Did Mitt really see his father march with Martin Luther King?

posted at 10:00 am on December 20, 2007 by Allahpundit

“These American values, this great moral heritage, is shared and lived in my religion as it is in yours,” he said in his speech on faith. “I was taught in my home to honor God and love my neighbor. I saw my father march with Martin Luther King.” Did he, though? As we know, Mitt’s memory is sometimes … selective, although it’s easy to understand forgetting one campaign event in a million. Hallucinating about watching your pops marching with an American icon during the heart of the civil rights movement, though? Not so much, not so much.

Asked about the specifics of George Romney’s march with MLK, Mitt Romney’s campaign told the Phoenix that it took place in Grosse Pointe, Michigan. That jibes with the description proffered by David S. Broder in a Washington Post column written days after Mitt’s College Station speech.

Broder, in that column, references a 1967 book he co-authored on the Republican Party, which included a chapter on George Romney. It includes a one-line statement that the senior Romney “has marched with Martin Luther King through the exclusive Grosse Pointe suburb of Detroit.”

But that account is incorrect. 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. (Border was not immediately available for comment.)

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’m inclined to believe Romney just because he’s nowhere near stupid enough to try to pass off a gratuitous lie like this (I think).

But I don’t mind telling you I spent a good ten minutes last night trying to convince myself that I could, in good conscience, support McCain. It didn’t work — too much amnesty — but catch me in a month and ask me again.

Update: Here’s a fact sheet being circulated by Romney’s campaign. There’s little question George Romney was sympathetic to the civil rights movement and publicly known to be so. There’s also little question, it seems, that he never did actually march alongside MLK (although he marched at events sponsored by him).

GOV. GEORGE ROMNEY AND DR. MARTIN LUTHER KING JR.

FACT: In The Summer Of 1963, Governor Romney Participated In Martin Luther King Jr.’s “Freedom Marches” In Grosse Pointe, Michigan.

In 1963, George Romney Gave The Keynote Address At The Conference That Sparked The Martin Luther King “Freedom Marches” In Detroit. “The establishment of these human relations groups came in the wake of several major events (besides the embarrassing racist practices of such suburbs as Dearborn), which took place in 1963 and helped galvanize interracial support and cooperation for integrated housing. The first event was the Metropolitan Conference on Open Occupancy held in Detroit in January 1963. The second event was the Martin Luther King ‘Freedom’ March in June of the same year, the spinoffs of which were several Detroit NAACP-sponsored interracial marches into Detroit suburbs to dramatize the need for black housing. … Governor George Romney gave the keynote speech at this conference, in which he pledged to use the power of the state to achieve housing equality in Michigan.” (Joe T. Darden, Detroit, Race And Uneven Development, 1987, p. 132)

Governor Romney Marched In July 1963 In An NAACP-Sponsored March Through Grosse Pointe. “The next couple of NAACP marches into the suburbs were more pleasant. Both Grosse Pointe and Royal Oak Township welcomed the interracial marchers. Close to 500 black and white marchers, including many Grosse Pointers, marched in ‘the Pointes’ that July. Governor George Romney made a surprise appearance in his shirt sleeves and joined the parade leaders.” (Joe T. Darden, Detroit, Race And Uneven Development, 1987, p. 132)

· Detroit Free Press: “With Gov. Romney a surprise arrival and marching in the front row, more than 500 Negroes and whites staged a peaceful antidiscrimination parade up Grosse Pointe’s Kercheval Avenue Saturday. … ‘the elimination of human inequalities and injustices is our urgent and critical domestic problem,’ the governor said. … [Detroit NAACP President Edward M.] Turner told reporters, ‘I think it is very significant that Governor Romney is here. We are very surprised.’ Romney said, ‘If they want me to lead the parade, I’ll be glad to.’” (“Romney Joins Protest March Of 500 In Grosse Pointe,” Detroit Free Press, 6/29/63)

· In Their 1967 Book, Stephen Hess And David Broder Wrote That George Romney “Marched With Martin Luther King Through The Exclusive Grosse Point Suburb Of Detroit.” “He has marched with Martin Luther King through the exclusive Grosse Pointe suburb of Detroit and he is on record in support of full-coverage Federal open-housing legislation.” (Stephen Hess And David Broder, The Republican Establishment: The Present And Future Of The G.O.P., 1967, p. 107)

FACT: As Governor Of Michigan, George Romney Fought For Civil Rights And Marched In Support Of Martin Luther King Jr.

George Romney Was A Strong Proponent Of Civil Rights And Created Michigan’s First Civil Rights Commission. “The governor’s record was one of supporting civil rights. He helped create the state’s first civil rights commission and marched at the head of a protest parade in Detroit days after violence against civil rights marchers in Selma, Ala., in 1965.” (Todd Sprangler, “Romney Fields Questions On King,” Detroit Free Press, 12/20/07)

In 1967, George Romney Was Praised At A National Civil Rights Rally For His Leadership. “Michigan Gov. George Romney walked into a Negro Civil Rights rally in the heart of Atlanta to the chants of ‘We Want Romney’ and to hear protests from Negroes about city schools. ‘They had invited me to come and I was interested in hearing things that would give me an insight into Atlanta,’ the Michigan Republican said. Led by Hosea Williams, a top aide to Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., the all-Negro rally broke into shouts and song when Romney arrived. ‘We’re tired of Lyndon Baines Johnson,’ Williams said from a pulpit in the Flipper Temple AME Church as Romney sat in a front row pew. ‘Johnson is sending black boys to Vietnam to die for a freedom that never existed,’ Williams said. Pointing to Romney, Williams brought the crowd of 200 to its feet when he said, ‘He may be the fella with a little backbone.’ Williams said Romney could be ‘the next President if he acts right.’ The potential GOP presidential nominee left the rally before it ended.” (“Romney Praised At Civil Rights Rally In Atlanta,” The Chicago Defender, 9/30/67)

George Romney Fought Discrimination In Housing. “President Nixon tapped then Governor of Michigan, George Romney, for the post of Secretary of Housing and Urban Development. While serving as Governor, Secretary Romney had successfully campaigned for ratification of a state constitutional provision that prohibited discrimination in housing.” (U.S. Department Of Housing And Urban Development Official Web Site, www.hud.gov, Accessed 12/19/07)

FACT: In 1965, George Romney Led A March In Michigan To Protest Selma.

