Replies

That may be the case for something that happened before I was born, but not a thing that I witnessed.

Eyewitness testimony is notoriously bad. People's memories rarely match what actually happened with accuracy.

If you think about what makes a "memory", you'll realise how silly it is to even EXPECT that how you "remember" something 30 years later will match how it really happened.

Heck, ask 5 people about something they all just did together yesterday, and already you'll find discrepancies in the stories. Ask them 10 years later, and you'll think they are decribing different events.

When Allen was being accused of using the "N-word" last year, they'd bring some nice old lady out to say "He said it at this party I was at, in the living room", and then someone would say "I was in the living room, and he never said it", and someone else would say "we were in the dining room, not the living room".

This is all misunderstood.
Susan Englander, assistant editor of the Martin Luther King Jr. Papers Project at Stanford University, who is editing the King papers from that era,
says Myth Romney was untruthful, when she told the Globe yesterday:
"I researched this question, and indeed it is untrue that George Romney marched with [Dr.] King."

And if THAT is not enuf,
"King never marched in Grosse Pointe, according to the Grosse Pointe Historical Society,
and had not appeared in the town at all at the time the Broder book was published.
“I’m quite certain of that,” says Suzy Berschback, curator of the Grosse Pointe Historical Society"

How could these educated women BOTH be lying. Maybe it is just a misspelling.

That's the ticket. Romney saw his dad marching with MILK.

Charles, you’ve been impeccably civil and have done the best job defending Romney of anybody here. The trouble is the defense you’re making is not the one Romney’s making. I wish you had been one of his advisers, because your theory is far more believable than what Romney came up with.

Unfortunately, I think the reason why your theory never occurred to Romney is because it isn’t the truth. If you were not speaking figuratively you wouldn’t say, when you found out it wasn’t true, “Oh, I was just saying that as a figure of speech. I’m an English major, you see. Look up the word ‘saw’ in the dictionary and you’ll see that my usage is perfectly acceptable.”

No, if this was a memory, something you thought you remembered, you’d say, “That really floors me. I’m certain I remember marching with my dad and Dr. King. Let me look into this, because I know there’s something there.” Then later he could say, “Darn it, I was sure Dr. King had been at that march. It happened 6 days after he was there, but I heard people talk so much about him I was sure he was at the event itself. I didn’t know this then but I thank people for informing me better.”

Romney’s literary defense is only going to sink him further now that the 1978 interview has been uncovered, though probably deservedly since it was as much a lie as his original statement.

Have you asked the Romney people to hire you? They need you.