Exclusive: Romney Opposed Naming Muslim To Cabinet On Second Occasion, Witnesses Say
Presidential canidate Mitt Romney has discounted appointing Muslims to his cabinet on more than just the one occasion reported in a CSM op-ed yesterday.
TPM Election Central has learned that at a private fundraising lunchleon in Los Vegas three months ago, Romney said a second time he would probably not appoint a Muslim to his cabinet -- and on this occasion, he made other comments that one witness described as "racist."
The witness, Irma Aguirre, a former finance director of the Nevada Republican Party, paraphrased Romney as saying: "They're radical. There's no talking to them. There's no negotiating with them."
A second witness, a self-described local registered Republican named George Harris, confirmed her account.
The new accounts provided by the witnesses lend credence to the now-notorious account of a more recent private Romney event that appeared in the Christian Science Monitor yesterday that already caused an uproar. In that account, a Muslim businessman, Mansour Ijaz, claimed that Romney had said that based on the "numbers of American Muslims" in the country, "I cannot see that a cabinet position would be justified" for a muslim.
The alleged comment has put Romney on the defensive. Today at a press availability he denied the op-ed account. He suggested that in response to a question he hadn't opposed having a Muslim in the cabinet outright, but merely had said he didn't think you need a Muslim in the cabinet to effectively fight Jihadism. Romney also said he would make cabinet appointments without regard to quotas or ethnicity:
I don't have boxes that I check off as to their ethnicity. It's not that I have to have a certain number of each different ethnic group; instead I would choose people based upon their merits and their capabilities.
But Aguirre's account, confirmed by the second witness, suggests that Romney has told others he would not appoint a Muslim to a cabinet post suggests that Romney has addressed this question before and given a similar answer to the one he reportedly gave to the Monitor op-ed writer.
Aguirre says Romney made the comments three months ago at Lawry's restaurant in Las Vegas, at a different event from the one chronicled in the Monitor op-ed. Aguirre says that she was at the event with local Republican George Harris, who asked Romney the relevant question. She described the exchange this way:
"His question was something to the effect of, `Considering the problems that we have with the Jihadist movement and the problems we have with the Middle East, would you consider having a Muslim as an adviser that can guide you as to what kind of decisions to make with regards to the Middle East?'"
"He said, `Probably not.'"
Aguirre added that what Romney said next surprised her. "He said something to the effect of, `They're radicals. There's no talking to them. There's no negotiating with them.' I can't remember the exact words he used, but that was the explanation. We left thinking, `Wow, what a racist comment. He automatically assumed that all Muslims are radical.'"
Harris, a self-described registered Republican who's also the state GOP finance chair and who asked Romney the question, confirmed this account in a telephone interview with TPM Election Central.
"My question was, `Look, with the amount of Muslims that don't trust the United States, would you consider it prudent to put a Muslim in your cabinet?' He said, `Most likely not.' And he went on to say what Irma said he said. I was more angry than she was. I said, `I'm not gonna support this guy.' If he's gonna be President of the United States, don't you think you need to be a little more open minded?"
As it happens, the question posed to Romney in Las Vegas led to the follow-up question, also in Nevada, three months later. Aguirre and Harris subsequently told the businessman who later wrote the Monitor article of their exchange with Romney. The businessman, Mansoor Ijaz, who has actively lobbied American officials on Mideast policy for many years, tells me that this is what prompted him to go to the event he described in the article and ask Romney the question again.
The Romney campaign didn't immediately return a request for comment.
Late Update: Opening paragraphs edited from original for clarity.
Comments (53)
Mike M. wrote on November 27, 2007 5:34 PM:Yeah. Romney's a loser.
But I'm much more interested in who Hillary wants on her cabinet:
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/11/27/clinton-to-colin-powell-be-my-diplomat/
I'm a Hillary supporter but, come on, Greg. TPMElectioncentral needs to be all over this one.
Greg wrote on November 27, 2007 5:42 PM:yeah, we'll def post on that. no question.
fishbrake wrote on November 27, 2007 5:44 PM:Romney's supposed comments about Muslims are prejudicial but they're not necessarily "racist". Muslims come in all colors, just like Christians or Mormons for that matter (at least since 1978).
Carl Nyberg wrote on November 27, 2007 5:45 PM:Mitt's "macaca" moment
should be working wrote on November 27, 2007 5:55 PM:while this is not exactly tolerant, it's also all based on hearsay. while i'm all for dinging phonies like romney, i'm a little uncomfortable that this is all he said/he said, and not in fact on tape as was maccaca.
