Two eyewitnesses: We saw Mitt’s father marching with MLK
posted at 7:30 pm on December 21, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
And with this, a silly snafu turns officially stupid. There’s no question George Romney was sympathetic to King and the civil-rights movement; there’s also no question that Mitt never literally saw them marching together, or that he himself never marched alongside MLK notwithstanding what he said in 1978. So what does this prove either way except that the two men may once in fact have been at the same rally at the same time? Nothing. Welcome to Election ‘08.
Shirley Basore, 72, says she was sitting in the hairdresser’s chair in wealthy Grosse Pointe, Mich., back in 1963 when a rumpus started and she discovered that Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and her governor, George Romney, were marching for civil rights — right past the window.
With the cape still around her neck, Basore went outside and joined the parade.
“They were hand in hand,” recalled Basore, a former high-school English teacher. “They led the march. We all swung our hands, and they held their hands up above everybody else’s.”…
Another witness, Ashby Richardson, 64, of Massachusetts gave the campaign a similar account.
“I’m just appalled that the news picks this stuff up and say it didn’t happen,” Richardson, now a data-collection consultant, said by phone. “The press is being disingenuous in terms of reporting what actually happened. I remember it vividly. I was only 15 or 20 feet from where both of them were.”
Note to Mitt: How about we forget all about this little mishap in exchange for you keeping those obscenity laws on ice if you’re elected, hm?
Update: Heh. Indeed.
Romney seems to have suffered from politicians’ disease, where it’s not enough to report that something happened, you have to report it in a way that puts you in the story. Trouble is, he wasn’t in the story. Is that a big deal? Not really, I guess. But it was an unforced error at a crucial time and it underscores the feeling a lot of people have that Romney’s just a bit too airbrushed to be true.
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 »
Im just curious what demographic in the republican party is Mitt playing to here ?
William Amos on December 21, 2007 at 7:31 PM
Yes, but did his father ever work in a mill? That’s the true test of presidential leadership.
Nosferightu on December 21, 2007 at 7:32 PM
Ugh…if anyone needs me, I’ll be in the corner, banging my head against the wall.
Slublog on December 21, 2007 at 7:34 PM
Allah,
I asked this over at the other thread, but where does Mitt say he wants to “lock up retailers”?
I don’t see anything of the sort, but then again I don’t see the word see the same way as some do either.
Buy Danish on December 21, 2007 at 7:43 PM
He specifically mentions enforcing obscenity laws and “going after” retailers. That’s the clear implication of what he’s saying. It’d be as if he said we need to enforce immigration laws and “go after” illegals. That would suggest deportation, no?
Allahpundit on December 21, 2007 at 7:46 PM
I’m going to wake up tomorrow and pretend like this whole MLK-Mitt thing never happened. Why? Because I need it that way. I NEED it.
Mitt is our best hope to derail the Huckabee socialism express, and even if you support Fred(Does he get is ! back?), we need to hedge our bets here.
What’s more, I think I won’t be the only one waking up tomorrow having forgotten the whole thing ever happened.
Nessuno on December 21, 2007 at 7:49 PM
Surely eyewitness testimony should be taken into consideration? It doesn’t prove anything in the sense of a jury trial verdict but it can taken into consideration. In other words its better than nothing.
aengus on December 21, 2007 at 7:50 PM
Consideration of what? What point or part of the story does it advance? We knew George Romney was in favor of civil rights and we knew Mitt didn’t actually see them marching. What new information does this provide us?
Allahpundit on December 21, 2007 at 7:52 PM
We’re about to get a three or four day break. Good, I could use the eggnog. After Christmas this place is really going to get crazy.
Limerick on December 21, 2007 at 7:52 PM
So the latest smear on Romney is much ado about nothing–SHOCKER. I agree with Nessuno, Romney is at this point absolutely our best hope to derail the Huckabee liberal express, and the quickly we all realize that the better.
Patriot33 on December 21, 2007 at 7:52 PM
If you regard the fact that he lied in 1978 about marching with King as nothing, then yes, it’s nothing.
