Depends on what your definition of "marched with" is

[AURaptor 1,126]

Did George Romney march for Civil Rights ? Yes. Was he on the same side as MLK Jr ? Yep. He marched WITH King for the same thing. No issue there. Did George and Mitt EVER march in Detroit for Civil Rights ?

And I found THIS to be interesting , 2 witness accounts......

" Shirley Basore, 72, says she was sitting in the hairdresser’s chair in wealthy Grosse Pointe, Mich., back in 1963 when a rumpus started and she discovered that Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and her governor, George Romney, were marching for civil rights — right past the window.

With the cape still around her neck, Basore went outside and joined the parade.

“They were hand in hand,” recalled Basore, a former high-school English teacher. “They led the march. We all swung our hands, and they held their hands up above everybody elses.”…

Another witness, Ashby Richardson, 64, of Massachusetts gave the campaign a similar account.

“I remember it vividly. I was only 15 or 20 feet from where both of them were.”

So, again, there's no THERE there w/ the detractors and finger pointers , like yourself.

John Kerry, on the other hand , never went to Cambodia, and never did so on the President's orders, even if Kerry claims , " I have that memory which is seared-- seared -- in me. " .

And let us also not forget this doozy... "After his discharge, Kerry became the leader of Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW). Once, he presented to Congress the accounts by his VVAW comrades of having "personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires . . . to human genitals . . . razed villages in a fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan . . . poisoned foodstocks." Later it was shown that many of the stories on which Kerry based this testimony were false, some told by impostors who had stolen the identities of real GIs,l but Kerry himself was not implicated in the fraud."

Sorry, but to compare Romney's true, yet poorly worded accounts of his father to those totally ficticious lies made up by Kerry is, as I said before, a stretch. A BIG stretch.

[TexasTiger 13,028]

You site two people with faulty memories that conflict with the historical record:

George Romney was at march, King wasn't, activist says

Discrepancy found in candidate's claim doesn't taint legacy, Detroiter says

December 20, 2007

By DAWSON BELL

FREE PRESS STAFF WRITER

Longtime Detroit civil rights activist Arthur Johnson said Thursday he clearly recalls marching with former Gov. George Romney in a fair housing demonstration in Grosse Pointe in 1963. But Martin Luther King Jr., who led a major civil rights march down in Detroit days earlier did not attend, Johnson said.

Johnson said Romney, who died in 1995, was a stalwart on civil rights issues, but, contrary to statements made by his son and Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, he cannot remember George Romney and King ever marching together.

In a major speech on faith and politics earlier this month in Texas, Mitt Romney said: "I saw my father march with Martin Luther King."

Mitt Romney’s campaign spokesman Wednesday said the candidate was “speaking figuratively, not literally” about having witnessed the event. But spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom said accounts of the 1960s, including a book by Washington Post columnist David Broder and Brookings Institution scholar Stephen Hess, make “a pretty convincing case” the two men were together at a civil rights march in 1963.

Hess said Thursday he cannot recall the source of a reference in his book “The Republican Establishment: The Present and Future of the GOP,” to Romney’s having marched with King in Grosse Pointe. It may have been newspaper clippings or Gov. George Romney himself, Hess said.

Hess and Johnson both said they don’t think the question has any real salience to either George Romney’s legacy or Mitt Romney’s candidacy.

George Romney was “clear, unequivocal on civil rights. He was a real leader,” Johnson said.

“There may have been a meeting” between George Romney and King," he said. “I don’t recall it. But I’m not prepared to say that (Mitt Romney) made a false claim.”

Free Press archives showed there were two civil rights marches in the same week in late June 1963. In the first, King led a crowd estimated at more than 100,000 down Woodward Avenue. The event was on a Sunday and the Free Press quoted Romney praising those in attendance, but said he did not attend because his Mormon faith prohibits public appearances on the Sabbath.

Days later, Romney walked at the head of a march in Grosse Pointe with civil rights leaders raising concerns about housing bias in the Grosse Pointes. But the article made no mention of King and Johnson, pictured in a Free Press photo, said King was not there.

You conveniently ignore this all together.

In 1978, Mitt Romney told the Boston Herald, "My father and I marched with Martin Luther King Jr. through the streets of Detroit.

But like I said, I think it is fine to be generous and understanding with word choice and distant memories, as long as you're consistent and not hyper-partisan in your application of those qualities.

[AURaptor 1,126]

You conveniently ignore this all together.

