Witnesses recall Romney-MLK march
By: Mike Allen
Dec 21, 2007 05:45 PM EST
Shirley Basore, 72, says she was sitting in the hairdresser’s chair in wealthy Grosse Pointe, Mich., back in 1963 when a rumpus started and she discovered that Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and her governor, George Romney, were marching for civil rights — right past the window.
With the cape still around her neck, Basore went outside and joined the parade.
“They were hand in hand,” recalled Basore, a former high-school English teacher. “They led the march. We all swung our hands, and they held their hands up above everybody else’s.”
She remembered the late governor as “extremely handsome.”
Until this week, that was just a vivid memory for a sweet retiree who now lives in Pompano Beach, Fla.
But Basore’s memory became important this week when news accounts questioned the recollections of the late Michigan governor’s son, Mitt Romney, the Republican presidential candidate and former Massachusetts governor.
News stories suggested that Romney was exaggerating. It turns out that he may not have attended the Grosse Pointe march, but it certainly happened.
The campaign posted citations quoting one author as writing that “George Romney made a surprise appearance in his shirt sleeves and joined the parade leaders.”
Stephen Hess and David S. Broder also wrote about the march in their 1967 book, “The Republican Establishment: The Present and Future of the G.O.P.”
|
|
Basore said she was very angry about how the issue has been covered on cable television.
“This very arrogant guy on TV questioned Mitt Romney, and I marched with them,” Basore said. “I hope that the campaign demands an apology. I want him to publicly apologize to me. That was a personal insult, and an insult to Mitt Romney.”
Basore said she called the campaign, and the campaign supplied her contact information.
Another witness, Ashby Richardson, 64, of Massachusetts gave the campaign a similar account.
“I’m just appalled that the news picks this stuff up and say it didn’t happen,” Richardson, now a data-collection consultant, said by phone. “The press is being disingenuous in terms of reporting what actually happened. I remember it vividly. I was only 15 or 20 feet from where both of them were.” |
|
Not only is this a non-story, if anything, it's a story that helps Mitt. It allows Mitt to talk about Romneys and Civil Rights and MLK -- AND KILLS THE TALK ABOUT MORMON'S BELATED ALLOWANCE OF BLACK "PRIESTS" (or whatever they call them in Mormanism).
Again and again, Romney is brilliant, not only in turning lemons into lemon aid, but in intentionally tossing the lemons (so he can make the lemon aid.) |
|
This does nothing to change the lie Romney rolled out.
Lets go back in time...
This was one of the greatest speeches ever if I remember correctly. And Romney wrote it himself, as was trumpeted over and over. And Romney said he saw his father march with MLK. He did no such thing and now admits it. He then backpedals with I meant "saw" in a figurative way.... Hold on !!! this was one of the greatest speeches ever. You mean Romney didn't mean what he said. What else did he just mean figuratively? Oh maybe Jesus is only the Christ and Saviour Figuratively? Maybe he didn't mean any of it.
dirL |
|
What a non-story!! The Romney HATERS are trying to SMEAR a good man who marched with Dr. King and fought for civil rights.
How low will they go? |
|
dirLie, any way you slice it, "see saw" etc. it has allowed Mitt to use the MSM (while the MSM was trying a "gotcha" moment against Mitt) to get all this discussion about Mitt and Civil Rights and MLK and Romney's etc. etc.
|
|
don't buy the echo chamber spin, if Romney gets the nomination this MSM that Hugh now leans on will rip Romney to shreds over this. This is also just one of many lies, flip flops and half truths that Mitt has told. It will catch up to him
dirL |
|
Whatever the truth is, Romney LIED.
He is EVIL! |
|
|
But it didn't help him as far as him still being a RINO! |
|
How interesting.
Those that know Romney say he is the real deal.
Those that meet Romney say he has a very strong appeal.
And those that keep thinking they're going to find the truth behind what they hope is a Clinton-like fake facad are constantly disappointed that with Romney, there is actually there there.
He doesn't lie.
He doesn't cheat.
He really does care about people.
He really is a good husband and dad.
He really is a competent businessman and proven executive leader.
So, what we’re left with is some Romney awkward explanations with 100% substance to back up what he said clumsily.
Compare that to the candidate that has smooth-as-butter explanations that, though pithy, are entirely void of thought and substance.
Romney’s competence must gall the Huckabee folks, especially when they consider that Mitt earned his self-donated millions ethically, and didn’t once resort to taking non-profit donations and stealing furniture from the governor’s mansion.
One walks the walk and produces. The other talks the talk but grasps and clutches.
Open your eyes people.
|
|
|
hair gel. Anyone who is supporting him, basically learned nothing from John Kerry's run for President. lol what a bunch of maroonssssssssss lol |
|
The Powerline link supports the discussion that Romney marched 6 days later due to the Sabbath - yet this eyewitness says they were hand in hand.
What is the truth here???!!! |
|
My touting Romney's got nothing to do with Hugh. MSM (an adjunct of the Dem party) has been going after Mitt since day one, knowing full well that Mitt will beat the lame Hillary or Obama (can you picture a debate with one of them against Mitt).
The MSM/Dem coalition is trying everything right now to STOP ROMNEY (trying to promote Huckababble, then if that fails trying to promote McCain).
They know, if Romney makes it through the next several weeks (Iowa and NH), Romney's going all the way to the White House (again, picture Hillary or Obama in a debate with Romney!!!) |
|
On top of that Mitt already said he never "saw" his dad march with MLK. Sounds like someone got their spin wrong.
another question for you Mittbots; You are right George Romney had a great Civil Rights record and did help the cause. Why make this glaring mistake in the speech. Why would Romney just talk directly about that? If you guys do not see the tell tell warning signs of a habitual John Kerryish truth stretcher, well I hope Mitt doesn't make something else up in the meantime
dirL |
|
Mitt "saw" it (the march his dad participated in) on the news????? This is a real straw clutcher far as variations of "Mitt lied, People ______!" he may face if elected. If this is the most burning issue critics can come up with... Good Grief!
I'm not a real Romney fan, but no way does this silliness compare to having one's memory "seared with the knowledge of traversing into Cambodia" or getting hats from a mysteriso "CIA guy." |
|
|
the odds of him having a "no new taxes" moment are HUGE! HUGE I TELL YA! |
|
Habitual John Kerryish??? Romney's got a track record in business, Olympics, Governing Mass, etc. etc. etc. Romney's life exudes success. You don't succeed in business without trust.
Whereas, Kerry is an utter parasitic failure -- hasn't really contributed one thing to America in his whole life -- just takes things away and detracts from America. |
|
It was an important event during turbulent times. What are the odds that Romney saw his father on a video marching with MLK? I'd say pretty good considering his father was the Governor of a state marching for civil rights.
But no matter, the Romney haters will believe what they want to believe and what the MSM tells them to believe.
It would be nice though to discover that Romney is like President Bush in this way. He leads the MSM on into a rope a dope and then hangs them on their own petard. Ive always loved that about President Bush. |
|
But some of you Romney apologists are too much. If he saw it on TV, he would have said so TODAY!!
Now I ask again. Hugh has two links in this post that are contradictory - but both support Romney (we get that).
Which of the two accounts in this ONE POST is the truth.
It sure would be nice if the candidate for President could clear this up, simply, specifically and clearly.
|
|
|
That the MSM has video in the archives but are keeping it under lock and key? |
|
|
|
Seems Romney's nose and fibs are growing by the hour
From the Globe:
"Mitt Romney went a step further in a 1978 interview with the Boston Herald. Talking about the Mormon Church and racial discrimination, he said: "My father and I marched with Martin Luther King Jr. through the streets of Detroit."
