New Sources for No Muslims Mitt

At a press conference today, Mitt Romney denied having said that he would refuse to consider putting a qualified Muslim in his cabinet, but Greg Sargent says two witnesses are backing up Mansour Ijaz's version of events:

One of the witnesses, Irma Aguirre, a former finance director of the Nevada Republican Party who described herself as a registered Republican, says that she saw Romney's comments as "racist." She further paraphrased Romney as saying: "They're radical. There's no talking to them. There's no negotiating with them."

The other witness is "a self-described local registered Republican named George Harris." What's more, one needs to keep in mind when evaluating these things that none of these people, Ijaz included, has any obvious motive to lie. Indeed, the story seems to fit Romney's clumsy pandering approach to presidential politics pretty well.

Comments

I always knew Romney wouldn't go anywhere. What's most important to Christian conservatives is finding someone who (at least professes to) share your values. The religious right likes true believers. That makes two things which the Mittster is not.

I do still sorta want him to get the nomination because he'd probably be less likely to start an unwinnable, idealistic crusade. Mitt's a businessman, not an ideologue. This despite having little but contempt for the man. Initially I resisted the Yglesias line of argument and wanted Huckabee as my consolation prize, but my opinions have shifted.

Posted by Lev | November 27, 2007 5:46 PM

Greg Sargent says two witnesses are backing up Mansour Ijaz's version of events

I don't think that this is quite accurate. Sargent's witnesses weren't at the Ijaz fundraiser; they were at some other event three months ago. The witnesses don't have anything to say about Ijaz's version of what was said at this recent fundraiser. However, their statements about what happened three months ago seem to be consistent with Ijaz's statement about what happened recently.

Posted by Al | November 27, 2007 5:52 PM

OK, A1, if it seems that Mitt's previous comments are consistent with what Mansour Ijaz heard, would you agree that Mitt is operating prejudiciously, if not being an outright racist?

Posted by z adura | November 27, 2007 6:28 PM

He is done. Even if republicans are vile enough to give him the nomination, the democratic candidate will open the proverbial artery of racist Mitt.

Posted by sy | November 27, 2007 6:35 PM

One needs to keep in mind when evaluating these things that none of these people, Ijaz included, has any obvious motive to lie.

Oh, no! Not a brown-skinned person! PC says they never lie!

Ijaz?

One of Hillary's top fund-bundlers in 2000, contributing 1/2 a million to the Democrats.

Then he goes out to Nevada to declare he wants to run against the Senate Majority leader, Reid. Republicans suspect a mole, Democrats used to his misrepresentations call him on crack, and the citizens of Nevada call him a carpetbagger.

And his claims to fame - brokering the Kashmir peace, his "uncovering the AQ Khan nuclear network" - were dismissed as "ravings of a madman" by Pakistan, India as "nutty expat Paki nonsense" - and the AQ Khan bit called a self-aggrandizing lie by the Brits, who had worked with the US, India, Japan, KSA, and Israel on the AQ Kahn network since 1998.

Since he couldn't source many of his outlandish claims, Iraz, once loved as the "voice of Moderate Muslims" like Sharpton was the "voice of blacks", was mostly dropped as a regular media talking head by 2004.

Now his "two witnesses" turn out not to even been at the event.

Give him credit for audacity to request he (if you read his article, he was pushing his resume` as suitable to become the 1st Muslim Director of the FBI to "alleviate Muslim concerns about America and it's civil rights record."

Won't hurt Romney in the slightest to be seen as not endorsing affirmative action for huckster, snake oil-peddling Muslims for senior positions.

Despite all the money the guy raised for the Clintons, he burned his bridges with Democrats. His scams with Republicans have been clumsy and backstabbing as well.

Another self-promoting 9/11 opportunist bites the dust.

Posted by Chris Ford | November 27, 2007 7:03 PM

There's something sublime about using monolithic statements to condemn others as radicals...Mitt, you're a gem. ;)

Posted by EpicureanQuaker | November 27, 2007 7:04 PM

"Another self-promoting 9/11 opportunist bites the dust."

For a moment, I thought you were announcing that Rudy had left the race.

Posted by HS | November 27, 2007 7:16 PM

Among Republicans vying for the nomination, Romney is by far the most phony, most sleazy opportunist (even worse than McCain or Guliani). Plus, he's the dumbest of the bunch.

Labeling Romney a liar or even a hypocrite is academically meaningless: sociopaths (especially those on the campaign trail) will do/say anything to win.

Posted by Monty | November 27, 2007 7:17 PM

Oops. Replace 'academically' with 'pragmatically.'

Posted by Monty | November 27, 2007 7:21 PM

When did Ijaz take credit for the Kashmir alliance? IIRC, it was Niaz Naik who was peacocking about for his role, and he was condemned by Ijaz. Get your facts straight, or at least get your link-to-unsubstantiated-assertion ratio to something more palatable than the current 0:55,732.*

* may or may not be the actual ratio

Posted by EpicureanQuaker | November 27, 2007 7:34 PM

Chris Ford: "...mostly dropped as a regular media talking head by 2004."

Really? Because Ijaz was still billed as the Fox News Foreign Policy Analyst into 2004. They loved the guy, since he was living proof that Bill Clinton let bin Laden get away. Except he didn't, so he wasn't.

Posted by Grumpy | November 27, 2007 8:05 PM

Hello. He is a creepy guy. As noted by the Plank, ask the people who know him best.. Republicans in MA:

"His word is no good…Mitt Romney would say one thing in a meeting and literally go out of the meeting to the press and tell the opposite story. There was no desire in the legislature to be accommodating to him because they couldn't trust him." Romney, Rappaport continued, "will be clear today on what he believes today, and he'll be clear tomorrow on what he believes tomorrow, but they may be different things."

Posted by larry | November 27, 2007 9:13 PM

Hey, Chris Ford?

Are you going to endorse anyone?

Posted by Ed Marshall | November 27, 2007 11:46 PM

Ooooooo. A paraphrase of something that was supposedly said at an event other than the one in question.

Next thing we know MattY's going to start govoriting po-Russki for us.

Posted by TLB | November 28, 2007 12:40 AM

Another self-promoting 9/11 opportunist bites the dust."
For a moment, I thought you were announcing that Rudy had left the race.
Posted by HS

Rudy is by far the worst of the bunch, and Biden's crack about him that every other sentence out of him has 3 things - a verb, a noun, and 9/11 - was eviscerating. SOB earned 10s of millions on speeches as "America's hero" or his media moniker "America's Mayor" when I think he did basically as well as a competent mayor like Rendell in Philly, Dailey in Chicago or Governor like Jeb Bush or Hailey Barbur DID when disaster struck.

He looked good compared to idiots like Nagin and Blanco.

********************
Chris Ford: "...mostly dropped as a regular media talking head by 2004."
Really? Because Ijaz was still billed as the Fox News Foreign Policy Analyst into 2004. They loved the guy, since he was living proof that Bill Clinton let bin Laden get away. Except he didn't, so he wasn't.
Posted by Grumpy

Fox dropped Ijaz when he came on and reported on himself being the Real Story in how the Kashmir crisis was defused, critics called him a lying, delusional sack of shit who had nothing to do with the diplomacy - and he was unable to come up with anyone who would back his lies.
For a while though, Fox had him as their Go To guy, the voice of Moderate Muslims and "Terror Expert", just as they still pay out for Al Sharpton to come on as Spokeperson for all blacks as Head Negro in Charge.... They also pay the witch Wendy Murphy and she is worse than Sharpton and Ijaz put together.
***************

Hey, Chris Ford?
Are you going to endorse anyone?
Posted by Ed Marshall

I had high hopes for Bill Richardson as a moderate Democrat with a super resume`. And an open mind towards Obama, who I like. And over on the Republican side, I was willing to entertain the possibility of Romney, Huckabee, Thompson, and McCain.

I never liked Hillary! or Rudy!, both are media creations, both have ethical problems. Rudy was a competent exec, unlike Hillary with her unproven executive experience tales - but like Hillary, basically unlikable and polarizing. And Rudy has surrounded himself with neocons pushing for another elective, preemptive war and I can't accept that. I reject Rudy.

Anyways, when the debates started I saw Richardson as a flummoxed, flailing buffoon. And unfortunately for Obama, the country has worsened enough that I watch him, nod my head, and feel bad because he just isn't ready...he needs time in an executive position like Governor, show he can succeed. If things were humming along great, we could risk Obama, but we will have tough, complex, and hurtful decisions that must be made on our crisises to begin to bail America out of all the Bush messes, and I think an unseasoned young guy with no track record of any leadership is too much of a leap.

Which then puts Hillary! back in as a Nixon sort. Hate her, but hold your nose because she will at least have people around her who know how to run a country.

On the REpublican side - Thompson showed he wasn't serious, McCain destructed over Open Borders and Amnesty - the final straw in a pattern of McCain treachery to voters otherwise attracted to him. Hickabee is very likable and has what I think is the winningest personality of all the candidates, but he believes in a 6500 year old Earth and raising taxes. Romney on paper is by far the smartest and most successful in past senior executive positions, but has a plasticky aura about him...

Plastic Man?
Hillary!
Pastor Huckabee?
Obambi the sweet young, naive fawn?

Endorsements are impossible with that bunch - none have really showed they are Presidential, yet.

I am half expecting Fat Albert to jump in on the Dem side.
Praying, and not in Mormonese, that Mitt Romney is not a phony Ned Flanders...but a human being. Or Huckabee somehow convinces us he will wall off his religion, govern as a secular, and lay off his past nanny state, more taxes, more illegals entitlements beliefs..
Or Hillary! magically becomes more likable and magically shows all sorts of documents proving her executive decision-maker events from her so-called "Co-Governor, Co-President" days.

Posted by Chris Ford | November 28, 2007 1:11 AM

Pretty good analysis by Chris Ford...

My own ideological perspective is quite a bit different from his, but I don't end up too far away, though I'd probably lean more towards Edwards as the least bad of the upper-tier candidates, and maybe Ron Paul (despite his Gold Standard, etc. stuff) as representing the strongest repudiation of our current horrible lunacy.

Posted by RKU | November 28, 2007 1:31 AM

i don't get how a guy who's running for the nomination of the party of anti-Arab/anti-Islamic bigotry has anything to worry about by saying he won't nominate Muslims. that's a benefit, not a problem.

or, is the issue supposed to be that he's trying to weasel around the question of whether he did or didn't say it? that seems pretty minor, given that dancing around prior statements is practically the essence of politics.

Posted by cleek | November 28, 2007 7:08 AM

It sounds to me that when Aguirre paraphrases Romney as saying "They're radical. There's no talking to them. There's no negotiating with them", the "they" he's referring to are Jihadists, not all Muslims. In other words, appointing a Muslim in particular as a Middle East advisor would be pointless, at least in terms of dealing with Jihadism.

I mean, he's wrong, but I'm not sure he's as racist as he's being portrayed in that instance.

Posted by kgaard | November 28, 2007 10:51 AM