That George Romney was a pro-civil rights governor who instilled the same values into his son matters. That he marched in civil rights rallies organized by King and in solidarity with him matters.
Why does it matter whether governor G. Romney and King physically marched together at the same demonstration? And why would it matter whether his son, who was a teenager at the time, correctly or incorrectly remembers such a meaningless, insignificant detail?
Not that I'm conceding that he doesn't remember correctly. It's been by no means been established that G. Romney didn't march with King. Some sources indicate he did, others did not. Frankly, I don't see why anyone should care.
Again, some facts matter, others don't. Why anyone would waste his time on this one is beyond me.
I don't consider keeping another duplicitous, double-talking, lying, flip-flopping person from the White House wasting my time. I'm sorry for you if you don't think that facts/truth matter - but they do for me.
I've never criticized Mitt on his religion. I base my opinion of him on his lack of honesty and flip-flopping positions. These are issues that I'm not willing to compromise on.
Because Willard claimed he saw it happen, a double lie.
And why would it matter whether his son, who was a teenager at the time, correctly or incorrectly remembers such a meaningless, insignificant detail?
Ask Willard, he's the one who put the lies in his big speech.
You all keep talking about the civil rights record of George Romney. Is George Romney running for President in 2007 or is it his son Myth? If it's Myth, then, I don't give a rat's a$$ about his father's record on civil rights. It's absolutely of no relevance now! We're looking at Myth's record - and it's flipped-flopped continuously over the years depending on what office he's running for.