Only one thing is certain at this point, my friends: McCainmentum!

I don’t know about the rest of the Republican party, but I will NEVER forgive or forget McCains role in the Shamnesty mess.

P. James Moriarty on December 23, 2007 at 11:48 AM

Did Mitt’s camp foist two “eyewitnesses” on Politico knowing (or suspecting) that they didn’t really see what they think they saw?

If they did direct “eyewitnesses” to Politico, they’re a bunch of morons. The proper response now is to say “maybe I was wrong; it’s been a while and I may have been wrong on the specifics” and let the issue die. Nobody contests that George Romney did good things on civil rights. Trying to scare up murky “evidence” supporting Mitt’s story just prolongs the agony. Mitt should really be thinking of ways to counter the obvious next line of attack on the race relations front.

Big S on December 23, 2007 at 11:57 AM

Maybe we can count ourselves fortunate that this lameness is the biggest “scandal” Mitt’s been hit with so far.

Hannibal Smith on December 23, 2007 at 11:55 AM

Who needs a scandal? His not being able to stick to one position on any given issue is enough for me.

P. James Moriarty on December 23, 2007 at 12:00 PM

If they did direct “eyewitnesses” to Politico, they’re a bunch of morons. The proper response now is to say “maybe I was wrong; it’s been a while and I may have been wrong on the specifics” and let the issue die.

Indeed. It’s like the Clinton camp, except less smart.

Allahpundit on December 23, 2007 at 12:02 PM

I could/will NEVER vote for this chameleon.

omnipotent on December 23, 2007 at 12:08 PM

Will say also that if Romney doesnt win in either Iowa or New Hampshire he is toast

William Amos on December 23, 2007 at 12:11 PM

SECOND LOOK AT HUCK.

A SECOND LOOK AT RON PAUL!

Lehosh on December 23, 2007 at 12:16 PM

Mitt needs some coaching on how to get down with the bruthas and sistahs.

Hillary, on the other hand, plays the sister act like a pro, complete with lame southern dialect.

Here’s how a pro does it Mitt ……

Monday, Jan. 16, 2006 9:12 p.m. EST

Hillary Clinton Blasts GOP ‘Plantation’

NEW YORK — Sounding a little like a preacher, a fired-up Sen. Hillary Clinton lambasted the Bush administration and the Republican-controlled Congress during a Martin Luther King Jr. Day event, predicting the presidency “will go down in history as one of the worst” and saying the House of Representatives is run like a “plantation” where dissenting voices are squelched.

“When you look at the way the House of Representatives has been run, it has been run like a plantation, and you know what I’m talking about,” Clinton, D-N.Y., told the crowd at the Canaan Baptist Church of Christ in Harlem. “It has been run in a way so that nobody with a contrary view has had a chance to present legislation, to make an argument, to be heard.”

Yeah, I know it’s not fair Mitt. After all, Cankles was married to the first black president. How can you compete with that?

fogw on December 23, 2007 at 12:19 PM

Sounds like Romney is doing exactly what non-Romney supporters fear he is prone to - saying whatever needs to be said to reach the goal. Even if Romney had seen his dad marching, at this point Mitt would have been better to cut his losses by either sticking with the figurative line or just saying that he was wrong. Honesty works for me…but then again, this is politics.

ApartforHaShem on December 23, 2007 at 12:25 PM

So when again will we be allowed to get back to discussing the issues instead of debating the best way to make a non-story into a story to support our Mitt-bashing efforts? I doubt anny conservative would seriously want to make a decision about who to vote for based upon what is printed in the Phoenix.

davenp35 on December 23, 2007 at 12:27 PM

TIME FOR A SECOND LOOK AT OBAMA.

omnipotent on December 23, 2007 at 12:29 PM

Only one thing is certain at this point, my friends: McCainmentum!

I don’t know about the rest of the Republican party, but I will NEVER forgive or forget McCains role in the Shamnesty mess.

