Did Romney's Father Really March With MLK? (UPDATED)

National Review Online ^ | 12/20/07 | Jim Geraghty

[Reaganesque]

Thursday, December 20, 2007

MITT ROMNEY, 2008 HOMEPAGE CAMPAIGN BOX

Did Romney's Father Really March With MLK? (UPDATED)

I had seen this story yesterday, and been not quite sure what to make of it - some folks said they couldn't find anything to verify Mitt Romney's story of his father, Michigan Governor George Romney, marching with Martin Luther King.

Romney said he remembered watching it, and David Broder had apparently made a reference to it in one of his books. And in the passing decades, records get lost, photos (if any) get lost. Memories fade.

But it looks like Mitt Romney and his campaign are being forced to back off the claim.

On Wednesday, Romney's campaign said his recollections of watching his father, an ardent civil rights supporter, march with King were meant to be figurative.
 
"He was speaking figuratively, not literally," Eric Fehrnstrom, spokesman for the Romney campaign, said of the candidate.

The campaign was responding to questions raised by the Free Press and other media after a Boston publication challenged the accuracy of Mitt Romney's account...

The Boston Phoenix reported Wednesday it could find no evidence that Romney and King ever marched together.

Mitt Romney's older brother, Detroit attorney Scott Romney, said he recalls his father telling him the elder Romney marched with King, possibly in 1963, but he could not remember exactly when the event took place.

Fehrnstrom called the Romney brothers' recollection and the historical materials a "pretty convincing case that George Romney did march with Dr. Martin Luther King and other civil rights leaders in Michigan."

UPDATE: Team Romney unloads a massive amount of information, documenting ties between George Romney and King and the rest of the civil rights movement. The only account tht I see has Romney actually marching with King is the Broder book's account, but it appears that Romney appeared at several civil-rights related events, some, it appears, organized by King.

(In fact, if I were Romney, I wouldn't be touting the fact that my father walked with King; I'd be touting that King told an interviewer he thought George Romney would make a good president!)

GOV. GEORGE ROMNEY AND DR. MARTIN LUTHER KING JR.
 
FACT: In The Summer Of 1963, Governor Romney Participated In Martin Luther King Jr.'s "Freedom Marches" In Grosse Pointe, Michigan.
 
In 1963, George Romney Gave The Keynote Address At The Conference That Sparked The Martin Luther King "Freedom Marches" In Detroit. "The establishment of these human relations groups came in the wake of several major events (besides the embarrassing racist practices of such suburbs as Dearborn), which took place in 1963 and helped galvanize interracial support and cooperation for integrated housing. The first event was the Metropolitan Conference on Open Occupancy held in Detroit in January 1963. The second event was the Martin Luther King 'Freedom' March in June of the same year, the spinoffs of which were several Detroit NAACP-sponsored interracial marches into Detroit suburbs to dramatize the need for black housing. … Governor George Romney gave the keynote speech at this conference, in which he pledged to use the power of the state to achieve housing equality in Michigan." (Joe T. Darden, Detroit, Race And Uneven Development, 1987, p. 132)

 
Governor Romney Marched In July 1963 In An NAACP-Sponsored March Through Grosse Pointe.  "The next couple of NAACP marches into the suburbs were more pleasant. Both Grosse Pointe and Royal Oak Township welcomed the interracial marchers. Close to 500 black and white marchers, including many Grosse Pointers, marched in 'the Pointes' that July. Governor George Romney made a surprise appearance in his shirt sleeves and joined the parade leaders."  (Joe T. Darden, Detroit, Race And Uneven Development, 1987, p. 132)
 
·        Detroit Free Press: "With Gov. Romney a surprise arrival and marching in the front row, more than 500 Negroes and whites staged a peaceful antidiscrimination parade up Grosse Pointe's Kercheval Avenue Saturday. … 'the elimination of human inequalities and injustices is our urgent and critical domestic problem,' the governor said. … [Detroit NAACP President Edward M.] Turner told reporters, 'I think it is very significant that Governor Romney is here. We are very surprised.' Romney said, 'If they want me to lead the parade, I'll be glad to.'" ("Romney Joins Protest March Of 500 In Grosse Pointe," Detroit Free Press, 6/29/63)
 
·        In Their 1967 Book, Stephen Hess And David Broder Wrote That George Romney "Marched With Martin Luther King Through The Exclusive Grosse Point Suburb Of Detroit."  "He has marched with Martin Luther King through the exclusive Grosse Pointe suburb of Detroit and he is on record in support of full-coverage Federal open-housing legislation." (Stephen Hess And David Broder, The Republican Establishment: The Present And Future Of The G.O.P., 1967, p. 107)
 
FACT: As Governor Of Michigan, George Romney Fought For Civil Rights And Marched In Support Of Martin Luther King Jr.
 