In 1965, George Romney Led A Protest Parade Of Some 10,000 People In Detroit. “Rarely has public opinion reacted so spontaneously and with such fury. In Detroit, Mayor Jerome Cavanaugh and Michigan’s Governor George Romney led a protest parade of 10,000 people.” (“Civil Rights – The Central Point,” Time Magazine, www.time.com, 10/5/83)

· The Days Of Martin Luther King, Jr.: “In Detroit, Governor George Romney and Mayor Jerome Cavanaugh called for a march to protest what had happened in Selma.” (Jim Bishop, The Days Of Martin Luther King, Jr., 1971, p. 385)

FACT: Martin Luther King Jr. “Spoke Positively” About The Possible Presidential Candidacy Of George Romney.

In His Pulitzer-Prize Winning Biography Of Dr. King, David Garrow Notes That King “Spoke Positively” About The Possible Presidential Candidacy Of George Romney. “King spoke positively about the possible candidacies of republicans George Romney, Charles Percy, and Nelson Rockefeller. He also stressed the need for greater Afro-American unity, including reaching out to segments of the black community that were not committed to nonviolence.” (David J. Garrow, Bearing the Cross: Martin Luther King, Jr., and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, 2006, p. 575)

FACT: George Romney Attended King’s Funeral In 1968.

George Romney Attended King’s Funeral In 1968. “Vice President Hubert Humphrey represented the White House. Senator and Mrs. Robert F. Kennedy; Mrs. John F. Kennedy; Governor and Mrs. Nelson Rockefeller of New York; the mayor of New York City, John V Lindsay; and Michigan’s governor, George Romney, were present.” (Octavia Vivian, Coretta: The Story of Coretta Scott King, 2006, p. 99)

· George Romney Joined Other Prominent Americans In Attending King’s Funeral. “Inside was the greatest galaxy of prominent national figures there had ever been in Atlanta at one time: Robert Kennedy, George Romney, Mayor Carl Stokes of Cleveland, Nixon, Rockefeller, Harry Belafonte, and an endless array of others equally as famous. Coretta Scott King, sitting with her family front and center in front of the casket, looked lovely and courageous and dignified in a black mourning veil.” (Franklin Miller Garrett, Atlanta and Environs: A Chronicle of Its People and Events, 1987, p. 517)

· After King’s Assassination, George Romney Declared An Official Period Of Mourning, Ordered All Flags To Be Flown At Half Staff And Said King’s Death Was “A Great National Tragedy.” “On April 4, 1968, Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated as he stood on a motel balcony in Memphis, Tenn., where he had gone to lead a civil rights march. The following day, Michigan Gov. George Romney declared an official period of mourning for King. The period extended through King’s funeral. Romney ordered all flags on public buildings to be flown at half staff and asked that the same be done on private buildings. Gov. Romney, in an official statement, said: “The assassination of Martin Luther King is a great national tragedy. At a time when we need aggressive nonviolent leadership to peacefully achieve equal rights, equal opportunities and equal responsibilities for all, his leadership will be grievously missed.” (“Rearview Mirror: Detroit Reacts To King’s Assassination,” The Detroit News, 4/4/07)


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

But I don’t mind telling you I spent a good ten minutes last night trying to convince myself that I could, in good conscience, support McCain. It didn’t work — too much amnesty — but catch me in a month and ask me again.

Me too…
*
I have said it, there is not enough people in the world to substantiate all of the claims of two things…
I was at Woodstock…and I marched with King
*
I swear, is there any politician (of age) who does not feel or believe they marched with him?
*
Flashback: Clinton and watching the churches burn…

right2bright on December 20, 2007 at 10:12 AM

Although I think Romney is a little too slick for me, I’m willing to give him a pass on this one. If you’ve ever read anyone’s autobiography, memory is fallable. His father marching in events sponsored by King can, in his mind, mean he marched with King himself.

ScoopPC11 on December 20, 2007 at 10:21 AM

Ok I can let this one slide. He marched where he said he marched. The march was in support of MLK. Fiiiinne. It fits better in the speech to say “marched with MLK” rather then “walked in an adjacent march that MLK wasn’t technically at but was in support of MLK.”

We know that he was in support of the beliefs of MLK. That’s all I care about.

Zetterson on December 20, 2007 at 10:22 AM

Hot potato. Very hot. Not for Romney but for his competition. Say Mitt is mistaken, or stretched it, are we going to see one of those clip shot campaign ads with “Mitt said his father marched with MLK. He didn’t.” Calling him out on this could back fire big time based on his father’s record of supporting the CRM and marching in CRM events.

Brer Rabbit better be looking for a foxhole if Rudy, Huck, or Fred decides to run with this.

Limerick on December 20, 2007 at 10:23 AM

Nuance indeed.

But would he wear a silly hat?

Slublog on December 20, 2007 at 10:25 AM

This is all very Al Gore-ish. Although the basic point is that George Romney supported MLK and the civil rights movement, Mitt seems to have unnecessarily embellished the history in order to have his dad walking alongside MLK. Reminds me of Gore’s mother singing “look for the union label” to him as a child.

Enrique on December 20, 2007 at 10:26 AM

Great. We found our John Kerry.

EduardoOTI on December 20, 2007 at 10:27 AM

All it will take is one photo of Romney standing next to King. That’ll be good enough to tar the finger pointers.

Limerick on December 20, 2007 at 10:27 AM

And in this thread we see the Romniacs mimic supporters of the Huckster in claiming that “everyone does it” and that he’s such a wholesome, honest guy- even in the face of another episode of dishonest pandering.

Hollowpoint on December 20, 2007 at 10:28 AM

ScoopPC11 on December 20, 2007 at 10:21 AM

Exactly, you won’t find a politician who thinks differently today. They all, in their minds, sincerely want to have supported King…can you imagine a politician stating “I didn’t want the flags to be flown at half-mast on Kings passing”, or “I didn’t attend any rallys in support of King, thought they were a waste of time”. You just wouldn’t be in the political ring unless this “King filter” was applied.

right2bright on December 20, 2007 at 10:29 AM

Good update. Nothing to see here folks, move along.

MT on December 20, 2007 at 10:29 AM

Mitt isn’t my candidate. I’m just saying that this has backfire written all over it.

Limerick on December 20, 2007 at 10:29 AM

But would he wear a silly hat?

Slublog on December 20, 2007 at 10:25 AM

Now that, my friend, is the burning question of the day!

aero on December 20, 2007 at 10:29 AM

So, the update confirms he didn’t walk with him.

This is just pathetic.

EduardoOTI on December 20, 2007 at 10:32 AM

I can hardly wait for the photo shops…standing next to King, the Pope, Jesus, Reagan, Thatcher, Churchill, Meir, Parks, We need a group picture with George in the middle, like a football team picture.
“This was my dad’s team, team Romney”

right2bright on December 20, 2007 at 10:35 AM

I think he lied, just like he lied about being a hunter all his life, like he lied that he never supported Planned Parenthood abortion mills (now there are photos of him at one of their fundraisers), just as he lied that he was “always pro life,” just as he lied… well dozens of times.

