The Romney in high school story is a little bush league, but I guess if we’re going to worry about Kerry’s swiftboat and how he eats a cheese steak, or Obama’s eating dog or birth certificate or Bush’s DUI and national guard service and generally let horse race and personality coverage displace more boring, work-intensive substantive coverage about how they’d govern if elected then I guess this kind of thing is part of the landscape.
My opinion isn’t colored by whether a candidate was or was not a dick in high school. The story is that Romney, in high school, was fairly vicious in holding down an effeminate kid who had a non-conforming hair style at Romney’s prep school and forcibly cutting the kid’s hair.
Romney march[ed] out of his own room ahead of a prep school posse shouting about their plan to cut Lauber’s hair. Friedemann followed them to a nearby room where they came upon Lauber, tackled him and pinned him to the ground. As Lauber, his eyes filling with tears, screamed for help, Romney repeatedly clipped his hair with a pair of scissors.
Some of the news reports I’ve seen following up on the Washington Post story are referring to this as “a prank.” Even in 1965, I can’t think that this constitutes a “prank.” That’s not a disqualifier for office. Teens can be vicious little assholes. Part of growing up is learning empathy. As a kid, you are necessarily self-centered and limited in your understanding of people who aren’t you.
I remember in maybe third grade, on the way home from school, an incident where I was picking on the effeminate kid in our class; the one who hung out with all the girls. Me and some other guys started pelting him with snowballs – and not in a playful way. He ran away and the incident didn’t amount to much. Not long after, I think he moved out of town. A few years ago, I saw that he was on Facebook. I recalled the incident, and just felt awful about it. Even though it had been about 30 years, I thought the right thing to do was to make contact with him to tell him I was sorry for being such a jerk. People grow up and develop a better sense of right and wrong.
Romney’s problem, as is so often with these things, is his reaction now. According to his campaign’s spokesperson, he has no memory of this incident. (“Governor Romney has no memory of participating in these incidents.”) I imagine that’s a lie. I’d be more horrified if it was true that he didn’t remember. I can’t imagine an incident like that being so unremarkable to me as to not leave a lasting impression. Then, Romney himself confirmed his lack of memory to Fox News and suggested that sometimes his “pranks” went too far. Again, of the many things this story describes, “prank” is not one of them.
His ability to apologize in a straightforward manner is limited by his purported inability to recall having held the crying boy down to forcibly cut his hair:
Back in high school, I did some dumb things, and if anybody was hurt by that or offended, obviously I apologize.
Because he can’t acknowledge remembering, he can’t say something like, “that was an awful thing to do. No one should be treated like that. Obviously I’m older now and know better, but I still regret what I did and, if he were still alive, would apologize to that boy.” Apology taken care of and recognition of wrong-doing acknowledged, he could pivot to a focus on how it’s a little ridiculous our political system focuses on events from so long ago instead of on current problems.
“Part of growing up is learning empathy. As a kid, you are necessarily self-centered and limited in your understanding of people who aren’t you.”
His response to Obama’s explanation of his evolving opinion on gay marriage pretty much tell me he isn’t interested in understanding people who aren’t like him, and that tells me everything about how he would govern.
I see Romney as person that lacks personal integrity and internal honesty. All politicans talk, then backtrack and apologize, and respin. But Romney misrepresents his former positions and flops without compunction and at a level that contains not indication that a conscience underlies his existence. He either thinks that the voters will ignore his mendacity or does not believe his falsehoods will even be considered by the voters.
I would venture to say that Romney is a nonviolent sociopath, a person that is completely without empathy and is only motivated by his personal quest for power. I believe Romney would say or do anything to be elected to the highest office. And his conduct as a teenager further supports my argument that Romney is a nonviolent sociopath. Those were not pranks. Those were acts of cruelty.
I did thoughtless things to others when I was younger. But I remember and regret them all.
I believe it is also relevant and telling thatRomney so quickly scampered over to Fox News to spin a few lies. The truth did not hit a nerve, but it did hit a pragmatic need for damage control.
Before you get to excited about this story Doug, you might want to check out the fact that it has totally imploded now that Lauber’s sister from South Bend has repudiated the account. “The family of John Lauber is releasing a statement saying the portrayal of John is factually incorrect and we are aggrieved that he would be used to further a political agenda. There will be no more comments from the family,” she said. “If he were alive today, he would be furious [about the story].”
This story provides more detail on Lauber’s sister’s statement and the statements from Romney’s classmates.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/05/former-romney-classmate-describes-bullying-supreme-a-pack-of-dogs-who-targeted-differentboy/
I’m offended that Romney’s private elitist prep school is being referred to as a mere high school.
How in the world would his siblings know whether it happened? One of his siblings acknowledged that even if something like that happened, he probably wouldn’t have said anything. It seems that the “inaccuracy” of the portrayal of their brother seems to relate to the peripheral detail of whether he was a boarder or a day student. I don’t think this story is dispositive of Romney’s character or fitness to be president, but I’m also not sure why Romney’s classmates would, on the record and by name, fabricate a story that doesn’t paint themselves in a favorable light, either.
gee, whose word should i take on this: several people who were present at the event in question, or one person who was not (and could not have been) present? hmmm…
Is it a uniquely conservative trait to find one poor-quality bit of evidence to the contrary and trumpet it like it settles the argument? Or does it just seem that way?
http://www.nationofchange.org/romney-unzipped-exposed-babbitt-clone-1337435710
The above article is a bit over the top and stretches the “Babbitt” methaphor a bit far, but I don’t buy Romney’s “Smear and (shear) the Queer” incident as a mere high-spirited prank.