December 31, 2007
Yesterday, Mike Huckabee told Politico that he wants Mitt Romney to apologize to him, for telling lies about Huckabee's record. Imagine -- Romney apologize! Good one, Huckster!
It got me to thinking: has Mitt Romney ever actually been seen personally apologizing for anything? I know he has, on rare occasions, apologized through spokespeople (for use of the term "tar baby," for instance). I know that reports have sometimes referred to him as apologizing for something, when in fact his wording never contained an actual apology or acceptance of responsibility.
I'm just curious. A quick web search didn't bring me any immediately obvious examples of Romney apologizing. So I'll throw it out to you folks: can anyone come up with an instance where the Mittster personally apologized for something?
December 31, 2007
Against stiff competition -- personally, I think I would have gone with Giuliani's prostate-cancer data -- our own former governor Mitt Romney has been named the winner of the Washington Post Fact Checker blog's 2007 Pinocchio Award. His winning falsehood was the one exposed right here by yours truly: "I saw my father march with Martin Luther King."
The Nashua Telegraph has endorsed John McCain, making it a clean sweep for McCain of every major newspaper within hurling distance of New Hampshire. Question: What is the closest newspaper to Romney's home in Belmont to endorse him?
Mad Man Mitt also got a remarkable smackdown the other day from Time Magazine's Joe Klein:
I've never seen a candidate who showed such arrant disrespect for the public--and for himself. Indeed, Romney has performed a political self-lobotomy. Not just on his brain, which seemed an impressive instrument a year ago, but also on whatever nagging moral sense he might have had. He did this in order to conform--in the primaries, at least--to every last polling preference, no matter how skeevy, of his party's base. ... I've also never seen a candidate so loathed, privately, by his competitors.
December 30, 2007
The Boston Globe today tells the tale of William Hayhurst III, who vaulted from 623rd to 1st on the Boston Fire Department hiring list thanks to a special law championed by state Senate President Therese Murray, described in the article as a friend of the Hayhurst family. Bostonians are worried enough about the state of the BFD these days without a pol from the Cape sticking her nose in and making patronage hiring decisions, don't you think?
Funny, it seems oddly similar to the way Murray stuck her nose in and funneled the state's international tourism marketing contract to Bill MacDougall, an acquaintence of Murray's, as I described in this article back in February. Murray, as I wrote then, intervened to get MacDougall the multi-million-dollar contract, after the agency responsible for choosing a contractor "not only... recommend[ed] a different bidder... it concluded that MacDougall's bid was ineligible -- i.e., it did not meet the statute's criteria."
It's quite a campaign slogan -- Terri Murray: champion of the ineligible contractor and the unqualified firefighter.
You might recall that after my article appeared -- and after she publicly denounced the article as pure fiction -- Murray requested that the state Inspector General investigate the MacDougall contract. She did this to defray concerns of some of her colleagues, whose votes she needed to become senate president upon the resignation of Robert Travaglini.
Some senators suggested that the vote be postponed until after the IG issued its findings. They would still be waiting: almost a year later, the Inspector General has yet to issue a report.
December 28, 2007
If you don't know who John Hawkins is, you obviously don't spend much time in the conservative blogosphere. His regular blog is rightwingnews.com -- a highly-ranked site on its own accord -- and he also runs Conservative Grapevine. He is a regular columnist at Townhall.com. He has interviewed many of the country's leading conservative pols and pundits for his blog. His blog gets ads from a variety of respectable folks, through blogads. He founded Rightroots, a fundraising site intended as a right-wing version of ActBlue. Many of the top-read conservative web sites link to him. He was a consultant for Duncan Hunter for a stretch, and is now pushing Fred Thompson's candidacy.
In his weekly Q&A Friday blogging today, he received the question: "If you could go back and completely erase one person from the pages of history, who would it be and why?"
Here's his response, in full:
Answer: Hitler would seem to be a rather obvious choice, but he would be in third place for me.
