The Nature of the Political Debate in the US
If you want to get an idea of just how poisoned, obsessed and idiotic the political debate is in the US these days, just read these posts and articles on whether or not Mitt Romney literally saw his father marching together with Martin Luther King Jr.
That’s just sad.
The point, of course, isn’t that George Romney literally marched with King (he may have, he may not have), it’s that he supported King’s agenda and marched with King-supporters. O, and his wife, Mitt’s mother, did literally attend a march / speech by King.
Aside from that: is this actually what voters are supposed to care about? It seems to me that voters care about how Romney’s policies will effect their daily lives and what he plans to do for America.
Romney’s words weren’t as much ridiculous as is the debate that followed in the blogosphere (and MSM) of journalists and bloggers trying to find out whether or not George Romney literally marched with MLK or whether they can use this to slap Romney around a bit.
It’s interesting to see that, now that the elections come closer, bloggers - almost each and every single one of them - suddenly turn into activists.
The Mitter’s words do have meaning, he’s lieing through his teeth on this one. If he said his father "marchede in spirit with MLK" then he wouldn’t have this problem. Like his hunting story, this wopper is the "fish that didn’t get away". Mitter’s father and Milliken after him, were both moderate Republicans, neither would have a chance today. This Democrat has fond memories of Milliken, the Romney’s not so much. The Lou Gordon moment shows pandering runs in the family.
http://www.absolutemichigan.com/dig/community/history-libraries/george-romney-a-brainwashed-candidate/
That’s not going to work at this blog Rudi.
Rudi666,
There’s no doubt that Mitt is a flip flopping phoney, but was his father as bad? I was pretty young at the time so even though I also grew up watching Lou Gordon I really can’t go by my memory very much on George.
George Romney did change his position on Vietnam, but I thought this was more of a case of someone realizing that they (and more importantly, government policy) was wrong and changing their position based upon the facts as opposed to the politically motivated flip flopping we are seeing from Mitt. Am I missing something and giving George more credit than he deserves?
Michael, I wrote about 10,000 words this week (editorials, columns, blog posts). This is all I wrote the subject — as part of a much longer review of the week — "MARCH OF THE WEEK: Mitt Romney said he saw his daddy walk with Martin Luther King. And he did! George Romney, American hero!" If that makes me an activist, you need a new dictionary.
The "saw" is a stupid issue, many of us "saw" thing that we didn’t have a physical presence in. There are plenty of real issues with Mitt and the truth, "lifelong hunter" being one, but to get to the real whopper you could go back to the 1st R debate and the lines regarding Saddam tossing the weapons inspectors as a validation of invasion and his later "context" excuse for an absolute untruth - better language - lie. He has changed his policies when politically convenient, that is a different issue. He is a liar, that is established by the record, what the rest means is not any of my concern.
What the Republicans make of it all in their Primary is their business, but I’m real sure the Democratic candidate will take full advantage of his baggage if he wins. If I had an (R) after my name, in this campaign I’d just go home and beat my head on the wall. As a Democrat I do thank you all for this field.