Deseret News | Reader comments: Romney in damage control mode for Muslims in Cabinet comments

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

Page:
1
2
Next >

Show me the facts... | 12:39 p.m. Nov. 28, 2007

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.

Bob | 12:46 p.m. Nov. 28, 2007

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.

l | 1:10 p.m. Nov. 28, 2007

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.?

Comments continue below

Bad Logic | 2:00 p.m. Nov. 28, 2007

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.

response | 2:17 p.m. Nov. 28, 2007

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...

misinterpretation | 2:20 p.m. Nov. 28, 2007

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.

Huh? | 2:28 p.m. Nov. 28, 2007

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

Mark | 2:38 p.m. Nov. 28, 2007

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.

What? | 3:15 p.m. Nov. 28, 2007

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.

rvalens2 | 3:18 p.m. Nov. 28, 2007

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.

Thomas | 3:25 p.m. Nov. 28, 2007

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

To Huh? | 3:25 p.m. Nov. 28, 2007

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.

Anonymous | 3:30 p.m. Nov. 28, 2007

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

Dan | 3:33 p.m. Nov. 28, 2007

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.

Dave | 3:34 p.m. Nov. 28, 2007

"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 Watcher | 3:37 p.m. Nov. 28, 2007

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?

CJem | 3:47 p.m. Nov. 28, 2007

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.

Mike | 3:56 p.m. Nov. 28, 2007

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.

ron | 3:57 p.m. Nov. 28, 2007

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

MN | 3:58 p.m. Nov. 28, 2007

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?

Molly | 4:04 p.m. Nov. 28, 2007

It is interesting that in the South, Romney lacks support because he is a Mormon. How about hiring the most qualified person for the job regardless of race and religious background. I am disappointed in Mr. Romney and thought him above religious bigotry considering he is facing this at the moment.

DCJ | 4:05 p.m. Nov. 28, 2007

This is a non-story story. Although he may have botched the delivery for the trick question, he clearly was saying he did not have an affirmative action-like need to put a Muslim in the cabinet. Asked the same question about Mormons or any other religion, he would have said the same thing.

Flip Romney | 4:15 p.m. Nov. 28, 2007

Mitt Romney, is a blatant pandering flip-flopper, and lost my support MONTHS ago. He gives rational people soooo much ammunition, but the incident in this article....is not one of them. It appears to be a trap question.

I used to live in the Detroit/Toledo metro area, and can honestly say I still knew more Christians, Jews, Wiccans, and Atheists than Muslims, and THAT area is "Mecca" for Muslim-Americans. Not everybody is capable of performing the essential functions of the job of a cabinet member, so statistically, the smaller your demographic is, the less likely you will be ethnically represented. He could have just as easily said what he said about albinos, dwarfs, or people with 6 fingers on their left hand. It isn't that there's anything wrong with those other people...it's just that there aren't that many of them.

Jimmy | 4:15 p.m. Nov. 28, 2007

CJem, you've got to be kidding me, right? I really wish that we lived in a society that if the most qualified people for the cabinet were all white, middle-age protestant males, then that is who we would pick without fear of being called racist or sexist or worrying that the middle-east will hate us. No one would make a stink of it if not a single white, Christian male was put on the cabinet. Can you imagine the back-lash if I wanted to put on a Straight-Pride Parade or a White-Guy rally. This country is collapsing because we we're afraid of being perceived as something that we are not. Does Romney really have to appoint a black, lesbian, muslim, amputee, dwarf in order to be a good President???

Context | 4:37 p.m. Nov. 28, 2007

I have to admit, this sounds like the gentleman who is writing about his response has deeper issues than Romney's response. I would like to read verbatim what both said in this situation. It does seem like it would be an incredibly stupid response to say that Muslims would not be qualified for top positions based on their religion. This guys take on Romney's response does not gel with Romney at all. Somebody suggested that this guy is just trying to smear Romney, and I think that is plausible.

change is good | 5:10 p.m. Nov. 28, 2007

All is impermanent. Everything always changes in time. Including the status and power of The United States. Every country has its turn at the top. All are replaced sooner or later by some other country.

