Reader comments
Romney in damage control mode for Muslims in Cabinet comments

I don't believe Romney said the response that was given to the media. If you hear Romney's take, the response and the meaning behind his response is completely different than what the media is portraying.

Romney wasn't saying that he wouldn't appoint a Muslim to his Cabinet, just that it doesn't make sense to appoint an ambassador to the Jihadists. It could have been a Jew, Latino, or Catholic, and the answer would have been the same. This is a ridiculous story.

I can't imagine romney being stupid enough to actually say something like that, even IF that's what he was thinking. Definitely too smart and polished to say that.

I suppose he could have added a disclaimer at the time, but really, how many more little disclaimers do we need on everything we say/do/eat/read/etc.?

I don't think he said that he wouldn't appoint a Muslim, I think he said he wouldn't appoint someone because they are Muslim. Big difference, someone who is Muslim could wind up in the cabinet, but not for the sole reason that they are Muslim. Just because they are Muslim doesn't mean they are qualified. Likewise, just because they are Muslim doesn't make them unqualified.

Doesn't the response to Romneys comments seem like a threat of violence?

"Ijaz urged Romney and other presidential candidates to "actively begin searching" for American Muslims and Arab Americans to serve in Cabinet posts to diminish the "risk (of) promulgating policies that once again put the U.S. straight in the sights of the terrorists who seek to bring America down.""

If we (the USA) don't appoint a Muslim to a cabinet position then we should expect retaliation? Seems like a threat to me...

Romney was saying that Muslims are such a small minority group that specifically searching for an eligible cabinet member of Islamic faith wasn't warranted. On the flip side, he probably would pro actively search for qualified African American candidates, as they are a much larger minority group, and not including an African American in the cabinet would be a big mistake in today's political climate.

"Response" sees a threat in Ijaz's remarks? Does "response" also have a monster under the bed?

As an aside, it would be great to have Muslims, Christians and Jews in the cabinet. It would be a message to the world that in this country, religious tolerance ruled.

I'm perplexed Deseret News is even running this story. The question was whether Romney would appoint a qualified Muslims as "advisers on national security matters, given his position that 'jihadism' is the principal foreign policy threat facing America today." Last I checked we already have a National Security Advisor, whose role goes beyond jihadism. Romney said he would consider someone working at a lower level of his administration, likely someone working under the NSA. It appears after reading the quote twenty times that Romney was simply saying he is unwilling to appoint a Muslim to the Cabinet (probably NSA or some newly created position) on account of their religious beliefs alone.

Putting someone on the cabinet because they are a Christian, Muslim, Jew, etc. makes no more sense than keeping them off the cabinet because of their religious affiliation.

What's needed are the best people for the job. It just shows how little we have progressed (as a society) to consider that a candidate must parcel out positions on the cabinet based on race, gender or religious affiliation. Only until we become blind to such ideas will we truly have abolished racism, sexism and religious intolerance.

Romney will say what ever he needs to say to be elected, one stand one day, another stand on the same topic another day. He checks the wind ever day to see which way it is blowing

Yea that moster is called Bin Ladin and his radical group of terrorists. I aggree with Response, it does sound like a threat. Terrorists are out to bring the US down and they will do it any way they can. IF a muslin is put into the cabnet of any president, they should undergo strict back ground checks just like everyone else who is appointed to those possitions.

Romney needs a muslim in his cabinet like he needed Tonya Harding on his Olympic staff .

Mr. Romney isn't responsible for the inferences Mr. Nossier made of his statements. Mr. Nossier missed the point, that appointing a cabinet member based on his/her qualifications etc. is precisely what Mr. Romney was saying. How he derived a slight out of that can only be the result of a preconception on Mr. Nossier's part that he was hunting justification for. And, speaking of 'monsters under the bed,' it isn't far-fectched in this day and age to keep the possibility open that Mr. Nossier is deliberately creating an issue to lessen Mr. Romney's chances for a nomination. There are Muslim voters, of course. Liberal groups against Ronald Reagan tried to lessen his chances by tagging him with an unsupportable anti-women position (he makes mention of this in the Ronald Reagan Diaries). Manipulation, defamation, veiled intimidation, etc. etc. isn't a monster under the bed always...it could just be the way things are being done. Don't dismiss 'Response's' comment out of hand for just that reason. Maybe Mr. Nossier has an agenda. Thanks for listening.

"response" really needs to pull his/her head out - if you find a threat in those words, you're probably a bigot looking for evil in any muslim you can find.

What Ijaz is saying is that, seeing as how Mitt claims "jihadism" is the biggest threat to America, having a Muslim in the Cabinet would allow President Mitt to have a greater understanding is Islam in general and an adviser close at hand. And on the flipside, allowing himself to remain ignorant and detached from it, well, face it, nothing good comes of ignorance.

Was a threat made? I think not. Just the simple statement of fact that we run more risk of terrorist attacks by remaining complacent and ignorant.

Should a Muslim be in the Cabinet just because he's Muslim? No more than Mitt belongs in the White House just because he's LDS. I'll vote for the most qualified person regardless of religion.

Willard is always in "Damage Control Mode" because he's such a snake oil salesman. Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop ...what kind of name is Willard anyway?

I don't know what Romney actually said or what he was thinking. It seems that whoever is the next president will be wise to appoint a group of high-level advisors who represent diverse ethnic, cultural, religous, etc.,backgrounds so he or she understands situations better before jumping in, unlike the current administration.

I would rather have someone with a progressive attitude admit they are wrong than someone stubbornly supporting something that has turned out to be bad.

so what ever happened to separation of church and state. does it realy mater what religion you are?

The Secretary of State fills the position in question, but why is Romney's account - which provides and adequate answer - given at the end of the article? The story begins by painting a candidate intolerate to Muslims but ends with a candidate who states he doesn't view having a muslim cabinet member simple to on the basis of representation as merit for it. Representation is established by voters to be members of Congress.

Cabinet members are established to serve the needs of the President, the number of cabinet members has varied from generation to generation (and often President to President) from George Washington to present. Besides, why do we need a cabinet member to represent radical muslims?