Allahpundit on December 21, 2007 at 7:54 PM
I understand it how Mitt explained it. Think of it like this: I saw my dad work his butt off for 40 years in a job he hated to support our family. Does that mean I went to his job every day and watched him work? No. But does it make me a liar? No. I watched how he lived his life, I saw him. That’s what Mitt said…he saw his dad march with MLK they way I saw my dad sacrifice for our family.
JustTruth101 on December 21, 2007 at 7:54 PM
And again I will state my preference and say that I will vote for John McCain before Mitt Romney
William Amos on December 21, 2007 at 7:54 PM
How much more stupid will this primary get? oh, I feel I should not have asked that.
boomer on December 21, 2007 at 7:55 PM
Because you want to KNOW you’ll be betrayed by your presidential pick rather than just fear it?
Nessuno on December 21, 2007 at 7:57 PM
Truly laughing out loud.
JiangxiDad on December 21, 2007 at 7:58 PM
None, I suppose. But Mark Steyn found something else. It’s an article about a source from 1967 -
Romney Campaign on George Romney and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Case closed?
aengus on December 21, 2007 at 8:10 PM
How about his interview in 1978, where he claimed he marched with his father and MLK through the streets of (Detroit?)?
amerpundit on December 21, 2007 at 8:12 PM
Geez dude, you’re the guy who gives every benefit of the doubt to the likes of Kerry and Obama and yet you can’t see what this provides? Are you kidding or what? It proves his Dad, THE GOVERNOR OF THE STATE did indeed march with MLK exactly where he said it happened. Now call me crazy but I don’t think when a GOVERNOR shows up it’s the same thing as “attending the same rally.” And, when a GOVERNOR marches with somebody likes MLK it a news event, it’s highly likely Mitt DID see it on TV or some other form of video. As for telling the Herald in 78 he marched with MLK, it’s possible the Herald simply got the story wrong. Anyway, it makes a world of difference to me.
TheBigOldDog on December 21, 2007 at 8:16 PM
The year makes a lot of difference to me as well. We know it’s the right side of history now, but in 1963, being an active part of the CRM wasn’t all the rage–especially for a white politician.
BTW, this reminds me of the whole Obama-Kennedy Foundation non-controversy.
baldilocks on December 21, 2007 at 8:31 PM
I don’t understand what the big deal is on this issue. So Mitt lied back in 1978, hell I’ve done a lot of stuff since 1978. Man, I did a lot of stuff in 1978.
I can go back to last week and show you where Hillary lied. In fact I probably don’t have to go back that far.
Now the enforcing obscenity law thing, that worries me, not because I disagree but because it is campain suicide.
conservnut on December 21, 2007 at 8:35 PM
If that’s the case, why did he feel the need to nuance it to the brink of mockery? “It really happened, even though I explained why it didn’t happen literally the way I originally said it happened, and, um, so, okay.”
Jim Treacher on December 21, 2007 at 8:40 PM
Probably because it was so long ago that he forgot some stuff and instead of behaving like a normal person and saying “I don’t remember whether I physically saw him or not because it happened over forty years ago,” he behaved like a politician. Also the media behaved like the media; that includes both the old and the new versions.
baldilocks on December 21, 2007 at 8:45 PM
Good point, and yes, I would have a problem with that…but I would need to see the article as it was published in 1978 so I could read for myself what he said…even then, and maybe I’m jaded by YouTube, I don’t trust the media to accurately report what people say…when I posted my original comment above, it was after watching the video of Mitt explaining his comment, so I know exactly which words were Mitt’s, because I watched him say them.
JustTruth101 on December 21, 2007 at 8:49 PM
Ah, how refreshing another story that has ZERO substance and matters not! I am damned glad we are going to elect a president over this kind of crap.
This is another case of the media trying to make a Republican look bad, that is all.
Gatordoug on December 21, 2007 at 8:51 PM
Yet the incident was documented long before 1978 in books written in 1967 and 1971. Read the article I linked above.
If Mitt lied (people died?) he made ingenious use of the Mitt Time Machine which enables him to traverse the space-time continuum in order to further his nefarious political ends.
aengus on December 21, 2007 at 8:54 PM
He specifically mentions enforcing obscenity laws and “going after” retailers. That’s the clear implication of what he’s saying. It’d be as if he said we need to enforce immigration laws and “go after” illegals. That would suggest deportation, no?
