Romney never saw father on King march

The Boston Globe ^ | December 21, 2007 | Michael Levenson

[Josh Painter]

Susan Englander, assistant editor of the Martin Luther King Jr. Papers Project at Stanford University, who is editing the King papers from that era, told the Globe yesterday: "I researched this question, and indeed it is untrue that George Romney marched with [Dr.] King."

She said that when he was governor of Michigan, George Romney issued a proclamation in June 1963 in support of King's march in Detroit, but declined to attend, saying he did not participate in political events on Sundays. A New York Times story from the time confirms Englander's account.

A few days after that march, George Romney joined a civil rights march through the Detroit suburb of Grosse Pointe, but King did not attend, Englander said. A report in the New York Times confirms Englander's account of that second march...

Romney has repeated the story of his father marching with King in some of his most prominent presidential campaign appearances, including the "Tonight" show with Jay Leno in May, his address on faith and politics Dec. 6 in Texas, and on NBC's "Meet The Press" on Sunday, when he was questioned about the Mormon Church's ban on full participation by black members. He said that he had cried in his car in 1978 when he heard the ban had ended, and added, "My father marched with Martin Luther King."

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."

Yesterday, Romney spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom acknowledged that was not true. "Mitt Romney did not march with Martin Luther King," he said in an e-mail statement to the Globe.

[trumandogz]

Have you ever lied while talking about your faith?

That is what Willard did.

[kevkrom]

its not ‘arbitrary’ I use that specifically, because of what happened in Iowa in 2004

Were there five candidates all pulling double-digits nationally in 2004? With "undecided" also in double digits? With the distance from 1st to 5th almost all being within the margin of error?

It's a five-man race right now, and any of them could still win it.

[CharlesWayneCT]

What is clintonesque (or maybe not, just stupid) is people taking his under-oath obfuscations about the word “is”, and using it to argue that all words spoken must be taken literally or else you are being like Clinton.

There is a time for literal speech — while you are under oath in a civil case is one of those times.

And there is a time you use sweeping figurative flowery words — like when you are making a campaign speech.

As someone over at Hot Air said — if you were writing this speech, how would YOU get across the point that Mitt’s father marched in MLKs marches, was invited to march with MLK, supported MLK, had the support of MLK, and stood with MLK on civil rights, and do so in a single sentence?

“I saw my father march with Martin Luther King”. That’s how you would say it. Actually, I think you might say “I saw my father march side by side with Martin Luther King”. But that would get you in even MORE trouble with the Amelia Bedelia’s around here.

[Badeye]

No change verses No Change....(chuckle)

I think the general voting population won’t support anyone named Bush or Clinton, given the oft stated ‘need for change’.

[kevkrom]

Have you ever lied while talking about your faith? That is what Willard did.

Actually, Romney did little talking about his own faith. He was too busy playing the "victim card" to actually discuss much else.

[Hoffer Rand]

Even worse, he thinks the Pats may not win the “World Series”.

Well, it all depends on whether they end up playing at Lambert Field or not. ;-)

[Badeye]

‘It’s a five-man race right now, and any of them could still win it.’

History demonstrates conclusively thats simply not the case. If your under 10% heading into Iowa, your done, stick the fork in.

[trumandogz]

Was Mitt using sweeping figurative flowery words when he said:

“My father and I marched with Martin Luther King Jr. through the streets of Detroit.”

Mitt Romney

[CharlesWayneCT]

Frankly, and don’t take this wrong, but I’m actually a bit confused on what claims made here by the mitt-bashers are actually statements by the campaign, and which are just their interpretations of them.

I think it’s mostly people HERE who are going on about the definition of “saw” and “with” and the like.

But it’s true that often the mishandling of a response by a campaign is worse than the original issue.

If this was a matter of ANY importance whatsoever, that would be true here as well. But as we are talking about a minor error in a mostly true story, an error that made no difference to the story, or it’s meaning, it’s hard for me to take it seriously enough to do much more than point out how english is used in the real world.

[ansel12]

“He went a lifetime with out saying it, even in 1994 when he was taking a beating for his Church’s racial teachings before 1978, he never mentioned it.

Like so many Romney lies this is a new one, special to the 2008 race”

---

CORRECTION:
I didn’t realize that he had tried this out in 1978, I was going by yesterday’s news that reported only the resurrection of the lie.

Now I am curious to see an accurate time line laid out, was he using this in 1978 and then had to drop it, only to resurrect it for this campaign cycle?

[CharlesWayneCT]

It should concern many on this website

It doesn't. They believe that if they destroy every conservative organization, every other candidate, every conservative writer, voter, and politician, who supports ANY candidate other than theirs, that somehow their candidate will miraculously get all the support and will win in November.

If that means they have to quote from a left-wing newspaper blog like the Washington Post Blog, they'll do so happily.

[donnab]

Charles
Straight talk is all I look for. Hard as I tried I cant find that in Romney. If you think some Freepers are bad, wait until the general election comes around if he gets the nod.
The Dems will be brutal and there is just too much that he is giving them to use. He has had to back track too many times.
And even in his backtracks...the first example that I “saw” was his statement of apology or lack of apology for when he compared his kids working on his campaign to serving our country like the kids in Iraq. I watched him as a father of an Iraq soldier confronted him about it. and sorry it was just plain lame.
You can stick up for him all you want. But this is just a warm up for what will happen when and if he gets the nomination.

[restornu]

ok where you 40 years ago does some of you conversation get blurred, but than again you might not even be 40 yet.

