Why Am I Silent About The Romney Verbiage Controversy?

Hard to know what to make of it. There's no good reason to lie about an easily verifiable fact, and Romney has been known to dip into literary language occasionally, especially when he's trying to illustrate a point of history.

The facts seem to be that Romney's father put himself at political risk to march on behalf of civil rigthts; Mitt and Scott Romney may have heard, as young men, that his father marched "with" MLK in the sense that the preposition is used by a politician who says he "stands" with workers... that Romney's efforts to explain himself were pedantic and, judging by the response, easily mockable... and that, so far, Iowans don't seem to be hearing about this all that much from their own press...

The Kerry comparisons have to hurt, though.

BTW: Here's Romney's newest ad in Michigan. It's personal to him.

Comments

Romney will just say anything to get elected and this is a prime example

Posted by Corey | December 21, 2007 12:16 PM

And apparently, Ambinder will do anything to vindicate Mitt's lies. Would he do the same sympathetic parsing for a Democrat?

Posted by goethean | December 21, 2007 12:57 PM

This blog makes the same argument and points out how the Phoenix story is disingenuous. When you have four books saying that GR and MLK marched together, you would think it is a pretty safe bet for a Presidential Campaign to say so without being accused of lying.

Posted by Samuel | December 21, 2007 1:08 PM

Guess they don't allow hyperlinks...the blog is
www.occidentalvalues.blogspot.com

Posted by Sam | December 21, 2007 1:09 PM

Even if we take Marc and Mitt for their defense of earlier statements the latest piece in the Boston Globe proves that Mitt is a habitual liar.

According to Globe,

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."

Posted by Ross | December 21, 2007 1:19 PM

When I watched "the speech” I did not interrupt the comment "I saw my Father march with MLK" as literal, I understood that he was saying his Father supported King and stood for civil rights. And that is how Mitt was raised and his values.

What is all the chatter about? There is NO mistaking George Romney's record. I find these liar accusations insulting to the intelligence of the American people.

Posted by Open Mind | December 21, 2007 1:20 PM

Romney is no Liar, although many of you wish he was, and project that he is. Why would he make something up like that, knowing it will be scrutinized. I think he is a bit more intelligent than that.

To quote Samuel, "When you have four books saying that GR and MLK marched together, you would think it is a pretty safe bet for a Presidential Campaign to say so without being accused of lying."

Why not focus on something that really matters, like the faux conservatism of Huckabee...

Posted by James FF | December 21, 2007 1:24 PM

Romney is serial lair. He is now claiming that even he marched with MLK! One has to say that Romney is a courageous liar.

Posted by Romney | December 21, 2007 1:45 PM

You know what..

Mitt marched with Nelson Mondela in 80's.

Mitt marched with Mahatma Gandi in 40's.

Mitt fought World War II and marched with American soldiers in Germany.

Mitt landed on moon with Armstrong.

I love Mitt because he has done it all ;)

Posted by Matt | December 21, 2007 1:55 PM

Mark, I think that the distinction is between journalist and activist. You are a journalist. And Jennifer Rubin is an activist.

Posted by mikeVA | December 21, 2007 2:24 PM

George Romney DID march with Martin Luther King.

George Romney DID march in many civil rights marches.

George Romney DID travel to Atlanta to attend King's funeral.

Mitt Romney did not SEE it with his own eyes.

There are dozens and dozens of contemporary articles proving the marches. See the Campaign Spot for Thursday 20 Dec 2007 for lists of proof of the marches.

Posted by Carolina | December 21, 2007 2:24 PM

Mitt is a pathological liar for sure. He claimed earlier this year that he had been a hunter “pretty much all my life,” only to have to admit later he had seriously hunted on only two occasions.

Then he lied about NRA's endorsement. Romney claimed on “Meet the Press” that he received endorsement from National Rifle Association while he was running for governor of MA in 2002, but it turned out that NRA had never endorsed him.

And now he claims that not only his father marched with MLK but he himslef marched with MLK.

Romney once ridiculed Giuliani about misstatements by saying “facts are stubborn things” but now Romney has his own problem with telling the truth.

Romney, facts are indeed stubborn things.

Liar, Liar, Pants on fire.

Posted by WhyRomneyLies | December 21, 2007 2:25 PM

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)

Posted by carolina | December 21, 2007 2:36 PM

Detroit Free Press: “With Gov. Romney a surprise arrival and marching in the front row, more than 500 Negroes and whites staged a peaceful anti-discrimination 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)

Posted by carolina | December 21, 2007 2:37 PM

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.”

Posted by carolina | December 21, 2007 2:38 PM

We need a true christian like Huck who never lies. We do not need another liar in WH.

