I am in Omaha, Nebraska today to speak at the Hilton Omaha where Mitt Romney will be raising cash in a private fundraiser for his campaign. It will be interesting if he is pressed on this story picking up steam this week. Romney has been accused of former school chums from his elite all-boy boarding school of attacking a presumed gay student and cutting off his hair. Since in many states the attack on the now-deceased John Lauber would be a hate crime, it is a serious charge even if it was so many years ago. The witness turns out to be a former prosecutor who says that he has been haunted by the act. This week Romney reaffirmed that he opposed same-sex marriage as a personal matter. Update: Romney has apologized for incidents in his youth.
The Washington Post spoke to five students, including one who said that Romney had it out for a younger boy because of his long bleached-blond hair in 1965. The witness say that Romney led friends in tackling and cutting off Lauber’s hair. The witness is Thomas Buford, a retired prosecutor. Romney is quoted at the time as declaring “He can’t look like that. That’s wrong. Just look at him!”
The response from the campaign was a bit weak under the circumstances. The campaign simply said that Romney had no recollection of the event: “The stories of fifty years ago seem exaggerated and off base and Governor Romney has no memory of participating in these incidents.”
I have met Romney and even flew across the country on a flight back to Washington. He has struck me as a particularly friendly and decent person despite our disagreement on many issues. However, despite the long passage of time, the leading of an attack on a gay student is a serious matter as it would in a racist or anti-Semitic attack. I would have expected a clear recollection that such an attack could never have occurred.
Four other students recalled the incident, including some who admitted to participating in it. Also troubling are accounts like this one: “In an English class, Gary Hummel, who was a closeted gay student at the time, recalled that his efforts to speak out in class were punctuated with Romney shouting, ‘Atta girl!'”
While Romney may claim that it was not an anti-gay attack but just a prank, one would expect him to have an equally clear memory of the event at the prestigious Cranbrook School. Certainly the memory stuck with Lauber who spoke to some of the witnesses years later. For my part, I am equally troubled by the claim of a lack of any recollection of such events.
Romney however appears to be trying to get ahead of the story and the confirmatory accounts of former friends. On a radio show, he said “Back in high school, I did some dumb things and if anybody was hurt by that or offended, obviously I apologize for that. I participated in a lot of hijinks and pranks during high school and some might have gone too far and for that, I apologize.” However, he still denied any recollection of the attack on Lauber: “I don’t remember that incident. I certainly don’t believe that I thought the fellow was homosexual. That was the furthest thing from our minds back in the 1960s so that was not the case.”
Do you think this is a viable campaign issue given the passage of time? If he was a bully decades ago, does it have bearing today on the man running for office?
Source: Washington Post
Bron, it’s Democratic Party. Santorum’s popularity was regional, and primarily evangelical. He was angry, authoritarian and intolerant, qualities that endeared him to caucus activists and right-wing Christians and… no one else. Educated Catholics regard him as generally uninformed and he is an absolute disgrace on Catholic social doctrine. In short, he was and is a one-trick pony, and I believe that would have become glaringly obvious to the electorate long before November.
Mitt, the prep-school sadist
His attacks on gay students and disabled teachers reveal a preppy, entitled cruelty. Not remembering makes it worse
BY JOAN WALSH
http://www.salon.com/2012/05/10/mitt_the_prep_school_sadist/singleton/
Excerpt:
Lauber wasn’t the only gay student bullied by Romney. Gary Hummel, who was closeted, recalled that Romney mocked his efforts to speak out in class by shouting, “Atta girl!” He pulled several pranks on a teacher with seriously compromised eyesight, once “escorting” him into a closed set of doors and “giggling hysterically” when he ran into them. Another time he propped up the back axle of the teacher’s VW bug and laughed as the man hit the gas pedal “with his wheels spinning in the air.” Hilarious!
In a hastily scheduled interview with a friendly Fox host, Romney made this statement: “I participated in a lot of hijinks and pranks during high school, and some might have gone too far, and for that I apologize.” He sort of said he didn’t remember assaulting Lauber. “I don’t remember that incident,” Romney said, laughing. (Laughing?) “I certainly don’t believe that I thought the fellow was homosexual. That was the furthest thing from our minds back in the 1960s, so that was not the case.” So he obviously remembers something – but he didn’t know the guy was gay! About taunting Gary Hummel with “Atta girl,” Romney offers a similar qualified denial: “I really can’t remember that. As this person indicated, he was closeted. I had no idea that he was gay and can’t speak to that even today.” So I didn’t do it, and anyway, the guy was closeted. Romney closed with the classic non-apology apology: ”If there’s anything I said that is offensive to someone, I certainly am sorry for that, very deeply sorry for that.”
I’m not sure what’s worse – that he remembers his cruel pranks, and he’s lying about it, or that such cruelty doesn’t stand out in his memory. It’s all of a piece with Romney’s cavalier statements about power and entitlement: “I like being able to fire people who provide services to me;” joking to a group of unemployed voters that he’s “unemployed” too; the $10,000 bet with Rick Perry; his statement the other day that retirees “can’t begin to live off the puny interest from their CDs.” He’s still the same entitled rich kid, the one whose classmate told the Post he thought deserved some punishment in the Lauber incident – punishment that of course never came. No wonder the story of poor Seamus on the roof of the car never goes away: we have stories of Mechanical Mitt, and Mean Mitt, and very few of Mitt as a man who shows genuine empathy to people (or other living beings) less powerful than he is.
One Obama-Romney parallel is striking. On Wednesday President Obama hastily schedules an interview to announce that he supports gay marriage. On Thursday Romney hastily schedules an interview to say he can’t remember assaulting one gay student and insulting another. That’s a pretty stark choice right there.
Update: This is rich: Some of Romney’s school-days friends are being asked by the campaign to step forward and defend him from the Washington Post story charges – and they’re balking. Stu White told ABC News that he is “still debating” whether he will help, addding, “It’s been a long time since we’ve been pals.”
Another classmate and old friend of Romney’s told ABC “a lot of guys” who went to Cranbrook have “really negative memories” of Romney’s behavior there. He described it as “evil” and “like Lord of the Flies.” The classmate, who wouldn’t be named, says Romney is lying when he says he can’t remember the hair-cutting incident.
“It makes these fellows [who have owned up to it] very remorseful. For [Romney] not to remember it? It doesn’t ring true. How could the fellow with the scissors forget it?” the former classmate said.
And another classmate, Phillip Maxwell, who witnessed the hair-cutting incident, told CBS today: “Mitt was a prankster, there’s no doubt about it. This thing with Lauber wasn’t a prank. This was, well, as a lawyer, it was an assault. It was an assault and a battery. And I’m sure that John Lauber carried it with him for the rest of his life.”
It seems like Romney’s glib dismissal of the story is bothering his old friends. Stay tuned; Romney’s going to have to say more about this soon. A lawyer just termed it “assault.”
One doesn’t need to know if Mitt Romney qualifies as a sociopath or psychopath, since electing him to the Presidency of the United States will make him both in any event. As Thomas Jefferson said: “Wherever a man has set his eye upon high office, a rottenness begins in his conduct.” President Obama provides all the evidence of this rottenness that one could possibly want, gleefully dancing on the corpses of Osama bin Laden and other insignificant Muslims at every opportunity.
If the Republicans think that they can monopolize the low road like they usually do, President Obama and his re-election campaign have obviously got news for them. Not that the Republicans don’t deserve to eat their own excrement, but it hardly encourages hopefulness to see yet another corporate Democrat taste it for them first.
Bron calls this “Bush fatigue”
@Curious,
“I did a really stupid thing in high school that hurt someone. I remember every detail.
Mitt remembers.”
Yeah, me too, in kindergarten. And I agree about Mitt.
“You underestimate people like Santorum and their appeal to regular middle class people.”
What appeal? The man is a rabid right wing zealot out of touch with anything but the fringe elements even within his own party. Moderates and independents are key to elections once the partisan bases are mobilized and directed. Candidates like Santorum (or Gingrich) do not appeal to either moderates or the non-partisan.
Mike Appleton:
I dont think you are right. Obama is a weak candidate even as incumbent. I think Santorum would have beaten him. Obama won because of McCain and people had Bush fatigue. The economy sucks and if it continues to suck then Obama is going to lose.
People are tired, the last time Obama promised people a respite from Bush and they took it. This time they are going to think really hard before pulling the lever for Obama. His rhetoric has lost it’s charm.
You underestimate people like Santorum and their appeal to regular middle class people.
You also seem to miss the reality that the democrat party of Sam Nunn, Scope Jackson, etc. is gone.
I did a really stupid thing in high school that hurt someone. I remember every detail.
Mitt remembers.
Bron, I hate to intervene in your exchange with Gene, but the assertion that Rick Santorum could beat Pres. Obama is almost delusional. His nomination would make the 1964 and 1972 elections look like squeakers by comparison.
Blouise, Definitely those groups will get pushed to turnout. I am wondering how the hispanics are going to react to the gay marriage announcement. There have been some negative responses from some ministers in the black church. Independents have been swinging back and forth, and the polls are tight.
SwM,
I’m not so sure it will be the independents although their vote will be important … the way it’s trending now … the base, the young and a big emphasis on the Hispanic bloc.
Bron, But then, again. I know a lot of women, minorities, public employees and gay people. We form the democratic base.
Bron, I don’t know anyone that is protesting Obama with their vote except for some people on this blog. These people don’t form the democratic base, and many did not vote for him last time. The independents in a few swing states will decide the race.
Bron,
Many of my friends are liberals and most are independents, but you’d be surprised the number of moderate conservatives I know who are opting to write in or simply not vote for President this time. It is way more than one. You underestimate how badly the GOP is alienating moderates by doubling down in playing to the far right. Their ever religious pandering does not play well to people who understand and appreciate the necessity and wisdom of the Separation of Church and State Doctrine nor has their blatant attack on women (52% of the population and able to vote) done them any favors either. I don’t think the election is going to be a landslide, no, but I don’t think even with abstentions that Romney is going to win unless some incredible game changing event happens between now and the election. The bad news is that both parties suck and are aiding and abetting the elimination of any pretense of democracy in this country in pandering to corporatist fascists (albeit slightly different ones).
Very few people like the choices of candidates in this election.
Gene H:
I am talking conservatives. They will vote for Romney and hold their nose. Santorum would have won the republican primary if Paul and Gingrich had not been in the race.
If your friends are liberals and are not going to vote for Obama, Romney is a foregone conclusion.
Anonymously Yours 1, May 10, 2012 at 5:25 pm
Thanks for your observations…..
But aren’t people capable of changing…..Especially if they were under some disability at the time of the event….
====================================
The problem is not exactly with individualism, it is more so the society around.
It has tremendous influence, and our subconscious 98% is hard wired to the society around (e.g. peer pressure) to a significant degree.
I think that people make personal changes more successfully when they are able to “jump the tracks” as it were, or to “get off the train” to use another metaphor.
Bron,
“Probably everyone who is going to vote against Obama. Mitt will be the first president ever elected because of voting against the incumbent rather than voting for the candidate. Almost 100% of people voting for Romney are doing so as a protest vote against the democrat party and the incumbent. It has nothing to do with Mitt’s attractiveness as a candidate.”
And your proof for this is what exactly? No one I know who isn’t voting for Obama is voting for Romney. To a one they are voting a write in or they simply aren’t voting for President this go around. Sure, it is anecdotal evidence, but I’ve seen nothing in the polling to indicate that what you say is true. Plus, it is not the first time in history that voters voted against the incumbent. The example that leaps to mind is LBJ, who dropped out of the race after losing the New Hampshire primary. However, prior to that, there are four President’s who failed to get their party nomination for re-election in the days before primaries: Pierce, Fillmore, Andrew Johnson and Arthur, although Pierce was the only one elected President with the other three ascending to the Presidency via being VP (Fillmore took over when Taylor died and Johnson and Arthur took over when Lincoln and Garfield were respectively assassinated).
“Had Paul and Gingrich left the race early, Santorum would have routed Romney. And he would have beaten Obama.”
Are you serious? Santorum is a theocratic lunatic that Obama would have defeated far easier than the more moderate appearing Romney and Gingrich and Paul were a non-player also-rans from the start. For the GOP to even hope to appeal to moderates and independents while getting someone willing to tow the party line, Romney was a foregone conclusion once the field settled down and other moderate appearing Republicans declined running.
Romney never professed to be perfect – only worthy of the ultimate job of leadership in a country desperately in need of it
———————————————————————————————–You do partake of the koolaid, don’t you. How you can even think the above comment much less actually express it on this blog is mindboggling. Worthy of something but definitely not the “ultimate job of leadership” in any country. Maybe you are a bully as well.
Thanks for your observations…..
But aren’t people capable of changing…..Especially if they were under some disability at the time of the event….
Oro Lee, I remember rich kids like that once throwing pennies at my sister to humiliate her….oh we know these people. They were dangerous in numbers.
My favorite quote on Romney:
” Mohamad Ali didn’t go to Vietnam because of his religion and went to jail. Mitt didn’t go to Vietnam because of his religion and went to France”