Yesterday, Romney spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom acknowledged that was not true. "Mitt Romney did not march with Martin Luther King," he said in an e-mail statement to the Globe"
I'm surprised Fehernstrom baked off lying for his boss on this one.
Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive. |
|
|
Going back to a nearly thirty-year-old newspaper report (that might or might not even accurately represent what Romney said [I've been interviewed several times by reporters, and have often been amazed to read what I had "said") seems fairly desperate. |
|
|
Why is a thirty year old newspaper account not credible, but a retiree in Florida is? |
|
Reporter:
Can we talk about foreign policy?
Mike Huckabee:
I plead the cross.
Reporter: How about Domestic affairs?
Mike Huckabee:
I plead the cross.
Reporter: What about the allegations of receiving "wedding gifts" to decorate your house after you had been married for several years, or taking many thousands of dollars worth of furnituure from the Governors mansion?
Mike Huckabee:
I plead the cross.
Reporter: What about the Mormons?
Mike Huckabee:
I plead the cross...but, dont they believe Satan and Jesus are brothers?
Reporter: What about the cross in the background of your Christmas commercial?
Mike Huckabee:
I plead the...I mean...it was a book shelf.
|
|
I don't know whether it's credible or NOT. As I say, I'VE been misquoted in newspapers before. Several TIMES.
I don't trust journalists very much. Even when they're not overtly hostile. |
|
Carol,
The report in the newspaper you are looking at says Mitt Romney did not march with King. The witnesses attest to the fact that his father did, which has also been hotly contested.
There is no big issue here, but in the era of gotcha politics where the hate runs especially high among conservatives right now, Romney should know he has to be beyond careful with every word he chooses. This story just proves it. The point he was making about the situation in which he was raised has been totally lost, because too many people are trying to find a smoking gun where there is at best a poor choice of words.
There is plenty to criticize all the candidates about including Mitt Romney, but this crosses into the silly and pointless. |
|
Who produced these witnesses? Reporters or the Romney campaign? Do they have photographs or documentation? Any reporters check to see if they actually live in MI in the sixties? Do they have any connection with the Romney campaign. These are basic journalistic questions folks, and I don't see them in the politico article.
|
|
Coming this holiday season, Pinocchio 2008, starring Mitt Romney as the wooden boy with character issues and Hugh Hewitt as Jiminy Cricket with a megaphone.
+ + + |
|
Mitt Romney is a BIG Man. This stuff ain't worth spit. It has NO lasting power because it has 'no legs'. It is the desperation of pissants. Nothing more. Lady MacClinton, covered with sleaze, wouuld love for something to appear from Mitt's closet. It won't. So, her stand-in crew in the Drive-Bys are desperately looking. Funny. And, Hucky's a flatulant passing joke. Noisy, but not long-lasting. No core conservatism. But, by gum, he shore is Real Christian. My protestant friends find him to be a grifter and pantywaist.
Well stated, Cyndu. |
|
|
Got zero mileage out of the Planned Parenthood pic so they had to dig this tripe up. Now they look like fools. Now any attack on Mitt will look like the media being their usual petty self. I wonder if Mad Dog Matthews has seen this story yet? Maybe he's still emptying the drool bucket he had under his chin while grilling Madden.It sould also put to bed the blacks in the church issue. Mitt didn't rack up $300 million being an idiot! |
|
The witnesses are probably lying. They're probably paid Romney agents, just like Tom Tancredo, David Keene, Robert Bork, Jim DeMint, Michael Novak, Hugh Hewitt, Paul Weyrich, Rush Limbaugh, Condoleeza Rice, and the editors of National Review. |
|
Susan Englander, assistant editor of the Martin Luther King Jr. Papers Project at Stanford University, who is editing the King papers from that era, told the Globe yesterday: "I researched this question, and indeed it is untrue that George Romney marched with Martin Luther King."
She said that when he was governor of Michigan, George Romney issued a proclamation in June 1963 in support of King's march in Detroit, but declined to attend, saying he did not participate in political events on Sundays. A New York Times story from the time confirms Englander's account.
A few days after that march, George Romney joined a civil rights march through the Detroit suburb of Grosse Pointe, but King did not attend, Englander said. A report in the New York Times confirms Englander's account of that second march, mentioning George Romney's attendance but making no mention of King.
Romney has repeated the story of his father marching with King in some of his most prominent presidential campaign appearances, including the "Tonight" show with Jay Leno in May, his address on faith and politics Dec. 6 in Texas, and on NBC's "Meet The Press" on Sunday, when he was questioned about the Mormon Church's ban on full participation by black members. He said that he had cried in his car in 1978 when he heard the ban had ended, and added, "My father marched with Martin Luther King."
Mitt Romney went a step further in a 1978 interview with the Boston Herald. Talking about the Mormon Church and racial discrimination, he said: "My father and I marched with Martin Luther King Jr. through the streets of Detroit."
Yesterday, Romney spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom acknowledged that was not true.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/12/21/romne y_never_saw_father_on_king_march?mode=PF
Yikes, even Mitt's own campaign staff say he is not telling the truth! |
|
Frankly, I think Mitt should have been more careful in his word choice. His explanation is plausible, but he should know that people are going to attempt to skewer him at every turn, as is happening with most of the frontrunners at this point. Its better just to avoid any and all ambiguity in word use.
People who don't like Romney will hold this against him. Those who support Romney won't care about it. The issue is what will the undecided voters think about it.
I'm disappointed by the statement, but I don't think it does, or should, reflect poorly on his character. Flaws and missteps aside, Romney is the most qualified candidate to guide this country during these difficult times.
For those gleefully jumping on Romney for this statement, just remember that Huckabee claimed he received a degree in Theology. But he didn't ... he got a degree in religion and began a theology masters, but never finished. It was a sloppy statement. Does it make him the devil? No. |
|
If a guy lies to his wife to go gamble at the Indian casino - and one friend covers by saying the guy was at home with him watching TV, and a second friend covers by saying he and the guy went to a baseball game..
That guy is in MORE trouble.
One post - two links - a total contradiction. Someone please explain. |
|
Just keep repeating it. No matter WHAT anybody says. |
|
|
Folks, the hooves fly! Rudy sagging on the rail in a big fade, then Huck on True Relig shaking up the track like Elmer Gantry in a come-to-meeting tent. Still with 'em, folks, in a close third, comes Mitt on Angel Money, streaming tears, with Rise Again McCain on Lazarus at his heels. Then Fred on old Bess, they both could care less.. and the pack. Wait, folks, not so fast! Breaking on the outside is that popular horse None of the Above, no rider! Get ya bets in, there's no tome to waste! |
|
"Mitt didn't rack up $300 million being an idiot!"
Perhaps, but let's see how much he p*sses away in this futile vanity exercise of a campaign.
+ + + |
|
has said King never marched in Grosse Pointe, according to the Grosse Pointe Historical Society, and had not appeared in the town at all at the time the Broder book was published. “I’m quite certain of that,” says Suzy Berschback, curator of the Grosse Pointe Historical Society. Berschback also believes that George Romney never appeared at a protest, march, or rally in Grosse Pointe. “We’re a small town,” she says. “Governors don’t come here very often, except for fundraisers.”
I am certain she's right, if you disagree you simply cannot be trusted. |
|
Breatheee....Breatheeeeee....Focus....Focussss...
Let it go, Rich. Along with the "chickenhawk" flatulance and the massive envy of Mitt's hair.