P. James Moriarty on December 23, 2007 at 11:48 AM

Exactly! Three reasons not to vote for McCain…illegal immigration, McCain-Feingold, and questionable mental stability. I’d probably vote Huckabee before McCain. Let’s all hope it doesn’t come to that!

davenp35 on December 23, 2007 at 12:29 PM

If they did direct “eyewitnesses” to Politico, they’re a bunch of morons. The proper response now is to say “maybe I was wrong; it’s been a while and I may have been wrong on the specifics” and let the issue die.

Indeed. It’s like the Clinton camp, except less smart.

Allahpundit on December 23, 2007 at 12:02 PM

You know what they say about assumptions?!?

davenp35 on December 23, 2007 at 12:31 PM

From Mark Ambinder:

There is no doubt that both Mitt’s parents “marched” with King in a metaphorical sense. They were strong backers and King was someone who had met with both on more than one occasion and also told SNCC members Romney would make a very good President. George Romney served as keynote speaker when King’s movement arrived in Detroit and gathered before the marches, participated in the marches, and photos have come up of Lenore Romney introducing Mich students to King, and of the Romneys and supposedly Mitt in background to his Dad, at other civil rights rallies.

Buy Danish on December 23, 2007 at 12:34 PM

Buy Danish on December 23, 2007 at 12:34 PM

Yeah, and? I printed the whole press release from the Romney camp about George Romney’s civil rights background. We already know all that.

Allahpundit on December 23, 2007 at 12:36 PM

Face it, know one knows who will win the GOP nomination. It is fun to watch, everyone have an axe to grind with all the other candidates but thier own. Who ever wins the GOP we had better get together or we have had it.

KBird on December 23, 2007 at 12:40 PM

But when he argued what “saw” means, he clearly proved to be a big-time loser.

nottakingsides on December 23, 2007 at 12:42 PM

Precisely, we all make mistakes….no biggie.

But his parsing of the word “saw” is to Billy Jeff for me to ever care or vote for.

omnipotent on December 23, 2007 at 12:46 PM

I guess I might need to clarify some things here as to why I would back some candidates and not others.

To me the WOT is the #1 issue. This country is at war and we need to keep trying to win that war. While Immigration is my #2 issue it is still trumped by the WOT.

Mitt and Huck are on the bottom of my list for two reasons. First is their pandering to evangelicals. I veiw faith as a personal thing and do like candidates that express their beliefs in a personal way. However Mitt and Huck have made their faiths POLITICAL issues rather than personal ones. Huck is more blatant about it but romney’s “mormon” speach was the same kind of thing. It was both of them trying to use their faith to gain votes.

The other thing is back to the WOT. I want a Harry Truman type in the White House if the WOT goes bad. I want a president who isnt afraid to pull the trigger if it means confronting a threat to the US.

Both Huck and Mitt with their pardons have show that they are first and formost Christians. While that is a good thing in a person its a bad thing if it limits a leader. If a threat rises to the US that is bad enough to warrent a use of nukes I dont want a president in office who will send for lawyers or start a prayer vigil rather than taking action. Mercy is important in a leader but I am worried it would dehabilitate Huck and Mitt when a crisis would arise.

Which if Fred or Duncan or Rudy isnt avaible Id vote for McCain. Whiel he is horrible on Immigration and I dont trust him on a lot of things I do know that if this country was threatened he wouldnt hesitate to pull the trigger.

William Amos on December 23, 2007 at 12:46 PM

Buy Danish on December 23, 2007 at 12:34 PM

Yeah, and? I printed the whole press release from the Romney camp about George Romney’s civil rights background. We already know all that.

Allahpundit on December 23, 2007 at 12:36 PM

Yes you did, but that press release does not link to all the books which state that George Romney and MLK literally marched together. To the best of my knowledge, we have known about the Broder/Hess book, but not the others.

You and others are trying to make a Clintonian liar out of Mitt over this issue, yet books and now possibly photos back up his recollections.

And to repeat: The Boston Phoenix does not even mention June 23, it is focused on the date of June 29th.

