Mitt: It depends on what the meaning of “saw” is
posted at 11:55 am on December 21, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
Via the Corner. My pal Barnett, who knows Mitt personally, tells me what a great guy he is, how he’s exactly what he appears to be. I’ll take his word for it, but maybe Dean doesn’t know him as well as he thinks. From the Boston Globe, also via the Corner:
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.
Coming soon: Hugh Hewitt explains how the dictionary definition of “march” also encompasses hallucinations of marching.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
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
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
A case study in what can and/or will sink Romney. He should have just said, “I meant it figuratively not literally” and left it there.
Spirit of 1776 on December 21, 2007 at 11:58 AM
Where did you say he got his degree?
University of William Jefferson Clinton.
to hell you say, really?
TheSitRep on December 21, 2007 at 11:59 AM
Oy.
Michelle on December 21, 2007 at 12:00 PM
I just dont trust this guy.
Christmas in Cambodia 2.
amish on December 21, 2007 at 12:00 PM
People are giving him too much of a pass on this. If he’d said, “I saw my father stand with MLK,” that would have been one thing. To say they marched together implies that he literally saw it happen. Way too weaselly.
Allahpundit on December 21, 2007 at 12:00 PM
TIME FOR A SECOND LOOK AT HUCK.
Allahpundit on December 21, 2007 at 12:01 PM
I saw Romney say that yesterday and it did bring back memories of the “wonderful” nineties. In all fairness, I want to think Romney was not being Clintonesque, but I don’t the man, so I don’t know. This is why I stick with my guy.
Connie on December 21, 2007 at 12:02 PM
OK, so the 1978 interview took it a step further and said both he and his father marched through the streets of Detroit.
amerpundit on December 21, 2007 at 12:02 PM
heck, Maybe a second look at Ron Paul. lol
TheSitRep on December 21, 2007 at 12:03 PM
Mitt has a very disconcerting habit of making his personal life political, from his happy family and faith, to the “rescue” ad he put out a few days ago, to his history with civil rights.
Big S on December 21, 2007 at 12:03 PM
If this were the Democratic primary we’d be asking, “who leaked this; was it Hillary?” Of course, we’re not Dems.
But…who leaked this? The timing is awfully convenient.
Nessuno on December 21, 2007 at 12:04 PM
Hee hee!
Frozen Tex on December 21, 2007 at 12:05 PM
The line about seeing his dad march with MLK came from his speech on faith. If he hadn’t lied about it, it wouldn’t have been an issue.
TIME FOR A SECOND LOOK AT OBAMA.
Allahpundit on December 21, 2007 at 12:05 PM
It’s not exactly a “leak.” It’s a newspaper interview from 1978.
Big S on December 21, 2007 at 12:06 PM
Yep, Spirit of 1776, you got it exactly. Thats what he should have said. But for a complex, nuanced guy like Mitt that would have been just too easy.
Always Right on December 21, 2007 at 12:06 PM
That is why Fred is so refreshing.
He just shoots straight from the hip and will fire back yes or no answers.
Heck even the Ronulan is less seedy than your typical politician
TheSitRep on December 21, 2007 at 12:06 PM
Fits the theme too which itself is damaging. In this day and age, it is a wonder to me that candidates malign the truth. Everything comes out eventually.
Spirit of 1776 on December 21, 2007 at 12:07 PM
The thing is, this is a dumb “scandal.” The fact that it is a scandal at all makes me worry about Romney. He seems to take things just a step too far.
Big S on December 21, 2007 at 12:08 PM
Next, his son’s are gonna regale us with a story where he administers CPR to a rodent.
TheSitRep on December 21, 2007 at 12:09 PM
ooops…..I tried to stick up for him yesterday on this one but it seems, like the hunting story, he massaged the facts to fit his ego. Not good. He’ll still be second on my choice of candidates but everything else he says from now on I plan to watch a little more carefully.
Limerick on December 21, 2007 at 12:09 PM
Yes, yes, but campaigns “leak” these stories to the press. Their researchers uncover it and pass it off.
Anyway, I really hate to go into Hewitt territory here, but there is a more benign explanation available. Mitt’s father DID march in a MLK sponsored march in Detroit, even if the Reverend himself was not there. (I don’t know if Mitt also marched at that Detroit march.)
