Mitticisms: "Martin Luther King" [Updated]
Earlier this month, in a speech defending the racist, uhm, quirks of his proud but secret religion, Mitt Romney declared:
"I saw my father march with Martin Luther King."
So, well, that's that. Except, according to a report in the Boston Phoenix, it turns out that depends on what your definition of "saw" is. And "march." And "with." And "Martin Luther King."
Because it never happened.
"A spokesperson for Mitt Romney now tells the Phoenix that George W. Romney and Martin Luther King Jr. marched together in June, 1963 -- although possibly not on the same day or in the same city."
... Romney spokesperson Eric Fehrnstrom suggests that these two were part of the same "series" of events, co-sponsored by King and the NAACP, and is thus consistent with Romney's claim that 'I saw my father march with Martin Luther King.'"
Mitt, Fehrnstrom explains, was speaking "figuratively."
Although they never marched together, they did march separately. In that they were both in Michigan and ambulatory at the same time. And, by "the same time," I mean "different times."
Except, if you read the Phoenix story, George Romney didn't actually "march" anywhere. But he was present at an event. Where King was not.
And Mitt never "saw" it, because he was doing missionary work in France.
WHAT MITT MEANT:
We can all agree that George Romney and Martin Luther King were both alive in June, 1963.
--
UPDATE:
The Romney campaign is still looking for an event where George Romney might have marched with Martin Luther King. Romney seems to have been at King's funeral, but that doesn't count, since Baptists don't believe the dead walk and we don't know what Mormons believe. Mitt would tell you, but then he'd have to kill you, and rebaptize you against your will.
Another helpful lead from Team Mitt? The event where Mitt Romney might have seen his father marching with Dr. King and/or kissing Santa Claus occurred somewhere between 1963 and 1968.
So Mitt might not have been ministering to the French; he might have been in high school, to see it, if it happened or not, which is anybody's guess.
And a clarification from the candidate himself:
"When we say, 'I saw the Patriots win the World Series, it doesn't necessarily mean you were there -- excuse me, the Super Bowl. I saw my dad become president of American Motors. Did that mean you were there for the ceremony? No, it's a figure of speech."
It's basic etymology. When a man says: "I saw," you should know it's just an expression. For "I didn't see."
Except the American Motors comparison doesn't really work. Presumably there are pay stubs from that. Because presumably it really happened. A more precise analogy would be: "I saw my dad invent the internal combustion engine."
With Medgar Evers.
Your family might believe it. But it doesn't make it even figuratively true.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Clarence Darrow, a remarkable thinker in spite of being a lawyer, once said, "History repeats itself. That's the darn problem with history." And so it seems to be with Mr. Romney. His history is one of swaying this way and that, whenever the opportunity arises to take any position on any subject, if it will help him in his now badly damaged quest for the Republican nomination. It is interesting that when he claims to have witnessed the supposed event of Dad and Martin marching together, he was preaching that Heaven is in Missouri to the French. That must not have gone well, because the French know heaven is in Paris, but then if I wanted to preach that Heaven is in Misouri, I would certainly do it in Paris and not St. Louis--the Eifel Tower is much more interesting than the St. Louis Arch, and besides, Daddy had the bucks to send little Mitt here. Perhaps Mitt saw Daddy and Martin marching in Paris?
Your acid wit is applied perfectly to this ludicrous situation.
How gorgeously sly! If you haven't already done it, how about applying your elegant dissection skills to this smarmball's career as a corporate raider (even a creator of the model)? Bob Drogin recently did some great reporting on it, but you could whittle that long read down to art.
I'll be giving the project a shot, too, and other readers who blog may want to do likewise. Romney very much needs to be pilloried on these grounds. He's as emblematic of corporatist evil as Cheney.
First part of the Drogin story is at www.latime
Thanks for the chuckle; it's amazing that you can almost dead-pan the truth and it sounds like tongue-in-cheek. Was it really ever very likely that we would have an LDS president anyway?
