Mitt Romney’s campaign calls gay teen bullying report ‘exaggerated’

[Birdpreacher]

Read the WaPo article. I didn’t see anything confirming if this person’s sexual orientation.

On page 2

PLease see last paragraph of the article:

He came out as gay to his family and close friends and led a vagabond life, taking dressage lessons in England and touring with the Royal Lipizzaner Stallion riders. After an extreme fit of temper in front of his mother and sister at home in South Bend, he checked into the Menninger Clinic psychiatric hospital in Topeka, Kan. Later he received his embalmer’s license, worked as a chef aboard big freighters and fishing trawlers, and cooked for civilian contractors during the war in Bosnia and then, a decade later, in Iraq. His hair thinned as he aged, and in the winter of 2004 he returned to Seattle, the closest thing he had to a base. He died there of liver cancer that December.

But who knows, maybe the kid wasn’t gay while he attended school with Mitt.
We do know that the kid was teased by others for being different and when a man acts “unmanly” he runs the risk of having homosexual slurs directed at him regardless of his sexual preferences.

 

[Birdpreacher]

And you gleaned this for the article…where?

The eyewitness accounts?

Sounds like it was due to his long hair. In 1965.

Lol even if it was done solely because this kid had long-hair, How does that excuse Mitt’s actions as a senior? He just looks like a control-freak instead of being homophobic, not much of trade off there methinks

 

[Havard]

Lol even if it was done solely because this kid has long-hair. How does that excuse Mitt’s actions as a senior? He just looks like a control-freak instead of being homophobic, not much of trade off there methinks

Not necessarily. It all depends on the context, and since we’re getting the reports second-hand, 40 years after the fact, the context is anything but certain.

 

[Dale_M]

Even if true, we’re going to use pranks a candidate did over 40 years ago to judge his character by?

This is really going to be a horrible campaign season.

I think the final two months of this campaign will make many people sick enough to turn off their television sets. The public is going to be saturated with negative ads due to the almost unlimited funds available to the new SuperPacs.

But I agree that Romney’s bullying action, as a teenager nearly 50 years ago, has no bearing on who he is today or how he would govern as president.

 

[stevegravy]

Lol even if it was done solely because this kid has long-hair. How does that excuse Mitt’s actions as a senior? He just looks like a control-freak instead of being homophobic, not much of trade off there methinks

A. He is still a kid immature and developing his frontal cortex just like we all did at that time of our lives.

B. It was better than beating the snot out of him like what happened to people at my school. I have no recollection about any of those things either I am just saying they happened.

C. What business is it of anybody else except the victim who should have pressed charges if he thought he was abused.

 

[_Abyssinia]

I agree with you, actually, with two caveats:

1. The Repubs have pounded Obama things that happened when he was very young, like his admitted sampling of drugs, and even things when he was a child, like what school he attended. They even tried to make an issue of the fact that he might have been served dogmeat as a small child when living in a place in the world where that was normal. So, sorry Repubs, you set the rules, so game on.

It was David Axelrod who made a comment about Mitt Romney having his dog on top of the car while traveling somewhere that started that.

1. This should be used to open up the national discussion of Republican policies about gays, the recent firing of Romney’s high-level adviser for being gay. In fact many on this board have argued gay bullying is over-emphasized, and yet here we have a presidential candidate who bullied gays when he was in high school.

You need to get your facts straight - Mitt Romney did not fire Richard Grenell, he was never on the campaign payroll, he resigned, the exact reason I am not sure. Some conservatives were concerned that he was gay or perhaps pro gay 'marriage.

Self described ‘right wing’ Pat Archbold has said a person’s sexuality should not be the deciding factor on there capability to do a job, and conservative Kevin Williamson mocked concerns about Grenell’s sexuality.

Romney says he wanted gay spokesman to stay on job

…

In an interview with Fox News, Romney said his campaign hires people “not based upon their ethnicity, or their sexual preference or their gender but upon their capability.” He called the former spokesman, Richard Grenell, a “capable individual” and said many senior campaign aides urged him not to leave.

…

In a separate appearance Friday on MSNBC, Romney spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom insisted that Romney previously had denounced the “voices of intolerance that expressed themselves during this debate.”

