I wish I could take credit for this awesome find, but I can’t: Andrew Kaczynski at BuzzFeed found it. Turns out that, in 1970, the Globe decided to interview the children of several of President Nixon’s cabinet secretaries, one of whom was then-HUD Secretary George Romney. Here’s the relevant excerpt from the story:
In case you can’t read it:
William [sic] Mitt Romney, 23, uses his father’s famous remark to show where he stands. ”I think we were brainwashed,” says the son of Housing and urban Development Secretary George Romney. ”If is [sic] wasn’t a political blunder to move into Vietnam, I don’t know what is.”
But young Romney agrees with Theodore Stans, 26, son of the Treasury Secretary, that the President’s move into Cambodia was sincerely motivated. ”I have to believe he’s really doing it to try to end the war faster,” says Stans.
So “William” Mitt Romney thought we were brainwashed about Vietnam. I wonder if anyone will ask him about whether he still thinks that’s true.
UPDATE: Interestingly enough, I just happened upon this BuzzFeed story from January showing Romney four years earlier (1966) as an apparently enthusiastic participant in a demonstration that, while probably not accurately described as “pro-war,” was organized as a counter-demonstration to students protesting the draft. BuzzFeed also mentions that the Globe once described Romney’s “ardent support of the war,” though I have not been able to locate the Globe story in question.
Romney himself, of course, did not serve in Vietnam, as he received student deferments and a ministerial exemption for his Mormon mission to France, during which he lived “in a Paris mansion described by fellow American missionaries to The Daily Telegraph as ‘palace.’ It featured stained glass windows, chandeliers, and an extensive art collection. It was staffed by two servants – a Spanish chef and a houseboy.”
Here’s the photo of the demonstration as posted by BuzzFeed, which is apparently an AP photo from 1966.
Mitt Romney (at far right) attending a pro-draft demonstration in 1966
Discuss
23 Comments . Leave a comment below.Why don’t you write the campaign? I wouldn’t necessarily refer to this article in your letter.
getting a comment out of Republicans before, especially Republican campaigns. Once BMG is mentioned, the crickets seem to cheep especially loudly.
That’s a real smoking gun you’ve found there, David.
as I said in the post. Please, read before you bluster.
Sorry.
especially since part of the whole reason for the existence of the reactionary conservatives of today was the anti-war movement of the 60s. If that never happened, today’s Republican Party would look a lot different.
Conservatives are almost wistful for the days of the Vietnam War, thinking we would have won it if only the damned hippies didn’t get in the way. So… I wonder how this makes them feel?
No doubt they’ll find some means to excuse Romney… their overlords will see to that.
he still believed in Santa Claus. Someone called the NYT and break the story.
Obama did cocaine when he was younger…
So what? Neither issue from either candidate’s past is even slightly relevant.
I don’t know his position now. I’m not going to fault Romney for changing positions from 1966 to 1970, a lot of people who were in favor of Vietnam switched as the war dragged on. That’s a positive for Mitt, but with so many other things does he distance himself from that position now. I hope he doesn’t.
Kerry was a boob, but Kerry’s views on Vietnam during the early 70s seemed quite relevant a few years ago, or so I was told.
I trust the swift-boaters who trashed John Kerry in 2004 over his stance on Vietnam will be out in force to trash Romney as well, since he was clearly on the same page as Kerry … although he managed to avoid serving by going on a mission instead … to France … to live in a mansion that had, among other things, servants.
Does the Federal government have policies on former drug users? Do we want a former drug user as the commander in chief? All silly questions as Obama’s drug use was a long long time ago.
…that Mitt Romney once participated in a counter-protest in favor of the draft during Vietnam. I wonder how that squares with this information.
n/t
Just finished updating the post with that info.
So, apparently, he’s been going to the flip-flopping delicious political school of IHOP since he was a teenager.
Great to know.
Sorry to be obtuse, because he/she is probably the head of a university, but who is President Sterling? Possibly the President of Amercia?
Can Mitten actually be president of America and Amercia at the same time?
Sterling was the president of Stanford at the time Romney was a student there. Excellent leveraging of “Amercia”!
Great photo; not exactly the first image that comes to mind when you think “west coast, 1966.” Someone on another board noted that Romney would have fit in well with the dork element at Animal House.
This was from 1966; it’s interesting to read about what happened later. In 1968, a group of students were suspended for protesting against CIA involvement at Stanford; a faculty group overturned the suspensions and gave students a greater voice in disciplinary actions, and President Sterling “reluctantly” assented to the same. Two months later, “Someone broke into his office, sprinkled gasoline on his desk and set the room ablaze. Before firemen could extinguish the fire, treasured books, notes, manuscripts and the memorabilia of a 30-year career were in ashes.”
If you’re interested in the subject, there is a series of retrospective articles here, along with more classic shots of demonstrations various at Stanford (including right-wing anti-SDS) thoughout the decade. (I particularly enjoyed finding one of my graduate instructors at Rutgers in the 80s as a young associate prof at Stanford mixing it up with the police two decades earlier–identified in another article as “Prof. Bruce Franklin, a tenured Maoist removed from his position on the recommendation of an elected faculty advisory board for advocating that students attack the University’s computation center.”).
don’t we?
For the record, and for those who may be new in town, Romney’s Dad ran for President some 3 years before the above remark.
His candidacy famously went south when Romney (Sr.) said he’d been brainwashed about Vietnam during a 1965 trip there with 8 other governors:
Ironically the statement was to explain his evolving position against the war since the trip.
Younger Mitt’s statement only makes sense in that context. He was defending his father, for Pete’s sake.
He was honest (his statement about being brainwashed was an example of that) and caring. He supported the civil rights movement. He worked well with labor leaders like Walter Reuther, the very liberal head of UAW. (See the Wikipedia article about George Romney at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Romney).
I know that this is kind of off-topic, but it is helpful to remember that once upon a time there were fine and decent people in the Republican party.
So what? Romney was a grown-up, and could have disagreed with his father – God knows enough adult children do, particularly at that time. He chose not to, apparently reversing his earlier stance.
I only suggest this will not be a terribly wounding gaff.
nt
« Blue Mass Group Front Page
Sat 18 May 6:31 AM