Witness Confirms Romney's No-Muslims Comment
I just got off the phone with another Nevada Republican who confirmed that Mansoor Ijaz's account of Mitt Romney saying he'd nix Muslims in his cabinet is accurate.
This is the first person I've spoken to who directly confirmed Ijaz's account of that particular event. The other two Nevada Republicans I spoke with yesterday confirmed that Romney had made very similar remarks at a different, earlier event.
"I can tell you that what was reported by Mansoor is accurate," this person said to me. The man, a real estate broker and volunteer in local Republican politics, declined to allow his name to be used.
Romney disputed the account in remarks to reporters yesterday, saying that he had said that he didn't need a Muslim in his cabinet to effectively fight Jihad, not that he'd said he was opposed to the idea of having one in his cabinet.
When I read Romney's remarks to this Republican, however, he said: "I don't recall Romney saying what you read to me," adding that "what Monsoor stated was an accurate representation."
At any rate, Romney's representation of what happened is at odds with mounting evidence that Ijaz's account is the accurate one.
Comments (22)
nitpicker wrote on November 28, 2007 3:55 PM:So he's a liar...Does anyone think that will lose him the Republican primary?
Greg wrote on November 28, 2007 4:00 PM:no, won't cost him many gop votes, obviously. but it is interesting, he's actually getting pilloried on the right wing blogs over this
sy wrote on November 28, 2007 4:07 PM:Mitt Racist Romney, who knew.
logorrhea wrote on November 28, 2007 4:23 PM:Greg -- pilloried for lying or pilloried for discrimination?
This should matter, but will it?
Glennamaddy wrote on November 28, 2007 4:35 PM:
The guy can't hear the difference between "Mansoor" and "Monsoor", and we're supposed to trust him as an earwitness?
Greg,
Great job on getting a third witness!
Personally, I think this is all a miscommunication. In the past, when Romney was asked about specific cabinet appointments he has said he hasn't thought about who would be in his administration. But seriously... I personally don't know of anyone "high up" enough who falls into that category. Obviously you don't want to just take anyone and put them in your administration. But maybe he was thinking he probably won't have a muslim in his cabinet given there's aren't really many to choose from and the person doesn't really have to be muslim after all.
Romney has no history of racism and had people all all kinds in his administration as Governor including minorities. So, I can't see why he would purposefully say he wouldn't unless they were absolutely qualified.
There's another report about someone hearing Romney say muslims are "radical" and c"annot be trusted". Obviously this person didn't hear the entire conversation because of the hundreds and hundreds of meetings Gov. Romney has done, he has talked about terrorist and the leaders in Iran being radicals and no able to be trusted. So, there must have been some miscommunication. Romney is not a racist and no one in their right mind would purposefully say they would exclude someone because of their faith when they themselves are being subject to that very discrimination.
Matthew wrote on November 28, 2007 5:34 PM:Mark, this comment is really naive: "Romney is not a racist and no one in their right mind would purposefully say they would exclude someone because of their faith when they themselves are being subject to that very discrimination."
That's like saying an adulterer (Newt Gingrich) would not criticize Bill Clinton for getting oral sex from Monica. Ah....he did!
djangone wrote on November 28, 2007 5:39 PM:Mansoor / Monsoor, are you serious Glennamaddy? Both names would derive from Arabic, which doesn't use the Roman alphabet. Many names come through spelled differently depending on which outlet does the reporting. Or maybe you've forgotten Muammar Qaddafi / Khadafi / Gaddafi / Qadafy, the guy in charge of Libya these past decades.
Anonymous wrote on November 28, 2007 6:05 PM:This sort of thing will actually endear the Mittster to the yahoos who would vote for him.
He's their kind of guy. None o' them towel heads in the Mittster's lilly white admin. No siree.
I think, that in the heat of a campaign appearance, and in the interest of pandering to the yahoos who are the target of a presidential primary campaign, Romney actually did say these things, and I'm sure he's sorry he did so, not because he doesn't like the idea, but because of the agita it's causing him now.
votenic wrote on November 28, 2007 10:30 PM:2008 Presidential Election Weekly Poll
The Only Poll That Matters.
Results Posted Every Tuesday Evening.
I'm so tired of politicians being bashed for giving (admittedly stupid) answer to REALLY stupid questions.
The question itself was designed to trip up the respondant. And yes, we in America seem to like people who can come up with smooth answers, even when they mean nothing or are probably not exactly honest. We're in the age of the soundbite, not the reasoned argument.
If he'd come up with the right answer, right off the bat ("Cabinet positions aren't offered to anyone based on race, class, color, or creed. I personally don't know anyone who is both qualified and of the Islamic faith, but if you were to bring someone of that sort to my attention I would give him/her my full consideration based on his/her merit, not his/her religion.") then we would have had to start calling him "Slick Mitty."
From what I've read, that's actually what his response MEANT. He just didn't say it very well.
But that's what the elections are all about. Not ability. Not qualifications. Rather, elections seem to be about the ability to come up with a rapid response that's exactly what you know your constituency wants to hear.
Whether you mean to back it up with your actions later, or not.
ChrisO wrote on November 29, 2007 4:50 PM:Lycidia, by what standards do you characterize that question as "designed to trip up the respondent?" People at these events are always asking questions about their particular area of interest. Don't you think a lot of American Muslims are eager to be seen as on the side of American security, and as valuable assets in the fight against terrorism? It seems it was one of those questions that's also designed to make a point, namely that a Muslim could srve in this capacity.
And are you really so naive as to believe that when a politician "clarifies" his remarks in the wake of a storm of criticism, he's always accurately portraying what he "meant to say"? Just because Romney now has a response that will mollify his critics doesn't automatically mean that it represents his original thinking. It's pretty silly to say that we should ignore what a politician says off the cuff, but take as gospel his responses after consulting with advisers.
Halo wrote on December 24, 2007 7:32 AM:.tablature negima
powerpoint presentation inconsistency when is it bad
used firearms pricing
red bumps groin
rapidshare lez
.harada ourei
raven starfire
helen svedin movies
poses de kamasutra
jacksonville humane society
.harada ourei
raven starfire
helen svedin movies
poses de kamasutra
jacksonville humane society
.rebolusion mexicana
meth users tips
heather klozov
humiliation sissy
insanecockbrothas
.easy steak marinade
pymarids
mike in brazil video
something corporate piano tabs
forced haircuts in movies
.xiaolin showdown hentai kimiko
pure dee movie
purple haze martini
nude pictures heather mills mccartny
who wants to be a millionaire kids uk
.ray charles i cant stop lovin you
nasyid melayu
jonah falcon erect
helena karel mpegs
luana videos
