Mitt Romney Was A Bully

[Dhani_C]

Well, you were in grade school, so presumably you were a child. Romney was in high school. He didn't only tease someone; he chased "the individual" (this is how Romney referred to him this week) down, held him down with the help of some other bullies, and clipped the kid's hair off. That's not just teasing; that's assault. If you want to call it hazing because it makes you feel better, have at it. But anyone with any sense knows that is an assault intended to humiliate (forcibly cutting off someone's hair). And no one in their right mind believes that Willard doesn't remember it. I can see not remembering if you teased someone about their hair or their clothes or their abilities, but I think it would be pretty hard to not remember that scene unless something is seriously wrong with your memory, in which case you are not qualified to be president.

And beyond that, even if it was possible he doesn't remember it, what kind of person giggles when asked about it and says, "well, if I offended anyone, I'm sorry"? That's the most half-assed "apology" on the planet and no person of character would apologize like that.

And believe it or not, there are kids who do not systematically tease other kids who may be weaker than themselves. Bullying is not a rite of passage and is wrong. Period. You clearly cannot be objective because of your church affiliation with Willard.

I am NOT excusing his actions. I clearly stated that they were wrong (if he actually did them, b/c the family has disputed the allegations) and bullying of any kind IS wrong. I pointed out that during his time this type of behavior was seen as acceptable under the guise of rite of passage/hazing. This 'guise' does not make it right- either then or now, but that was the culture at the time the events occurred.

For example, my southern ancestors (on side of the family) owned slaves. At the time, they thought there was nothing wrong with it because the slaves helped to keep them financially well (working on the plantations). Now, almost 150+ years later, we have abolished slavery and are still making strides to eliminate racism and bigotry. I'm certainly not going to call my ancestors scumbags b/c of their actions that occurred over 150 years ago. Were they wrong to have slaves- yes, we can say that now, but they could not see that then because, to them, that was how you ensured that you had food on the table every night.

If Romney or anyone else participated in these types of things it was likely that it was done under the guise of a prank or haze that was 'acceptable' (meaning adults turned a blind eye and had the attitude of "boys will be boys") in the 60s. They probably thought they were being funny when, in reality, there was nothing funny about it- it was hurtful (then and now). Sometimes it takes time, reflection, and maturity to realize the error of your ways. I did not realize the harm I did in grade school until I was friends with a special needs girl in middle school who was constantly tormented and acknowledged that I needed to do my best to be kind to everyone I meet because of the pain they may be enduring each day.

As for the objectivity, I answered this question in another post.

[silvia]

I pointed out that during his time this type of behavior was seen as acceptable under the guise of rite of passage/hazing. This 'guise' does not make it right- either then or now, but that was the culture at the time the events occurred.

Bullying awareness campaigns didn't exist back in 1968. But I'm pretty confident that an assault of the magnitude we're talking here would not have been seen as "acceptable" or as a "rite of passage." In fact, one of the witnesses to the assault, Matthew Friedemann, said he was waiting to see how Romney would be disciplined for what he had done. (He wasn't, likely because none of the witnesses actually reported the incident to school authorities despite the guilt they felt. If the perpetrators had thought their behavior was "acceptable," they wouldn't have felt guilty at the time or apologized to the victim years later.)

For example, my southern ancestors (on side of the family) owned slaves. At the time, they thought there was nothing wrong with it because the slaves helped to keep them financially well (working on the plantations). Now, almost 150+ years later, we have abolished slavery and are still making strides to eliminate racism and bigotry. I'm certainly not going to call my ancestors scumbags b/c of their actions that occurred over 150 years ago. Were they wrong to have slaves- yes, we can say that now, but they could not see that then because, to them, that was how you ensured that you had food on the table every night.

Yeah, and during WWII, the culture in Germany promoted discriminating against and killing Jews and other "undesirables." Many Germans thought there was nothing wrong with it. Somehow that defense didn't exactly fly in the Nuremberg courtroom, though.

As for the objectivity, I answered this question in another post.

