Lenore Romney with Dr. Martin Luther King.
Posted on 12/22/2007 7:04:49 AM PST by Leisler
Mitt Romney continued to cite a 1967 book reference as proof his father marched for civil rights with Martin Luther King Jr. even as the author insisted he has no evidence to back up the claim.
“In 1963, George Romney did participate in Martin Luther King Jr.’s ‘Freedom Marches’ in Grosse Pointe,” said Romney spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom yesterday, citing the book titled “The Republican Establishment: The Present and Future of the GOP.”
But Stephen Hess, a senior fellow of the Brookings Institution who wrote the book with Washington Post columnist David S. Broder, said the reference to Romney’s father, the late Michigan Gov. George Romney, marching with King was “meant totally symbolically.”
“The point we were making was that the issue of Mormonism had to do with its civil rights record. Did he walk with Martin Luther King? Today I have no idea,” Hess said.
The book, lacking footnotes and references, says in a chapter about George Romney, “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.”
But two members of the Grosse Pointe Historical Society said yesterday King never set foot in Grosse Pointe in 1963 and they woud have known if George Romney marched with him.
A member of the committee that invited King to appear at Grosse Pointe High School on March 14, 1968 - the only time historians say King appeared in the Detroit suburb - says George Romney wasn’t at the event and there was no “march” at that time.
“Dr. King was flown into Detroit and rushed into Grosse Pointe under heavy security, gave his address and then left very shortly thereafter,” said Russell Peebles, 88, who was a member of the Grosse Pointe school board’s Human Relations Committee, which invited King to speak. “George (Romney) was not in the audience. He certainly wasn’t on the stage.”
Romney claimed in his widely watched speech on religion earlier this month in College Station, Texas, and in a Sunday appearance on ‘Meet the Press’ that he “saw” his father march with the leader of the civil rights movement. In Iowa today, as his campaign tried to wriggle out of questions, Romney parsed definitions of the word “saw” and claimed his use of the term was “figurative.”
Larry Sabato of the University of Virginia’s Center for Politics called Romney’s parsing “Clintonian,” adding, “He just thought no one would ever check.”
Watch out, you’ll be accused of telling a hate joke.
You asked to see a photo of MLK and Romney. That’s what 107 is. You did not refer to the June 23 or June 29 marches. By pointing out the photo I made no claims about the marches. I already explained the evidence pro and contra in 101 and explained why the eyewitness evidence for June 29 that places both MLK and Romney at that march would, by standard historical method, be taken more seriously than Grosse Pointe Historical Society dames.
I evaluated the evidence. You just shout and preen.
Does this mean “WAS” has become the new “IS” ?
Are you seriously claiming that is authentic? OMG!
My fault - I thought that was implied.
Hey pepperhead, can you link to the original source of that photo? I'm interested in reading more about it.
No jokes about Romney are allowed! They aren’t American by golly!
Specifically in 111 you asked to see a photo of Mrs. Romney and MLK. 110 to which you responded did not claim to have seen photos of MLK and George Romney marching. It claimed that eyewitnesses state they saw them marching together. 110 went on to say that photos of Mrs. Romney and MLK exist. You asked to see those photos, not photos of MLK and George Romney marching. I referred you to 107. Then you come back and prate about that photo not showing MLK and Romney marching. Well, you didn’t ask to see a photo of that.
Why don’t you pay attention?
The picture in #107 is photoshopped. LOL
I am not a Myth hater....I simply don't like liars, double-speakers, or whatever you want to call people who play fast and loose with words like Mitt. I did/I didn't -I saw/it was saw in the figurative sense. You get my drift..... Again, I don't hate Mitt, I just don't like him for his continual parsing of words.
Right, in a nut shell that is it. We don’t deny George was involved with the civil rights movement. We just don’t think the newspapers are lying when they originally reported the two didn’t march together. But they both did march but on different days. Thus Mitt never saw his father march with King and he surely didn’t march with his father and King like he said in a 78 interview.
Do you have evidence that it is not? If so, cite it. If not, why is your assumption that it is not authentic any more trustworthy than my assumption that it is? If you have evidence that it is not authentic, offer it. Otherwise, can the innuendo. It only reveals your prejudice. When someone offers evidence the photo is a fake, I’ll change my assumption. But I won’t change it based on your assumption to the contrary.
Why don’t you pay attention?
Well, in fairness, I've been paying enough attention to notice some odd things about that photo in #107.
One is called Hillary.
ROTFLMAO.....
*Proof that Adobe Photoshop is a fun and versatile tool for photo manipulation.
Dude, just look closely at the picture.
All that may be true, but the story as related by Mitt has an eerie ring of:
Christmas in Cambodia
Church burnings
Named for Edmund Hillary
and so on....
why can’t people just stick to the facts and not do what I will charitably call embellishing?
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.