Not the right stuff | 5:12 p.m. Nov. 28, 2007

I think Romney would have a good shot at governor of Utah.
But President of the United States ... I don't think so.

Anonymous | 5:39 p.m. Nov. 28, 2007

Mitt does a great job representing his religion and the morality of the Republican Party and conservatives. The question: is this what Americans want?

Ken Baguley | 5:53 p.m. Nov. 28, 2007

This is hot stuff! From the above quote, Mitt did not say he would not appoint because of religion, it was because of the small percentage of Americans the Muslims represented. Government is for all Americans and posts should represent as many of the mainstream citizens as possible...He went on to say that he could appoint muslims at lower posts. Maybe we should appoint an Eskimo to the cabinet...It makes as much sense...

CJem | 5:56 p.m. Nov. 28, 2007

Jimmy misunderstands my comments. The president, whoever he or she is next year, comes with his own set of values based on his background, culture, etc. The president must work with people, in and out of the US, with very different values and perceptions. The work would be aided if the president has advisers who can help understand the people who the president is trying to work with. There are numerous examples through US history where cultural differences complicate things.

james stowe | 6:01 p.m. Nov. 28, 2007

Mitt for USA President?

I hope to die first!

against mitt | 6:16 p.m. Nov. 28, 2007

come on all you haters--you know why you don't like romney--be honest to yourselves--its because of his faith--maybe

In a pig's eye | 6:23 p.m. Nov. 28, 2007

"As [another web site] reported, the founder of CAIR, the leading Islamic lobby group, reportedly told a group of Muslims in California they are in America not to assimilate but to help assert Islam's rule over the country. CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper also has said, in a newspaper interview, he hopes to see an Islamic government over the U.S. some day, brought about not by violence but through 'education.' "

And this group is saying let them be in higher levels of government? When CAIR steps down it rhetoric, maybe.

No Mitt | 6:22 p.m. Nov. 28, 2007

I don't like Mitt because I don't agree with his policies--his religion doesn't make any difference whatsoever.

I wish he would stop using the word Jihadist. Anything who knows a shred about Islam knows that this term is incorrectly used. It makes him look really uneducated about one of the world's great monotheistic faiths.

And no, I am NOT Muslim.

re: against mitt | 6:30 p.m. Nov. 28, 2007

Actually no, I share his faith and still don't want him as my President. And it's not because of his political party; I'm a Republican and just like I called Mr. Kerry a flip-flopper four years ago, to be honest with myself, I also have to call Mr. Romney one as well.

george | 6:36 p.m. Nov. 28, 2007

another instance of the true bigotry of Romney showing. Why even consider another bigot?

Why | 6:53 p.m. Nov. 28, 2007

Mitt haters never say why!!!!Hate his policies, flip flop, etc. Really his ethics abilities, and brains far exceed the posters in this column...far exceed indeed.

re: george | 7:12 p.m. Nov. 28, 2007

To some degree most all of us are bigots

Dee | 8:21 p.m. Nov. 28, 2007

Radical Muslims are our country's worst enemies right now. To put a Muslim in a cabinet position would be like putting a communist in a cabinet position during the cold war with the USSR. The logic that we can communicate with our enemies better with a Muslim in a cabinet position, just does not hold water!!

OMG | 8:25 p.m. Nov. 28, 2007

A Mormon and a Muslim walk into a bar.....

Adam | 8:42 p.m. Nov. 28, 2007

I don't beleive this is even an issue. I am undecided right now and I would much rather have articles about the candidates that show what their policies are, not how they respond to random and misleading questions.

As for the flip-flopper claim, being able to admit your ideals were wrong and WHY shows far more insight into the character of that person than someone who never analyzes their thoughts and beliefs. Everyone has the right to change their opinions.

Deseret Dawg | 8:51 p.m. Nov. 28, 2007

Maybe if Muslims would quit burning down France, blowing up the London and Madrid subways, and taking down our skyscrapers, perhaps there'd be less hostility towards Islam.

I realize many Muslims, particularly American Muslims, are productive, law-abiding citizens, but Islam is a violent, barbaric religion which consigns women to second-class citizenship and imposes hideous punishments like amputation upon miscreants. Islam is in serious need of a Reformation to bring it from the 10th century to the 21st century.

Ron | 8:57 p.m. Nov. 28, 2007

Fact: Romney was blatantly misquoted out of context by Mr. Ijaz in the original hit piece.

Fact: Mr. Ijaz was a democratic fundraiser in the last election cycle.

Conclusion: What business did Ijaz have at a Republican fundraiser? I would say that it was all a ploy to ask a deliberately crafted question and twist the response in a calculated effort to make Romney look bad. Looks to me like the dirt is starting to fly. The Dems are afraid of Romney and we will see more and more of this kind of nonsense as time progresses.

And to those who keep throwing out the flip flop label, just admit that it is a cover for your secret religious bigotry.

Call me a racist | 9:09 p.m. Nov. 28, 2007

But 98% of terrorism worldwide has roots in Muslim extremists. It is very difficult not to be suspicious of the Muslim religion. Being suspicious makes you a racist.

Muslim coutries would NEVER consider anyone but a Muslim for government positions.
They are the type that kill teenagers for teaching English (ie Afganistan recently).
This is the religion that put the teacher in jail a couple of days ago in Sudan because her 7 year old students chose to name their class toy bear Muhamed. She is now to get 40 lashes also.
Muslim countries routinely punish women for being raped by giving them 40 lashes.
Muslim countries worldwide have absolutely NO tolerance for any other religion in government in society or in anything.

So why should we bend over backwards to get someone from that religion of intollerance into our governtment?

I guess I really am a racist. We are becoming so open mided our brains are falling out.

Wow | 9:17 p.m. Nov. 28, 2007

Then why is he not getting more support from his Party? Funny after observing the Republican party the last 7-8 years I didn't no there was any morality left to represent.

I am an independent voter who won't vote for any candidate in the Republican party because of the Bush's administration policies the last two terms.

As far as Romney is concerned, I doubt he will be the Republican nominee simply because of his faith. Personally, I could care less about his faith but I don't agree with his stance on several issues. For instance, he supports the war in Iraq, he discriminates against gays, and his immigration record is unclear.

Reality | 9:19 p.m. Nov. 28, 2007

It makes one wonder if Mitt would consider appointing a Mormon to his cabinet.

dcc | 9:32 p.m. Nov. 28, 2007

Flip-flopin' Mitt the varment hunter puts his foot into it again.

Politically Incorrect | 9:57 p.m. Nov. 28, 2007

How hard is it for Mitt to just say, "if the qualifications fit the individual, then I don't see any reason why they shouldn't be in the cabinet." Such a more politically correct thing to say, rather than rambling about proportionality of demographics. This guy is going to get fried in debates with that sort of an attitude. Not that he has a legitimate shot at the presidency anyway, being a Republican and all.

Re: Adam | 10:00 p.m. Nov. 28, 2007

Of course everyone has the right to change an opinion! That does not however mean I have to vote for them. If you choose to believe he sincerely supports your position, then by all means vote for the man. I would personally rather vote for someone with a record demonstrating a belief in my value system, not for someone with a record that contradicts those values and what he/she claims to believe in the present. To me that is just plain risky and irresponsible.

Agenda | 10:30 p.m. Nov. 28, 2007

One thing is completely obvious from this............Ijaz has an agenda. His questions were phrased in a way to give himself a story regardless of the answer. Either, the story is: Mormon Presidential Candidate Opposes Muslim Politicians, or Mormon Presidential Candidate Supports Further Understanding of Jiihadism by Appointing Muslims to the White House.

Either way, Ijaz is out to make Romney backpedal and appear odd to constituents.

Ijaz is just trying to get his agenda out.

Page:
1
2
Next >

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.