Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Romney never saw father on King march
The Boston Globe ^ | December 21, 2007 | Michael Levenson

Posted on 12/21/2007 9:58:28 AM PST by 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.

(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 2008; dontmakestuffupmitt; election; elections; fredthompson; gop; inventedtheinternet; meaningofisis; mittromney; mittsmagichatmoment; nomination; pantsonfire; revisionisthistory; selfmagnification; weallwanttobespecial
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250251-284 next last
To: CharlesWayneCT
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.


201 posted on 12/21/2007 12:38:55 PM PST by Diogenesis (Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 193 | View Replies]

To: drjimmy

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!


202 posted on 12/21/2007 12:40:10 PM PST by restornu (Harry Reid is going to get Daschled! You're on your own, Harry!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 199 | View Replies]

To: Josh Painter

Uuuuugggghhhhh....

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


203 posted on 12/21/2007 12:40:41 PM PST by unspun (God save us from egos -- especially our own.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: trumandogz

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.


204 posted on 12/21/2007 12:40:59 PM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: Josh Painter

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?


205 posted on 12/21/2007 12:41:17 PM PST by unspun (God save us from egos -- especially our own.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT

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


206 posted on 12/21/2007 12:41:48 PM PST by ansel12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 198 | View Replies]

To: donnab

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.


207 posted on 12/21/2007 12:42:49 PM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: restornu

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


208 posted on 12/21/2007 12:43:22 PM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: unspun
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

209 posted on 12/21/2007 12:43:36 PM PST by kevkrom (All those in favor of Thompson, don't raise your hand.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 205 | View Replies]

To: GregH

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


210 posted on 12/21/2007 12:43:47 PM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: Josh Painter

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


211 posted on 12/21/2007 12:44:25 PM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT

Perhaps he was wearing magic glasses.


212 posted on 12/21/2007 12:46:50 PM PST by Mr. Lucky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 207 | View Replies]

To: Josh Painter
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.

213 posted on 12/21/2007 12:46:59 PM PST by Cementjungle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: donnab
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.

214 posted on 12/21/2007 12:52:06 PM PST by Verginius Rufus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: kevkrom

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.


215 posted on 12/21/2007 12:53:20 PM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT

I read the thread. Your spin is silly.


216 posted on 12/21/2007 12:54:15 PM PST by Petronski (Reject the liberal superfecta: huckabee, romney, giuliani, mccain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 197 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT

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.


217 posted on 12/21/2007 12:54:50 PM PST by donnab (saving liberal brains...one moron at a time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 207 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT

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


218 posted on 12/21/2007 12:55:08 PM PST by Petronski (Reject the liberal superfecta: huckabee, romney, giuliani, mccain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT

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.


219 posted on 12/21/2007 12:56:56 PM PST by SpringheelJack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 193 | View Replies]

To: kevkrom

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.


220 posted on 12/21/2007 12:57:24 PM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies]

To: kevkrom

No, I’m not doing it because I don’t really care. But time after Time, Fred Supporters come around and attack Mitt Romney for something. And I ask, “what about Fred”, and they haven’t bothered to even look into his life the slightest bit to see if he has a similar problem.

Which proves to me that in fact they really care LESS about the issue, and instead are just looking to attack Mitt.

If you really cared about this, you’d be checking the background of your candidate to make sure he’s someone you can support.


221 posted on 12/21/2007 12:59:02 PM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]

To: donnab
Romney himself has provided this fodder.

And that's the simple fact left standing after all the hue and cry. This is an issue because Mitt made a mistake, had an innocent misrecollection, or told a baldfaced lie, or simply used figurative language. Whatever the case, he and he alone is the source of this damaging distraction.

222 posted on 12/21/2007 12:59:09 PM PST by AHerald ("Be faithful to God ... do not bother about the ridicule of the foolish." - St. Pio of Pietrelcina)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: drjimmy

Why, if he believed MLK was in the march?


223 posted on 12/21/2007 1:00:22 PM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 199 | View Replies]

To: restornu
Mitt's father was always a part of the Civil Rights movement.

Nice strawman.

