Not so fast WTH: Response to the “Romney Lied” charge
Warner Todd Huston’s earlier post relies on a single article in a “independent weekly” (you know the kind of paper…more phone porn ads and clubbin’ news than serious content). Said article relies primarily on the recollections of the “curator of the Grosse Pointe Historical Society,” who is probably an unpaid volunteer (the town busybody normally sits in a gig like this) and who doesn’t sound like she did much research before answering the Phoenix’ questions. Turns outs that the “lie” charge isn’t on very solid ground.
Mark Halperin at Time has this: Romney Campaign on George Romney and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
Read it and you will conclude that George Romney was not only a champion of civil rights (undeniable record), but it also makes a good case that he was closely enough associated with MLK for Mitt Romney’s claims to stand scrutiny.
I think you may have jumped too soon on this one WTH.
Email This
Posted by Greg Scott on December 20, 2007 7:39 pm
» Filed Under History, News, Politics As Usual
Trackback URL:
Comments
10 Responses to “Not so fast WTH: Response to the “Romney Lied” charge”
-
-
-
Affiliations
The Giants
Advertise
-
-
Our Store
- Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
-
- More blogs about the ACLU
Syndicate Me
No, I “jumped to no conclusion” at all. You seem to be laboring under the idea that I said George Romney wasn’t a supporter of King’s civil rights agenda.
Could you show me where I said that?
This is Romney campaign spin trying to get out of admitting that Mitt LIED.
Mitt claimed his father marched with MLK. Mitt’s father did NOT do so.
Period.
THAT is all I was discussing. I said nothing whatever about George Romney’s civil rights record.
But WTH, my point still stands that you relied on a single article from an obscure weekly independent that relied heavily on the mere recollections of one person.
I didn’t claim you attacked GR’s civil rights record. I was merely describing the information in the link.
My conclusion, as was very clear in my post, was that you seemed all too eager to adopt a position from that one article, which has several problems. The Phoenix article didn’t “prove” that GR didn’t march with MLK. What the Romney campaign provided, what you dismiss out of hand, is at least as credible. I didn’t write that it “proved” GR march with King, rather that it provided credible counter evidence.
You accuse Romney’s campaign of “spin,” yet don’t seem open to the possibility that the Phoenix has an agenda as well.
This is a bunch of silly nonsense. The entire Romney family has an apparelled history of active Civil Rights action long before it was fashionable. Mitt did indeed see his father off to marches,events, talks and demonstrations. Governor Romney did not need to do what he did. But he did it anyway. Compare that with the hypocrites that ran the Democratic part in the 60s as well as now.
Sure the paper might have an agenda. But the FACTS speak beyond the agenda. Mitt did NOT “see” his father march with MLK. It was a LIE to say he did.
How can you dispute that?
…unless you are falling for the spin that Mitt meant the “saw” as a “figure of speech.” And if you do, why is it that Mitt’s disingenuous spin is any more legitimate that the “agenda” you claim the paper has?
Here is the problem with your claim of “agenda”… EVERYONE has one, and if merely HAVING an agenda discredits the facts, then there can be NO such thing as facts!
Now, you can accept Mitt’s absurd claims that “saw” didn’t REALLY mean “saw” but I do not. And the reason I do not is because Mitt has a long, long record of telling lies. If this was the only instance of Mitt making a claim that didn’t exactly turn out true, I could accept that he was just not clear with the original claim. But he has such a long history of lies and flip flops that he cannot be believed here.
What this argument comes down to is I can prove he LIED by accept his words as having meant something. You want to believe that his words meant something OTHER than what they say.
So, why is Mitt any different than what Bill Clinton did by asking what the definition of “is” is? IS a guy who parses words, lies about meaning and spins the type of candidate you want?
If so, you are voting for Bill Clinton all over again.
WTH
I think what it comes down to is that you and I are having trouble communicating. If you’ll notice, I never said “Romney told the truth, and I know it for a fact.” Because I didn’t know. On the flip side, I don’t think you KNEW at the time whether or not Romney actually saw, with his own two eyes, his dad march with MLK. Based on his dad’s record, I thought it was plausible. It remains plausible. What has happened is that Romney has offered an explanation of his words that satisfies some and not others.
