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 ...
That's because we now know, or at least are pretty certain, that the story was a combination of two marches that took place 6 days apart.
Up until someone thought to check out the story, everybody thought it was true. Now that new information is available, the campaign is simply stating the obvious, that the 1978 statement was incorrect. But that doesn't mean it was a "lie", which indicates Mitt knew it was incorrect when he said it.
In fact, it seems clear from the 1978 statement that Mitt Romney has believed this story for a LONG time. And further, his family, including his father, has likely believed this story for a long time.
After all, his father didn't correct the book by Broder, and he didn't correct this news article with his son. That shows that he didn't think it was wrong.
Last year, after years of denying his mother was Jewish, Allen sat down with her, and she confessed to him that she had hidden her past from the family all those years.
Liberals called Allen a LIAR for denying his jewish history. But in fact, he had never KNOWN it until his mother told him.
Calling people liars because they thought the truth was something other than what it was is such a liberal thing to do. It was disgusting what the Washington Post and the liberals did to Allen last year. Now I'm remembering (I tried to forget), and I'm realising why I'm working so hard to keep the mitt-bashers from getting away with the same crap.
If you have PROOF that he KNEW it was false, present it. Otherwise, all you have is that Mitt has told a story for his entire life, and now we believe that story is inaccurate.
I saw my father march with Martin Luther King.
Bad comparison. Try again.
When they lie to us, they deserve to be eaten.
His dad, wasn’t it? Not himself?
It all fits a pattern. He embellishes stories when the simple truth would serve him just as well. I find this to be a severe character flaw.
Actually, if it wasn’t for the fact that they lived where King marched, and at the time when King marched, it would very MUCH be an acceptable figure of speech.
There were Hundreds of Thousands of poeple who said they were “Marching with King”, ALL OVER THE COUNTRY, during the civil rights era. But since everybody knew MLK wasn’t in those places, we all KNEW what they meant.
In this case, Romney was SUPPOSED to march WITH MLK, IN PERSON, but turned it down because of his adherance to the Sabboth, and instead marched 6 days later in one of those “marches with MLK” that everybody was doing all over the country.
But somehow, through the years, the story became that he had actually been in the same march. Broder, Mitt, others all said things that made it sound literally true.
And until someone actually decided to check, nobody knew the difference. Including in all likelyhood, Mitt himself.
All candidates have scratches and dents, but I’d rather know now what we’ll be hit with later and make up my own mind as to whether or not it’s an acceptable chink or a big gaping hole that will fracture when it’s hit in the general election.
Romney himself has provided this fodder.
Not once not even twice...not even three times...
Maybe someone should tell your candidate to stop speaking figuratively. That people want to know ..really know...where he stands. Cut the bull ...give it straight up.
If he had played it straight ...his father had some great things he could of played on...no need to hype. They were great things on their own.
I am well aware of Romney and his calculations. Romney began to run for president for this term during the last Bush election.
Thank you for signing up to FR just in the nick of time to campaign for Romney.
Mitt was incorrect, and he knows it.
Apparently, in your world of language, my daughter lied 4 times on her Spanish test.
I think you would remember if you were at a history making event or not. I, for example, was not there when the Berlin Wall fell
I am sure if not for a few posters on Free Republic, the Hillary campaign would never figure out that Mitt said “I marched with Martin Luther King.”
That's the most Clintonian spin yet. It's uncanny.
I searched my entire post, and I couldn’t find anywhere that I used the word “doing”.
The writings of the mitt-bashers remind me of how much fun it is to read Amelia Bedilia books. She also takes everything literally, causing much hilarity.
And yet, from his own personal memory, he "saw" his father marching with MLK.
It's not true. It never was true. And based on the fact that he revised his previous lie, he knew it wasn't true. But he went with it anyway, to make the event sound grander, when the simple truth would have served the same point and not have risked controversy.
Considering this all happened in the "vote for me or else you're a bigot, you slack-jawed evangelicals" speech, I guess I'm just a bigot for commenting on the lies.
Fair enough.
Its this that big of a deal to you?
This is so trivial, I just don’t get the energy driving it here and elsewhere.
If we are looking for a ‘perfect in every way’ candidate, we’re going to be very very disappointed, and lose another election cycle to the Dems in the end.
This is a reacher, Charles. How does Mitt saying the same thing, only saying it worse from the "figurative" spin standpoint, buttress the claim that "everyone" believed King was there? You're still stuck with Mitt, and a host of contemporary newspaper articles that say otherwise. All it supports is that Mitt has been telling a straight lie and not a figurative truth.
I'm one of those people who wondered why Romney hadn't said it earlier if it was true, back when the Romneyites were still pushing that assertion, but I never tied it in to what George Romney's lifespan was or what he went around saying, since Mitt vouched for it on his own personal experience and what he witnessed was either true or false.
Even if George Romney was telling the same story in 1978, that is, LYING, since he would have known the truth on something like that, it does Mitt no favors because Mitt got in trouble for claiming this was a personal experience of his, something he witnessed, participated in. If he just said his dad marched with King people could take that as an honest error.
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.