224 posted on 12/21/2007 1:02:22 PM PST by Petronski (Reject the liberal superfecta: huckabee, romney, giuliani, mccain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: Diogenesis
Actually, we seem to have come to the conclusion that the first woman you quote is correct, and that we've been wrong all these years.

But as to the 2nd woman, since we have concluded that King did not march with Romney, the question is whether Romney marched in Grosse Pointe. And the answer is yes, even thought the woman you quote also said Romney wouldn't have come to Grosse Pointe.

We also know King marched in Detroit six days earlier, and I don't know if that march included Grosse Pointe or not, nor does it matter since we know that Romney was invited to march in that march but turned it down.

That an historian had to do research to show that it was untrue shows that it was not obviously false.

225 posted on 12/21/2007 1:05:31 PM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 201 | View Replies]

To: restornu

Then I guess that makes us even. ;)


226 posted on 12/21/2007 1:06:39 PM PST by pepperhead (Kennedy's float, Mary Jo's don't!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 194 | View Replies]

To: restornu

We only have the one sentence quote, but that one sentence quote could be read to indicate Romney marched in a march with MLK along with his dad.

That would of course be consistant with seeing his dad marching, because he would see him if he was in the march with him, if only for a little bit.

That was from a 1978 article.


227 posted on 12/21/2007 1:07:35 PM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 202 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

I obviously am responding to posts as I get to them. I should have clicked “view replies” first to see if someone had already corrected you, and I apologize for that.


228 posted on 12/21/2007 1:08:30 PM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 206 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Lucky

I think it’s magic underwear.


229 posted on 12/21/2007 1:09:03 PM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 212 | View Replies]

To: Cementjungle

Well, it’s not up their with saying you oppose a major plank of the republican platform, possibly derailing your pending NRTL endorsement and forcing your campaign to come out with a statement that you really WILL support the platform, you just meant it wasn’t important.

But since that wasn’t Mitt, we should ignore it like it never happened on the Tim Russert program.


230 posted on 12/21/2007 1:10:30 PM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 213 | View Replies]

To: Petronski

That thread you linked claimed Mitt lied about his mother’s position on abortion. The quote is his mother’s position on abortion, showing he did not lie about it.

There’s really not much more to say, except for all the annoying buzzing by the gnats.


231 posted on 12/21/2007 1:11:48 PM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 216 | View Replies]

To: donnab

Yes, I agree, and I wish Romney would have responded directly to this. However, I also realise that this is a meaningless point to begin with, and him personally addressing it would just make it sound more important than the little importance it is.

If I were running, I’d be talking about everything said, and probably end up hopelessly distracted. In this case, this entire discussion is a meaningless distraction from the issues of the campaign, which is why the opposition brings it up.


232 posted on 12/21/2007 1:14:06 PM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 217 | View Replies]

To: Petronski

Since when did facts become stawman unless you don’t understand he meaning of stawman!

There are tons of documents in the Michigan govenor archives to support George Romney part in the Civil Right movement.

And Geo did march in another CR 6 days later in Grosse Pointe with out MLK.


233 posted on 12/21/2007 1:15:14 PM PST by restornu (Harry Reid is going to get Daschled! You're on your own, Harry!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 224 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT

The quote is what Mitt claims is his mother’s position on abortion. Do you have a contemporaneous source for the quote, or just Willard’s self-serving “statement?”

More importantly, in any event, the article says far more than that about Willard’s casual relationship with the truth. Your spin is silly.


234 posted on 12/21/2007 1:18:42 PM PST by Petronski (Reject the liberal superfecta: huckabee, romney, giuliani, mccain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 231 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT

What about responding to the rest of his faux pas as well.
This one to me is NOT the be all end all. This one to me was a blip but when added to the other blips ...it gets to be a heavy load.


235 posted on 12/21/2007 1:19:08 PM PST by donnab (saving liberal brains...one moron at a time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 232 | View Replies]

To: restornu
There are tons of documents in the Michigan govenor archives to support George Romney part in the Civil Right movement.

Yes, but you're proving a point that hasn't been contested. Who has contradicted Romney's part in the Civil Rights movement? Link it, I'd like to see you get something right.

