FRED THOMPSON
"Saddle Me Up"
Posted on 12/22/2007 7:28:50 PM PST by ellery
But, as usual, the truth wasn't good enough for Mitt
On Sunday, June 23, 1963, 125,000 people marched down Detroit's Woodward Avenue to the Civic Center, in what was described at the time as the largest civil-rights demonstration in the nation's history. According to the next day's account in the Holland Evening Sentinel , the crowd at the Center "lustily booed," when representatives of Governor George W. Romney read a proclamation declaring "Freedom March Day in Michigan." But Martin Luther King Jr. didn't fault Romney for his absence, which the governor ascribed to his policy against public appearances on the Sabbath. "At a news conference following the march . . . [King] refused to criticize Romney for not attending the demonstration," the Sentinel reported.
"Issuing the proclamation, and sending his personal representatives, was probably more than 49 other governors would have been willing to do at that time," says Clayborne Carson, director of the Martin Luther King Jr. Papers Project at Stanford University. "It took considerable courage."
Romney would go much further, participating in a small demonstration in Grosse Pointe later that week; refusing to endorse Barry Goldwater in 1964, largely because of Goldwater's vote against the Civil Rights Act; and, in 1965, marching in Detroit to protest the police actions in Selma, Alabama.
These acts placed him at odds with his political party and with his church leadership. They are the types of actions, in defense of principles and at the risk of ambitions, that appear to be lacking in Romney's son — a failing that leads him, repeatedly, into false or exaggerated claims such as the one that has him in trouble this week.
Mitt Romney never questioned or decried the Mormon Church's doctrine forbidding black priests, which continued until 1978, at which time Romney was 31 years old, a vice president at Bain & Company, and the father of four.
So, for evidence of a principled stand he never took, Romney appropriated his father's principles. But, unlike King himself, Romney was not satisfied with what George Romney actually did. He inflated it, placing his father into the iconic position of marching alongside the civil rights leader.
He didn't just use imprecise language, as his campaign is now spinning it. His language — in at least three different nationally televised instances, including this past Sunday's Meet the Press with Tim Russert — was precise enough: he had direct, personal first-hand knowledge that his father had marched with Dr. King.
The precision, in fact, is the problem: the sincerity with which he offered the memory, the emotion that led his eyes to well up. This was not a man simply passing along something he had once come across in a David Broder book.
And yesterday, after being called on the issue, he offered more specifics. He told reporters in Iowa that he recalled his father changing his mind, and deciding to march even though it was Sunday.
It wasn't the first time Romney has abused a parental memory. Running for Senate in Massachusetts, in 1994, and trying to establish pro-choice credibility that he had done nothing to earn, Romney told stories about his mother, Lenore Romney, running on a strong pro-choice platform in her own unsuccessful bid for public office in 1970. Those tales were debunked by Boston Globe columnist Eileen McNamara.
Then, as now, Romney tried to buttress his statement with weak documentation at odds with the precision of the claim: in that case, Romney provided the Globe with a vaguely-worded campaign document that could be read as supporting the pre-Roe v Wade status quo, in which abortion was a felony in Michigan. ''I support and recognize the need for more liberal abortion rights while reaffirming the legal and medical measures needed to protect the unborn and pregnant woman [sic]," the document read.
Again, at that time, Romney did not just pass along falsehood as fact. He sold it as personal truth, speaking of the painful memories of a close relative's death, from complications of an illegal abortion.
Romney was telling that tale, of course, when it was politically expedient to be pro-choice. Today, needing to be pro-life, he has a new, highly personal and emotional tale of personal conversion after a doctor showed him how stem cells are handled in research — another specific but uncorroborated story, about which even the doctor involved has expressed skepticism.
Romney once favored gun control; now, needing gun-rights voters, he has falsely claimed to be a "lifelong hunter" and to have been endorsed in 2002 by the National Rifle Association – an endorsement the NRA never gave him. Needing to establish anti-illegal-immigrant credentials, he boasts of an attitude that he never displayed while governor — when he expressed no concern over several "sanctuary cities" in the state — until the very end of his term, when he had turned his attention to the Republican Presidential nomination.
This week, he finds the need to attack Mike Huckabee on crime, and so Romney has re-invented his record there, falsely claiming, in a new ad, to have cracked down on methamphetamine.
It is not just that these are untruths. They are the actions of a man desperate to cater to the whims of his audience. What they want, he must appear to be.
This is the opposite of leadership — the opposite of the actions taken by his father in the 1960s.
It should be recalled that the infamous "brainwashed" comment that sunk George Romney's 1968 Presidential candidate, cost him not merely because of the choice of words, but for the idea he was expressing: that what the generals were telling America about how the war was going in Vietnam was untrue.
That was heresy among pro-war Republicans, who quickly turned on Romney.
Today, Mitt Romney is attacking Huckabee for daring to criticize George W. Bush's conduct of the Iraq War, in a recent Foreign Affairs article. Romney, of course, has refused to speak ill of Bush — that would hurt him among the Republicans he is courting. His father, one suspects, would be disappointed.
However, to add to the factual record, here is a direct link to the 1963 article this article discusses ("Detroit's Civil Rights Parade Attracts 125,000 -- it's a .pdf): http://thephoenix.com/x/Holland.pdf
This article is from Monday, June 24, 1963, and reports on Martin Luther King's march in Detroit the day before: Sunday, June 23. It confirms that Romney did not appear at the march with King, in King's own words.
This is not to slam George Romney, who was by all accounts a leading civil rights advocate. It is merely further evidence that contradicts the book citations put out by Romney's camp or supporters.