Sorry for the delay in responding.
I don’t even buy the premise that going after illegals means “deportation”, but let’s stick with the video game scenario for now so we don’t get hopelessly off-track.
I was in the music biz at the time of Tipper’s proposals which did target retailers initially. In addition to hearing shrieks of hysteria around the office, I sat in many a meeting where the RIAA made presentations that told us the sky was falling (ironic since it was Mrs. Algore’s proposal), and ultimately none of the predictions came true.
Yes, Wal-Mart stopped carrying music that had warning labels but there were still plenty of retailers to go to who continued to stock this music.
That is not censorship, any more than a having a restaurant voluntarily choose to have a no-smoking policy (which if of course very different from Bloomberg’s vision of a Democracy).
There are plenty of ways to “go after retailers” which do not involve “locking them up”. You can hold the obscenity laws stick over their heads, and get them to take voluntary action. You can threaten them with fines, or just a lot of bad P.R.
Remember, we are talking about selling violent or “obscene” product to children here. Believe me, if I hear him propose that we need to ban all violent and “obscene” material to adults, I’ll be right with you on this.
I think we should take a deep breath and find out more about what Mitt has in mind before we start imitating Ron Paul and quoting Sinclair Lewis on fascism.
Buy Danish on December 21, 2007 at 8:58 PM
Good news. Love is still blind for the Romneyites, the Fredheads, the Hucksters, the Giulianians, and just for you Rightwingsparkle, the McCainsians.
Entelechy on December 21, 2007 at 9:03 PM
PM
Afraid my liberty means a little too much to me frankly.
Gatordoug on December 21, 2007 at 9:05 PM
Eyewitness? maybe, maybe not.
Ex-tex on December 21, 2007 at 9:07 PM
From the Detroit Free Press…
Ex-tex on December 21, 2007 at 9:11 PM
What thing.
In my mind, Governor Mitt Romney has demonstrated to my satisfaction that he has never had a racist bone in his body. The people who have written him off because of his lie are entitled; I have read their arguments and have empathized with every word. But the truth is, MLK was before my time, and even if it weren’t, I am looking toward the future of our country.
Thank heaven for Martin Luther King, a man who advocated change by appealing to the humanity in us all. Maybe in another 1000 years, another like him will come along.
But meanwhile, we are looking less than one year into the future of our country. Mitt Romney’s goodness, decency, integrity, and stewardship have been convincingly demonstrated to me.
RushBaby on December 21, 2007 at 9:25 PM
Excellent analogy. Thank you.
Buy Danish on December 21, 2007 at 9:26 PM
No kidding.
Jim Treacher on December 21, 2007 at 9:27 PM
My, how articulate you are for a minor!
Buy Danish on December 21, 2007 at 9:43 PM
Do you always use snotty, factless remarks?
Gatordoug on December 21, 2007 at 10:00 PM
I hear that Huckabee and Mitt have found some common ground. They are preparing a joint statement together as we speak and will be announcing shortly their apposition to pizza, nacho cheese and beer.
FloatingRock on December 21, 2007 at 10:01 PM
You need to read this article. But for those afraid of harsh realities:
***
I would bet next year’s salary that none of you wonderfully enthusiastic Rommneyans would never, I repeat, never give the same pass to Jesse Jackson. If Jesse parsed words the way Mitt is now, many in this chatroom would become unhinged. Yeah, you! Deny it and I will co-sign your application to the American Liar’s Guild.
Hymietown was 1984. Is that far enough back to excuse also. Is lying less moral than using a racial epithet once? Jesse’s record was not always the one it is now, but that doesn’t stop anyone in here from invoking his name as a pariah.
The Race Card on December 21, 2007 at 10:21 PM
Jesus wept.
All I’ve learned here today are two things:
1) Republicans are no different than Democrats. Once they pick their guy … facts and logic and obvious truth cease to matter. The brain is unplugged, and blind sycophancy becomes the order of the day. The only difference here is that I agree with Republicans on the issues; the avoidance of facts, the spin, the goofy Clintonizing … its all exactly the same.
That’s depressing. You people are supposed to be different.
2) I have no idea who to vote for anymore. None whatsoever.
Oh – I also just learned that I can beat up 34 kindergardners.
