Mitt Romney's potential problem
It is George Romney and Martin Luther King
By Mark Kilmer Posted in 2008 | Martin Luther King | Mitt Romney | saw — Comments (62) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
I bring this up only because it concerns me as a Republican.
Republican Presidential hopeful Mitt Romney "saw" his father George march with the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr., despite the fact that his father never marched with Dr. King. [Dan hs more information here.]
Check out the vid, then Read More below the fold:
(Read More…)
What "is" is? From the Boston Globe:
Romney said his father had told him he had marched with King and that he had been using the word "saw" in a "figurative sense."
"If you look at the literature, if you look at the dictionary, the term 'saw' includes being aware of in the sense I've described," Romney told reporters in Iowa. "It's a figure of speech and very familiar, and it's very common. And I saw my dad march with Martin Luther King. I did not see it with my own eyes, but I saw him in the sense of being aware of his participation in that great effort."
His father did not march with Dr. King. Is Romney calling his father a liar?
Probably not, at least not in the figurative sense, but there's more:
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."
That is also a fabrication, but I can spin this one.
You see, Michigan Governor George Romney issued, in June of 1963, a proclamation of support of MLK and his movement. Later that year, Governor George Romney participated in a civil rights march in Detroit. Dr. King wasn't there, but perhaps a younger Mitt was.
This is a reality, and it is something with which we'll have to deal, as Republican activists, if Mitt Romney becomes the Republican nominee. He needs to learn how to control his claims and assertions.
Here in the semi-friendly GOP confines, this incident could be easily understood by Romney's supporters, but it only strengthens the positions of those who do not have confidence in the veracity of certain of Mr. Romney's statements.
In the General Election, it is the end.
We need some reassurances from Mitt Romney himself.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | McCain Surge Spreads Outside NH? — Comments (22) »
Mitt Romney's potential problem 62 Comments (0 topical, 62 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Man, it sounded bad on the radio - it was far, far worse on video.
Only saving grace? 4-days 'till Christmas.
You have to do better than this, Mitt. Seriously.
Please.
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
This topic has been discussed in depth and the conclusion is that the elder Romney was indeed with MLK. He probably marched with him, just not on the famous marches on the notable days.
What is absolutely true is that for sure, that MLK didn't have a lot of high ranking dems there. No elder Gore, no Byrd, and so on.
It is a fact that the elder Romney was big on equal rights, the rest of this controversy is just defining what the words are really meaning. When someone says they see eye to eye it is purely figurative.
So, jump on Romney for his imprecision, and if we all pick apart Huck, Rudy, McCain, Fred and the rest we will surely had a victory to the other side who really are the liars.
This is today's news, and I don't care what conclusion or spin was drawn by Romney supporters. I'm thinking more of what Democrats will do with this and what the conclusion of the voting public would be.
This could be big trouble.
with this, especially if their candidate is the woman who claimed to have been named after Sir Edmund Hillary several years before he climbed Mt. Everest.
The "Third Worst Person in the World" and aiming higher.
"This topic has been discussed in depth and the conclusion is that the elder Romney was indeed with MLK. He probably marched with him, just not on the famous marches on the notable days."
Where is there any evidence that George Romney marched with MLK? The only "conclusion" that it occurred is from Rombots without any basis whatsoever. Even the Romney campaign doesn't say George Romney marched with MLK.
Because I have the same question. Every news report that I have read seems to indicate that there is little if any evidence of his Dad ever marching with MLK.
It is monarchical and aristocratical government only that requires ignorance for its support.
- Thomas Paine, Rights of Man, 1792
Hillary Clinton claiming to be named after the famous mountain climber, Sir Edmund Hillary, back in 1995, despite the fact that she was born 6 years before he scaled Everest. Done purely for political expediency. She's still cooking on the campaign trail, despite this faux pas. I suspect Romney will be unscathed, too.
The strongest line of attack against Mitt is that he's a "flip-flopper". But Hillary isn't credible calling anyone a flip-flopper, so that will just backfire. Mitt and maybe Fred can easily take her down.
Maybe Romney/Thompson '08?
Or Thompson/Romney '08?
With the ILGWU song, look for the union label. Oddly enough the song hadn't been written yet.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Not a fabrication. I thought maybe so at first, but the data leads me to the opposite conclusion.
Yes, Mitt needs to show some moxie, needs to show that he can deal effectively with this kind of crap, because justified or not, this is the meme that prejudices the popular view of him. It's baptism by fire.
