Good news: The Romney-MLK march saga continues
posted at 11:43 am on December 23, 2007 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Did Mitt’s camp foist two “eyewitnesses” on Politico knowing (or suspecting) that they didn’t really see what they think they saw? Or is the Phoenix mistaken about the date question? Reporter David Bernstein tracked the two men’s movements on June 29, 1963; Tom Maguire thinks the likelier date of them marching together was June 23.
Only one thing is certain at this point, my friends: McCainmentum!
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]
“You lose” “douche bag?”
or “You” “Lose douche bag?”
I have a silly human rule that I’m about to violate.
wccawa on December 23, 2007 at 7:58 PM
Lets wait for blather to blather about it first. I doubt he will because he’d rather sit behind his computer and ignore the facts.
csdeven on December 23, 2007 at 8:00 PM
Pew, did somebody step in something? Everybody check your shoes…
Never mind, I found it.
FloatingRock on December 23, 2007 at 8:11 PM
Will take a stab at it maybe having to do with some notion of filial duty.
JiangxiDad on December 23, 2007 at 8:15 PM
When the personal insults started flying I didn’t even have to look to see that csd was back.
Buzzy on December 23, 2007 at 8:15 PM
PLEASE show some respect. csdeven is an expert in human relations.
Note to self: Do not type the above sentence again. You tend to laugh so hard you pee.
wccawa on December 23, 2007 at 8:18 PM
You rang? ;)
All right, everyone’s favorite little troll - there’s what you wrote. Spin away, my friend. With all due respect, it sounds painfully stupid as you wrote it - so some good spinning ought to help.
Since you’re (cough) “an expert in human behavior,” I can barely wait for you to enlighten us as to what mysterious trait motivates Mitt to repeatedly, for decades, repeat easily checkable lies.
I assumed the trait was that he was - you know - dishonest. Lacking integrity. Or maybe pathological. Or just a really inept panderer.
But perhaps you have a better explanation? You’re the “expert,” after all, right?
I’ll leave it to the others to mock you further - both since its awfully easy and because they’re doing an awfully good job of it. (Yes, you, WcCawa. You me half a beer. Too funny).
But I do think a couple obvious things ought to be asked:
First - how old are you, son? I’m asking sincerely. If you wonder why, read your posts above. Unless you’re literally thirteen years old, I’d suggest you can do a little better. And if you really are that young - well, no Wii for you this year. You’ve been naughty.
Second - you do realize, I assume, that after spending a solid six months amusing everyone with your knee-jerk attacks on Fred! every five minutes … its awfully amusing to see how you handle some mild criticism leveled at your candidate. Are you aware of how funny it is? Karma coming home to roost, I guess.
Now enlighten us with that expertise of yours, if you please.
This promises to be entertaining.
Professor Blather on December 23, 2007 at 8:32 PM
Yeah, ain’t it interesting? When faced with my superior intellect, the oddballs start the personal attacks on their fellow HA members.
Fortunately I am in control of myself and what I type and am able to easily ignore, or respond to their childish school yard insults.
csdeven on December 23, 2007 at 8:45 PM
Like I said, your first inclination was to project your traits on him.
csdeven on December 23, 2007 at 8:46 PM
Oh, stop. Now you’re just trying to make us die laughing. And frankly, it hurts a little. I’m pretty sure I just cracked a rib.
Now where’s that expert insight into Mitt’s deep-seated character traits? You promised to use that superior intellect to dazzle us, remember?
Quit being a tease. Lay it on us.
Professor Blather on December 23, 2007 at 8:54 PM
My God. It’s full of stars!
wccawa on December 23, 2007 at 9:20 PM
Well played. You’re in rare form tonight.
As for our special friend here … color me deeply disappointed.
I never got the punchline. What a tease. I’ve been sitting here waiting for the good stuff.
There better be some brilliance here tomorrow. I was promised entertainment.
My God. It’s full of stars!
That’s deliciously funny. Guess that’ll have to do.
Of course, you’re no expert or anything.
Professor Blather on December 23, 2007 at 9:26 PM
No, I am fascist. And a Fredhead. Or both, rather.
About that beer…. ummm, well… I’m a LITTLE SHORT.
(Please drive your 1974 Ford station wagon through that opening)
wccawa on December 23, 2007 at 9:34 PM
If our friend got himself banned again before he got to share his brilliance with us, I may just cry.
What a let down. It’s Christmas morning 1992 all over again, and that wasn’t a Nintendo under the tree - it’s a typewriter and a sweater.
What a gyp.
Well, maybe he’s working on dazzling us right now. Nobody claimed superior intellects worked quickly.
Great blog you’ve got, by the way - as I waited here with bated breath to discover the answer to the Great Mystery of Mitt, I followed your link. Good stuff!
I’m checking back in the morning. With fingers crossed. This year, it’s a Nintendo! I’m sure of it.
