While I'm quite sure the 18 year old Romney was a thoroughly obnoxious little shit, I do feel a certain sympathy for him in this situation. If some journalist were to go digging round my past and talking to the people I vaguely knew 17 years ago and found some incident that showed me in a bad light I'd probably struggle to respond in a way that would satisfy Ricky as well. Certainly the first reaction wouldn't be to come out with some faux apology. I'd be firstly puzzled as to why it came up at all and secondly very guarded about how to respond since the details would be sketchy after all that time and I wouldn't want to just blunder into a reply when I wasn't clear on the facts. Romney is 65, so the incident in question actually happened 47 years ago. It's a bit of a reach to expect him to remember a specific incident where he bullied some kid nearly half a century ago.

sass

While I'm quite sure the 18 year old Romney was a thoroughly obnoxious little shit, I do feel a certain sympathy for him in this situation. If some journalist were to go digging round my past and talking to the people I vaguely knew 17 years ago and found some incident that showed me in a bad light I'd probably struggle to respond in a way that would satisfy Ricky as well. Certainly the first reaction wouldn't be to come out with some faux apology. I'd be firstly puzzled as to why it came up at all and secondly very guarded about how to respond since the details would be sketchy after all that time and I wouldn't want to just blunder into a reply when I wasn't clear on the facts. Romney is 65, so the incident in question actually happened 47 years ago. It's a bit of a reach to expect him to remember a specific incident where he bullied some kid nearly half a century ago

Romney wasn't ambushed with this...the WAPO gave him the story a couple weeks before publishing. He had time to calculate a response. And he came up with pretty weak soup.
He "couldn't remember" . But he didn't deny.
If its true he couldn't remember it means that for him this kind of callous bullying was an everyday incident so normal that it faded.
Please take into account the fact he didn't deny the story. Which means also, that if he couldn't remember this specific incident, that there were enough of them that he realized it could be true.

Romney was probably greatly formed as an adult after this incident. One of the things that often shapes Mormons is their 2 years in missionary work. And meeting and marrying Anne had to change him for the better.
But that still doesn't counter the fact that a man who is suppossed to demonstrate character and leadership, given a two week heads up to an approaching problem, couldn't do any better in response than offer weak soup of a mewling and mumbling sorta apology..... (Long as he doesn't have to actually ackowledge responsibility completely)

The story of George Washington is instructive Archduke. The lesson is supposed to be, stand and account for your actions like a man. Romney falls short.
And as a calculating politician he had all the time and advice he might need to have done something more positively.
Its not isolated either... he seems to have actually calculated his interview response to the Auto bailout. "Taking a lot of credit for it". A calculated response that is laughable.
If it does come down to an election with a thin group of independents its going to come down to who's more likable. Obama's gay marriage stance, even though everyone seems to understand it was only about timing the position when it was going to be a political postiive, made him more likable. Romneys mumbling apology for past bullying made his less likable.
I suspect there will be more events like this over the next few months....
Romney has only won election once.... he's a lousy candidate, because he never seems genuine. Notice I said "seems".

rickyp wrote:Romney was probably greatly formed as an adult after this incident. One of the things that often shapes Mormons is their 2 years in missionary work. And meeting and marrying Anne had to change him for the better.
But that still doesn't counter the fact that a man who is suppossed to demonstrate character and leadership, given a two week heads up to an approaching problem, couldn't do any better in response than offer weak soup of a mewling and mumbling sorta apology..... (Long as he doesn't have to actually ackowledge responsibility completely)

This really is incredibly duplicitous. You can discount 47 years on the basis of unproved allegations from his teen years?

No police report? No previous reports at all? One man who was cited as a source, then said to only have recently found out about the incident?

I'm fine with this, strangely, IF you will hold all other presidential candidates to this standard. Will you?

The story of George Washington is instructive Archduke. The lesson is supposed to be, stand and account for your actions like a man. Romney falls short.

Based on his inability to recall an incident that may not have happened?

Again, will you hold all candidates to this standard? That they take responsibility for all their actions, whether real or not?

Its not isolated either... he seems to have actually calculated his interview response to the Auto bailout. "Taking a lot of credit for it". A calculated response that is laughable.

Really? I'm so glad you don't get to vote. Romney suggested a structured bankruptcy. What happened?

If it does come down to an election with a thin group of independents its going to come down to who's more likable. Obama's gay marriage stance, even though everyone seems to understand it was only about timing the position when it was going to be a political postiive, made him more likable.

If you think gay marriage will help him, watch the polls in North Carolina, a State Obama won in 2008. Likeability won't cover incompetence and the President has done a poor job. People like him, but have no confidence in his ability. At the end of the day, if the economy was good, he'd be fine. It's not. He's not.

Romneys mumbling apology for past bullying made his less likable.
I suspect there will be more events like this over the next few months....

More made up crap? Maybe. However, this sort of thing, obvious nonsense, will not work.

Eventually, people will wonder why the press is doing proctological archaeology on Romney and ignore the other candidate, not even questioning a man who has lied in his autobiography.

Romney has only won election once.... he's a lousy candidate, because he never seems genuine. Notice I said "seems".

And, other than bamboozle people, Barack Obama has never accomplished anything in his life. His defenders will say he was the editor of the Harvard Law Review. I ask: since he was drunk and stoned, and ditched high school for his junior and senior years, how did he get into Columbia? What were his grades? What was his thesis? What sort of activities was he involved in?

Contra your frequent assertions, many aspects of the President's life were not vetted last time around.

steve

You can discount 47 years on the basis of unproved allegations from his teen years?

As uaual Steve, you're being incredibly obtuse. I haven't discounted anything about Romneys life. In fact if he had come out, fessed up to being a bit of bully in prep school, and apologized, I would have applauded him. It the fact he hasn't NOR, has he bothered to deny the accusations. In that case, I'd reserve judgement until more evidence came forward. However, he has as much as confirmed, in his response, that either he did this act, or its so like him that, even if he can't remember it,

As for the rest of my references to his life, they were contained in the WAPO piece, which you don't seem to have read.


steve

Barack Obama has never accomplished anything in his life

Ignoring anything else, he's been a very successful politican. State Senator, Senator, President...
Those are pretty significant accomplishments.

Romneys opponents can, and have (Gingrich) pointed to Mitt being a largely unsuccesful politican. A one term Governor who failed in every other election.
Why do you think he's had so much trouble succeeding with democratic proceedings?

freeman2 wrote:Well, Archduke did those people who put candy in your hair "say, well, I don't remember it happening but if it did happen I apologize."

Yeah, pretty much. They knew they bullied me but didn't remember the exact things they did to me.

freeman2 wrote:What age exactly do we have a cut-off for information about a politician's actions? To me, everything is relevant to some degree.

Ah so then the fact that Obama spent decades listening to Rev Wright is relevant? Or that he kicked off his first poiltical campaign in the living room of a guy who to this day refuses to apologize for his previous terrorist acts is relevant?

freeman2 wrote: Let's say instead of persecuting gays Romney

I also don't accept the premise that he was persecuting gays. He cut the hair of a guy who had long hair in an 1960's prep school. That would have made him a target no matter what. Haven't you ever seen the movie Remember the Titans?

freeman2 wrote:And, Archduke, it's not like your vitriol sounds all that grown-up.

I'm being vitrolic? I didn't think I was. I apologize if I was. I just think this is a bullshit issue that is an example of ignoring the serious problems that people complain about. The fact this much bandwidth has been wasted on it is absolutely depressing.

arch
Ah so then the fact that Obama spent decades listening to Rev Wright is relevant?7

decades? But the answer is, just about the same relevance. Not much really to most people evaluating the men. .

How did Obama respond to those criticisms? Compare Romneys response...
The response is whats relevant.

rickyp wrote:How did Obama respond to those criticisms? Compare Romneys response...
The response is whats relevant.

Obama quoted the man in his autobiography and referred to him as his mentor . . . until the political heat got turned up.

Bravery.

rickyp wrote:Ignoring anything else, he's been a very successful politican. State Senator, Senator, President...
Those are pretty significant accomplishments.

Nixon had more than that.

Why do you think he's had so much trouble succeeding with democratic proceedings?

I don't view it that way. I actually live in the People's Republic. We have one of the worst governors in any State and he was reelected. Why? Not because of competency or even policy, but because Democrats run the State and he's a Democrat.

rickyp wrote:decades?

Uhm yes, he met Wright in 1980's, was married by him in 1992, quotes him in a 1995 published book and again in a 2006 published book as well as continued to attend his church until 2007. I think that qualifies as decades.

rickyp wrote:How did Obama respond to those criticisms? Compare Romneys response...
The response is whats relevant.

Ok, so Obama's response of I attended the church for years but never heard him say those hateful things and while I disagree with what he said, I can't repudiate the man himself.

is a better response then

Romney's I don't really remember all the pranks and stunts I pulled 45 years ago but I apologize for the stupid things I did as a teenager.

Can you please explain the difference? Because the basically look the same to me?

archduke

Can you please explain the difference? Because the basically look the same to me?

The difference is that for most people they don't look the same.
Obama wasn't personnally responsible for Wrights words. And, apparently was able to claim that he never heard him preach the hate directly, credibly. (To most people who don't believe there is a huge conspiracy going on in the MSM..)
Then he dealt with them head on, publicly and clearly repudiating the man's language. And although he said "I can't repudiate the man" , he sure as hell cut him off....Efffectively repudiating him.

Romney, was personnally responsible for the bullying. (The leader of the crew accoridng to the witnesses.) I think he could have stepped up, dealt with the distant past head on, and repudiated his past actions quite effectively. Turned the situation into a "teachable moment".
Instead he went for the mealy mouthed apology without accepting responsibility. (How often have we heard the "I'm sorry if I offended anyone BS?)

Archduke, to me the question is not what we've done before, but how did we learn and how are we growing from what came before. For politicians this is really difficult. I'm pretty sure Obama hid his approval of gay marriage for a decade or so... in order to get elected. His personal evolution is all about political expediency. Whats remarkable is that it is now considered politically expedient to be in favour of gay marriage...
The reason I think Romney is a lousy candidate, and therefore a lousy choice for President, is that he can't seem to understand how to deal with issues like this.... Rather than deal with them and dispose of them as issues, turning them into positives - he allows them to define him.

The difference between an association with Wright the firebrand racist, and Romney the bully of gays, is that Obama did not allow Wright to define him. Romney hasn't managed to avoid having this incident define him. At least not yet. (And he had a two week warning this was coming...Obama was side swiped by the Wright sermons.)

rickyp wrote:Obama wasn't personnally responsible for Wrights words. And, apparently was able to claim that he never heard him preach the hate directly, credibly. (To most people who don't believe there is a huge conspiracy going on in the MSM..)

"Apparently" is a wise qualifier. He did hear it directly. How do I know? President Obama wrote about it:

The title of Reverend Wright’s sermon that morning was “The Audacity of Hope.” He began with a passage from the Book of Samuel—the story of Hannah, who, barren and taunted by her rivals, had wept and shaken in prayer before her God. The story reminded him, he said, of a sermon a fellow pastor had preached at a conference some years before, in which the pastor described going to a museum and being confronted by a painting title Hope.

“The painting depicts a harpist,” Reverend Wright explained, “a woman who at first glance appears to be sitting atop a great mountain. Until you take a closer look and see that the woman is bruised and bloodied, dressed in tattered rags, the harp reduced to a single frayed string. Your eye is then drawn down to the scene below, down to the valley below, where everywhere are the ravages of famine, the drumbeat of war, a world groaning under strife and deprivation.

“It is this world, a world where cruise ships throw away more food in a day than most residents of Port-au-Prince see in a year, where white folks’ greed runs a world in need, apartheid in one hemisphere, apathy in another hemisphere…That’s the world! On which hope sits!”

What's the world's problem? White people.

But, wait, there's more:

“We don’t buy into these false divisions here. It’s not about income, Barack. Cops don’t check my bank account when they pull me over and make me spread-eagle against the car. These miseducated brothers, like that sociologist at the University of Chicago, talking about ‘the declining significance of race.’ Now, what country is he living in?”

“Life’s not safe for a black man in this country, Barack. Never has been. Probably never will be.” [201]

Afterward, in the parking lot, I sat in my car and thumbed through a silver brochure that I’d picked up in the reception area. It contained a set of guiding principles-a “Black Value System”-that the congregation had adopted in 1979. At the top of the list was a commitment to God, “who will give us the strength to give up prayerful passivism [sic] and become Black Christian activists, soldiers for Black freedom and the dignity of all humankind.” Then a commitment to the black community and black family, education, the work ethic, discipline, and self-respect. . . .

A sensible, heartfelt list…There was one particular passage in Trinity’s brochure that stood out, though, a commandment more self-conscious in its tone, requiring greater elaboration. “A Disavowal of the Pursuit of Middleclassness,” the heading read. “While it is permissible to chase ‘middleincomeness’ with all our might,” the text stated, those blessed with the talent or good fortune to achieve success in the American mainstream must avoid the “psychological entrapment of Black ‘middleclassness’ that hypnotizes the successful brother or sister into believing they are better than the rest and teaches them to think in terms of ‘we’ and ‘they’ instead of ‘US’!” [202] . . .

My thoughts would often return to that declaration in the weeks that followed as I met with various members of Trinity.

That the press failed to investigate this doesn't exonerate the Man.

What exactly do you disagree with in the sermon Steve?
Are you upset with the fact that Wright points to racism as a cause of what he sees as inequality? Or that he claims racism still exists? You know he ain't wrong. At the time of the sermon wasn't apartheid in South Africa still a reality>? And racism hasn't, even today, been eradicated in the US,


Or is it the expression of values? I would think they would be remarkably close to yours... with the exception of the shared responsibility to work for Black freedom...

And how, having listened and reflected upon this, has Obama behaved? What do you think he needs exoneration from?

rickyp wrote:What exactly do you disagree with in the sermon Steve?

Thank you for demonstrating the reasoning capacity of a 2 x 4.

What those quotes, mostly from Obama's own hand (keyboard), demonstrate is that he listened intently to what Wright taught. He was not oblivious to the racism inherent in that church.

Or is it the expression of values? I would think they would be remarkably close to yours... with the exception of the shared responsibility to work for Black freedom...

Um, no.

Christians don't go to a church where "white" or "black" value systems:

Afterward, in the parking lot, I sat in my car and thumbed through a silver brochure that I’d picked up in the reception area. It contained a set of guiding principles-a “Black Value System”-that the congregation had adopted in 1979. At the top of the list was a commitment to God, “who will give us the strength to give up prayerful passivism [sic] and become Black Christian activists, soldiers for Black freedom and the dignity of all humankind.” Then a commitment to the black community and black family, education, the work ethic, discipline, and self-respect.

That you don't get that shows a lot. Any genuinely Christian church would understand "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." (Gal 3:28 ESV) Wright uses the kind of vitriol one associates with Farrakhan.

And how, having listened and reflected upon this, has Obama behaved? What do you think he needs exoneration from?

First, attending for 20 years, claiming the guy as a mentor, defending him, and only disassociating himself when it became politically untenable.

Doctor Fate wrote:What's the world's problem? White people.

Umm, no. The problem was 'greed'.

But, wait, there's more:

I bet a site called 'Stop Obama' is going to be balanced!

“We don’t buy into these false divisions here. It’s not about income, Barack. Cops don’t check my bank account when they pull me over and make me spread-eagle against the car. These miseducated brothers, like that sociologist at the University of Chicago, talking about ‘the declining significance of race.’ Now, what country is he living in?”

Are you saying that race is no longer significant in the USA? Or that blacks are disproportionately suspected of crimes?

“Life’s not safe for a black man in this country, Barack. Never has been. Probably never will be.” [201]

Please show us how the murder rate of blacks is the same as that of other races, that'll show us that there's no difference in safety

Afterward, in the parking lot, I sat in my car and thumbed through a silver brochure that I’d picked up in the reception area. It contained a set of guiding principles-a “Black Value System”-that the congregation had adopted in 1979. At the top of the list was a commitment to God, “who will give us the strength to give up prayerful passivism [sic] and become Black Christian activists, soldiers for Black freedom and the dignity of all humankind.” Then a commitment to the black community and black family, education, the work ethic, discipline, and self-respect. . . .

So, umm he's damned by a list headed up by a commitment to God?

By the way, 'passivism' is not misspelled- it's not 'pacifism', but passivenss that is what is being asked to give up.

But I see your point. How dare Wright's church promote education, family, discipline, work ethic, etc. And how dare Obama respect that.

Actually, no I don't see your point.

A sensible, heartfelt list…There was one particular passage in Trinity’s brochure that stood out, though, a commandment more self-conscious in its tone, requiring greater elaboration. “A Disavowal of the Pursuit of Middleclassness,” the heading read. “While it is permissible to chase ‘middleincomeness’ with all our might,” the text stated, those blessed with the talent or good fortune to achieve success in the American mainstream must avoid the “psychological entrapment of Black ‘middleclassness’ that hypnotizes the successful brother or sister into believing they are better than the rest and teaches them to think in terms of ‘we’ and ‘they’ instead of ‘US’!” [202] . . .

Nothing wrong with that either, really. There's the problem of working class people who develop a chip on their shoulder and see all who 'escape' upwards as class traitors. And that's divisive. Then there's the attitude of people who do obtain a better life who look down on their former peers. And that's divisive too.

That the press failed to investigate this doesn't exonerate the Man.

Waah! You need to be spoonfed by the 'press'? Obama wrote this stuff in his autobiography...

And why this 'Man' stuff? Is this another symptom of your obsession?

rickyp wrote:. And, apparently was able to claim that he never heard him preach the hate directly, credibly.

Actually that is not accurate. What Obama said according to wikipedia was

he was aware of Pastor Wright's controversial comments, and had personally heard "remarks that could be considered controversial" in Wright's church, but denied having heard the particular inflammatory statements that were widely televised during the campaign.

so Obama was ok with attending the church of a pastor that preached hate for years after he became aware of the preaching. Except until it became a political liability.

rickyp wrote:. Then he dealt with them head on, publicly and clearly repudiating the man's language. And although he said "I can't repudiate the man" , he sure as hell cut him off....Efffectively repudiating him.

Yeah but not until two months after the issue broke. The Obama's didn't leave the church until May, 2008 so he was ok listening to that racist hate rhetoric (which I am sure included some anti-gay speech) for years and only left when it became politically untenable.
But of course Romney's look I know I did things as a youth that were hurtful but I don't remember all of them. But for any that did cause pain, I apologize, show a man of much worse character then one who actually sat in the pews listening to the hate for decades.