Of course they wouldn’t. What we’re witnessing is painfully disappointing.
It’s exactly what Bill Clinton did. He claimed: “I did not have sexual relations with that woman.” And – to some people – “sexual relations” apparently means intercourse. He spun the truth, defined common words as he saw fit … and some on the left guzzled the Kool-Aid.
Mitt – and his blind supporters – are exactly the logical equivalent. Mitt made unequivocal statements: “I saw” … “My father and I marched with …”
What’s the response from the willfully blind? Well, theoretically, words like “saw” and “with” could kinda mean that, sorta.
It’s appalling.
If I had the time or interest, it would be a fascinating exercise to scroll back through other HotAir discussion, in which Democrats were caught in similar lies … and used similar excuses … and see what some of the same people said.
Of course, there’s no need to. I already know what I’d find.
I saw my father march with MLK.
My father and I marched through the streets of Detroit.
If the meaning of the above requires a dictionary, a thesaurus, and a semantic dissection of words like “with” and “march” and “saw” … you’ve lost your way, my friends. You’ve become that which you claim to oppose.
Professor Blather on December 21, 2007 at 10:42 PM
The mission thing certain would explain why he doesn’t remember it. Why couldn’t he just say that? Oh yeah, he’s a politician, not a normal person.
I’m not as jazzed up about the Mormons’ old doctrine as some others understandably are–that’s what this is really about–mainly because my step-dad had lots of dealings with them in the seventies and eighties and said that they were some of the nicest and fairest people he’d ever dealt with. And, yes, dealing with them helped Dad to rid himself of some of the residual racism against white people that he still carried.
Observing behavior is nearly always more illuminating than words, names, labels or doctrine. IMO.
baldilocks on December 21, 2007 at 10:44 PM
BTW, if Jesse Jackson’s subsequent behavior had shown that he had changed, I think quite a few of his detractors would cut him a break. Not all, of course.
baldilocks on December 21, 2007 at 10:46 PM
Chin up; someday it may save your life!
:)
FloatingRock on December 21, 2007 at 10:48 PM
Professor Blather on December 21, 2007 at 10:48 PM
None of the folks under discussion died for our sins so I don’t see the point in getting all wound up about it one way or the other.
baldilocks on December 21, 2007 at 10:49 PM
They’re politicians. Let’s just say that observing closely how members of this species have behaved I’m surprised when they don’t lie.
BTW, did you know that the Secure Fence Act of 2006 is
almostdead thanks to a couple of Republican senators on a border state? :-/baldilocks on December 21, 2007 at 10:53 PM
You’re right.
What you’re hearing (seeing?) in my posts is mostly my own disappointment. It’s not really the big of a deal. Politicians lie. It’s what they do. And after the “I’m a lifelong hunter” embarrassment, nobody should be surprised.
I’m just disappointed. I thought Romney was both smarter and better than that, and I expected more from my fellow conservatives.
I suppose expecting conservatives to actually be different – or expecting the guy I was going to vote for not to be like every other politician – was just plain naive.
I just wish it was the Democrats doing it. That’s much, much more fun to watch.
Time for a beer.
Professor Blather on December 21, 2007 at 10:53 PM
I think this is Romney’s “I invented the internet” gaffe, as it wraps up several doubts about him into one easily retold storyline just as that phrase did with Gore. If he’s the nominee, expect more tortured explanations. I’m with Professor Blather on this one — I expect more from Republicans. I always have my BS filter on for Democrats but during primary season, I’ve had to use it sadly on the Republican side.
blackrepublican on December 21, 2007 at 10:58 PM
Some head to head polls here
bnelson44 on December 21, 2007 at 11:03 PM
The conservative movement is in flux right now and everything is up in the air. I think that there is a lot of confusion and disappointment going around, especially with political junkies, and it’s just a sign of the times, unfortunately.
Consider for a moment that some people make their decisions faster than others and while you may have already reached a conclusion, it may just take a bit longer for others.
Anyway, I’m just suggesting that conservatives are people too and you should hold off before making any broad judgments about them just yet.
I’m WAAAAYYY ahead of you!
FloatingRock on December 21, 2007 at 11:10 PM
It’s one of the reason that blogging seems less …inviting.