Ni Daye wrote on November 27, 2007 5:59 PM:You guys are nuts if you think this should hurt Romney. Tell me who would be pushed off by this. Honestly, who would not wish Muslim as a region has never existed. Tell me nothing is wrong with this religion:
In 2005 a Sudanese paper was closed for three months and its editor arrested for reprinting articles questioning the roots of the Prophet Mohammad, a move which prompted angry protests.
Al-Wifaq editor Mohamed Taha was later abducted from his home by armed men and beheaded.
I'm wondering why you would want preferential treatment for a RELIGIOUS choice and not for an ETHNIC choice?
Muslim is a religious affiliation not an ethnicity?
WTF gives here people?
I wouldn't want to hear the president say no Catholics or no jews but WTF? Is he required to name a muslim? Hell no.
I'd rather see more women and black men not to mention hispanics in the Cabinet and I don't give a fig about their religion.
CT Voter wrote on November 27, 2007 6:10 PM:This isn't going to be Romney's "Macaca" moment, and not just because it wasn't caught on tape but because people around the country seem to share "Ni Daye"'s attitude about Muslims...so Romney's only going to be hurt by this in the very voting sectors that wouldn't have voted for him in the first place.
And "Ni Daye": what does "Muslim as a region" mean, anyway? And I'm happy to tell you there's nothing wrong with Islam. Some serious things wrong with a minority of its practioners. Just like there's nothing wrong with Christianity. But there are some serious things wrong with a minority of people who "practice" Christianity...
Ni Daye, what other religions do you wish never existed?
Anonymous wrote on November 27, 2007 6:15 PM:This story has the potential to lose the election for Romney.
Look, several REPUBLICAN DONORS and VOTERS, including a former STATE REPUBLICAN PARTY OFFICIAL said that Romney is a racist. Unless their accounts are discredited, he could be toast.
Even the Republicans aren't going to nominate such an open and obvious racist in this day and age.
And Mitt, given the low percentage of Mormons in America, will you also have a Cabinet with no Mormons?
edog wrote on November 27, 2007 6:19 PM:Aguirre added that what Romney said next surprised her. "He said something to the effect of, `They're radicals. There's no talking to them. There's no negotiating with them.' I can't remember the exact words he used, but that was the explanation. We left thinking, `Wow, what a racist comment. He automatically assumed that all Muslims are radical.'"
Look at what he was responding to...
`Considering the problems that we have with the Jihadist movement and the problems we have with the Middle East
he was saying that there was no negotiating with the jihadist. What is unfair or untrue about that. You can't negotiate with someone who in the negotiation one of their requests is that they get to kill all of you. Smarten up people!
Genghis wrote on November 27, 2007 6:23 PM:I love it when members of stereotyped religious minorities stereotype members of other stereotyped religious minorities. (Try saying that 10 times fast.)
bobh wrote on November 27, 2007 6:24 PM:How is it racist if hes talking about a religious affiliation?
pinson wrote on November 27, 2007 6:25 PM:i'm a little uncomfortable that this is all he said/he said, and not in fact on tape as was maccaca.
Tape or no tape, all three of these people are quite credible. Why on earth would a GOP state finance director come out with something like this? Working for Rudy? Doubtful. Ijaz is a relatively well-known public figure also. He wouldn't apparently have an ax to grind. Maybe so, but what exactly? The most plausible explanation here is that Willard Mitt thought he was talking to wingnuts, and he was just telling them what he thought they wanted to hear. It's what he's always done throughout his political life.
CT Voter wrote on November 27, 2007 6:26 PM:Nice effort, edog.
"His question was something to the effect of, `Considering the problems that we have with the Jihadist movement and the problems we have with the Middle East, would you consider having a Muslim as an adviser that can guide you as to what kind of decisions to make with regards to the Middle East?'"CT Voter wrote on November 27, 2007 6:28 PM:"He said, `Probably not.'"
Aguirre added that what Romney said next surprised her. "He said something to the effect of, `They're radicals. There's no talking to them. There's no negotiating with them
He was not asked about negotiating with the jihadis, he was asked about the possible helpfulness of having a Muslim in his Cabinet. Having a Muslim in his Cabinet is the equivalent to him (and you) of negotiating with the jihadis?? Huh??
