My latest column at Townhall is called Everything You Need To Know About The Top Tier GOP Candidates In A Single Colum. Here’s an excerpt from the column, 12) Mike Huckabee attacks Romney’s religion: In an interview with the New……

Good luck trying to make this gaffe disappear folks.

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

Good point.

And I find it hard to square the march with Romney being in France at the time. Romney is 60 years old. He would have been on the mission somewhere between 17-20. That puts the year at around 1964-1967, after MLK Jr. has been martyred. Which means at the time King was marching, Romney would not yet have gone on his mission yet and could likely have attended a rally with his father George. After the mission Mitt may have participated in marches, but King wouldn’t be in them.

BKennedy on December 21, 2007 at 10:51 PM

King was killed on April 4, 1968. I don’t really care enough about it to look up when Mitt was in France, but if you use the wrong dates, it’s no surprise that you’d have trouble squaring them. It’s a “garbage in, garbage out” problem.

Yup. That’s the bottom line.

It doesn’t matter what Mitt did. He’s their guy.

Exactly like Democrats who support Hillary or Kerry. They spin the lies … “as long as the guy they want gets elected.”

There is no difference at all.

Professor Blather on December 21, 2007 at 10:28 PM

No, it doesn’t matter what Mitt did or didn’t do. If his usage of “see” and its various forms doesn’t fit the specific, physical sight-oriented definition you want it to he must be lying, obfuscation, pandering, whatever, depsite the fact the definition of see he’s using is also extremely common.

And I find it hard to square the march with Romney being in France at the time. Romney is 60 years old. He would have been on the mission somewhere between 17-20. That puts the year at around 1964-1967, after MLK Jr. has been martyred. Which means at the time King was marching, Romney would not yet have gone on his mission yet and could likely have attended a rally with his father George. After the mission Mitt may have participated in marches, but King wouldn’t be in them.

I really, really want to hook some of you up to a lie detector and ask point-black: do you actually believe what you’re saying? Do you really think “My father and I marched through the streets of Detroit with MLK” and “I saw my father march with MLK” are open to interpretation?

I think I’d add another question: if a liberal candidate had made the very same claim … would you be making the same arguments?

How this is even remotely different – when viewed objectively and logically – than John Kerry’s “seared Cambodian Christmas” … is beyond me.

Mitt lied. Repeatedly. For decades. And when called on the lie, his supporters twist and spin and quote dictionaries and stick their fingers in their ears and stomp up and down.

I was my father march with MLK.

I’m a lifelong hunter.

There’s really nothing else to add. And those of you who are still dancing and spinning ought to be embarrassed.

“See” can mean whatever you want it to mean, as long as the guy I want to be president gets elected.

Jim Treacher on December 21, 2007 at 6:43 PM

Yup. That’s the bottom line.

It doesn’t matter what Mitt did. He’s their guy.

Exactly like Democrats who support Hillary or Kerry. They spin the lies … “as long as the guy they want gets elected.”

There is no difference at all.

Buy Danish on December 21, 2007 at 7:13 PM

It does not demonstrate that Mitt is racist, just that he is a priest in a religion founded on racist principles, in addition to being a liar.

I hated that crap with the Clintons and I hate it with Mitt. Bush isn’t like that; he makes his share of mistakes but he’s not a liar.

If he wins the primary I might grit my teeth and vote for him. But I’d have to think about it. And NO WAY is he getting my vote in the primary. I’m not voting for a Republican Clinton to get the nomination, I’m just not.

tommylotto on December 21, 2007 at 6:49 PM

Thanks for proving my point about the attempts to paint Mitt as a racist. I am not familiar with Riley’s work, but this is a huge stretch, which, dare I say it, is far worse than using the word “see” figuratively:

Throughout his current campaign for the Republican nomination, Mr. Romney has declined to distance himself from the repugnant racial teachings of his church.

Also, I guess the WSJ are a bunch of bigots too.

tommylotto on December 21, 2007 at 6:49 PM

Armand Mauss, a leading scholar on Mormons and race, and a Mormon himself, has noted that…”

But according to Mr. Mauss, the church has never repudiated the teachings that supported the policy…

Mauss is more then a leading scholar, he is there “go to” guy on history. This is the gentleman that I got nailed as a racist for quoting, looks like I am in good stead.
He is the kind of historian that will begin a change of direction of the Church, this is why longevity in a church is so important. Scholars come forward and begin to honestly dissect the origins and history of an institution.

Also, I guess the WSJ are a bunch of bigots too.

Nobody, not one person, has denied the Romney families civil rights record. Nobody – not one person – is concerned about the original 1978 lie.

Professor Blather on December 21, 2007 at 2:29 PM

That is indisputably false. Many comments indicated “concern” over the 1978 incident, including my own.

As for no one denying the Romney’s civil rights record, it is true that no one has done that on this thread, but many people do try to stain them with the past actions of the LDS church.

Don’t believe me? Look what happens when I Google Romney+Racist
361,000 entries.

Bkennedy,

I do apologize for listing every definition of the verb “see” but Professor Blather seems to be insisting that there is only one way to define it, and if you veer from his rigid definition you are a Clintonian liar.

The English language would be very sterile indeed if we lived by the Professor’s rules.

He is who I thought we was! Now if you wanna crown him, then crown his ass! But Mitt is who I thought he was!!!!

BKennedy on December 21, 2007 at 3:35 PM

Your position my seem less laughable if Mitt Rommney was even available to see, perceive or even hear about his father’s interaction with MLK. According the article, Mitt was on his mission and incommunicado, unaware of the events taking place at the time.

Allowing for your highly-nuanced usage of a my 3-year-old daughter can both spell and define, when exactly did Mitt see his King and his dad March?

Should a front-running presidential candidate be using such confusing language?

from The Phoenix:

And, Mitt Romney would not have known about the event, let alone had a chance to “see” it. He was at that time in the middle of his two-year mission for the Mormon church in Le Havre, France. By his own description and others’, he was cut off from virtually all contact with his family; and at the time, King’s Grosse Pointe appearance was no more than local news.

***

So, first Romney is a closet racist because his church changed its policy only thirty years ago; now he’s accused of his father claiming hard-won credit for civil rights in the 1960’s. Critics, make up your mind; is the guy not friendly enough to minorities, or too friendly?

WasatchMan on December 21, 2007 at 3:29 PM

I look askance at people who need to obfuscate and parse language when speaking about issues of race. Nobody is discounting the senior Rommney’ important legacy. Nobody is calling Mitt a racist. Steaming dungheap arguments like that should come with carbon offsets.

how he’s exactly what he appears to be

Is it real or is it Memorex?

Rudy, er, Mitt, er, Fred, er…John Bolton for President!

The hunting and gun ones were probably just staffer suggestions to put out there. I don’t give them any weight because quite frankly I don’t view anyone who goes out and shoots animals for sport as an uber-manly role model.

It was probably just a poorly calculated move to get the gun vote.

BKennedy on December 21, 2007 at 4:05 PM

Yeah- dishonest pandering is A-OK if your advisors think it’ll help you get elected. No wonder Mitt’s your guy.

And by the way, your explanation doesn’t really fit what happened- he made the “hunter” comments while talking to an individual NRA member; we only know about it because a reporter happened to overhear the conversation. In other words, Mitt looked the guy in the eye and lied to his face just for the sake of pandering to him, not anticipating that he’d be caught in a lie by an eavesdropping reporter.