Put the coffee down, 223. |
|
I've read both stories and have no idea what you're talking about.
Its quite clear that George Romney marched with MLK. It's probably even true, in spite of what Romney said, that he saw his father marching with him, as it would have been big news in Detroit back then and probably on television, or at least in pictures.
Finally, i'm from Norco. ;) |
|
So now Mitt's integrity depends on the recollections of two little old ladies?
Are we to ignore all the other evidence?
|
|
|
How many angels can dance on a pin? I know this was resolved a long time ago but I forget. |
|
I played a basketball game against Norco in the 90's, I went to Palm Desert High.
I think the colors were blue and something, and all I remember now is...getting there at night and seeing a bunch of cows.
|
|
There are reams of evidence to support that Romney marched with MLK.
Time to let it go folks. |
|
neoconscum -
Actually, I am out of here for Christmas. Time to focus on things bigger than politics. I will be back just in time for Iowa.
Merry Christmas to everyone here, I enjoy the give and take in the comment on this blog, thanks to Hugh for putting up with us, and peace on earth, good will to men. |
|
|
Norco high, blue, night, cows, basketball, 90's...wrote to Steve in Corona not to Bill in Norco. |
|
|
I remember Corona beating Palm Desert in the playoffs in football. Good football team back in the 90's |
|
|
Cant forget you, Van Halen is from Pasadena, the Rose Bowl, what's not to like about that? |
|
This whole thing is ridiculous. These eyewitness accounts prove that Romney did march with MLK. As far as Mitt "seeing" it happen, he was speaking figuratively, and everyone knows it. Paul Mirengoff over at Powerline got it right - if Mitt had actually been there to see it, he would have said "I marched with King!"
But here we are, the whole world in an uproar because Mitt "saw" figuratively rather than physically. This is all they've got on the guy? Yeah, he's overstated in the past (who hasn't), but that's clearly not what happened here.
Huckabee's a fiscal lib in sheep's clothing and thinks good foreign policy and a nice, sit down family dinner are the same thing. Rudy's a social lib who freely admits it, AND that he cheated not on one but two wives (oh, and his kids hate him to boot). McCain's like everybody's favorite crazy uncle (you like having him around, but there's just something a little off about him) and keeps getting endorsed by the most liberal sources (hmmmmm...). Thompson seems like he's more apt to take his afternoon nap and play bridge rather than deal with running the country (one Reagan attribute I don't think any of us are looking for).
Meanwhile, the best people got on Romney is that a) he's a Mormon, b) he's changed his mind on some key issues, even though he owns up to it, and now c) he has the unmitigated gall to use the word "saw" figuratively. Get serious, everybody - Mitt's the right guy. |
|
about Fred lying about lobbying for abortion providers. Romney's a liar, but Fred just didn't remember right, eh?
Your standard of what constitutes evidence is that it must convict Romney, his family and David Broder as liars. All other evidence to the contrary you must discard. |
|
Romney is correct that you can use "saw" and "with" figuratively. Having said that, I have to ask how many of us formed a mental image of MLK and Romney marching together? I bet most of us. That is the only problem with any of this. Was Romney being intentionally ambiguous because he wanted people to form that false image?
I know, some will jump all over that question as hair-splitting, but I wager that those people are not so forgiving when a liberal chooses words that can be interpreted literally and figuratively.
I think Romney did himself no favors by mentioning the word "dictionary." Doing so was the equivalent of saying "that depends on the meaning of 'saw' and the meaning of 'with.'" Not helpful.
|
|
That's the mot juste a reader just proposed - for all those Romney statements that are just a little too good to be, you know, true. Remember Gore and the Internet. That kind of thing.
Mitticism: a noun. A slight exaggeration that embellishes the truth in order to impress voters. Pass it along.
(Actually, Chris Kelly may be the one to credit with this neologism).
Again this is not a big deal. Take the MLK issue. There's no question that George Romney was on the right side of the civil rights movement of his day (just as his son, sadly, is now on the wrong side of the civil rights movement of his day - after having been on the right side). Romney has every reason to be proud, and I have no doubt that he remembers his father's legacy vividly. It's also true, it now appears, that George Romney may have once actually marched alongside MLK, although that is still disputed and Romney himself is no longer insisting on its veracity. But Mitt didn't see it, as he now says. And the context of his prepared - not off-the-cuff - remarks clearly say that he did - not figuratively, but actually:
I was taught in my home to honor God and love my neighbor. I saw my father march with Martin Luther King. I saw my parents provide compassionate care to others, in personal ways to people nearby, and in just as consequential ways in leading national volunteer movements.
The sentiment is clear and admirable, but slightly off. A Mitticism is not a lie as such, and I was too harsh in describing it as such originally. It's that extra-special edge to a salesman's pitch that is as unnecessary as it is counter-productive.
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/1 2/mitticisms.html
|
|
|
|
|
So, in 1963, George Romney marched with MLK, but TWENTY-FIVE years later, his wierd cult religion finally let Blacks into their higher offices. How sad. |
|
Riley, Jason L. 21 December 2007. "Church Separation
The Mormons still haven't settled their race problem."
http://www.opinionjournal.com/taste/?id=110011023
Luo, Michael. 22 December 2007. "Romney Learns That 'Facts Are Stubborn Things'" _The New York Times_
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/22/us/politics/21cnd-romney. html?hp
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Mitt Romney: From Flip-Flop To See-Saw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=up60e-ygalU
Romney against making automatic weapons available to the public
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8M3Ht28fd8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ef4aWvoR-JI
NH Voter's Infamous Question to Mitt Romney, Hunter Extraordinaire
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ug_pt_mQwc
Hardball clip re: Romney: "I've been a hunter pretty much all my life"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQvny6CKcNc
2002 Romney on gun control
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kk1bJOpYUqE
Romney Remarks To The NRA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnXdOgCed0A&feature=related
|
|
POLITICO: Witnesses recall Romney-MLK march.
Well, fine. But my dad marched with Martin Luther King, too -- not that he was famous enough for anyone to notice -- but I didn't see it, and I never claimed I did. Romney seems to have suffered from politicians' disease, where it's not enough to report that something happened, you have to report it in a way that puts you in the story. Trouble is, he wasn't in the story. Is that a big deal? Not really, I guess. But it was an unforced error at a crucial time and it underscores the feeling a lot of people have that Romney's just a bit too airbrushed to be true.
http://instapundit.com/archives2/013250.php |
|
Paul, 1978 - 1963 = 15
Not 25. |
|
Bank, Justin and Lori Robertson, of factcheck.org. 19 December 2007. "Romney on Huckabee II
Romney attacks Huckabee again with false and misleading claims."
http://www.newsweek.com/id/80949
This item should have mentioned Romney's bogus 'I took only pro-life steps in office' claims:
Luo, Michael. 22 December 2007. "Romney Learns That 'Facts Are Stubborn Things'" _The New York Times_
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/22/us/politics/21cnd-romney. html?hp
Allott, Daniel. 20 December 2007. "Romney, get real about your abortion record"
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1207/7482.html
|
|
|
Did he or didn't he see his Dad march with MLK we will never know because he is not even sure, figuratively speaking. I really couldn't care less, Just as long as he has the NRA endorsement, I am ok with him. |
|
|
is where we will find Hugh and Mitt. |
|
Shame on you for lying. You wrote:
"But Mitt didn't see it, as he now says"
Mitt Romney never said that he did not see his father march with MLK.
You want to parse words with Mitt Romney when it comes to the word "saw" and yet you're fine with interpreting Mitt Romney's words now. Why is that Joe? Make up your mind. Quote Mitt Romney for me where he says, "I did not actually see my father marching with MLK."
Hmmm, maybe we should refer to this as Joeism's?
Who's your candidate, Rudy? |
|
|
We will wipe the floor with him. Come next September, you'll feel about the same |
|
When he says he "saw" his father marching for civil rights, he means he "SAW THE EXAMPLE" of his father dutifully standing up for the rights of blacks, by marching.
That's the important context because he said it during his religious freedom speech in Texas a couple weeks ago when he was talking about the rights of all Americans, regardless of creed, race, et al.
It is so obvious that he meant it figuratively.
On a similar note, if someone were to say "they saw how hard their father worked," that doesn't mean they're claiming they actually went to work with their father every day to "observe" him working.
Rather, it would mean they "SAW THE EXAMPLE" of how their father worked long hours, and came home tired. |
|
"Republicans:Please nominate Romney. We will wipe the floor with him."
What, do you guys have some unknown secret-weapon candidate that you have yet to unveil? |
|
|
do you really think anyone reads your post let alone the links? As soon as I see your tag the scroll whell starts a'movin. |
|
perfect analogy ( I think it is analogy, being an engineer I did not use 'em much)
oops I lied. I am not an engineer just a designer who has been doing it for 20 years.
I can hear the slogans now "expat lied, people fried"
btw I design HVAC get it? fried. |
|
I saw my father's work ethic.
Do the critics here want to know what color it was, and how far away from it I was standing when I saw it?
I saw my mother's devotion to her children.
(I think that happened at about 2:15 in the afternoon, on a Tuesday. It was triangular, with a tail, which surprised me.)
|
|
Mitt Romney will say anything to get a vote. He'll even lie about what he "saw" and if his father "marched" or not. According to Martin Luther King Jr., Mitt was a great civil rights advocate, but he didn't march with him. Read it here.
http://thephoenix.com/article_ektid53414.aspx |
|
|
Thanks for some much needed levity. |
|
I can do better than quote Mitt Romney, I can show you a video clip of Mitt Romney saying it today:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=up60e-ygalU
So be careful who you call a liar.
I do not, by the way, take away from George Romney's greatness, nor do I doubt Mitt's love and respect for his father, but I recognize that Mitt has had a tendency to exaggerate facts (and he has done it before on a host of issues). It is not a good habit in a presidential campaign. |
|
Borderbill said: Quote Mitt Romney for me where he says, "I did not actually see my father marching with MLK."
Joe responds with: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=up60e-ygalU |
|
|
|
|
Because Republicans are going to tear themselves apart no matter who the nomination is. And we can thank the fabulous people like those who work for the Romney campaign with their scorched earth strategy. What was it that Reagan said about the 11th commandment again? :) |
|
Step up and apologize to Joe or at least acknowledge it, you issued the challenge and he responded.
Okay I know I am hard on Mitt and his followers but please someone answer me; Mitt's father did have a great record on Civil Rights when it was a very courageous thing to do. Why did Mitt feel the need to jump to the I saw my father march with MLK fable. There was no reason to do this, especially in a prepared speech. Doesn't this make you question Mitt just a little?
Surprise I have not ruled out Mitt yet, I go back and forth but stuff like this does bug me, because it is an unforced error and there are several other similar examples
dirL |
|
...then why did Mitt back off of his original statements? Why didn't he stick with them if his dad really did march with MLK? Why do other sources disagree with this? Why did Mitt claim he had marched with MLK, too? Sounds like the original story of Mitt pandering is still probably the truthful one.
And PC, just for your info, whatever Fred did for Planned Parenthood, National Right to Life endorsed Fred. Get over it. |
|
Now Mitt says he saw the New England Patriots win the World series....Wow...just Wow....and it is joke but unfortunately Mitt did say it, I think he gots his sports confused
dirL |
|
maybe it wasn't an error and in 40+ years the memories have become blurred and unsure in Mitt's mind. But maybe, just maybe what he first declared in the speech was true.
maybe he is not playing games, but just being honest with us, just as you might tell a story sitting around with friends and then later recant or be unsure of some of the details.
could it be that his is honest to a fault? |
|
Kiss NH buh-bye, Mittenistas!
(Note the importance of character)
-----
Recently, we have been impressed by McCain's attitude toward illegal immigration, expressed at considerable political cost in a bill that was defeated earlier in the year. He now notes that any improvement in the situation will have to begin by better policing of the borders, but he continues to speak with humane concern of the people, and the families of people, who have put down roots here.
We are also intrigued, although not fully persuaded by, McCain's recent venture into health-care reform. Like many other Republicans, he puts a lot of faith in private insurance companies, and he rejects the idea of health-insurance mandates. But he is proposing an end to restrictions on insurance availability from out of state providers, as well as significant tax relief for people who negotiate their own insurance arrangements. He has a quiver of proposals for reducing the cost of health care. And he wants to create a federal insurance fund to insure people who are turned down - or priced out of the market - by private insurers. "And it'll be expensive," he volunteers, with typical candor.
Where McCain most distinguishes himself from the rest of this year's Republican pack is in the areas of life experience and force of character. He is not a single-issue candidate off on a frantic ideological jag. Although his political ideology has evolved through experience over the years, he has not changed his previous political positions en masse to appeal to the presumed prejudices and preferences of voters. Nor has he tried to craft a candidacy around an artificial persona who promises to save us all from terrorists, or from the devil. And, perhaps most important, he campaigns with decency.
What we see in McCain is a grown-up; a known quantity with a 30-year record of public service; a conservative who is confident in his abilities and yet smart enough to seek counsel.
----- |
|
|
|
|
be why he is so successful and once people recognize it and accept it they will do what he asks of them. could he maybe such a great leader that he does not need to put up the false fronts found on most politicians? |
|
|
as you gut seems to tell you that you have it all figured out, mine tells me your are completely and utterly wrong. |
|
|
met those men or women, be they very few indeed, that you just know gets it? |
|
|
|
expatcdn: It's not just gut. It's the numbers. It's the basic understanding of what a large proportion of the GOP will and won't vote for. It's the utter spanking in Iowa. It's the increasing desperation of the personal attacks. It's the slow exposure of character issues. It's the extremely poor return on campaign investment.
There's just no way Romney gets a GOP nomination. Too many strikes against him. Like Giuliani.
+ + + |
|
In the clip he does indeed say that he did not see it with his own eyes.
You understand why I called you a liar, right?
If not, i'll be happy to explain it to you. |
|
Romney was basically accused by Russert of being a racist (The MSM's favorite tactics against Republicans) and he answered that charge quite well. The Romney family has stood against racism back when being for civil rights wasn't cool. Shoot, back when the Democrats were still voting against civil rights!
And yet all of this gets lost because the MSM drives the story and hates Republicans. I think some of you would see this more clearly if you didn't have another horse in this race. |
|
You made a mistake (or two or three). Say they were mistakes and move on.
MSNBC AP Headline says it all
Romney backpedals on statements - again
Explains Martin Luther King, Jr. comment, NRA endorsement statement.
I know MR is a flake but from a tactical standpoint, he needs to admit a mistake or two or three and move on.
His "saw" is becoming another "meaning of is is". He looked like a real dolt explaining this on TV.
InTrade this morning shows MR spread falling significantly in the states of Iowa, NH, Mich, SC. |
|
Joe wrote that the quotation from Mitt Romney quite
"obviously" was meant to say that he literally saw his father march with MLK.
But the quotation does not obviously say that.