George Romney Was A Strong Proponent Of Civil Rights And Created Michigan's First Civil Rights Commission.  "The governor's record was one of supporting civil rights. He helped create the state's first civil rights commission and marched at the head of a protest parade in Detroit days after violence against civil rights marchers in Selma, Ala., in 1965."  (Todd Sprangler, "Romney Fields Questions On King," Detroit Free Press, 12/20/07)
 
In 1967, George Romney Was Praised At A National Civil Rights Rally For His Leadership.  "Michigan Gov. George Romney walked into a Negro Civil Rights rally in the heart of Atlanta to the chants of 'We Want Romney' and to hear protests from Negroes about city schools.  'They had invited me to come and I was interested in hearing things that would give me an insight into Atlanta,' the Michigan Republican said.  Led by Hosea Williams, a top aide to Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., the all-Negro rally broke into shouts and song when Romney arrived.  'We're tired of Lyndon Baines Johnson,' Williams said from a pulpit in the Flipper Temple AME Church as Romney sat in a front row pew.  'Johnson is sending black boys to Vietnam to die for a freedom that never existed,' Williams said. Pointing to Romney, Williams brought the crowd of 200 to its feet when he said, 'He may be the fella with a little backbone.'  Williams said Romney could be 'the next President if he acts right.' The potential GOP presidential nominee left the rally before it ended." ("Romney Praised At Civil Rights Rally In Atlanta," The Chicago Defender, 9/30/67)
Photograph:  "Dr. Martin Luther King speaking to graduate student Laura L. Leichliter (center) and Michigan's First Lady Mrs. Lenore Romney in February 1965." (Instructional Media Center Collection At Michigan State University Archives And Historical Collections)
 
 George Romney Fought Discrimination In Housing.  "President Nixon tapped then Governor of Michigan, George Romney, for the post of Secretary of Housing and Urban Development. While serving as Governor, Secretary Romney had successfully campaigned for ratification of a state constitutional provision that prohibited discrimination in housing."  (U.S. Department Of Housing And Urban Development Official Web Site, www.hud.gov, Accessed 12/19/07)
 
Photograph:  "More than 100 angry white protesters balked at efforts by then-Housing Secretary George Romney, in car, to open their new neighborhoods to blacks."  (Gordon Trowbridge and Oralandar Brand-Williams, "A Policy Of Exclusion," Detroit News, 1/14/02)
 
FACT: In 1965, George Romney Led A March In Michigan To Protest Selma.
 
In 1965, George Romney Led A Protest Parade Of Some 10,000 People In Detroit. "Rarely has public opinion reacted so spontaneously and with such fury. In Detroit, Mayor Jerome Cavanaugh and Michigan's Governor George Romney led a protest parade of 10,000 people." ("Civil Rights – The Central Point," Time Magazine, www.time.com, 10/5/83)
 
·        The Days Of Martin Luther King, Jr.:  "In Detroit, Governor George Romney and Mayor Jerome Cavanaugh called for a march to protest what had happened in Selma."  (Jim Bishop, The Days Of Martin Luther King, Jr., 1971, p. 385)
 
FACT:  Martin Luther King Jr. "Spoke Positively" About The Possible Presidential Candidacy Of George Romney. 
 
In His Pulitzer-Prize Winning Biography Of Dr. King, David Garrow Notes That King "Spoke Positively" About The Possible Presidential Candidacy Of George Romney. "King spoke positively about the possible candidacies of republicans George Romney, Charles Percy, and Nelson Rockefeller. He also stressed the need for greater Afro-American unity, including reaching out to segments of the black community that were not committed to nonviolence." (David J. Garrow, Bearing the Cross: Martin Luther King, Jr., and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, 2006, p. 575)
 
FACT:  George Romney Attended King's Funeral In 1968.   
 