236 posted on 12/21/2007 1:20:38 PM PST by Petronski (Reject the liberal superfecta: huckabee, romney, giuliani, mccain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 233 | View Replies]

To: restornu
And Geo did march in another CR 6 days later in Grosse Pointe with out MLK.

That does nothing to support Willard's lie, which he and his campaign have both tried dismiss as figurative.

237 posted on 12/21/2007 1:22:37 PM PST by Petronski (Reject the liberal superfecta: huckabee, romney, giuliani, mccain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 233 | View Replies]

To: Josh Painter

The silly squad is falling by the waysides, and only DUNCAN HUNTER will be left standing.


238 posted on 12/21/2007 1:22:52 PM PST by Fitzcarraldo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SpringheelJack

As I’m not privy to the man’s mind, none of my “defenses” are based on knowing what happened. I can only attempt to interpret the facts that I have before me.

I can understand the “figurative” discussion. If I were trying to make up an excuse, I would have chosen the “I always believed it”.

I remember last year thinking that Allen must really think he never said the “N-word”, because if I was telling him to do what was best for his campaign I would have told him to say he was sorry for using it, instead of denying it. The only reason NOT to do so is if it was actually a lie.

However, in this case I’m not certain WHAT the Romney response is. I’d like to see a direct statement from the campaign rather than an article selectively quoting from it.

I appreciate what you said about me, and wanted to make it clear that I am really just looking for rational explanations of the information in front of me. And in almost every case, no matter what the candidate, if it’s a republican I’m interpreting things in the light most favorable to the republican.

If I wanted, I could tear down every one of our candidates. What would the point be?

BTW, I feel like you do as regards theories, but my interpretation of it is that they are probably telling the truth. Because if he was a liar, he certainly has people smart enough to give him my explanation. He wouldn’t need me to do so.

Therefore, since he isn’t using that explanation, which as you said would probably be more “believable”, it suggests to me that they are telling the truth, rather than lying. A lie would be “better”, and they aren’t using it, so it makes little sense to suggest they chose an unbelievable “lie” instead of a believable one.

BTW, if the complaint here had been that Romney is loose with his words, and spoke without regard to whether the story was actually true or not, I’d probably agree with that. I think he does say things that while literally true, don’t really convey an accurate view.

Like his statement about being a hunter. I guess if I thought more highly of politicians that would bother me more, but there are few politicians I know who don’t fall into rhetorical excesses on a regular basis.


239 posted on 12/21/2007 1:23:38 PM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 219 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT

Again, if he had just said “oops” instead of using definitions to explain it away, I would be fine with this. It may have been a family story to a certain extent. In fact, it could have been a kind of funny one after he realized the error. You, know, stories change over the years and all that. I imagine Paul Bunyan was once an ordinary man. Over the years, the stories grew and so did his size! The same can happen in families. He should have just been able to accept it was not as he had stated earlier.


240 posted on 12/21/2007 1:34:17 PM PST by ozaukeemom (Nuke the ACLU and their snivel rights)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 204 | View Replies]

To: SpringheelJack

perfect!


241 posted on 12/21/2007 1:36:22 PM PST by ozaukeemom (Nuke the ACLU and their snivel rights)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 219 | View Replies]

To: Josh Painter
I can see what he meant.

Here's a press release from his campaign, complete with a photo of Romney's mother and Martin Luther King, Jr.:

But unfortunately, this is the sort of thing that can really hurt a candidate.

242 posted on 12/21/2007 1:37:40 PM PST by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT
Why, if he believed MLK was in the march?

And why would Mitt believe such a thing? MLK was kinda famous and everything he did was making headlines at that time, so unless Mitt is prone to fantasies, he would know whether he was in the same march as MLK or not. Actually, that just answered the question. Mitt is prone to fantasies.
243 posted on 12/21/2007 1:56:57 PM PST by drjimmy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 223 | View Replies]

To: 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!

I know it is hard to keep up, since new whoppers by Mitt seem to be discovered every day, but I assume by now you are aware that Mitt did, in fact, claim to have marched himself with MLK.
244 posted on 12/21/2007 2:10:53 PM PST by drjimmy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 202 | View Replies]

To: drjimmy

Mitt said he saw his father Geroge but Mitt never claim to be in the March!


