Angels drop a buck for Huck, plus: Romney redefines “with”

Someone has to win the GOP presidential primaries, but it’s really tough to imagine who. My ongoing encounter with Ron Paul’s supporters tempts me to think that it might be him but I can’t, really; the numbers just aren’t there. Giuliani is tanking; McCain’s support is still limited to the press—now more enamored than ever following the Lieberman endorsement—and a smattering of aged war criminals; Tancredo is out; Alan Keyes is waaaaaay out; Fred Thompson has abandoned even the pretense of campaigning; and a couple of items we ran across today highlight the ongoing battles between Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney in their respective corners, and reality in a third.

First to Romney, and his regrettable, if understandable, tendency to regard history as a matter of convenience rather than record. In this instance, it’s a spurious reference to his father, former presidential candidate and Michigan governor George Romney, marching with Martin Luther King.

In the most-watched speech of his political career, speaking on “Faith in America” at College Station, Texas, earlier this month, Mitt Romney evoked the strongest of all symbolic claims to civil-rights credentials: “I saw my father march with Martin Luther King.”

He has repeated the claim several times recently, most prominently to Tim Russert on Meet the Press . But, while the late George W. Romney, a four-term governor of Michigan, can lay claim to a strong record on civil rights, the Phoenix can find no evidence that the senior Romney actually marched with King, nor anything in the public record suggesting that he ever claimed to do so.

Reporter David Bernstein says that the Romney campaign initially told him the event occurred in 1968 during a King visit to Grosse Pointe, Michigan, but his research shows that there was no march and that Romney did not appear with King. In an update, he adds that “[a] spokesperson for Mitt Romney now tells the Phoenix that George W. Romney and Martin Luther King Jr. marched together in June, 1963 — although possibly not on the same day or in the same city.”

In one sense, the fact that George Romney didn’t march with King and Mitt didn’t see him do so is no big deal: the elder Romney was among the more progressive Republicans of his day, and the younger could make the same claim if he weren’t so hell-bent on repudiating his record. In others, it is important: walking with King holds a near-mystical significance to those who actually did it, and imputing that significance to someone who didn’t do it cheapens the experience of those who did. And there’s the little issue of making stuff up, or more often in Romney’s case, denying stuff that did happen, in order to make a point.

On the up side, Romney may gain the loyalty of all those men who can now honestly boast that they’ve slept with Angelina Jolie. Or Mitt Romney, for that matter; he is, as Chris Matthews has repeatedly remarked, something of a hunk.

Meanwhile, David Corn is examining a question that has serious implications for all of mankind: will angels intervene on President Huckabee’s behalf if he authorizes a cruise missile strike that goes awry? (via CorrenteWire)

As I’ve noted previously and elsewhere, Huckabee gave a rather intriguing speech at the NRA in September, during which he deftly merged his heartfelt evangelical beliefs with his deep passion for gun rights and hunting. He recalled the time he was in an antelope hunting contest in Wyoming. After several hours of stalking prey on a miserably cold, windy and snowy day, Huckabee had his chance. An antelope was 250 yards away, but right at the edge of his range as a shooter. Then a miracle happened:

“I decided that one way or the other, this hunt is about to be over, because I can’t stand any more of this cold. And somehow, by the grace of God, when I squeezed the trigger, my Weatherby .300 Mag, which has got to be the greatest gun, I think, ever made in the form of a rifle — for my sake in hunting, I’ve never squeezed the trigger and not gotten something — did its work, and somehow the angels took that bullet and went right to the antelope, and my hunt was over in a wonderful way.”

Corn, who has been diligently but without success pressing the Huckabee campaign for an answer, dilutes the effect somewhat by referring to the antelope as an elk, but his point remains. This is among the things that give Rich Lowry and the rest of the irreligious right the willies about Huckabee: they do not want to see videos of him claiming divine intervention on matters of windage or pre-primary polling repeated endlessly during a general election campaign. As ye sow …

Special Bonus Coverage! Ann Coulter tears into Huckabee, blaming his success on “secular liberals” (no doubt infiltrating those Republican preference polls) and calling him “stupid and easily led”.

This is going to be such a nasty election, no matter who runs from which party.

Like this post? Share it!

9 Responses to “Angels drop a buck for Huck, plus: Romney redefines “with””

1. 1
   Marcelo Says:
   

   Do you have encounters with any other supporters but Ron Paul’s? Probably not, and if so, not at the same scale. These supporters = votes What numbers are you looking at anyhow? Polls? I’d bet Mickey Mouse would poll very good if the other choices were Donald and Pluto. Ron Paul is being excluded from these ’scientific’ polls - that is what fuels his supporters - to right this wrong.

   Join the r3VOLution!!

   December 20th, 2007 at 12:23 pm
2. 2
   Jordan Selvidge Says:
   

   It is amazing to me just how horrible the Republicans are and yet at the same time how amazing Ron Paul is. How can people be so far gone to actually consider these compulsive liars. Ron Paul is head and shoulders above the rest of the pack of both Republicans and Democrats. Its time to wake up people and stop falling for the lies. Ronpaul2008.com

   December 20th, 2007 at 12:28 pm
3. 3
   Evan Says:
   

   Marcelo is right. A lot of people do not understand that polling only tests name recognition until people actually start paying attention to their choices.

   If people asked you about Huckabee about 4 months ago you would say “the numbers just aren’t there, its a choice between (cross-dressing) Guiliani and (habitual-lying-sack-of-bad-stuff) Romney, or possibly (amnesty) McCain and (not-really-my-red-truck) Thompson.”

   I know that a lot of people saying Ron Paul can’t win, do actually know better. They are just trying to make people think that he can’t win. Hopefully with you that is not the case and you are just truly ignorant.

   But are you not aware of Kerry’s impossible come-back?

   Maybe the media forgot to say over and over again that he had no chance…

   December 20th, 2007 at 12:33 pm
4. 4
   Kiel Says:
   

   Bringing more fidelity to the argument that “the numbers just aren’t there” for Paul…remember who the telephone polls consider “likely Republican primary voters”:

   These are only people who took time out of their busy day to vote for George W. Bush as he ran unopposed in the Republican primaries of 2004.

   These telephone polls do not consider formerly inactive voters, newly registered voters, or Democrats and Independents who have joined Paul’s camp. (I am a former Democrat.)

   The zeal of Paul’s supporters will undoubtedly translate into voter turnout, and I think more than a few people will be surprised come the primaries.

   December 20th, 2007 at 12:49 pm
5. 5
   Weldon Berger Says:
   

   Marcelo, Evan: you have a point about the polls, and if Paul breaks out of single digits anytime soon I’ll reconsider. I suppose he’s in an analogous position to the Huckabee of a few months ago, who was an obvious dark horse pick because of the uneasiness Giuliani and Romney inspire in much of the religious right.

   I have to say that the analogy with Kerry falters because Kerry was very much an establishment Democrat; the situation was reversed, really, with the outsider, Dean, taking off early and then imploding (with considerable help from the press).

   Marcelo, no, I’ve never had anything like that sort of response to anything I’ve written about other candidates, most of which has been unkind. I have seen more influential and heavily trafficked sites swarmed in response to candidate stories, especially on Clinton and Obama. But there isn’t a candidate on the Democratic side whose supporters are as uniformly enthused as Paul’s.

   On a completely unscientific note, one of the reasons I’m skeptical about Paul’s chances is that when I was looking at the little site meter map showing recent visits yesterday, almost none of the ones I could associate with that post were from early primary states. Of course if the strategy is to weather the early primaries and triumph in the later ones, that wouldn’t matter too much.

   December 20th, 2007 at 1:11 pm
6. 6
   Joe Says:
   

   Paulites, who btw seems to include Glenn Greenwald, remind me of the passion of Deanaics. How’s his presidency going?

   I do wonder why he doesn’t just caucus with Republicans (bad enough) but isn’t an I. ala Rep. Sanders. His independence on executive tyranny and Iraq would seem to justify that. OTOH, some coverage of his um not so ideal views on certain issues (see, e.g., Orcincus’ website, on BTC’s blogroll), might explain it.

   On Rachel Maddow tonight, she noted that Romney’s camp said “marched together” was meant to be um a sorta metaphor. As to Huckabee, I saw part of a campaign event (on C-SPAN) which he seems to say that the afterlife includes hunting.

   BTW, anyone know how loyal Charlie Wilson’s War is to the book?

   December 20th, 2007 at 5:21 pm
7. 7
   Mitchell Says:
   

   I firmly believe that the people who are likely to vote for any other candidate beside Ron Paul, is lazy, or not that enthusiastic, and because of this, on the January primaries and on Super Tuesday, when its cold and likely to be very very cold, they will not go, or just go home becaue its too cold to wait in line, or too much snow on the road or whatever. I bet us Ron Paul supporters will go to vote, even if theres a blizzard like never before seen on those days.

   What will give us the win is our enthusiasm!!

   December 20th, 2007 at 9:51 pm
8. 8
   Weldon Berger Says:
   

   Joe, on Charlie Wilson’s War, the answer seems to be mostly, but with a few core exceptions.

   December 21st, 2007 at 8:13 am
9. 9
   Joe Says:
   

   Thanks for the info WB.

   December 22nd, 2007 at 6:04 am