Yes, people change. In fact, the very WaPo article that broke the story of Mitt Romney assaulting his classmate also suggests that, once Mitt met and began dating the future Ann Romney while they were both still in high school, he did begin to change. And yes, it was a long time ago.
Nonetheless, people like David Brooks are wrong to say that this story doesn’t matter and is just “gotcha” journalism. It matters for at least three reasons.
- This was not just boys being boys. This was a vicious physical assault that, according to the WaPo story, haunted both the victim and the other perpetrators for years afterward. So David Brooks’s asinine comment (in the NPR story linked above) that “we’re all flawed and we’re all bound to have something like this in our past” is beyond ridiculous, and is emblematic of the kind of false equivalence that pundit types love to peddle these days. Of course we are all flawed, and it’s fair to say that many of us said or did things in our youth that we’d like to take back – but no, not all of us have “something like this in our past.” In fact, I would venture to say that precious few of us do.
- One of Mitt Romney’s biggest problems is that people don’t really like him all that much. And part of the reason is that he reminds them in many ways of that kid that they hated when they were growing up. That kid thought he was better than everyone else … he was mean and always got away with it … he was just a jerk … and many of Romney’s gaffes (“I like to fire people,” “corporations are people, my friend,” “I have some great friends who are NASCAR team owners,” “ten thousand dollar bet,” and, of course, Seamus) tend to make people associate Romney with that kid. This story confirms that, in fact, Mitt Romney was that kid that they hated growing up. That’s a big problem for him.
- Romney’s claim that he doesn’t remember the incident (an incident that almost certainly happened precisely as the WaPo reported it, as it was confirmed independently by five ex-students who were there) simply beggars belief. There are really only three possibilities regarding that statement: (1) he’s lying; (2) he has a bizarrely selective form of amnesia; or (3) he did that kind of thing more than once, and the incidents have run together in his mind. None of those speak well of him. And the statement about not remembering isn’t from 47 years ago. It’s from right now, and it speaks to his character right now.
Stories like this matter when they either match or contradict an important narrative about someone. This one does both – it matches the “unfeeling rich guy” narrative, and it contradicts the “compassionate guy” story that he and his surrogates have been desperately trying to sell. It’s not make-or-break, but it’s another data point in the image that voters are quickly forming about Mitt Romney. And it’s not a nice one.
kbusch says
Voters who don’t or won’t pay attention to issues often insist that character should be the key determinant of who should be president. This story does reinforce a rather ugly picture of Mr. Romney’s characters. It is consonant too with reports of how Bain Capital won deals under Mr Romney’s leadership.
Mr. Lynne says
… a clear picture of where he is on a scale of empathy. So it’s no wonder we see he has trouble faking it as well.
liveandletlive says
he thinks people are things. Tools, or toys to use either for entertainment or personal gain. Easily thrown away. No sense of remorse.
Ryan says
He has a pattern of doing these things. It wasn’t even the last time he pinned people and assaulted them, cutting off their hair.
As an adult, there was the literal torture of Seamus the dog, a charge of disorderly conduct and as a Governor, he tried to crush the state’s organization to tackle homophobic bullying.
Then there’s the fact that he loves to fire people, thinks only teenagers with rich parents should have the opportunity for college, and built a personal fortune out of busting unions, destroying benefits and shipping jobs overseas.
And he hangs around with Ferhnstrom. ‘Nuff said.
If he just admitted it and apologized — really apologized — then this would have been nothing. But people like Romney can’t understand that they were wrong about things, and thus can’t understand that they should apologize. In fact, in every interview about these kinds of things, far from remorse, Mitt Romney is laughing about all of this.
whosmindingdemint says
.
michaelhoran says
I actually try not to make TOO much of character. I’ll take a seriously flawed character (LBJ, MLK, John Ed–err, no. No,no,no) who pushes what I want pushed and gets it done. I TRY not to let my visceral sensibilities cloud my judgment.
But with Romney, that hasn’t been possible. I should actually kinda like the guy (personally,not polity-wise)–after all, he’s hardly a Bachmann-Perry-Santorum-Huckabee. But I think you nailed it here:
“And part of the reason is that he reminds them in many ways of that kid that they hated when they were growing up. That kid thought he was better than everyone else … he was mean and always got away with it … he was just a jerk.”
The homophobia is one thing. I can pardon anyone raised in a particular environment who overcomes their deep (or not)-seated racism or homophobia–I’ve seen a lot of before-and-after in that regard. Though, as you note, even cheap jokes aren’t the same as a physical assault—there’s something genuinely creepy in that; it’s the kind of thing I almost wish I hadn’t read. Have my own youthful memories, I suppose, and they can’t help but trigger a lifelong revulsion to the Romneys of the world. And I agree that anyone who’s ever been kicked around–literally, as was young Mitt’s victim, or economically, or in terms of basic justice–feels the same way whenever they hear one of the phrases you’ve listed.
