I’m reminded of the episode of “Buffy the Vampire Slayer” in which Spike commented, “If every vampire who said he was at the crucifixion was actually there, it would have been like Woodstock.”
A defensive Romney was peppered with questions today on exactly what he meant when he said — most recently on Meet the Press — that he “saw” his father march with Martin Luther King Jr. Recent articles have indicated that his father, the late Michigan Gov. George Romney, didn’t march with the civil-rights leader.
Admitting that he didn’t see the march with his own eyes, he said, “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.”
Of course, since the Patriots play football, no one would see them at baseball’s World Series. (If Kerry, Gore or Edwards made that error, it would haunt them forever — elitist! girly-man! faker! — but Romney will be given a pass.) That aside, however, what a pathetically lame defense.
Incidently, Romney’s lie about marching with Martin Luther King Jr used to be more extreme. This week, he only lied about his father marching with MLK. Thirty years ago, he claimed that he himself marched with MLK.
As I’ve said before, since conservatives lack credibility on race, they cite MLK to “borrow” MLK’s credibility for their own purposes.
This is a useful tactic for politicians ((Democrats and Republicans alike)) because the large majority of Americans have forgotten the policies MLK actually advocated for. So claiming allegiance with MLK’s memory is a good way for politicians to pretend they’re against white supremacy without actually committing to any policy positions that might have the effect of reducing white supremacy at all.
UPDATE: Mark Schmitt points out that “in fact, Governor George Romney had an extremely impressive civil rights record.” But he also asks:
Is there the slightest reason to believe that in the same position as his father, as it was becoming clear that the Republicans’ path to the presidency ran through the South (Goldwater secured the nomination in 1964 in part by opposing the Civil Rights Act, and Strom Thurmond switched parties that year), [Mitt Romney] would have shown similar courage? Mitt Romney’s shape-shifting adaptation to whatever the Republican prejudice of the moment is (anti-immigration rhetoric, or denouncing the kind of health plan he enacted as “socialized medicine”) suggests that he wouldn’t have been doing any marching.
What you don’t understand, Amp, is that Mitt didn’t actually lie. In order for it to be a lie, he would have had to be a Democrat, and he would have had to have been talking about sex.
I agree that Mitt is lying here. He’s doing it stupidly, too, it would have been easy to just say “You know, I had the impression that he had actually marched with MLK because of how involved Dad was in the civil rights movement, but now I’m given to understand that he didn’t. What’s important to know is that just as my father, I share a commitment to…” blah blah blah.
Add this to his earlier claim that he has been “a hunter all my life.”
As an aside, there is something deliciously ironic in posting a link here to a story on FOXNews. But they can’t be wrong ALL the time. :-)
Glad to see the update, Barry. I was listening to the fuller story on NPR while picking up the kids. What struck me is that Romney had no reason to exaggerate his father’s Civil Rights advocacy; it was pretty solid. As the reporter on NPR noted (as has a great piece on Romney in the New Yorker), this is part of a larger pattern of behavior, exaggerating to the point of falsehood claims that without exaggeration would be perfectly suitable, at least for his intended audience. Few Republican baseheads would disagree with his stance to keep Guantanamo open; but what the hell does “double Guantanamo” mean? He’s got a real “my dick is bigger” syndrome.
Remember: MLK is only a good civil rights leader because he’s a dead civil rights leader.
This treatment of MLK is the natural result of what happens when you turn someone into a secular saint. Of course if you make someone the kind of figure you learn about in elementary school classrooms, then any kind of controversy is going to be rubbed off. MLK the VietCong sympathizer isn’t in the elementary school classroom for the same reason that Jefferson rogering his favorite slave on French furniture he couldn’t afford isn’t.
So it’s only natural that saying, “I approve of Doctor King” in our current political discourse is the equivalent of saying, “I approve of puppies.”
And that’s a *good* thing. Yes, King the social democrat may have been lost, but enshrining a black man who fought for civil rights in the pantheon of civic saints can only be good in its effects on race relations. In my elementary school music class in the early 1980’s in a small Texas town we sang about how Martin Luther King “died for you and me to save this land” in music class. More time has passed between me singing that in elementary school music class and now than passed between a time when black people in the deep south could be beaten and killed with impunity and when elementary school children of my generation were taught about King in those terms. And at least reason for such a rapid acceptance (at least at a surface level) of black (and Mexican) equality with less resistance than one might expect was because of the hagiographical treatment of King.
Hmm… That all sounds much more Straussian/Bloomian than I’d meant it to, but I think my point stands.
President Huckabee – here we come!