Second place would be occupied by Karl Marx because Communism produced a higher count than Nazism in the long run and I have to wonder if Communism would have taken off without its "Father."
However, first place would probably have to go to Muhammad, who made up a religion from scratch that now has more than a billion people under its spell, has helped stagnate the growth of a large part of the world for 5 centuries -- and has turned at least 100 million plus of Islam's current adherents into backwards, misogynistic anti-Semites who support terrorism and murder.
December 28, 2007
Barely an hour after I posted about a possible Joe Biden surge scenario, I received the latest press email from the Biden campaign, boasting that Biden is "gaining steam" in Iowa.
It goes on to say that: "Over the next week, Mo-Joe '08 will sweep across Iowa."
Turns out, he's been using the phrase "Mo-Joe" for the past week or so. I apparently had blocked it out.
I would mock him for it, but anyone who cribs from the '04 Lieberman campaign is really at the self-mockery phase, don't you think?
December 28, 2007
This isn't a prediction, but a possibility. My sense is that a lot of Democrats personally prefer Joe Biden, but haven't really considered "wasting" a vote on him.
He is in great position for a late surge in Iowa, particularly with the renewed focus on international affairs after the Bhutto assassination. I can easily see him finishing a strong fourth there, perhaps even in shouting range of John Edwards.
That knocks out Richardson and Dodd, whose supporters have presumably already rejected the "top tier" candidates. Also, if Edwards finishes third in Iowa, his support in New Hampshire (currently at 20% according to one poll) could quickly soften. Biden could move to a strong third third, knocking out Edwards.
That creates a three-way Clinton-Obama-Biden race, with four weeks to Mega Tuesday. That means he'll get a lot of serious attention. We have seen all year how good Biden is in debates, and he'll have chances to show that in much more focused, closely watched forums.
It's all a long shot, but as I say, it's a possibility.
December 28, 2007
A certain political-science professor of my close acquaintence rues the imminent early end of Fred Thompson's Presidential campaign, because of the amazing, perhaps unprecedented, day-to-day disaster it has been. Yesterday, Thompson lowered his game to a new level yet again. Other candidates, in the aftermath of the Bhutto assassination, maneuvered to press the argument for their own foreign-policy credentials, without appearing to overly politicize it. Thompson, on the other hand, chose to openly politicize it for the express purpose of insulting an entire gender.
Yes, while most people were thinking of terrorism, instability in an extraordinarily tense region, our support of a thuggish Pakistani leader, and the security of that country's nuclear weapons, Fred was thinking about the fact that the assassination victim was running for prime minister even though she's a woman.
The problem in Pakistan apparently had much to do with the fact that a woman was seeking top office. And, you, know, a woman is seeking the Presidency here in America, too -- but in Thompson's eyes, there are no women qualified for the Presidency in the US yet.
And here I thought that Thompson couldn't do worse than refusing to put on a fire chief's helmet, calling it a "silly hat." Way to show respect for our first responders! And now women! Keep 'em coming, Freddie!
December 27, 2007
The Presidential candidates are putting forward their "closing arguments" now, and Mitt Romney's is an optimistic one. In a speech he delivered at the American Credit Union Museum in Manchester today, Romney opined that "no-one votes for yesterday -- they vote for tomorrow." America faces many challenges, he said: radical violent jihadism, the need for energy independence, education in an age of globally competition, the economic threat of China, and affordability of health care. "There are some people who are pessimistic," he said (not specifying who, although I suspect that one of them rhymes with 'McBain'); "I am not."
"America is not built by people who are doubters," Romney the optimist continued. No, America is built "by people who are dream-makers."
Unfortunately for Romney, his bright vision of tomorrow won't be getting much media attention, what with Pakistan suddenly on the brink of civil war. Foreign policy has been low on the Republican radar for a while, ever since it turned out that war with Iran is not imminent. But that might now change.