"I was taught in my home to honor God and love my neighbor. I saw my father march with Martin Luther King. I saw my parents provide compassionate care to others, in personal ways to people nearby, and in just as consequential ways in leading national volunteer movements."
The first sentence does not refer to a specific event but the entire experience of his growing up and what he experienced. So does the third sentence. In that context, the second sentence, ambiguous as it is, is not obvious but can just as readily be interpreted to mean that over the course of his growing up he observed his father's civil rights record and learned from it and that that record of his father included marching with MLK, which eyewitnesses confirm. The denial of it rests on two historical researchers, one in the Grosse Point Historical Society, the other in the MLK archives. But they are proving a negative--just because they find no record of something happening does not mean it did not happen. It means that they have no record of it. But the two eyewitnesses are, in sheer historical terms, more credible, first because they are first hand evidence rather than secondhand, second because they are not trying to prove a negative. |
|
“Searched”
WATCH VIDEO
http://controlcongress.com/uncategorized/romney-at-his-best
|
|
Jacob the Syrian Hamster,
Why did Mitt backtrack if the witnesses are correct? He did not backtrack on the fact that George Romney marched with MLK, which is what the eyewitnesses confirmed did happen. Mitt backtracked on the "I saw " George Romney march. And he really wouldn't have needed to backtrack even on that--in the context of the speech it's clear that "saw" meant "observed in the overall experience of growing up as a son to these parents" since the sentences immediately preceding and immediately following the one about marching with MLK are along those lines.
But he did not backtrack on what the eyewitnesses corroborate as having happened. Your question is totally irrelevant because you baitd and switched. |
|
Romney has an embellishment problem just like the great internet inventor AlGore.
This is also as bad as watching him embellish on MTP when he explained how he had to pull off to the side of the road to weep when he heard on the news that his church was going to allow blacks into priesthood.
I don't buy this story either. And, even if it is true, it is weird behavior. |
|
From Romney's website:
GOVERNOR ROMNEY: "Let me tell you, spending can be controlled. I know how to do it. I've done it before. We can control earmarks. We can control pork. We can put a cap on discretionary spending. I want to get in place and do a top-to-bottom review of every agency of government. I love doing that."
This is the core of Romney. It's all BS. Earmarks, discretionary spending and inefficiency are utterly meaningless in the overall budget. We are going bankrupt because of entitlement spending and the retirement demographics. Romney is simply pandering to his audiences the same as Hillary does, promising things that sound like painless solutions which are, in fact, a load of empty-headed hot air. |
|
that we republicans are going to need group therapy after this election.
|
|
|
if their is even a party left. |
|
HonestasDicitVeritas provides the best analysis yet by providing the quote in context.
"I was taught in my home to honor God and love my neighbor. I saw my father march with Martin Luther King. I saw my parents provide compassionate care to others, in personal ways to people nearby, and in just as consequential ways in leading national volunteer movements."
This "tempest in a teapot" is a lot like the anti-Mormon Bible bashing we used to see in the blog last spring. Pick a scripture or statement out of context and twist it.
The fact is Mitt Romney "saw" his parents as , dare I say it, the original, truly authentic compassionate conservatives." That is his heritage and he is entitled to it. |
|
Jacob the Syrian Hamster writes: "Let me tell you, spending can be controlled."
The good thing is:
Guilani, McCain and Romney have proven their ability to read a spreadsheet and cut budgets as needed.
Republican' happily have some good men to chose from. |
|
John Doe writes: "weird Mormon behavior."
I too experienced this weird Mormon behavior. I wept with family members when we heard the announcement regarding the Blacks and the priesthood. We were in the Los Angeles Temple in Santa Monica, CA just before my brother-in-laws wedding. Many of us in the wedding party wept openly, some eye moistened just a bit, but all can can say we "wept for joy."
Weeping for joy is a characteristically Mormon response. Sorry for being so weird, but that is just how we are.
|
|
swatting Lefty-flies here than reading all this addled nonsense from Hucksters, etc, re-whether Mitt misplaced, and forgot to declare, a piece of flys**t in the bottom of the sugar bowl. When it reaches 1/10,000th of Billary's disingenuosity, I'll take it seriously.
JORGE: John McCain has a serious deficit in one Huge Character Trait that has always vetoed him for me: Temperment. As in temperment suitable for the presidency in these huge times of War. Very, very serious times. And, please, spare me the impulse to retort,"Yeah, if he had the temperment to bravely survive his Hanoi captivity, etc, etc..." His captivity was indescribably brave. Something that inspired his fellow POWs and even--sometimes--his jailers. Beyond question, an inspiring, human & spirtual feat. That said, it is his behavior in recent years, say the past 15, that I have been watching. His colleagues in the Senate have seen much of his 'peaks & valleys & fits' close-up. Hell, it has amused me to know McCain was in that fake house of manners with his hot-wiring, bad temper, intolerance, sulking, attack modes, etc. Dim Bulbs like Leahy & other Dem sleazoids must find his volatility quite terrifying; something that tickles my ribs. John is an egomaniac with an inferiority complex. He sucks up attention with an appetite nearly the size of Billy C. He is a Heat Seeking Missle for praise. The most dangerous ground in his 'area' is that between John McCain and the cameras & Microphones. He'll stomp you to death getting to the floodlights. That sort of seduction was tiresome and maddening and inexcusable in the relatively tame times of Clinton. It must not be repeated in this Vast Time of Danger. If dissing President Bush would get him attention, he rarely has hesitated. Same with his treatment of Repub colleagues. What is it that HH has on his promo-ads for the show..."He'll go out in a shower of John McCain rhetoric..
|
|
|
The smackdown by Condi Or Rush? Or could there be a new player?? Huck himself. Can't remember if he actually put the arrogant and bunker peice in the foreign affiars mag and it could have been 7-10 other people who are advisors. Either way it's a lib sentiment that he signed off on. |
|
Con't...
So, Senator McCain, I LOVE your steadfastness on the War With Radical Islam. And, if you are the nominee, I'll support you with time and $$$. But, I'd rest alot easier if you had demonstrated a non-needy ego and a balance of temper and some semblance of humility. Prez.Bush ain't much of a communicator, Sir, but he sure has been balanced, steadfast, morally clear and UN-NEEDY in the attention-appetite sector.
Mitt can, I believe, lead well & strongly whilst being communicative, nimble, morally clear, hugely competent, principled and a true Executive. I have also come to believe that he has C & C in him, which was my only previous rservation. I love Rudy's 'fire in the belly' to kill our jihadist enemies and have long supported him. I've come over to Mitt because I believe he is better tempermentally suited & balanced, espouses real conservativism where it counts--fiscal competence & reduction, illegal alien no employment id's, the War, Supreme Court picks, etc--and doesn't possess the appetites of McCain or Rudy. |
|
|
|
You raised the challenge to me: Quote Mitt Romney for me where he says, "I did not actually see my father marching with MLK."
I responded with this Mitt Romney quote backed up by video: "I did not see [George Romney marching with MLK] with my own eyes." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=up60e-ygalU
Now if you intended to say something else, or challenge something else, you did not write it. I responded to your point. I am not a liar and I resent you calling me one.
And I do not think Tim Russert was saying Republicans are racists, but clearly the Mormon Church was before 1978 (because it overtly excluded certain races). It appears George and Mitt Romney did not agree with that position and fought against it (and I would not ask Mitt to now speak against his own faith). I was satisfied with Mitt's answer.