Nice. Tell me again why that's not some form of bigotry?
Oops. sorry about the crappy html editing.
edog:
"His question was something to the effect of, `Considering the problems that we have with the Jihadist movement and the problems we have with the Middle East, would you consider having a Muslim as an adviser that can guide you as to what kind of decisions to make with regards to the Middle East?'"
"He said, `Probably not.'"
Aguirre added that what Romney said next surprised her. "He said something to the effect of, `They're radicals. There's no talking to them. There's no negotiating with them
He was not asked about negotiating with the jihadis, he was asked about the possible helpfulness of having a Muslim in his Cabinet. Having a Muslim in his Cabinet is the equivalent to him (and you) of negotiating with the jihadis?? Huh??
Nice. Tell me again why that's not some form of bigotry?
The most plausible explenation is that the muslims involved had it out for romney to begin with and dont want him to be president.
It wouldn't be the first time a candidate said something stupid.
Romney i thought, was smarter than this. Where he should have said I would consider it and left it at that he let his mouth run without the brain to guide it and now theres a story.
Obama 08
bob voso wrote on November 27, 2007 6:49 PM:Romney could have turned it to his advantage saying "I don't choose people based on their religious affiliation"
TheraP wrote on November 27, 2007 7:04 PM:Turn his own logic against him. If he thinks being part of a minority disqualifies someone from high office, then what is he doing seeking the presidency? He should drop out and seek a suitably lower position - by his logic!
RobbyLove wrote on November 27, 2007 7:20 PM:In other news, dog-bites-man...
What, he was going to win over Republican voters by saying he WOULD have Muslims in his cabinet? Stupid question, obvious answer, we learned nothing. Give us some real news. I'm glad the Democratic candidates are staying out of this one. Just a stupid non-story from beginning to end.
Genghis wrote on November 27, 2007 7:25 PM:George Allen wasn't sunk by the "macaca" comment alone. After the macaca episode, people from his past started talking about how he had used the n-word, and he also had that weird response to revelations of his Jewish ancestry.
If Romney really is a racist and was dumb enough to express racist opinions on other occasions, I bet it will come out, and he'll be hosed. But if there isn't anything else out there, I think it will blow over.
Yeechang Lee wrote on November 27, 2007 7:28 PM:[Also posted, in slightly-edited form, at race42008.com.]
The fact that these two other witnesses’ accounts to Ijaz apparently prompted his question *increases* the odds that we’re not getting the whole story on his conversation with Romney.
After all, were the exchange premeditated, Ijaz would surely have made sure to be able to record the conversation, or at least try to immediately afterward write down, word for word, both his question and Romney’s full answer. That’s what any intelligent interviewer would do.
The op-ed piece has neither. It paraphrases Ijaz’s own question (!), and has an ellipsis before Romney’s alleged quote. As Dafydd ab Hugh points out at length, both are never good things to do when recounting a conversation.
Bottom line: The news of the two other people increases the odds that Ijaz has a more-complete account of what transpired. Since he’s had more than 24 hours of media attention on the issue and hasn’t provided any such thing, there’s no reason now to assume his sincerity.
As for Aguirre and Harris, I see no reason not to think that Romney's "they" referred to the members of the "Jihadist movement," not Muslims in general. (As Daffy Duck put it, "pronoun trouble.") That was my first take when reading their accounts.
Let's use common sense here. There's no question Romney is unusually mindful of minority religious groups' rights. In that light, is there any evidence whatsoever that he is an anti-Muslim bigot? I am not aware of any, nor any reason not to give him the benefit of the doubt here.
Bon wrote on November 27, 2007 7:52 PM:OK, now using Romney's reasoning and considering the relatively low percentage of mormons in comparison to the general population of the U.S., would someone please ask Romney if he would not also be putting any mormons in his hypothetical cabinet? What about White House counsel and various advisers? Press secretary? Etc etc etc? Would all these be non-mormons as well?
RobbyLove wrote on November 27, 2007 8:16 PM:This is the dumbest hit piece I've ever seen. Yes, the sky is blue, the sun rises in the East and coffee smells better than it tastes. And, oh, by the way, Republicans don't like Muslims.
*sigh*
Can't we come up with anything better on these guys?
Anonymous wrote on November 27, 2007 8:53 PM:Sorry to intrude on your left-wing circle-jerk, but if any of you lemmings were intellectually honest, you might have a problem with Greg's assertion that Aguirre's account was "confirmed" by another witness, when their recollections of the question posed to Romney (which is the key to interpreting his response) are wildly different.
Aguirre:
"His question was something to the effect of, `Considering the problems that we have with the Jihadist movement and the problems we have with the Middle East, would you consider having a Muslim as an adviser that can guide you as to what kind of decisions to make with regards to the Middle East?'"
Harris:
"My question was, `Look, with the amount of Muslims that don't trust the United States, would you consider it prudent to put a Muslim in your cabinet?'"
To which Romney explains that you can't negotiate with "them." Hmm... was he responding to a question about "Jihadists," or "Muslims that don't trust the United States." The difference didn't jump out to you? If not, maybe you have the anti-Muslim problem.
Wait... how does this hurt Romney?!? From what I can see, he will get a bounce out of this! Much of middle America would strongly support his perspective and likely hold it themselves. Whichever campaign (McCain or Giuliani) is behind this has a serious disconnect with the American people if they think this is a horrific story for Mitt. Get real. Mitt may have just won me over.
Dave Bowman wrote on November 27, 2007 9:34 PM:I'd be inclined to give Romney a break on this one--like most wingnuts he's probably never met an actual live Muslim before.
I have a problem with any president appointing (or not) anyone, based upon their religious affiliation. Period.
tacitus wrote on November 27, 2007 10:10 PM:While Romney may not be a racist, he was an adult member of the racist Mormon Church at a time when black people were not allowed to hold a position of authority in their hierarchy (before 1978).
He should, at least the very least, be asked about that little issue.
OxyCon wrote on November 27, 2007 10:42 PM:"I don't think America should ever elect a Mormon as President. It's not the ridiculousness of Maroni, or that I'm a bigot or anything like that. It only has to do with the fact that Moromons make up such a small percentage of our population."
There, I just used Romney's own logic to disqualify him from higher office.
I B Joshin wrote on November 27, 2007 11:17 PM:The big thing here, I think, is that Romney denied the CSM report. This latest bit of news seems to catch him out lying. It looks like it, anyway. Nothing proven, but what are the odds? So I think that's the big thing --the denial. I could be wrong.
gcs wrote on November 27, 2007 11:32 PM:I tend to agree with the Right Wing assclowns on this one.
Romney has nothing at all to lose by dismissing the idea of Muslims in his cabinet outright. In fact, let's face it, the very question is just another pointless left-wing panderfest. I mean, seriously, besides bearded, self-impressed, self-loathing, immature bigoted left-wing losers with overblown ideas of their own self-importance, who gives a fuck whether a cabinet official is black or brown or gay or muslim or carries a twat around? Funny that the people who claim to care the least are always the ones asking the question the most. Now, why is that? Huh?
douglasfactors wrote on November 27, 2007 11:55 PM:Assuming this story will hurt Romney, are you guys trying to give the nomination back to Guiliani, and if so, why?
Steve wrote on November 28, 2007 1:32 AM:This is such a joke! What serious American President would want a Muslim in their cabinet in this day and age? I sure wouldn't.
Jay wrote on November 28, 2007 3:57 AM:Steve, you've made a very strange comment. Appointments to the United States cabinet are/should be made based on one's competence. Let's say, there is a person who qualifies this competence test but comes from a (religious) minority, how can you deny him the well-deserved position?
My position is that s/he is an American as much as you. S/he cares about the country and people as much as you. He deserves equal rights and opportunities as much as you.
This is all a little hearsay from a bunch of libs (you guys). Anyone actually got anything on tape? Thought not.
viper123456 wrote on November 28, 2007 6:12 AM:You gotta cater to the base...and the GOP base is not the most open minded crew. Essentially, the base doesn't really represent historic American values. They would truly prefer a theocracy bent on world domination...you can say that in the inner circle but not too loudly outside that circle...sometimes word gets out (like in this incident).
(posted at skewz.com)
longtom wrote on November 28, 2007 6:15 AM:Romney's a mutt, but do we really want the next election to be a referendum on whether a Muslim should be in the cabinet or not?
What's the converse of "I will not appoint a Muslim to my cabinet."?
Is it, "I WILL appoint a Muslim to my cabinet."? Do the Dems really want their candidate to run with that as a campaign slogan?
Both are equally ridiculous statements.
Invigilator wrote on November 28, 2007 6:20 AM:Steve, Jay -- and let's say that one of the most competent officials in the current, Republican administration happens to be a Muslim, and is in fact so good at his job(s) partly becasue he is a Muslim -- shouldn't he be one of the ones you keep? (I actually think he's [Zalmay Khalilzad] very good where he is right now, as Ambassador to the UN -- and that has been a Cabinet-rank position in previous administrations.)
Rick 554 wrote on November 28, 2007 7:32 AM:HMMMMM Has anyone seen any CHRISTIAN death squads lately?? To equate right wing Chritians with alquida death squads seems to be a reach , even for a lib. Grow up libs
Anonymous wrote on November 28, 2007 7:57 AM:Perhaps not pRick, but we have seen nutjob ultra-rightwing terrorists. I guess McVeigh doesn't fit the bill?
BernieO wrote on November 28, 2007 9:09 AM:The constitution expressly forbids having a religious test for public office. That includes eliminating someone on the basis of his or her religion. Even if this doesn't technically apply to cabinet officers (but it sure sounds to me like it does) this is a violation of the spirit of the Constitution. Whether it hurts or helps Romney politically is besides the point. It is deeply un-American.
Lostinspace223 wrote on November 28, 2007 9:46 AM:This is a non-issue. Mansoor Ijaz's op-ed shows that he asked Romney if he would create a cabinet position specifically for a Muslim to advise him on Muslim issues. Romney only answered that he saw no need for this at this time. Ijaz is just twisting this issue, as he wrote that Romney " seems to accept excluding Muslims because of their religion,..." Romney did not say he would not accept advice from Muslims--he only said he saw no need for a cabinet position for such an advisor.
When America was founded it was seen by the majority as a place to flee Catholic dominated Europe--did a previous president ever create a cabinet position for a Catholic to advise him on Catholic issues? If Romney is a bigot, then so is Bush, and Clinton.
Rick554, i really want to curse at you but my religion tells me to stop
HMMMMM Has anyone seen any CHRISTIAN death squads lately?? To equate right wing Chritians with alquida death squads seems to be a reach , even for a lib. Grow up libs
Search the google for Lebanon, phalangists, serbians, and croations. Those guys have killed as many as alquita
just becuase it's not in front your face every day in the news doesn't mean their is no such thing as a christian (or jewish, or Budhist) death squad.
We wont talk about Christian-offshoot cults, though that's what alquita seems to be.
Rantly McTirade wrote on November 28, 2007 12:58 PM: Finally, a prostitician comes somewhat close to the truth.
Western countries must separate completely from Islam, and separation absolutely includes ejecting any Muslim within the West. A Muslim can no more be part of Western civilization than a cat can also be an elephant.
Those who resist expulsion are legitimate targets for execution.
You fools and traitors who pine for the love and approvalof the fecal matter of humanity should join them and use your blinding intelligence and suave sociability to help them create something approaching a civilizedculture and society in those lands where their philosophy of failure and ignorance holds sway.
You'll be beheaded within a month.
To all you lefty idiots that cry racism over everything. Could the person that stated she heard racist statements from Romney tell me what race is a muslim. I had a friend convert to a muslim but his skin color did not change, he still looks white and is still considered caucasian. Was Mahommad Ali African-American or Muslim.
Borovan wrote on November 28, 2007 6:32 PM:Look, several REPUBLICAN DONORS and VOTERS, including a former STATE REPUBLICAN PARTY OFFICIAL said that Romney is a racist. Unless their accounts are discredited, he could be toast.
On the off chance this hasn't already been pointed out, Islam is a religion, not a race. There are Muslims of all available ethnicities and combinations thereof. Romney's comments may have been unadvisable on multiple levels, but they weren't "racist" in any meaningful sense of the word, so that particular charge isn't going to stick.
George wrote on November 28, 2007 9:48 PM:Oh, you will find this interesting. It's from September, where Romney answers a question just like Ijaz's the same way.
http://www.liberty-watch.com/volume03/issue06/fromtheeditor.php
ADnone wrote on November 29, 2007 12:51 AM:"And, oh, by the way, Republicans don't like Muslims. *sigh*"
And should we be ok with that? As an American MUSLIM, and a very proud one at that, I take Mittenhead's attack very personally. Just because it doesn't bother some on this post because they don't happen to be Muslim, or don't know what its like to have incidents where your sister is spit at in broad daylight while crossing the street of a mall, or your mother be yelled at from the top of a old nutjob's lungs for no apparent reason as she does her weekly shopping is quite disturbing.
This is the sad predicament of the Repuglicans now. And for the Dems to stay silent by not saying indeed I WILL appoint a Muslim cabinet member based on his competence AND faith because I feel he can be the best ambassador of America to 1/5th of humanity is saying much about America and the PR effort to win hearts and minds.
Like it or not, the cult of al-Qaeda is competing with Duncan Hunter's generous assessment of America the savior after "tsunamis, hunger, death, and war."
But people aren't stupid. You don't invade a Muslim country (Iraq) with the history of having the distinction of being the earliest civilization that gave roots to "Western civilization" and as being the heart of the Islamic Empire with Baghdad being the once thriving capital, and say "See we love you too."
It reminds me of Afghanistan and Lebanon, drop cluster bombs while dropping yellow packets of food, with the victims being hungry kids losing their legs trying to get to the food.
Look, we all know America isn't all bad, but cursed currently with a horrible leadership and politicians beholden to the pro-Israel lobby.
Unless the Dems take the lead in fighting bigotry (I agree being anti-Muslim hater is not racism, its bigotry) esp. from Repuglicans, they'll lose out on a crucial voting block that actually and sadly gave enough votes to tip the election to Bush in Florida in '2000 (50,000 Muslim votes) and to Jim Webb in Virginia (macaca) in '06.
I frankly can't think of a stronger message being sent to fellow co-religionist overseas (where the sovereign wealth funds of the Gulf states by the way might of helped Citi) than have a successful, devout American Muslim serve as shining example of the possibility of America. That "this nation is really not against you." That one gesture followed up by NO INVASIONS and war will do more than all the sweet PR talks of Karen Hughes, "peace process," or even bin Laden.
Lastly I close with saying I'm still just ONE Muslim out of a billion. Don't stereotype and assume all Muslims feel the way I do. The best way to know if you truly want a non-monolithic opinion is ask them yourself. (It'll take the fear of many Americans out, which is then exploited to justify more wars against Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lebanon. Don't let Rudy "I'll link Islam with terrorism" Giuliani and Mitt "No Muslim in my Cabinet" Romney tell you what to think. If your a Dem, your 99% way there.
Lastly I can't close without saying one candidate that best articulates my personal view more than anyone (even if I'm a Dem) is Ron Paul.
GO PAUL '08. I didn't read 1 supporter and I'm disappointed.
Saleem Siddiqui wrote on November 29, 2007 6:14 PM:Mitt Romney is being accused of Religious Bigotry?
He has been suggesting that everyone else is bigoted because we should not talk about Mormons, but here he expresses his views of Muslims in general.
Listen to this episode of the Hot Conflict Radio show discussing Mitt Romney on Islam.
http://www.hotconflict.com/blog/2007/11/mitt-romney-isl.html
Why was the paraphrase in quotes? This reeks of bias on so many levels. The first account was bogus of Mr. Ljaz, and now all of a sudden we are supposed to believe that the accounts have to be true based on these lame attempts?? I've played the game telephone, which distorts what has been said as the game goes on based on what is perceived to be heard. The merits of this story are none, which is why you have a "quote" by a guy that has already been picked apart, and an apparent paraphrase acknowledged by a guy that said it was basically correct... Bad Journalism!!
Zhou wrote on December 8, 2007 9:58 AM:After reading this story, I have the following conclusion:
Someone asked Romney whether he would choose a Muslim advisor for his cabinet to advise him on dealing with radical Islam. Romney then said "probably not" and also said that "they are radicals, there's no talking to them" meaning that the radical Muslims would not be pacified by Romney choosing a Muslim for his cabinet. This is obviously what he was saying and Aguirre (the first witness) and the other witness weren't bright enough to figure it out. The reporter that wrote the column was either also not bright enough to distinguish what was going on or is trying to write a sensationalist piece to attract readers.
Zhou wrote on December 8, 2007 9:58 AM:After reading this story, I have the following conclusion:
Someone asked Romney whether he would choose a Muslim advisor for his cabinet to advise him on dealing with radical Islam. Romney then said "probably not" and also said that "they are radicals, there's no talking to them" meaning that the radical Muslims would not be pacified by Romney choosing a Muslim for his cabinet. This is obviously what he was saying and Aguirre (the first witness) and the other witness weren't bright enough to figure it out. The reporter that wrote the column was either also not bright enough to distinguish what was going on or is trying to write a sensationalist piece to attract readers.