I would join you but I’m saving myself for New Year’s Day :-)
baldilocks on December 21, 2007 at 11:12 PM
Dork B. on December 21, 2007 at 11:16 PM
It is the Christmas Cooties, I’m telling ya.
Two known cures…
1. Intoxication
2. Suffocation
I know where I’m headed.
Limerick on December 21, 2007 at 11:17 PM
WTF?
An unforced ERROR?
I’m completely baffled Allah.
Not a big deal?
It’s no big deal that we’re considering a man for President who completely fabricates a story that he marched with Martin Luther King? Huh? And then changes his story to suggest it was his father marching with King?
Funny. Why was it a big deal then, when John Kerry fabricated a story about Christmas in Cambodia?
This is the type of hypocrisy gon on by our side in this election. I’ve been seeing it since the beginning. Conservatives selling themselves out and making the same excuses the liberal do when they get caught. It’s embarrassing.
Am I completely missing something here? Because if I’m not, then Romney winning the nomination is going to be the GOP’s lowest moment. How humiliating is it going to be to have to sit and watch all the copies of the Swift Boat ads turned against our candidate. DOH!
Gregor on December 21, 2007 at 11:25 PM
Professor Blather on December 21, 2007 at 10:42 PM
Hmmm. I see that you are now bringing up what Mitt said in 1978, even though you claimed (albeit incorrectly) that no one, not a single person, cared about that.
Is that a flip flop? :)
Goodnight.
Buy Danish on December 21, 2007 at 11:31 PM
It had better be number one because I expect you back here whenever next we meet.
FloatingRock on December 21, 2007 at 11:34 PM
Allah. I apologize that in reading that comment back, it seems that it’s directed at you. I know the quote I used was not written by you. I was addressing you in my comment out of shock at what I had read. Wanted to make that clear.
Gregor on December 21, 2007 at 11:34 PM
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to laugh out loud at myself.
Along with Prof. Blather, I’m mostly befuddled and a little disappointed, not angry.
I really appreciate what you said about your father. My mom was raised in Birmingham, AL. She spent the night at a slumber party with the girls who died at 16th St Baptist Church, the night before it was bombed.
My mom never expressed any racist language or ideas in front of me, ever. As a teen, it took me many years to accept her forgiveness; I was angry for her. All of my relatives, even my grandfather whose dad was a sharecropper taught me to respect all races’ humanity.
While that may differ somewhat than your experience, I am always moved by personal stories of overcoming anger. I hung on to a short list of very good reasons to be an angry man for a period in my life. Letting go of the anger allowed me to get closer to people, rather than reacting to their labels or groups.
As a result I have been blessed with many unlikely but very genuine friendships.
Oh crap. Need to shower and shave before beer o’clock.
The Race Card on December 21, 2007 at 11:53 PM
Ha Ha! More later as these things come up.
Have a nice beering, gentlemen.
baldilocks on December 22, 2007 at 12:09 AM
Words matter.
Lying destroys trust.
Mitt lied, his candidacy died. (as did his integrity).
omnipotent on December 22, 2007 at 12:53 AM
Sorry if this point was already made, on MTP, Mitt talked about how he would enforce a law outlawing abortion. Loss of medical license for the doctor etc. It seems more credible that this would be the model to deal with obscenity laws rather than assuming what he would mean in the hypothetical you suggested.
csdeven on December 22, 2007 at 1:14 AM
So you’re saying that instead of arresting people, Mitt would simply shutter businesses and destroy people’s livelihoods in order to prevent adult Americans from enjoying their long held pastimes? Whew! That’s a relief… (not!)
FloatingRock on December 22, 2007 at 1:37 AM
If anyone thinks this MLK thing is going away quickly, I have news for ya. From an editor at the Wall Street Freakin’ Journal:
Big S on December 22, 2007 at 2:07 AM
You don’t like the laws? CHANGE THEM. But don’t try to grab the moral high ground by claiming that enforcing laws ruins livelihoods. Maybe we should let gangs off the hook because we don’t want their families to suffer?