But Mitt simply cannot afford too many unforced errors. And this, though he's right on the issue, was clearly an own-goal type of statement. It's the sort of thing that shows-up in opposition campaign commercials in mid-late October.
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
The context of this is that he is very frankly and sincerely answering the gotcha-man Russert's question about how he can possibly love his racist church and not himself be a racist. He is not being scripted in his answer because being scripted isn't the answer. Right? We don't want him to go back to that.
It seems to me he has to turn the tables on this kind of stuff, make the fabricator meme back-fire on those that try to apply it; make the meme: oh yea, old news, just crying wolf again. He has got to do something, because I don't see how anyone could ever be so precise in their words as to never say an ambiguous thing that can be turned into these imputations without having a committee parse every word.
Romney claimed that he watched his father march with Martin Luther King, Jr. Then, when it was discovered that this was untrue, he played with the dictionary. To add substance to this conclusion, Romney once claimed that both he and his father had marched with Martin Luther King.
What Romney has to do is not to find "moxie"; he has to stop saying this stuff. The Democrats would swallow him alive next fall. That is my concern.
I admit that I haven't looked into what he said in 1978. If we have that ancient article then I would like to read it, especially for facts but also for contextualizing his words.
We both watched MTP. We both know from the context that the intent was not "watched." And the explanation he provides is consistent with that. IMO, he is wise not to insist on anything in an off the cuff answer based on memories from the 70s, which if he is anything like me, are probably blurred.
What you have showed me here does not indicate that he is making up this stuff. I'll be glad to tackle it in more detail, and I don't insist that I am right and you are wrong, but it presently does seem that way.
You, a Romney supporter, will seek and find the context and nuance which you want. You will give him the benefit of the doubt as to his intent.
The Democrats would not do this is if he is the nominee. Do you think the average voter, already regaled with word of "Romney of the Many Positions" will come to a conclusion about what he really meant, or will they look at what he said?
I was not saying that this could be a problem for Romney in the primaries; rather, I'm thinking ahead to the General Election and the hypothetical of Romney receiving the GOP nod. Sure, I can spin for him, but is that what we need, a party of people spinning for the nominee?
Romney has to stop saying these things.
I was ready to toss Romney overboard last night when I first heard this stuff. Then I looked for the facts.
Thanks to you, I have now read the BG article and honestly, Mitt's explanation makes sense to me, "family lore" and all. No doubt they all heard things from each other and find it difficult to sort out their memories.
The BG article leaves out a fact that his campaign has pointed out. That George was a key note speaker at one or more (I could not decipher) kick off events that King used to organize these marches. Whether he marched incognito on Sunday -- when King was present -- as some in the family seem to remember "father" telling them or only on Wednesday -- when King was not present -- does not make much substantial difference in my own mind. Perhaps it does to others.
For Romney to claim in 78 that he marched with King when he did not do so literally does seem ill-advised, especially from today's vantage point, where it can be used to say he is presently contradicting himself. OTOH, that was 30 years ago, a young man and not even a politician yet.
I'm not a political op and I'm not looking to spin this.
BUT i do agree with you that Dems are looking to spin and the average joe comprehends by meme. Romney needs to show that he can deal with this or he will be a failed politician.
I don't agree that he can succeed by stopping "saying this stuff." He certainly needs to not fabricate, but he can't stop fabricating if he isn't. No matter what he says, someone is going to find a way to push that meme onto his words. So I say he needs to show that he can deal effectively with it.
We can agree that neither of us will support a "fabricator." We can agree that it is up to Romney to convince people that he isn't. That's the top and bottom line no matter what we put in between.
It is amazing that those who would make hay of this start off by admitting that there is little to really criticize. The idea that we should worry about what the opposition thinks is amazing.
So the question is. Will the moderate or less informed voter fall for baseless attacks? This attack is about as lame as the one on Fred the other day claiming he really wasn’t trying because he wouldn’t put on a firefighter’s hat.
The problem with this attack is Mitt is using vocabulary that people use figuratively every day.
Like I saw my Father drink himself to death. (even though you may have only “seen” him come home from the bars)
Or maybe
I saw my dad work hard every day for my family. (Even though you only ever saw him leave home at 7:30 and come home tired at 5:30)
English is not that hard to understand and I think Mitt’s personal narratives are more powerful with the public then some abstract general answer.
