"Any believer in religious freedom, any person who has knelt in prayer to the Almighty, has a friend and ally in me." — Mitt Romney, yesterday
"They’re radicals. There’s no talking to them. There’s no negotiating with them." — Mitt Romney in November, on why he would "probably not" have Muslims in his cabinet
Last week, when the New York Times published a preview of Willard’s Grand Oratory on Religious Tolerance in America, the paper of record failed to mention the fact that he made bigoted comments about Muslims just a few days before.
The explanation the reporter gave at the time for omitting this was that he had a 400-word limit and a "half-hour deadline." Weak.
Now, that same reporter who told me that he didn’t have the time to get the story right the first time has written two additional stories about the speech, and still failed to mention Romney’s controversial remarks.
What’s the excuse this time?
This cannot be written off as lazy journalism — the reporter is clearly choosing to ignore Romney’s anti-Muslim remarks (add: or it’s being edited out by someone else), even though his paper’s own blog has the story.
Do you think if Bill Clinton gave a speech on marital fidelity, the New York Times would leave out Monica?
The Times hasn’t just dropped the ball on this. They’re intentionally scrubbing the record. Instead of Mike Luo, maybe they should put Hugh Hewitt on the Romney beat.