Buy Danish on December 23, 2007 at 12:50 PM

McCainmentum!

Again, who the Hell cares what McCain is doing in New Hampshire? He’s won there before and then fell into a bottomless pit. History indicates that the rest of the country does not vote with New Hampshire.

Gregor on December 23, 2007 at 12:51 PM

You and others are trying to make a Clintonian liar out of Mitt over this issue, yet books and now possibly photos back up his recollections.

And to repeat: The Boston Phoenix does not even mention June 23, it is focused on the date of June 29th.

Buy Danish on December 23, 2007 at 12:50 PM

Are these photos on Mitt’s website?

I’m sure, being a multi-millionare and having direct access to all his fathers records, that those would be very difficult to come by.

Yeah.

omnipotent on December 23, 2007 at 12:53 PM

However Mitt and Huck have made their faiths POLITICAL issues rather than personal ones. Huck is more blatant about it but romney’s “mormon” speach was the same kind of thing. It was both of them trying to use their faith to gain votes.

I agree. However, I think it’s deeper than just religion with Romney. With him, the personal becomes political, and we’ve seen many examples of it in this campaign. He uses his happy family as proof of his character, his “faith” as a code word for socially-conservative positions, and speaks of his and his family’s past personal actions (his dad’s civil rights marches, as well as that “rescue” ad he put out a few days ago) as reasons why we should elect him. I’m not sure if this is just a habit of his, or if he’s forced to do it because he’s changed so many of his previously held views and can’t really run on his record as governor.

Big S on December 23, 2007 at 12:54 PM

You and others are trying to make a Clintonian liar out of Mitt over this issue

Buy Danish on December 23, 2007 at 12:50 PM

Dude. Stop. It’s getting pathetic. And kinda sad.

Pretty soon you’re going to get a little queasy from the spinning, then there’s the gagging and projectile vomiting, and that’s just not pretty. Who needs to see that?

Mitt did what he did. Spin only hurts him at this point.

If you want to get him elected, it might be better to admit the obvious, move on, and start highlighting what you see as his positive attributes.

I’d start with the hair.

Professor Blather on December 23, 2007 at 12:58 PM

I’d start with the hair.

Professor Blather on December 23, 2007 at 12:58 PM

The man really does have lovely hair.

Gregor on December 23, 2007 at 12:47 PM

AP’s written that in several election threads; It’s a running joke.

amerpundit on December 23, 2007 at 1:01 PM

The man really does have lovely hair.

amerpundit on December 23, 2007 at 1:01 PM

Isn’t it awesome? I prefer to think of it as a mane.

I wonder if it makes Silky jealous?

Professor Blather on December 23, 2007 at 1:06 PM

Im sure Huck is your man

broker1 on December 23, 2007 at 1:05 PM

Seriously?

Professor Blather on December 23, 2007 at 1:07 PM

Mitt Romney: Metaphorial Republican.

Hollowpoint on December 23, 2007 at 12:59 PM

You win the thread.

I can’t top that.

Professor Blather on December 23, 2007 at 1:10 PM

One more thing -

Many of you have used the fact that Mitt was in France on an LDS mission and could not possibly have “seen” his father march with MLK.

Mitt’s 2 1/2 year mission began in 1966. Mitt graduated from Cranbrook in 1965, so he would have been in Michigan during the time in 1963 when MLK began the “Great Marches at Detroit”.

Buy Danish on December 23, 2007 at 1:16 PM

The real issue here is that only a inept politician could have blundered this so badly. Reflects badly upon Mitt, no matter what the real facts are. The facts are quite irrelevant at this point. Mitt botched this, badly.

RW Wacko on December 23, 2007 at 1:28 PM

Did the thread change, and I didn’t get the memo?

wccawa on December 23, 2007 at 1:43 PM

Mitt did what he did. Spin only hurts him at this point.

Professor Blather on December 23, 2007 at 12:58 PM

.