“It is not the possession of truth, but the success which attends the seeking after it, that enriches the seeker and brings happiness to him.”"-Max Planck
This is a pretty minor story. It's even largely defensible on 'use of the English language' grounds. I think all candidates need to be careful with embellishments (ex. Rudy with some 9-11 stories), but it really isn't that big a deal. All this usually does if give fuel to those who already oppose a candidate to hate them even more. As I've said before Mitt is the only candidate who can win over all three types of conservative...social, fiscal, AND defense.
What's utterly absurd is that Romney's father was involved in all of this. It should absolutely be seen as a good mark on his upbringing and on his childhood. Instead, he misteps a bit, and the jackals are willing to pounce on him more than any other for mistatements like this.
Romney needs to learn to 1) not make statements like these and 2) stand his ground when he gets attacked like this. Don't go playing with the dictionary. Just say, "I saw my father marching in civil rights marches with my own two eyes." Leave it at that.
So the guy who participated in all of these marches while other dads no doubt did nothing.... But that's the way it goes with politics...
"Don't ever be afraid to see what you see." ~Ronald Reagan
I have taken heat for simply NOT TRUSTING Romney on abortion, gay rights, gun control, and just about every other issue. I trust him to not raise taxes, just about as much as I trusted GHWB.
Maybe I have worked too closely with less-than-honest, do anything, say anything CEO's as they fudge numbers and shill for their stock -- perhaps that has clouded my judgment about Romney -- but I simply do not trust him.
So, no amount of "reassurances from Mitt Romney" will put him anywhere but the bottom of my list, just above Rudy.
...only a lefty populist would attack CEOs as "being a shill for their stock". Perhaps you should consider voting for John Edwards - he'll be sure to go after those nasty fat cat CEOs for you and "take back America" from the rich, corrupt corporate interests.
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
Like I said, it is only from experience. I do think CEO's are overpaid, but that is not a government issue. Nor would it ever be the proper function of government to set wages -- including minimum wages.
Interestingly, Romney campaigned for Governor by advocating automatic increases in the minimum wage.
Romney could save your poodle from a burning building and you wouldn't trust Mitt to walk it afterward.
Oh, and John Edwards called - says he wants his talking points back.
For the rest of us, we should start a pool for which Huck-a-pologist will show-up first in a Mitt-centric thread. By my count, CB is up on Anteater about 3-2 today. Place your bets!
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
doc
That's just too easy a bet.
Any negative comment about Pastor HuckaFraud attracts HuckBots like dragging dollar bills through a trailer park does....too easy to bet on.
______________________________________
Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !
He's paying tribute to his father, who signed onto the civil rights movement by 1963 (before many Democrats, I might add) and supported it in a very visible way.
As to who was where when who marched where- that's a tempest in a teapot.
Move on.
(but not org :>)
but what would it be to the Democrats next fall should Romney be the GOP nominee? Would it be a big deal to voters in the General Election who then will be very well-informed about Romney's history of position-shifts. (The Republicans did it to Kerry in '04, and the Dems would fire back double in '08.)
I'm neither challenging nor asking anyone to defend, to explain, or to spin Mitt Romney. I want to be reassured, should he be my party's nominee, that this will not happen in the fall.
"depends on what your definition of "is" is."
+
"I will never run for office again unless I know I will win it"
=
Someone who will do or say ANYTHING to win.
And I don't want a candidate like that.
Fred '08
"saw" black churches burning in Arkansas when he was growing up. This turned out to be impossible, ie, a lie.
There was no need for Romney to gild the lily by saying he saw his father march with King, it would have been enough for him to accurately portray what the senior Romney had said and done in the civil rights movement, where his 9george Romney's) role was quite admirable. But Mitt Romney wanted it to be more dramatic, more definitive than it actually was. Understandable, but doesn't excuse fabricating something.
This reply gets it. I'm amazed by the Romney apologists who cannot accept the fact that their guy made a story up for effect and then when he got called on it, did the worst hemming and hawing and parsing since Clinton's famous "is is." If this were the first and only time Romney had done something like this, then it would pass. As it is, it reinforces the meme on Romney that he's untrustworthy. The guy makes a bad candidate.
Talk about way overstating things. If this is the end, then we are finished no matter what we do. Every candidate out there has way bigger skeletons than this in their closet (including Romney, I'm sure).
This would be just about the lamest October surprise I could possibly imagine. If the Democrats are going to have to rely on attacking a memory of his father from *almost 50 years ago* to outrage people and get them to switch their vote, then they've lost. This is almost as lame as the Obama essay from kindergarten.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
We're talking about parsing someone's words 30 YEARS ago, please. If this is the "damning evidence" that is going to sink Romney next fall, I feel even better about him as our nominee.
