GOP Nominee
Former Candidates
Or, Much Ado About Nothing… Again
Man, are folks desperate to dig up something on Mitt Romney. The guy with a squeaky clean past has gotten hit over “Seamusgate” and “Garritygate” (which ended with Garrity being completely cleared, much to Romney opponents’ chagrin), and now the trifecta is complete with “Cabinetgate”.
It would be utterly laughable if otherwise intelligent people weren’t taking it so seriously. It just goes to show you what wanting your opponent to fail a bit too much will do to you.
Just for a little background on the subject, here’s what Romney said about the same subject in an interview on CNN - before Ijaz’s article was published:
Governor Romney: “But I also think that suggesting that we have to fill spots based on checking off boxes of various ethnic groups is really a very inappropriate way to think about how we staff positions. I’m very pleased that, among my Cabinet members, for instance, I had several African-American individuals. I had people of different backgrounds. But I don’t go in every circumstance I’m in and say, OK, how many African-Americans, how many Hispanic-Americans, how many Asian-Americans, and fill boxes that way. I fill responsibilities based upon people’s merit and their skill. And, sometimes, it includes many ethnic minorities. And, other times, it includes different minorities. But I’m very pleased with my record.”
In my opinion, Romney completely nailed this issue. And his answer, recorded for all the world to see, is quite different than what Mr. Ijaz recollects the Governor saying to him later. Strangely enough, no transcript or video is available to verify Ijaz’s version of the story.
Here’s Governor Romney’s take on what went down in that exchange:
REPORTER: Governor, there is a report today that a businessman says that a closed fundraiser in Vegas a couple weeks ago, he asked you a question about having an Islamic person in your cabinet and you said that based on the population of Muslims in the United States that you don’t think it would be justified?
GOVERNOR MITT ROMNEY: No. His question was did I need to have a Muslim in my Cabinet to be able to confront radical Jihad and would it be important to have a Muslim in my Cabinet and I said, ‘No, I don’t think that you have to have a Muslim in the Cabinet to be able to take on radical Jihad any more than during the Second World War we needed to have a Japanese-American to understand the threat that was coming from Japan or something of that nature.’ I just rejected that argument number one, and then number two, I point out that people who would be part of my Cabinet is something that I really haven’t given a lot of thought to at this point, but 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.
REPORTER: So you would be open to having a Muslim person….
GOV. ROMNEY: I’m open to having people of any faith and ethnic group, but they would be selected based upon their capacity and their capabilities and the values and skills that they could bring to the administration. But I don’t choose people based upon checking off a box.
I’m really embarrassed for some Romney opponents at how they are drooling over another perceived scandal they think will bring Romney down. I’ll take Seamus, Garrity, and these cabinet comments over the problems any of the other first tier candidates have any day of the week.
November 28th, 2007 at 1:04 am
You forgot about waterpushpolling, errr, pushpollinggate, well you get the drift.
November 28th, 2007 at 1:13 am
Ah, so all it took was the good governor to set the record straight, and tell us how it really was….
And that must have been the way it was, because Mitt said so. If Mitt didn’t say so, then that’s not the way it was, but he said so, so that’s the way it was. Mitt always tells it like it is, because that’s how it is- because Mitt tells us, and Mitt always tells us, because that’s how it is.
November 28th, 2007 at 1:19 am
i can almost hear mitt now “i’m mitt romney and i approve this post”
November 28th, 2007 at 1:24 am
You know, Ken Star could have saved a lot of time if he had simply just ASKED Bill and left it at that.
November 28th, 2007 at 1:26 am
Matt C.,
Makes sense…except for the part about Muslim’s being selected for lower positions. See, if Mitt was really suggesting that the question was “do you NEED a Muslim to address pressing issues?” there would be no reason to add the part about lower positions. He should have just responded that “no, it is not necessary.” Please explain, Matt, why he added “they could fill lower positions.” This is a demeaning comment; what he is saying is that although he picks people based on merit and their capacity, Muslim’s will fill lower positions.
But let’s take Mitt at his word. Here would be the quote according to his account: “No, it is not necessary to have a Muslim in my cabinet to address current foreign policy issues. I select candidates to fill positions for which they are capable. Thus, they could fill lower positions.”
See? The last part makes no sense in the context of what he said he said. This explanation makes no sense in light of that last disgraceful comment.
