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.

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.

Resolute on December 20, 2007 at 8:19 PM

I agree, except for the last sentence.

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.

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.

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 5:54 PM

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.