With each passing day, Romney just becomes more sad and obviously unfit to command a boy scout troop, much less a country and a military. He takes credit for things he obviously had nothing to do with (like the auto bailouts) and tries to dodge things he obviously was involved in (like this bullying incident).

Imagine if this was today. He'd be prosecuted for assault and probably hate crimes.

This sadly indicates the reality of our new society. Namely, that rich and powerful people (and corporations) can commit just about any crime they want and get off with no punishment. They can lie and yuck it up and no one seems to care. This is fully supported by the dying remains of the Republican party, which is fully controlled by corporate lobbyists who serve in public office.

So, was Romney the victim of such hazing and bullying as a younger boarding school student such as when in 9th, 10th, or 11th grade? Did his Mormon background expose him to any abuse from older students? Missouri had passed an 'open season on Mormons law' in 1832 that allowed killing them on the spot. The Washington Post story is a poster child for one-sided, factually depleted, hit-job oriented, and agenda driven drivel timed to juxtapose Obama's 'evolving' position on same gender marriage and bury the North Carolina state constitution amendment vote upholding traditional marriage by a 61-39 percent margin. Romney wins the day as now religious and traditional black church members nationwide have a reason to abandon Obama.

animalal--that the best you got? A law passed in 1832. A conspiracy theory involving the Washington post and the Obama campaign? A wish inspired prediction that black voters will abandon Obama for Romney?

Current polls show that the only group that Obama loses to Romney is white evangelicals.

Romney belongs to a religion and political party whose values can be characterized as misogyny, bigotry, racism and hypocrisy.

Please don't infer from my comment that i approve of Obama or the democrats. I don't! But they are slightly better for the country than the republicans.

A bullying incident, by an adolescent, from fifty years ago?

You're serious Knute?

And that's even making the assumption that it was bullying. The story is falling apart already.

“The portrayal of John is factually incorrect and we are aggrieved that he wold be used to further a political agenda……”

Lauber family statement
From ABC news

Fifty years ago, before he even reached the age of majority.

This is being brought up in a Presidential campaign.

This was as true at Bush in the 1980s and 1990s as it was at Overlake and Lakeside in the 1960s and 1970s, and I wouldn't be surprised if it were the same today.

That having been said, yes, there are some questions about the incident. It will be interesting to find out what really happened. And as I think Richard Borkowski's comment implies, if we held all presidential candidates to today's standards for teen and young-adult behavior, no one would ever have met the bar.

The issue of anti-gay bullying is still topical, and I would wager that in some parts of the country, such bullying incidents might be an asset.

The Tennessee General Assembly, for instance, debated a bill this session that would have required schools to include a statement on religious freedom in their anti-bullying policies. Religious freedom? Some legislators seem to think that, since anti-gay bigotry is motivated by a certain interpretation of the Bible, policies against bullying gay children somehow run afoul of the First Amendment. Such arguments have even been used in the context of hate crime legislation, but have never been accepted by a court.

Not only that, the General Assembly passed a law forbidding cities from passing non-discrimination ordinances that cover sexual preference. This is in response to Nashville and Memphis passing such ordinances the previous year. Although the bill's sponsors claimed that it is merely about deregulation and economic performance, the non-discrimination principle seems to be well-accepted as applied to race or gender.

So while we debate gay marriage in Washington and applaud the president's recent stand on the issue, it is well to remember that most of the country is in a much different position.

IF this event ever took place... (do some research...sound like the witnesses are merely democrat plants who don't like Mitt)

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2012/05/11/Washington-Post-Romney-Bullying-Profile-Contradicted-By-Automobile-Magazine

Those commenters who express doubts about the alleged Romney bullying incidents need to read the original Washington Post article, which is impeccably sourced. The Lauber incident is recounted by five professional men of different political viewpoints, at least one of whom was a close friend of Romney's. Come on, folks, deal with it, don't engage in denial.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/mitt-romneys-prep-school-classmates-recall-pranks-but-also-troubling-incidents/2012/05/10/gIQA3WOKFU_story.html


“It happened very quickly, and to this day it troubles me,” said Thomas Buford, the school’s wrestling champion, who said he joined Romney in restraining Lauber. Buford subsequently apologized to Lauber, who was “terrified,” he said. “What a senseless, stupid, idiotic thing to do.”

"....This was as true at Bush in the 1980s and 1990s as it was at Overlake and Lakeside in the 1960s and 1970s, and I wouldn't be surprised if it were the same today....."