At an appearance at the Values Voter Summit in October, Fehrnstrom said Romney “denounced some of the poisonous language that was being used by some of the same people” who criticized Grenell.

“We should remember that decency and civility are values too,” Romney said at that conference, referring to Bryan Fischer, an activist at the American Family Association, which promotes traditional family values. “One of the speakers who will follow me today has crossed that line, I think. Poisonous language doesn’t advance our cause.”

At the conference, Romney also implicitly criticized figures on the religious right who were attacking his Mormon faith, including evangelical pastor Robert Jeffress. At the time, Jeffress was supporting Texas Gov. Rick Perry, who was running against Romney in the Republican presidential primary.

newsrescue.com/2012/05/romney-says-he-wanted-gay-spokesman-to-stay-on-job/#ixzz1uUGoDl9p

 

[Birdpreacher]

Not necessarily. It all depends on the context, and since we’re getting the reports second-hand, 40 years after the fact, the context is anything but certain.

What context makes it permissible to assault someone? Mitt, as a senior in high school, participated in grabbing this unpopular kid and shaving his head against his will.

Now by context I assume you are referring to the underlying facts of the controversy. In that case I agree with you, this could all have been a lie by these former students. What gives them some credence in my mind is that ROmney has apologized for any past pranks.

“Back in high school, you know I did some dumb things and if anybody was hurt by that or offended, why obviously I apologize,” Mr. Romney said in the radio interview.

blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/05/10/romney-apologizes-for-his-high-school-pranks/

 

[Ridgerunner]

Now say it was just because the kid had long hair.
Why in the hell about this kid’s hair would bother Mitt enough to think that it was ok to use physical force against this kid’s will. Mitt was a senior in high school. If he was 18 when it happened he would’ve been viewed in the laws eyes as an adult.

He might have been 17 or 18, depending on the exact date it happened.

Excessive, sure, but not all that strange in a high school of that era. Those were the days of the “cat/frat wars”, when long hair was often associated with the likes of Bill Ayers.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Ha ha! But he still gets to break bones!!!

And gets paid for it.

:clapping:

I think he saws them now. And I’m sure he’s exceptionally well paid for it!

 

[oldcelt]

So, I guess this means that Mitt and Barack were both demon seed. Since that is established, maybe the nation can focus on some of the other, more pressing issues.

Probably not,

John

 

[Birdpreacher]

You need to get your facts straight - Mitt Romney did not fire Richard Grenell, he was never on the campaign payroll, he resigned, the exact reason I am not sure. Some conservatives were concerned that he was gay or perhaps pro gay 'marriage.

Self described ‘right wing’ Pat Archbold has said a person’s sexuality should be the deciding factor on there capability to do a job, and conservative Kevin Williamson mocked concerns about Grenell’s sexuality.

Romney says he wanted gay spokesman to stay on job

newsrescue.com/2012/05/romney-says-he-wanted-gay-spokesman-to-stay-on-job/#ixzz1uUGoDl9p

Well of course Romney is going to say that! Its called Damage Control. All he must do to make social conservatives happy is make sure that the gay man was no longer being used as an advisor. The Far right could care less how Romney went about doing that and as a result Romeny did it the most PC way possible: distancing himself from the decision and making it as unclear as possibile as to why an advisor would resign so shortly after being hired.

The most damning evidence to me is the fact that Romeny camp instructed this guy not to speak on campaign conference calls with reporters.
politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/05/02/romney-adviser-left-after-being-silenced/

 

[stevegravy]

What context makes it permissible to assault someone? Mitt, as a senior in high school, participated in grabbing this unpopular kid and shaving his head against his will.

Now by context I assume you are referring to the underlying facts of the controversy. In that case I agree with you, this could all have been a lie by these former students. What gives them some credence in my mind is that ROmney has apologized for any past pranks.

blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/05/10/romney-apologizes-for-his-high-school-pranks/

I repeat
A. He is still a kid immature and developing his frontal cortex just like we all did at that time of our lives.

B. It was better than beating the snot out of him like what happened to people at my school. I have no recollection about any of those things either I am just saying they happened.

C. What business is it of anybody else except the victim who should have pressed charges if he thought he was abused.

D. If the kid didn’t go and snitch he ought to have gotten even or he was a wuss.

Some folks need to get a life.