Personally, I believe Huck's history of pardons and ethical questions will be far more damaging in a general election.
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
Romney is an honest man. This is a non-story.
* PRIESTCRAFT is thus defined: “The stratagem and frauds of priests; fraud or imposition in religious concerns. Management of selfish and ambitious priests to gain wealth and power, or to impose upon the credulity of others.”
Again, I'll happily vote for Romney if he's the nominee.
But Romney repeatedly puts himself in these situations. He simply could have said that he admired his father for standing for civil rights and for marching in Detroit. But instead he exaggerates and then gives that oily explanation that is Clintonian.
But this is a piece with the surge "apparently" working or his deer in the headlights performance during the CNN debate when he wouldn't respond to the question about his earlier support for getting past "Don't ask, don't tell".
He's slick without any charm and that works against him.
Political_dave - I think I would rather support someone who will do or say anything than someone who really won't do or say much of anything.
The high water mark for Fred has been his back and forth with Michael Moore. What was that, 5 years ago?
I haven't decided which candidate to support but I must say that these comments from Romney don't really bother me.
Not only did Romney walk with MLK Jr he was there when the Japanese surrendered, freed Jewish prisoners from Auschwitz, and helped defeat the British at Trenton. Well, if he wasn't there his dad and relatives were there. Oh wait, he meant to say "he saw" them there.
Well I guess it is time again for him to make a speech on how Republicans are attacking him because he is a Mormon. Come on people Mitt "Flip Flopper" Romney will say and do anything to get elected. He can't be trusted.
Just watch him telling more lies back in 1994. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9IJUkYUbvI Romney gets me so angry.
It is time for Republicans to give John McCain a second chance. McCain is the only one that can beat Hillary in the general election
IMWITHMCCAIN
The codger started running for President since before he qualified for AARP.
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
McCain-Feingold, illegal immigration, questionable mental stability, and on and on and on. McCain is a joke. No real conservative ought to be supporting him.
If the best attack against Romney is a left-inspired non-story about a figurative use of the word "saw" which has zero bearing on the ultimate significance of the statement in which it was used, Romney is in great shape.
Now, if we can get Erick to post this story for a grand total of 3 times, we'll know Romney is golden.
Captain Ed has a pretty good explanation as to why. It's enough to turn fence-sitters away from Romney, which will hurt him in a close race.
I find no mention of it turning fence sitters away from Romney or hurting him in the primary or the general. In fact, he says it is overshadowed by the Tancredo endorsement... which I would agree with.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
"These American values, this great moral heritage, is shared and lived in my religion as it is in yours. I was taught in my home to honor God and love my neighbor. I saw my father march with Martin Luther King. I saw my parents provide compassionate care to others, in personal ways to people nearby, and in just as consequential ways in leading national volunteer movements."
Which parts of this were meant figuratively? The values shared and lived in his religion? His parents providing compassionate care to others? The use of the phrase "I saw" conveyed a sense of witnessing an actual event, not a figure of speech.
Romney would have been better off saying that he got that story from his father and older brother and assumed it to be true. It would still call into question his eyewitness account in the speech, but that could be written off as rhetorical flourish. The point about marching with King was meant to counter the racism in the Mormon church, and was important enough that most analysts recognized it as such immediately.
I can see Ed's point, that he might have deflected the criticism more effectively. But Ed made me ask myself this question: did I actually think Mitt meant that he stood by as a bystander as the Martin and George went marching by? No. That would actually be kind of weird; after all it was a civil rights march not a parade. Some kind of figurative interpretation is actually what I did think of when I first heard it, come to think of it.
It made me then ask myself another question. What words would I choose to concisely express in a speech of this type what George did in support of King's cause? Anybody else want to take a pithy stab at that?
This reminds me so much of John Kerry's "I voted for it before I voted against it." Come on. We all KNEW what Kerry meant; it didn't stop Rove from immediately typing into his Blackberry, "We got him," when he found out he said it. Didn't stop me from throwing a wildly successful "waffle" party fundraiser at campaign headquarters in my county for the Bush campaign. We've handed the playbook to the Democrats for flip floppers who struggle a bit with their words. And, the defensive linguistics lesson is NOT the answer! Unforced error, most definitely. I'm a Thompson supporter, but will gladly vote for any Republican candidate but Paul and Huckabee. This just makes me nervous!
a 'potential problem' based on a candidate's words first uttered in 1978 and now repeated in an interview? Words based on a "memory" from 1963? Or based on a family legend?