Obscenity freaks are like gun freaks, no restrictions are acceptable.
csdeven on December 22, 2007 at 5:38 AM
One difference is that a record for sale that someone doesn’t buy does nothing to harm them. Someone smoking in a store changes the air that others breath. The majority of New Yorkers approve of smoke-free restaurants, and Bloomberg’s approval ratings are very strong. He’s a lot more popular in NYC than Rudy was 6 years into the job.
dedalus on December 22, 2007 at 6:07 AM
This kind of crap bugs me. We have almost all ridiculed the Clintons for their ability to lie about just about anything, great or small. And Romney’s “unforced error” as Allah called it, just reinforces that sense that he can’t play it straight.
He will now need to overcome that obstacle, and that’s frustrating to me.
Jaibones on December 22, 2007 at 8:20 AM
PS Politicians suck.
Jaibones on December 22, 2007 at 8:21 AM
That’s very liberal thinking. Bloomy is popular in NYC because it’s filled with liberal elites just like him.
You have the option, as a free man, to not frequent or work in places that allow smoking – a legal activity. They have the option to not eat at places that use transfats.
Selling a product to minors (like booze or cigarettes or mature entertainment content) is against the law. Why? Because children do not have the requisite judgment to determine what is in their best long term interest. Liberals, unlike conservatives, assume most people are stupid and therefore never reach an age where they can judge for themselves.
TheBigOldDog on December 22, 2007 at 9:14 AM
And I bet they both saw Bill Clinton WATCHING black churches burn in the South too…
NRA4Freedom on December 22, 2007 at 11:10 AM
This is not about the pastimes of ADULT Americans. That was my point when I said that Gatordoug was very articulate for a minor.
Huh?
I could not have said it better. Thanks.
Buy Danish on December 22, 2007 at 11:21 AM
The majority of southerners approved of Negro-free restaurants, and the approval ratings of the politicians who enacted Jim Crow laws were very strong.
The Monster on December 22, 2007 at 11:31 AM
The Monster on December 22, 2007 at 11:31 AM
Racial Equality + Smoke-free restaurants = North better than South.
Big S on December 22, 2007 at 11:33 AM
Great, more pathetic spin for Mitt on this thread too.
Mitt will have fun trying to convince the good folks of Iowa that he isn’t a slimy, lying, opportunistic politician
omnipotent on December 22, 2007 at 11:58 AM
Rasmussen
Fred can’t compete.
davenp35 on December 22, 2007 at 12:27 PM
I haven’t seen such a hysterical media tantrum since–well, when was the last time Bush opened his mouth? The important point is, Romney didn’t misrepresent his father’s legacy. No one can seriously doubt his family’s integrity on the subject of civil rights. This extraordinarily literal insistence on the word “see” betrays a mindset that is desperate to find fault with Romney, no matter how picayune the cause.
WasatchMan on December 22, 2007 at 1:23 PM
This is a bogus charge. For the same reason that Fred is not at the top of the GOP polls (Yet), he’s not going to lead Hillary in a national poll. The general population simply doesn’t not know a lot about Fred yet. I GUARANTEE that after two or three one-on-one debates with ANY of the Democratic candidates … Fred would lead all polls.
Keep in mind that EVERYONE in the world knows who Rudy is and he’s still dead even with Hillary. That’s actually NOT a good thing.
It’s possible that Fred DID start too late and the general population is not yet familiar with who he is, but IF he were to manage to pull out the nomination, this would change and it’s highly unlikely that Americans would choose Hillary over Fred.
Gregor on December 22, 2007 at 1:29 PM
…the Fred “silly hat rule” non-controversy.
baldilocks on December 22, 2007 at 1:31 PM
You’re becoming another absurd Romniac buffoon. They have Fred behind Clinton a statistically insignificant 2 points… that isn’t exactly proof positive, duder; not with over 10 months to go before the general election.
You also failed to mention this little nugget from Rasmussen:
Thompson
Definitely for: 21%
Definitely against: 34%
Romney
Definitely for: 19%
Definitely against: 47%
Only Paul has worse unfavorability, and then only by one point.
Hollowpoint on December 22, 2007 at 1:40 PM
What the Hell is wrong with you? Are you serious?!!
He LIED and completely fabricated the story that he and his father marched ALONG SIDE Martin Luther King! And you have absolutely no problem voting for him after that? What were your feelings when you found out the entire John Kerry Christmas in Cambodia story was a lie? Did you say it was no big deal?
