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.

Comments

[lovethesinner]

Some might argue that Chris is being unseasonably uncharitable by picking on Mitt's word selection here, but, in 1968 "marching with negros" (the politically correct term at that time) was really a lot different than "standing up for civil rights."

White people were a lot less likely to throw things at you when you were standing next to a negro's grave, since it wasn't always clear what part you were playing in the ceremony.

For all we know, Mitt could have had very genuine feelings about race and might now have an idea or two about what it means to America.

But, by claiming his father's experience as his own to somehow correct his religion's image with voters, Romney became something much worse than a flip-flopper.

Mitt Romney became George Bush, and Hillary Clinton all rolled up in one.

No wonder John McCain is starting to climb up the polls.

[Snakeback]

Well, you know what he meant:

He's a great guy, you'd love to have a beer with him, but he's also a devout teetotaler. He is associated with everything that's great about America, and if there's anything that isn't great, well, he isn't associated with that.

He represents white America, but well, he also backed civil rights. He was for the war before he was against it. He wants to end the war, but keep our troops there until we win the war. He's pro-worker, but loves big corporate money. He's a family man, but also a good ol' boy.

He's, well, he's whatever you want him to be! The world's most marketable personality! So vote for him!

Now is that a clear message or what?

[TheGreatOogabooga]

To be honest, I saw a lot of things in the Sixties that I have since been informed by friends and acquaintances didn't literally march by. There were the radioactive penguins and the low-flying duck-billed platypus on actual fire, just to mention a couple. Of course, a little LSD and a few shrooms might have contributed to my previous confusion, but I can't attest to that, either, because I'm absolutely convinced that I'm still in a fat chair in my med school friend Merlin's apartment having a very bad trip. Maybe Mitt is simply having a flashback to something that never happened due to some bad acid that he never actually took.

[Cybesq]

Mitt also said he saw his dad share an apple with Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden in Missouri. (This one is not figurative, although his recollection is a bit hazy because Mitt was smoking a peace pipe at the time with one of the American Indians who apparently lost his yalmulke there).

[ipitombi]

For the records, Newt Gingrich was also with Martin Luther King in March.

[larry278]

Maybe an update of THE BOOK OF MORMON will explain Mitt's visions to us gentiles or the elders or whatever in Salt Lake City, Utah will issue a fatwa to explain this in between now & the end of 2008.

[AMolinaro]

You liberal media elites love to spread lies about good upstanding citizens like Mitt Romney, who couldn't possibly be lying because good Christians don't lie.

You see, once Mitt's dad'a car broke down on Martin Luther King Jr Blvd. This was before the days of cell phones, so he had to march 2 blocks to the nearest payphone to call a tow company. This was what Mitt obviously meant by "marching with Martin Luther King," and if you'd checked you're facts you'd know this.

Or maybe Mitt's dad once marched with someone else who just happened to have the same name, but wasn't the famous civil rights leader.

[preemptivelove]

what a douchebag. sorry if i didn't spell douchebag correctly. i've never actually written it out. but what a douchebag!!!!

hysterical.

[JacktheBlogger]

President-elect Romney: "I do solemnly swear to preserve, protect and defend the constitution of the United States..."

Justice Roberts: "Excuse me, and you do not say this figuratively?"

President-elect Romney: "No, sir! That would be Bush-Cheney... I will actually preserve, protect and defend the constitution of the United States, so help me God!"

Justice Roberts: "And, that would be God... as in Jesus Christ?"

President-elect Romney: "You, betcha!"

Justice Roberts: "Alrighty, then..."

That's how Mitt happens!

[ipitombi]

In other words, when Papa H. Bush said: "Read my lips, no new taxes", what he really said was: "Read my lips, no new Texas", since one Texas with over-sized ego is just enough.

People confusingly take Republicans literally. Anything a Republican says is open to millions of interpretation.

[bronceye]

The church teaches that is alright to lie/steal from gentiles(non mormons) because the gentile's money, time and power are for the use of satan. So, get used to it if you haven't already. He believes the beliefs of his father's(and mothers').They call it garnering of the gentiles.

[factanonverba]

Oh Mittens, I am hardly smitten.

[lungfish]

Lies are lies and those who tell them are liars.
Boo, Mitt... shame on you.

[kenr]

This is rich.

I think what we're getting from Romney is the level of naked cravenness that we thought we'd be missing when Bill Frist - formerly the most craven politician in America - opted not to run.

[Aquarius52]

Is this sad? Sure it is. Is it a real indictment of Romney to blatantly lie about something like taht to curry favor. Absolutely. I think it brings into question his integrity. Not only are his numerous flip-flops on serious issues being highlighted daily, but now we find he is even willing to reinvent his past if he thinks it advances his chances of winning the Republican nomination. Now, what part of that dishonesty makes anyone think this guy would even be suitable to occupy the Presidency?