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.

[Diogenesis]

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

And if THAT is not enuf,
"King never marched in Grosse Pointe, according to the Grosse Pointe Historical Society,
and had not appeared in the town at all at the time the Broder book was published.
“I’m quite certain of that,” says Suzy Berschback, curator of the Grosse Pointe Historical Society"

How could these educated women BOTH be lying. Maybe it is just a misspelling.

That's the ticket. Romney saw his dad marching with MILK.

[restornu]

Mitt never cliam to march with MLK and you drjimmy just took this out of context and but what’s new with those who try to distort!

[unspun]

Uuuuugggghhhhh....

I may have to hold my nose and vote for Fred Thompson, after all.

[CharlesWayneCT]

That is his 1978 quote. I wasn’t there in 1978, but my guess is he thought King was in the march, because that’s how the story was repeated in his family. It was an MLK march, and it was for civil rights, and King had marched six days earlier, and his father had been invited.

But frankly, I don’t care what some 30-year-old Romney was thinking when he talked to some reporter in 1978.

Just as I hope nobody cares what Fred Thompson was doing in 1978.

[unspun]

Uuuuugggghhhhh....

I may have to hold my nose and vote for Fred Thompson, after all.

PS: Can anyone give Duncan Hunter some quick, heavy-duty lessons in campaigning for president?

[ansel12]

You should try reading the thread, like post 150.

To: ansel12; BibChr
“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?

150 posted on 12/21/2007 11:52:26 AM PST by ansel12

[CharlesWayneCT]

I agree with your assessment about straight talk. In some ways Romney’s campaign reminds me of the Allen campaign, mostly because they are getting hit with the same “lie” crap about things that happened decades ago, but also because they are running such a businesslike operation that they don’t respond quickly enough or accurately enough for my tastes.

They could use a better blogger response team, in my untrained opinion.

[CharlesWayneCT]

See, he wasn’t marching, he was in a car driving. Wlll the lies just never end /sarc

[kevkrom]

PS: Can anyone give Duncan Hunter some quick, heavy-duty lessons in campaigning for president?

Yes. Make sure you have at least one of the four before you decide to run for President:

1. A national, or at least powerful regional, power base
2. Name recognition
3. A means to secure the necessary funding
4. A really, really, good plan for overcoming your lack of #1 through #3

[CharlesWayneCT]

Actually, in the speech that didn’t seem to be the thrust of the one-liner.

[CharlesWayneCT]

None of those are quotes that say what you summarised his views as in the post I responded to.

[Mr. Lucky]

Perhaps he was wearing magic glasses.

[Cementjungle]

If this doesn’t kill Mitt’s campaign, it’s certain to seriously damage it.

If this is the best "dirt" they can come up with it means the guy's pretty squeaky clean.

[Verginius Rufus]

OK, so the posthumous endorsement by Martin Luther King, Jr., didn't pan out, or the (non-posthumous) one by Steve King.

There's still Larry King to try, or Billie Jean King, or Rodney King.

[CharlesWayneCT]

How do you think people “remember” things from 30 years ago, if not mostly from proddings of contemporaneous and other items?

My memory of 30 years ago is sketchy. If I sit down with my family and we talk about some event, others might correct me on some point, and we’ll decide they are right about it. But are they? If not, have I just committed your cardinal sin of relying on someone else to prod my personal memory?

I don’t know how old you are. I’m in my late 40s. I can’t tell you how many times we will be telling a story, and we break out the slides, and it’s like “That’s not how I remembered that at all”.

People here are acting like “personal memory” is the strongest and most reliable, and thus “proof” that there is deliberation. In fact, personal memory is about the weakest and most fallable, and proof of nothing.

That a lot of people have fun with it when they are attacking liberals doesn’t change the basic fact that personal memories are almost always wrong.

BTW, people sometimes lie to their diary, but years later they will think its the truth, because they use the diary to help their recollection.

Look at a court case, and you’ll see people say they aren’t sure or give some piece of testimony under oath, and then the lawyer will provide written evidence to “help them recollect”, like maybe the report that they wrote, and then they can get it right.

In my opinion, the only mistake Romney could make here is to take this too seriously, rather than simply noting the story doesn’t appear to have been true and moving on. Mistken memories that are favorable to a person are hardly a character flaw, they are human.

I feel sad for people whose memories are unfavorable to them.

[Petronski]

I read the thread. Your spin is silly.

[donnab]

Its got to come from the candidate. Mitt too often rails himself. He says things then looks like a deer caught in the headlights and starts the roundabout. I hate that.
Talk straight to me, and if I disagree at least I will respect you and I will know where you stand. Talk roundabout and I not only do not respect you, I am offended by the sense that you think I am stupid enough to buy into it and I also will not trust you because I still am not clear where you stand.
I think that sums up what alot of people are feeling about Romney right about now.
And please..its not just this MLK instance...its many.
The MLK instance is just one more log to add to the fire ..to speak figuratively.

[Petronski]

Ah, the “I know you are but what am I” defense. Have fun at recess!

[SpringheelJack]

Charles, you’ve been impeccably civil and have done the best job defending Romney of anybody here. The trouble is the defense you’re making is not the one Romney’s making. I wish you had been one of his advisers, because your theory is far more believable than what Romney came up with.

Unfortunately, I think the reason why your theory never occurred to Romney is because it isn’t the truth. If you were not speaking figuratively you wouldn’t say, when you found out it wasn’t true, “Oh, I was just saying that as a figure of speech. I’m an English major, you see. Look up the word ‘saw’ in the dictionary and you’ll see that my usage is perfectly acceptable.”

No, if this was a memory, something you thought you remembered, you’d say, “That really floors me. I’m certain I remember marching with my dad and Dr. King. Let me look into this, because I know there’s something there.” Then later he could say, “Darn it, I was sure Dr. King had been at that march. It happened 6 days after he was there, but I heard people talk so much about him I was sure he was at the event itself. I didn’t know this then but I thank people for informing me better.”

Romney’s literary defense is only going to sink him further now that the 1978 interview has been uncovered, though probably deservedly since it was as much a lie as his original statement.

Have you asked the Romney people to hire you? They need you.

[CharlesWayneCT]

Actually, you have NO IDEA if my daughter purposely got those questions wrong.

But that’s OK, because your statement proves my point. You made an assumption, based on NO real evidence, and then asserted a claim based on that assumption.

Just as you do with Mitt when you PRESUME he must be lying, and use that to prove that he is lying. Since you have no idea what is in his head, you can’t possibly know. And you have no evidence of ANY statement he ever made refuting his claim, so you have NO evidence that he EVER knew it wasn’t true. Nor do you have ANY evidence whatsoever that he was EVER deliberately asserting a literal statement.

So what you really have is that you think he’s a liar, so if he makes a statement that isn’t true, it must be because he deliberately lied about it. And now you are asserting that his entire life he’s been a congenital liar, and that’s why in 1978 he lied.

you are simply proving what you asserted by assuming facts not in evidence.