Mitt Romney,  President 2008

Mitt Romney Watch: Romney Campaign PURPOSEFULLY LYING About George Romney and Martin Luther King

George Romney and Martin Luther King, Jr.

The Boston Phoenix SCREAMS that the Romney for President campaign is deliberately lying about the Romney-MLK Flap.

Two women contacted the Mitt Romney campaign this week, offering their memories of seeing Romney’s father march with Martin Luther King Jr., in Grosse Point Michigan in 1963. Campaign officials were well aware that the women were mistaken. Yet, they directed those women to tell their stories to a Politico reporter. The motives and memories of the two women are unknown and irrelevant; the motives of the campaign, however, were obvious — to spread information they knew to be untrue, for the good of the candidate.

By getting this story out late on Friday afternoon, heading into the holiday weekend — good luck getting a King historian on the phone before Wednesday — the campaign was pretty well assured that it could keep alive through Christmas their claim that Mitt Romney was mistaken only about “seeing” it, not about it taking place.

Those facts are indisputable, and quite frankly, the campaign must have known the women’s story would eventually be debunked — few people’s every daily movement has been as closely tracked and documented as King’s. As I write this, I am looking at an article from page E8 of the June 30, 1963 Chicago Tribune, which discusses both events (among other civil-rights actions of the previous day), clearly placing the two men hundreds of miles apart. I also have here the June 30, 1963 San Antonio News, which carries a photo and article about Romney at the Grosse Pointe march; and an AP story about King’s speech in New Jersey.

A King researcher editing his letters from that time has stated definitively that the two men never marched together; Michigan and Grosse Pointe historians have stated definitively that King was not at the 1963 Grosse Pointe march; Michigan civil-rights participants of the time have concurred; so have those who worked for George Romney at the time.

All of this evidence is important to present to the general public, but it is unnecessary for the Romney campaign — it has been clear for some time that they know perfectly well that the two men never marched together.

Bear in mind that the Romney team has a substantial research team (and vast resources for outsourcing more). Bear in mind that the campaign has compiled vast documentation about the candidate’s father, particularly his civil-rights activities, long before the Phoenix posed the question earlier this week. Bear in mind that the campaign has direct access to George Romney’s materials and documents, his family members, his friends, his former staff, etc.

Believe me, they know the two men never marched together. This is an attempt to rewrite history. And even if it is a small rewriting, it is offensive.

Let’s look at Mitt Romney attempting to explain the situation:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uwFOI70h4ho[/youtube]

The Boston Phoenix is crying Bull Shit and calling out Mitt Romney to explain. Who in the campaign set these two women spinning the BS?

Flap KNOWS Mitt has some explaining to do.

What about it Mitt?

Previous:

Mitt Romney Watch: Concord, New Hampshire Paper Excoriates Romney

Mitt Romney Attacks John McCain for “Failing Reagan 101″

Mitt Romney Watch: Censorship 101

Mitt Romney BackPedal Watch: “I SAW My Father March with Martin Luther King”Mitt Romney BackPedal Watch: “I SAW My Father March with Martin Luther King”

Mitt Romney Watch: “I SAW My Father March with Martin Luther King”

Mitt Romney Poll Lead in New Hampshire Craters to Surging McCain

Mitt Romney Watch: Romney Attacks Huckabee with False and Misleading Claims


Technorati Tags:

Your comments are welcome below and at My Dental Forum

Follow Flap at Twitter

11 Comments

    • Naruto

      Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.
      – – – Albert Einstein

  • Stefano Picciotto

    That’s not the only thing Romney lies about, and he endorses judges who lie too. During his campaign for Governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney promised judicial reform for Massachusetts. The reality is he left the system more broken than it was before his term in office. Judge Tuttman is not an isolated incident. Governor Romney also nominated and pushed for the confirmation of Judge Mitchel J. Sikora to the Massachusetts Court of Appeals. When Romney did this, he was made personally aware by me that Judge Sikora had a track record of “outrageous” leniency toward violent criminals. By way of example only, prior to the judicial confirmation hearing, members of the public made Governor Romney personally aware that Judge Sikora had:

    ï‚· Acquitted the man who killed Jacqueline O’ Donald finding that, giving her the date-rape drug GBL was not “reckless or wanton” enough to sustain the charge of manslaughter because Dolan “did not know the drug was dangerous to the point of grave bodily harm.” (See Boston Globe article dated December 31, 2003, “Plymouth Man, 34 Cleared in Death”)