This is truly disgusting to see conservatives claiming that this is no big deal. Embarrassing, and very eye opening.
Gregor on December 22, 2007 at 1:40 PM
Did someone spike the punch around here?
baldilocks on December 22, 2007 at 1:44 PM
Since it was in a book written by Broder and Hess, he must have believed that he did. Governor Romney was the keynote speaker here. The title? Speech at the Great March on Detroit.
George Romney’s legacy in civil rights is indisputable. No matter what your opinion is of Mitt Romney, you can’t argue with his father’s record.
Buy Danish on December 22, 2007 at 2:29 PM
Maybe. Although a smoking ban in restaurants, like the federal ban on airplanes attempts to balance individual rights between people in a confined space, some who want to breathe smoke and others who don’t, a ban on possessing any amount of marijuana for private use, even at home, is a federal crime that conservatives seem to support in greater numbers than liberals or libertarians.
dedalus on December 22, 2007 at 2:36 PM
Heh, as they say:
http://althouse.blogspot.com/2007/12/i-saw-best-minds-of-my-generation.html
WasatchMan on December 22, 2007 at 2:40 PM
Yes, and it required federal action to overturn state law. My guess is that NYC’s smoking ban is more likely to be emulated by other localities than it is to be overturned by congress or the Supreme Court.
Businesses are restricted from allowing a legal activity like smoking just as they are restricted in their activity by fire ordinances, health inspectors, and the Americans with Disabilities Act.
dedalus on December 22, 2007 at 2:49 PM
Mitt lied, the party cried.
The Race Card on December 22, 2007 at 3:05 PM
Facts don’t matter to the anti-Romney trolls, its all about smearing his family’s civil rights record. If it takes quoting from an interview in 1978 to do it, so be it.
It really is insulting, between the anti-Mormon bigotry and now this canard, just how many people are willing to smear a man and his family.
At the end of the day it doesn’t matter of he’s the most competent, or if he can bring conservatives together on important issues. It’s all about being a Mormon and making sure we forget all definitions of see that don’t fit an anti-Romney narrative. On what basis would people believe Romney lied in a 1978 interview, 22 years before he even went into politics? But nevermind that, and nevermind George Romney’s commitment to civil rights. Mitt lied, people died! NO WAR FOR OIL!
Meanwhile Fred’s asleep and the Manic Minister, a man whose only qualification for President is he’s a baptist minister, is in the lead.
BKennedy on December 22, 2007 at 3:28 PM
He stated that he “SAW” his father march with Martin Luther King. You can play word games all you want, but we all know what the word “saw” means, just as we all know that getting a blow job from a woman is “having sexual relations.”
You’re using the exact same methods that liberals use to excuse every lie they tell. Congratulations on your turn to the dark side.
Nobody is arguing about his father’s record. We’re discussing the fact that Mitt Romney LIED about he and his father having actually marched with MLK. Your argument would be like saying that since John Kerry actually served in Vietnam, that even though he lied about the details of what he had done there, nobody can argue about his military record.
DOH!
How long until you’re wearing one of these?
Gregor on December 22, 2007 at 3:31 PM
Keep collecting that paycheck from the Romney campaign. Keep posting those talking points.
Gregor on December 22, 2007 at 3:33 PM
So you’re illiterate then? Saw has more than one definition (and I’m not talking about including the noun) in common usage. Anti-Mitt trolls such as yourself will do, say anything to smear him, including play (or be, as the case may be) ignorant.
“I saw my father work 40 years in a job he hated to provide for our family.”
Did I actually see him working, and could you really say I “saw” his hatred of it.
According to Gregor, this sentence is wrong because it improperly uses the verb see when strictly defined to a visual definition.
But I see that definition is just a little too inconvenient for Gregor and his ilk to recognize. Enjoy Newspeak folks. Its doubleplusuncomplicated.
BKennedy on December 22, 2007 at 3:43 PM
Oh, the irony. Or is it hypocrisy?
Newspeak, indeed. It would be funny it weren’t so transparent and tragic.
Professor Blather on December 22, 2007 at 4:08 PM
LOL! Yes and yes.
Come on, stop embarrassing yourself.
