Mitt Romney, high school bully?

[AmericanNation]

It wasn't "cutting a hippy's hair", you awful little person, it was a hate-crime assault. It's disgusting, and the fact that you're brushing this off and attacking the victim is just as disgusting.

I would feel a lot better about it if it wasn't an obvious hit piece strategically deployed the day after Obama's evolution.  Also it would be nice if the "victim" was alive not dead or if he mentioned it to a single person over a 40 year period.  Where was this story 20 years ago?  It's a stretch to call touching hair an assault and "hate-crime" is ludicrous.        

"After four years of ignoring Barack Obama’s bullying of religious groups and others from inside the White House, it’s fair game to go after Mitt Romney as a supposed high school bully.

I guess we won’t hear the left whining any more when we mention Barack Obama eating a dog since, as they are quick to point out, he was a kid when it happened."

[crypto-fascist superhero]

Just a miscellaneous comment - exactly why was a blind man allowed to drive?

[Senator Clarence]

The way gays are perceived nowadays is a far cry from that time...we all believed gays were simply rebelling- part of the 60s counterculture like hippies and potheads. As far as we were concerned- they were deviants who recruited others into their lifestyle

It was wrong- and is one of the reasons I am proud to support gay rights today. But it is important to understand this...what Romney did- if he did it- wasn' tunusual

[opebo]

I'd believe this occurred...but to say it is a hate crime is an incredible leap
Also- and I'm sure I'll get flack for this- bullying is normal behavior...it's wrong and should be punished, but doesn't make one "sick" or  a "psycopatch" if they bully others at a young age

In fact bullying does make you a mentally ill person, Clarence.  Just because our society encourages and thrives upon abuse, violence, and human degradation doesn't mean we have to accept it.  Sure, Mitt Romney will always be a rich aristocrat, and will never be called to account for all the people he has harmed (and may even be president), but there's nobody here stopping us from calling him what he is - the perpetrator of a hate crime.  (Well I suppose there is, but we'll see if they consider this a 'personal attack' on Romney).

[opebo]

The way gays are perceived nowadays is a far cry from that time...we all believed gays were simply rebelling- part of the 60s counterculture like hippies and potheads. As far as we were concerned- they were deviants who recruited others into their lifestyle

It was wrong- and is one of the reasons I am proud to support gay rights today. But it is important to understand this...what Romney did- if he did it- wasn' tunusual

Correct, hate crime was commonplace then. Is this a reason to absolve it? No.

[Senator Clarence]

Of course it shouldn't be absolved...neither should Lincoln's comments on the inferiority of blacks...both are wrong now and were wrong then- but this must be looked at thru a 1965 lens, not a 2012 lens

[Joe Republic]

It's a stretch to call touching hair an assault and "hate-crime" is ludicrous.

It certainly would be a stretch, I agree.  However, pinning somebody down and cutting their hair off is quite clearly assault.  Seriously, how on earth do you read through this story and conclude that his hair was merely "touched"?

"After four years of ignoring Barack Obama’s bullying of religious groups and others from inside the White House, it’s fair game to go after Mitt Romney as a supposed high school bully.

I guess we won’t hear the left whining any more when we mention Barack Obama eating a dog since, as they are quick to point out, he was a kid when it happened."

Obama would have been aged 6-10 when that incident happened.  Romney was 18 when this happened.  Are you really that dishonest to equate the two?

And tell me, these blocks of text in quote marks:  are they copied from FreeRepublic or something?

[Senator Napoleon]

RedState, actually.

[ajb]

Of course it shouldn't be absolved...neither should Lincoln's comments on the inferiority of blacks...both are wrong now and were wrong then- but this must be looked at thru a 1965 lens, not a 2012 lens

The key difference here is that Lincoln is no longer alive, and therefore not seeking office. Romney is alive, and seeking office, today, and as a result does need to be judged by the standards of 2012. Presuming this story is true, he should probably offer a more heartfelt apology than simply saying that some pranks got out of hand.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

I think you liberals are just trigger-happy that this has been a good week for Obama.

Hate crime? Really? That's insulting. What happened to Matthew Shepard was a hate crime. Getting tortured and murdered is a hate crime. Equating some high school bullying (which happens every day amongst teenagers who haven't developed the best judgement) with the vicious murder of a gay boy is nauseating. It totally devalues the severity of crimes that have been committed against people like Mr. Shepard.

Howbout, instead of jumping to conclusions that can't be verified, we use a bit of common sense, hm?

My music teacher has pinned me down on the floor and cut my hair because it was "a mop." Who cares? This sort of hypersensitivity is probably my biggest pet peeve in the world.

(and besides... if Mitt Romney was a bully, I'm sure he was an equal opportunity one )

[Bacon King]

Just a miscellaneous comment - exactly why was a blind man allowed to drive?

In the old days, a lot of states didn't require vision tests for licenses (and even today, there are nine states where you don't have to get a vision test when renewing your license, no matter how old you are). It was pretty much someone's own decision entirely whether they could still see enough to drive.

[AmericanNation]

In addition to everything Lief said, I don't see how the media's supposed lack of coverage of Barack Obama's past is in any way a valid defense of Romney's actions here.

(Also the idea that the media has glossed over Obama's past is absurd - were you people under a rock in 2007/2008?)

...If candidate A is better than candidate B on an issue, you shouldn't go ballistic on A and support B(ignoring B's worse record) because you would be committing an illogical and fallacious act.  Comparison of an apple to an apple is fair game.  

The fact that people know more about Sarah Palin's past than BO's disproves whatever point you were trying to make there.  
  
"We do not really know much about Barack Obama’s constituent record in the Illinois Legislature.

We still don’t know his college transcripts.

We still don’t know what exactly he did for ACORN in his community organizing time.

We still don’t know all the details about the depth of the cocaine use Barack Obama admitted to in his book. Likewise, we know very little about his drug use in high school beyond just a few lines of reporting from 2007.

We know very little, outside of his own autobiographical spin, about how he overcame his rage at white people — something he wrote about, but again, as a politician in an autobiography.

We still don’t know about just how many communists Barack Obama chose to surround himself with.

We still know very little about Barack Obama’s ties to Bill Ayers and the media sure hates to talk about Barack Obama getting his major political start in Bill Ayers’ living room.

But the press is perfectly happy to go back several decades to tell us every salacious detail about Mitt Romney the teenager.

This reminds me of 1992 all over again. The George H. W. Bush team wanted to go focus on Bill Clinton the draft dodger from Vietnam because they couldn’t fight on the economy. Unlike 1992, Barack Obama has the media doing it for him." -EE

[Bandit3 the Worker]

Obama would have been aged 6-10 when that incident happened.  Romney was 18 when this happened.

In other words, he was a grown man - and should have been charged as an adult.

[opebo]

Hate crime? Really? That's insulting. What happened to Matthew Shepard was a hate crime. Getting tortured and murdered is a hate crime. Equating some high school bullying (which happens every day amongst teenagers who haven't developed the best judgement) with the vicious murder of a gay boy is nauseating. It totally devalues the severity of crimes that have been committed against people like Mr. Shepard.

No, the term 'hate crime' refers to the motivation, not the severity of the crime.  In both this crime of Romney's and the Matthew Shephard case, the motivation was the same - hatred.

My music teacher has pinned me down on the floor and cut my hair because it was "a mop." Who cares? This sort of hypersensitivity is probably my biggest pet peeve in the world.

You should sue that sadistic pedophile.

[crypto-fascist superhero]

My music teacher has pinned me down on the floor and cut my hair because it was "a mop."

Ummm....

[HagridOfTheDeep]

So if someone illegally downloaded Beyonce's music because they'd rather not pay a black girl, that's a hate crime? All right, pal. You stick with that.

[Joe Republic]

So if someone illegally downloaded Beyonce's music because they'd rather not pay a black girl, that's a hate crime? All right, pal. You stick with that.

What.

[ajb]

In addition to everything Lief said, I don't see how the media's supposed lack of coverage of Barack Obama's past is in any way a valid defense of Romney's actions here.

(Also the idea that the media has glossed over Obama's past is absurd - were you people under a rock in 2007/2008?)

...If candidate A is better than candidate B on an issue, you shouldn't go ballistic on A and support B(ignoring B's worse record) because you would be committing an illogical and fallacious act.  Comparison of an apple to an apple is fair game.  

The fact that people know more about Sarah Palin's past than BO's disproves whatever point you were trying to make there.  
  
"We do not really know much about Barack Obama’s constituent record in the Illinois Legislature.

We still don’t know his college transcripts.

We still don’t know what exactly he did for ACORN in his community organizing time.

We still don’t know all the details about the depth of the cocaine use Barack Obama admitted to in his book. Likewise, we know very little about his drug use in high school beyond just a few lines of reporting from 2007.

We know very little, outside of his own autobiographical spin, about how he overcame his rage at white people — something he wrote about, but again, as a politician in an autobiography.

We still don’t know about just how many communists Barack Obama chose to surround himself with.

We still know very little about Barack Obama’s ties to Bill Ayers and the media sure hates to talk about Barack Obama getting his major political start in Bill Ayers’ living room.

But the press is perfectly happy to go back several decades to tell us every salacious detail about Mitt Romney the teenager.

This reminds me of 1992 all over again. The George H. W. Bush team wanted to go focus on Bill Clinton the draft dodger from Vietnam because they couldn’t fight on the economy. Unlike 1992, Barack Obama has the media doing it for him." -EE

Republicans would have more credibility on these issues if they'd been more aggressive in squashing demonstrably false rumors about Barack Obama, like that he wasn't born in the United States or was a closet Muslim. By giving credence to these out-there ideas, they deprived themselves of the room to be successful with more conventional kinds of character-assassination stuff along the lines you suggest, and as they'd done with Bill Clinton in 1992.

[AmericanNation]

In addition to everything Lief said, I don't see how the media's supposed lack of coverage of Barack Obama's past is in any way a valid defense of Romney's actions here.

(Also the idea that the media has glossed over Obama's past is absurd - were you people under a rock in 2007/2008?)

Republicans would have more credibility on these issues if they'd been more aggressive in squashing demonstrably false rumors about Barack Obama, like that he wasn't born in the United States or was a closet Muslim. By giving credence to these out-there ideas, they deprived themselves of the room to be successful with more conventional kinds of character-assassination stuff along the lines you suggest, and as they'd done with Bill Clinton in 1992.

That stuff started in the democrat primary with Hillary and the GOP "establishment" slapped it down more than anyone else including the media and Obama himself. 

[WhyteRain]

The MSM is so predictable now.

I said in numerous fora last Summer that Romney -- as the most anti-Tea Party of the leading Republicans -- was the MSM's guy for the GOP nomination.  As I predicted, the MSM would give Romney a clear path to the nomination while launching insanely vicious attacks on any "conservative alternative" that popped up in his way.

But I told Romney supporters that as soon as their guy locked up the nomination, the MSM would -- with no more danger of Bachmann, Perry, Cain, Gingrich, etc. becoming president -- then launch the non-stop campaign to Palinize Romney with nothing but attacks on his own and his friends' and family's personal histories.

So far, the MSM has made me look like a genius.

Btw, as a former newspaper reporter in D.C., I assure you the Post sat on this 47 year-old story for months or years, waiting for the right moment to drop it on Romney. 

[Invisible Obama]

So if someone illegally downloaded Beyonce's music because they'd rather not pay a black girl, that's a hate crime? All right, pal. You stick with that.

Your analogy fails.

[Joe Republic]

Okay, so because the timing of the story was evidently political*, I guess that means none of this happened and Mitt Romney never assaulted a presumed gay classmate in high school.  Got it.


* And in an election year?  Good heavens!

[ajb]

In addition to everything Lief said, I don't see how the media's supposed lack of coverage of Barack Obama's past is in any way a valid defense of Romney's actions here.

(Also the idea that the media has glossed over Obama's past is absurd - were you people under a rock in 2007/2008?)

Republicans would have more credibility on these issues if they'd been more aggressive in squashing demonstrably false rumors about Barack Obama, like that he wasn't born in the United States or was a closet Muslim. By giving credence to these out-there ideas, they deprived themselves of the room to be successful with more conventional kinds of character-assassination stuff along the lines you suggest, and as they'd done with Bill Clinton in 1992.

That stuff started in the democrat primary with Hillary and the GOP "establishment" slapped it down more than anyone else including the media and Obama himself. 

There's a lot more to the repubs than their establishment, as we all know.
Besides, on all of this stuff the voters are the final court of appeal. All of the issues you raise were certainly discussed during the 2008 Democratic primary and during the general election campaign. You may think they weren't adequately discussed; clearly, the electorate as a whole didn't agree. And now that Obama has been president for a term, he's rightly going to be judged much more on his record than on who he knew in college, or whether he or George W. Bush did more cocaine. Romney can be judged on his record in office, though that seems to upset him, but it's pretty much inevitable that any questionable episode from a presidential candidate's past will come up at some point. And, as with Obama in 2008, the voters will have the final say.

[ModerateCoward]

The MSM is so predictable now.

I said in numerous fora last Summer that Romney -- as the most anti-Tea Party of the leading Republicans -- was the MSM's guy for the GOP nomination.  As I predicted, the MSM would give Romney a clear path to the nomination while launching insanely vicious attacks on any "conservative alternative" that popped up in his way.

But I told Romney supporters that as soon as their guy locked up the nomination, the MSM would -- with no more danger of Bachmann, Perry, Cain, Gingrich, etc. becoming president -- then launch the non-stop campaign to Palinize Romney with nothing but attacks on his own and his friends' and family's personal histories.

So far, the MSM has made me look like a genius.

Btw, as a former newspaper reporter in D.C., I assure you the Post sat on this 47 year-old story for months or years, waiting for the right moment to drop it on Romney. 

Well than MSM is executing a pretty dumb and predictable strategy, they should have dropped it a couple days before Michigan primary for maximum effect, and that would have opened another can of worms.

[WhyteRain]

The MSM is so predictable now.

I said in numerous fora last Summer that Romney -- as the most anti-Tea Party of the leading Republicans -- was the MSM's guy for the GOP nomination.  As I predicted, the MSM would give Romney a clear path to the nomination while launching insanely vicious attacks on any "conservative alternative" that popped up in his way.

But I told Romney supporters that as soon as their guy locked up the nomination, the MSM would -- with no more danger of Bachmann, Perry, Cain, Gingrich, etc. becoming president -- then launch the non-stop campaign to Palinize Romney with nothing but attacks on his own and his friends' and family's personal histories.

So far, the MSM has made me look like a genius.

Btw, as a former newspaper reporter in D.C., I assure you the Post sat on this 47 year-old story for months or years, waiting for the right moment to drop it on Romney. 

Well than MSM is executing a pretty dumb and predictable strategy, they should have dropped it a couple days before Michigan primary for maximum effect, and that would have opened another can of worms.

Based on what I said -- that the MSM favored anti-Tea Party Romney, why would you call the MSM "dumb" for failing to run stories to hurt Romney during the GOP primaries?