    ï‚· Released a rapist from the Treatment Center for the Sexually Dangerous in Bridgewater, over the strenuous objections of the Department of Corrections. Governor Cellucci called Sikora’s decision “outrageous.” Shortly after Judge Sikora released him, the rapist/pedophile was arrested for stalking girls with a rope, rock, and knife in his car, – his weapons of choice. (See Boston Herald article dated March 12, 1999, “Freed Mass. Rapist Arrested in UConn Stalking Incidents”)

    ï‚· Conducted Monty-Python type trials complete with jurors dressed in Halloween costumes. (See Boston Herald article dated October 31, 2004, “Judges Trick No Treat for Litigants”)

    The above are merely a few examples of the abhorrent behavior of Judge Mitchel Sikora. I have proof, and the public record documents that Judge Sikora was untruthful during his confirmation hearing. In spite of his personal knowledge of that kind of record, Governor Romney elevated Judge Sikora to a higher court. If Romney becomes president of America, we will see a callous disregard for the quality of the federal judicial appointments and the protection of the public.

    Stefano Picciotto
    (978) 741-0218

  • caedmon

    Whatever Mitt’s dad did or didn’t do, the greater question is: What did Mitt do?

    The LDS church maintained a racist policy of denying full membership to blacks until 1978. The text of the Book of Mormon and other Mormon scripture equate righteousness with skin color. Romney was 31 years old at the time the Church lifted the ban which means that for a significant portion of his adult life he accepted his church’s teaching that blacks are inherently inferior. Does he still believe that he is superior to blacks by virtue of being born white? If he didn’t believe that people of color were inferior during his adult life before the ban was lifted, then why did he remain a member – tacitly supporting the ban and its doctrinal underpinnings? Did he counsel members to not accept this church teaching when he was a church missionary, bishop or stake president? He admitted in NY Times interview that he never questioned or protested this racist doctrine and the policy it supported.

    Why not?

    A partial answer to that questions can be found in Moron culture. Mormons are taught that when the church prophet speaks the thinking has been done. They are tuaght that if the church leader instructs them to do something, they must – even if they think it’s wrong!

    While the church has changed its policy of prohibiting blacks from holding its priesthood, it has never renounced the doctrine that led to the ban in the first place; never disavowed or removed from the church cannon the scripture that the doctrine is based upon (i.e. Pearl of Great Price); never renounced or apologized for racist statements made by its leaders. It is interesting to note that while nearly 30 years have passed since the ban was lifted, not a single black face appears in the upper echelons of Mormon church leadership.

  • Naruto

    I will never vote for Romney, to do so would make me a hypocrite since he is no better at the truth than John f’n(Christmas in Cambodia) Kerry.

    I railed against Kerry for his massive flip-flops and lies, now IF I were to defend Mitt, for all his lies and flip-flops that would make me a hypocrite.

    I refuse, to be a party to his shady business of half-truth and parsing.

    Vote the man, that says what he means and means what he says, at least you know where he stands on the issues.

  • tk

    Caedmon – May I suggest you go to this website: http://www.blacklds.org/ it will have a lot of answers to your questions and uneducated comments.

    Naruto – Who are you going to vote for that hasn’t flip-flopped? Let’s see:

    1. Guiliani – wife flip-flopper, spend the tax payer money for his mistress’s security. At least we didn’t have to pay for Bill’s bad behavior. Oh yea he was for taxes before he was against them. His miss reporting of spending to different budgets was for ease of accounting….

    2. Huckabee – “Bush has an arrogant, bunker mentality” – Now, I don’t remember writing that, although he also said it in a speech he gave in September. Oh yea, he is tough on crime, but okay with pardoning or commuting over a 1000 inmates. He’s for lower taxes and smaller government, before he raised them in Ark. He’s also for accepting $100,000 in gifts, before he has to be against it.

    3. McCain- he was against the bush tax cuts before he was for them. Oh yea he was for amnesty before he was against it.

    4. Maybe Hillary: Wait she was against the war, no I think she was for it first, then against it, no maybe its against then for….I’ve lost count.

    Naruto, If the criteria for selecting your candidate is one who hasn’t changed his or her mind or flip-flopped as you call it; I don’t know who you will support. You may want to look at their experience, policies and accomplishments.

  • Naruto

    tk, maybe you should read the New York Times, I know that you may have missed the story,
    since the Times conveniently hide it on page 35.(No Bias there… LOL)

    That Politico story was proven to be false maybe to need some new talking points?