Romney's Dishonesty?

[_Who Knows]

What's even better - is that Romney's father never even marched with MLK.

Of course, the romney apologists will now dissect the word 'with': With doesn't necessarily mean 'at the same time'. Mitt's father was 'with' MLK 'in principle'. That's what 'with' means.

Total BS.

How about we talk about romney's claim that he's been a hunter all his life. Nevermind the fact that he joined the NRA only months before announcing his campaign. lol.

[_guy sajer]

And, anyhow, the existence of the Apostle Delbert Stapley letter to George Romney tells me that Mitt's dad was more than likely on the right side of the whole black issue. He supported their rights, and kicked against the pricks in the Q12 hard enough to get an apostle to write to him to "correct" his attitude. If nothing else, Mitt's dad saw through the racist crap in the LDS church and was more progressive on the black issue in the church than a lot of other members, including members of the Quorum of the Twelve. I see that as being quite a credit to him.

I think that one legit question for LDS men and women of good faith, like Romney, is why they remained silent all those years in the face of overt instituitonal racism at Mormon Inc.? I understand the concept of "working within" the system, but I think we've seen that such paradigm shifting change often requires people working outside the system, including people belonging to and loyal to the system. (The fall of USSR may be an exception.)

And today, the same kind of LDS men and women of good faith are standing by silently in the face of overt sexism and bigotry (mostly towards gays) by the very same institution. Where's the courageous men and women principled enough to stand up to the thing they love when that which they love is so clearly on the wrong side of the moral fence? Mormons tend to display a distinct yellow streak where it comes to actually "standing for something" (unless, of course, that something has to do with the sexual practices of other people).

[_karl61]

that would be interesting: either allow men who date other men into the church or lose your tax exempt status

[_Jason Bourne]

I was watching the Colbert show on Comedy Central and they made a video skit in honor of Mitt Romney. Part of it showed Mitt trying to squirm his way out of a comment he made about seeing his father march with Martin Luther King. So I looked it up:

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/artic ... ing_march/

Romney said his father had told him he had marched with King and that he had been using the word "saw" in a "figurative sense."

"If you look at the literature, if you look at the dictionary, the term 'saw' includes being aware of in the sense I've described," Romney told reporters in Iowa. "It's a figure of speech and very familiar, and it's very common. And I saw my dad march with Martin Luther King. I did not see it with my own eyes, but I saw him in the sense of being aware of his participation in that great effort."

This had me laughing because this is exactly the kind of tripe you would expect to get at MADB.

And just how far would that logic work anyway? Maybe the witnesses who "saw" the gold plates, were only speaking figuratively too.

Good Lord, does anyone here really doubt Romney made this comment as a means to pander to black voters?

Not you David. You worship the guy and can see nothing wrong about his character. After all, you shook his hand, so you know all you need to know. I see no difference between Romney's cheap political tactics and those by other politicians.

Yea when he made this blunder I was shaking my head. YOu know the guy is pretty smart but he sure said some dumb things. Maybe that is what running for political office does to someone.

[_Jason Bourne]

And, anyhow, the existence of the Apostle Delbert Stapley letter to George Romney tells me that Mitt's dad was more than likely on the right side of the whole black issue. He supported their rights, and kicked against the pricks in the Q12 hard enough to get an apostle to write to him to "correct" his attitude. If nothing else, Mitt's dad saw through the racist crap in the LDS church and was more progressive on the black issue in the church than a lot of other members, including members of the Quorum of the Twelve. I see that as being quite a credit to him.

I think that one legit question for LDS men and women of good faith, like Romney, is why they remained silent all those years in the face of overt instituitonal racism at Mormon Inc.? I understand the concept of "working within" the system, but I think we've seen that such paradigm shifting change often requires people working outside the system, including people belonging to and loyal to the system. (The fall of USSR may be an exception.)

And today, the same kind of LDS men and women of good faith are standing by silently in the face of overt sexism and bigotry (mostly towards gays) by the very same institution. Where's the courageous men and women principled enough to stand up to the thing they love when that which they love is so clearly on the wrong side of the moral fence? Mormons tend to display a distinct yellow streak where it comes to actually "standing for something" (unless, of course, that something has to do with the sexual practices of other people).

Yea but the problem is if one is vocal about such things one no longer remains a Mormon. They are often booted.

[_Sethbag]

Wow, Seth, I'd never have expected this sort of post from you. Sure, the word can be used and explained away the way you've described, but to suggest that's what was on Romney's mind at the time he made this comment is, well, a stretch, to say the absolute least.

Let's get down to brass tacks here. What exactly is the problem here? Romney was talking about his father's support for Martin Luther King, for black rights, and so forth. He (perhaps unfortunately) said he "saw his dad march with Martin Luther King". Now, did his dad actually march arm in arm with Martin Luther King, or did George Romney actually march at a protest, but MLK wasn't there that particular day? Did MLK show up a week later at a different protest than the one George Romney had been to?

One can ask all these questions, and I honestly haven't followed it enough to know what the historians can now document, but the bottom line is that Mitt Romney was aware that his father was in support of MLK's protests, that his father attended one or more of these protests, and that his father supported the civil rights movement, etc.

Do I really give a crap whether Mitt Romney actually had photons impact the light-detecting cells on his retinas, which photons had reflected off of MLK at the same time as other photons were reflecting off George Romney, such that he was able to register their simultaneous co-presence at the same protest march? NO, I don't give a crap about that. What's important to me is that Mitt Romney was attempting to demonstrate to people that his father, George Romney, supported MLK and the civil rights movements, and had attended protest marches, etc. Given my explanation of the word "saw" and its figurative uses above, I think it's fair to say that in an abstract way, Mitt Romney did in fact see (as in be aware of) his father march with (as in, be in common purpose with) Martin Luther King.

I don't like how people are trying to call Mitt Romney a flaming liar because his own two ocular orbs didn't actually register George Romney's and MLK's simultaneous co-presence at the same exact protest march. I think that's picking at a nit, making Mitt an offendor for a word (to borrow DCP's favored expression), etc. and missing the whole point.

And that point is that George Romney was demonstrably on the progressive side of the whole civil rights thing. So much so that, even as a TBM, he was essentially rebuked by a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles for being out of step with LDS teachings on the "negro".

I think the substance of what Mitt Romney was trying to say here was so essentially correct that I don't really care to argue in what sense of the word "saw" his expressions should be judged, and call him liar if he recalled something hazily enough to have factually mis-spoken about things he was aware of his dad's doing 40 years previous.

[_Sethbag]

How about we talk about romney's claim that he's been a hunter all his life. Nevermind the fact that he joined the NRA only months before announcing his campaign. lol.

I'm unaware of where it's written that to be a "hunter" one must be a member of the NRA. I'm not a current member of the NRA. Do I still get to call myself a shooting sports enthusiast?

I've hunted before. I wouldn't call myself a hunter, but that's just me. I've killed lots of birds, frogs, chipmunks, etc. with my pellet gun as a teenager. I hunted deer in my 20s with a friend in Idaho. I shot a deer, gutted it with my own hands, hung its carcass up from the rafters of my friend's garage and carved the very meat off its bones. Do I get to call myself a hunter? What if I tell you I only did it once, and that was probably 12 to 15 years ago? At what point did my hunterness fade away enough no longer to apply?

Still, I'll agree it's a bit of a stretch to lable oneself a hunter when one is not in the practice of hunting. I don't call myself a hunter. I'm a person who has hunted. If Romney hasn't hunted since he was young I probably wouldn't call him a hunter either, but rather one who has hunted. I'll grant he probably exaggerated that a bit to appeal to the gun rights people. Still, hunting does not equate with NRA membership. And hunting means different things to different people. Some people go sit in a blind with a blackpowder musket and wait for a deer to wander by. Some people right ATVs around the hills looking for deer and stop and shoot one when they find it. Some people walk around quietly looking at deer crap and whatnot and being all Tanto-like in their stalking skills. Some people blast turkeys and geese with shotguns, some people blow prairy dogs to smithereens with .220 Swift rifles from 600 yards out and a 12 power scope.