I didn’t say that having an agenda makes facts untrue. What I DID say was that you accused the Romney campaign of “spin” while relying on an article from a source I didn’t think should have been completely trusted. Of course everyone has an agenda. I was merely pointing out that there were competing claims that compromised to a degree what was reported in the Phoenix article.
Let me be clear — I DO support Romney, but I am not a big fan of how he responded and, further, I do not support all of his positions. First, he should have chosen his words more carefully because words DO matter, as you have noted.
Second, his explanation was clumsy, and yes, a bit Clintonian. However, to accuse Romney of being “Bill Clinton all over again,” doesn’t pass the straight face test, bro.
BTW — if you have compiled a list of the numerous Romney “lies,” I am open to examining your file. I will say though, that if any are sourced back to the nutbags at Mass Resistance, I will probably ignore that portion. MR wouldn’t know the truth if it was gnawing their gangrenous left leg for four days and four nights.
Who do you support?
No, the real issue is that you want to ignore his gaff and I think it is completely indicative of his record. But, as a Romney supporter, that should probably be expected of you.
As to just a few of his lies:
1-He says he’s conservative. That one if pretty far off track right off. He is a moderate, NOT a conservative.
2-He said he’d been a hunter all his life. Ooops, he had to admit he’d only hunted TWICE in his life. That hardly makes one a hunter “all his life”!!
3-He says he never did anything to support abortion. Ooops, there are photos of him at a 1994 Planned Parenthood baby killer fundraiser.
4- I’m for the 2nd Amendment, he says. Yet he has no such record as supporting the right to self-defense and the 2nd Amendment.
5-He says he “saw” his father march with MLK. We now know that to be a falsehood.
6- Not to mention the abortion lie that he was “always” pro-life… yet never once voted that way or claimed to BE pro-life until he ran for prez.
Sorry, but we don’t even have to get into the dicey claims of “Mass Resistance” to so easily find Romney lies.
This man will say anything and do anything to get elected. He has no principle that he won’t sell or flip flop on to get the win. A man like this in office in such a dangerous time would be disastrous for this country.
Wow WTH. I hardly “ignored his gaffe.” I think we’ve been having quite the discussion about it. I have already acknowledged that I am not comfortable with this and I am not completely at ease with some other things Romney has said and done (the hunting claim being one).
Let’s get to the “lies.”
1) This is not a “lie,” this is your opinion. He may not pass the scrutiny of a Purity Tribunal, but his credentials, taken as a whole, and in light of some positions of more recent vintage, his record stands up against anyone in the GOP field with a chance at winning. (Note: I wish Congessman Hunter had a shot. He is, in fact, the only candidate that has been with us on every issue for his entire career. I had a long conversation with him at the VVS in DC in Oct. and voted for him the straw poll. Unfortunately, pragmatism and politics cannot be divorced, so I have decided that good isn’t the enemy of perfect.)
2) I have already addressed that.
3) Romney has given a reasonable account of his shift in thinking. Anyway, what do you think…if he is elected POTUS, he’s suddenly going to say “gotcha, just kidding, I am elevating Planned Parenthood leadership to cabinet positions. I was really performing abortions at every campaign stop.” Come on. He has staked out a pro-life position. If he were to suddenly change in office, there would be an insurrection. Romney never said he “never did anything to support abortion.” He has acknowledged his previous position and a campaign stop in 1994, 1994, 1994 where his wife wrote a check about which may not even have known is old news.
4) He says he supports the 2nd Amendment. You say he doesn’t. I think I will go with the guy who has access to his own thoughts. Again, what is he going to do — when he is inaugurated, work to repeal the 2nd Amendment? Come on.
5) We have been discussing this for three days.
6) Covered.
