Frankly, and don’t take this wrong, but I’m actually a bit confused on what claims made here by the mitt-bashers are actually statements by the campaign, and which are just their interpretations of them.
I think it’s mostly people HERE who are going on about the definition of “saw” and “with” and the like.
But it’s true that often the mishandling of a response by a campaign is worse than the original issue.
If this was a matter of ANY importance whatsoever, that would be true here as well. But as we are talking about a minor error in a mostly true story, an error that made no difference to the story, or it’s meaning, it’s hard for me to take it seriously enough to do much more than point out how english is used in the real world.
I understand this is essential a beatup of a trivial non issue.
I cannot understand why Romney is so obsessed in clarifying his civil rights position and his Mormon church not accepting Blacks as church leaders before 1978? Who the f cares about such things. And Romney does not run the Mormon church, he does not has to clarify such things. This is the Republican primaries and civil rights etc is not really such a big issue.