Even if he didn’t mean it, or even if it was taken out of context, it was a very stupid comment.
November 28th, 2007 at 1:29 am
To MWS in #2: um…who else would you expect to clarify Romney’s position, if not Romney himself?
November 28th, 2007 at 1:35 am
i think the theme coming out of these incidents is this: mitt has posed a huge threat to all the other candidates, and they havent been able to come up with much. with his huge stash of money, and his presence in early states, mccain, rudy, huck, thompson, ron paul, and the rest have had a very real need to bring him down. they’ve had a lot of time and a lot of resources to get dirt on him and here is what it looks like they have come up with:
1) a company that he hired to do yardwork on his lawn didnt do their responsibility of checking the legality of their workers.
2) 20 years ago, he safely transported the family dog from one place to another, on top of a station wagon.
3) a judge he appointed, let a criminal out, few years after mitt left office.
4) a company that all the candidates work with, was paid to ask some questions about mormonism.
5) a guy said that he said some stuff about muslims that completely contradicts everything he has ever said before, and is saying now.
so yeah. not a lot of dirt for the guy with the biggest target on him. if i were the other candidates, i would leave these issues alone, stop the analyzing of his record as governor (which isn’t perfect, but for a GOP in massachusettes isn’t bad), and just focus on one issue and one issue alone: he has changed his positions. its the only legitimate gripe you can have against him, and it is a very legitimate one. voters are wary of candidates who appear to change positions due to political expediency (even though they all do it). this is the issue i would attack on, the others are bogus. especially the one about the people working on his lawn.
November 28th, 2007 at 1:37 am
To me it sounds like Ijaz is biased and was trying to find smear fodder
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/11/27/482645.aspx
*** UPDATE *** From NBC’s Domenico Montanaro
A search of FEC records, finds that a Mansoor Ijaz has given $23,000 to Democratic candidates and committees from 1997 to 2000, including $2,000 to Hillary Clinton’s 2000 Senate run and $15,000 to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.
November 28th, 2007 at 1:37 am
Interesting. I guess it’s all cleared up then. There is this I found on memeorandum.
Exclusive: Romney Opposed Naming Muslim To Cabinet On Second Occasion, Witnesses Say
Make of it what you will. Or won’t.
November 28th, 2007 at 1:39 am
I think this is the best smear yet. I am disappointed in the MittNots. They should be screaming at the top of their lungs. If they, the MittNots, are wrong, it won’t matter, because it is the seriousness of the charge not the truth of it — all would be forgiven because one can’t be too diligent fighting bigotry!
November 28th, 2007 at 1:40 am
#3. Your the reason for this post.
November 28th, 2007 at 1:43 am
Just like the Kennedy Machine in 1994, the 2007-08 MittNots have found nothing.
November 28th, 2007 at 1:43 am
Hmmm. I guess there’s nothing to see here.
November 28th, 2007 at 1:43 am
thanks 13. i do what i can to save the party from mitt.
November 28th, 2007 at 1:44 am
Joe your exactly right. The funny thing is that every time a desperate attempt is made, someone is always saying-THIS IS IT!!! Romney’s toast. How sad. It really has become rather humerous.
November 28th, 2007 at 1:46 am
15,
irma and george better hire security,
http://www.hedgehogreport.com/?p=7487
November 28th, 2007 at 1:46 am
What the hell? These Republicans have close ties with Ijaz??? They run to this guy to plant a question?
“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.”
Proof! Proof! That these guys fed Ijaz a question ahead of the time. These turkeys organized an ambush and they admit it!!! Wow, how stupid are they to admit they coordinate this smear against Romney??!?!?!
November 28th, 2007 at 1:49 am
If he can dodge claims of hypocrisy, this will probably work out well for Romney. I would assume that deep down most Americans would feel quite uncomfortable with a Muslim cabinet appointment (although many may not readily admit it).
November 28th, 2007 at 1:50 am
17 he’s toast in the general or the primary– take your pick. he cant even win alabama or iowa (after outspending every other dem and republican combined)
November 28th, 2007 at 1:50 am
Sampo, you’re so courageous! What a great American! Trying to protect the innocent by slandering others!
November 28th, 2007 at 1:52 am
nowandlater, 19, it seems to me the answer is more important than the question. Just throwing that out there since I noticed it on memeorandum. I haven’t really looked into what others are saying about this.
