[ellery]

I continue to believe that the most pertinent story in this whole mess is how absolutely poorly Romney and his campaign have handled it -- releasing several different and somewhat conflicting statements, resorting to what the meaning of "says" and "together" are, etc. Damage control is a big part of any president's job.

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).

[glmjr]

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.

[SpringheelJack]

Great piece, Ellery. Thanks for posting it.

[devere]

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.

[pepperhead]

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.

[SpringheelJack]

Alerting you to a good article — some new bits of info too.

[Perchant]

I guess this proves that Romney marched against MLK.

[JRochelle]

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.

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.