245 posted on 12/21/2007 2:13:35 PM PST by restornu (Harry Reid is going to get Daschled! You're on your own, Harry!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 244 | View Replies]

To: restornu
Mitt said he saw his father Geroge but Mitt never claim to be in the March!

You're one of those FReepers who post without reading the article, apparently.

Well, if you'd read this very one, you'd across this statement from ol' Mitt in 1978: "My father and I marched with Martin Luther King Jr. through the streets of Detroit."

246 posted on 12/21/2007 2:16:36 PM PST by SpringheelJack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 245 | View Replies]

To: restornu
Mitt said he saw his father Geroge but Mitt never claim to be in the March!

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."

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/12/21/romney_never_saw_father_on_king_march/

247 posted on 12/21/2007 2:21:07 PM PST by pepperhead (Kennedy's float, Mary Jo's don't!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 245 | View Replies]

To: SpringheelJack; drjimmy; pepperhead

I got it an but it’s possible that Mitt was with his father on some of the CR Marches.

His Father was Govenor 1963-69 and Sec of Hud

To me in those days to me Civil Rights were synomous with MLK.

This does not mean I am dismissing your challenge on the word saw etc.


248 posted on 12/21/2007 2:54:13 PM PST by restornu (Harry Reid is going to get Daschled! You're on your own, Harry!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 246 | View Replies]

To: SpringheelJack; drjimmy; pepperhead

I’m no Romney fan, as you would know if you visited my site, but I think he’s probably accurate enough given the likely full history, if not precise. First, this MI historical magazine reference list has MLK in Grosse Pointe, obviously at a prior date. Maybe it’s the same appearance to which you refer, but maybe not. More importantly, and I think this might get Mitt off the hook, given that he would have been about 15 years old at the time, there WAS a big MLK March down Woodward Avenue on June 25, 1963, and I would not be at all surprised if his dad marched in that — Except that as gov, security may have been a problem. Recall that MLK was a Republican. Go to Page 28 at this link (search was on michigan romney martin luther king, I think): http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:iv0yV5sDPvwJ:www.hsmichigan.org/pdf/timelines/Historic_Dates_Calendar.pdf+grosse+Ile+michigan+romney+martin+luther+king&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=9&gl=us&client=safari Ah, but the plot thickens: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Swainson George Romney’s PREDECESSOR as governor marched down Woodward Avenue. The Wiki entry for George Romney says he was strong on civil rights, but makes no mention of the march. It would be interesting to see if George as guv issued a proclamation of any kind or made a speech on the day of the 1963 march, if he didn’t himself march. Again giving Mitt the benefit of the doubt, it’s not unlikely, since he was 15 or so during the time period, that he would over the years have juxtaposed the events and even give his father a little more credit than he deserved. But there may be more to the story. That’s why, in this case, you’re the reporter and I’m the commenter. :—> Tom Blumer BizzyBlog.com Mason, OH

POSTED BY BizzyBlog AT 12/19/07 2:38 PM http://thephoenix.com/article_ektid53200.aspx


249 posted on 12/21/2007 3:03:38 PM PST by restornu (Harry Reid is going to get Daschled! You're on your own, Harry!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 246 | View Replies]

To: All
Having watched both instances where he said his father marched with MLK—Once? Mmm-kayyy... but, twice?!—there is NO DOUBT in my mind Romney fully intended to leave the audience with the impression that (1, in both clips) his father marched with MLK and (2, on C-SPAN) he saw his father do it. In fact, since the C-SPAN speech was the earlier of the two, I have to wonder if he decided saying he saw him march was going too far and/or too risky.

In my opinion, any who wish to believe otherwise—especially after they see the clips—are in deep, deep denial.

The man is either delusional or a deceiver. If necessary, I'll make that point at my precinct caucus on January 3.

250 posted on 12/21/2007 3:07:05 PM PST by newgeezer (aka "man in the audience" http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hf7ho7DYRuxBh-diUR-LKc1ZaXIAD8TKMDVG0)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250251-284 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson