That's the subtitle of today's Globe story recounting the Romney campaign's latest embarrassment. As David Bernstein of the Phoenix first revealed, and as subsequent evidence (recounted in the Globe story) has so far confirmed, not only did Mitt Romney never actually "see" his father march with Martin Luther King, but in fact his father never "marched with" Martin Luther King at all. It's all "figurative," you see. The Globe dug out yet another astonishing nugget -- one that even the new "figurative" meme couldn't explain away, and that had to be abandoned as an outright falsehood: Mitt Romney went a step further in a 1978 interview with the Boston Herald. Talking about the Mormon Church and racial discrimination, he said: "My father and I marched with Martin Luther King Jr. through the streets of Detroit." Yesterday, Romney spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom acknowledged that was not true. "Mitt Romney did not march with Martin Luther King," he said in an e-mail statement to the Globe. Anyway, the thing that's so painful about this episode is that it's so unnecessary. Mitt's father, George Romney, actually did have a strong record on civil rights. Well before 1978 when the Mormon church lifted its racist restrictions, George was openly supporting the cause of civil rights, taking stands that no doubt raised eyebrows both within the Mormon church and within the Republican party. For example, he didn't march with MLK in the 1963 Detroit "Freedom March," apparently because the march in question was on a Sunday and George chose not to participate on the Sabbath, but he did issue a proclamation in support. Why isn't that enough for Mitt? Why, when Mitt is talking about his family history, can't he just say that his parents were both strong supporters of civil rights and were on the right side of history (which they were), that that's the environment in which he was raised, and just leave it at that? I'm reminded of this excellent profile in the New Yorker from a few weeks back. Mitt Romney, the article reports, is a compulsive one-upper. He simply cannot countenance the possibility that someone might be more accomplished, or more prominent, or more anything, than he is, at anything. According to “Turnaround,” at Bain Capital, the investment firm that Romney headed, the partners suspected that their boss fostered a cutthroat competitive environment in order to motivate them. When he greets voters, this competitiveness often surfaces as posturing; chitchat turns into one-upmanship. After a voter at the New Hampshire diner told Romney, “My daughter goes to Michigan State,” he replied, “Oh, does she, really? My brother’s on the board of Michigan State.” [I really love that one. -ed.] When another patron said that she was from Illinois, Romney told her, “I won the straw poll at the Illinois Republican convention!” ... Whatever gene causes hyper-competitive perfectionists always to go one step beyond their adversaries, or anyone else, Romney has it. Perhaps one can see this unfortunate tendency at work in the civil rights story. Sure, Romney's dad had a solid record on civil rights. But that's not enough, because there were other pro-civil rights folks who actually marched with Dr. King. That's unbearable to Romney -- it's intolerable that someone else should have a "better" claim to a pro-civil rights pedigree than he does. So his hyper-competitive gene kicks in, and causes him either to make up a story that he knows isn't true, or to tell an untrue story that he actually believes, having completely distorted the historical record. Hard to say which it is, but neither is exactly presidential material. |