Being a "hunter" is a pretty slippery concept. If he's hunted, then I suppose he could say he's a hunter. I wouldn't go that far if I hadn't hunted in a long time and didn't really plan to again anytime in the forseeable future, but that's just me.

[_Sethbag]

And, anyhow, the existence of the Apostle Delbert Stapley letter to George Romney tells me that Mitt's dad was more than likely on the right side of the whole black issue. He supported their rights, and kicked against the pricks in the Q12 hard enough to get an apostle to write to him to "correct" his attitude. If nothing else, Mitt's dad saw through the racist crap in the LDS church and was more progressive on the black issue in the church than a lot of other members, including members of the Quorum of the Twelve. I see that as being quite a credit to him.

And today, the same kind of LDS men and women of good faith are standing by silently in the face of overt sexism and bigotry (mostly towards gays) by the very same institution. Where's the courageous men and women principled enough to stand up to the thing they love when that which they love is so clearly on the wrong side of the moral fence? Mormons tend to display a distinct yellow streak where it comes to actually "standing for something" (unless, of course, that something has to do with the sexual practices of other people).

Which makes it all the more remarkable that George Romney would stand for black civil rights to a public enough, and substantial enough, degree, departing from then-accepted LDS doctrinal standards, to draw a private rebuke from a member of the Quorum of the Twelve.

Did Mitt ever publicly denounce the church over it? Apparently not. Neither did I. Probably neither did you, or anyone else here on this board. Mitt's a TBM. He believes in sustaining the leaders and not speaking evil of the Lord's annointed. I can't really blame him for not going public with his denunciation of the church's black priesthood ban. I find the evidence that he was at least raised by a guy who can demonstrate a departure from that racist belief system, and see no reason to suspect that his father's views weren't also his own.

I didn't really like Mitt, guys, and I'm only defending him against the "liar" charge for the little nitpickety things that I think only really get any legs at all during an election cycle, where every word is scrutinized for its potential use as a club to beat on one's opponent with. I'm not going to do that to Mitt on the "hunter" and "saw" charges.

What I beat Mitt on for was his representing himself as essentially pro-choice during his Massachusetts campaigns and then as anti-choice in his Presidential campaign. I beat on him for making very conciliatory remarks to gays in his Massachusetts campaigns, and then basically being anti-gay in his Presidential campaign. I beat on him for his decision to oppose stem-cell research on abortion grounds, apparently a view he remarkably came up with just in time for his Presidential campaign, etc. These are all idea flip-flops I beat Mitt Romney on for. But not because his father only marched in support a civil rights protest on a different day than MLK, when Mitt said he "saw" his father march "with" MLK.

[Alf'Omega]

Wow, Seth, I'd never have expected this sort of post from you. Sure, the word can be used and explained away the way you've described, but to suggest that's what was on Romney's mind at the time he made this comment is, well, a stretch, to say the absolute least.

Let's get down to brass tacks here. What exactly is the problem here?

The problem is one of trying to make his legacy more impressive than it actually is in the eyes of potential voters. It was a disingenuous thing to say. It was misleading. That's what the criticism is about, even if everything else you said was true.

It would be one thing to claim that his father was involved in the marches (and this is all he would have to say to get the desired effect you're talking about without lying at all). It's quite another to paint a picture of his father marching arm in arm with MLK, going to battle together, as though they shared the same canteen and bandages. It's an attempt to elevate his father to the same almost mythical level as MLK, likely in an attempt to compensate for his church's history of institutionalized racial prejudice.

It was a cheap political move, plain and simple.

[_Sethbag]

I've been wondering how long it would be till someone brought up Bill Clinton vividly recalling seeing black churches burning across the South during his youth.