I actually used to feel kinda sorry for Romney. Poor guy–he finally gets his moment to shine, and suddenly his Party is hijacked by a bunch of wild-eyed galoots, ideological zealots of the type you really wouldn’t want in the boardroom. No more. The campaign’s handling of the Richard Grenell affaire made it too clear that they believe that these same lunatics need to stay at the top of Romney’s dance card. And personally, he has come to symbolize everything execrable about Privelege, chiefly the sense of Entitlement that’s apparently been a lifelong trait.
I suppose,however, it’s good to learn that seemingly wooden Romney is in fact capable of great passion. God help any of his staff who show up with the wrong haircut. Can’t help but picture some poor schmuck held down on a conference table, a maniacally leering Romney leaning over himw ith pair of desk scissors.
P.S. Had mixed feelings when I first read this. A serious hatchet job, and running, coincidentally, the day after Obama’s statement on same-sex marriage?Hmmm. But it does tell a story. Compare this to the Vanity Fair article on Obama’s college days and romances, where you get a guy writing, to his girlfriend, a set of rather discerning observations on “The Waste Land,” and setting his sights on a community organizing job in lieu of moneymaking.
Mr. Lynne says
… issues of character either – but empathy is sort of important for someone who wants power to set economic policy in a downturn where there is suffering. Remember – there have been income gains, just not for everyone. I’m not as worried about the character flaws of infidelity for example because your average philanderer-candidate isn’t going to set policy to make people who don’t want to cheat on each other and get divorces. A rich guy with no empathy for the economically suffering could be a problem – but its not guaranteed. So now I look at track record to get an idea if this character flaw resulted in bad policy, and yup it’s a problem.
pbrane says
… how do you compare this one to the following:
A sitting United States senator, in his mid-thirties with a wife and three children, attends a party with a bunch of young single women, gets drunk, gets behind the wheel of a car with one of the women as a passenger, drives the car off a bridge, saves himself but not the passenger, fails to report the incident to the police until the next day and then uses his privileged position and station in life to cover up the facts and avoid prosecution?
petr says
…everybody kept their hair.
And the sitting senator of which you speak kept on sitting as his constituents voted to keep seating him 8 more times.
Mitt Romney has won a grand total of once… and, in Massachusetts, he couldn’t be elected ratcatcher on deer island.
Boo hoo for you: democracy speaks while pea-brain sqeuaks
Bob Neer says
And was never a Senator. So, what is your point.
David says
Unless the sitting US Senator pbrane is talking about was named Barack Obama, I cannot imagine what the incident to which he/she refers has to do with the upcoming election.
pbrane says
… to what extent you think a candidate’s personal character matters. It matters a lot to me, which is why I found the repeated reelection of Senator Kennedy deeply disappointing. I don’t see how it could matter at all to anyone that supported the late Senator. Yet your post suggests otherwise, so I’m confused.
kirth says
Ted Kennedy should have been held to account to exactly the same extent as anyone without his advantages would have been. Because he wasn’t does not mean that every privileged young jerk should get away with whatever they want to do.
kbusch says
.
pbrane says
We had seven post Chappaquiddick shots at accountability with respect to EMK, the last one as recently as 2006.
kirth says
While Kennedy’s actions that night displayed a deeply flawed character, I think the voters perceived him as a man who felt genuine remorse and sought to reform himself and make positive contributions to society afterwards. This is in contrast to Romney, who seems to be the same bully he was all those years ago.
Kennedy probably wasn’t the absolute best Senator we’ve had, but he was far superior to either of the current holders of the office. I cannot remember anyone running against him who would have been an improvement. Can you?
pbrane says
Someone died that night and there wasn’t even a trial. You or I would have gone away for a long time. There wasn’t even a trial. Who in their right mind decides to take on that type of power and influence?
kirth says
Well, there was that Mitt Romney fellow…
Donald Green says
Hold Mr. Romney to the same standard of ire as you do for the late Senator Kennedy. He did not receive as big as price as you would have wanted, but it destroyed his chances to be President. Further public thinking has changed mightily on these matters since then and has evolved into a general sense of strong non acceptance of such behavior. Today Sen Kennedy would never have been elected to the Senate due to Chappaquiddick. So let it be with Romney. It is not his criminal behavior at age 18, as Bush’s actions under the influence of alcohol at age 40, or Obama’s passing experimentation with “blow,” but his unflinching non remorse and non understanding of the hurtful humiliation Romney inflicted on another human being. This is what disqualifies him as presidential material. If this is your view concerning Sen Kennedy, then I agree with it, and should make you think twice about supporting Mr. Romney to be President of the United States. People’s serious flaws do determine what the body politic will allow in their leaders.
petr says
and again… amen
pbrane says
He convinced me that he isn’t up to the task well before this story broke.
Mark L. Bail says
May he rest in peace. When you have to bring up that old story, you’re really desperate.
Ryan says
and that happened decades and decades ago.
Don’t you have anything new?
centralmassdad says
.
petr says
Because Grover Norquist is a bully.
Because Newt Gingrich is a bully.
Because George W. Bush is a bully.
