Who Gives A Flying ___ If Romney’s Pop Marched With MLK?
December 22, 2007Seriously. I thought that I was beginning to understand the dynamics of this war that those of us in America call the electoral process, but my mind can’t avoid being ravaged by the effects of bewilderment when I see some of the crap that is dragged into the theater. After all, the minor embellishment that forces the analyzation of the meaning of what “saw” means has little to do with 99.9% of the much more critical situations that our country faces at the moment. No one really saw it coming, yet, here it is:
Mike Allen / The Politico:
Witnesses recall Romney-MLK march — Shirley Basore, 72, says she was sitting in the hairdresser’s chair in wealthy Grosse Pointe, Mich., back in 1963 when a rumpus started and she discovered that Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and her governor, George Romney, were marching for civil rights — right past the window.RELATED:Romney Learns That ‘Facts Are Stubborn Things’ — FORT DODGE, Iowa — There was the period last spring when Mitt Romney claimed while campaigning in Iowa and New Hampshire that he had been a hunter “pretty much all my life,” only to have to admit later he had seriously hunted on only two occasions.Discussion: Firedoglake, Boston Globe, Weekly Standard, BAGnewsNotes and The Daily Dish
THE “SCANDAL” THAT’S RIDICULOUS … That claim is incontestable. … The AP story is titled: Romney backpedals on statements — again. … Via Hugh Hewitt.Discussion: Associated Press, Riehl World View, Flopping Aces, Townhall.com and Vox Popoli
Depends on What the Meaning of the Word “Saw” Is, eh Mitt?Discussion: The Caucus and Hot Air
It Gets Better — Here’s the latest on Mitt and MLK.Discussion: The Corner, Alas, a blog, Tammy Bruce, Redstate, MSNBC, TBogg, Dick Polman’s American Debate, Balloon Juice, Firedoglake, Chuck Adkins, Talking Points Memo and The Heretik
And I know that its probably poor form to just copy/paste all those links from memeorandum like that. I don’t care. If the media really wants to run with this crap, well, I guess I can’t stop them, but at least I can call out the bloggers for taking part.
Of all the things to focus on from Romney’s big speech (aka “The Speech”), this seems like the most surreal of the bunch. I mean, we’re talking about a claim that has absolutely nothing to do with anything beyond an attempt to shore up a vote that the guy probably wouldn’t have had anyway. A footnote, really.
And…
Just remember that, somehow, Americans everywhere have let the disingenuousness of the current administration slide right by (on issues that were, literally, a matter of life and death), while this -in comparison- is something that anyone with a pulse and a brain might throw into #135th column on the list of things that are actually important when it comes to choosing the next president of the United States.
Did Mitt actually “see” it? Maybe not. Was Romney Sr. pro-MLK? Sure. What the ___ difference does it really make then?
C’mon!
But, by all means, have at it.
I don’t care about the cut and paste. I actually think it’s a pretty good way to back the point your making.
Very true. Good post.
Really? Thanks. I was hoping that I wasn’t making a fool of myself, since I was half in the bag when I posted it. I was thinking of reprimanding myself for blogging under the influence.
Personally I am more concerned whether Elvis is a water treatment plant worker in Utah and if Michael Jackson’s nose really is taped on….
These are things I would like to know….
Respectfully, you miss the point, Chen. It’s not about who George Romney marched with, and it’s not about what Mitt did or didn’t see, literally or figuratively.
What this really is about is Mitt’s annoying tendency to mislead or lie for reasons of self-promotion and then to resort to Clintonian parsing (eg, the meaning of “is”) when he’s caught.
Mittens has done this time and again, and it’s an insult to my intelligence. Rather than torturing the definition of “saw” to explain that I misunderstood him and that it’s my fault for using the common definition of the word, he should have simply said that he messed up, so eager was he to praise his daddy. Humility is an asset, not a liability.
But Mitt Romney, the serial liar, just can’t help himself. That’s the issue.
See also Say Anything and Say Nothing for more on the underlying issue. It ain’t really about MLK.
It’s about Mitt Romney’s character.
I’ll concede that point. That is an annoying quality in anyone. I still think that the brobdingnagian factcheckathon the claim instigated was a bit too ridiculous, considering the rest of what was mentioned in “The Speech”. It came across as a desperate attempt at a “gotcha”, on something that really doesn’t matter.
Is it just me, or does Mitt remind anyone else of a political version of an Austin Powers “Fembot”? I swear there are machine gun somethings under that magic underwear*.
I saw part of an interview with Mitt on “Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer” on CNN on Sunday, and his entire speech (note, speech, not interview, remember he’s a MittBot) consisted of contrasting the policies of Huckabee as Governor with what Ronald Reagan would have done. Of course, Mitt is doing everything by the Reagan play-book.
I thought I had ceased to be amazed by the disingenuous character of our political candidates, but yet again found myself gaping in disbelief.
* No, I don’t hate Romney because he is a Mormon, there are far too many legitimate reasons other than the magic underwear. Far too many to list here, especially, not the least of which is his new belief that he might actually be Ronald Reagan.
I think psycheout nails it. What actually happens is far less important than whether or not you can get away with lying about it after the fact.
This is a real problem in the GOP field- they keep telling lies that are easily and speedily rebuffed. Not a characteristic I look for in a political leader.
How about for providing the real records;
Candidate Research – Know Who you’re Voting For ( The Easy Way )
http://tinyurl.com/2sowta