Mitt's Multiple Choice on Muslims

Back in February, a prominent Republican blogger christened Governor Romney as "Multiple Choice Mitt" as a way of explaining his frustration with a candidate whose position on everything seems to have changed in the past decade, sometimes multiple times. It's a fitting nickname, as the Governor now seems to have a variety of positions on whether Muslims belong in his Cabinet and, indeed, whether as a whole, Muslims can be trustworthy at all.

And while the Massachusetts Governor is now denying that he would refuse to consider appointing a Muslim to a Cabinet-level position, multiple witnesses have now come forward with strong evidence that he has repeatedly made comments in private that make it clear that the Bay Stater has a problem with Islam.



Yesterday, the Internet lit up as an op-ed by a Muslim businessman made the rounds. In the piece for the Christian Science Monitor, Mansoor Ijaz related a conversation with Romney, in which he asked whether Romney would consider appointing a Muslim to a Cabinet-level office, as Ijaz believes that a Muslim would be particularly effective in the position. In response, Romney reportedly told Ijaz that because Muslims make up such a small portion of the American population, he didn't believe they merited a Cabinet-level office.

It was, in some ways, the worst of all possible answers: it echoed the worst forms of affirmative action (quotas) in a way that cemented in religious bigotry (by prohibiting any small religious minorities from holding senior office) in a manner that would violate the U.S. Constitution (which forbids religious tests).

---

---

So it was little surprise when conservatives moved to push back quickly -- and Romney himself attempted to clarify his remarks at a press conference.

Of course, the problems with the pushback were manifold. Conservatives' arguments ranged from allegations that Ijaz misreported the conversation to defenses of bigotry, saying that Muslims should, in fact, be prohibited from serving in the Cabinet.

Then came the denial: at a press conference, Romney denied ever making the comments that were alleged, saying he'd been misunderstood and simply that he would not apply a religious test and be sure to appoint a Muslim. End of story, right? Or, at the very least, reduction to he-said/he-said, leaving the rest of us in no place to be sure.

Only we have some bad news for people running for President in the Internet age -- word travels fast, communication is instant, and it is tough to hide anything. Shortly after his denial, TPM (a left-leaning news/blog site) tracked down not just one but two Republicans in Nevada who reported being present at a meeting where Mitt Romney made similar statements regarding Muslims. One Republican, a former fundraiser for the Nevada Republican Party, went so far as to describe the statements as "racist."

So is this people coming out of the woodwork now that an allegation has been made? Unlikely, a public description of the exchange in Nevada was reported earlier this year -- far before this became a national controversy.

With three witnesses and a previously published report, Mitt Romney has some explaining to do -- not just for why he said he wouldn't appoint a Muslim to his Cabinet, but why he also said something along the lines of "They're radicals. There's no talking to them. There's no negotiating with them." If that really is the case for 1.6 billion people around the world, the country's in a lot of trouble. Luckily, it's not true -- but we need a President who knows that.

Mitt Romney recently blasted attacks on his own religion as "un-American." It's high time he listen a bit more closely to himself.

Update: No surprise here -- Another witness comes forward to confirm the substance of Romney's remarks -- and deny Romney's version.