The only desperate ones are Romney's spinners, trying to figure out how to "frame" his lie so it isn't really a lie.
Romney easily could have just cited his father's civil rights stand without embellishing it with false details. But he can't help himself, he seems to always add these false details to make the events seem grander. He could have been happy to have seen the LDS allow membership to blacks, but he had to make up a story about being a student who pulled over to the side of the road with tears in his eyes, despite not having been a student for 3 years at the time of the event.
Apparently, he's recovering somewhat, because 19 years ago, he claimed not only to have seen his dad march with King, but to have participated in it himself as well. (The Romney campaign issued a statement today admitting this, at least, was indeed a lie.)
I saw my father march with MLK is comparable to saying I saw my father fight the fight against the Evil Empire with Ronald Reagan. It is acknowleding that people stood with someone, stood for something etc.... You Mitt-haters will assume the worst in everything Romney though.
I think this is a case where we are inflicting a lot of damange on one of the front runners for the nomination, over something trivial in light of what his speech was about, and how well it was received.
It should concern many on this website that the Huffingtonpost leftwingnuts are in full cry using the same language and attitudes about this we are seeing in some quarters here at FR.
Pretty Huffpuff and company want a Dem in the Whitehouse next year.
That's because we now know, or at least are pretty certain, that the story was a combination of two marches that took place 6 days apart.
Up until someone thought to check out the story, everybody thought it was true. Now that new information is available, the campaign is simply stating the obvious, that the 1978 statement was incorrect. But that doesn't mean it was a "lie", which indicates Mitt knew it was incorrect when he said it.
In fact, it seems clear from the 1978 statement that Mitt Romney has believed this story for a LONG time. And further, his family, including his father, has likely believed this story for a long time.
After all, his father didn't correct the book by Broder, and he didn't correct this news article with his son. That shows that he didn't think it was wrong.
Last year, after years of denying his mother was Jewish, Allen sat down with her, and she confessed to him that she had hidden her past from the family all those years.
Liberals called Allen a LIAR for denying his jewish history. But in fact, he had never KNOWN it until his mother told him.
Calling people liars because they thought the truth was something other than what it was is such a liberal thing to do. It was disgusting what the Washington Post and the liberals did to Allen last year. Now I'm remembering (I tried to forget), and I'm realising why I'm working so hard to keep the mitt-bashers from getting away with the same crap.
If you have PROOF that he KNEW it was false, present it. Otherwise, all you have is that Mitt has told a story for his entire life, and now we believe that story is inaccurate.