These books that Romney's camp is using to support Mitt's claim that he saw his father march with MLK refer to a *Sunday, July 23, 1963* Detroit march and say that Romney and King marched together. However, the only Detroit march MLK attended in that timeframe was the June 23 march -- and contrary to the Romney camp's book citations, July 23 did not fall on a sunday in 1963. I think most reasonable people would concede that those books probably meant to cite the Sunday, June 23, 1963 march (and it's documented here that Romney did not attend that).
The pertienent passages:
"Gov. George Romney did not take part in the demonstration because of his policy of participating in nothing but church activities on Sunday. Romney, however, declared the day 'Freedom March Day in Michigan; and designated two personal representatives to take part in the activities."
"At a news conference following the march, King told reporters he was aware of the possibility of racial violence in the non-violent movement. But he said the purpose was 'to create a situation that is so crisis-packed that the community is forced to act.'
He refused to criticize Romney for not attending the demonstration. However, he said that he felt the 'social gospel is as important as the personal gospel. I would leave it to his own conscience and not say words of condemnation.'"
At this point, people have decided whether they think this is relevant or not. This is just to sort out the underlying facts, since it appears that some of the supporting material Romney's camp is citing is incorrect (as to the eyewitnesses that claim to have seen Romney marching with MLK in Grosse Point -- there is no evidence that MLK *marched* in Grosse Point...but that's a separate issue).
Mitt might make a good president in the years to come, but he’ll have to prove he’s a real conservative to me first...and that will take a long time.
Great piece, Ellery. Thanks for posting it.
FRED THOMPSON
"Saddle Me Up"
http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NmEyOTMzNWQzOTNmZDhlNThjMjUyOWZkODZlNGE5NTM
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1207/7524.html
Enough of drivel like this article.
Romney will be Fred’s running mate, and thank God he’s no John-Kerry-style pathological liar.
Thanks. I actually saw it last night, but didn’t post it. The reason I posted it today is that Romney’s campaign is supporting his initial accounts with book citations that according to this do not appear to be correct.
You're a master of satire, D.
Nice article. I liked how they took a picture from that newspaper from June 24th. I don’t know why their isn’t more respectable journalist and bloggers going to Detroit and doing the same thing with the other news papers printed around that time. It would defiantly put a end to all of this one way or another.
Alerting you to a good article — some new bits of info too.
I guess this proves that Romney marched against MLK.
He'll never be a real conservative nor would he make a good president. He has no character and no integrity.
I have only been lightly following this story, but when I first looked at it I checked into the previous work of this David Bernstein. Let’s keep in mine he is not working for the Globe or the Herald. This is the Boston Phoenix, a privately held company of between 50-200 employees. The guy does not even rate a bio with his education listed, assuming he has a journalism degree at all.
Most of all, when you go to this guy’s name at this Phoenix website, you will see the previous articles he has done on Romney. None are impartial journalism. Here are some titles:
http://thephoenix.com/Author.aspx?name=DAVID%20S.%20BERNSTEIN
Mitt’s equity army: Romney’s war chest is overflowing with the contributions of his financial-world pals. But what is the price of their loyalty?
Romney’s chicks: Mitt’s kind of women
The rats in Romney’s corner: The dirty tricksters behind Romney’s money
This guy is a far left wing writer and almost certainly has been funded to propagate this story, which is evolving to be a hugely powerful mistake for the left wing. The more this elevates, the more the Romney family is portrayed as a friend of blacks. This can equate to just 2% of elderly blacks peeled off Hillary in November next year, and frankly even if that is only in Michigan it would swing Michigan’s ( his home state) EVs to Romney.
That, people, would be the ballgame. MoveOn has POURED money into Ohio. Ohio has a Democrat Governor now. If the GOP can’t hold it, the EVs to make up for it have to come from elsewhere. Michigan is the prime candidate for a Romney grab and this story is moving in just the right direction to do just that for him in the general election. Keep it going.
Fred will be ending his campaign after he finishes 6th, behind Paul, in the NH primary, and 4th in the SC primary. He’ll probably endorse McCain before the FL primary. All the Mitt hating in the world cannot save Fred. Only Fred can save Fred. He needs a lifejacket in a real bad way.
Thanks for the ping....excellent reading
“All the Mitt hating in the world cannot save Fred.”
I don’t hate Mitt. Do you? Mitt’s my third choice after Fred and Duncan. I think Mitt will be Fred’s running mate.
Fred is the overwhelming choice of the Republican bloggers ( not just FR ), and he’s a very intelligent man. On all the issues that matter to me, immigration, global warming, taxes, defense, gun control, and social security, Fred has an intelligent and well-reasoned position. I just have faith that my fellow Republicans are going to get their act together and nominate the best man to lead us to victory. As Tug McGraw of the 1973 NY Mets once said, “You gotta believe!”.
Go Fred!
Is this true? I haven't read that anywhere else. If it is I would say he is one sick guy. Throwing dad under the bus too.
“If it is I would say he is one sick guy. Throwing dad under the bus too.”
This Romney hating is sick. Romney is a slick flip-flopping politician who cares a bit too much about getting elected. But he’s not evil, or a pathological liar like Kerry. George Romney marched with Dr. King, and Mitt, who was a teenager at the time, remembers it. He has good reason to be proud of his distinguished father.
No I don’t hate Mitt. A lot on these threads do. I think Fred would be excellent as well. I hope he’s the nominee. But I refuse to join in the smear campaign against all the others. These latest numbers look very bleak though.
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.