As it was true in the public school I attended. Or any other school for that matter.

"If we held all presidential candidates to today's standards for teen and young-adult behavior, no one would ever have met the bar."

That's for sure. And that includes the current occupant of the White House.

Looking forward to extensive interviews of all classmates of Obama's during his highschool and college days. Make sure to include all of the drug incident's, fights, unkind words and references to his questioning of the sexual orientation of anyone he encountered. Then track their lives going forward from their interactions with Obama, compare and contrast.

kilgoretrout, doing dumb youthful things is one thing, leading a mob in carrying out a cruel thing, as Romney is accused of doing, is another. Most of us never did anything like that, and would not have considered doing anything like that. And Knute Berger is right, anyone with a normal conscience would remember participating in something like that as a high school senior. The five other men remembered is well and painfully. Romney is either lying, or, worse, it was of so little importance to him that he truly can't remember.

No it's not a different thing. Kids do cruel things. Kids grow up.

Already one "witness" wasn't there it turns out, and the story was quietly changed at the "impeccably sourced" Washington Post. The family seems to know nothing about the story, and resents that it's being used for political ends.

And I'm not even disputing that the event happened. I don't care that Romney did that, almost 50 years ago, as a kid, and I don't care about Obama's youthful drug use either.

".....belief in the system of privilege and superiority of the monied class, a hostility masked by a fake smile, and a cynicism that lets him think he can say anything without facing consequences....."

You can cay all that, and more, about the current occupant of the White House. And Punahou School is a prep school.

Your point is what, Knute?

Sorry, kilgoretrout, but my experience is that people's characters don't change, and that alleged incident is very telling about Rommey's character. Most high school seniors I know would have recoiled at doing something like that to Lauber and leading a blind teacher into a door, and they also would have recognized that person leading the mob as a bully, not someone to hang around with. Most or all of us did dumb youthful things but few of us did deliberately cruel things like that (and then pretend not to remember them).

You mean like drug use and hanging out with domestic terrorists?

The impeccably sourced 60 minutes went back to the 1960's and impeccably sourced a fraudulent memo. In the investigation, it was also revealed that Bush had actually volunteered for Vietnam, was turned down, and Mary Mapes knew it. Sort of ruins the meme of dodging service. She ran the fraudulent memo anyway, making it deliberate fraud with the intention of throwing an election.

I'm laughing at the "impeccably sourced" Washington Post article.

Washington Post missed the John Edwards/Rielle Hunter story. They're probably just trying to atone for that.

The biggest point for me in all of this: Romney is just fine with not telling the truth when it is not convenient for him.

There's virtually no doubt the incident occurred. Not remembering it defies credulity.

It makes him appear wrapped in entitlement: a guy who thinks he's not required to live with his past, especially when it involves things and people he considers beneath him, as he clearly conveyed in this case.

His campaign probably had weeks to consider how to respond. Romney had time for recall and deliberation. He chose alternative reality.

His lame response is much more revealing about his character than the stupid stunts of his youth.

If the actions in highschool and beyond are indications of character issues, then I guess it's time to fully explore both candidates, agreed? Obama volunteered his drug use, but how extensive was it really? Did he buy and sell? Can we confirm any of that independently?
fights? Running with an groups while on the streets in Hawaii that could be considered "gangs", What about Frank's influence? It seems obvious that nobody posting here has ever done anything they were ashamed of in their youth, and if they had they want to make sure they "wear it on their sleeves " in job interviews and in coversations with strangers.

Perhaps it's time to talk about the decades old parking tickets Obama got during College and only paid when he decided to run for President. In Seattle, President Obama would have had his car booted and not have been able to renew his license. So much for the 1% paying their fair share...right?

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/03/08/obama_paid_late_parking_tickets/

Who can forget the character that Obama displayed while challenging to election petitions of his opponents in his State Senate bid, including his mentor. Sure, a whole bunch of people he encouraged to vote and helped register to vote as community organizer where denied a choice on the ballot, but that's OK...right?

http://articles.cnn.com/2008-05-29/politics/obamas.first.campaign_1_obama-campaign-barack-obama-chicago-politics?_s=PM:POLITICS

Cameron. You and kilgoretrout just prove the point that the Republican party has devolved into a cult and you that will defend your cult leader to the ends of the earth. Talking facts is pointless because your only response is, "Look at Obama, look at Obama. Look, what he did!" That's why the Republican party is so dangerous for our country right now. It holds itself to no legal standard and its members are very aggressive in defending any behavior of any elected Republican official.