In 1978, Mitt Romney told the Boston Herald, "My father and I marched with Martin Luther King Jr. through the streets of Detroit.

But like I said, I think it is fine to be generous and understanding with word choice and distant memories, as long as you're consistent and not hyper-partisan in your application of those qualities.

I ignored nothing, as I asked the question, DID Mitt ever march in the streets of Detroit ? Nothing you posted denies that he did. Your problem is that you keep getting hung up on his poorly phrased, but still accurate way of describing the past.

MLK jr marched for civil rights- FACT

George Romeny marched for civil rights- FACT

George and MLK Jr both marched for civil rights. - FACT

John Kerry was sent to Cambodia, and heard stories from actual US soliders who raped, tortured and pillaged the countryside of Vietnam - FICTION.

[TexasTiger 13,028]

You conveniently ignore this all together.

In 1978, Mitt Romney told the Boston Herald, "My father and I marched with Martin Luther King Jr. through the streets of Detroit.

But like I said, I think it is fine to be generous and understanding with word choice and distant memories, as long as you're consistent and not hyper-partisan in your application of those qualities.

I ignored nothing, as I asked the question, DID Mitt ever march in the streets of Detroit ? Nothing you posted denies that he did.

You don't read so good.

In 1978, Mitt Romney told the Boston Herald, "My father and I marched with Martin Luther King Jr. through the streets of Detroit."

Romney's campaign spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom acknowledged that was not true.

[AURaptor 1,126]

What are you, 6 ? I read and acknowledged every damn thing you posted. YOU , on the other hand, haven't shown where Mitt didn't march in the streets of Detrot for civil rights. That's the only thing at issue here.

[TexasTiger 13,028]

What are you, 6 ? I read and acknowledged every damn thing you posted. YOU , on the other hand, haven't shown where Mitt didn't march in the streets of Detrot for civil rights. That's the only thing at issue here.

It's the only thing at issue for you because you are willing to cut him enormous slack on his repeated pattern of embellishments. Romney makes Gore look like a lightweight in that department, but Republicans were relentless with any his, or any other Democratic, misstatements:

The Bush campaign ignored the numbing list of policy differences that filled the televised meeting in Boston and instead lashed out at Gore for exaggerating his account of a disaster relief visit to Texas in 1998.

During the debate, Gore said he had traveled to Texas with James Lee Witt, director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, in response to a series of wildfires in the state. After complaints from the Bush campaign, the vice president admitted yesterday he had been mistaken.

``Did (Gore) go to Texas? Yes,'' said Jano Cabrera, a campaign spokesman. ``Was he briefed on the fires? Yes. Did he make a mistake saying he was with FEMA Director Witt? Yes.''

Gore, who was in Texas for a political appearance at the time, attended a round-table meeting with the FEMA regional director and local disaster officials, but did not meet with Witt.

``If James Lee was there before or after, then, you know, I got that wrong then,'' Gore said in an ABC interview yesterday.

The Bush campaign gleefully seized on the issue as another example of what they said was Gore's propensity to embellish the truth when it suits his purpose.

``I took the man at his word,'' Bush, the governor of Texas, said in an interview with Fox TV yesterday.

``Of course, it turned out he didn't (make the trip with Witt). This is a man -- he's got a record, you know, of sometimes exaggerating to make a point.''

In a sneak peek at one likely direction of tonight's debate, which will be televised live 6 p.m. PDT, Cheney took his own jab at the vice president's credibility.

``Al Gore has described these presidential debates as a job interview for the American people,'' Cheney said yesterday. ``I have learned over the years if someone embellishes the resume in a job interview, don't hire him.''

GORE CAMP COUNTERATTACKS

The Democrats said Bush made errors of his own, including accusing Gore of outspending him during the campaign. In fact, Bush has spent about twice as much as Gore during the primary and general election campaigns.

``These personal attacks are just an attempt to deflect attention from the poor job Bush did at the debate,'' Cabrera said.

http://www.sfchroniclemarketplace.com/cgi-...=063&sc=673

[AURaptor 1,126]

What's funny is how you ignore that I've remarked on everything you've brought up, admitted Romeny could have worded his remarks better, but that he still was accurate in his portrayal , regardless. Then you bring up Kerry, who was in no WAY honest or truthful, any which way you parse his words. You fail to acknowledge that, and then move on to Gore ???

Just admit that I'm right and you're wrong, and get over it. It's just that easy.

