Mitt Romney and the truth

Reporters don’t like to call politicians liars, even when they lie. We tend to use euphemisms — “at odds with the facts” being a favorite. But Mitt Romney is a liar — a flagrant repeat offender. Everyone knows it, and the press doesn’t quite know what to do about it.

Yesterday, Associated Press reporter Glen Johnson couldn’t take it anymore, interrupting Romney when he said, “I don’t have lobbyists running my campaign. I don’t have lobbyists that are tied to my —”

“That’s not true,” Johnson interjected. “Ron Kaufman’s a lobbyist.” Kaufman, a longtime Massachusetts politico and a lobbyist, has been heavily involved in Romney’s campaign.

If you watch the video, you’ll see that Romney tries to hang his argument on a technicality, saying that Kaufman isn’t “running” his campaign. But it is simply a matter of objective fact that Kaufman is “tied” to Romney’s campaign (as Romney started to say), and at a very high level.

I know Johnson a bit. He’s a professional. Perhaps he shouldn’t have leaped in quite as aggressively as he did yesterday, but how much of this garbage can he be expected to listen to? And do watch the video all the way to the end. You don’t want to miss Romney and his spokesman, Eric Ferhnstrom, trying to intimidate Johnson for doing his job.

Just two prominent other examples of Romney’s lies that you probably already know about:

  • At a televised debate in New Hampshire, John McCain complained that Romney had described his illegal-immigration proposal as “amnesty” in a television commercial. Romney’s response: “I don’t describe your plan as amnesty in my ad. I don’t call it amnesty.” Well, yes he did.
  • As David Bernstein recently revealed in the Boston Phoenix, Romney’s oft-repeated claim that his father, George Romney, had marched with the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. is not true. Some Romney defenders, including Jay Severin of WTKK (96.9 FM), continue to insist that Romney only meant it metaphorically. But the Romney campaign knew better, producing two eyewitnesses who claimed — falsely — that they had seen the elder Romney and King walking side by side in Grosse Pointe, Mich., in 1963. And this 1978 quote from the Mittster would seem to be beyond parsing: “My father and I marched with Martin Luther King Jr. through the streets of Detroit.”

Of course, the entire reason that Romney has suddenly reassumed his former persona as a skilled business executive is that Republicans found his late embrace of right-wing social issues to be utterly unbelievable, as the Globe’s Scot Lehigh notes today.

Even as a liberal media critic, I don’t like calling Romney a liar. But Romney is proving to be something of an ethical test for journalists. When a candidate lies repeatedly, as Romney has, should a journalist maintain objectivity and refrain from saying the obvious? Or does he or she have an ethical obligation to point out that the liar is lying again? I’d argue the latter.

Scott Allen Miller, who saved me the trouble of tracking down the video, weighs in usefully.

More lobbyists: Bernstein’s got ’em. (Via the Outraged Liberal.)

Not mutually exclusive

Dean Barnett writes in today’s New York Times:

The Mitt Romney I got to know was warm and likable. He had an electric intelligence. He was unfailingly decent. He was totally committed to his family. He treated everyone with respect and kindness.

If you’re like most politically attuned Americans, you probably don’t agree with my description of Mr. Romney. You may consider him to be the personification of political ambition. You possibly believe he will say anything to get elected president. You might even consider him one of the least honorable politicians in the country.

I’m not sure why Barnett thinks that these two propositions are mutually exclusive. I’ve never thought Romney was anything other than a smart, good person with a terrific family. He’d make a great neighbor. Sure, he has these weird delusions that he and his father marched with the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., but those are harmless.

On the other hand, I’m not sure I’ve ever seen a presidential candidate as eager to reinvent himself on every issue in order to pander for a few more votes. The latest: his ridiculous promises to reinvent the auto industry in Michigan, which just so happens to be holding a primary today.

Mitt Romney: Nice guy, pandering pol. Not the first, but more blatant than most.

McCain’s speech

Warm but stilted. John McCain is far better interacting with a crowd or giving interviews than he is delivering a speech. He always sounds like he’s reading it, and he never sounds like he’s totally into it. He gave a perfectly fine speech tonight, but he didn’t take advantage of the moment quite to the degree he could have.

I thought Mitt Romney’s speech was better than usual. Is he finished? It’s hard to believe otherwise. Back in October, Ryan Lizza wrote in the New Yorker:

[Romney] must win the early contests in Iowa and New Hampshire, states where he has been leading in the polls, and create enough momentum and media attention to carry him through to February 5th, when some twenty states will vote — including New York and California, where Romney is barely known.

He held a huge lead in both states for months, then blew it at the end. He is, as the pundits are pointing out, the only Massachusetts governor or senator ever to lose the New Hampshire primary.

I’m sure Romney will continue at least until Super Tuesday, Feb. 5. But I’ve got to believe that it’s over.

McCain widens lead (or not)

For what it’s worth — and it’s probably not worth much, given the volatility of such things — Zogby is reporting that John McCain is now leading Mitt Romney in New Hampshire by a margin of 36 percent to 27 percent, up from 34 percent to 29 percent in the previous tracking poll. This could mean that McCain has managed to stop Romney’s mini-comeback. More likely it means nothing at all.

Enough for Obama and McCain?

If the turnout predictions reported by Boston.com’s James Pindell turn out to be accurate — or, as he thinks, prove to be on the low side — then there should be enough independent votes out there to float Barack Obama and John McCain. Pundits have been looking at the independent vote as a zero-sum game, and as Obama has risen, McCain has dropped back a bit closer to Mitt Romney. But that may not be the way things work out.

What do I know, anyway?

I watched the Fox News Republican debate earlier this evening, and was surprised to see that Frank Luntz’s focus group thought Mitt Romney was the big winner. I thought Romney came off as petulant and twerpy for the first hour-plus, though he did warm up a bit toward the end.

Update: This might explain the Luntz crowd’s reaction. Or maybe they’re just professional undecideds. (Via Mickey Kaus.)

McCain’s media running mates

There’s only one statewide newspaper in New Hampshire, the conservative Union Leader. It’s already endorsed John McCain, it’s already run an editorial instructing its readers to stay away from Mitt Romney (as has the liberal Concord Monitor), and it’s got a full-throttle McCain special running right now.

The Monitor has a story similar to the Union Leader’s. And the Boston Globe’s Scot Lehigh, whose paper has also endorsed McCain, weighs in with a column sympathetic to McCain as well. It’s possible that Romney could withstand this low moment in his campaign — but he’s only got five days for it to blow over.

Of course, the media have a long-standing love affair with McCain — nothing new there. McCain has been known to jokingly call the media his “base.” McCain’s finish in Iowa was mediocre at best (yes, I realize he sort of but not quite wrote the state off; but you don’t want to be neck and neck with Fred Thompson, for crying out loud), but the media are spinning it in his favor.

On the other hand, there’s no better constituency for McCain than New Hampshire’s libertarian, secular Republicans. They went for him over George W. Bush in 2000, and it would be no surprise if they go for him next Tuesday.

The difference is that McCain had nowhere else to go after his victory eight years ago. This time, it may be Romney who has nowhere else to go.

I’m guessing the Sunday Globe will front the results of one last pre-New Hampshire poll. I’m also guessing that Romney won’t like the numbers.

Bernstein bites back

Defenders of Mitt Romney are very excited about a story by the Politico’s Mike Allen reporting that two women actually saw the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. and Michigan Gov. George Romney marching together in Grosse Pointe in 1963. As well they should be. “I remember it vividly,” says one alleged eyewitness. “I was only 15 or 20 feet from where both of them were.”

But memories play tricks. And David Bernstein of the Boston Phoenix, who broke this story on Wednesday, says contemporaneous news coverage makes it clear that while Romney was marching on behalf of King’s agenda in Grosse Pointe, King himself was hundreds of miles away, speaking at an AFL-CIO gathering at Rutgers University.

Bernstein is withering in his contempt for the Romney campaign’s dumping this stuff on the Politico, writing, “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.”

This is not a small mistake for the Mittster. As Bernstein noted in his original story, Mitt Romney had claimed not just that his father and King had marched together, but that he had personally observed it. And in a devastating piece in the Boston Globe on Friday, Michael Levenson noted that Mitt had on at least one occasion gone quite a bit further, telling the Boston Herald in 1978, “My father and I marched with Martin Luther King Jr. through the streets of Detroit.”

Nor is Washington Post columnist David Broder likely to say anything helpful to Romney. Broder co-authored a George Romney biography in the ’60s in which he reported the claim that the elder Romney and King had marched together. But here’s what the Post had to say earlier today:

The Romney campaign initially cited a 1967 book co-authored by Washington Post staff writer David S. Broder, which stated that Romney “marched with Martin Luther King through the exclusive Grosse Pointe suburb of Detroit.” But the book did not provide a source for the event, and Broder told The Post that he cannot remember where he heard the information.

What an astonishing muddle the Republican presidential campaign is now in.

George Romney’s phantom march

Did George Romney ever march with the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.? Romney’s son Mitt has said he did, most recently in what struck me as a pretty effective appearance on “Meet the Press” this past Sunday. But now David Bernstein of the Boston Phoenix reports there’s no evidence.

Follow-up: The Romney campaign appears to be taking the line that George Romney really did march with King, only not in the same city and not on the same day. Huh?