And he ISN’T EVEN PRESIDENT YET!!

Romney haws a major history of lies. There is no reason to believe he didn’t lie this time and the real facts show he lied.

Warner Todd Huston on December 20, 2007 at 10:38 AM

David S. Bernstein’s exposes Mitt’s family’s civil rights march with MLK to be a fabricated total lie, a fable created to convert the meek. The fashion in which Mitt Romney revised historical fact for political gain is a lesson well learned over generations, a documented practice of his church. THAT revisionism is dishonest. Furthermore, to alter historical record is not to honor those lives of sacrifice from history; on the contrary, at best, the revision displaces honor from the historical figure to the usurper. In practice, Romney and Clinton share that in common.

Considering the ’60’s TIME magazine report that George Romney’s campaign for president was smooth sailing until Romney said he had suffered political “brainwashing”, you’d have thought his son, Mitt, would have steered clear of fabricating legends for public consumption. From this, we see his character for what it is under the mask. Not to say that Mitt is a completely abhorent human, but to say that Mitt resorts to falsification of records.

maverick muse on December 20, 2007 at 10:24 AM

maverick muse on December 20, 2007 at 10:45 AM

Clintonian.

It all depends on what the meaning of “with” is.

aero on December 20, 2007 at 10:48 AM

IMHO, this is a non-story. Mitt’s dad has civil rights bone fides whether the story is correct or not.

Again, the real story is that Mitt hasn’t repudiated his Church’s position on blacks before the 1980s. That is important because Mitt actively recruited people into his church when it was segregationist. Mitt is not his dad and doesn’t get a pass on this because his dad was a civil rights worker.

bnelson44 on December 20, 2007 at 10:49 AM

Mitt’s dad has civil rights bone fides whether the story is correct or not.

bnelson44 on December 20, 2007 at 10:49 AM

So, it’s fake but accurate? Are you Dan Rather now?

aero on December 20, 2007 at 10:52 AM

Let’s ask Hillary. She was undoubtedly there.

JiangxiDad on December 20, 2007 at 10:53 AM

Great response from the Romney campaign.

They all, in their minds, sincerely want to have supported King…

right2bright on December 20, 2007 at 10:29 AM

Cut the crap, r2b. It was not in George Romney’s “mind” that he supported King. Read the historical details above. It’s an indisputable part of George Romney’s legacy, and it takes a small-minded person to claim otherwise.

Buy Danish on December 20, 2007 at 10:53 AM

So, it’s fake but accurate? Are you Dan Rather now?

aero on December 20, 2007 at 10:52 AM

Read up on Mitt’s dad. He was a great civil rights advocate. That doesn’t really say anything about Mitt though.

bnelson44 on December 20, 2007 at 10:55 AM

Let’s ask Hillary. She was undoubtedly there.

JiangxiDad on December 20, 2007 at 10:53 AM

Obama’s parents, too.

aero on December 20, 2007 at 10:56 AM

He marched in Harlem with Bill Clinton

tomas on December 20, 2007 at 10:57 AM

I didn’t read most of that fact sheet, but I think the excuse (a legitimate one, I’d argue) for saying:

“I was taught in my home to honor God and love my neighbor. I saw my father march with Martin Luther King.”

Is that he doesn’t mean “with” in the physical sense. He means “with” as in “supported”. I’m sure it will get played out in the media differently, but that seems likely to me.

This is of course completely different from Obama’s speech, in which he LIED and said that the Selma Marches/Bloody Sunday is what led to his parents getting together and having him…. even though he was already 4 years old. That blatant lie essentially kicked off Obama’s campaign and he basically got a pass.

RightWinged on December 20, 2007 at 10:57 AM

IS it or ISn’t it?

tomas on December 20, 2007 at 11:00 AM

Read up on Mitt’s dad. He was a great civil rights advocate.

bnelson44 on December 20, 2007 at 10:55 AM

I’m not denying that. But we all mocked Obama when he claimed that his parents were inspired to get married because of Selma, when in fact little Barry was born four years before the Selma march. If we treat Obama’s story as a lie worthy of denigration, then we should do the same regarding Mitt’s story. We’re hypocritical if we don’t.

aero on December 20, 2007 at 11:03 AM

Is that he doesn’t mean “with” in the physical sense. He means “with” as in “supported”.

RightWinged on December 20, 2007 at 10:57 AM

Like I said upthread: Clintonian.

It all depends on what the meaning of “with” is.

aero on December 20, 2007 at 11:04 AM

aero on December 20, 2007 at 11:04 AM

No, it depends on what the meaning of “saw” is.

There are many definitions of the word “see”.

Synonyms: see1, behold, note, notice, remark, espy, descry, observe, contemplate, survey, view, perceive, discern.

These verbs refer to being or becoming visually or mentally aware of something. See, the most general, can mean merely to use the faculty of sight but more often implies recognition, understanding, or appreciation:

Buy Danish on December 20, 2007 at 11:24 AM

No, it depends on what the meaning of “saw” is.

Buy Danish on December 20, 2007 at 11:24 AM

Okay. Still Clintonian.

aero on December 20, 2007 at 11:26 AM

rightwinged 10:57 “Is that he doesn’t mean ‘with’ in the physical sense. He means ‘with’ as in ‘supported’. I’m sure it will get played out in the media differently, but that seems likely to me.”

if not physically true, then spiritually true

like a dog returning to its vomit, revisionist of history

maverick muse on December 20, 2007 at 11:27 AM

Okay. Still Clintonian.

aero on December 20, 2007 at 11:26 AM

No, it is the correct use of the English language.

like a dog returning to its vomit, revisionist of history

maverick muse on December 20, 2007 at 11:27 AM

What a bizarre analogy. Do you mean to say that the efforts that George Romney made to advance civil rights were “vomit”?

You, r2b, and others need to get past your poisonous hatred of his religion, and perhaps have your spleen examined.

Buy Danish on December 20, 2007 at 11:40 AM

Cut the crap, r2b. It was not in George Romney’s “mind” that he supported King. Read the historical details above. It’s an indisputable part of George Romney’s legacy, and it takes a small-minded person to claim otherwise.