[TexasTiger 13,028]

What's funny is how you ignore that I've remarked on everything you've brought up, admitted Romeny could have worded his remarks better, but that he still was accurate in his portrayal , regardless. Then you bring up Kerry, who was in no WAY honest or truthful, any which way you parse his words. You fail to acknowledge that, and then move on to Gore ???

Just admit that I'm right and you're wrong, and get over it. It's just that easy.

I'll admit that you are totally consistent in your inconsistency. If fact, BG even makes you look bad on this one. I think you're fooling yourself, but we aren't gonna agree on this one. But if you are so convinced, please please please nominate this guy!

[AURaptor 1,126]

You're the one who has fooled himself. I freely admit, ( 3rd, 4th time? ) that Mitt could have said this better. Unlike Hillary , Gore or Kerry, who all blatently lied , Romney's story is at least founded in fact. You refuse to face the music and give him at least that, while tap dancing away from, which indirectly gives cover for, the Libs lies. You're a hopeless partisan, and that's what is so funny here. At least I can admit to wanting to nominate Romney because he's the best candidate for the job, flaws and all.

Please nominate this guy? I'd gladly do so, and see you call him MR PRESIDENT.

[AURaptor 1,126]

Honestly, this one looks pretty bad. There's no spinning it. He said he saw his dad march to gain favor by association in the voters eyes. He got called on it, now he's backtracking.

He didn't see anything be it literally or figuratively.

He's not backtracking. Mitt Romney did figuratively see his dad march with MLK Jr. That's exactly what happened and that's what he said. End of story. The point where it makes you on the LEFT so bent is that want to see it differently, and that's called 'transference' . Where you paint your rivals as being the 2 timing liars which your candidates really are guilty of being. You're so use to sticking up for liars like Hillary or Kerry, you can't invision a situation where you candidate ISN'T lying, so you just assume the worst for Mitt.

[TexasTiger 13,028]

You're the one who has fooled himself. I freely admit, ( 3rd, 4th time? ) that Mitt could have said this better. Unlike Hillary , Gore or Kerry, who all blatently lied , Romney's story is at least founded in fact. You refuse to face the music and give him at least that, while tap dancing away from, which indirectly gives cover for, the Libs lies. You're a hopeless partisan, and that's what is so funny here. At least I can admit to wanting to nominate Romney because he's the best candidate for the job, flaws and all.

You crucify a Dem and give a Repug a pass when the facts are similar-- you are consistently partisan. Blindly partisan. Pathologically partisan.

I would find it easier to give him the benefit of the doubt on this one if it wasn't part of pattern, e.g. claims to have been pulled from an accident on his mission trip by the "jaws of life"-- which weren't around yet, saying he's a life-long hunter-- okay, two times.

If you have actually followed this campaign, I don't see how you cannot see that this guy is the biggest phony in a long time. He said what it took to get elected in MA and how he says what he thinks the Right-wing wackos want to hear. Eat it up! Nominate him! Pleaaaaseeee!

[AURaptor 1,126]

You're the one who has fooled himself. I freely admit, ( 3rd, 4th time? ) that Mitt could have said this better. Unlike Hillary , Gore or Kerry, who all blatently lied , Romney's story is at least founded in fact. You refuse to face the music and give him at least that, while tap dancing away from, which indirectly gives cover for, the Libs lies. You're a hopeless partisan, and that's what is so funny here. At least I can admit to wanting to nominate Romney because he's the best candidate for the job, flaws and all.

You crucify a Dem and give a Repug a pass when the facts are similar-- you are consistently partisan. Blindly partisan. Pathologically partisan. ( The facts are no where NEAR similar. Thus your point, and your remarks, are invalid. )

I would find it easier to give him the benefit of the doubt on this one if it wasn't part of pattern, e.g. claims to have been pulled from an accident on his mission trip by the "jaws of life"-- which weren't around yet, saying he's a life-long hunter-- okay, two times. ( He was pulled from an accident - how ? What difference does it matter? He was unconscious and thought DEAD ! Only a hate mongering little weenie Left winger would cry " there was no such thing as that in France at that time ! Mitt's lying ! " My, you really are going for the strech on this one. And just so you know,"Jaws of Life" is not "a" tool -- but refers to several types of piston-rod hydraulic tools known as cutters, spreaders and rams, which are used by trained rescuers working as a team. The rescue team might not have used the contemporary version of the modern tools, but what exactly WAS used to get him out? Do you know ? Were you there? How can you say nothing like that was used back then ? And how the hell is Mitt suppose to know, if he was thought dead at the time. They used what they had, and told him later. Maybe he got the technical terminology wrong, but wtf difference does it make ? He was pulled from a wreck after a car he had been riding in was hit head on. Leave it to you to squawk over the precise tools used to pull injured passengers from a seriious car wreck. My god, how petty can you get ??

)

If you have actually followed this campaign, I don't see how you cannot see that this guy is the biggest phony in a long time. ( Kerry, Hillary, by far bigger phonies. Not even close ) He said what it took to get elected in MA and how he says what he thinks the Right-wing wackos want to hear. Eat it up! Nominate him! Pleaaaaseeee!

1 wife, married how many years ? 5 boys , none of which have had problems w/ the law, all having no problem of living w/in their religious teachings, while not wearing them on his sleeve, ...seems to me like he's walking the walk, while others just talk the talk. Based on our last couple of Presidents, Mitt might be TOO good. Well, too good for the likes of you, perhaps. But I think America deserves better.

[TexasTiger 13,028]

1 wife, married how many years ? 5 boys , none of which have had problems w/ the law....seems to me like he's walking the walk, while others just talk the talk. Based on our last couple of Presidents, Mitt might be TOO good.

If this is the standard, our last three presidents have only had one wife. Reagan, on the other hand, was divorced. Chelsea stayed out of trouble, and the Bush girls only had minor issues. Bush I, though, had some pretty shady kids.

If you're buying Romney as genuine, more power to you. Like I said, hope your man gets the Repug nod.

[AURaptor 1,126]

Romney is by far more legit than any of the front running Democrats, no question. But leave it to you to spin everything negatively. You say Romney is putting on an act, and I merely point out he's living his life true to his word. No divorces, no kids in jail, no scandals.....it only disproves your point. He's not 'faking' his act, because it's no act. If it scares you that anyone, candidate or not can actually be who they say they are, that's more of a you problem than anything.

But continue to be scared. It seems to be the only weapon you've got these days.

[TexasTiger 13,028]

Romney is by far more legit than any of the front running Democrats, no question. But leave it to you to spin everything negatively. You say Romney is putting on an act, and I merely point out he's living his life true to his word. No divorces, no kids in jail, no scandals.....it only disproves your point. He's not 'faking' his act, because it's no act. If it scares you that anyone, candidate or not can actually be who they say they are, that's more of a you problem than anything.

But continue to be scared. It seems to be the only weapon you've got these days.

Just admit that if any Dem had said the same thing, your reaction would have been totally different.

[AURaptor 1,126]

I freely admit it. Had a Democrat said it, I'd be shocked at the honesty and sheer truthfulness of the comment at its base. That TRULY would be remarkable!

[TexasTiger 13,028]

I freely admit it. Had a Democrat said it, I'd be shocked at the honesty and sheer truthfulness of the comment at its base. That TRULY would be remarkable!

Merry Christmas!

[AURaptor 1,126]

Merry Christmas!

And on that note, we agree!

[Tiger Al 0]

More from the factually challenged Mr. Romney:

There was the period last spring when Mitt Romney claimed while campaigning in Iowa and New Hampshire that he had been a hunter “pretty much all my life,” only to have to admit later he had seriously hunted on only two occasions.

Then there was the endorsement Mr. Romney claimed on NBC’s “Meet the Press” last Sunday that he received from the National Rifle Association while running for governor of Massachusetts in 2002, when it turned out the group had never endorsed him.

Mr. Romney’s latest concession is that he only “figuratively” saw his late father, George, march with Martin Luther King Jr., something he claimed in his highly publicized speech about his Mormon faith earlier this month. Some publications have raised doubts that the event ever happened at all.

Story continues below ↓advertisement

Mr. Romney once said about misstatements by his Republican rival, Rudolph W. Giuliani, “facts are stubborn things.” But does he have his own problem with blurring the truth?

Some of the instances when Mr. Romney has tripped up on his facts show that he is prone to exaggeration, taking what is essentially a kernel of truth and stretching it to bolster his case.

On Thursday, for instance, at a campaign stop in Indianola, he ran into trouble when talking about his record on illegal drugs while governor of Massachusetts. Mr. Romney had been airing ads in Iowa attacking his rival, Mike Huckabee, for his record on clemencies while governor of Arkansas and for reducing penalties for methamphetamine-related crimes.