Nessuno on December 21, 2007 at 12:09 PM
He saved Harry Reid’s life?!
amerpundit on December 21, 2007 at 12:12 PM
TIME FOR A SECOND LOOK AT HILLARY.
AAAAARRRRRGG!!!!!
The goggles! They do Nothing!
amish on December 21, 2007 at 12:12 PM
From what I’ve read, that’s true. So where as I can’t give Romney a complete pass on this, I can’t quite equate it with Clinton slime.
Connie on December 21, 2007 at 12:14 PM
Wow. What a dip.
MadisonConservative on December 21, 2007 at 12:14 PM
Playing nuance politics and feeding the anti-Romney trolls is almost tooo funny to watch. Should he have been more careful in what he said, now and in the past? Absolutely! Giuliani hypes up his 9-11 record and has probably overstated some of his actions. The point is all politicians try to boost their past record and somtimes get overzealous and make mistakes. Trying to say he is a habitual liar (like some are asserting) is beyond rediculous. If your chosen candidate isn’t doing well, deal with it. Don’t slam the only guy in the race what can get all types of conservative to vote for him just because you want your own guy to look better.
davenp35 on December 21, 2007 at 12:14 PM
Zactly. Bad enough he misspoke or lied (probably lied) but to try to get out of it in the Clinton Way that is a little much. Don’t like that, at all. And I like Mitt. But now I think I like Fred bettah.
inviolet on December 21, 2007 at 12:15 PM
Did Mitt? His response claims he marched with his father and with MLK.
amerpundit on December 21, 2007 at 12:15 PM
I will never vote for the guy anyway. I have had enough of liberal Republican leadership.
Valiant on December 21, 2007 at 12:15 PM
This is terrible. Why does he seem to feel the need to exagerrate this whole thing. So your dad was on the right side of the civil rights movement. Say that. Don’t make something up about you and your dad marching armlocked with MLK. He’s gone way too far in this case.
Zetterson on December 21, 2007 at 12:16 PM
Agreed, though predictably so.
Still- there’s been way too much of this sort of weaselly dishonesty and pandering by Mitt. He seems to represent just about everything that people claim to hate about politicans, but gets rewarded with support for being just that- a shameless panderer who’ll say or do anything that helps them get elected, even to the point of self-contradiction (a fiscal conservative in favor of every popular federal spending program?) and sudden policy reversals on the eve of an election campaign.
We criticised Clinton for ruling by opinion poll and arguing over what “is” is, and Kerry for being “for it before he was against it”… yet we have a candidate who’s every bit as bad (and probably worse) in these regards, and he’s touted as a true-blue conservative Republican simply because he looks and sounds so darned good on TV when pandering and dodging questions.
If there’s been a time I was more baffled and disappointed by the voting public, I’m not sure when it was.
Hollowpoint on December 21, 2007 at 12:17 PM
That’s pretty much what the whole thing is about. George did march, but not with MLK. (But he was with him in spirit).
Connie on December 21, 2007 at 12:18 PM
Its unfair to equate this with Clinton because intentions matter.
Zetterson on December 21, 2007 at 12:18 PM
BANNED!! Oh wait. I can’t do that can I?
Zetterson on December 21, 2007 at 12:20 PM
Except he originally claimed he saw his father march with MLK- as in he witnessed it with his own two eyes. Now instead of simply apologizing by saying his memory was faulty or something like that, he’s pulling a Clinton and arguing over what “saw” and “with” means.
It’s been said that voters get the leaders they deserve… and if true, we deserve the dishonest, self-serving, power-hungry weasels that we so often complain about.
Hollowpoint on December 21, 2007 at 12:23 PM
Time for a first look at Fred!
steveegg on December 21, 2007 at 12:24 PM
You mean he gave mouth to mouse resuscitation?
Catseye on December 21, 2007 at 12:25 PM
Mitt lied, Hewitt’s chances died.
omnipotent on December 21, 2007 at 12:25 PM
I can’t read the blogs anymore because of the eternally unending pessimism … and yet its somehow seeped into my own perspective. Where once I was rather pleased with the whole panoply of Republican candidates – and even a Democrat or two, comparatively speaking – I now find myself looking for the least bad of the bunch.
And I’d though Mitt was the guy.
Despite their differing social views, I find myself having the same concerns about both Huckabee and Giuliani; immigration and taxation and big government, oh my!