Buy Danish on December 20, 2007 at 10:53 AM

Even when I support Mitt, you bark.
It isn’t in every politicians mind that they support King? You are saying all of the politicians do not really support him (King), they are only going through the actions? I think Mitt and his dad really believe in what King stood for. You are just plain wrong, they really believe it, they are not just going through the action. I mean, I am no supporter of Mitt, but he is not a racist, or someone who is just acting out, I believe he really believes that his dad supported King (and so do I). Read my post again, I think you are a bit confused. Look what I was agreeing with, “give him a pass”, this is a non-issue.
Now all of the other politicians, in their mind, think the same thing. Find one, point one out that has stated they don’t agree with King…hence the “King filter”.
And thanks for waking up and thinking about me…you have a great life.

right2bright on December 20, 2007 at 11:42 AM

RightWinged on December 20, 2007 at 10:57 AM

RightWinged, very well said as always my friend. You put my thoughts into words. Thank you.

maverick muse on December 20, 2007 at 11:27 AM

Dude, take it easy. Deep breath. Getting so bent out of shape about this is simply weird and awkward. Take a step back and put things into perspective.

Zetterson on December 20, 2007 at 11:42 AM

You, r2b, and others need to get past your poisonous hatred of his religion, and perhaps have your spleen examined.

Buy Danish on December 20, 2007 at 11:40 AM

Knock it off, I’m supporting your lover on this one (and you still bark). Sheesh, you are shrill. You are way to obsessed about me…but thanks.

right2bright on December 20, 2007 at 11:46 AM

RightWinged on December 20, 2007 at 10:57 AM

Excellent, Mitt (like most kids) know in their heart (or at least feel) what their dad really stood for. When he said with, I knew that he never really saw his dad physically walk, he knew his dad believed in his soul that he was a civil rights kind of guy.
The sad part, is he picked a march that meant nothing and I thought that was a poor choice, marching through Gross Pointe (basically all white upper middle class “hood”). Not the best example of we shall have overcome.
But Mitt has much bigger problems (and this is not a problem) to overcome.

right2bright on December 20, 2007 at 11:52 AM

Mitt’s now tied for first in the latest WSJ national poll of likely voters. I was hoping it would come down to Fred and Mitt (two candidates I can get behind), but more and more it seems like conservatives will have to decide between Rudy and Romney. I hope people will stop the canibalism by then and realize that Rudy is as liberal as a Republican can be.

davenp35 on December 20, 2007 at 11:52 AM

You, r2b, and others need to get past your poisonous hatred of his religion, and perhaps have your spleen examined.

Buy Danish on December 20, 2007 at 11:40 AM

Buy Danish, careful there. You are assuming a fact that is not yet in evidence. You may be right and they may be passionate about this because of some odd mistrust of Mormans but you don’t know that. You only suspect that. Their are plenty of honest critisisms that can be directed at Romney just as any candidate in the race can be honestly critisized.

Romney is easily defended in most cases. This MLK issue we are talking about is a perfect example of just that. To attack Romney for this is just plain stupid. Those who are attacking him for this will just be made to look stupid and unhinged. For any of us that like Romney it is far wiser to stick to defending the attack at hand rather then turn around and call people Morman haters.

Zetterson on December 20, 2007 at 11:54 AM

It isn’t in every politicians mind that they support King?

right2bright on December 20, 2007 at 11:42 AM

No, it is not in every politicians mind that they support King! This is where you are just delusional.

You are saying all of the politicians do not really support him (King), they are only going through the actions?

I am saying nothing of the sort! Where do you come up with this stuff? I am saying that it was not in George Romney’s mind, or Mitt Romney’s mind that he supported King as you clearly imply here:

Exactly, you won’t find a politician who thinks differently today. They all, in their minds, sincerely want to have supported King…can you imagine a politician stating “I didn’t want the flags to be flown at half-mast on Kings passing”, or “I didn’t attend any rallys in support of King, thought they were a waste of time”. You just wouldn’t be in the political ring unless this “King filter” was applied.

right2bright on December 20, 2007 at 10:29 AM

You imply that this never really happened and is revisionist history.

Fact: Governor George Romney ordered flags in the state of Michigan to be flown at half staff.

Fact: The same governor Romney attended rallys and marched in support of King.

Moreover for you to now claim that you believe Romney is not a racist after days and days of rants and manifestos which clearly were intended to convey the opposite conclusion is incredibly disingenuous.

My impression? The historical record is just too much to deny at this point, so you are trying to rewrite history and make it appear that you were always aware of the Romneys’ stellar record on civil rights.

Buy Danish on December 20, 2007 at 11:56 AM

right2bright on December 20, 2007 at 11:52 AM

r2b, thank you for your intellectual honesty here. I know you don’t trust Romney, mainly beacause of flip flops and “plasticness” as some call it so your defense of him in this case derserves recognition and thanks. It shows that you are intellectually honest and makes your other critisisms of him more legitimate.

Zetterson on December 20, 2007 at 12:00 PM

You, r2b, and others need to get past your poisonous hatred of his religion, and perhaps have your spleen examined.

Buy Danish on December 20, 2007 at 11:40 AM

I hope you’re not including me in that accusation. I have never once denigrated Mitt’s religion. I have family members and very good friends who are members of the LDS church, and I have tremendous respect for them and the way they conduct themselves. As I’ve said before, I’ve never met a Mormon I didn’t like–they’re good people. But I haven’t met Mitt. He strikes me as a Clintonian politician, and always has. I’ve never been able to warm up to him, and I have tried. I believe that his motives and actions are purer than Bill’s, but I also believe that Mitt is a politician first and foremost. He shifts to suit what he thinks voters want to see and hear. He doesn’t exactly lie, but he doesn’t exactly tell the truth either. He’s smooth and polished and not someone I can readily identify with.

I will vote for Mitt if he gets the nomination. I just hope he doesn’t get the nomination.

aero on December 20, 2007 at 12:01 PM

You may be right and they may be passionate about this…Zetterson on December 20, 2007 at 11:54 AM

Hey, stop hatin, I am with you guys on this. I would suggest read the posts before commenting. I appreciate what you attempt to say, but don’t lump me in with this “you may be right”. Isn’t it obvious, even when I agree with her she says I am full crap…buydanish, you were cut from the high school debate team right? Are you a relative of “Wrong Way Corrigan”?

right2bright on December 20, 2007 at 12:03 PM

Zetterson, our posts have crossed. Thanks, I would post more but I have to go to the bathroom…maybe buydanish was right, or it was something I ate.

right2bright on December 20, 2007 at 12:05 PM

I wonder what the evangelicals would think of this? (just kidding)……

Hening on December 20, 2007 at 12:08 PM

Every liberal person I know over the age of 50 claims to have walked with Dr. King.

Another example of Mitt’s opportunistic pandering.

edgehead on December 20, 2007 at 12:10 PM

You may be right and they may be passionate about this…

right2bright on December 20, 2007 at 12:03 PM

I apologize for that insinuation. Didn’t intend to insinuate that. I was just trying to make the point that its unfair to draw any conclusions about what motivates someone to critisize a candidate. If you want to defend a candidate then defend them and leave it at that.

