A few readers note that they’re tiring of the reporting/discussion of the controversy surrounding Mitt Romney’s alleged comments ruling out Muslims serving in his cabinet. Campaign Spot reader Mary writes in:

This current debate about “would you appoint a Muslim to the cabinet” is – as Jonah might say – nonsense on stilts. Both Romney and McCain have answered the question in exactly the right way: it is not about religion, it is about qualifications. Republicans are not supporters of affirmative action or quotas for all of the right reasons. Can everyone take a deep breath and recall who we ended up with as attorney general once Bill Clinton decided the most important criteria for the job were two X chromosomes?

Here’s the thing – if Romney’s answer truly is “whoever’s got the best merit and skill,” as he’s mentioned in, for example, that recent CNN appearance, great. More power to him.

But we’ve now got two separate accounts of Romney saying, in effect, ‘no, I wouldn’t have a Muslim in my cabinet.’ In the account by Ijaz, its because of ”numbers of American Muslims [as a percentage] in our population.”, In the account on TPM, the reasoning is described as, “something to the effect of, `They’re radicals. There’s no talking to them. There’s no negotiating with them.’”

Assume, for the sake of argument, Ijaz’s account is accurate. (Note another attendee corroborated his account.) It’s a very corporate CEO answer – ‘this group represents this percent of the population, so I allocate this many cabinet posts, this group represents that percent of the population, so I allocate this many cabinet posts in order to maximize the sense of representation and smaller groups can still get lower-level positions.’

Ijaz contends that Romney’s answer at the fundraiser was the candidate’s raw, honest take on the issue, speaking unguardedly in a gathering full of supporters; he charges that the subsequent statements are the false, “polished” answers refined for media consumption.

We’ve seen similar “did he say it or didn’t he say it?” controversies before. (Eason Jordan comes to mind.) In my reporting experience, I’ve often seen that when a candidate is hit with a false charge, the rapid response is often a visceral, forceful “it’s b******!” or some variation of “he didn’t say it.” We’re not seeing that response from Team Romney; that may reflect caution on their part, as they don’t have a recording of the exchange and they’re not certain of the exact wording of either the question or the answer.

I don’t think Mitt Romney’s a bigot.

#more#

I do think he’s capable of overthinking an issue like this, and instead of a safe, and I think correct answer – “Mansoor, that sounds like a good idea, but I can’t promise anything regarding my cabinet right now” – he offered a bizarre contention that the key factor in that decision is what percentage of the U.S. population is Muslim. Huh?

Maybe I’m coming at this issue from an uncommon perspective. In two years in Turkey, I saw a lot of really basic misconceptions about the United States and its policies among Muslims. I think the right – qualified – high-profile figure, articulating the case for U.S. foreign policy, who was a Muslim could persuade a lot of his or her fellow Muslims that the war on terror isn’t a war on Islam. I think the fact that the arguments were coming from a Muslim – and perhaps even ideally in the target audience’s own language, Arabic, Turkish, Indonesian, Persian, Pashto, etc. – could really turn a lot of heads, and get some Muslims to evaluate our policies with a more open mind.

Yes, U.S. Ambassadors do this to some extent, but speeches by a Secretary of State or other really high-profile position reaches a much wider audience. Maybe there aren’t a ton of candidates for that type of role beyond Zalmay Khalilzad, currently U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations and former U.S. ambassador to Iraq. (Just thinking out loud here, would Fareed Zakaria do a more effective or less effective job at public diplomacy than Karen Hughes?) But I think it’s an idea worth exploring.

Weren’t some of the most stinging critiques of Soviet policy from dissidents and former Soviet citizens? When we wanted to persuade Russians, we looked for Russians to articulate the argument in terms that audience would find most persuasive; if we want to persuade Muslims, we should look for Muslims to articulate the argument in terms that audience would find most persuasive, and provide them that megaphone, when appropriate.