If I were watching a 10,000 person march, and MLK was in the march, and I saw my father in the march, I would say “I saw my father marching with MLK. If someone actually was confused by that, they might ask “was he actually standing next to MLK”, and I would say “no, he was in the same march”.
But if it turned out that MLK wasn’t IN that march, I would be incorrect. However, if I thought MLK was in the march, and I said “I saw my father marching with MLK”, my use of the word “saw” wouldn’t mean I should have KNOWN MLK wasn’t in the march.
Now, let’s look at the conspiracy theory. In 1967, Mitt Romney, knowing in 2007 he would run for President, somehow tricked Broder into writing a book which said his father marched with MLK. He then went silent about it until 1978, when he told a reporter that his dad and him marched with MLK.
He then went silent again, until the appointed time, but turing those years he decided that putting himself in the story wouldn’t fly, so he went to just having his father marching, while he was watching.
And knowing it was a lie, he used it in a speech on faith and religion, knowing that someone could check the records and find out it was a lie.
It takes a leap of faith to believe any of that. It is perfectly rational to believe that Romney had come to believe his father marched in a march with King, that he used the story because it illustrated how his father was with King in the civil rights struggle, and in fact conveyed a message that was entirely truthful.
Charles, it takes a leap of faith the believe anything Romney says. I know you’ve decided on him as your guy, but the fact is, he has a pattern of making false or misleading statements.
It doesn’t really matter what Broder wrote... actually, if it does, it’s more damning to Romney because he’s relying on a third-party account as part of his own “personal memory” that he’s speaking from.
In the past, he completely lied about the subject, inserting himself as well as his father into the image. He no longer stands by that story, but uses a watered-down version where his memory of seeing it happen (when it never did) is still the defining event of the story.
So, even if he has managed to delude himself that it’s actually true, and therefore not technically a lie but rather a fantasy, there’s still no reason for anyone to give him the benefit of the doubt on the subject, because has has lied about the same thing in the past, and he includes similar embellishments in other “personal” anecdotes.