I am pointing to discrepancies in the historical record, and to historical sources that tend to back up Mitt’s recollection of events 44 years ago.

I find it ironic that MLK’s speech refers to the “Speech At The Great March On Detroit” yet some people insist that MLK did not march on that date on June 23, 1963. Is the King family who control the archives Clintonian in it’s use of the word “at“? If those people are correct, should they correct the record and call it the Speech on the occasion of the Great March on Detroit for those of you who are bothered by the use of figurative language?

Will you at least admit that it was incorrect for some to say that Mitt could not possibly have seen his father with MLK because Mitt wasn’t in the country at the time?

How ’bout those photos?

omnipotent on December 23, 2007 at 1:18 PM

How about them? I’d like to see them and we probably will.

Here’s my prediction:

We will hear claims that it really isn’t Mitt, the photos aren’t clear enough to prove it was Mitt, the photos were doctored, or maybe some will even borrow a word from the Boston Phoenix and call them “irrelevant”.

Buy Danish on December 23, 2007 at 1:51 PM

Who cares if his father marched with MLK. Jesse Jackson marched with MLK. Enough said.

Zaire67 on December 23, 2007 at 1:45 PM

I don’t.

But Mitt does apparently.

He lied about it for 3 decades.

You’re right, though: if not for the lie, nobody would care. All he had to say was that he and his family had a history of civil rights activism. And nobody could dispute it. (For that matter, all he had to say was “I’ve hunted - and I support the 2nd Amendment. And nobody could question that.)

But like all (dumb) politicians, he just had to stretch it past credulity. John Kerry couldn’t just be a Vietnam veteran with an honorable discharge. He had to have a Christmas in Cambodia seared into his memory.

Same exact thing.

And then the Kool-Aid Krowd has gone temporarily insane trying to defend the indefensible. As usual, at this point the spin is doing far, far more damage than the original screw-up.

Personally, I’m beginning to suspect Mitt’s “supporters” may actually be Ronulans or Huckites trying to keep this scandal in the news as long as possible.

How about them? I’d like to see them and we probably will.

Here’s my prediction:

We will hear claims that it really isn’t Mitt, the photos aren’t clear enough to prove it was Mitt, the photos were doctored, or maybe some will even borrow a word from the Boston Phoenix and call them “irrelevant”.

Buy Danish on December 23, 2007 at 1:51 PM

Dude. Seriously. Do you just not get it, or what?

Mitt has personally already stated that he didn’t “march” “with” MLK, or actually “see” his father do it. So what the heck are you going about? Every word of your last post is irrelevant.

You’re killing poor Mitt. This should have been dropped days ago.

Color me suspicious. You’re a Fred-head, aren’t you? A Huckite?

I’m now officially an MLK/Romney Truther. I say the goofy spin is an anti-Mitt conspiracy by phony supporters.

Nothing else makes sense. Next you’ll be telling me heat melts steel.

Professor Blather on December 23, 2007 at 1:59 PM

Professor Blather on December 23, 2007 at 1:59 PM

I am not saying that Mitt “marched” with MLK! I am saying that he could have literally and figuratively “seen” his father at rallies, seen him go off to march in King sponsored events, and so forth. Who knows, he may have been at the June 23 speech, since his father was the keynote speaker there.

It certainly is not correct that Mitt was not in the United States at the time and could not have “seen” any of these historic events unfold before his eyes which many have argued.

By the way, you began this whole brouhaha by telling me that not a single person cared about what Mitt said 28 years ago, but now you are holding him to that. Ironically, I began by saying that what he said 28 years ago was the one thing that bothered me.

Buy Danish on December 23, 2007 at 2:13 PM

Buy Danish, here’s the only thing that bothers me about this otherwise extremely accomplished and competent man/executive, his Clintonian slickness. That said, if he’s the nominee, I’ll vote for him.

It is incomprehensible how someone this smart, this double-Harvard-degreed (concurrently), as you stated elsewhere, can bodge this so. The issues are relevant and not so, the methods are very telling, and were absolutely unnecessary, as we discussed vehemently a week ago. The fact that we’re still haggling over this ‘nothingness’ means that it is telling about the candidate.