November 28th, 2007 at 1:52 am
Sampo, you’re so courageous! What a great American!
theres one mittbot down…
November 28th, 2007 at 1:56 am
#21 give him a few million to get his message out and name I.D. in these other states and he will do well. The more people see Romney, the more they like him, especially in contrast to Hillary. Who the freak has heard of Romney in Alabama? His name I.D. is still fairly weak outside of Iowa, N.H., Michigan and S.C. (by the way he is doing well for a reason in those states- people know who he is).
November 28th, 2007 at 1:56 am
Question for the Romney insiders who hang out here: If I were to go to a Romney fundraiser, would I be allowed to videotape the proceedings for my own purposes? Does the Romney campaign reserve exclusive rights to any recordings of the events? I have a hard time believing that nobody recorded these events, but since we haven’t seen any, it would be helpful to know who would be in a position to decide who sees video or hears audio of them if recordings do in fact exist.
November 28th, 2007 at 1:57 am
Repeat, Aguirre and Harris THEY WENT TO A KNOWN DEMO OPERATIVE TO SET THIS UP! THEY ADMIT IT WAS COORDINATED. That blows their credibility big time.
November 28th, 2007 at 1:57 am
#24 Thats why you dont like Romney - your not very smart.
November 28th, 2007 at 2:00 am
nowandlater,
If it was a setup, it just makes Mitt look worse, since they would have known he was going to say what he allegedly said.
November 28th, 2007 at 2:06 am
Not really, it was a setup and then it would have involved recording the conversation because that wold have been damning. But instead Romney did not take the bait, and Ijaz made it up! That to me is the most likely scenario!!!
Look at the distortions and contortions Ijaz is willing to go through here as evidence as his willingess to make stuff up!
http://www.opinionduel.com/debate/?q=NDk=
November 28th, 2007 at 2:11 am
Big S,
The report on the incident is reduced to ONE sound bite without context, in other words they DIDN”T get what they wanted but chopped it up to make it look like they did. Or there would be an audio, etc. by now.
November 28th, 2007 at 2:11 am
[...] of race42008.com argues that Romney’s remarks about Muslims and cabinet positions is “much ado about nothing … again.” Others disagree. And even after Romney’s “clarification,” they still [...]
November 28th, 2007 at 2:15 am
#21 give him a few million to get his message out and name I.D. in these other states and he will do well.
Mitt has outspent every republican AND democrat combined in Iowa and is still losing to Hillary and Obama… Obama spent 500k which is more than Hillary. Romney has outspent Obama 5 to 1 and is still losing. What part of that do you not understand? You, sir, are in denial.
November 28th, 2007 at 2:29 am
#33. So what you’re saying is Romney is in the lead or at minimal tied with a baptist minister with a life long record of being prolife? Wow, thats a shock. The shocking thing is Huckabee isn’t absolutly dominating Iowa along with the entire south. As far as I’m concerned there is little difference between South Carolina and Alabama and Romney romney is doing well there because people know who he his. As the title of the thread goes “How Otherwise Intelligent People Get Completely and Absurdly Hoodwinked”, and I’m giving you the benifit of the doubt on the intelligent part.
November 28th, 2007 at 2:38 am
Well, well . . . the same crowd with the same rants against Romney. I will say that you are (sampo, MWS, et al) just becoming laughable in your hatred towards Romney.
MWS - “Ah, so all it took was the good governor to set the record straight, and tell us how it really was….”
My question to you is that you will point blank accept what this Ijaz character says at face value, but when Mitt gives his version, you begin the attacks against him. Your blind intolerance for anything related to Romney, makes anything you post about him instant junk. Why can’t you even try and give Mitt the benefit of the doubt . . just once? Your hatred has become tiresome.
Peter - “This is a demeaning comment; what he is saying is that although he picks people based on merit and their capacity, Muslim’s will fill lower positions.”
For years I have heard Presidents refer to cabinet level, and . . . gasp . . . lower level positions in their administrations. Low level positions HAS NO REFERENCE to low level people. Get it? Got it? Good!
