You missed the point of this post, Josh is saying that Mitt “lied” in 1978. Yes, he is attacking Mitt for something he did in 1978. I’m not sure but I’m betting there are people reading this thread who weren’t ALIVE in 1978.
I personally think going back more than 12 or so years is just too much, especially after what happened with George Allen last year (not Macaca, but the whole “n-word” stuff).
It’s nice to see the Romney campaign can read, understand, and adjust to new information. Up till a week ago most of us thought Romney had marched with King, now with some digging it appears he marched 6 days later than King because he wouldn’t march on Sunday (I wish more Christians would take the Lord’s day as seriously as Mormons do).
That was when Mitt was a teenager, about 15-16 years old. In 1978 apparently Mitt was asked and incorrectly recounted that MLK was in that march in 1963. (realise that is 15 years after a march where Romney was supposed to march with King but didn’t because of Sunday but marched 6 days later). And it was 11 years after a book was written which said Romney marched with King.
SO after all these years, decades really, of a family having come to believe that their father marched in a protest that MLK marched in, only NOW, in December of 2007, has anybody bothered to do detailed checks, and it turns out the marches were actually 6 days apart.
Of course, that doesn’t change the story’s point, and it doesn’t say anything about anything except that over the years recollections sometimes do not match reality in every detail.
The 1978 quote is decades ago, but reinforces the claim that everybody believed MLK was in that march with Romney in 1963.
BTW, this means there’s a 5th thing that was said about this that was false — the claim that Romney NEVER said anything about this until after his father died.
See, apparently in 1978, while his father was still alive, Romney said his dad and he marched with MLK. Maybe his father isn’t like my father, but if he was, he would have read the article, and if he knew it was wrong, he would have said something.
So that means that by 1978, Elder Romney was probably telling the same story. Not surprising, there’s no evidence he “corrected” the 1967 book that said the same thing.
But it does show that Romney didn’t wait till his father died to say this — a STORY told by mitt-haters because it implies Romney knew it wasn’t true and waited until his father couldn’t correct him.
If this was the case, why didn’t he just own up to having made a mistake? Instead he is going on about the definition of saw. I am not a Mitt basher, but can see the road ahead if this sort of thing continues. I thought personal responsibility was a prime attribute of conservatives. Just own up to the mistake and go on.
This is a reacher, Charles. How does Mitt saying the same thing, only saying it worse from the "figurative" spin standpoint, buttress the claim that "everyone" believed King was there? You're still stuck with Mitt, and a host of contemporary newspaper articles that say otherwise. All it supports is that Mitt has been telling a straight lie and not a figurative truth.
I'm one of those people who wondered why Romney hadn't said it earlier if it was true, back when the Romneyites were still pushing that assertion, but I never tied it in to what George Romney's lifespan was or what he went around saying, since Mitt vouched for it on his own personal experience and what he witnessed was either true or false.
Even if George Romney was telling the same story in 1978, that is, LYING, since he would have known the truth on something like that, it does Mitt no favors because Mitt got in trouble for claiming this was a personal experience of his, something he witnessed, participated in. If he just said his dad marched with King people could take that as an honest error.