So try to hang someone in there 60's for not always having the perfect of recollect!

I have to do timelines many times of which came frist or where I was at which point and maybe confuse one occasion with another, so let go after all those 60's years for being so sure!

I have hear young people tell about events and the parents would correct it because to another person it sounds so real!

Libby was having trouble with memory of a few years as well as Karl Rove etc.

So what is your point Josh Painter for spending so much time on this the bottem line was Mormons were being accused of being anti black this is how this got started not your wild googse chase Josh Painter!

Mitt's father was always a part of the Civil Rights movement

More than 100 angry white protesters balked at efforts
by then-Housing Secretary George Romney,in
car, to open their new neighborhoods to blacks.

[GregH]

I understand this is essential a beatup of a trivial non issue.

I cannot understand why Romney is so obsessed in clarifying his civil rights position and his Mormon church not accepting Blacks as church leaders before 1978? Who the f cares about such things. And Romney does not run the Mormon church, he does not has to clarify such things. This is the Republican primaries and civil rights etc is not really such a big issue.

[Josh Painter]

"My hope is that, after this election, it will be the moderates of both parties who will control the Senate, not the Jesse Helmses." - Source

"In my view, it is not a good idea to go into a [Contract With America] like what was organized by the Republican Party in Washington, laying out a whole series of things which the party said, 'These are the thing's we're going to do.' I think that's a mistake." - Source

"Look, I was an independent during the time of Reagan-Bush. I'm not trying to return to Reagan-Bush." - Source

“I remember in my earliest political experience my father fighting to keep the John Birch Society from playing too strong a role in the Republican Party. He walked out of the Republican National Convention in 1964, when Barry Goldwater said, ‘Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.’ Because he saw that as a tacit approval of the effort the John Birch Society was making to influence the Republican Party. I think that extremists who would force their views on the party and try to shape the party are making a mistake." - Source

"We do have tough gun laws in Massachusetts. I support them. I won't chip away at them. I believe they help protect us and provide for our safety." - Source

"Deadly assault weapons have no place in Massachusetts. These guns are not made for recreation or self-defense. They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people." - Source

"I don't think [The Brady Bill's mandated waiting period] will have a massive effect on crime but I think it will have a positive effect." - Source

"I don't line up with the NRA." - Source

"I've been a hunter pretty much all my life." - Source

"I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. I have, since the time when my mom took that position when she ran in 1970 as a U.S. Senate candidate. I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years, we should sustain and support it. I sustain and support that law and the right of a woman to make that choice." - Source

"I think it would be a positive thing to have women have the choice of taking morning-after pills….I would favor having it available." - Source

"There will be children born to same-sex couples, and adopted by same-sax couples, and I believe that there should be rights and privileges associated with those unions and with the children that are part of those unions." - Source

"All people should be allowed to participate in the Boy Scouts regardless of their sexual orientation." - Source

[kevkrom]

History demonstrates conclusively thats simply not the case. If your under 10% heading into Iowa, your done, stick the fork in.

That knocks out Paul and Hunter. Still leaves 5.

[Route66]

I understand, but since you've come to the logical conclusion about Hunter's longevity and since it's between Fred and Mitt, I respectfully offer that Fred has less baggage and that he's solid on issues important to conservatives. Not perfect, just solid. I also suggest that he is a good sell for the middle in the general election. He can appeal to more conservative Democrats and Independents who care about national security and illegal immigration.

I don't know how this election will turn out, but I'm willing to hang in there and fight with Fred. Hopefully, we will see the Huckabee delusion break before super Tuesday and some of the conservative wing of the GOP will return to their senses.

[Badeye]

Its pretty clear not every person posting at FR feels that way CT.

[drjimmy]

One of the sad things about CharlesWayneCT is that he is actually trying to exonerate Romney by saying the MSM was wrong in thinking at first that Romney only started lying about the MLK thing recently. Since more digging has found that Romney was lying about this way back in 1978 as well, in the world of CharlesWayneCT that’s good news for Mitt. Yowsa!

[CharlesWayneCT]

Yes, and I remember how much people made out of that, as if it mattered at all. That of course was a bit more serious, but not MUCH more, since a simple fact check could have cured her of any misconception she had.

That’s why Barack’s statement is more serious, because again the timeline is simple.

Also in both their cases, there is no way they could have meant their claims in anything but a literal sense, as figuratively they make no sense at all.

Surely you can tell the difference between the three cases. In two of them, people claimed actual events were provoked by OTHER events that had not happened yet.

In Mitt’s case, he is recollecting something that is almost entirely correct, with the only error being that the MLK march his father was in was actually 6 days AFTER MLK marched in a march his father was invited to but turned down because of it being on a sunday.

In other words, not only was Hillary NOT named after Sir Edmund, there is NO WAY SHE COULD HAVE BEEN.

But it is entirely possible, and in fact was ALMOST a fact, that Romney marched WITH MLK in the literal sense — it was only a matter of scheduling that they didn’t march together, and they most certainly would have otherwise.

So to remember it the wrong way doesn’t reflect at all poorly on his powers of thought — in fact, EVERYBODY believed the story, so believable it was, until someone who wanted to throw a gotcha at Mitt dug up some people who in fact got almost EVERY aspect of the story wrong (wrong date, wrong place, wrong about Romney marching, wrong about Mitt not talking about it, wrong about Mitt being out of the country).

THe only thing they got right seems to be that it was an MLK march, but MLK wasn’t in it.