So you Mittnots need to please clarify something for me. You are against a Mormon President (at least this Mormon President) You are for a Cabinet position mandate that a National Security Cabinet position must be filled now by a Muslim. I wonder if Mr. Ijaz has posed the same question to each of the top GOP candidates? I wonder if each of them bear the same mandate to HAVE to appoint a Muslim to a Cabinet level position? The religious test applies to President, but not to someone in his Cabinet? The hypocrisy is ironic isn’t it?? Face it, in your eyes, no matter what Romney does, it will never be good enough for most of you that purley hate Mitt Romney. If he were to pull out of the race, you would get what you have always dreamed of, but I would wager that you would still find some point of attack against the man. This whole thing about attacking Romney is just tired. He is a good man, with a good track record in both private and public life, and he is one of the best candidates that are on the GOP ticket.
November 28th, 2007 at 2:41 am
*purely - My computer drops off parts of lines. Sorry for the misspelled word.
November 28th, 2007 at 2:49 am
Which Romney is that? Romney or romney? People may know who he is, but he’s real slippery as far as figuring out what he stands for.
I suspect many people who think they know where Romney or romney stand are projecting their own hopes and dreams on him. Just an observation.
November 28th, 2007 at 2:53 am
Is this “MittNot” thing new or something? Is it supposed to be clever? I think it would be more like “NotMitt.”
It sounds like you people are dividing yourselves up on whether or not you have stars on your bellies. Don’t act like Sneetches, they lose in the end, if I recall correctly.
November 28th, 2007 at 2:58 am
I think it’s only the Sneetches with stars on their bellies that bring that up to attack those without.
I think all of us are against quotas, assuming that we’re all conservatives. So that’s a silly mischaracterization to be peddling, don’t you think?
November 28th, 2007 at 4:57 am
One of the best threads of the year.
Very true.
It anything I thought Mitt was looking a bit tired and drawn - but these false controversys might be just what he needs to fire him up and get him over the live in Iowa and on to greatness.
November 28th, 2007 at 7:56 am
What a manipulative, manipulative post.
The first part is crap because that quote is part of the issue — that he flat-out contradicted himself based on the phrasing of the question to try and appeal to his audience. It’s not as if it could have been misconstrued to mean that he just didn’t mandate a Muslim: he specifically said that they were only fit for lower-level posts!
The second part is crap because you put it in the form of a transcript, trying to make it appear real. You Romney people have been whining about motives to lie for the past two days, trying to defame Ijaz — well, wouldn’t Romney have quite the motivation to spin this, here, knowing that a video recording will never be released?
November 28th, 2007 at 8:43 am
#39, as a Conservative, I’d rather have someone picked for their merits and skills, rather than based on any absurd thing as religion. If there is a Muslim who is well qualified to say be Secretary of Commerce, than I see no reason why that person shouldn’t get appointed. That seems like reasonable conservatism to me.
November 28th, 2007 at 8:48 am
As I pointed out in the other thread, this second account doesn’t even come close to passing the smell test. I have no idea if these people are lying, or simply confused. But, Romney did not respond, to a generic question about Muslims, with “They’re [muslims] radical. There’s no talking to them. There’s no negotiating with them.â€? He simply didn’t. I’d bet the farm on it.
“In addition to the United States, the countries convened would include other leading developed nations and moderate Muslim states.”
“The objective of the summit would be to create a worldwide strategy to support moderate Muslims in their effort to defeat radical and violent Islam.”
“Romney said he thought in combatting radical jihadists, America should work more with moderate Muslim states, strengthening things like schools and economic policies there.”
“To win the war on jihad, we have to not only have a strong military of our own–and we need a stronger military–we also need to have strong friends around the world and help moderate Muslims reject the extreme. Because ultimately the only people who can finally defeat these radical Islamic jihadists are the Muslims themselves.”
I find all of those quotes in the top 5 search results for: Romney “moderate Muslims”. There are 49700 results. So do I believe that Romney even inferred that all Muslims were radical? No I don’t, and I happily stake my reputation on that. Ijaz’s claims are plausible, though I’m still waiting for considerably more evidence. The claims of these two Nevadans veer into parody.
November 28th, 2007 at 8:50 am
If someone can produce any evidence to show what Romney said then we have something to discuss here.
Otherwise it’s just a matter of who do you trust?
Do you trust Romney to tell us what he said and what he meant?
Or do you trust others to tell us what he said and what he meant by it?
If a report came out that Rudy thought evangelicals were unfit for the cabinet would you guys assume he had said that or would you want evidence?