Mitt can try to erase all of hos flipflops with millions of dollars that he is pumping into his campaign but it will be impossible to erase Mitt's lies even with billions.

Posted by word | December 21, 2007 2:39 PM

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)

Posted by carolina | December 21, 2007 2:39 PM

Romney bots can claim all they want but it is a fact that Mitt lied when he said that he also marched with Martin Luther King.

Posted by Neil | December 21, 2007 2:48 PM

Huckster lies all the time.

Like he lost wieght with diet and exercise. Lie.

He had gastric bypass surgery on his "mystery" trip to the Virgin Islands.

Like he didn't push for the parole of Wayne Drummond who went on to kill a young mother of three.

Huckster is a huckster -- ask anybody in Arkansas.

Posted by PreacherLady | December 21, 2007 2:55 PM

With all due respect to carolina's literature searches, the problem Romney has right now and has had throughout his political career is his propensity for exaggeration and embellishment. If Mitt merely wanted to acknowledge that his father had been a great supporter of civil rights, then it would not have been hard to say something to that effect. But he couldn't simply state the facts, unembellished. Instead, he's repeatedly tried to create the vivid, heartwarming impression that both he and his father actually marched with Dr. King——literally. Yes, he can argue that he was speaking figuratively, but we ought to ask why he felt the need to do so when a less embellished version of history would've sufficed.
Likewise for the hunting fables. If Mitt had simply said "I support the right to bear arms and I pledge to do absolutely nothing to limit Americans' access to guns," that would've been all the NRA would need to hear, right? Instead, we get this b.s. about being a hunter "pretty much his whole life," and then the nauseating qualification to that tall tale in which he actually uttered the word "varmints". This was as phony as Kerry's last-minute hunting trip in '04.
We can argue about precisely how much of Mitt's b.s. is pure fiction, but at the end of the day it's pretty clear that this man is not confident that his actual life and persona are appealing to people. He feels he MUST spin, embellish, exaggerate, and use figurative language in order to be presidential.
Some people may find that pathetic. I do.

Posted by tinisoli | December 21, 2007 4:07 PM

The George Romney, his wife and his family marched with Martin Luther King Jr. That family have solid record on civil rights and they participated in civil rights activism. It is fact just like Mitt's accomplishments.

Posted by mikeVA | December 21, 2007 5:51 PM

Are all these "Mitt was being figurative even when claiming that he himself marched with his father and MLK" people the same lot who cheered on the media's willful distortion of Al Gore's perfectly legitimate comments to claim he said he invented the internet etc.?

Posted by Anthony Cantor | December 21, 2007 8:17 PM

Mitt lied.

As if this is something new.

I'm used to Mitt lying.

But, as a Black person, to see him lie about MLK like that, it's one of those WTF moments.

Of course, he still hasn't addressed the inherent RACIST doctrine that's plain as day CURRENTLY in the Mormon religion.

The man gives snakeoil salesmen a bad name.

Posted by rikyrah | December 21, 2007 9:41 PM

Between Mitt and Huck, pick the true Christian. Awww the word Christian is so manipulated and burnt out, put it this way - lets face it we all hold Mitt to a much higher standard than Huck or any other candidate and that should tell you something.

Posted by liz | December 22, 2007 12:15 AM

The problem with Mitt Romney's lies is that his dad lacked the physical courage to walk next to King the night King was in town because that's who the crazy people shoot at. Instead he waited a week or a few days til the national press left and until he saw how the whole issue played after king's walk.
Another problem is Mitt said he too was there and that it was in Detroit which sure sounds tougher than Grosse Point.
Another problem is that publicly his dad may have spoken out for equal rights even as a governor (one inside the organization that needed changing) while privately he was a leader in a church that officially was bigoted and discriminated actively against blacks and Romney made no public stance challenging that.
The biggest problem is that last week Mitt repeated the MLK lie to pretend he was better on an issue than he was, just as he lives in the land of pretend on issues across the board.
He once said a relative died from an illegal abortion and for that reason he'd always support a woman's right to choose. Another time he said in the name and memory of his mom he was for a woman's right to choose. Aren't both of these pronouncements kind of like swearing on my momma's grave I'm telling the truth except now its clear he held no such unwavering committment.

Now here is a guy who can never again claim he saw anything without all of us disbelieving him.
Can we elect someone we know we can't believe?

Posted by Michael | December 22, 2007 12:12 PM

And maybe its time to check if a relative really did die from illegal abortion?

Posted by Michael | December 22, 2007 12:15 PM

"Can we elect someone we know we can't believe?"

Um, you'll have to rule out ALL of the current candidates on both sides in that case.

Posted by slick | December 23, 2007 1:05 PM