The rest is all minutiae.

Entelechy on December 23, 2007 at 2:22 PM

“Imagine if Huck had said/done with this guy did. How would you react?”

With a yawn, just like I did with the floating cross controversy.
There seems to be a wheat:chaff imbalance in the focus on “controversies” lately.

MayBee on December 23, 2007 at 2:32 PM

Wow. If Buy Danish had spent this much effort in MA, the “Big Dig” would be completed by now.

Hollowpoint on December 23, 2007 at 2:52 PM

Was it all a dream?
EXCLUSIVE: Mitt Romney claims that his father marched with MLK, but the record says otherwise

Does it? Or is there legitimate confusion about this matter, not least of which are numerous books which say they did march together.

That is also from the Boston Phoenix.

And look at what they say here:

In June 1963, King marched in Detroit, and delivered an early version of his “I Have a Dream” speech; Governor George Romney did not participate, according to news accounts of the time.

I guess it depends on what the meaning of the word “participate” is.

/sarc.

Later folks. I’ll be under the window catching the baby you throw out with the bathwater.

Buy Danish on December 23, 2007 at 3:04 PM

Listen, I understand that a lot of you guys have your favorites among the candidates. You’re fully entitled to have them. But can we stop spinning so shamelessly for our guys, please?

Allahpundit on December 23, 2007 at 12:29 PM

I’m just going to cut and paste AP’s comment from now on. I’ll owe him a nickel in royalties each time. Nothing else really needs to be said.

Professor Blather on December 23, 2007 at 3:07 PM

Were not voting for George Romney. If Mitt got it wrong, who gives crap. If he got it right, it was his fathers accomplishment not his. That I don’t like. My dad did this, my dad did that, I have a sailboat, well, my dad does. It’s the LDS racist stink that he just can’t ditch. He’s trying. It’s a big problem.

ronsfi on December 23, 2007 at 3:10 PM

If you don’t believe Mitt, you’re a bigot.

The Race Card on December 23, 2007 at 3:04 PM

…and you don’t know the meaning of so many words. Get with it!

Entelechy on December 23, 2007 at 3:17 PM

Don’t hate the hater, hate the hate.

ronsfi on December 23, 2007 at 3:12 PM

Or as we say in the vernacular,
Don’t hate the playa, hate the game.

The Race Card on December 23, 2007 at 3:20 PM

Spinning your own spin. That’s delicious.

The Race Card on December 23, 2007 at 3:09 PM

Indeed. It’s painful to watch. Conservatives are supposed to have principles. Spinning lies is definitely not one of those principles.

But what do you know? You’re obviously a bigot.

My dad did this, my dad did that, I have a sailboat, well, my dad does. It’s the LDS racist stink that he just can’t ditch. He’s trying. It’s a big problem.

ronsfi on December 23, 2007 at 3:10 PM

The saddest irony of it all is that he spewed this three-decades long lie to try to boost his civil rights reputation … but I don’t think most (fair) people doubted that reputation. I grew up in Michigan - his family and their civil rights commitment were well known.

There was no need for the lie. None at all. The only people who held the Mormon church’s race record against Mitt were never going to vote for him anyway.

It was a wasted lie. Just like that hunting stupidity. Which forces me to question his character. Telling unnecessary, habitual lies - especially stupid ones - is pretty damning as far as character and judgment go.

Even Bill Clinton at least told his lies for a pretty good reason. This was just stupid.

Almost as stupid as the painful spin afterward.

Professor Blather on December 23, 2007 at 3:23 PM

I am actually very surprised that George W. Rommney is not more revered by blacks at-large. Growing up, it was easy to get a sense of which politicians had clout with Blacks and which didn’t. I think George W. Rommney deserves more historical shout-outs than he gets.