Professor Blather on December 23, 2007 at 9:39 PM
Blather (I think, somewhere up thread)
Got that right.
Ex-tex on December 23, 2007 at 10:02 PM
Great blog? Please.
It’s less than a hobby to me. I appreciate the complement, I really do, but really… my original tagline was “perched high atop an accretionary terrane over the Cascadia Trench,” but my readership rebelled. (all three of them)
Subduction trenches are NOT in vogue these days. I learned that the hard way.
I await the Mystery, just as you do.
I might add, I am an expert in suppository storage techniques. Does that give me an edge here?
wccawa on December 23, 2007 at 10:02 PM
You’re killin’ me here.
You’re not as funny or as brilliant - obviously - as our special expert friend up there, but you gave me some good chuckles. With that last one, I’m headed out for the night. Thanks for the grins.
Professor Blather on December 23, 2007 at 10:07 PM
Merry Christmas, and to all (even csdeven) a good night.
I am full of love for my fellow man (and woman) tonight.
Life is good here at HA.
wccawa on December 23, 2007 at 10:15 PM
I don’t think its a personality trait. He’s just emulating his prophet ;-)
tommylotto on December 23, 2007 at 10:45 PM
I, too, am disappointed that CSDeven has not yet followed through on his promise. No doubt CSD has frantically rifled through his thesaurus and been unable to find an acceptable alternative to the term, “pathological liar”, and has since moved on to other sources, such as his favorite rhyming dictionary with all of the swear words tabbed and highlighted.
FloatingRock on December 24, 2007 at 12:04 AM
Bwahahaha!!!
Sorry to keep you morons in the round room looking for a corner to piss in, but I had a previous engagement playing Phase 10. 4 hour game. Must be a record.
Ask my previous favorite 8itch what tune you dopes are dancing to. hahaha!!!
Dorian, are you jealous that you have been replaced? :-)
Well, you’re close. It certainly has something to do with the culture in his church.
csdeven on December 24, 2007 at 1:13 AM
This is the most bizarre story in a very strange political season.
See/saw, who has seen him when he saw them. Together in spirit or together. A march for black pride, or a march through Grosse Pointe, the pride of upper middle class.
When I sided with Mitt, I was attacked by his supporters, they suddenly got turned around and ran the wrong way. They got so confused what to support they started attacking him. And when every thing was settling down, the resident hater of everything Fred shows up, and starts his angry attack, inserting this forgettable phrase:
he turned comedian.
And actually backing away from Mitt…
Yes this is a different political season…a good season…an “open” season. Where everything can be discussed openly. thanks to Hot Air.
And thanks to Hot Air, we even get to hear from the cranks, kooks, and of course the haters and lovers.
The foibles of the candidates are exposed, maybe first here, and I feel many more people of influence reads this post then we my know.
Why? Because every argument, every weakness is exposed, and every defense of those weaknesses are explored. A sounding board of conservative thought, sometimes scattered, sometimes shrill, sometimes ridiculous, but always pertinent.
*
Thanks for a great Christmas present (even Allah he celebrates it…imagine celebrating something that doesn’t exist)…Hot Air, a Christmas package I open every day.
right2bright on December 24, 2007 at 8:51 AM
Speaking of “Clintonian” -
Claiming he “marched” with King - when it was an instantly disprovable fiction?
Professor Blather on December 21, 2007 at 12:51 PM
Nobody - not one person - is concerned about the original 1978 lie.
Professor Blather on December 21, 2007 at 2:29 PM
I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky. I never told anybody to lie, not a single time; never.
Bill Clinton, January 26, 1998
Should I mention that in addition to Blather not getting it right about his own comments and opinions expressed by other commenters, the topic of that thread, as posted by Allahpundit, was what Mitt said in 1978?
I should trust Blather to get this Romney thing right because…….?
Buy Danish on December 24, 2007 at 9:19 AM
Blather didn’t give himself that name, it was assigned to him by others. You are wise to ignore his assessments.
csdeven on December 24, 2007 at 11:11 AM
I think his point was that much of the (your) spinning was focused on justifying Mitt’s more recent “saw” lie whereas little attention was given to the unexplainable lie about Mitt actually marching with MLK. However, a lie in 78 is not that big of a deal when compared to one made actually during the campaign. That is why the defense is focused on “sawgate” not “marchgate”.
tommylotto on December 24, 2007 at 11:34 AM
Memo: To Romney Campaign
From: Buy Danish
In light of recent attempts to paint you as a liar and to call those who defend you ‘liars’ and ‘whores’, I suggest it is wise to avoid sentences such as this:
I saw my father stand up to Barry Goldwater.
Did you really see it or are you lying? Weren’t you in France at the time?
I saw my father stand in solidarity with Dr. King
How do you stand in solidarity? Besides, if you allude to a word used by Lech Walesa, some will call you a union activist and that will not sit well with conservatives.
I saw my father rise to prominence.
Did you literally see him rise? Like yeast? Like Helium? Don’t say that!
I saw my father roll up his sleeves and join those who worked for civil rights.
Did you really see him roll up his sleeves? Again, if you don’t have photos to prove that you saw this, don’t say it. Photos of your father with his sleeves rolled up and joining a civil rights march don’t count. You must have proof that you saw him roll up his sleeves.
To be safe, you are advised not to use the word “saw” at all, unless referring to a tool that cuts through wood and metal.
Buy Danish on December 24, 2007 at 11:43 AM
Are you talking to me? If so you are completely mis- characterizing what I said.
The very first comment that I made on the thread about the 1978 lie was here in response to a comment from Zetterson, and I remained consistent throughout.
Zetterson said:
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
forces 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
I responded:
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 went on to say this at a little later:
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
I went on to say this:
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”.
Buy Danish on December 21, 2007 at 1:42 PM
I remained consistent throughout. One thing that has changed since then is that we now have multiple sources, not just Broder and Hess, who say that George Romney and MlK marched together. Literally.
Mitt believing that to be true does not make him a liar and I am not a ‘whore*’ or a ‘liar’ to express that opinion.
Finally, this is part of Professor Blather’s convoluted logic:
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
*I don’t know for a fact that Blather used the ‘whore’ word, but Entelechy indicated that he (she?) did as part of a thread which spoke of Blather’s “eloquence” (cough cough). Does that make Entelechy a ‘liar’? Am I a liar to repeat what Entelechy said Blather said?
Buy Danish on December 24, 2007 at 12:03 PM
The difference is no one would care because there are substantive things to blast Huck on. We are holding different candidates to different standards and yielding to the idiotic MSM narrative. This is one of the worst scandals afflicting Romney? It is not “spin” to point out double standards
Resolute on December 24, 2007 at 2:20 PM
Seriously?
On Christmas Eve … this is how you saw fit to spend your time?
No - you should trust your own eyes and common sense and basic intellect, minus the ridiculous self-deluded brainwashing. There was never anything to argue about. The meaning was clear.
Now please. For your own sake, stop, son. It’s no longer particularly amusing, and I think everyone watching is now feeling sorry for you. It’s pitiable.
Romney said what he said. His words were clear for 30 years. It’s over. The spinning embarrassed you and didn’t help Romney, or any Republican.
At least maintain your own integrity. Nothing remains to be said beyond Allah’s post.
For now, for God’s sake, go enjoy your Christmas.
Indeed. I fired up an unfamiliar laptop just to hear the punchline of the joke … and now I discover its never coming.
But thanks to you and WcCawa and Right2Bright for a thread full of smiles and guffaws. The latter left the most quotable comment in the thread:
Exactly right. Merry Christmas to all and a Happy 2008.
Now go enjoy it.
Professor Blather on December 24, 2007 at 3:00 PM
I gave Mitt a pass when I first heard this, but since he has began spinning (along with his little minions), he made a mistake and he won’t admit it…I think that is a hallmark of his and his supporters campaign. It isn’t the mistake, it is the cover-up, the spin, the desperate sound of a campaign beginning to fall apart.
Mitt is un-electable, and this small problem, that he made into a big mistake, is one of the reasons.
He hasn’t matured as a man, as a candidate, or as a leader. He should take some of his consulting advice…cut the losses and drop out, and let the real men run for the president (but PB, you are right, he has great hair, “he has that going for him”)
right2bright on December 25, 2007 at 9:25 AM
Depends on the meaning of the word Christian
George Washington was a Christian, serving as a vestryman in an Episcopal church while maintaining pews in other churches, who had deserters executed in a volunteer army.
Ronald Reagan was also a believing Christian who ordered bombing raids against Libya without declaration of war. He also fired the air traffic controllers for their illegal strike
My favorite presidents. Not perfect but faithful
entagor on December 25, 2007 at 1:21 PM
Gosh, I hope that r2b and entagor don’t receive a sanctimonious lecture from Blather who has a Hucksteresque rule that thou shalt not comment on a blog at 9 am on December 24th.
Apparently Blather is confused by the words “morn” and “eve”. This is just one more reason why I won’t defer to his understanding of the English language.
Entagor,
Well said. Here’s something I came across recently in the NY Times of all places, entitled “The Prince of Peace was a Warrior too”. I don’t know about Huckabee, but I’m pretty sure Mitt gets that.
I’m not really sure what William Amos is talking about with Mitt’s pardons since he didn’t give any, and in at least one instance involving a BB gun he probably should have.
Buy Danish on December 25, 2007 at 4:53 PM
This should have been a non issue from the start.
Shame on those playing character assasination with it.
MarkB on December 26, 2007 at 2:58 PM
Comment pages: « 1 [2]