A person making the statement you just used as an example would not normally use “I saw” if they didn’t experience it first hand. They would say … “My father worked for 40 years in a job he hated to provide for his family.” And yes, if I WERE to use “I saw” in front of that line, I would be honest in saying that I “saw” his hatred of the job. In my case, I happened to “SEE” my fathers “love” for his job. I saw it with my own eyes, yes.
Mitt Romney did NOT experience himself or his father marching with Martin Luther King. It didn’t happen. He made it up. He LIED.
Keep slanting. Keep cashing those checks.
You can continue to try to mock me and ridicule me, but it’s sort of silly, being that you’re one of the few who don’t seem to get it. You’re only ridiculing yourself and completely destroying any credibility you may have ever had, which isn’t much.
Gregor on December 22, 2007 at 4:08 PM
Indeed. Anyone spinning this desperately, this obviously, this painfully, has sacrificed much of their own credibility.
It will be truly fascinating to watch some of these same people the next time a Democrat lies in exactly the same way poor Mitt did.
They aren’t making any of us look good, that’s for sure. Honesty and integrity are basic conservative principles.
The spinners and parsers belong in the other side of the aisle. Or so I thought.
Professor Blather on December 22, 2007 at 4:13 PM
No, spinners and parsers call people liars over verb choice. “Saw” may not be an ideal verb but it fits properly in the sentence.
Honesty and integrity are traits the Romney family has always had. I’m not getting checks from anyone, but don’t tell Gregor that, he’s too busy spinning and parsing words.
You keep saying you aren’t attacking George Romney’s civil rights commitment while in the same sentence you call Romney a liar saying he never marched in one. Don’t talk to me about parsing words and spinning.
Mitt has an exemplary family life and he’s succeeded in business, all this talk is over phrasology in a 1978 interview. If there’s a lie, it’s going on in 1978, not 2007. You don’t make it that far for that long in business (or married life, for that matter) by lacking honesty and integrity. You might climb up a little, but it won’t last forever.
“Mitt is slick” is just a talking point for anti-Romney trolls. It can’t be proven nor verified, its an opinion masqueraiding as a fact.
BKennedy on December 22, 2007 at 5:21 PM
WasatchMan on December 22, 2007 at 2:40 PM
I almost linked to the same poem when this whole tempest in a teapot began but I knew it would be met with Howls of protest.
Poor Professor Blather, Gregor and others will go to their graves thinking that there was a very destructive dude named “Madness” who took aim at the Beat Generation, and Allen Ginsberg literally saw this happen with his own eyes:
I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness, starving hysterical naked,
dragging themselves through the negro streets at dawn looking for an angry fix,
angelheaded hipsters burning for the ancient heavenly connection to the starry dynamo in the machinery of night….”
Buy Danish on December 22, 2007 at 5:33 PM
You’re babbling nonsense Kennedy! Read your own quote. You’re confusing Mitt with his father. We’re pointing out that MITT lied about something his father NEVER DID, and lied about something HE HIMSELF never did. He DIDN’T do the things he CLAIMED he had done.
PLEASE explain to us all how pointing out that MITT lied, is the same thing as “attacking GEORGE Romney’s civil rights commitment?”
You sound like a complete idiot just repeating the same nonsensical lies over and over.
Riiiiiiiiight. That’s why Bill and Hillary, John Kerry, John Murtha, Keith Olbermann, and Harry Reid are all such complete failures in life.
Good grief.
Gregor on December 22, 2007 at 5:36 PM
Awwwww … Kennedy was getting lonely.
You should have read the comments to that blog before trying to use it to support your lying candidate.
Gregor on December 22, 2007 at 5:41 PM
Exactly!
davenp35 on December 22, 2007 at 6:15 PM
That right there is what I take issue with. That’s the lie about George Romney. George ROmney did set up civil rights marches in Detroit and presumably marched in them. MLK Jr. was such a great civil rights leader that people identify the movement as moving with him. Even if he isn’t there physically, which is exactly what George Romney did.
And that’s why I can’t abide by your and Blather’s analysis. You’re parsing words like the Clintons and deleting valid definitions just like the Ministry of Truth in 1984.
BKennedy on December 22, 2007 at 6:16 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »