Mitt: No Muslims for Me

Via an offended Shadi Hamid, Mansour Ijaz reports on Mitt Rommey saying something awfully strange:

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."

So because there are relatively few Muslims in the United States, Romney wouldn't consider a Muslim cabinet official? Meanwhile, before Madeleine Albright was Secretary of State, she was UN Ambassador. Her successor at the UN was Bill Richardson who went on to become Secretary of Energy. His successor was Richard Holbrooke who was widely viewed as a likely Secretary of State in a John Kerry administration and, again, is a very likely candidate for that job in a Hillary Clinton administration. John Negroponte had the job before becoming Director of National Intelligence. George HW Bush had the job before becoming CIA Director. But Romney's telling us that current UN Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad is too Muslim to be so much as considered for a cabinet post? Really? How repugnant.

Comments

When Mitt's desire to be liked by the Batshit Insane wing of the GOP collides with his total inability to pander to them subtly, the results are almost beautiful.

Posted by Daniel Munz | November 26, 2007 6:48 PM

What is the percentage of Mormans in our population?

Posted by 2cynicalbyhalf | November 26, 2007 6:57 PM

Apparently, it's about .5% Muslim vs. 2% Mormon.

But that would mean that Romney's cabinet will have one Mormon in it. And 50 members.

Posted by Greg | November 26, 2007 7:02 PM

How long until Mitt uses the Mormon Church's troubled history with African-Americans to suggest that the Republican base can trust him.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | November 26, 2007 7:07 PM

Of course, I'm sure a future Romney administration will also be sure to enforce proper proportionality-quotas on hiring when it comes to Mormons. (According to Wikipedia, 0.6% of Americans are Muslim, and 1.4% are Mormon.)

Posted by James Gary | November 26, 2007 7:12 PM

Does this mean that Democrats (since they make up roughly 25% of the American population) can expect some affirmative action placements in the Romney cabinet?

Posted by dckatiebug | November 26, 2007 7:14 PM

...and someone beat me to it while I was checking Wikipedia. Gotta move fast here.

Posted by James Gary | November 26, 2007 7:14 PM

Of course this is repugnant for the usual GOP racism/xenophobia reasons, but it's also a revealing look at how Republicans view cabinet posts. They are political patronage spoils to be doled out on the basis of how politically useful it is to reward some individual or group, not crucial executive jobs that need to be given to the people most capable of doing them well.

APS

Posted by Ape Man | November 26, 2007 7:14 PM

Oh,come now.
He didn't say that being a Islamic would bar them from a position in his administration, just that he didn't see a particular need for one. Given their rarity in our population, a cabinet that "looks like America," chosen without racial or religious bias, might not, necessarily, contain a Muslim member.

I'm sorry-- I don't like the guy, but I really don't read a repugnant no-muslims-in-the-cabinet position in his statement.

Posted by Anthony Damiani | November 26, 2007 7:15 PM

"But Romney's telling us that current UN Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad is too Muslim to be so much as considered for a cabinet post? Really? How repugnant."

Is that what he meant, or did he just mean that he would hire the most qualified candidates available, and not put a Muslim in the cabinet just for affirmative action reasons? If I were Matthew Yglesias, I'd put a call in the Romney campaign to clarify.

Posted by Fred | November 26, 2007 7:20 PM

From DefenseLink.mil: "In the United States, Islam is the fastest growing religion, a trend fueled mostly by immigration. There are 5 million to 7 million Muslims in the United States. They make up between 10,000 and 20,000 members of the American military."

Good enough to serve in the U.S. military, but not in Mitt Romney's cabinet.

That said, I look forward to Mitt Romney appointing 10 agnostics (15% of the US) to every Mormon (1.4%) in his administration based on his religious quota test.

Posted by joejoejoe | November 26, 2007 7:25 PM

This shows the flip side of specifically including a person for some external characteristic irrelevant to competence because they are underrepresented, such as Biden's promise that if he is President, the next Supreme Court justice will be a woman.

While it would be nice if underrepresented groups were represented, I think that the best way to make that happen would be to select people based on merits. Since race, religion, sex, etc. usually do not correlate to any significant degree with competence, encouraging a culture of meritocracy should move us toward better representation.

Of course, it would be silly of me to think that politics doesn't play a role in these decisions and that Biden and Romney were not just publically stating part of the criteria that any candidate uses: "Are there any political implications of nominating someone with characteristic X that could be used for my benefit or detriment?"

It seems that Romney has decided that discriminating against Muslims because their voting block is smaller than the Islamophobic one just as Biden thought that stating that he was narrowing down his Supreme Court shortlist based upon a characteristic unrelated to the judge's ability to do their job would be a somewhat successful pander to at least some of the women that make up a majority of the voting populace.