The re-emergence of foreign policy is probably bad for Romney in New Hampshire, where his chief competition is John McCain -- most Republicans would turn to McCain in an international crisis long before turning to Romney. On the other hand, it might be a boon to Romney in Iowa, where his chief rival is Mike Huckabee, who, on the list of those you want leading the country in an international crisis involving nuclear weapons, ranks somewhere between Jamie Lynn Spears and the Taco Bell chihuahua for most voters.
December 26, 2007
For anyone still wondering whether to believe the eyewitness accounts provided by the Romney campaign to Politico Friday, purporting to verify Martin Luther King Jr.'s presence with George Romney at a Grosse Pointe, Michigan, march on June 29, 1963 (King was actually in New Jersey at the time), I'll pass along this link to the Grosse Pointe News coverage of the march, in its July 4, 1963 edition. The article about the march begins on page 1 (column 3) and continues on page 2.
December 26, 2007
This week's Boston Phoenix is our look-ahead issue, and in it I lay out the roadmap to electing a new President in November 2008. It's out tomorrow in print, but online now.
The Amazing Race: We break down the Presidential campaign to its six essential parts, and predict your next Commander-in-Chief.
December 23, 2007
Update: The Washington Post's "Fact Checker" has upgraded the Romney claims from two pinocchios ("significant omissions and/or exaggerations) to four pinocchios ("whopper").
_______________________________________________
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.
Then-governor George Romney did indeed march in Grosse Pointe, on Saturday, June 29, 1963, but Martin Luther King Jr. was not there; he was in New Brunswick, New Jersey, addressing the closing session of the annual New Jersey AFL-CIO labor institute at Rutgers University.
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.
It is offensive because of people like Russell Peebles.
Peebles is an 88-year-old man, a former resident of Grosse Pointe for 48 years, who was present at both the Grosse Pointe march in 1963, and the MLK speech in Grosse point in 1968 -- the event at which the Romney campaign initially insisted Romney and King marched together.
I tried to contact Peebles earlier this week, prior to writing the original article, but we missed each other back-and-forth. Peebles sent me an email today, attesting to the fact that George Romney was at the 1963 march, but not the 1968 speech; and that King was at the 1968 speech, but not the 1963 march.
Peebles, and many others like him, deserve to have the history of what they did told honestly. Changing that history by mistake -- which is quite possibly how this began -- is unfortunate. Changing that history intentionally -- which is what the campaign is doing now -- is offensive.
December 22, 2007
Politico's Mike Allen reports that two women claim to have seen Martin Luther King Jr. with George W. Romney, father of Mitt Romney, at the Grosse Pointe, Michigan march in 1963.
Meanwhile, Mitt Romney, speaking on the Howie Carr radio show this afternoon, spoke about the controversy. The Romney campaign provided this transcript to the Phoenix:
"Well, it’s been my understanding all my life that he marched with Martin Luther King, and it’s actually been written about in a couple of books. David Broder wrote a book about it and talked about him marching there. And, I know that some people can debate that. That’s been my understanding all my life. I think the key thing is that he marched with Martin Luther King Jr.’s Freedom Marchers, and did march, and Martin Luther King did come to Detroit and organized these Freedom Marches, and my Dad was in one of them. And my memory and my understanding is that he was in one that Martin Luther King himself was in, but you know, we’ll see as time goes on."
The two witnesses interviewed by Politico, women now living in Florida and Massachusetts, describe seeing then-Governor Romney with King in Grosse Pointe. Both contacted the Romney campaign when they learned of the controversy, and the campaign gave their contact information to the reporter, the story says.
Contemporaneous news accounts confirm that George Romney, then governor of Michigan, unexpectedly joined that Grosse Pointe march, which took place on June 29, 1963, six days after King led a large Freedom March in Detroit, which Romney did not attend.
None of those accounts of the June 29 event in Grosse Pointe mention King's presence.
An Associated Press report of the event, which ran in several newspapers the following day, reported that "this Saturday's orderly parade attracted an estimated 250 people." The report mentions that Romney had rejected the invitation to participate in the earlier Detroit march, because it was held on Sunday.
The Detroit Free Press has reported that its coverage of the event, which estimated the crowd at 500, describes George Romney attending, but not King. A New York Times account of the event likewise mentions Romney but not King.
Another Associated Press story, which also appeared in newspapers of Sunday, June 30, 1963, says that Dr. King spoke to an AFL-CIO gathering in New Brunswick, New Jersey, that Saturday of the Grosse Pointe event.
Earlier today, the Boston Globe quoted Susan Englander, assistant editor of the Martin Luther King Jr. Papers Project at Stanford University, saying that: "I researched this question, and indeed it is untrue that George Romney marched with Martin Luther King."
Grosse Pointe historians have told the Phoenix that King was not at that June 29, 1963 march in that town.
A detailed timeline of all of Martin Luther King Jr.'s appearances in Michigan appeared earlier this year in the Michigan Citizen, compiled by Paul Lee; it includes the June 23 march in Detroit, but not the June 29 event in Grosse Pointe.
"The answer is no, Governor Romney did not march with Dr. King -- not in Detroit, not in Grosse Pointe," Lee emailed the Phoenix.
Lee noted, however, that Romney's mother, Lenore Romney, attended Dr. King's speech at East Lansing on February 11, 1965.
December 21, 2007
Please see this new web exclusive, an analysis of the Romney/MLK controversy, that I have posted today.
December 21, 2007
As of yesterday afternoon, Mitt Romney and his staff were still insisting that they believed George W. Romney marched with Martin Luther King Jr., conceding only that Mitt never literally saw it happen. By digging in like this, it appears they are only prolonging the story (originally broken by the Phoenix, here), because the evidence has piled up beyond the media tipping point.
Last night on CNN, Anderson Cooper stated flatly, of the two men marching together, that "it never happened." (He then played footage of Romney parsing the word "saw" yesterday afternoon, followed by the infamous clip of Bill Clinton parsing the word "is.")
The Detroit Free Press had reported by then that both Arthur Johnson, former NAACP-Detroit president, and Richard Milliman, George Romney's former press secretary, had any recollection of the two men marching together.
This morning, the Boston Globe's Michael Levenson quotes Susan Englander of Stanford University -- who is editing King's papers -- saying "I researched this question, and indeed it is untrue that George Romney marched with Martin Luther King."
December 20, 2007
The national media have picked up on the story,
broken here by the Boston Phoenix, questioning Mitt Romney's claim that he saw his father march with Martin Luther King Jr. And, they are pressing the campaign for an explanation.
Scott Conroy of CBS News
posed the question to Mitt Romney directly: Did you see your father march with MLK with your own eyes?
Romney: “My own eyes? You know, I speak in the sense of I saw my dad
become president of American Motors. I wasn’t actually there when he became
president of American Motors, but I saw him in the figurative sense of he
marched with Martin Luther King. My brother also remembers him marching with
Martin Luther King and so in that sense I saw him march with Martin Luther
King.”
....
He added,
“You know, I’m an English literature major as well. When we say, ‘I saw the
Patriots win the World Series, it doesn’t necessarily mean you were there —
excuse me, the Super Bowl. I saw my dad become president of American Motors. Did
that mean you were there for the ceremony? No, it’s a figure of speech.”
The Washington Post's
Michael D. Shear got this from Romney spokesperson Eric Fehrnstrom:
Eric Fehrnstrom, said today that the younger Romney was speaking "figuratively"
when he said he "saw" his father march with King. Fehrnstrom offered an example
to explain: "It's like if I said 'I can see Mike Huckabee as president.'"
These comments suggest that the campaign is still insisting that George W. Romney did march with King. But, they have still not found an instance of that happening.