You guys who oppose Romney are just helping him when you attack him based on nonsense and paranoia.
November 28th, 2007 at 8:50 am
Roobik,
“um…who else would you expect to clarify Romney’s position, if not Romney himself?”
Romney, of course. But that doesn’t mean the matter is now settled, as Matt C would have us believe. Nothing in Mitt’s! statement explains the part about Muslims filling lesser jobs, or if that part of the quote is accurate.
November 28th, 2007 at 8:54 am
For a lesson on journalism and credibility, the above are actual quotes. They’re referenced by multiple sources. Some of the quotes are even written by the candidate himself. There’s quite a long trail of evidence. This compares, I’ll say “favorably” to be kind, to the phantom transcript-less paraphrases of meetings that occurred well before the actual reporting of the incidents.
November 28th, 2007 at 9:04 am
TLG,
For you to remotely act like you care about the substance of Romney’s statement is really laughable.
November 28th, 2007 at 9:05 am
MWS,
First of all, you’re doing something rather like attacking a straw man. Romney claims that he did not say precisely what Ijaz says he said. He did not infer of the things Ijaz supposed he inferred. Therefore, it’s rather odd to use as evidence against him “well, how do you explain Ijaz’s quote”. If Ijaz has it wrong, either intentionally, or unintentionally, then there’s no reason to explain Ijaz’s quote. Because, it’s no longer a quote, but rather either a fabrication or a misquote.
Secondly, I’ve explained previously how the second part of the quote easily turns into something benign and perfectly congruent with Romney’s statement. Change the “C” to a “W”. Ijaz talks about how thousands of Muslims are needed at all levels of government, to show the Moderate Middle Eastern Muslims that we’re favorable to them (see Andy McCarthy’s debate to hear Ijaz’s obsession with this). He then asks Romney whether, given this necessity, you need a Muslim cabinet member to advise on national security and (as per Romney’s response), he says “no, you don’t. But, I’m sure Muslims would serve at lower levels of my administration”. Finito. We have a winner. Romney’s answer is innocuous, it fits perfectly within the context of what Ijaz might be expected to say, and it’s quite a bit more consistent with his attitude vis-a-vis Islam thus far.
November 28th, 2007 at 9:25 am
Matthew,
I am sure you would agree that people often make different comments in public and on the record than they make in private and off. I am sure you would also agree that some politicians also suffer from a lack of consistency between their public morality and their private conduct.
Jesse Jackson, for example, said “hymietown” supposedly off the record. Larry Craig was only wiping his hand under a stall (palm up) to grab a piece of paper on the floor. Strom Thurmond.
The test is always whether private and public comments and conduct are coterminous and the means by which we normally find out they are not is through an otherwise private conversation being made public. So I suggest public statements are not proof of anything more than what they are facially. They do not necessarily reveal the heart of darkness that often beats inside of us.
November 28th, 2007 at 9:29 am
Feltcher,
But these weren’t private statements, none of them. He wasn’t snuggling with his wife at night, and suddenly decided to reveal his hatred of those “non-negotiating” Muslims. In the first case, he was talking to a number of random Nevadan voters. In the second he was talking to a MUSLIM businessman that he didn’t know from Adam. Pretty good opportunities to safely unburden his hatred of Muslims eh? While he’s at it, why doesn’t he go tell Jesse Jackson he hates blacks? Wonderful.
November 28th, 2007 at 9:48 am
thus just confirms mitt’s strengths. this is all they can get on him. a bunch of crap. of coursae eh medi hops all over it becuase he is the all around conservative in the race, but who cares, they always do. it would be nice to be mccain or huck, the mavrick media darlins, but hey, no all of us are sell outs.
November 28th, 2007 at 9:55 am
Matthew,
If there were not private, wouldn’t there be a recording or more witnesses? That is the distinction I am making.
People of all stripes often make comments among “friends” or people they consider like-minded that they would not otherwise utter. LBJ once said to a group including African Americans that he wanted people to know that Thurgood Marshall was his n*gger. Nixon frequently referred to those “damn jews” in conversations with Henry Kissinger.
I actually don’t know what Romney knew about Ijaz. Did he know he was muslim?