Posted by Meng Bomin | November 26, 2007 7:25 PM

How long until Mitt uses the Mormon Church's troubled history with African-Americans to suggest that the Republican base can trust him.

Depends on when Giuliani starts running on, not away from, the corpse of Amadou Diallo, as a sign that the Republican base can trust him...

Posted by Davis X. Machina | November 26, 2007 7:31 PM

I don't know what's worse: Mitt Romney's casual dismissal of naming a qualified Muslim to a possible Romney Cabinet; or his idiotic grounds that it's not "justified" based on "numbers"???

This is scarcely Presidential deliberation - he sounds like some Boston ward boss trying to figure out how to allocate a limited supply of Thanksgiving turkeys in a multi-ethnic neighborhood. Whatta maroon!

Posted by Jay C | November 26, 2007 7:35 PM

OT: 1-202-225-0100 DEMAND IMPEACHMENT. (one year until the election, so it seem a bit premature to start filling cabinet posts)

Posted by Mike Meyer | November 26, 2007 7:38 PM

So, clearly, there won't be any Jews in a Romney cabinet... right?

Posted by MattF | November 26, 2007 7:43 PM

Depends on when Giuliani starts running on, not away from, the corpse of Amadou Diallo, as a sign that the Republican base can trust him...

There should be a way to get a pool going on that. Triggering event: Giuliani starts getting introduced at his speeches with "It's Giuliani Time."

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | November 26, 2007 7:43 PM

Biden's promise is not much of a promise, as it's almost certain that the next SCOTUS justice will be a woman. The GOP has such traction on the judges issue that it's hard to imagine a Dem nominee sailing through without having a dedicated base of support (i.e. some segment of the population to support them), and a woman would be best to do that. Democrats need to come up with a center-left alternative to the right's judicial policy, unless we want to continue living in a country where Sam Alito's nomination got over 60% support from the people.

As for this Mitt quote, I can see how Romney might try to spin this as saying that he really said this because he opposes affirmative action and making a cabinet that is based on merit and not on race, but that's not what he said. That quote makes it sound clearly like a numbers game, and that larger minorities might rank a cabinet position while smaller ones don't. Which is no doubt how many elite Republicans think (putting a Condi Rice or Al G should mollify those minorities, no?), but to be fair to Mitt, it isn't like the cabinet matters that much anymore, and it was FDR that pretty much ended their power.

Posted by Lev | November 26, 2007 7:45 PM

I don't know. I mean, Muslims seem to have some pretty crazy beliefs to me, like belief in an all-powerful, unverifiable deity, an immortal soul, and all sorts of weird stuff like that. That would be no basis for barring them from positions where they have very defined responsibilities, like being an ordinary receptionist, lawyer, accountant, or whatever, but it seems to me that any cabinet level position involves a huge amount of discretionary responsibility where overall patterns of rational thought, and not mere narrow competence in some specified practice, is needed. A demonstrated prospensity for irrational thought, such as being Muslim, consulting astrologers, believing that possessing a four-leafed clover or severed rabbit's foot actually does affect one's luck, etc, might well be a bona fide reason for skepticism, albeit not such an overwhelming one as to immediately disqualify the person from the cabinet-level position in question.

Just kidding. Probably.

Posted by Julian Elson | November 26, 2007 7:46 PM

. Which is no doubt how many elite Republicans think

Clinton did something similar, and it wasn't just fine, it was a good thing. "Looks like America," etc.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | November 26, 2007 7:51 PM

This is a great and telling story. Mitt should not be considered a serious candidate.

Who would trust a guy who, after whoring, lying and acting like a reasonable, civil libertarian moderate to get elected Gov of Mass, would go on the stump in front of social conservative republicans and mock Mass and its citizens?

So much for dance with the one who brought you. Romney’s ethic is “fuck over anyone”-- he has no centered grounding. He maybe more frightening than the Fascist Guiliani. At least with Guiliani, you know what your getting.

Romney does not pass the smell test regarding character or integrity. He is not someone you would want your daughter or sister to go out on a date with.

Posted by larry | November 26, 2007 7:55 PM

Not only repugnant but unconstitutional too.

Article IV: "...but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

Romney of all people should know that.

Posted by JJF | November 26, 2007 8:04 PM

That should read "Article VI."

Posted by JJF | November 26, 2007 8:06 PM

this looks to me stupid of romney, but from what he said it doesn't look like the issue is "too muslim"

he made an argument about the muslim % of the population. the silliness is that this is not an issue of numbers in the population, but of potential impact to an effective foreign policy.

in this light it is pretty stupid to exclude muslims

Posted by DIS | November 26, 2007 8:18 PM

this looks to me stupid of romney, but from what he said it doesn't look like the issue is "too muslim"

he made an argument about the muslim % of the population. the silliness is that this is not an issue of numbers in the population, but of potential impact to an effective foreign policy.

in this light it is pretty stupid to exclude muslims

Posted by DIS | November 26, 2007 8:19 PM

isn't the UN ambassadorship a cabinet position (started when kennedy had to find a job for stevenson, iirc)? has that status changed? so, it appears that we have already allowed ourselves to have a muslim in the cabinet; islamofascism is on the march!
now, if Timmy was on the ball, this could have been a coveted "gotcha" moment: Romney not knowing what is a cabinet-level positiom.

Posted by larrybob | November 26, 2007 8:38 PM

Well, at first glance this sort of absolute political exclusion based upon personal religion seems quite contrary to America's tradition for the last century, perhaps even since the Founding Fathers.

But let's remember that Romney plans to become a God. And Gods are allowed to make their own rules...

Posted by RKU | November 26, 2007 8:44 PM

I wouldn't put any Muslims in my cabinet.

No Christians either, for that matter.

Posted by Jason C. | November 26, 2007 8:59 PM

I wouldn't put any human in any cabinet - except one to be buried six feet under. :-)

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | November 26, 2007 9:13 PM

I know that they select many positions based on race and ethnic background (e.g. Condi Rice and Alberto "Muppet" Gonzalez) but that doesn't mean they have to admit it!!! Romney is basically saying that he will select his cabinet to demographically mirror the country. Is he actually running for president? What a fuckwit!!!

Posted by Paulie | November 26, 2007 9:48 PM

Will you guys cut the partisan crap and use your brains? Or are you impervious to logic during this heated precampaign season? From the text of the question as presented by the author and Romney's response, it appears the former governor fairly interpreted the somewhat odd question as "Do you think there needs to be a Secretary for Islamic Affairs?" Romney's answer was more an attempt to solidify his stand against an expanding government rather than anything else.

Keith (Not a Romney Supporter)

Posted by Keith C. | November 26, 2007 10:11 PM

There goes my only reason for hoping Romney might win. I thought a Mormon President might appoint a cabinet composed exclusively of Baha'is, Sufis, Zoroastrians, Mazdeans, Jains, Druze, Hasids, Sikhs, and perhaps the odd Wiccan or Vodun houngan. But if he's using population percentage, forget it.

Posted by brooksfoe | November 26, 2007 10:12 PM

Keith: "From the text of the question as presented by the author and Romney's response, it appears the former governor fairly interpreted the somewhat odd question as "Do you think there needs to be a Secretary for Islamic Affairs?"

No. The question cannot be legitimately interpreted this way. It's impossible except as a post-hoc rationalization of a disgusting and indefensible answer.

Posted by Korha | November 26, 2007 10:47 PM

It's too bad that the report of Romney's genuinely offensive remark is embedded in a Mansoor Ijaz column that seems to be mostly devoted to self-aggrandizement on Ijaz's part. I get the feeling that Ijaz feels his services as a flack for Republican warmongers aren't sufficiently appreciated, and that he thinks he's entitled to a cabinet seat in a future Republican administration. Which is, I suppose, not so terrible as far as these things go, but publicly proclaiming your greatness comes off as a bit crass.

Posted by Julian Elson | November 26, 2007 11:57 PM

We receive an incomplete summary of Romney's answer through the use of an ellipses. Perhaps this really was the political equivalent of a Freudian slip and reveals the narrow mindedness and frank stupidity of an unscripted Romney. All of you looking for easy talking points to validate your monolithic conceptions of the other party or candidate will stop right there and try to one up each other in outrage. Anyone remember all the posturing following Kerry's "botched joke"? This is a similar phenomena.

I refuse to believe Romney sincerely believes what you are accusing him of saying - and even if he might believe it, he is too smart a politician to ever make a statement like that. Lets assume for a moment that Romney wanted to communicate to his audience that he distrusted Muslims in national security positions and would never employ their advice. Why would he comment on their relative proportion in the population? The answer seems so irrelevant to the question as posed by Hamid that I fear the ellipses the author employs may mask something key. Either way, any response by posters here suffer from a deficit of information as we were not present at the event and do not possess a transcript of it. Perhaps Romney was using this answer to refer to another question raised, perhaps to something he said in a speech preceding it. We don't know.

My theory is speculative, but I assume Romney is not an idiot, which means many of us are arguing from uncompromising vantage points. It may be a "post-hoc rationalization", but, again, I assume Romney is a rational man and the given answer fails to satisfy the initial question.

All presidents use cabinet positions and other high ranking areas to appease interest groups within the party. Romney might be saying he will not give out token appointments to ethnic groups, but the statement apparently implies that if they were a higher percentage of the population, then he would bestow such a token. That's logically unsound as it undercuts the accepted public argument that merit alone should determine who advises the president.

Another possible interpretation would focus on the intent of the question: Do American Muslims by nature of their faith possess some secret insight into the minds of the world's Islamic community impenetrable to men and women of other faiths, and if they do, would an American president be remiss to ignore their advice? It's a legitimate question, and our author, judging by his own experience, seems to believe so. Although he does seem to agree by saying Islamic experts who happen to be Muslim can find a place somewhere in his administration, Romney doesn't appear to answer that question either through his demographic response.

Maybe Romney thought the questioner wanted him to compare the United States' Muslim population with Europe's, (aren't demographic statistics often employed to highlight differences between similar samples) and believed the United States does not necessarily face the same assimilation and fears of domestic terror from radical Islamic groups as Great Britain, the Netherlands, or France do, therefore, a permanent Muslim position in the cabinet would seem undue.

Lets look at what he actually said: "…based on the numbers of American Muslims [as a percentage] in our population, I cannot see that a cabinet position would be justified." The key word is justified. The questioner asked if there should be a permanent American Muslim presence on the national security council. Romney, by the response we are given, says it would not be justified based on their percentage of the population. My reading of the text implies Romney thought he was asked whether a "Secretary of Islamic Affairs" or "White House Resident Scholar in Islam" is worth having. While he could have argued yes, and offended many conservatives repulsed by the allusions to affirmative action inherent in the answer, or simply said he would surround himself with the best people, the former governor's response, in the portion we have, indicates that he believes the Islamic community in America needs a voice in the government, but not necessarily at the upper echelons given their small standing in the population. Take it for what its worth.

Now I won't put it past Romney to occasionally suffer a gaffe in the thousands of extemporaneous expositions he has given, but I think he misunderstood the question, or, as I suspect, we have not been fed the full answer.

Keith

(I am perfectly willing to alter my view in light of more complete evidence. Consider me a skeptic who is tired of the media distorting what politicians say)

Posted by Keith | November 27, 2007 12:51 AM

You might be right, Keith.

I have very rarely seen a use of ellipses in quotes that didn't involve some serious skulldugery. I don't have much use for Romney, but I'd like to see the full quote.

Posted by Ed Marshall | November 27, 2007 1:11 AM

"Good enough to serve in the U.S. military..."

It's encouraging to know we have 10,000+ more potential Hasan Akbar (aka Mark Fidel Cools) under arms.

Posted by Harry | November 27, 2007 2:48 AM

Based on their percentage of the population, maybe Mormons shouldn't be considered for the Presidency, either.

Posted by moron | November 27, 2007 4:12 AM

It's encouraging to know we have 10,000+ more potential Hasan Akbar (aka Mark Fidel Cools) under arms.

Bloody hell! How many millions of potential Timothy McVeighs would that mean we're stuck with, Harry?

Posted by sweaty guy | November 27, 2007 7:14 AM

I have very rarely seen a use of ellipses in quotes that didn't involve some serious skulldugery. . . . I'd like to see the full quote.

You see them used all the time, and properly--you just don't notice them when they aren't abused.

Posted by rea | November 27, 2007 8:51 AM

Romney, paraphrased: "We're at war with Islamic radicals. I have a brilliant idea! Let's make sure my cabinet has no fucking idea what it's doing! Hell, 60% of Americans don't even know a Muslim. Only 40% of my cabinet is allowed to know a Muslim. Once they meet one, they have to resign. Brilliant!"

/end snark

To make matters worse, Khalilzad is probably the major Bush cabinet member (past and present) who has any influence and knows what he's doing. Gates is competent, but has less influence over Bush and Cheney. Condi is more competent than Cheney, but has little influence. Powell was competent, but had no influence. Bolton had influence, but is a batshit crazy Yosemite Sam wannabe. Rumsfeld had influence, but showed himself to be an old man trying to keep kids off his lawn by tazering their nuts. Just about the only other guy in Khalilzad's league was Zoellick.

Posted by Reality Man | November 27, 2007 8:56 AM

I'm for Rudy and not Romney, so I don't know why I'm saying this, but Romney's campaign appears to be saying that Ijaz is not describing the question correctly.

I guess up for dispute is if Ijaz asked Romney is whether Romney would *CONSIDER* a Muslim for the cabinet or if Ijaz asked Romney if he *NEEDS* a Muslim in the cabinet.

And, reading the Romney answer, it appears to me more likely that Ijaz asked the latter question, not the former. After all, what does the percentage of the population Muslims comprise have to do with whether you would *consider* a Muslim?

Posted by Al | November 27, 2007 1:14 PM

Whooops - I see Matthew just posted the same thing.

Posted by Al | November 27, 2007 1:16 PM