Romney's response to this incident proves this out. I mean you seriously want to defend a kid who physically assaulted a kid, pinned him down and took a scissors to his hair? This kid probably thought he was going to be killed and he was probably screaming for his life just like Trayvon Martin. Nothing like this ever happened in my high school, not even close.

As Harris mentions, little thugs just grow up to be big thugs, and liars. Romney could have come clean and said it was a childhood prank that he was horribly embarrassed about. That would have looked more Presidential and responsible. Instead, he told a lie and slipped in a half-hearted, pseudo apology. Actually he told 2 lies by saying he didn't remember it and his friends never thought twice about homosexuals. Does anyone really believe THAT?

Romney is a serial liar and entirely compassionless when it comes to economic matters. His statements recently prove that out. He wanted to run GM through bankruptcy, which would have guaranteed the loss of pensions for every worker at GM. That was his preferred solution.

But then again, he may be lying about that too. With Romney, you never know.

Here's a comment from Crosscut writer Collin Tong, sent to the editor:

Sadly, institutional bullying is no less emblematic a legacy of our political and cultural fault lines. Last week's Crosscut news story about Rev. Sandy Brown's sharp rebuke of the more reactionary wing of his own denomination's continued marginalization of gay rights is only one egregious illustration. It was the late Rev. William Sloane Coffin, activist Yale University chaplain who later became senior pastor of New York's Riverside Church, perhaps, who was most prescient on this question: 'While the Church has generally given at least some support to the oppressed, in the case of homosexuals the church has led in the oppression.

Would that this were not the case.

--Collin Tong

Sadly, Romney is not denying it but his supporters are, he is claiming he has changed from the person that did those things.
I know Republicans have a hard time dealing with facts that corltradict their beliefs, but you are only fooling yourself.

If you would like to take up Romney's a regiment that he has changed, go for it.
If you would like to take up Knute's argument that Romney hasn't really changed, go for that.
But it might just be easier to deny the facts about somebody else, like Romney, involving personal attributes you have but don't actually find offensive.
Romney and his cheerleaders should just come on out of the shadows of denial and doublespeak and just admit that they do not like gay people. At least have the guts to be open and honest in your hatred.

(Cameron, you have set a new extreme standard in false equivalency, parking tickets? Really, you went with parking tickets as some halfassed distraction device?. Pathetic.)

I agree Mr Baker. Some of these comments are pathetic. It's great to see that the Democratic party has evolved to actually stating unequivocally their support for gay marriage, not based on any religous grounds, but based on the 14th amendment of the US Constitution.

Even a Conservatives like Lou Dobbs stated very clearly his support for gay marriage and he cites the 14th amendment of the US Constitution. Namely, that when laws are passed, they apply equally to ALL citizens of the United States. The Republican party needs to pull its head out of the 18th century and realize that the Constitution governs our laws, not some quote from the book of Genesis.

AMENDMENT XIV
Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.

Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Jan above says what's most pertinent here: "His lame response is much more revealing about his character than the stupid stunts of his youth."

Calling something like this incident--if it actually occurred--"hijinks" is disgusting.

There are 2 guys running for President

1 bullied and beat up gay people at his prep school. Then he claims he can't remember anything about assaulting and cutting off the hair of a young gay kid at his school.

He opposes any of the civil rights he enjoys in his marriage so the 'religious' bigots don't oppose him as president for supporting the queers.

The other struggles with supportng gay people and gay couples out of political concern so as not to offend the same 'religious' bigots who are largely responsible for the existence of bullies like Mitt Romney in the first place.

Interesting that a simple call for a fair and even handed examination of the Presidential candidates experiences and behaviors in their youth ( Highschool and college) is viewed as an attack. I have not denied Mr. Romney's behavior, I wasn't there and I am taking it at face value, just like Obama's self admitted drug use. A certain recently recognized writer in this thread jumps to the conclusion that the victim's sexual orientation had anything to do with the assualt, to which I say prove it.

It think this article is an example of just how far Crosscut has to go to achieve any balance at all. While the vast majority of posting here will no doubt always Liberal Democrat leaning and the commentary reactionary in defense of anything Democrat, Liberal or Progressive, it would be nice for the Editor to evolve beyond rewarding Echo Chamber responses with their "picks".