“I’m very proud of the fact that we, my state, when I was governor, we made it tougher for people with meth labs,” he said, echoing his commercial in which he claimed that he “got tough on drugs like meth” in the governor’s office.

“We cracked down on crime and on meth in particular,” Mr. Romney added. “It’s a very important topic. I want to make sure we do everything we can to keep our kids off of this terrible, pernicious, captivating drug.”

But both the ad and Mr. Romney’s claims on his record were misleading. Mr. Romney’s office proposed legislation that would have toughened penalties on those in possession of the drug and chemicals to manufacture it, but the bill stalled in the state legislature.

After The New York Times pointed out Mr. Romney’s misstatement in a posting on its politics blog, he made sure to correct himself before taking questions from reporters at his next campaign stop here.

“If I said this morning that we ‘got tough’ on methamphetamines, I proposed we get tough on methamphetamine and I’ve corrected that right here for all of you,” he said. “You don’t need to make any error of reporting that somehow Governor Romney actually got it done.”

His claim of being a lifelong hunter was similar. When asked at town hall forums about his stance on guns, Mr. Romney portrayed himself as a sportsman, a “hunter pretty much all my life,” who strongly supported the right to bear arms.

He even trotted out some stories, recalling how he went hunting with his cousins as a teenager but struggled to kill rabbits with a single-shot .22-caliber rifle. When they loaned him a semi-automatic, it became easier, he said, drawing laughs from an appreciative crowd in Keene, N.H. The last time he went hunting, he said, was last year, when he shot quail in Georgia and “knocked down quite a few birds.”

“So I’ve been pretty much hunting all my life,” he said again.

After the notion was challenged by The Associated Press, Mr. Romney’s campaign initially conceded that those were the only two instances he had really been hunting in his life, but later rushed to add that he had also gone pistol shooting for “varmints” at his vacation home in Utah, although he did not have a hunting license or own a gun.

On the National Rifle Association endorsement, Mr. Romney argued the group phone banked for him, but he conceded it did not formally endorse him.

“Frankly, I didn’t realize the N.R.A. had an official endorsement program that was different than their phone banking for me,” Mr. Romney said on Thursday to reporters here. “The fact that they phone banked and encouraged their members to vote for me, I thought qualified for saying they had endorsed me.”

With the questions now being raised by various publications about whether Mr. Romney’s late father, George, a former governor of Michigan, ever marched with King, no one is disputing that George Romney was active in the civil rights movement. What is being challenged is the precision of Mr. Romney’s statement.

Indeed, with many of these instances, there has often been at least an element of his truth in his claims. But for a candidate who has featured his business background and made much of his propensity for careful analysis of data, he is not always precise. Asked about it on Thursday, Mr. Romney said he would correct whatever might be wrong.

“There’s going to be hyperscrutiny of each word,” Mr. Romney said. “That’s part of running for president. I’m up to it. You can look at the things I’m saying about my record and about the events of campaign and history and you’ll find if now and then I miss a word or I get something slightly off, I’ll correct it, acknowledge where it’s wrong. But the overall thrust, the overall meaning of the story, is very accurate.” That, too, however, has not been so in every case.

LINK

[AURaptor 1,126]

Very much ado about nothing. ^

[Tiger Al 0]

Very much ado about nothing. ^

Except that if he can't be trusted on trivial matters such as these, then he certainly can't be trusted when it comes to something important. He's shown repeatedly that he'll say whatever he thinks his audience wants to hear whether it's the truth or not.

[AURaptor 1,126]

Very much ado about nothing. ^

Except that if he can't be trusted on trivial matters such as these, then he certainly can't be trusted when it comes to something important. He's shown repeatedly that he'll say whatever he thinks his audience wants to hear whether it's the truth or not.

This coming from a Democrat ?

[Tiger Al 0]

Very much ado about nothing. ^

Except that if he can't be trusted on trivial matters such as these, then he certainly can't be trusted when it comes to something important. He's shown repeatedly that he'll say whatever he thinks his audience wants to hear whether it's the truth or not.

This coming from a Democrat ?

Doesn't change the facts about Romney.

[AURaptor 1,126]

Then Hillary is equally disqualified, if that's your measuring stick.

[Tiger Al 0]

Then Hillary is equally disqualified, if that's your measuring stick.

When she falsely claims to have marched with MLK, falsely claims to have been a lifelong hunter and falsely claims to have received an endorsement from the NRA then I'll be happy to denounce her, nuance-free.