Sometimes I think you may be a little unfair to gov Romney but in those cases I’m not going to call you a Mormon hater. I’m going to try and defend him when I can.

Zetterson on December 20, 2007 at 12:13 PM

Their are plenty of honest critisisms that can be directed at Romney just as any candidate in the race can be honestly critisized

Agreed.

Buy Danish, careful there. You are assuming a fact that is not yet in evidence

Zetterson on December 20, 2007 at 11:54 AM

I appreciate your point, but I think the evidence is pretty darn clear from numerous comments made on their part that according to my understanding of the word “hate” they hate the Mormon religion.

Hating the Mormon religion is not the same thing as being a Mormon hater (which would mean that they hate Mormon people) and I did not use that phrase.

hate (ht)
v. hat·ed, hat·ing, hates
v.tr.
1.
a. To feel hostility or animosity toward.
b. To detest.
2. To feel dislike or distaste for: hates washing dishes.
v.intr.
To feel hatred.
n.
1. Intense animosity or dislike; hatred.
2. An object of detestation or hatred:

Buy Danish on December 20, 2007 at 12:16 PM

Every liberal person I know over the age of 50 claims to have walked with Dr. King.

Another example of Mitt’s opportunistic pandering.

edgehead on December 20, 2007 at 12:10 PM

That is not an argument edgehead. Every liberal I know has atheist tendencies. That doesn’t make Allah pundit a liberal.

Zetterson on December 20, 2007 at 12:17 PM

I appreciate your point, but I think the evidence is pretty darn clear from numerous comments made on their part that according to my understanding of the word “hate” they hate the Mormon religion.

Hating the Mormon religion is not the same thing as being a Mormon hater (which would mean that they hate Mormon people) and I did not use that phrase.
Buy Danish on December 20, 2007 at 12:16 PM

They may hate Mormanism, they may not. I’m in no position to jump to any conclusions in that regard nor do I care what they think about the Morman Religion. Defending Romney in this case is far too easy. There is no need to question the alterior motives of posters critical of him.

Lets say, for example that you are right and they do hate Mormanism. I say, who cares? Lets just stick to the issue at hand and defend him with the facts we have readily available. If at the end of the debate they have nothing more do say other then whine about Mormanism, excellent, you won. Leave it at that.

Zetterson on December 20, 2007 at 12:28 PM

Okay. Still Clintonian.

aero on December 20, 2007 at 11:26 AM

No, it is the correct use of the English language.

Are you cereal? If you have to parse the meaning of words like “with” or “saw” in an attempt to twist an untrue claim into something that might be considered true (at least semantically), that is the very definition of Clintonian! Do you not recall the “meaning of ‘is’” debate? It’s nothing more than semantic games! I’m sure Mitt wasn’t counting on all of us to go grab our dictionaries to go see if the word “saw” can mean anything other than “perceive with the eyes.”

We all came down hard on Clinton for his slick semantic distinctions between truth and fabrication. We are hypocrites if we don’t hold our own guys to a similar standard. We also came down hard on Dan Rather for claiming that it’s okay to report a lie if the spirit of the story is accurate. We came down hard on him for that, and we’re hypocrites if we don’t hold our own people to a similar standard. So Mitt’s dad really was a civil rights activist–fine. His statement about seeing his father marching with MLK still is not true. “Fake but accurate” doesn’t count. We came down hard on Obama for telling the untrue story that his parents were inspired to get married and have children by the Selma march–I’m sure the spirit of his story was correct, and his parents were emboldened by the civil rights movement in general to pursue a mixed marriage. But we criticized him for telling a story that wasn’t true. We’re hypocrites if we don’t hold our guys to the same standard.

aero on December 20, 2007 at 12:31 PM

aero on December 20, 2007 at 12:31 PM

aero, there is a forest beyond those trees. You are getting hung up on a few branches.

Zetterson on December 20, 2007 at 12:36 PM

Zetterson on December 20, 2007 at 12:36 PM

It’s a pattern, Z.

I’ll vote for Mitt if he’s the nominee. I’ll even put his sign in my yard and campaign for him. But we’re kidding ourselves if we try to claim that he’s not a Clintonian-style politician. He’s not a leader of the conservative movement. He’ll be a Republican placeholder in the White House (if we can even get him there, which I doubt). He’s not terrible, but he’s not the best we can do. I’m still hoping for better, so I feel compelled to do my small part to keep trying for now. I’m not doing to Mitt what csdeven, BKennedy and others do to Fred, which is to make repetitive, unfounded, shrill accusations every time I read the name “Mitt.” I think I make my arguments rationally and in a reasonable tone. If I don’t, please alert me and I’ll happily dial down my rhetoric.

aero on December 20, 2007 at 12:46 PM

The sad part, is he picked a march that meant nothing and I thought that was a poor choice, marching through Gross Pointe (basically all white upper middle class “hood”). Not the best example of we shall have overcome.
But Mitt has much bigger problems (and this is not a problem) to overcome.

right2bright on December 20, 2007 at 11:52 AM

Why was it a poor choice? It certainly wasn’t black minds that needed changing back then.

baldilocks on December 20, 2007 at 12:58 PM

I hope you’re not including me in that accusation.
aero on December 20, 2007 at 12:01 PM

No, I was thinking of people like EricPWJohnson and a few others whose names escape me at the moment but whose words live on in infamy.

As for what the word “saw” means, it can be taken literally or figuratively and there is nothing Clintonian about that at all, unless you want to claim that the Clinton team wrote the definition I cited for you.

r2b, thank you for your intellectual honesty here. I know you don’t trust Romney, mainly beacause of flip flops and “plasticness” as some call it so your defense of him in this case derserves recognition and thanks. It shows that you are intellectually honest and makes your other critisisms of him more legitimate.

Zetterson on December 20, 2007 at 12:00 PM

I cannot join you in praising r2b’s “intellectual honesty”. First because virtually all the comments in this thread are about Mitt’s religion, and secondly because he twists words and draws false conclusions like no one I have ever seen.

Certainly plenty of people who are Mormons (which I am not) find r2b’s comments beyond the pale. Are they all wrong about r2b? I don’t think so!

I was just trying to make the point that its unfair to draw any conclusions about what motivates someone to critisize a candidate.

Zetterson on December 20, 2007 at 12:13 PM

You are correct to a point. But while we are not mind readers, if, say, someone who is influenced by Rick Warren makes nothing but glowing comments about Huckabee and makes nasty comments about Mitt’s religion, I think it would be fair to draw conclusions about what motivates that person to criticize a candidate.

There are people who don’t like Mitt for his record on issues like gun control, and while I would disagree with them, they are legitimate criticisms. But to rant on and on about his religion on a political blog cannot be taken any way but as a criticism of the man for his faith. I don’t see any other way to interpret it, but I’m open to a reasonable explanation :-)

You say we should stick to the issues, but it is people like r2b who are obsessed with his religion who are failing in this regard.

Buy Danish on December 20, 2007 at 1:02 PM

aero on December 20, 2007 at 12:46 PM

Sure, and as I tried to express above, legit critisisms are legit critisisms. Feel free to make them. That is what the primaries are for. I think the particular critisisms you make are fair and there is plenty of evidence that he is a slick politician willing to say what needs to be said in order to get elected. I think a comparison to Clinton though is not fair. Clinton is a smart man but he is also a calculating sociopath. He is driven by selfishness and arrogance. Romney is a good man and when you listen to him speak he is knowlegeable about Republican conservative positions on just about every issue that is important to me. I think Romney is the best combination we have had for many years between businessman, economist/understanding of Republican Constitutional issues. He’s not perfect, nobody is going to be perfect but he is somebody we should be able to find ourselves getting behind. I feel the same way about Guiliani. I just think Mitt is a smarter, more Republican version of Rudy. And, as I learned about Romney many years ago, do not let the smile fool you. He did not become such a successful, ethical businessman by being a weak leader.

We need to take a step back sometimes and realize we are critisizing our own candidate for a claim that his dad marched with MLK. I would be concerned if his dad was never involved in any way with the civil rights movement. It is a fact though that he was a passionate leader on that front and he did march in MLK parades and also did many other things as well.

It would be Clintonian to say what Mitt said only if it was a total lie and his dad had nothing to do with the movement at all. Their were no church burnings in Clinton’s home town. Clinton completely made that up. It was a flat out lie. What Romney said is the truth. His dad was in fact a passionate advocate for civil rights. Romney’s purpose for saying what he said was to verbalize that fact. The man did march in MLK marches. What’s next? Are we to complain that he wasn’t in arms length of MLK himself while he was walking down the street marching in favor of equal rights for all people of all skin colors?

We need a return to sanity here.

Zetterson on December 20, 2007 at 1:12 PM

We need a return to sanity here.

Zetterson on December 20, 2007 at 1:12 PM

Okay. I just want someone more sincerely conservative than Mitt.

aero on December 20, 2007 at 1:17 PM

The sad part, is he picked a march that meant nothing and I thought that was a poor choice, marching through Gross Pointe (basically all white upper middle class “hood”). Not the best example of we shall have overcome.
But Mitt has much bigger problems (and this is not a problem) to overcome.

right2bright on December 20, 2007 at 11:52 AM

That is just more ludicrous nonsense on your part. The Romney campaign recounts how he was the keynote speaker at the conference which sparked King’s marches in Detroit. It goes on to recount two instances where Gov. Romney marched: in 1963 and 1965, and recounts a rally he went to in Atlanta in 1967.

Why you keep harping on the fact that he marched in Grosse Point is beyond me. I suspect it has to do with your visceral reaction to his life of “privilege” which you have used on numerous occasions in an attempt to discredit him.

If anything, the fact that he marched in an upper middle class neighborhood, the opinions of his neighbors be damned, is to his credit.

I also love the way you go on and on about what he or his father did or didn’t do to meet your exacting standards, and then say that it’s “not a problem”. You sure type a lot of words that address these non-problems!

For example, you give us manifesto after manifesto on how racist the LDS church history is, and then say you don’t think he’s a racist. What is your point then? Do you fancy yourself a comparative religion professor? Include me out of r2b’s on-line learning program.

Buy Danish on December 20, 2007 at 1:25 PM

Okay. I just want someone more sincerely conservative than Mitt.

aero on December 20, 2007 at 1:17 PM

Fair enough. I want someone who has an obvious understanding of conservative principles. It is impossible to know what any of the candidates really think. You can have a pretty good idea and assume but you will never know for sure. I sincerly believe that to understand Republican Conservative priciples is to be a conservative Republican. In my opinion liberalism is nothing more then ignorance.

Zetterson on December 20, 2007 at 1:26 PM

I sincerly believe that to understand Republican Conservative priciples is to be a conservative Republican. In my opinion liberalism is nothing more then ignorance.

Zetterson on December 20, 2007 at 1:26 PM

I don’t agree with that conclusion. I’ve known several libs who do understand conservatism quite well and choose liberalism anyway. I don’t know how they can intellectually square that decision, but the evidence is strong that they do understand what we think and why we think it. I’ll admit that the vast majority of libs/Dem voters I’ve known do NOT understand us, and I can’t help but think that if they did they’d become conservatives. Similarly, I’ve known people who are actually conservative at heart but mistakenly vote Dem for whatever reason, like their parents and grandparents have always voted Dem.

But, no, I don’t agree that understanding conservatism deeply automatically makes one an adherent to it. I sense that Romney’s conservatism is sort of an intellectual-level overall agreement with right-leaning tendencies and policies, not a deeply-held set of convictions like Reagan had.

aero on December 20, 2007 at 1:38 PM

Whoa Allah- and YOU say WE FREDHEADS are the ones always makin’ excuses. Maybe you oughtta call out the Mitt-en.

Ex-tex on December 20, 2007 at 1:42 PM

Crazy poll from ARG today with Mitt 3rd (!) behind Huck and McCain in Iowa, and tied for first with McCain in NH, FWIW.

Big S on December 20, 2007 at 1:49 PM

If Dill or (Sir Edmund) Hillary had mistakenly invoked Dr. King the entirety of HotAir’s commuinity would be apoplectic. They would be called “liars” at best.

So, why can’t some people acknowledge how grand of an error this is on Rommney’s behalf? Marching in honor of or support of is not marching with Dr. King.

It was a HUGE liability to be pictured with King. Every politician who ever met with him has been immortalized in photographs. While Rommney made huge sacrifices in supporting King and justice, he may have been wary of being seen with King. The elder Rommney’s instincts and impulses still placed him light years ahead of many American pols.

The Rommney record of civil-rights advocacy is strong. It needs no bolstering, especially in comparison to the myriad moral cowards of America’s civil rights era.

Furthermore, Mormonism’s past transgressions and doctrinal misgivings do not reflect Mitt’s personal journey. I do however, think that he should be able to denounce his church’s past problematic posturing.

We are in a war against religious injustice and incivility. Yet Mitt can’t find the cajones to say that the institutional and doctrinal exclusion of blacks from God’s full glory was wrong. Disagreement with is not denouncement thereof.

The Race Card on December 20, 2007 at 2:58 PM

Zetterson on December 20, 2007 at 12:13 PM

Just want to be very honest with you…I am a Mormon doctrine hater, gotta be honest. Not a Mormon hater, the ones that have done evil I could do without (just like anyone else doing evil). People get confused, because they are weak minded, between people and doctrine. Many good people follow a poor doctrine. An example? Liberals, many good people, poor doctrine…or many blacks, great people, following doctrines that have hurt them, Jim Jones, senators, congressmen, scholars all followed him, many good people, Mitt (had to throw that in), but the doctrine sucked (obviously)…now one may think the doctrine is great, ok we disagree, but we don’t disagree on the value of people…except for the ones that have done harm.
I never attacked (until they crossed the line) and called my attackers names…I kept the argument focused, on doctrine. Thanks for noticing that.
And buydanish, where is the politician who does not think that Dr. King was worth following? Oh, can’t find one? Well then I guess they all think that he was right.

right2bright on December 20, 2007 at 3:55 PM

Did Mitt really see his father march with Martin Luther King Jr.?

The answer to this question seems to be “no.”

Is any further discussion of Mitt’s father needed ? Isn’t Mitt the one running?

The Race Card on December 20, 2007 at 4:09 PM

Zetterson,

Told ya!

We are in a war against religious injustice and incivility.
The Race Card on December 20, 2007 at 2:58 PM

We are?

And buydanish, where is the politician who does not think that Dr. King was worth following? Oh, can’t find one? Well then I guess they all think that he was right.

right2bright on December 20, 2007 at 3:55 PM

Did you intentionally mix up your tenses to confuse the issue? Dr. King is dead, so we can only speak authoritatively about what happened during his lifetime.

During his lifetime there were plenty of people who did not follow Dr. King. I gather that Barry Goldwater was one of them, although I can’t say for certain since the word “follow” is very broad.

But what matters is that it was not “in the mind of George Romney” when he supported MLK and the civil rights movement in general. He was in the thick of it through actions and deeds, and your attempt to diminish his role by implying that everybody did it is pathetic.

Next:

I never attacked (until they crossed the line) and called my attackers names…I kept the argument focused, on doctrine. Thanks for noticing that.

You never attacked? Maybe you weren’t successful in your attempts, but you certainly attacked. It is not necessary to call someone a name to attack them, and for instance when you claim I made a “racist” statement I can only infer that you think I am a racist.

The idea that you keep arguments “focused” is hilarious, but you are correct that you do spend a hell of a lot of time discussing “doctrine” and that is exactly what so many of us find repellent.

Buy Danish on December 20, 2007 at 4:47 PM

racist” statement I can only infer that you think I am a racist.

Buy Danish on December 20, 2007 at 4:47 PM

Okay, now I know you never even tried out for the debate team. You can infer all you want, but someone can make a racist statement, and not be a racist…it just may mean they made a mistake or like your case, did not think it through. I don’t think you are a racist, poor debater, but not a racist. (arguing that giving the blacks only part of what the whites receive is fair, is just wrong)
And good idea to shift away from your statement where you argued about King not being on the mind of politicians,

It was not in George Romney’s “mind” that he supported King

was your quote.
I still think you are wrong, I think every politician, now, has that on his mind (top of mind in fact). Any mis-step, even an innocent one, and they are labeled a racist. But if you can find one that doesn’t think that, it would be interesting to have the name.
And just to make sure you understand, you may feel Dr. King is dead, but I feel he is still very much alive, his influence and values, as well as his faith, is still very much alive and is now forever woven into the fabric our our country. He may be past tense to you, but to me he is past, present and future tense, an indelible imprint on our life.
Which is why, every politician wants to be known as a supporter of Kings marches, or as I call it, they have to pass the King filter.

right2bright on December 20, 2007 at 5:21 PM

Marching in honor of or support of is not marching with Dr. King.
The Race Card on December 20, 2007 at 2:58 PM

I understand what you are saying, but I disagree. Marching in support is construed as marching with someone. Yeah, I know not physically, but if you are having a rally in Washington, and a rally in Seattle they are both in support of each other. If someone came to me and asked to pray for Mrs. Blue, and you are in Michigan praying for Mrs. Blue, we are praying together for Mrs. Blue (although we are not “together”). Later we would meet and you would say I prayed with you for Mrs. Blue…and I would not say “oh no you didn’t, you weren’t with me”. That is why this is a non-issue. He is with his father, and always will be, even though his father has passed, he is with his father. And his father was “with” Dr. King. Some things and ideas, transcend the physical; being “with” someone is one of those.

right2bright on December 20, 2007 at 5:49 PM

right2bright on December 20, 2007 at 5:21 PM

O.M.G. Another rambling, illiterate contribution.

I made a statement of historical fact and you said it was a racist statement. How pathetic is that in terms of a debating tactic?

I have not expressed a single opinion about LDS Church doctrine. NOT ONE. Yet you you went on to make all sorts of false and outrageous statements about what I thought of LDS Church policy. Every conclusion you drew (which came out of your delusional imagination) implied that I was a racist, and you had the gall to demand I apologize to you because I said you rewrite history!

Now you are claiming that I said something you said intially, here:!

Exactly, you won’t find a politician who thinks differently today. They all, in their minds, sincerely want to have supported King…can you imagine a politician stating “I didn’t want the flags to be flown at half-mast on Kings passing”, or “I didn’t attend any rallys in support of King, thought they were a waste of time”. You just wouldn’t be in the political ring unless this “King filter” was applied.

right2bright on December 20, 2007 at 10:29 AM

I took you to task for claiming that it was only in George Romney’s “mind”, as if he didn’t actually do the things he did for civil rights and for Dr. King.

You have moved that goal post a number of times today.

It’s really very simple, r2b:

George Romney did not imagine that he was a civil rights activist. He was, and his legacy is something to be proud of. Stop trying to take that away from him.

Buy Danish on December 20, 2007 at 5:54 PM

We are in a war against religious injustice and incivility.
The Race Card on December 20, 2007 at 2:58 PM

We are?

Uh, yeah. Believe it or not, the War on Terror is absolutely a battle against religious tyranny, injustice and extremism — Islamic!

We will never win this war if we are unable to acknowledge the relgious underpinnings. That is not to say that Christianity must be fought for by all patriots. Rather, Islamofacism must be squashed. Unfortunately, we are losing the battle.

***
I see you failed to answer the question I restated… the one in the title of this page. Did Mitt really see his father march with Martin Luther King?

Like it or not, gaffes like this are political ammo for the other side.

I don’t understand what you’re defending here. We are discussing facts about George W. Rommney, wich Mitt apparently got wrong. Why the poison tongue?

You wouldn’t spend a nanosecond defending Dill or Sir Edmund under similar circumstances.

***
NEWSFLASH: Whining about being called a racist when you have not been thusly labeled is still whining. Projection or obsession? You make the call.

***
NEWSFLASH:
Mitt still outshines the rest of the GOP candidates. (If Fred had a detectable heartbeat, I’d choose him over Mitt.) But I would rather have Mitt take his dustups now before the primary than when going head-to-head with the Clinton people-eating machine.

The Race Card on December 20, 2007 at 6:07 PM

George Romney did not imagine that he was a civil rights activist. He was, and his legacy is something to be proud of. Stop trying to take that away from him.

Buy Danish on December 20, 2007 at 5:54 PM

This is absolutely correct. And if I’m not misreading things, then I think I understand your vigorous defense.

It is shady to try and use this error as some indication of Mitt Rommney’s true feelings about race. To do so is self-serving and dishonest. Mitt is his own man, as was his dad. Both seemed to operate from a high moral plain.

However I think Mitt’s been accused of playing fast-and-loose with his historical accounts. This episode certainly highlights this recurring Rommney issue.

The Race Card on December 20, 2007 at 6:14 PM

Buy Danish on December 20, 2007 at 5:54 PM

Are you sure you are not related to “wrong way Corrigan’?

right2bright on December 20, 2007 at 6:15 PM

The Race Card on December 20, 2007 at 6:07 PM,

1. Your description of what you say was about the war on Islamofascism as was very weak. Injustice and incivility? I thought you were talking about the civil rights battles in this country, and were characterizing that as a war.

2. I answered the question about “seeing” his father march here.

3. How can you not understand what “we are discussing here”? I have explained it numerous times to r2b. If that’s not enough, then I give up, not out of defeat but out of the realization that it is futile to go on.

4. My statements to r2b about him branding me a racist refer to another thread. I have already expended considerable effort on this topic, but joy of joys, I now need to explain myself to you.

I am not “whining” about it, I am pointing out the tactics he uses. I am stating how idiotic it is to take a statement of historical fact and claim that it is a racist statement. I am illustrating how r2b distorts what people say. I am pointing out the hypocrisy of r2b who demands apologies from me over nothing, but then goes on to make comment after comment which imply that I am motivated by racism, while playing the innocent lamb just because he didn’t actually call me a racist.

I have nothing more to say on this matter!

However I think Mitt’s been accused of playing fast-and-loose with his historical accounts. This episode certainly highlights this recurring Rommney issue.

The Race Card on December 20, 2007 at 6:14 PM

Really? Can you provide other examples that make this a “recurring” issue?

Buy Danish on December 20, 2007 at 6:56 PM

Oh, buy danish, lets’s set the record straight on this racist thing. I never called you a racist. You defended the Mormon’s policy on allowing blacks to be a member of the church. I stated that because that is all they could do, they were not allowed the privileges of white members, that is they could not become Bishops at one time, or Gods like the white members(pre 1978 before the “revelation”). I stated that that is like saying you can ride the bus, but you have to ride in the back, in fact we won’t drop you off at your stop either. That type of thinking, you can ride the bus but at the back, is a racist statement (agreed?). So is defending the “you can be a member but not like a white person”, that is a racist defense (agreed?)…if you defend that statement. Here is the defining post, so she can stop the “he’s calling me a racist” whine.
buydanish posts:

First of all, the LDS church had black members going back to the time of Joseph Smith; the “segregation” was for Bishops, not membership in the church.

Then my retort:

That’s like saying the blacks can ride the bus, but they have to sit in the back. What a racist remark by buydanish.

See, the blacks could be members, but she said they were segregated from being a bishop. Segregation, I am pretty sure, is not what Romney and King marched in support of.
I stand by my analogy, and I stand by it being a racist remark…not brought on by racism, but by not thinking or understanding what she was posting. Blacks were second class citizens (as she confirmed), since 1978 they have corrected their (LDS) position.
There, that is an accurate (with quotes) of what the exchange was about. Let others decide, now leave it alone. Or go ahead and post some hate filled protest, but that is my last response to you on this.

right2bright on December 20, 2007 at 8:18 PM

I saw my father march with Martin Luther King

We have historical facts that he marched in events that were named after and organized by Martin Luther King. Some of you want to make it a scandal of if he actually stood next to him or not? The absurdity level is through the roof. I cant believe AP thought was even worthy of a topic to post.

Resolute on December 20, 2007 at 8:19 PM

Resolute on December 20, 2007 at 8:19 PM

I agree, except for the last sentence.

right2bright on December 20, 2007 at 8:34 PM

I am not “whining” about it, I am pointing out the tactics he uses.

Simple and clear. Thanks for clarifying. Whining isn’t very diplomatic, is it? I apologize.

Really? Can you provide other examples that make this a “recurring” issue?

Buy Danish on December 20, 2007 at 6:56 PM

Mitt has been branded a flip-flopper by many pundits, loudmouths, voters and nobodies, like me. He claimed to have been endorsed by the NRA, he was photographed at a Planned Parenthood event, his past views on immigration make his current platform suspect.

Maybe it’s not a recurring issue with Mitt, but a persistent one.

I still like the guy. He a strong candidate. Maybe it’s the hair.

The Race Card on December 20, 2007 at 8:50 PM

right2bright on December 20, 2007 at 8:18 PM

I never called you a racist.

You’re right! You never literally called me a racist! How many times do I need to repeat that? You just implied that I was – repeatedly. And you’re still doing it.

You defended the Mormon’s policy on allowing blacks to be a member of the church.

Golly, I believe I have responded to this before too. I may have used the word, BALDERDASH! Why? Because I never, ever “defended” it!

That’s all I need to read, r2b. I’m not wasting any more time dealing with your revisionist nonsense lies about what I said.

Resolute on December 20, 2007 at 8:19 PM

It’s being made into a big issue by a lot of people. It’s not Allah’s fault.

TRC,

There is a huge difference between becoming more conservative (which is not the same as being a flip-flopper, but I digress) and changing “historical accounts”.

He has not ever denied that he was “pro-choice” (I hate that term), so the fact that he was photographed at at a Planned Parenthood event is hardly shocking. My objections to some of the analysis of that situation is the leap that it meant that he was never ‘personally opposed to abortion’.

I don’t know anything about the NRA situation so I can’t comment on that and don’t particularly care. I believe in the Second Amendment but I think some hard core gun lobbyists are nuts, er, unreasonable, particularly on the licensing issue.

I don’t know what his “changing views on immigration” you’re referring to, so I can’t respond to that either without more details.

Buy Danish on December 20, 2007 at 9:47 PM