Obviously, each of us, as voters, must decide on his or her own which behaviors they find reprehensible.

I have no problem voting for someone who used drugs in college, or who had unpaid parking tickets, while I cannot vote for someone who forcibly cut a gay student's hair, then calls it "hijinks"- but thats just me.

This has nothing to do with being "progressive"- it has to do with having been bullied and beaten in high school- and, guess what- it wasnt by the pot smokers...

While the Romney gang may have thought their victim was gay, it sounds more like a hippy bashing incident to me, based on the hair. Speaking as a heterosexual sort of ex-hippy, this sounds just like what privileged frat boys around the country were doing at the time. Of course, those that lost their student draft deferment had no qualms about buying forged draft cards or placing their lives in our hands to get them into Canada. And by '68 they were all buying dope from us. We charged them double, if we didn't just rip them off.

So, whether it was gay or hippy bashing that Romney was in to, either way this assault perfectly displays how the hereditary 0.1% views the rest of the populace: as their toys and slaves, to abuse and exploit as they like.

Steve E., I recommend that you read the Washington Post piece, if you haven't already. It describes how Romney would call out "Atta girl" when an effeminate student spoke up in class. That suggests Romney the high school student was fully conscious of homosexuality and that his taunting of suspected gay students was a pattern.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/mitt-romneys-prep-school-classmates-recall-pranks-but-also-troubling-incidents/2012/05/10/gIQA3WOKFU_story.html

From the '07 campaign. President Obama admitted to drinking, pot smoking and cocaine use. Did he buy and sell drugs?

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/barack-obama-tells-n-h-kids-alcohol-drug-teen-years-article-1.259274

This is channeled towards those that see intentionally embarrassing and hurting someone as a leader is somehow equal to other youthful indiscretions. Clearly, experimenting and using drugs and alcohol is not the same as what Romney did. One intends to hurt, the other does not period! How many movies have we seen where bullies are portrayed, they are never the good guys, some change and most get their due sometime in the movie. Lying to protect someone else that is innocent is virtuous, lying to protect ones self, when guilty is not. Romney had the chance to make this a horrible mistake that he would never do again but instead wrapped himself in a blanket of denial.

Chuck. My sentiments exactly. Obama's admitted drug use affected him and only him. What Romney did was assault another human being. Now he looks back on it as a prank, one of many pranks he did on other people, including running a blind person into a door!!! Real funny Romney. Is this what Christians do? Is this what a leader does, denying rather than taking responsibility? Cameron can continue to blame this on the Democrats and the media but the problem is Romney, plain and simple.

Ok, compare and contrast the Dow Constantine incident reported today in Crosscut and this story about Romney. Dow is an Adult, his behavior, while not illegal because of his "life partner" status of his relationship, reflects upon HIS character...right?

The whining from the Crosscut faithful to remove a story which reflects acurately the character of the sitting King County Executive because his a Democrat is being a littel hypocritical don't you think?

Cameron. The Dow story is an embarrassment... for Josh Feit, as evidenced by the fact that Crosscut has already closed comments for the story. Hopefully Crosscut with never post such a silly article ever again.

As Josh says in his article...
"We haven't seen any evidence that Constantine's liaison with Fuqua crossed legal lines or raised legal questions."

He should have left it at that and stopped writing... and NOT published this article. But instead he goes to the next step of mentioning Aaron Reardon, suggesting that Dow also used public resources, even though he had no evidence of that.

I guess we all now know why Publicola no longer exists.

You will never find evidence of misuse of public resources and other "issues" unless you look. The hypocracy of the left on this issue is tremendous, demanding censorship of the site to keep from having to deal with the reality of one of their own being caught in a relationship with a married woman and disgracing his "life-partner" of 16 years.

Cameron. You can't be serious right? You want to investigate a guy because of 1 email? Wow, even if it was sent on government computers, that must have wasted like, I don't know.... $0.0001. As far as his relationship, it's no one's business but his.

The only reason people on the left care about affairs on the right is that people on the right continue to wave the bible and marriage wherever they go. So when a married minister gets caught with a gay male prostitute, for instance, it's a pretty big deal. And people like you seem key to be the judge and jury on other people's imperfect relationships as if you are some model of perfection.

reverandmoney; polls have changed. Romney leads with men, married women, and independents and in North Carolina by 51-43....As for the spectacular debut by Publicola and Josh Feit onto the Crosscut stage, one question remains: How many others received the e-mail and who are they?