Category: Mitt Romney

A pretty devastating editorial from the Concord Monitor:

"When New Hampshire partisans are asked to defend the state’s first-in-the-nation primary, we talk about our ability to see the candidates up close, ask tough questions and see through the baloney. If a candidate is a phony, we assure ourselves and the rest of the world, we’ll know it.

Mitt Romney is such a candidate. New Hampshire Republicans and independents must vote no."

Whatever else he once was, he is obviously a tool of epic proportions. Go Ron Paul – or vote for McCain. Integrity matters.

That’s the mot juste a reader just proposed – for all those Romney statements that are just a little too good to be, you know, true. Remember Gore and the Internet. That kind of thing.

Mitticism: a noun. A slight exaggeration that embellishes the truth in order to impress voters. Pass it along.

(Actually, Chris Kelly may be the one to credit with this neologism).

Again this is not a big deal. Take the MLK issue. There’s no question that George Romney was on the right side of the civil rights movement of his day (just as his son, sadly, is now on the wrong side of the civil rights movement of his day – after having been on the right side). Romney has every reason to be proud, and I have no doubt that he remembers his father’s legacy vividly. It’s also true, it now appears, that George Romney may have once actually marched alongside MLK, although that is still disputed and Romney himself is no longer insisting on its veracity. But Mitt didn’t see it, as he now says. And the context of his prepared – not off-the-cuff – remarks clearly say that he did – not figuratively, but actually:

I was taught in my home to honor God and love my neighbor. I saw my father march with Martin Luther King. I saw my parents provide compassionate care to others, in personal ways to people nearby, and in just as consequential ways in leading national volunteer movements.

The sentiment is clear and admirable, but slightly off. A Mitticism is not a lie as such, and I was too harsh in describing it as such originally. It’s that extra-special edge to a salesman’s pitch that is as unnecessary as it is counter-productive.

Put together, it’s not a pretty picture. I didn’t realize he’s been full of it about his record on tackling crystal meth as well. Most of this is not a big deal. But so many little lies and little exaggerations tell you something as well. He seems to be a man who sees the truth as instrumental to the sell. And he’s all about the sell.

In 2004, he was hyping a beyond-trivial story about Kerry’s tan. Now he’s dismissing the flap over Romney’s MLK Clintonism as "silly." I don’t think either is that big a deal – but both illustrated a serious concern with each candidate: phoniness and say-anythingness. I guess no one mistakes Hewitt for anything but a partisan propgandist, but still …

Here’s the latest on Mitt and MLK. Thirty years ago, Romney’s version of the story was even more figurative:

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.

It all depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is:

"I ‘saw’ him in the figurative sense."

"The reference of seeing my father lead in civil rights," he said, "and seeing my father march with Martin Luther King is in the sense of this figurative awareness of and recognition of his leadership."

"I’ve tried to be as accurate as I can be," he continued, smiling firmly. "If you look at the literature or look at the dictionary, the term ‘saw’ includes being aware of — in the sense I’ve described."

The questioning did not relent. "I’m an English literature major," he insisted at one point. "When we say I saw the Patriots win the World Series, it doesn’t necessarily mean you were there."

He meant the Super Bowl, of course. Or maybe he was being figurative.

Cris Kelly sums up what we actually know:

We can all agree that George Romney and Martin Luther King were both alive in June, 1963.

Well, he actually didn’t, you know, see anything:

On Wednesday, Romney’s campaign said his recollections of watching his father, an ardent civil rights supporter, march with King were meant to be figurative.

As in when he was figuratively pro-gay and pro-choice, I suppose. He really is an almost fathomless bullshit artist. I guess that’s what it takes to keep the GOP somehow together. And the awful truth is: if Clinton is the Democratic nominee, it may be enough. The background on this story can be read here and here.

Hat tip: Jennifer Rubin.

There’s no question that George Romney was on the side of the angels in the civil rights movement, along with many other Republicans (back when the GOP wasn’t Dixie Central). There’s also no question in my mind that his son lied about what he "saw":

A spokesperson for Mitt Romney now tells the Boston 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, according to one piece of written source material provided by the campaign, made a “surprise” appearance at a small march in Grosse Pointe, Michigan, in late June — several days after King led a much larger march in Detroit. 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.”

There really is a character issue here. Romney is at almost Clinton levels of deception. He has become so used to trying to say what people want to hear that he has lost all touch with actual reality.

One thing Romney and Bush apparently have in common.