November 28th, 2007 at 10:02 am
Matthew,
“Therefore, it’s rather odd to use as evidence against him “well, how do you explain Ijaz’s quoteâ€?. If Ijaz has it wrong, either intentionally, or unintentionally, then there’s no reason to explain Ijaz’s quote. ”
Agreed. That is why I premised my statement on a conditional acceptence of the accuracy of Ijaz’s quote. My point is that Romney’s denial doesn’t in-and-of-itself settle the matter. I think that much should be obvious; particularly when we have a couple Republicans out in Nevada (one fairly high ranking) who claim that Romney made similar remarks at another fundraiser.
November 28th, 2007 at 10:03 am
Matt C, romney is merely showing his true colors - - being out of touch with regular people, thinking that he is better than everyone else, etc., etc. He is bringing himself down. It is time for Romney supporters to get real and stand behind another candidate, like, Vice President Huckabee
November 28th, 2007 at 10:05 am
Part of me suspects there may be audio or video evidence out there, but it is being held back until Romney feels safe enough to issue flat denials which the tape would contradict. The ol’ “give ‘em enough rope…”
That’s pure speculation on my part, and I obviously have no evidence for it. But given how so many things are recorded, I wonder (if the quote is accurate) if Romney is being set up for a major fall.
November 28th, 2007 at 10:08 am
#52 Feltcher
By his picture, he definitely looks like he could be one, whether a person knew ahead of time or not.
Matthew, your logic and research cannot be undone. It’s so nice to have a person with that much common sense and intellectual depth review an issue like this. I kept thinking “Wow, this guy is good”.
November 28th, 2007 at 10:08 am
Feltcher,
According to Ijaz’s account, there were other people present in the room. Second, Mansoor Ijaz is of Pakistani descent, and his appearance reflects this. I have no idea if Romney knew he was Muslim, but I imagine he would have considered the possibility.
November 28th, 2007 at 10:39 am
I was wondering whether anyone would take my bait and suggest Ijaz “looked” muslim.
I think its quite easy to get someone to answer a question in a way that might not seem all that politically correct.
November 28th, 2007 at 11:18 am
EGS!! Shhhhh! #43
November 28th, 2007 at 3:27 pm
I think it is telling that Mansoor Ijaz didn’t record his own question or Mr. Romney’s answer. In this day of video-, or voice-recording-capabilities on practically any cell phone and with cameras the size of your palm — it is a Sherlock Holmes’ “dog-that-didn’t-bark” epiphany-moment that somebody as politically connected. while yet self-serving, as Mansoor Ijaz didn’t record his “gotcha” moment. The reason patently is that it wasn’t a “gotcha” except in the (most very likely) fantasy-version of his Christian Science Monitor article.
Mansoor Ijaz has managed to promote Mansoor Ijaz, demote Mr. Romney, with the stroke of a pen (or keyboard). How convenient for this political operative. He has donated tens of thousands of dollars to Democrat causes in the last few years and is likely maneuvering himself into favored position in any prospective Democrat-regime, likely mirroring his prospective question for Mr. Romney (let’s think Joe Wilson here, Mr. Valerie Plame’s similar timely posturing for John Kerry’s campaign/and similarly campaigning for himself in any erstwhile prospective John Kerry administration).
I think we should hold as a standard a true “smoking gun” verifiable video version of such questions and answers before we lend any credence to Mansoor Ijaz (whose credence incidentally is further undercut by his consistent and elevated political contributions to the other side of the aisle).
This is an easy hit-job, via misinterpretation. I also think it is usually self-serving for Mansoor Ijaz, and his own political prospects. He spends a fair amount of time pushing those, seemingly, in his original CSM article.
http://semper-fido.blogspot.com/2007/11/regarding-mansoor-ijaz-mitt-romney.html
November 28th, 2007 at 4:40 pm
Ah, the core of the issue. Many people would answer no. And that’s Romney’s problem.
November 28th, 2007 at 5:06 pm
#58 Feltcher
Actually, you just implicated yourself, because what is wrong with looking Muslim, why is that a downgrade or politically incorrect?
November 28th, 2007 at 7:23 pm
So, what Muslim were they talking about? ‘Cause I could see some suitable, but not a heckuvalotta others. Since most aren’t even American citizens haveyaconsidered. So could you all be more specific? WHICH Muslim wouldn’t Romney hire?
What a buncha dopes trolling for scandal where there ain’t any.