My point remains the same, Mitt has a habit of extending the truth and exaggerating on facts. He exaggerated on hunting, NRA endorsements, and other issues. It does not make him a liar, but it is a foolish unforced error. That is the point Jim Geraghty made, Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit made (whose dad also marched with MLK), and I made.
|
|
"Who is your favorite author?" Aleya Deatsch, 7, of West Des Moines asked Mr. Huckabee in one of those posing-like-a-shopping-mall-Santa moments.
Mr. Huckabee paused, then said his favorite author was Dr. Seuss.
In an interview afterward with the news media, Aleya said she was somewhat surprised. She thought the candidate would be reading at a higher level.
"My favorite author is C. S. Lewis," she said.
http://instapundit.com/archives2/013265.php
Clearly some candidates are committing worse unforced errors than others. |
|
This is an ongoing nightmare.
You made a mistake - say that and end this stupidity.
InTrade numbers 11am Eastern
Willard is collapsing in state spreads (over last 48 hours) in Iowa (can't go any lower); NH - now serios, Mich, SC and Nev.
Still close nationally but RG leads.
STOP THE BLEEDING |
|
..old George Romney. I'm glad there is something to Mitt's claim. It took immense moral courage to stand up to the (sometimes violent) prejudices of the time by standing next to MLK. Mitt's father was one of the thousands who did. He was on the right side of that struggle. A little bit humorless, or so I've heard, but as earnest as the day is long.
Don't quite understand Mitt's parsing of the issue. I guess it is his Kerryesque instinct to be slippery and nuanced. We'll look forward to running against that next year! |
|
|
I say that if it were a Democrat making those "foolish unforced errors," the MSM would be calling him a "liar." Mitt gets a pass because the corporate MSM is basically afraid of Republicans. |
|
I think the simplest explanation is that the speech should have read, "my father marched in support of MLK." The context, as pointed out above, permits that interpretation and "with" even will bear that reading.
I think Romney had uncritically accepted his father's story because in a figurative sense, his father did march with MLK and he did so at a time when that was not well received by many. After all, the Broder book specifically placed them physically marching together.
Several folks here just wish that Romney would acknowldege he messed up and move on.
Sorry, that works for Democrats but not Republicans. That would put blood in the water.
It does appear that the eyewitnesses only imagined seeing MLK with George Romney in Grosse Pointe because MLK's travels are recorded and he was far away that day. But the fact that two independent witnesses perceived (mistakenly) that MLK was present in Grosse Pointe that day tells us something about how the Grosse Pointe event led by George Romney was perceived at the time.
Of course, Romney's campaign can't try to defend him by pointing out how the witness accounts, even if factually mistaken, intepretively support the speech. The MSM will only take that as obfuscation and blood in the water again.
It's true that Republicans have had trouble communicating. It's equally true that the MSM and Republican anti-Romneyites don't want to be communicated to by Republicans. You can't communicate with those who don't want to listen.
Could Romney have handled this better? In hindsight yes. But is 80 % of this the result of MSM and Republican Romney-haters own willful misreading of the evidence. There's a limit to how much one can communicate under such circumstances. |
|
|
The really cool thing about an open-ended primary season like this one is that Republicans are getting a taste of their own medicine. The stakes are high, the outcome is undetermined, and so they are going for it. The cheap tricks and nasty tactics they inflict on Democrats all the time are being inflicted upon one another. It is not so fun, is it?! It really cheapens the process, doesn't it?! Democracy and the earnest discussion of ideas suffers as a result, right?! |
|
"This is also as bad as watching him embellish on MTP when he explained how he had to pull off to the side of the road to weep when he heard on the news that his church was going to allow blacks into priesthood.
"I don't buy this story either. And, even if it is true, it is weird behavior."
I find Governor Romney's story entirely believable. Many others reacted in the same way.
My then-fiance (now my wife) was so shocked and delighted at the news that she momentarily stopped her car on a crowded and sluggish Los Angeles freeway. I was in Europe at the time, and still remember precisely where I was and exactly what was said when I heard the news. I couldn't have been happier.
Our faith is that important to us, and our joy was that great.
If you find that weird, that's your prerogative. If you want to dismiss several million people as weird because their religious beliefs differ from yours, that, too, is your right. But it isn't admirable.
|
|
Patriotic Liberal,
"Cheap tricks and nasty tactics" that the mean old wascalwy Wepubwicans inflict on the pure as the wind-driven snow Democrats? Do you believe the drivel you write? What's the difference between the crapola you just flung on this thread and "cheap tricks and nasty tactics"? Since you are an expert in cheap tricks, you should be able to explain. |
|
|
I wonder why it's so hard to get good people to run for public office. We now choose our leaders based on a 24 hour news/Youtube cycle waiting for a mistake. How about we look at the plusses? What has Mitt Romney done through his life? What has McCain done? What about Huckabee? Let's not base our vote on semantics. We all want our politicians to be human, then when they are, we jump on them. Like when Dean got run out on a rail because he tried to rally his people after Iowa. I don't agree with Dean on anything, but that was unfair and ridiculous. It was a black mark on our political process. Why did Dean lose? Because of his politics? No, because he got excited at a rally. How dumb. Also, regarding Hugh's excitement over Romney. Has anyone ever thought that maybe Hugh likes Romney so much because he spent so much time researching his book that he came to the real conclusion that the guy is the right person to be POTUS? Not everything has a angle. Let's grow up. |
|
Daniel:
I fully understand how you couldn't have been happier when the church allowed blacks into the priesthood but I still don't get stopping the car and weeping over this. Sorry, but I'm looking for a John Wayne type leader and this is just a little too emotional for my taste. |
|
|
Universe of PatLib aka PL+LP. It's a strange, time warped place. He, apparently, believes his own koolaid delusions about icky scary Cons and noble, plotted against Libs. PL+LP, ya figure Mitt's an easy defeat by Billary or your man, Obama? Clinton fears him above ALL others. Obama, likable, but NO RESUME. And, Not Serious in huge serious times. Empty suit. Could be a real aggrivation as a VP candidate to Her Ladyship, though. But, with her paranoia & insecurities, coupled with her Queen Bee wiring, she'll most likely pick a Male Drone like Richardson. |
|
...another candidate if you nominate Romney. He'll self-destruct just like Kerry and Gore did, due to his similar phoniness and problems with telling the truth. Go ahead, nominate him, please- you'll wind up muttering to yourselves just like we did.
The one guy you shouldn't nominate is McCain. He'd wipe the floor with us, particularly if he makes Lieberman his running mate. I have full confidence you guys won't figure that out though:
|
|
Dean lost before Iowa because people realized what a jerk he really was. The election only confirmed it. Then he yelled.
I will rely on Shakespeare to give me a lexicon of descriptios of Howard Dean:
A foul and pestilent congregation of vapours
A Filthy Piece Of Work
A Mere Dull Shadow
A Mind Diseas'd
A Very Toad
Abandoner Of Revels
Abhorred Slave
Abject Drudge
Abominable Fellow
Abortive
Accursed Devil
Action-Taking
Addicted So And So
Adulterate Beast
Affable Wolf
Affecting Rogue
AffectionedAss
All In All Spleen And Nothing Of A Man
All-Hallown Summer
All-Worthy Villain
Amorous Surfeiter
Ancient Ruffian
Ancient Substitute
Anointed Sovereign Of Sighs And Groans
Approved Wanton
Arch-Heretic
Arch-Villain
Arrant Counterfeit Rascal
Arrant Coward
Arrant Knave
Arrogant Controller
Asshead
And those are just the descriptions of Dean that begin with the letter "a."
|
|
[expatcdn on December 22, 2007 12:48 AM]"do you really think anyone reads your post let alone the links?"
No.
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Mitt Romney: From Flip-Flop To See-Saw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=up60e-ygalU
Romney hit hard on MSNBC -Taxes, Flip-flops, & Social Issues
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8bSyAihn18
ABC News on Romney's Flip-flops on Abortion
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dzZC92IXHyw
Log Cabin Republicans TV Ad on Romney
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Elx3UWmyAY4
|
|
You're a serious guy, a damned good poster and I respect you.(There, I've probably ruined your reputation.) ;-)
That said, LL, you've got to be kidding! Looping Romney into the same solar system as the two phoney yutzes is kind of cute. But utterly wrong. Neither Gore nor Kerry ever DID anything. They are typical Democrat Senate policy wonks."Lifers".
Neither could competently run a mid-size American company, much less the Olympics for a profit. They are Civics Majors, Legalistas, Student Council for Life Boors.
Mitt's resume is one success after another. Anything he attempted, he accomplished. Your stating to please make our candidate McCain is mindful of what the pressies are going to be after. Now, why would that worry me? |
|
|
“You know, I’m an English literature major as well. When we say, ‘I saw the Patriots win the World Series, it doesn’t necessarily mean you were there — excuse me, the Super Bowl. I saw my dad become president of American Motors. Did that mean you were there for the ceremony? No, it’s a figure of speech.” |
|
"Two women contacted the Mitt Romney campaign this week, offering their memories of seeing Romney's father march with Martin Luther King Jr., in Grosse Point Michigan in 1963. Campaign officials were well aware that the women were mistaken. Yet, they directed those women to tell their stories to a Politico reporter. The motives and memories of the two women are unknown and irrelevant; the motives of the campaign, however, were obvious -- to spread information they knew to be untrue, for the good of the candidate."
http://thephoenix.com/TalkingPolitics/PermaLink.aspx?guid=f f666446-0340-417d-9520-5c7b030bed55
|
|
is the desire to sully a dead man's fine civil rights legacy. All in pursuit of a “gotcha” moment, that isn’t very important in the final analysis.
George Romney was obviously, as reported by many covering this story, pretty involved with the civil rights movement. A brave thing to do in the sixties.
Who cares if Mitt was speaking literally or figuratively about his dad. Mitt Romney has every right to be proud of his father’s record.
Heck, in all this reporting, it’s been revealed that MLK thought George Romney would be a good POTUS. Wow that’s an amazing endorsement. It would seem that MLK had the ability to see George Romney’s good character and didn’t let George’s religion and its views on blacks discourage him from seeing a supporter in the cause.
With all of the crap that Mitt has had to take about his religion from newspaper folks and other assorted religious intolerants, we should all take a lesson from Martin Luther King.
|
|
|
It is probably correct that with or without the "scream" Dean would not have won. Although it didn't help his cause to have the moment played a million times the week following Iowa. My point remains: we focus too much on the trivial when doing something important. Mitt's "gaffe" is trivial. The Dean "scream" was trivial. And, like I said, I am no fan of Dean, so the Shakespeare is not only kind of odd, but unneccessary. |
|
Thanks and back at you!
But I stand by my Romney comments. You're right that he accomplished more in the private sector than Kerry or Gore. But as a public figure, he's been a panderer to the nth degree. He comes off as a phony-baloney salesman. This business about "seeing" his father with MLK is a lot like Gore and the internet- Gore had a lot to do with the internet but he didn't "invent" it, just like George Romney supported civil rights but Mitt never "saw" his dad march with MLK. It's an exaggeration based on truth, but when uttered by someone already prone to misstatements, it gains traction it otherwise wouldn't.
I also think the American peopole in general are put off by the sectarian religious battle going on in the Republican primary. To be sure, Huckabee is most at fault for starting this, but when Romney had the chance to put out the fire as JFK did simply by saying his religion has nothing to do with his politics, he instead poured gasoline on the fire. Combine holier-than-thou religiousity with phoniness and you get a carnival barker, not a President.
McCain, to me, is the anti-Romney, a guy who oozes integrity from every pore. I sure don't agree with him on too many things, but I'd feel very comfortable with him in the White House. |
|
|
What is wrong with Mitt trying to rewrite history for his convenience? He is a Bain guy, remember and plus -Hugh has approved of this fabrication for political purposes. It is ok. |
|
How do you explain that the day these witnesses supposedly remember seeing Governor George Romney and Dr. Martin Luther King together in Grosse Pointe, that MLK was in New Jersey?
Then-governor George Romney did indeed march in Grosse Pointe, on Saturday, June 29, 1963, but Martin Luther King Jr. was not there; he was in New Brunswick, New Jersey, addressing the closing session of the annual New Jersey AFL-CIO labor institute at Rutgers University.
Those facts are indisputable, and quite frankly, the campaign must have known the women's story would eventually be debunked -- few people's every daily movement has been as closely tracked and documented as King's. As I write this, I am looking at an article from page E8 of the June 30, 1963 Chicago Tribune, which discusses both events (among other civil-rights actions of the previous day), clearly placing the two men hundreds of miles apart. I also have here the June 30, 1963 San Antonio News, which carries a photo and article about Romney at the Grosse Pointe march; and an AP story about King's speech in New Jersey:
A King researcher editing his letters from that time has stated definitively that the two men never marched together; Michigan and Grosse Pointe historians have stated definitively that King was not at the 1963 Grosse Pointe march; Michigan civil-rights participants of the time have concurred; so have those who worked for George Romney at the time.
All of this evidence is important to present to the general public, but it is unnecessary for the Romney campaign -- it has been clear for some time that they know perfectly well that the two men never marched together.
http://thephoenix.com/TalkingPolitics/
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZjZjNTlmYzUyNmFiMz lkNmNhYTViZTcxYjNlMWRmMmI= |
|
Agreed. We do focus on the trivial some times. But when you have a classic little clip that sums ups people's frustations about the guy--well it was inevitable. Howard Dean's scream fit that moment perfectly.
Any one of Mitt's Mittcisms are relatively minor. The problem is Mitt does it all the time. He has a habit of pushing the facts on any one point just a bit more than he should to win over a group. Here's from the article cited above:
"Believe me, [the Romney campaign] know [George Romney and MLK] never marched together. This is an attempt to rewrite history. And even if it is a small rewriting, it is offensive. http://thephoenix.com/TalkingPolitics/
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZjZjNTlmYzUyNmFiMz lkNmNhYTViZTcxYjNlMWRmMmI=
It is offensive because of people like Russell Peebles.
Peebles is an 88-year-old man, a former resident of Grosse Pointe for 48 years, who was present at both the Grosse Pointe march in 1963, and the MLK speech in Grosse point in 1968 -- the event at which the Romney campaign initially insisted Romney and King marched together.
I tried to contact Peebles earlier this week, prior to writing the original article, but we missed each other back-and-forth. Peebles sent me an email today, attesting to the fact that George Romney was at the 1963 march, but not the 1968 speech; and that King was at the 1968 speech, but not the 1963 march.
Peebles, and many others like him, deserve to have the history of what they did told honestly. Changing that history by mistake -- which is quite possibly how this began -- is unfortunate. Changing that history intentionally -- which is what the campaign is doing now -- is offensive."
|
|
|
about the men. I'm looking at Mitt, who wasn't 'my guy' until recently, and seeing a far different human than you. Way, WAY different. McCain's a good man, but not possessing a temperment for president in these huge historical times. Easily seduced by attention. Even craves it. And, as anyone in the Senate can attest, his "wiring" is way too Hot & Screwy for the World Stage at this time. Very, very Self-Centered. Not Bubba's appetite, and worlds more honorable, but some of his shotcomings, nevertheless. |
|
PS.
But, I would support John McCain with time, energy and $$$ if he becomes our nominee. I think he could beat either Billary or Obama. And, most important to me: He has an absolute Fire in His Belly to stay on the offense against Radical Islam and kill jihadist butchers. I really like that. His Illegal Alien tolerance scares the S*** outta me, though. |
|
I will absolutely support Mitt Romney if he is the nominee. Even if Mitt has a tendency to pull these Eddie Haskell moves. http://thephoenix.com/TalkingPolitics/PermaLink.aspx?guid= ff666446-0340-417d-9520-5c7b030bed55 Frankly I hope he stops because if he is the nominee, doing this will hurt him. It would be a tragedy if Hillary becomes president.
And on Fox News Sunday this morning, Joel Olsteen had some genuinely nice things to say about Romney. When questioned he thinks he has a lot more in common with Mitt on issues of faith and his Mormon background would not stop him from voting for him. Olsteen did not endorse him, but was certainly positive about Mitt. |
|
He's Mr.Cleaver's boss. Eddie is Joe Biden.
Hugs! |
|
|
|
|
|
Hm. I swallow the Kool-aid. I'M the guy who lives in a little cartoon universe with "wascally wepublicans." Honestas, I don't recognize you, so maybe you're new. But Neo, let's look at the record:
On numerous occasions I have said the Left was wrong on Roe v. Wade. I said the Left was wrong on prayer in school and other civic functions. I said the Left was wrong on multiculturalism. On the welfare state. On the way it treated returning vets from Vietnam. On the Pledge to the Flag. And tons of other things besides.
I don't remember ANY kind of acknowledgment from the regular right-wing posters on this site about where conservatives have been wrong over the past half century or so--other than stupid stuff like "we are TOO good natured" and nonsense like that. And yet, I'M the dogmatic one, the "we're the good guys and you're the bad guys" one. There are people around here living in bizarro world, but it ain't me.. |
|
You may be all the things you say you are and believe all the fine things you report that you believe. What you wrote in the specific post to which I responded was gag-inducing. Sorry. You can't be Right all the time, as you yourself admit.
Me? I'm just a tad below Rush, I'm right 98.2745 % of the time :) so why should I admit I'm wrong?
Besides, Pubbies have been too nice. They have no choice. When GW took office in 2001 I was hoping he'd clean out Justice and the CIA and State; when he didn't, I sadly said to my friends, that's going to come back to haunt him. It has come back to destroy him. But he was trying to set a new tone in Washington. He was nice to Teddy the Swimmer and look what it got him--unprecedented obstructionism on judicial appointments, savaging the one area in which constitutionally he should have been able to leave a lasting legacy.
But the reason he didn't clean out State and Justice and Spookville is that had he tried, the always-very-nice-and-friendly Drive-bys would have savaged him. He came in with little political capital because of the Drive-bys carrying Gore's water in that shameless and unlawful Chad War, so he couldn't have been non-nice and gotten away with it.
See, Liberals don't even have to try to be nice. They can be viciously partisan all the time and the MSM carries their water.
So I'm glad your a nice person and criticize the Libs for all their bad deeds. When Pubbies (or the Pope for that matter) engage in public admissions of guilt, it acts as blood in the water for even more shark attacks. Libs don't really want Pubbies to confess their errors for the sake of truth, they want it just as another in a long series of clubs to beat up on their opponents. Libs are congentially utilitarian, even when the proclaim lofty moral sentiments, like yours about admitting one's mistakes.
Nice try. |
|
You won't find that in any of the mirth I throw your way. I think you are way off in what you think conservatives are & stand for. And, I think you are equally far off in what you think 2007 Liberalism is and "stands" for.(The last accompanied by a strong cough.) But, I also believe that you have a strong sense of fair play. I salute you for that. You are an honorable guy, in my opinion. A good heart. And unbelievably WORDY! :-)
Peaky: My God, I had you wrong. You DO READ history. You've been immersed in the great Shelby Foote's Civil War trilogy, I see. Right there in Vol.2 where he spends a fair amount of time discussing Mitt Romney's influence on Lincoln and their collaboration for the Gettysburg Address. Good for you, Lad! I'm right...well, Right Wing, about 99.9999% of the time. But, I had you wrong. Gravest apologies. |
|
I am pretty wordy, aren't I? We're not all Gary Cooper, I guess.
I hear there's a new twist in the "my dad marched with MLK" saga. Mitt better hope this turns out well for him. He's beginning to look like a tool. |
|
I think it is hard for people to admit their "side" is wrong about any significant issue. I'm pro-choice but against Roe, leave abortion to the states. Affirmative action, at least the kind that lowers standards, is a cure worse than the disease. Suppression of the free exchange of ideas in academia is abhorrent to me.
But Neo, you're wrong to think there aren't principles that the vast majority of people who think of themselves as "liberals" stand for. Capitalism but with constraints such as free trade unions and a social safety net to prevent exploitation of the weak; free speech; freedom of and from religion; personal autonomy; a strong military, used judiciously; protection of the Earth; our shared responsibility for making a better world. These among other things define us as liberals.
Merry Christmas! |
|
|
At the signing of the Declaration of Independence! He was standing behind Elbridge Gerry. He was later a behind-the-scenes advisor to Berry during Berry's run for Governor of Massachusetts. Small wonder the Berry's were later part of Mitt's "secret cabinet"....... |
|
I'm pretty much in sync with all you say and what you are for. Which is why I'm a Conervative.(Of the 'Neo'variety.) I came from the Left & Liberalism. Of the non-ideological brand. I don't believe anymore that the Left of my youthful kind (60's & 70's)had any 'non-ideology', so I was always Liberal, I suppose. Always anti-Marxist, anti-Communist, anti-Totalitarian. Detest affirmative action, as did MLK. After 40+years of pro-abortion(though none of it adament), I'm anti-abortion(but, not adament, again)and for overturning Roe & leaving it to the states. I believe, for the most part, that American Unions have outlived their usefulness and purpose. I've watched, for example, the construction unions in L.A. become heavily Latino dominated and wonder what the hell that's about. The Film Unions are a T-Rex joke. My wife, a lifelong elementary school teacher, has watched the NEA make a sad paradox of the profession.(The deeper entrenched, the more PC, the more dead-brained, the less for teaching the successful old-fashioned way--FOR the students'learning, NOT their lil'self-esteem.)
I have only recently, with our Florida move in '06, registered Republican. But, as a registered Dem--lifelong--I've voted Repub since Reagan. I detest the 'anything goes' mindset of my old party. That brand isn't tolerance, it's lunacy without a moral compass. And, I detest the shear flabbyness & weakness of my old party. So, too, does Joe Lieberman. When I watched--dumbstruck--27 years ago, my party's Senators playing wink-nod footsy with the Sandanista Stalinists, that was the last straw for me. When I watched them try to gut Reagan's brilliant moves re-the Soviets, that really tied it. Yep, I'm for "judicious use" of a strong military, as well, and I know that's exactly what we're doing. I HATE the Dark Age Fascism of Radical Islam & its
secularist-Baathist allies. I'm a WASP who honors Israel. I love Freedom & its growth & spread.
|
|
|
|
|
The Phoenix nails it. As always, the cover up is worse than the crime and even if Romney survives to win the nomination, this shows such obvious and demonstrable deception that swing voters will be completely turned off. |
|
|
|