Because Dick Cheney is a bully.
Because Sarah Palin is a bully.
Because Karl Rove is a bully.
Because purple-heart band-aids and Tom Delay. Because ‘Mission Accomplished’ and a Saddam Hussein beat-down. Because Ann Coulter, Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity. Because they speak thug in Texas. Because Henry Hyde and WhiteWater and impeachment. Because Jonah Goldberg, Eric Fernstrom and the Koch Brothers. Because Richard Nixon invented bullying AND invented the scale by which bullying is measured, the Colson. Because ten Colsons is one Atwater.
Because bullying is what they do.
If Romney wins in November, this will be the story that put him over the top with conservative voters…
whosmindingdemint says
in prosecuting Romney for a hate crime here. They would have better luck prosecuting a dead guy like our friends on the right continue to do.
No, this is about character; what he believes, who he likes and dislikes. I find it helpful to know as much as possible about a candidate’s prejudices before I vote for him or her, and so should pbrane.
jconway says
This incident tells us exactly nothing new about Mitt Romney. My mom called his Eddie Haskell game a long time ago when he was Governor when we watched his first state of the state address. How many lies has the man been caught in? Haven’t we deduced he has no sincerely held beliefs regarding any subject? Here is a man who mocked welfare recipients as governor, made our state the butt of his jokes, and supported policies that hurt many people across this great state. Not to mention as a corporate raider at Bain.
Hubert Humphrey once said the moral test of government is how it treats children, the elderly, the sick and the handicapped. To a Randian mind like Romney those are all moochers and losers undeserving of our help and must be allowed to suffer so that the noble and rugged individualists can prosper. This is Mitt Romney behind all the phoniness:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3A6aGw4l5XQ
So no this incident doesn’t surprise me or concern me, its just a small bump on a long road of obliviousness to the suffering of others.
SomervilleTom says
That is exactly the right metaphor. I looked for a youtube clip, without success, but you’ve absolutely nailed Mitt Romney.
Oh-so-courteous with the grownups — and abusively cruel to the kids when the grownups aren’t around . Fundamentally cynical and dishonest.
Everybody knows an Eddie Haskell (that’s why the character is so marvelous drawn and so memorable). Nobody that I know wants Eddie Haskell in the Oval Office.
This one is a home run, jconway — Mitt Romney will FOREVER be “Eddie Haskell”.
jconway says
But it’s Mothers so I’ll give credit where credit is due, my mom coined that back in 2002
lynne says
but I don’t have a story in my past of an incident where I led a group of fellow students on an assault on another one perceived to be different.
How about any of you?
How many people do you think have stories like this in their past, really?
There are likely MORE people who were on the receiving end of bullying and assaults like this. Who do you think the voters are going to, on average, relate to here?
This story matters. I thankfully was never the recipient of real bullying in my childhood, but lots of people were.
stomv says
As a kid in different times of my life, I played both the bully and the bullied. I’m sure I pushed others to tears, and I’m sure I cried myself. I don’t remember any specific details of either, although I suspect that if somebody prompted me with details, I might.
Thing is, I’ve grown up. Maybe I still am too forceful or belittling from time to time, but I recognize the flaw, try like heck to behave better, and apologize with sincerity when I behave that way now… before prompting if I realize I’ve behaved poorly. Certainly, if a story like this came up about me, I’d genuinely feel terribly, and would do whatever I could to express sorrow and apology.
Somehow, that doesn’t feel like Mittens at all. Maybe it’s true, maybe it isn’t, but it’s not just childhood victims of bullying who interpret Romney’s behavior as troublesome. I suspect plenty of people who were bullies as children do too — thankfully, plenty of ’em have grown up a bit since then.
whosmindingdemint says
I’m a thief, I’m a liar
There’s my church,
I sing in the choir.
Ooh, It’s evolution baby…
Yeah, do the evolution
whosmindingdemint says
On O’Reilly!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYcqPbpRX9I
SomervilleTom says
This is a great clip, and I would have posted it if there was an easy way to make its image be of Eddie Haskell rather than Mr. O’Reilly.
It turns out that Eddie Haskell clips are hard to find on youtube.
Anyway, yes — it’s a great clip.
whosmindingdemint says
Eddie Haskell is a little more complex than Willard. Eddie hangs out at the Cleavers because he wants to be a part of that idealied american family, a sublety rarely found in the golden age of TeeVee. He makes occasional references to his bad relationship with his father. Maybe I’m reading too much into this…
Willard, on the other hand, is a lot like that scorpion that jumps on the frog’s back to cross the river – a preternatural predator.
Christopher says
Personally, I think stories like that become moot upon being (re-)elected the first time after the incident happened or is made known, so potentially an issue the 1970 campaign, but then I say the voters have spoken so move on. In either case there’s still the matter of the actual job description. I’d vote for Kennedy over any GOP challenger because I prefer Kennedy’s voting pattern. Likewise I won’t vote for Romney, not because he bullied classmates, but because I don’t like his policies.