Well - at least he's consistent with the founding elders. In the front of the Book of Mormon, you can see the names of the founding church members who swore that they saw the tablets given to Joseph Smith by Maroni (Morony?,Boney Marroni? I don't remember how to spell this angel of the Lord's name) Anyway - several of them later recanted their testimony saying they saw the tablets with, "eyes of faith." There you have it - Eyes of Faith. He saw his Dad march with King with Eyes of Faith.
That's all he had to say, "Eyes of Faith." Mormon codeword for Bull*&^%.
Republicans have a history of distorting or exaggerating information in order to have it appear just the way they would like it to.
Romney is just following this trend.
Its a gift that REPUGS have inherited and been able to manipulate many people by it so it shall not stop anytime soon.
It would certainly have been better for Mitt to not have gotten carried away with oratory's moment, and to have stated unabiguously what he actually meant in a non figurative way.
Mitt says many times what he thinks people want to hear, it seems.; Is that being a little shifty?
Are you going to hold that against him, a Mittle White Lie.
Hilarious!
Both Mitt's fabrications and your explanation.
I have read right much of the Book of Mormon. I went out and bought a copy a few years ago to see what it was all about.
The Book of Mormon was allegedly "given" to Joseph Smith after a visitation by the angel, "Lenape," who told Smith to go into a field near Candandaigua, NY and fetch some GOLD tablets upon which would be written the holy word. Much like Moses.
After copying down said holy word, Smith was instructed to take said gold tablets back to the field from whence they came, and they subsequently disappeared, presumably by the actions of the said Lenape.
So, all we now have is the transcription thereof by Joseph Smith, who was killed while migrating west. Brigham Young ultimately delivered the "flock" to the Great Salt Lake.
Among other tidbits, the Mormons believe that Native Americans are the Lost Tribe of Israel! I am not sure if this also includes the Maya, the Inca and the Innuit. There are several scriptures in said Book of Mormon that enlighten and amplify the New Testament with later miracles, thus, the "latter-day saints."
So, there is a lot of "interesting" stuff therein, but it is difficult to accept the literal truth thereof, much like the Old and New Testaments.
Thus, my conclusion is (since Mitt put his religion into play, it is fair game)that ANYONE who believes in the literal truth of any of that stuff is INSANE!
Anyone who is either (a) a religious fundamentalist or (b) a recovering addict HAS NO BUSINESS BEING ELECTED PRESIDENT!!
Thank you.
We do know that Romney Sr did support the efforts of MLK in a personal way. Thats whats important. Unlike the Black Arkansas Churches that Clinton saw in Little Rock which did not exist.
The level of nit-picking is incredible. This whole issue of dissecting what is "is" type statements and parsing them endlessly is ridiculous and unproductive to the use of Huffington's public forum. This daily banter is beginning to resemble a modern day version of yesteryear's rumor mongering conducted over the fence while hanging the daily wash. I can't wait to get through February 5th!
Today is Solstice and St. Thomas Feast Day. Saint Thomas was the one had doubts (he had to poke a finger in the Savior's wounds to make sure it was for real). Snakeback rightfully pointed out in comments that Mitt is a great guy, someone you would love to have a beer with, except he is a devout teetotaler. Mitt. Rudy. Mike. Now that is a triple tag team of truthyness.
Quite frankly, I'm not at all surprised. Incidentally, Hillary Clinton lied about her family's background,too, saying that they supported the CRM from the start, when they were in fact proponents of segregation. But saying that your comments weren't "literal"? That's a thing that only Mitt is capable of doing, or rather having his campaign spokespeople do for him.
Why can't people celebrate black history by actually learning about history? Why do candidates and government officials/ congresspeople lie about the past instead of planning for the future? (Cough, cough, Larry Craig.)
If the allegations against Gov. Romney are factual, then they are certainly enough to keep most people from voting for him. Unfortuneately, some people won't care if he is predisposed to lie, that's why they are called Republicans.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
