The fact that the campaign still is citing the discredited Broder book and other historical sources that used that citation or material doesn’t provide any more evidence. In fact, it demonstrates that the Broder and Romney effort to confabulate things. It shows that they are stil trying to claim it DID, in fact, occur.

King may have been mentioned at the Rally or they could have mistaken one of the other speakers for being MLK, Jr. There is no known material that MLK marched at Grosse Point in 1963…and if he had been there I’m sure the papers would have mentioned it. George Romney DID join that 1963 March. It’s documented. But King didn’t march in that one. And King didn’t march in Grosse Point when he was there in 1968, just a few weeks before his assassination. He gave a speech. But George, who was no longer Governor, is not noted as being in attendance at that. And Mitt couldn’t have seen them together at that event in any case. Mitt was serving in France as a Mormon missionary.

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs…..6/71220047

The Mitt Campaign has posted a bunch of stuff about George Romneys support for Civil Rights and King’s work as an effort to make it appear that the complaints were that George Romney wasn’t for integration. That’s utterly facetious. The issue was whether Mitt lied about seeing his father and MLK walking hand-in-hand in Grosse Point. Trying to swerve the issue of his honesty onto different topics is a further sigh that the Romney Campaign is unwilling to deal with the real issue. Instead they lie and try to make the complaints about something that never was said.

Where have we seen this tactic before.
1) Lie, 2) If caught, Lie Again~ say your opponents said something that they didn’t say. 3) Call them liars.

Unless you count Alan Keyes that is.

Or maybe there are the seven dwarfs?

.

Speaking as an Edwards supporter, I’m glad you asked it. :o) :o) :o)

What an empty suit.

I came away from the article wondering why Klein had written it. It nowhere advances any reason why Petraeus should be considered a potential Man of the Year.

I believe the premise is that it’s quite rare for someone to become a part of the Bush administration and not end up looking like a miserable failure. In Klein’s defense, there’s quite a bit of merit to that argument.

Yow! I hadn’t thought about that possibility – that fundies might accept a Mormon preznit as part of an End-Times package deal.

Of course, that would sort of put George W Bush in a role like that of John the Baptist, a voice crying in the wilderness, preparing the way of the Mitt. I’m not sure Commander AWOL Flightsuit will willingly take a demotion like this.

I think I need a dose of the bbc.