Last week, Mitt Romney was in a world of hurt because someone had alleged that he had said that he would not hire a Muslim into a senior position. At the time, I wrote:

This may open the door to a more open discussion of Romney’s religion. If he is discriminating on the basis of religion — perhaps even a wrong-but-politically-useful position in an Iowa Republican caucus — then why can’t other people drill down on his religion? Arguing "no bigotry" is a lot easier than arguing "bigotry for me but not for thee." A combination of hypocrisy and implausible repeated non-denials is good material for a feeding frenzy. At the same time as he’s getting drilled for other things. There’s a lot of bad synergy going on right now for Romney.

How does Romney now give a speech on "Religious Freedom" having advocated for excluding people based on their religion? (Yes, I know he denied having said it, but people kept coming forward to confirm the story of the people who heard him)


2 Comments » Blog Archive » Race 4 2008 Evening Essential Reads · December 3, 2007 at 12:29 AM

[…] Romney, religious freedom, and Muslim comments […] » More thoughts on Romney’s speech · December 8, 2007 at 1:33 PM

[…] In other words, the battle is between people without faith and people with faith, without regard to what that particular faith is. There is an argument that this has become part of the public stance of a large part of the GOP. Of course, there are internal contradictions on this. Romney’s comments about Muslims. The Southern Baptists’ public statements about Jews. Etc. But it is a coherent position with wide appeal to the American people for good reason. Broadly, the ridiculous assault on Romney by the media about whether atheists have a role in America is helpful […]

Comments are closed.