Many politicians were sympathetic to issues brought to light by the civil-rights movement. But few made the visual nexus between their ideals for America and their actual support for the movement. Those who put themselves on the front lines, if you will, did so at great risk. Just like candidates must acknowledge evangelicals today, they had to acknowledge racists and racialists then.

I learned a little about George W. Rommney upon a visit last year to the National Civil Rights Museum in Memphis. However, I was unaware of just how forward-thinking and acting he was.

It’s interesting how history ascribes its relevance reflexively. What makes for one of “those” moments? Well, more often than not it’s the imagery — photos and footage.

Had there been a noteworthy still image of MLK and George W. Rommney together, Rommney would have taken the same vaunted status as Kennedys. Maybe I just missed that pic and and subsequent opportunity to research it. I think that had King lived longer, their relationship would have been more celebrated.

Oddly enough, Mitt’s lie and his spin may actually bring more historical scrutiny and praise to his father’s legacy. I think if something good is to come of this, perhaps students across the country and world will become inspired to learn more about great Americans and civil-rights era history.

***
Shout outs to Prof. Blather, Buy Danish and the rest who kept this thread addictive. My keyboard has trackmarks.

The Race Card on December 23, 2007 at 3:57 PM

Dearest Rightwingsparkle, you’re singlehandedly holding the fort.

Entelechy on December 23, 2007 at 5:36 PM

Is the problem with this issue that Mitt might be lying about other stuff that we haven’t found out about or is this a result of certain persons candidates being completely inviable and they see this as their chance to pile on?

It’s clear it’s both. This is a huge gaff by Mitt. Not his handlers, but by Mitt himself. Should it be a concern? Well, that’s up to each of us to decide, but I expect a higher level of responsibility from those seeking office.

Having said that, and being an expert in human behavior, I know exactly where this comes from. The original claim isn’t the problem. Neither is his spin of the meaning of the words “saw” and “march”. The problem is the REASON he is spinning his original words. This speaks to his personality traits. And the trait that made him do this is not a trait that will lead to any serious harm to people or this country. He will learn from this and wont make the mistake again. The reason he will learn is that this has become a huge issue and the consequences of his personality trait are very evident to others and it is in his face. Mitt will fix this about himself whether he wins the nomination or not.

You want to see the result of people who are faced with the consequences of their personalities and didn’t learn from them, I have two names for you….

Gore and Kerry. Mitt will NEVER be like those two guys. I know it will be a mistake to reject Mitt for this because unlike those two, his humility will allow him to make himself a better person and public servant.

What you are seeing is the same stuff that happens to regular folks on a daily basis….except that it is on a national stage and there are many who want to pile on just because they enjoy it.

csdeven on December 23, 2007 at 5:50 PM

SECOND LOOK AT THE HAIR!

Allahpundit on December 23, 2007 at 1:06 PM

I think we can all get behind that. The hair is a uniter, not a divider.

ReubenJCogburn on December 23, 2007 at 5:53 PM

I think we can all get behind that. The hair is a uniter, not a divider.

ReubenJCogburn on December 23, 2007 at 5:53 PM

I disagree- his hair is part black and part grey. His hair is indecisive in picking a color, so it takes both sides of the hair color issue!

Hollowpoint on December 23, 2007 at 6:08 PM

and being an expert in human behavior

csdeven on December 23, 2007 at 5:50 PM

Oh. My. God. Since when does being a sociopath make you an expert in human behavior?

wccawa on December 23, 2007 at 7:03 PM

The “trait that made him do that” is the one trait we cannot afford in a President.

Professor Blather on December 23, 2007 at 6:11 PM

Really? Since I never told you what that trait is, would you like to take a guess at what it is? I’ll tell you right now that your inclination will be to project your experiences on Mitt. You’ll be right for you, but totally wrong for Mitt.

csdeven on December 23, 2007 at 7:34 PM

Since I never told you what that trait is, would you like to take a guess at what it is?

Been waiting since 5:50, and curious.

JiangxiDad on December 23, 2007 at 7:50 PM