I'm more concerned about why he did not pardon and release Gerald Amirault, and pardon his mother (who had already died) and sister (who had been released previously). I like Romney, but he's just a bit too proud that he never commuted a single sentence as Governor.
'In 1984 a five-year-old boy told his uncle that Gerald Amirault, the son of the owner of the Fells Acres Day School in Malden, Massachusetts, had touched his private parts. He also told his mother of other incidents of abuse. Police notified parents about the situation, instructing them to question their children and watch for behaviors related to sexual abuse. Forty-one children, ages three to six, eventually told stories of being raped by a clown, of being forced to watch animals being killed, and of having their pictures taken naked. Although the children testified about a "secret" or "magic" room they visited daily, no child could show the police the location of the room, nor could the police find it. Violet Amirault and her children, Cheryl Amirault LeFave and Gerald Amirault, were convicted of sexual abuse. The mother and daughter received a sentence of eight to twenty years, and Gerald was sentenced to thirty to forty years.'
Child Abuse and the Law - Major Preschool Abuse Cases
This happened during the height of the "ritual abuse" and "recovered memory" hysteria. There was zero chance that 99% of what was claimed by police happened, and no proof of any kind that the other 1% occurred.
The "Third Worst Person in the World" and aiming higher.
What an absolutely ridiculous unforced error. If he was alluding to the term "marched" in the figurative sense, he should have expounded upon that point to be sure that people understood he was speaking figuratively. It would have been more poignant, even.
I love Mitt and think he'll be a great president, but he needs to make this right and not do anything like this ever again.
__________________________________________
First State Politics
Whose story about Rudy hiding funds to take Judith to the Hamptons has turned out to be utterly false? Do you think maybe they could be running this piece because on page 35 in today's New York Times it is reported that Politico's story about Rudy is false? And so now they are eager to point out that some other news organization is as guilty at pandering crap as they are?
Let's just say that I think Politico is going to be the Dan Rather of the 2008 election, and I am not exactly going to believe anything they print until it comes from a more reliable source.
"I believe in grace, because I have seen it. In peace, because I have felt it. In forgiveness, because I needed it."
-George W. Bush
"I believe in grace, because I have seen it. In peace, because I have felt it. In forgiveness, because I needed it."
-George W. Bush
How long are Mitt supporters going to defend this king of nonsense. This man seems to be willing to do or say anything.
"I believe in grace, because I have seen it. In peace, because I have felt it. In forgiveness, because I needed it."
-George W. Bush
The Unofficial RedState FAQ
“You are not only responsible for what you say, but also for what you do not say. ” - Martin Luther
At least Mitt's nonsense doesn't empty out my wallet OR the prisons. Can't say the same about Huck.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
And just what prisions are you implying Huck would empty as President.
We run Federal prisons. And the President has the power to pardon. So I'm not sure what your point is, unless you are denying the existence of a Federal prison system, which seems kind of bizarre.
of course fees are much easier to pay than taxes....
Yea, I'd much rather pay a $25 increase in an optional fee than a required $1500 increase in my state sales, gas, diesel, and income tax bills. I totally agree with you there.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
A book in 1967 co-written on Republicans by David Broder mentioning Romney's marching with MLK....
I think some anti-Mitt pieholes are making far too many exhalations about what is essentially a very minor half-day story with no legs.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1207/7524.html#commentsform
Romney wasn't there, though he did "see" in a figurative sense.
And it looks like it did happen (according to eye-witnesses at the time).
All these accusations before the facts come out remind me of how everyone had convicted Romney of push-polling himself with anti-Mormon calls for sympathy a few weeks back.
Jeff Fuller
http://iowansforromney.blogspot.com/
See my disclaimer of Romney Support at my blogsite line above (essentially I'm an unpaid grassroots supporter/blogger).
Great subject and yes I do think this is cause for concern and that nothing more should be said by Mitt Romney to stoke the fire. I was watching Chris Mathews (that in and of itself probably kills my cred around here, but I like Tucker and caught Mathews show) and he built up a rant with repeated misstatements by Romney that really made Romney’s media man look BAD, which of course made Mitt Romney look bad. Bottom line is this needs’ to be nipped in the bud because I think the media gotcha game is just getting started and that just was too easy. Even with the "eye witnesses" claims I am still not sure that taking the statement literally would be a wise choice by his campaign. What he said was never the problem; to me the problem is how he responded. Just so everyone knows though I am voting for Mitt because think he has the best and probably only chance at beating the Dems this year and is most qualified to bring effective change. Amen
This has already been posted by Dan McLaughlin.
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”