Again, I feel like I need to repeat this, I don’t look at Romney as a savior (I only have One Savior). Yes, he is flawed. No, I don’t agree with him on everything. Yes, some things, as with every politician, don’t sit right. However, his shifts, or “flips” (there have been no “-flops”) have been all in the right direction and are positions from which he cannot move now.
You still haven’t disclosed the recipient of your support. Seriously dude, if you say Huckabee…
Amazingly, every one of your answers to Romney’s lies comes down to “well, I just believe him.” No facts need apply, apparently. But, again, I can see why a supporter would not want to probe flaws in their guy. It is unsurprising and quite common, really. One of the first things a supporter of any candidate does is to decide to support their guy despite any flaws. Rarely do they change their minds once the choice is made. It’s just human nature… after all, who wants to be wrong?
So, I see that it is utterly pointless to continue this discussion because you are blinded by sycophancy. But, to close the issue I will point out the most glaring intellectual inconsistency in your last post that is a perfect example of how facts will never dent your slavish devotion to this bad candidate.
Yours:”This is not a “lie,” this is your opinion. He may not pass the scrutiny of a Purity Tribunal, but his credentials, taken as a whole, and in light of some positions of more recent vintage, his record stands up against anyone in the GOP field with a chance at winning.”
First you say it isn’t a “lie”… why the quotes around lie? Are you saying a “lie” doesn’t really exist, that all “lies” are relative? Yet, just as you say it wasn’t a lie, your next few words are, ” He may not pass the scrutiny of a Purity Tribunal.”
So, he wasn’t giving us a lie, yet, on the other hand, you say he doesn’t pass a “purity tribunal”??? Um, do you realize you just said he’s a liar?
And we finally get down to brass tacks with the last bit of the quote and it is most revealing… “…but his credentials, taken as a whole, and in light of some positions of more recent vintage, his record stands up against anyone in the GOP field with a chance at winning”
In other words, you are admitting he sucks as a human being, that he is utterly flawed and a liar, but you’ll vote for him because you think he has “a chance of winning.”
Wow. Nice principles you have there! Or should I say nice LACK of principles?
In any case, it is completely pointless to discuss Romney with you. You will turn a blind eye to any and all lies, inconsistencies, flip-flops and false rhetoric because you think he has “a chance of winning.”
As to who I am supporting, there are only two candidates worth supporting if one is a conservative; Hunter and Thompson. All other choices could never be seen as an option for a truly principled conservative.
Rudy, Huckabee and Romney are liberals masquerading as Republicans, McCain is an unstable man who hasn’t the first clue what the Constitution stands for and will sell us out in a minute to get on TV, Ron Paul is insane, and Tancredo took his one issue and went home.
The field has two real conservatives and only two.
Though, if we are going only on record, McCain has an 80% conservative record. If he wasn’t so unstable, that alone would place him in the conservative list. It’s too bad he is such a slob for the leftist media, too. If he wasn’t so in love with his face on TV he might have made an OK president. But, his love of the media has caused him to reveal he has no understanding of the Constitution, the American character, nor our basic governing philosophies.
So, as to principle only Thompson and Hunter deserve the support from conservatives. Of the two I have to go with Thompson so far… but my hopes are fading for him.
Here is a great article that describes how Mitt is no Republican…
http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,695238851,00.html
This one describes how Mitt claimed many, many times to be against Reagan and that he voted for liberals in the past.
Mitt Romney is an out right LIAR.
The personal attacks are completely out of line. Because we have a difference of opinion, you feel the need to attack my character and integrity? Pretty disappointing turn of events, especially since you and I probably agree on nearly every political and social issue. I only recently decided to support Romney after months of being undecided, so save your “sycophancy” charge for someone else. I am more than willing to be moved if one of the others bucks up and shows that he is a better choice. But for now, in a flawed field (there are no choices without flaws), I have decided that Romney is the best we have.
Now to your last comment:
1) The “Purity Tribunal” was a reference to political/ideological purity. Not sure what you thought it meant. The fact that I cede Romney’s flaws doesn’t amount to me calling him a liar. It was pretty clear that I was referencing your insistence that he is not a “real conservative,” especially since I wrote parenthetically about the ONLY guy (including Fred…I’ll get to that) who does pass the Purity Tribunal, Duncan Hunter.
2) Quotes are a well-understood attribution device. I put quotes around the word “lie” because I was attribtuing the word to you, not because I believe “lies” don’t exist.
3) You take my “chance of winning” comment completely out of context. I meant what I wrote — that his credentials, IMO, are the best among the top tier candidates. I don’t support him only because he has a chance of winning, otherwise, as unprincipled a dolt as you seem to think I am, it would probably follow that I’d support HRC. Ummmmmmmm, no.
4) The Deseret News article is more of the same. In 1994, he said what he said. I don’t like what he said, but it was a political lifetime ago. How he has campaigned, how he GOVERNED in MA, the issues upon which he has staked his run…all those things together show him to be on our side. I have to ask again, since he has transformed on several big issues, do you think he will “flop” if he is elected?
Now to Fred:
McCain-Feingold could, as you probably know, have a third name attached — Fred Thompson. Of course Fred has “flip-flopped” on one portion of that disaster, but he still supports it generally, First Amendment abomination though it is.
Rejecting the 2004 GOP platform, he doesn’t support a constitutional amendment protecting human life. “Leave it up to the states,” he says. While, yes, this is exactly where we would be should Roe be overturned, it doesn’t exactly speak to Fred as a leader on the life issue. Lives are at stake here and he wants to slip around the issue using a Federalism argument? More ominous were his words in Nov. on MTP where he came dangerously close to saying, “While I am personally opposed to abortion…” A constitutional amendment would remove that argument and give unborn children constitutional-grade protection. His position now is essentially a “pro-choice for the states” argument. You can throw around the 100% rating on life while in the Senate and the mind-boggling NRLC endorsement, but I can throw Romney’s 100% rating while governor right back. Mitt is on record supporting overturning Roe (Fred’s position) and supporting the existing GOP platform’s inclusion of an HLA (which Fred opposes).
Fred also did not oppose federal funding of Planned Parenthood:
http://www.tennessean.com/assets/pdf/DN7599868.PDF
“Funds must be strictly segregated”?!?!?! A dollar (or millions of my dollars and yours) to Planned Parenthood, is a dollar to Planned Parenthood.
What’s worse are Fred’s lies about his LOBBYING for abortionists:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/19/us/politics/19thompson.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
http://blog.barofintegrity.us/2007/12/01/fred-thompson–the-new-al-gore.aspx
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/2007/07/thompson_lobbied_for_abortion_group_billing_records_show/
First he denied it. Then he didn’t recall. Then, it was proven that he had at least 22 conversations with the head of a leading Abortion Enthusiast Club. Only then does he sort of admit it. Veeeeeeery Clintonian. I notice that you did a piece defending Thomson after his campaign flat-out denied the story, but in the days following your piece, all the evidence came out about how Fred did work directly with the NFPRHA and billed them thousands for his services. I will just assume that I didn’t run across your follow-up article in which you slammed Fred for lying about this.
I’ll take a guy’s wife writing one check to Planned Parenthood in the early 90’s to a guy PERSONALLY LOBBYING for the abortion industry and supporting the infusion of millions of dollars of tax-payer dollars into PPFA operations.
Oh, one more thing, during his Senate campaign, he apparently supported abortion for any reason in the first trimester. What year? 1994…the same year Ann Romney wrote a check to Planned Parenthood:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/07/us/politics/07thompson.html?ex=1341460800&en=861cce6006ec6891&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss
Pretty sketchy record on life and truth, man. Will you hold Thompson to the same standard?
Thompson also opposes the FMA, which Romney supports. Another Federalism argument, but it doesn’t hold much water because 1) full faith and credit challenges and 2)as a condition for statehood Utah, Nevada and Arizona were required to pledge that polygamy would be banned and only marriage between one man and one woman would be allowed. The long, strong and right history of the US requiring a uniform definition of marriage make support for an FMA a no-brainer. Romney supports an FMA.