The candidates I’d like to vote for – Hunter or Tancredo – are either going nowhere or already gone.
I like McCain – if he’d convince me he’d get serious about the border. Even if not, I could still vote for him; he’s good on other issues that matter to me. But he’s going nowhere fast.
Ron Paul? Yeah. Okay. Let me smoke something illegal and consider that.
I adore Fred! He says all the right things and in all the right ways. But I’m just not sure his heart is in it … or that he has the executive leadership skills necessary. It’s an axiom: Senators don’t make good presidents. Governors do. That’s why governors win. There are exceptions to every rule, of course … but I’d still prefer an executive. A governor … a general … a big city mayor.
President Petraus? I could vote for him.
So where once I was excited, the constant drumbeat of negativity left me apathetic.
With only one choice remaining: Mitt.
I have questions about his Mormonism. I have concerns about some of his choices in Massachusetts. Then again … by Massachusetts standards, he governed to the right of Attila the Hun. So I cut him some slack.
He’s a businessman. A leader. With executive experience, making organizations work.
In other words – a perfect President. And that doesn’t even mention the hair. My God, the hair. It’s right out of Hollywood central casting.
So I’d made up my mind. Mitt it would be. And at this point, there was literally only one thing that could derail that choice: a hint of Clintonian dishonesty.
I want – I need – a straight-shooter. At this point, I’d still happily vote for him if pictures surfaced of him humping a llama in 1962 while hopped on peyote.
As long as he was honesty about his llama-humping and peyote-smoking. (You smoke it, right?)
Sigh. And now this? This is just so … disappointing. This sort of thing is the one thing I can’t support.
We all embellish our stories. I’m pretty sure I was never that drunk or the girls that hot in my college stories; I’m pretty sure that my military stories are a lot more dramatic in the retelling than in the original version.
But one thing I don’t do is just make something up. A complete fabrication. NOBODY does that.
Or at least nobody does it with something important, something that’s easily checked.
It’s just so Clinton. It’s just so seared, seared into my Kerry-addled memory.
I’m all out of options. This is beyond disappointing.
You’re dead to me now, Mitt. Let Fred borrow your hair.
Professor Blather on December 21, 2007 at 12:26 PM
Or we’ll be treated to reminiscences about their cat milking days in Motown.
Big S on December 21, 2007 at 12:28 PM
The actual lie is in itself relatively harmless, since it does not create an inaccuracy of perception about Mitt’s father and the lessons about racial equality the elder Romney presumably imparted to his son.
However, this incident is telling insofar as it gives us a small window into Romney’s brain. First, it shows us that he exaggerates to the point of lying at times. More importantly, it also shows us how Romney will handle similar cases in the future–i.e. being caught in fabrications. (He has a pattern of this sort of thing, so we should assume that he’ll do it again.) What I see is that his instinct is to spin like mad and fall back on semantic arguments, just like Bill Clinton, rather than just say “Oops, my bad” and move on.
aero on December 21, 2007 at 12:29 PM
AP, end this thread, we have a winner!!
omnipotent on December 21, 2007 at 12:29 PM
I don’t mind giving Mitt a pass for saying that he saw his dad march with MLK. In fact, when I first heard him say that I knew exactly what he meant. I did not for a second think that he litterally meant he was walking in lockstep with Dr King himself. I heard it as the attempt to verbalize breifly that his dad was a passionate advocate for equal rights under the law for all people regardless of race. Its the 1978 interview with the Boston Globe where he said that he and his dad marched with Dr King. That just strikes me as going to far and
me to take his words litterally. Including himself strikes me as weird and rather gag worthy. The press is going to have a field day with this in the lead up to Iowa and more importantly NH.
Zetterson on December 21, 2007 at 12:31 PM
Didn’t mean to put the word “forces” in a quotation box. Oh well. I guess I should have previewd it.
Zetterson on December 21, 2007 at 12:32 PM
Did Mitt’s father march with MLK – No.
Did Mitt march with MLK – No.
So he lied, big deal……who needs to trust a President?
/
omnipotent on December 21, 2007 at 12:32 PM
I’m not a Romney fan, so I’ll let you have that one. I was just trying to give him the benefit of not being as despicable as Clinton. That takes a lot in my book.