 

[Birdpreacher]

He might have been 17 or 18, depending on the exact date it happened.

Excessive, sure, but not all that strange in a high school of that era. Those were the days of the “cat/frat wars”, when long hair was often associated with the likes of Bill Ayers.

Dont get me wrong, I played basketball in highschool and part of being on the team meant shaving your head. If you choose not to do it than you got grief all year from the older guys. I will agree that hazing is popular all over colleges and highschool. I am not saying that hazing is moral just that its common.

Now there is a huge difference between hazing a kid who wants to be included in a social group with the hazers And targeting a social misfit. The latter will always be more morally reprehensible in my eyes.

(once again I am not saying that hazing is ok)

 

[Suudy]

There is not enough evidence to go either way if you ask me. This could have been motivated by the boy’s presumed sexuality or just his hair. An article written years after the fact will not tell us what was the motivating factor for Mitt and it is unlikely that Mitt will ever say he did it because the guy was gay now, since its an election year. We really can’t tell why it was done.

And we never will. And the charitable thing to do is assume the innocence of Mr. Romney. We don’t know his mind or his heart, and he hasn’t made any statements revealing their state. So I think it unfair if anyone considers Romney a gay bully (and I’m not not referring to you).

Now say it was just because the kid had long hair.

Why in the hell about this kid’s hair would bother Mitt enough to think that it was ok to use physical force against this kid’s will. Mitt was a senior in high school. If he was 18 when it happened he would’ve been viewed in the laws eyes as an adult.

Because kids–often boys–get physical with their pranks. And 18, 19, and 20 somethings do as well. I was involved in pranks that required physically restraining people when I was in high school and college. In hindsight, yes, it was probably abusive and was certainly stupid. But I don’t think it is indicative of a character flaw.

5 students came out and said it happened

My comment was in relation to the other “incident”, i.e Mr Romney saying “Atta girl”.

 

[ringil]

It speaks to his character as a person who grew up wealthy and separate from “regular” society, and was already becoming a person very intolerant of anyone that thought, or acted, in any way that didn’t conform to what Mitt saw as the correct way.

Oh, I don’t think so. Childhood is a time for growth and learning. How many of us have done some really stupid stuff as kids?

 

[Suudy]

It doesn’t matter at all. What matters is they thought he was gay when Romney and his gang assaulted and humiliated him.

Did he? Did Mr Romney reveal his inner thoughts to you or anyone else?

 

[meltzerboy]

It speaks to his character as a person who grew up wealthy and separate from “regular” society, and was already becoming a person very intolerant of anyone that thought, or acted, in any way that didn’t conform to what Mitt saw as the correct way.

I don’t support Romney, but let’s be fair. Many people have done things in their youth they might not be so proud of, but hopefully they have matured since then. We shouldn’t hold Romney responsible now for mistakes he made over four decades ago. This incident is a non-issue, as far as I’m concerned. There are much better reasons not to vote for him.

 

[SusansChoice]

Baloney.

I did things at age 20 that I would be too embarrassed to admit to, but it says nothing about my character today.

Most of us grow in character as we age. It can be good or bad, depending on the path we take in life.

Jim

Exactly
:

 

[oldcelt]

We shouldn’t hold Romney responsible now for mistakes he made over four decades ago. There are much better reasons not to vote for him.

Well said,

John

 

[_Abyssinia]

Well of course Romney is going to say that! Its called Damage Control. All he must do to make social conservatives happy is make sure that the gay man was no longer being used as an advisor. The Far right could care less how Romney went about doing that and as a result Romeny did it the most PC way possible: distancing himself from the decision and making it as unclear as possibile as to why an advisor would resign so shortly after being hired.

The most damning evidence to me is the fact that Romeny camp instructed this guy not to speak on campaign conference calls with reporters.
politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/05/02/romney-adviser-left-after-being-silenced/

Why would he hire Grennell in the first place if he had problem with his sexuality?

Conservatives, like the two articles I posted of, have spoken out defending the right of gay people to be judged on their capability to a job rather than their sexuality, so do not tarnish all social conservatives.

Who is the source in the CNN article? Mitt Romney and his spokespeople have said they did not want Grennell to leave.