Romney’s “Figurative” Defense Of His MLK Claims

I’ve got one contributor calling out Romney on this one, and one defending him. For what its worth, I’m with Ace.

I have to say that this defense sounds like a guy treating me like an idiot. Even worse, he himself is an idiot, so it’s an idiot treating me like an idiot because he thinks I’m idiotic enough to go for his idiot-talk.

That said, I think the whole thing is a really stupid gotcha that means practically nothing.

Oh, but there may have been eye witnesses! Heh.

Glenn Reynolds:

Romney seems to have suffered from politicians’ disease, where it’s not enough to report that something happened, you have to report it in a way that puts you in the story. Trouble is, he wasn’t in the story. Is that a big deal? Not really, I guess. But it was an unforced error at a crucial time and it underscores the feeling a lot of people have that Romney’s just a bit too airbrushed to be true.

By the way…I stole this title from Ace. Sue me.

The Corner lays it down:

Mitt Romney went a step further in a 1978 interview with the Boston Herald. Talking about the Mormon Church and racial discrimination, he said: “My father and I marched with Martin Luther King Jr. through the streets of Detroit.”
Yesterday, Romney spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom acknowledged that was not true. “Mitt Romney did not march with Martin Luther King,” he said in an e-mail statement to the Globe.

Ok, so just like his stances on abortion have shifted right? I’m supposed to believe this crap? I guess it depends on what the definition of “saw” means.

Coming soon: Hugh Hewitt explains how the dictionary definition of “march” also encompasses hallucinations of marching.

Indeed…indeed…I’m “figuratively” supporting Romney.

Comments are closed.