Connie on December 21, 2007 at 12:33 PM
Not giving him a total pass, but this isn’t a maccaca deal-killer from where I sit. The press might run with it and make it hurt though. He’s still my backup if Thompson drops… Tanc’s endorsement weighs heavy.
MT on December 21, 2007 at 12:33 PM
Sorry, my friend. What you just wrote is simply at odds with indisputable reality.
The hunting fib I could let slide … or chose to conveniently forget. That was embarrassing, but it is the sort of thing politicians do.
This, however, is a bold-faced lie, and an egregious one – and obvious attempt to pander to African-American and liberal voters.
It is precisely like John Kerry’s memories of Vietnam.
And with this (at least) second lie, it is now, by definition, habitual.
He’s lost my vote in the primary.
Is honesty, plain old factual honesty on matters of record, really that much to ask? I don’t mind if the truth is ugly. I just want honesty.
Sorry, Mitt.
Professor Blather on December 21, 2007 at 12:34 PM
Okay Allah- I forgot- WHAT IS YOUR REASON FOR NOT BACKIN’ FRED?
Ex-tex on December 21, 2007 at 12:34 PM
Politicians make things up? What???
Hening on December 21, 2007 at 12:36 PM
Then you must have ESP or something, because you’re about the only person on the planet who would have interpreted what he said as meaning something other than what he said.
Hollowpoint on December 21, 2007 at 12:36 PM
That hasn’t always been the case though. I see this MLK marching deal as the outlier. When defending his evolutionary position on abortion from pro-choice to pro-life he flat out admitted he was wrong when he was younger. He didn’t try to fall back on semantic arguments and parse his words. He came right out and said I was wrong to believe that.
I still have no idea why he felt the need to exaggerate so awkwardly in this case though. Its a definite red flag as you insinuate.
Zetterson on December 21, 2007 at 12:36 PM
ALLAH IS DEAD SERIOUS WHENEVER HE USES ALL CAPS.
MadisonConservative on December 21, 2007 at 12:36 PM
I believe he gets annoyed by Fred followers who don’t completely spell out words ending in ING.
Zetterson on December 21, 2007 at 12:41 PM
I can assure you that I was not the only person who took what he said the way he meant it.
Zetterson on December 21, 2007 at 12:43 PM
I just have a hard time being able to trust Romney.
Fred Thompson all the way!
msipes on December 21, 2007 at 12:45 PM
Agreed. The only thing I can say in his defense is that 1978 was nearly 30 years ago, and he clearly is an advocate of civil rights.
Buy Danish on December 21, 2007 at 12:45 PM
I ate Fried Chicken with Tiger Woods too…What a liar.
tomas on December 21, 2007 at 12:45 PM
What’s the big friggin’ deal? It’s one possibly botched line that Mitt had to clarify later. But it was a throwaway line in a lot of ways, not the main focus of his speech, which incidentally seemed to have “left out” atheists which is why Allahpundit has used his arguably good cred and status on this site to rip into Mitt. It is unfair, undignified and unjustified. Arguably, Mitt isn’t uber-perfect, but in a lot of ways he’s as good as they come. Allah’s using his semi-popularity to find a small reference (”seeing a march”) to justify a larger grievance (Mitt’s aversion to pandering to atheists during his now weeks-old speech). As a Jewish Mitt supporter, I think the whole “saw a march” thing is so trivial that highlighting and magnifying it smacks and reeks of resentment.
gwallensky on December 21, 2007 at 12:46 PM
Hillary does this daily and the MSM yawns. For years she made up Civil Rights nonsense. The fact is that the Romney’s were Civil Rights advocates long before it was fashionable and have nothing to be ashamed of in that regard.
pat on December 21, 2007 at 12:48 PM
Really? You interpreted “I saw my father march with MLK” as “I knew of, but didn’t actually witness, my father march in a MLK-sponsored rally but not actually marching with him personally”??? And others interpreted it that way too?
Seriously- you must have paranormal abilities. How many fingers am I holding up right now?
Hollowpoint on December 21, 2007 at 12:49 PM
Nobody’s applied a large-enough caliber to him yet :-)
He did say earlier in the week that, gun to head, he’d probably vote for Fred.
steveegg on December 21, 2007 at 12:50 PM
Exactly.
And even more important for me is what it says about his judgment.
I never much cared about Monica Lewisky. I didn’t exactly blame the Clenis. Look what he’s married to.
