I have read the RP debate with moderate interest for two reasons. First, I don’t care what Romney, Obama, or any other candidate did in high school or grade school. Let’s hope the world finds out less about all our lives in those years.
Secondly, this crazy story makes no sense. Look at Romney, listen to Romney and ask yourself if this guy could beat up or pick on anybody.
I have met Mr. Romney and even spent a small amount of time with him behind the spotlights. His friends would call him kind, gracious, well mannered, and curious. His enemies would call him a weak sissy who is afraid of his own shadow.
As a Marine I would not classify Mitt as a tough kick butt kind of person. I don’t think that is his style. That’s OK, we can’t all be John Wayne.
But seriously, does anyone think this guy ever picked on people? I could see him spreading gossip or something girly like that, but not to throw a punch or intimidate anyone.
That Mitt Romney bullied a young gay man as a teenager should not, in and of itself, be disqualifying; it happened fifty years ago.
What should be disqualifying is the fact that Romney chased his national security spokesman Richard Grenell out of campaign HQ with a proverbial scissors two weeks ago, when his campaign folded to the pressure of anti-gay social conservatives and told Grenell – a respected foreign policy expert – that Grenell would not be allowed to speak on the record.
And what should be disqualifying is that Romney accepted Grenell’s resignation willingly – “whew, that mini-crisis is over” – instead of having the character to say, “No. I hired you to be our national security spokesman because of your credentials and that hasn’t changed just because a few bigots have a problem with your sexual orientation.”
That lack of character – signs of which some may detect in his role as a Cranbrook ringleader – is why Republicans, independents, and Democrats agree that Romney is one of the least likeable presidential candidates since Nixon.
I’ve been invited to comment and am hesitant because I try to ignore the digging into candidates early lives as evidence of current temperament and clues about leadership style. But I have heard a little about this incident and will try to offer some constructive commentary.
From what I can gather there were several incidents involving a young Mitt Romney, the now-Republican nominee for president, and some pranks that could be interpreted as “insensitive” if not “cruel” to young homosexual males in his class at prep school.
I believe the story goes that Mitt was traveling by car from Massachusetts to Canada and tied a classmate to the roof of the car for the entire 12 hour drive. Presumably it has now leaked out that the reason the boy was tied to the roof of the car wasn’t just because he was a democrat. But because he was gay too.
I find this sort of teen boy prankster mentality offensive and embarrassing but probably not indicative of some deep seated character flaw that Romney possesses. For example, there are other stories—I believe—about Romney routinely traveling with his pet dog attached to the roof of the car. It had nothing to do with the dog’s sexual orientation. Romney simply felt he would sully the interior of the car. I suspect Romney felt the same way about the gay democratic boy.
So, what we see upon closer examination is that Romney wasn’t guilty so much of homophobia but rather a foolish teen prank that was perhaps a harbinger of Mitt’s well documented metrosexual and neatnik inclinations.
Besides, common sense suggests that there really could not have been an anti-gay motive behind young Mitt’s antics. First off the name of the prep school was Cranbrook. That’s a pretty gay name for a high school, if you ask me. And it was an all boy prep school. So clearly, any boy who attended Cranbrook was already either himself homosexual or at least completely comfortable being suspected of being a homosexual. It just doesn’t add up.
Was Mitt an anti-gay bully? Are you kidding? Have you seen this guy? Was he a meticulous metrosexual prankster who feared gay democratic germs being left in his car while he drove to Canada? Probably—and nothing more. And by the way, what was he driving to Canada for anyway? That causes a whole set of other much more serious concerns about Mitt’s fitness for our highest office.
The failure to recollect the incident is astounding. His camp must be glad not to have to deal with a birth certificate question. And an apology as conditional as the one that was offered lacks the requisite sincerity. Short version is that the dubious response to a long ago boyhood incident is revealing about the man who would be president today.
It doesn’t take a decades old bullying incident to illuminate Mitt Romney’s views towards gays. His current public policy positions say enough. Mitt Romney believes that gay people are second class citizens.
Mitt Romney believes the humanity of gay citizens is not equal to the humanity of straight citizens. Otherwise, Mitt Romney wouldn’t advocate for denying the basic right for gay people who love one another to marry one another.
Mitt hails from a party that often claims government encroaches on religious liberty. But Mitt’s vision of government encroaches on my religious liberty. I am Jewish, and Reform (and Conservative) Judaism recognizes the rights of gay folks to get married. But under Mitt’s governing philosophy, the government would supersede the right of my faith community to recognize and sanction gay marriage.
Small government and individual liberty aren’t universal principles within the modern Republican Party. They only apply to those who were born the “right” way.
I am in the camp that faults almost everything about this story: its timing–posting it the day after President Obama’s endorsement of gay marriage was a thinly veiled effort to link Romney’s opposition to a pattern of bigotry; its placement as a stand-alone piece when the details merited at best inclusion in a longer profile; its strained attempt at making nearly 50 year old events relevant; and its effort to exaggerate the perennial cruelties of adolescence into the systematic brand of bullying that we have become sensitized to today.
That a major newspaper got so many things so wrong is hard to justify as anything other than an agenda. Somewhere along the way, a major section of the press has absorbed the idea that Romney is a hollow kind of character without empathy or conviction, who has sold his soul to a hard-right clique in his party,and whose election would reverse the dawn of a new multi-cultural, tolerant America.
Having convinced itself that Romney is so flawed, much of that press has fed virtually every inspection of his record and past through such an unforgiving filter. The effect is that too much of the coverage of Romney looks exactly like the chain-letter attacks the DNC spits out every day.
Its one thing for a blogger or a columnist to develop a character thesis and dig away at it. Its another thing for an established press organ with a neutral face to go that route.
By John Y. Brown III, on Mon May 14, 2012 at 12:00 PM ET
My night as an outlaw.
Some people aren’t good at being bad….but the important thing is to not focus so much on the mischievous act itself as much as on how loved ones should react–proportionately and appropriately.
I’m convinced that one of life’s most difficult to learn lessons is this timeless truth.
30 years ago while a freshman at Transy, I had a friend with two tickets for us to go to the Rolling Stones concert at Rupp Arena.
I also secured two last minute tickets myself. My friend asked what should we do and I said, “Let me handle this. I know what I’m doing.”
Arriving at the concert I overheard a gentlemen with a buzz haircut and wearing an army flak jacket asking about needing tickets. I offered two and named the price, $75.
He said, “I’m going to have to take your tickets and write you up a citation for ‘scalping tickets’ which is against the law in KY.” And he flashed his badge.
“Uhhhhh” I said.
And added, “Uhhhhh”
And finally, “Uhhhh” again.
He took the concert tickets and my license and handed me a $52.50 citation and wished me well. My friend had bolted with my ticket and was enjoying the concert. I went to our car which was blocked in for the night. This was pre-cell phone days so I went to a phone booth and called my mother.
“Some friends heard on the radio you’d gotten arrested for scalping tickets. Is that true?” She asked.
“I was cited. Not arrested! And I’m stuck without my car until after the concert. And they took the concert tickets too!” I responded.
“Well, as my friends said, it’s kinda funny and not that big a deal.”
That was my mom.
As for my dad, a few weeks later we had a family dinner and during the prayer before dinner my dad jokingly thanked the Lord that I was safe and not in prison. But added he was personally disappointed I only asked $75 per ticket when I could have gotten much more.
And finally, after dinner, my grandfather Brown, the renowned criminal lawyer age 81, offered to represent me pro bono and suggested we plead “temporary insanity.”
I was so relieved….and had learned my lesson.
The whole awful episode ended for me with my family supporting and laughing off what was a dumb thing to do–but not much more than that. Just a dumb kid being a dumb kid. But not being a “bad kid.”
The most eloquent, poignant argument I ever heard against same-sex marriage came from an African American woman in her late fifties who organized youth groups at a black mega-church in the South.
I can’t quote her verbatim but it went something like this: “in the black community, gay marriage is a source of worry because we struggle so hard, and against so many cultural forces, to make even conventional marriages work. We don’t buy into officially recognized alternative relationships because we can’t even win the battle to make the standard kind of marriage look appealing: not when our boys want the music video lifestyle—a different girl at every stanza in the song—our girls get degrees and can’t find men who can support them; and our teenagers think a baby is what happens when you become a woman or a man. Yet another alternative to men and women building families together? That’s a luxury we can’t afford.”
There’s a heap of generalization there, and reasonable minds may or may not agree. In fact, I’ve heard more than a few blacks argue that legal marriages between black homosexuals beats the closets in the black community, which often have the unfair, reverse effect of making any heterosexual black man who stays single look suspect.
But the woman I mention was utterly free of malice and not at all reliant on Old Testament allusions to make her case. If you think she is in spite of that a beacon of intolerance, you’ve just indicted a thoughtful representation of about 60 percent of the African American community.
The media-filtered reaction to President Obama’s endorsement of gay marriage has been predictable: an undercurrent of exaltation in the newsrooms that have long ceased to think of homosexuality as anything but another form of freedom; cherry-picked evangelical leaders who fit that same media’s expectations of what social conservatism looks and sounds like. To be sure, the networks and cable have brought forth their share of high profile African American ministers and Catholic bishops, but they aren’t the woman in that southern church running a youth group, trying to grapple with how social change shapes fatherless neighborhoods: the preachers and clerics are speaking in the accents of scripture and biblical text, which most Americans are in the custom of preaching not practicing.
Read the rest of… Artur Davis: The Gay Marriage Aftermath
By Michael Steele, on Mon May 14, 2012 at 9:00 AM ET
Evolution is a funny thing. It takes time; things change but ultimately wind up in the right place. So, when President Obama demurred in the early days of his administration that his views on gay marriage were still “evolving,” most of us gave the president a respectful amount of space to work it out. Given the many social, political and personal realities (and implications) attached to the issue of gay marriage, everyone, including the president should be allowed to wind up in the right place for them on this issue.
In what appeared to be a hastily arranged interview with ABC News, the president finally announced his personal views on gay marriage stating “at a certain point I’ve just concluded that for me, personally, it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married.” Indeed, many of the president’s allies spoke of his “courage” in doing so — never mind the president had just announced a major reversal in his evolution.
Of course, Mr. Obama has been evolving on this issue for some time. In 1996, as a candidate for the state Senate in Illinois, Mr. Obama stated “unequivocal” support for same-sex marriage but by the time he spoke at the Democratic National Convention in 2004 he had evolved against same sex marriage because as “such arrangements contravened his religious faith.” But then in 2008 there was further evolution on this issue when the president said he supported civil unions but still opposed same-sex marriage.
Read the rest of… Michael Steele: Obama Finally Jumps the Broom on Gay Marriage
[Click here to follow the entire RP Debate]