George Romney Attended King's Funeral In 1968. "Vice President Hubert Humphrey represented the White House. Senator and Mrs. Robert F. Kennedy; Mrs. John F. Kennedy; Governor and Mrs. Nelson Rockefeller of New York; the mayor of New York City, John V Lindsay; and Michigan's governor, George Romney, were present." (Octavia Vivian, Coretta: The Story of Coretta Scott King, 2006, p. 99)
 
·        George Romney Joined Other Prominent Americans In Attending King's Funeral.  "Inside was the greatest galaxy of prominent national figures there had ever been in Atlanta at one time: Robert Kennedy, George Romney, Mayor Carl Stokes of Cleveland, Nixon, Rockefeller, Harry Belafonte, and an endless array of others equally as famous.  Coretta Scott King, sitting with her family front and center in front of the casket, looked lovely and courageous and dignified in a black mourning veil." (Franklin Miller Garrett, Atlanta and Environs: A Chronicle of Its People and Events, 1987, p. 517)
 
·        After King's Assassination, George Romney Declared An Official Period Of Mourning, Ordered All Flags To Be Flown At Half Staff And Said King's Death Was "A Great National Tragedy."  "On April 4, 1968, Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated as he stood on a motel balcony in Memphis, Tenn., where he had gone to lead a civil rights march.  The following day, Michigan Gov. George Romney declared an official period of mourning for King. The period extended through King's funeral. Romney ordered all flags on public buildings to be flown at half staff and asked that the same be done on private buildings. Gov. Romney, in an official statement, said: "The assassination of Martin Luther King is a great national tragedy. At a time when we need aggressive nonviolent leadership to peacefully achieve equal rights, equal opportunities and equal responsibilities for all, his leadership will be grievously missed."  ("Rearview Mirror: Detroit Reacts To King's Assassination," The Detroit News, 4/4/07)

12/20 10:11 AM

[George W. Bush]

Well said.

Well, maybe I had one cup of coffee too many. I'm a Baptist so I guess we should consider dumping the hot beverages too. My aunts think so anyway. LOL.

So, with you being a Paul supporter, I’m curious: why do you support him?

Primarily, liberty and small-government. You can outline some of the agenda like this, in no particular order:

1. Federalism
2. Hard currency, at least a partial hard currency
3. Reducing federal debt and spending dramatically
4. Dismantling at least half of the overseas garrison system
5. Returning to a sounder medical system
6. Ending provocations in the Mideast by our proximity to their shrines and holy land
7. Ending foreign aid entirely
8. Abolishing the IRS.
9. Ending the failed War On Drugs via decriminalization, at least at the federal level
10. Withdrawing from the United Nations and expulsion from its foul lair in New York City
11. Abolishing most if not all of the Patriot Act.
12. Apprehending and convicting the Bin Laden gang.
13. Moving younger workers to private retirement while covering commitments to older folk.

Well, it's a start.

We know that he doesn’t have a shot at the nomination; like Tancredo, his goal at this point is to advocate those issues that are important to him. What of those issues appeal to you?

He is a longshot. But he can in fact win. We will see if the time is right and if the people are ready, a weak GOP field, extreme dissatisfaction with both parties, well, it is not quite impossible at least. I could lay out the reasons and several possible paths to victory but those aren't useful. Simply put, he can win.

What are your next steps once the primaries begin?

Win. And fly our Blimp Of Death for grassroots fun. LOL.

[George W. Bush]

I am, in fact, coming to the same conclusions.

Good for you. You can't be timid. Being polite is good but being a doormat is bad for your guy.

[fieldmarshaldj]

"We RP folk"

I have an iron rule that I don't spend more than 20 seconds responding to a Doctor Dementoite. There ya go. :-)

[fieldmarshaldj]

I call it like I see it. These cretins want to destroy the Conservative movement and the Republican party. I’m not playing kissy-face with them. They are my enemy, and this is war. Same goes for the Hucksterites. Exactly the same.

[Saundra Duffy]

‘the elimination of human inequalities and injustices is our urgent and critical domestic problem,’ the governor said.

I think this story is going to backfire on the anti’s. The real story here is that the Romney family is to be commended for their record of pro civil rights activism.

I had no idea George Romney was such a great man and courageous leader. I am grateful for the story in which the liberal media tried to slander the Romney name. Now we learn all about Mitt Romney’s Dad. Mitt was just a kid in high school at this time. Just wait, there will be more to the story and the anti’s will be even more embarrassed.

[tantiboh]

~”...so I guess we should consider dumping the hot beverages too.”~

LOL

Thanks for the response. I don’t look at the world quite the same; I think our presence around the world is a net benefit. Those who would attack us do so because of our culture, not our proximity; that would not change if we withdrew, it would simply embolden them. Still, it’s an honest disagreement.

Several of your other points, I couldn’t agree with more, but I think other candidates could accomplish those things. At this point, though, I think the last thing the world needs is for us to withdraw. It would put our security at greater risk and allow despotism to flourish. This is the primary reason I don’t think Paul is right for the country.

[George W. Bush]

Well, I hope you feel good that you spent all this time and effort on the supposedly hopeless Ron Paul campaign when the cable news shows Fred and his crew standing in a snowdrift in Iowa next to a bus that's out of gas with signs reading "Will Campaign For Food."

Fred has some really lousy supporters here at FR. You've done almost nothing for him except troll everyone else and make our forum even more hostile and unattractive to prospective recruits. And we RP folk and these Mitt folk aren't the ones doing it either.

So when Fred And Crew are standing in that snowdrift, maybe you and the voters of Iowa would enjoy a nice fireside chat with Ron Paul on a major local station in primetime for 30 minutes. Because that's what our $18.5M that we've raised for our candidate has done for him.

I don't think some of you Fred Folk are very serious about electing him. You won't even do the free stuff to promote him so it's not that you're just cheapskates. You're lazy besides. You've won almost no puny straw polls or even generated a little silly campaign fodder by spiking the online libmedia polls. Nor have you set up online forums which can be used to direct your supporters in a huge and noticeable surge to libmedia websites to reward or punish them based on how they report on Fred. We do all those things and much much more for Ron Paul without even being asked. And yet, somehow, we are the big losers?

Don't make me laugh. Unless Fred pulls it out all by himself (and no thanks to his supposed supporters here at FreeRepublic), he'll lose along with Giuliani and McCain to Ron Paul.

What are those campaigns going to say if they can't beat the "hopeless and quixotic" Ron Paul campaign? Well, some of them will give a concession speech. Then we'll hear a lot of stuttering here at FR and all kinds of blame for how unfair those other campaigns are because they actually organized and raised the cash to give their candidate the resources to win or at least get his message out.

Nice work.

[George W. Bush]

I don’t look at the world quite the same; I think our presence around the world is a net benefit. Those who would attack us do so because of our culture, not our proximity; that would not change if we withdrew, it would simply embolden them. Still, it’s an honest disagreement.

The Mormons are good and moral folk. That isn't an endorsement of their theology but, as I always say, this is a political thread and theology belongs on the Religion Forum. As I've noted elsewhere, Ron Paul is one of the few candidates who has forcefully spoken against any rejection of Mitt on the basis of Mormon theology. He considers it un-American. And he is right. We shouldn't be shy to challenge these bigots. These bigots violate the spirit, if not the letter, of the prohibition against barring candidates from office on the basis of religion. It's sad FreeRepublic has allowed, well, actually sponsored such attacks over such a long period. And has all that Mitt-bashing and Mormon-bashing helped Fred at all? Not that I can see. It just hurts FR.

Several of your other points, I couldn’t agree with more, but I think other candidates could accomplish those things.

Well, fair enough. But if you want to pick up any portion of our very active (and very desirable) grassroots, maybe your guy should address these issues more forcefully and in a way that allows no waffling later.

To be fair and positive here (in the chance that Mitt's operatives monitor various forums like FR), one of Mitt's problems is that people don't perceive an absolute commitment to any positions. Now, Mitt likes to be flexible like any corporate executive. But you do have to give voters something solid they can chew on, something they feel they can put in their pockets and take home, something they can say to themselves, "this is what Mitt is for and what he'll never back away from". And then your candidate has to communicate that set of principles and ideas strongly and pointedly and without exception to hammer it home.

You know, I've read a lot of Mitt threads and I am pretty positive toward him and yet I'm still not sure exactly what you would call Mitt's absolute core principles. Well, it's not that rather stark list I gave as the goals of an RP presidency at least. You know, Democrats can get away with that vagueness easier than Republicans. Republicans like something pretty concrete in a candidate when they vote for him.

Still, I'm not betting against Mitt. He is formidable enough. And few here at FR realize that the entire Bush family (both presidents, Jeb, wives) are all ready to go to bat for Mitt and drag the full RNC and the GOP governors in for him as well. Personally, I think Mitt has told them he wants to win it by himself. That's just the kind of guy Mitt is. He wants to win it all and win it by himself. I've often said, Mitt makes a habit of winning and it's very appealing because America loves a winner. And except for a complete lack of success as a Mormon missionary in France, Mitt's been a winner in everything he's done in life. A formidable personal record.

Of course, Mitt does have the Harvard JD along with his MBA. He could be tossing out some red meat on constitutional law to pick up us RP folk and the Fred folk if he can beat RP or RP drops out. He's a smart man with a fine legal education. But he has to want to make that appeal to pick us up.

FRegards. And good luck with your guy. But don't think for one minute that we RP folk aren't determined to force Mitt to disinherit his children and mortgage his little mansion and NH property to raise the money to beat us. Because that's exactly what we intend. So I guess I'm saying "FRegards" along with "en guarde". LOL.

[Edit35]

..it’s a tough and endless job (supporting Romney) ...

Yes, but its infinitely more satisfying and productive than being a constant nit-picker, harper and kevetch.

At least Romney supporters HAVE a decent candidate they are willing to promote and support.

Romney haters are still out there in the wilderness searching thru grubs and stinkbugs in hopes of finding a viable candidate.

[tantiboh]

~”And then your candidate has to communicate that set of principles and ideas strongly and pointedly and without exception to hammer it home.”~

I agree with that. Romney is not my favorite candidate, just my favorite amongst the viable candidates. I have been frustrated with his pandering in the past.

I do think he’s learning, though. For example, his speech at the Reagan library was exactly in the spirit of principles and ideas that you mention. I think that’s a big reason why is was almost universally so well received.

~”You know, I’ve read a lot of Mitt threads and I am pretty positive toward him and yet I’m still not sure exactly what you would call Mitt’s absolute core principles.”~

His platform has three major planks:
- A strong economy.
- Strong families.
- A strong military.

I agree that these descriptions are a little vague, but the policies he supports generally are outgrowths of those ideas. These three specific things, though, are the key elements that together unify the different branches of conservatism, so it explains why he’s become so competitive after having started as an unknown. That and money. :-)

~”And except for a complete lack of success as a Mormon missionary in France...”~

Some people misunderstand what Mormons consider success as a missionary. By our standards, he was a stellar success. We don’t concentrate on a baptism count. Culturally, that sort of notch-counting is quite discouraged. We’re much more concerned with whether a missionary serves the Lord honorably. Romney was a great example of such a missionary. Whether the missionary sees a lot of conversions or not is in the Lord’s hands. Anyway, a tangent.

~”But don’t think for one minute that we RP folk aren’t determined to force Mitt to disinherit his children and mortgage his little mansion and NH property to raise the money to beat us.”~

LOL. Still, when it comes down to a close race in IA, will the Paul supporters stick with their guy, at the cost of seeing Huckabee win the nomination? I hope the supporters of all the lower-tier candidates are more sensible than that.

[George W. Bush]

At least Romney supporters HAVE a decent candidate they are willing to promote and support.

I like that they debate, they have confidence in their man and his record of success in life and his ability to win, his positive outlook and can-do attitude (I will do wonder exactly what he wants to do exactly, heh-heh). And, except for just one (and every crowd has at least one), they're polite, almost to a fault. And they're steadfast, a few rough patches don't shake them like we see with some of the Fred supporters now who are talking so gloomy about their guy just because some pundits (????) are talking him down. The Mittsters will stick with their man. I like that too. They won't turn tail and leave him if he doesn't do as well as hoped in a few contests or his campaign makes a few faux pas.

Mitt's become my unofficial backup candidate now. Well, I could look Fred over again if he can make a comeback.

[George W. Bush]

I agree that these descriptions are a little vague

In a nutshell, exactly. I hope my rare brevity impresses this point!

Some people misunderstand what Mormons consider success as a missionary. By our standards, he was a stellar success.

I gathered the impression that it was Mitt who considered his missionary work a failure. I never read anyone else criticizing his record in France. You see, I like the guy who looks to see why he failed at something. It shows a real capacity for reflection and growth. It shows determination. It shows that he doesn't like to lose. No one does, of course. But I like the guy who is bugged if he doesn't win. We need someone that determined.

LOL. Still, when it comes down to a close race in IA, will the Paul supporters stick with their guy, at the cost of seeing Huckabee win the nomination? I hope the supporters of all the lower-tier candidates are more sensible than that.

Now, do you really think we would give up in the very first state?

If Mitt somehow failed to live up to expectations, would you? I've overestimated you if that's true. But only a month ago, Romney was considered the kind of Iowa. And he's spent a fortune there. Yet, you haven't given up. And you won't no matter what.

And if Huck won, Ron Paul grabbed second and Mitt came in third, you still wouldn't quit and neither would Mitt. If that were the case, then Iowa would be the only primary in the nation and we'd just give the nomination to the winner of the strange little Iowa caucuses...caucusi...whatever. It's some kind of caca from Iowa anyway.

So, no, the Paulian Horde is staying in through Super-Tuesday. We do have a Blimp Of Death to fly after all. Now, my primary is mid-May. If RP can't make it and I think my vote can make a difference to help Mitt against Huck or Rudi (and those two may be working together already), then of course I would vote for Mitt. Symbolic votes don't mean much even if they make you feel all principled and stuff for a while.

[rodeo-mamma]

I say it like I see it too, I am not overly impressed with your candidate either, if you think it is correct to fight a war against a good family man like Mitt, then you are fighting the wrong war. I only wish there were more people like Mitt Romney in the United States today with his values. You are fighting the wrong people.

[aruanan]

But hey, now that this information has been forced to the surface, Mitt stands a better chance of winning more black votes and is now even more electable.

That's not what I hear on the streets of Chicago. The opinion I've heard expressed is that Romney touting something his father was alleged to have done is as pathetic as Barack Obama sucking up to the Afrocentric church and pastor to help him in his campaign for his Senate campaign at the state level and then distancing himself from the same when running for the presidency because it looks too separatist.

[fieldmarshaldj]

"I say it like I see it too, I am not overly impressed with your candidate either, if you think it is correct to fight a war against a good family man like Mitt, then you are fighting the wrong war."

I don't give a damn about his family, that is absolutely irrelevent, and you know that. I give a damn about everything that he has done and championed WHILE IN PUBLIC OFFICE. His record and his actions are those of a liberal Democrat (both Huckster's AND Romney's), of expanding the numbers of Democrat officeholders and of dividing and shrinking Conservative and Republican numbers. They are power-pursuing political whores, doing or saying whatever it takes to win. Romney will bribe people and organizations to support him. Liars, whores, and ethically-vacant opportunists who've done nothing to deserve the offices they were entrusted with. Two of the worst RINO Governors in the past quarter-century (yet to the Democrats, two of the best, making both Arkansas and Massachusetts as Republican-free as possible after their reigns of error were finished. Go take a look and see how many Republicans are left there. MA has ZERO. Zero. Statewide or federal. Zero. AR has ZERO. Statewide. One in federal. One. We had half the delegation of AR and Huckster shrank it to one and he shrank everything else. So did Romney). I guess that doesn't seem to matter to you. Facts are facts. These two are absolutely awful. If you think their families are qualifications for high office while ignoring their records while as Governors, I submit a name for President for the GOP for you... Jimmy Carter. He was a good family man, too, and the worst President of the 20th century.

[Checkers]

“Our petitions to place Mr. Romney on the ballot here in Ohio were taken to Columbus today!”

Awesome!

[Checkers]

“This is really killing you isn’t it? All these big name Conservatives and Conservative organizations lining up behind Romney. Romney’s national numbers showing him tied for the lead. Tancredo withdraws and throws his support to Romney. And now your little manufactured story, that went so well with your other “Mormons are racists” story, is falling apart like so much wet tissue paper. Things just aren’t going your way, are they?
Oh yeah, Reagan Man! Three guesses as to why I use that picture. Go ahead, guess.”

It’s the same puny group of anti-Mitt posters.

[Checkers]

“Those claiming that his recalled memory is some egregious lie have gone too far.”

They are, in fact, liars.

[Neu Pragmatist]

Awesome !

I hate to say it, but I would trust the Huckster before I would trust Romney. The Huckster is trying to cover his nanny tracks , but at least he has some Socon creds .

Romney has zero Socon creds and went so far as to denounce Reagan and Conservatism just to get elected in Mass .

Mitt the Panderer , OTOH , has flip-flopped , is covering his tracks , and is currently telling untruths . Who is worse ?

[Checkers]

“I’d be careful gay-bashing, after all, your boy Joe Isuzu Romney was the preeminent champion of gay marriage.”

fieldmarshaldj
Since May 26, 2001

One of the liars.