But telling such huge whopping lies, when the truth would eventually come out … and where and when he chose to have his little trysts … just said too much about his judgment.
That’s what I cared about. The dishonesty and the lack of judgment.
Is Mitt going to lie about other things? Is he going to be as stupid about it? Is all his judgment going to be this bad?
Jesus wept, when are people going to figure this out? Ugly truth is always better than a pretty lie. Especially a shiny, self-serving lie.
I’m hoping (fingers crossed) that Fred is the antidote. Are you listening, Fred-heads? Above all else, make sure your guy tells the unvarnished truth. Or for Pete’s sake, if he decides to lie, do it intelligently, and for a good reason. Destroying your credibility over imaginary hunting trips and magical marches 40 years ago is just stupid, and just too revealing of lacking character.
A “lifelong hunter” when he hunted once as a kid and once as an adult? And KNEW that hundreds of people would know it was a lie? Claiming he “marched” with King – when it was an instantly disprovable fiction? It’s all about judgment, and that displays exactly zero. How stupid. Can his supporters explain to me how exactly the above is NOT mind-bogglingly stupid?
Honesty, judgment, and leadership. That is ALL I require from my candidate. Agreeing on every issue is far less important to me than those three qualities.
And Mitt fails miserably in two of them.
Help us, Fred-Kenobi. You’re our only hope.
Professor Blather on December 21, 2007 at 12:51 PM
I had the same reaction and said as much. But, you may be the only person on the planet who has a has zero objectivity about Mitt Romney.
Indeed, you so lack objectivity that you are now misinterpreting what Zetterson said.
Buy Danish on December 21, 2007 at 12:51 PM
Well Shoot, is that all??!
You cannot say that I am not willing to do whatever it might take to get the Fairest-of-them-all Allahpundit to reconsider his endorsement. Surely, if Allah is willing (oops- never thought I’d utter THOSE words) to take another look at Huckabee then perhaps he could also take another look at Fred Dalton Thompson.
Ex-tex on December 21, 2007 at 12:51 PM
C’mon man. It was 30 years ago. He was a boastful young man saying something dumb. Remember those days?
How does he respond to the accusation today is important thought. Maybe I missed it, but the article only says that the campaign says it isn’t true. He could come out and say he was a young dope trying to show off, and apologize.
My wife told me recently after almost 30 years of marriage that she was so impressed with me as a young man because I had traveled the world (true) and had even been to Hong Kong (not true.) Didn’t actually get to Hong Kong until 10 years ago. I apologized.
JiangxiDad on December 21, 2007 at 12:52 PM
Sure is.
terryannonline on December 21, 2007 at 12:54 PM
This is all much ado about nothing.
Because we’re all Yale-graduates with PhD’s in English theory, and we speak perfectly with no errors, right?
HYTEAndy on December 21, 2007 at 12:55 PM
That happened in 1978, let’s try to keep this in perspective. At that point he was just a private citizen who was proud of his Dad’s civil rights record.
Buy Danish on December 21, 2007 at 12:56 PM
Me never makey typos.
terryannonline on December 21, 2007 at 12:56 PM
I hear the unmistakable splish splash of Romney Jumping the Shark. Bye Mitt…it was swell.
ronsfi on December 21, 2007 at 1:00 PM
Well, if Romney has jumped the shark. What other sharks should we bring in vote for?
terryannonline on December 21, 2007 at 1:02 PM
Yeah- how unobjective of me to interpret what we now know as a false statement “I saw my father march with MLK” as actually meaning “I saw my father march with MLK”. Any objective person knew he didn’t actually mean what he said in very unambiguous language.
By the same token: I saw my father fight the Viet Cong in the Vietnam War*
*He was stationed stateside during the early days of the war, and his service ended before I was born, but you obviously knew what I meant unless you want to argue over what “saw”, “fight” and “in” mean.
Hollowpoint on December 21, 2007 at 1:03 PM
Anybody equivocating on this one loses all credibility. Dude lied about marching with Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
BWAHAHAHAAHA!
Until yesterday I was in the bag for this guy…even with the original Clintonian shuffle he was doing. But this crap about Mitt actually marching with King is high comedy, emphasis on “high.”
***
I marched with MLK last summer.
I visited the National Civil Rights Museum last year, which is built upon the site of Dr. King’s assasination. The museum tour can last up to three hours and to call it “life-changing” would be an understatement.
I
walkedmarched through the exhibition for over 3 hours.The Race Card on December 21, 2007 at 1:04 PM
There is no defense.
If you’d actually “marched” with a now legendary historical figure …. you’d know it. You’d remember it.
You would never, ever claim that you “marched” if you meant ANYTHING other than that you were ACTUALLY there at a march ACTUALLY led by MLK.
It was an intentional, knowing, explicit lie. I can forgive it, because it undoubtedly started as an exaggerated story, got picked up by the press, repeated a few times … and just like John Kerry’s purple hearts and Christmas in Cambodia, I’ll bet Mitt ALMOST believes its true.
But it’s not true. It was a lie. And it is now a lie that was used to pander to a bloc of voters.
There is no defense.
I can understand and forgive it, but my vote is going elsewhere now.
Only Chuck Norris could fix this. And he’s busy.
Fair enough. Which is precisely why I said I’d be more than happy to vote for him if he gave us the ugly truth.
If the first time this came up in THIS campaign, he’d looked us in the eye and said: “I made that crap up to impress some 70’s hippie babes” … I’d be voting for him.
But that ain’t what he did. Did you WATCH the video posted above? Let me try to paraphrase:
“Well, if you look up “saw” in the dictionary, it includes ‘being aware of.’ So, uh, when I say I saw my Dad march with King, I didn’t, you know, SEE him with my own eyes, but I saw him …..”
Blah. Blah. Blah.
There is no defense for that. None. I’ll bet the original Clinton himself laughed out loud at that. That’s actually worse than the “what’s your definition of is” debacle.
Anyone attempting to defend this, after watching that videotape and reading Mitt’s explicit statements, is just choosing to blindly support their guy.
Which is fine. Have at it. But he’s lost me.
And for what it’s worth, I don’t really believe those of you trying to parse and Clintonize and defend this putz really even believe what you’re saying. You’re better than that.
Help us, Obi-Fred. You’re our only hope.
Professor Blather on December 21, 2007 at 1:05 PM
Typos? Parrish (Robert, that is) the thought.
steveegg on December 21, 2007 at 1:06 PM
The excuse-making on behalf of Rommney is truly entertaining.
You’re supposed to drink the Kool-Aid™, not bathe in it.
The Race Card on December 21, 2007 at 1:08 PM
I’m shocked he’s still making these these kinds of exaggerations. He’s too smart not to realize there are 1,000 people checking everything he says. I don’t understand why he continues to do it unless he’s convinced himself these things are literally true…. very bad sign though…
TheBigOldDog on December 21, 2007 at 1:09 PM
It may have “happened” 30 years ago- BUT Mitt was talking about “seeing” it last sunday and the week before.
In fact he was talking about “seeing” George march WITH MLK right up until somebody PROVED that He Didn’t.
Ex-tex on December 21, 2007 at 1:09 PM
Tend to agree about it being much ado about nothing, but Mitt majored in English Lit and he does speak pretty darn well.
In that respect he is correct about his use of the word “saw”, but it’s difficult to use the word “march” figuratively particularly since he added “through the streets of Detroit”.
Still, I’ll take Mitt’s boasting 29 years ago over KKK Robert Byrd any day.
CC: Professor Blather.
Buy Danish on December 21, 2007 at 1:11 PM
The fact that he has been telling the same story for over 30 years is a bit problematic.
bnelson44 on December 21, 2007 at 1:11 PM
All this lying ‘on tape’ and flip-floping ‘on tape’ is going to be used by the Dems and the left in some VERY EFFECTIVE campaign ads.
Ex-tex on December 21, 2007 at 1:12 PM
Ya, it’s not good and I am at a complete loss to understand it. I could somewhat understand the Hunter thing. But, I can’t understand him not learning from it and I certainly can’t understand him significantly upping the ante with this one. I am truly shocked and seriously concerned by it.
TheBigOldDog on December 21, 2007 at 1:13 PM
It was part of a carefully prepared speech that had been anticipated for weeks- it wasn’t some spontaneous slip of the tongue.
Hollowpoint on December 21, 2007 at 1:17 PM
Henceforth, I shall refer to Mitt as Commander McBragg
TheBigOldDog on December 21, 2007 at 1:20 PM
Exactly. In the age of the blogosphere, where the opposition will be checking every factual statement, the rule is pretty simple: if you state a fact, it should resemble, you know, a fact.
It is a lie that he’s repeated for 30 years. He may well think its (mostly) true at this point. But shouldn’t one of his staffers have fact-checked this long ago?
When you open your mouth to state a verifiable fact – stop. Pause. Think. Is it a fact? If so, then speak. This ain’t rocket science.
Although I did work at NASA once.
(Clarification: I visited the Houston Space Center. By “work” I mean I worked my way through the exhibits. But, hey, it’s going on my resume now. And apparently, if I run for office someday, I could convince my supporters to actually defend my NASA credentials)
And that’s what seals the deal for me. I don’t care about the 30 year old lie.
I care about last week’s repetition of the lie.
He’s John Kerry. EXACTLY like John Kerry. Using a long-repeated lie to pander to voters.
I challenge those attempting to weasel Clinton like out of this: how exactly is this different than John Kerry?
Professor Blather on December 21, 2007 at 1:21 PM
Guess we’ll all have to come to terms with how much imperfection (lies, flip-flops, half-truths, etc.) we’re willing to live with in our candidates. This process vets them. It doesn’t identify the angel.
JiangxiDad on December 21, 2007 at 1:22 PM
I didn’t so much mind his initial comment, because I could see the “with” as totally meaning in the sense of “in support of”, not physically next to him… BUT, this:
…is a little tougher to excuse. When you create an actual image of them physically marching on specific streets, you’re in trouble.
Still doesn’t rise to Obama effectively launching his campaign by announcing that the Bloody Sunday marches in Selma Alabama helped his parents get together and have him, when in reality he was 4 years old when the event took place… but it doesn’t excuse Romney.
RightWinged on December 21, 2007 at 1:22 PM
In 1978?
Go after him for “march” if you will, but his use of the word “saw” just should not be an issue. Indeed, I never want to see any of you say “I saw this coming!” or I’ll bite you :-)
It’s time to review the definition of the word “see”.
1 (s)
v. saw (sô), seen (sn), see·ing, sees
v.tr.
1. To perceive with the eye.
2.
a. To apprehend as if with the eye.
b. To detect by means analogous to use of the eye: an electronic surveillance camera that saw the activity in the embassy yard.
3. To have a mental image of; visualize: They could still see their hometown as it once was.
4. To understand; comprehend: I see your point.
5. To consider to be; regard: Many saw her as a world leader.
6. To believe possible; imagine: I don’t see him as a teacher.
7. To foresee: I see great things for that child.
8. To know through firsthand experience; undergo: “He saw some service on the king’s side” Tucker Brooke.
9. To give rise to or be characterized by: “Her long reign saw the heyday of verbal humor” Richard Kain. “The 1930s saw the development of sulfa drugs and penicillin” Gregg Easterbrook.
10. To find out; ascertain: Please see who’s knocking.
11. To refer to; read: Persons interested in the book’s history should see page one of the preface.
12. To take note of; recognize: She sees only the good aspects of the organization.
13. To meet or be in the company of: I saw all my aunts and uncles at the reunion.
14. To share the companionship of often or regularly: He’s been seeing the same woman for eight years.
15.
a. To visit socially; call on.
b. To visit for consultation: You ought to see your doctor more frequently.
16. To admit or receive, as for consultation or a social visit: The doctor will see you now.
17. To attend; view: Let’s see a movie.
18. To escort; attend: I’m seeing Nellie home.
19. To make sure; take care: See that it gets done right away.
20. Games
a. To meet (a bet) in card games.
b. To meet the bet of (another player).
v.intr.
1. To have the power to perceive with or as if with the eye.
2. To understand; comprehend.
3. To consider: Let’s see, which suitcase should we take?
4.
a. To go and look: She had to see for herself and went into the garage.
b. To ascertain; find out: We probably can do it, but we’ll have to see.
5. To have foresight: “No man can see to the end of time” John F. Kennedy.
6. To take note.
Phrasal Verbs:
see about
1. To attend to.
2. To investigate.
see after
To take care of: Please see after the children while I’m gone.
see off
To take leave of (someone): saw the guests off at the door; went to the airport to see us off.
see out
1. To escort (a guest) to the door: Will you please see Ms. Smith out?
2. To work on (a project) until completion: Despite poor funding, we saw the project out.
see through
1. To understand the true character or nature of: We saw through his superficial charm.
2. To provide support or cooperation to (a person) throughout a period of time: We’ll see you through until you finish college.
3. To work on (a project) until completion.
see to
To attend to: See to the chores, will you?
Idioms:
see red Informal
To be extremely angry.
see you later
Informal Used to express good-bye.
[Middle English sen, from Old English son; see sekw-2 in Indo-European roots.]
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.
Buy Danish on December 21, 2007 at 1:25 PM
He hasn’t blamed the Secret Service for his falling down on the ski slopes.
Spirit of 1776 on December 21, 2007 at 1:33 PM
Too bad. It wasn’t even necessary for him to claim to have walked with MLK.
Esthier on December 21, 2007 at 1:33 PM
Much ado about nothing? The man lied about it before which makes this latest episode likely to be a lie or even a cleaned-up lie. How is this a non-event for a presidential candidate?
I would rather have have herpes than AIDS. Is that an endorsement of herpes?
What exactly is your point here? What does Robert KKK Byrd have to do with this discussion?
Bringing him up is irrelevant and seems spurious at best. You’re comparing a front-running presidential candidate to a doddering fool on the outs with his own party. What’s the connection? Rommney’s civil rights bona fides are not being questioned. His honesty is; Robert Byrd by all accounts has been honest about his awful past.
The Race Card on December 21, 2007 at 1:35 PM
Mitt is certainly not the only guy in the race what [sic] can get all types of conservative [sic] to vote for him.
Do not project your own sour grape syndrome on others.
maverick muse on December 21, 2007 at 1:37 PM
Newsflash: as soon as you have to post a dictionary definition in an attempt to redefine what somebody said … you’ve already lost the argument. Every single time.
It’s the 3rd law of internet dynamics. Right after Godwin’s law and the bit about winning in the Special Olympics.
There is nothing worse than posting a dictionary definition to try to make a point. Even if you were right. Which you ain’t. And you don’t even believe it.
For what it’s worth, that intellectual giant Chuck Adkins, who just gained notoriety attacking a man’s recently deceased spouse, used the same tactic. Not exactly company to be in:
http://thepopulistblog.com/wordpress/2007/12/21/romney-sticks-his-foot-in-his-mouth/
By the way, I saw Jessica Alba naked last night.
Which, of course, in your Clintonian world, is an accurate statement, right? After al, I admittedly visualized it.
So my statement is true? I can tell people I saw my girl Jess last night? She was wearing a Santa hat and some strategically placed jingle bells.
I “saw” it, right?
C’mon, man. This doesn’t even pass the laugh test.
How about YOU quit acting Romneyesque (formerly: Clintonian) and tell the plain truth: you don’t believe a word you’re saying, do you?
Or can we all cheerfully agree that I can now tell people I saw Jessica Alba with her jingling bells? And nobody can call me a liar?
That about sums it up. This is now ludicrous.
Professor Blather on December 21, 2007 at 1:39 PM
You must be awfully dizzy from all that spinning.
But OK:
I saw Cheney shoot his hunting buddy.
I saw Monica giving Bill Clinton a hummer in the White House.
I saw you typing on your keyboard writing that entry.
I saw Allahpundit drinking Newcastle.
Hollowpoint on December 21, 2007 at 1:40 PM
In 1978 when he said he “marched” with his father and Dr. King, that was not true (although Broder and Hess did say that Gov. Romney marched with King, so it would be interesting to see their sources).
When Mitt says that he “saw” his father march with Dr. King, that is not lying. That is the figurative use of the word “see”.
I see that you are getting angry. Am I lying?
As for KKK Byrd, the point is that the Romney’s were advocates for Civil Rights and a huge deal is being made of this, while Byrd has gotten a complete pass on his past as a Grand Wizard or what ever the heck he was.
Buy Danish on December 21, 2007 at 1:42 PM
You should “see” Jessica Alba instead. I “saw” her last night, and it was way better than “seeing” any of that stuff you “saw.”
Go ahead. Take a peek. I “saw” her saying it was okay.
Professor Blather on December 21, 2007 at 1:43 PM
Yeah, I know- I saw you with her.
Hollowpoint on December 21, 2007 at 1:48 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »