They did not say it was a lie. They made a statement that he did NOT march with King. That means it was incorrect.
Also, while the statement from 1978 that Mitt marched in a march with MLK was incorrect, the fact that he TOLD this to the newspaper reporter in 1978 IS correct, which proves that he said it before his father died, and that he believed it long before he was running for any office.
So the claims that he made it up after his father died, or that he lied about it just to get elected, are now proven false. Just more claims about this that have been shown false.
In fact, the ONLY thing in this entire episode that has turned out to not be false is that it appears in fact that the “march” that Romney and King were “in” was in fact two marches 6 days apart.
I’m sure that in your family lore, you don’t have a single story that, if thouroughly investigated, might turn out to be remembered incorrectly. But this happens in my family, and probably in almost every normal family. You tell the stories again and again, and they change, and the telling becomes the memory.
We all KNOW this, which is why we fight the MSM when they tell false stories, because if not corrected, in 30 years everybody will believe them.
In this case, we have a story that is almost exactly true, but wrong in one point — whether MLK was physically IN the civil rights march that day, rather than 6 days earlier (heck, we even know that Romney was asked to BE IN THE MARCH with MLK).
That incorrect point has been considered true for a long time. Broder wrote it into a published book, and Romney repeated it in 1978 in a newspaper interview. His brother believed it was true, and it seems his father believed it as well, or at least we have no indication he ever tried to correct the book or the newspaper article.
Why would Romney purposely lie about this in 1978, and again in the 1990s and in 2007? It makes no sense. It DOES make sense that he believed it, and has repeated the story because he believed it, and only NOW does he know it was wrong.
Just like Allen repeatedly denied his mother was Jewish, because she had always said it, only to learn that she WAS jewish. Once he knew she was Jewish, he corrected his statements from before. And the moonbats said he had ‘lied about it’ before. But he was telling what he thought was the truth, because that was the story he was told.
But rather than the fred supporters volunteering to raise money, or get signatures, or call voters, they are all here trying to blow that miniscule inaccuracy into some grand conspiracy.
Right. In other words, Romney lied.
Self-aggrandizement.
That may be the case for something that happened before I was born, but not a thing that I witnessed. Regardless, Mitt hasn't made that defense. He's said his statement in the "Faith in America" speech was only meant figuratively, and he actually got rather prissy defending that point of view by pointing to his English major credentials and the dictionary definitions of "saw".
The trouble for him is that this 1978 statement to a reporter has emerged, and you can't even fit that one into a "I meant it figuratively" meme. It's way too specific. It underscores my belief that Mitt was just lying in '07, and that his "figurative" spin was just a panicked attempt at explanation that he probably should have waited on a little before committing to.
Why would Romney purposely lie about this in 1978, and again in 2007? Maybe he's just a born liar, Charles. You know that that's been one of the main objections to the man even before this came out.