Right, you admitted you had a hard time being objective about Romney. So forgive me for being skeptical of your opinions on this topic. You seem to be grasping at straws to justify his behavior and even cast doubt on whether it actually occurred, all the while insisting you're not trying to defend him.

[samurai_sarah]

(snip)I am NOT excusing his actions. I clearly stated that they were wrong (if he actually did them, b/c the family has disputed the allegations) and bullying of any kind IS wrong. I pointed out that during his time this type of behavior was seen as acceptable under the guise of rite of passage/hazing. This 'guise' does not make it right- either then or now, but that was the culture at the time the events occurred.

(snip)

If Romney or anyone else participated in these types of things it was likely that it was done under the guise of a prank or haze that was 'acceptable' (meaning adults turned a blind eye and had the attitude of "boys will be boys") in the 60s. They probably thought they were being funny when, in reality, there was nothing funny about it- it was hurtful (then and now). Sometimes it takes time, reflection, and maturity to realize the error of your ways. I did not realize the harm I did in grade school until I was friends with a special needs girl in middle school who was constantly tormented and acknowledged that I needed to do my best to be kind to everyone I meet because of the pain they may be enduring each day.

As for the objectivity, I answered this question in another post.

But, one could expect that at his age, he's aware that the 60s are over, right? Bullying isn't acceptable, and instead he might have used that moment to show that he's an adult now, who has learnt something. He could have apologized, and taken a stance against bullying. Or if he genuinely and truly doesn't remember it, then how about something like this "While I don't remember this, I fully condemn such behaviour. Bullying is never acceptable, and I encourage anyone to speak out against it." Or something of that nature. Unlike you, however, he doesn't appear to have learned.

[Dhani_C]

Bullying awareness campaigns didn't exist back in 1968. But I'm pretty confident that an assault of the magnitude we're talking here would not have been seen as "acceptable" or as a "rite of passage." In fact, one of the witnesses to the assault, Matthew Friedemann, said he was waiting to see how Romney would be disciplined for what he had done. (He wasn't, likely because none of the witnesses actually reported the incident to school authorities despite the guilt they felt. If the perpetrators had thought their behavior was "acceptable," they wouldn't have felt guilty at the time or apologized to the victim years later.)

Yeah, and during WWII, the culture in Germany promoted discriminating against and killing Jews and other "undesirables." Many Germans thought there was nothing wrong with it. Somehow that defense didn't exactly fly in the Nuremberg courtroom, though.

Right, you admitted you had a hard time being objective about Romney. So forgive me for being skeptical of your opinions on this topic. You seem to be grasping at straws to justify his behavior and even cast doubt on whether it actually occurred, all the while insisting you're not trying to defend him.

I have said time and time again that HIS BEHAVIOR WAS NOT ACCEPTABLE- neither then nor now. I don't know how many times I have to lay it out that bullying is terrible, awful, insidious, ect. and that he was not justified in his actions whatsoever.

The point I am making is not to condemn him for something he did in the past (if he did it at all) that he may have done because it was hazing and acceptable AT THAT TIME. My dad said that there were plenty of instances in school (he was a 60s kids) where freshman were beaten or made to dress up like females and parade around the locker room as a rite of passage on a sports team. This is obviously inexcusable and should not have gone on- but the coaches knew about it and didn't do anything because of the "boys will be boys" mentality. We have since took a stand and slammed these activities as humiliating, shaming, and sadistic and that is why they no longer go on because of this recognizance.

If anything, I have looked at the situation in the most objective manner by not outright condemning him for his alleged actions. I have read nothing but bashing comments about something that occurred 40 years ago that is being brought up now to slander a person running for President. I held this same objective view when people were going around accusing Obama of being a radical Muslim who supported terrorists four years ago when he initially ran and chose not to let that cloud my opinion and focused on his platform over all.

[Dhani_C]

But, one could expect that at his age, he's aware that the 60s are over, right? Bullying isn't acceptable, and instead he might have used that moment to show that he's an adult now, who has learnt something. He could have apologized, and taken a stance against bullying. Or if he genuinely and truly doesn't remember it, then how about something like this "While I don't remember this, I fully condemn such behaviour. Bullying is never acceptable, and I encourage anyone to speak out against it." Or something of that nature. Unlike you, however, he doesn't appear to have learned.

I agree that he could have taken the moment to promote an anti-bullying agenda. That's something everyone can agree on.

[treemom]

It isn't that he bullied a teen that is my problem, it is that he doesn't seem to give a damn. If he doesn't remember it he should just say that and say he is sorry anyhow. He knows he played "pranks" as he called them. He should just say they were wrong and he regrets them and that he strives to be the sort of person who doesn't do those things.

Instead he giggled.

And yes I was bullied, and yes, for the very few kids who existed in the social strata below me, I am sure I did some bullying of them. I reget that I chose to be a socially awkward mean girl when I had the chance. I don't mourn daily over the hell that was middle school (and the lesser hell of high school) but it did impact me.

[Dhani_C]

Dhani C - I'm taking a page from formergothardite - are you going to answer my question about whether or not you can be objective about Romney given that you're a practicing Mormon?

Also, I forgot to address this earlier. Would you ask a black person if they could be objective about Obama given they are are black? Would you have asked a woman four years ago if they could be objective about Hillary Clinton given they are a woman? Would you ask a white person if they could be objective about Romney since they are white? Would you ask a Catholic if they could be objective about Santorum given that they are Catholic?

Just because you share certain characteristics with a candidate (in my case, religion) does not mean that you cannot be objective about them. All black people did not vote for Obama four years ago, all white people did not vote for McCain four years ago, not all women voted for Hillary, not all Catholics voted for Santorum this year, and not all Mormons will vote for Romney.

[emmiedahl]

Mitt Romney's bullying behavior has continued. There is the incident with him threatening to excommunicate a woman if she did not give up her baby, the thing with the dog, and they had to redraw ward lines because he was not getting along with certain families. The list of his inconsiderate behavior goes on and on. Mitt Romney does not give a fuck about anyone he views as less than him, and we will all be "less than him" when he is President.

[samurai_sarah]

Also, I forgot to address this earlier. Would you ask a black person if they could be objective about Obama given they are are black? Would you have asked a woman four years ago if they could be objective about Hillary Clinton given they are a woman? Would you ask a white person if they could be objective about Romney since they are white? Would you ask a Catholic if they could be objective about Santorum given that they are Catholic? Just because you share certain characteristics with a candidate (in my case, religion) does not mean that you cannot be objective about them. All black people did not vote for Obama four years ago, all white people did not vote for McCain four years ago, not all women voted for Hillary, not all Catholics voted for Santorum this year, and not all Mormons will vote for Romney.

I agree with you that genetic traits don't come with a whole world-view attached, but are just genetics. The fact that Kim Jong-Il and I share certain genetic traits, doesn't influence my view. My upbringing in the Western world, however does. Margaret Thatcher and I are both women, but our politics are vastly different, because the way we view the world is different.

However, a shared religion at least implies a shared view of the world, so yes, I do think it's reasonable to ask a Catholic about Santorum. There are some believing Catholics here on this forum, but I can't speak for them. Maybe one of them could weigh in? Point being, that the following is how *I* see it.

Back in the day, you could have asked me what I think about Santorum. Back in my Catholic days, I would have tried to be fair in my assessment. But, back then I was still emotionally attached to the church. I might have been a tad defensive, and kept on pointing out that not all Catholics are like that. He's extreme, and all that, but we're really not all that bad...yes, the Vatican may be...but don't hate...and the problem with that is that the rest of the world just hears another Catholic going: "blah, blah, blah, Catholic trying to defend another Catholic, blah"

Neither as a Catholic, nor as a recovering one, am I particularly objective, when it comes to Santorum or the RCC. Either way it's emotional for me, which doesn't make me the best person to assess either Santorum or the church. I was never an old-school Catholic, so with Santorum, I would have said that the man is making the lot of us look like lunatics again, and will someone please shut him up? Followed by a long diatribe, about how not all Catholics are like him. Nowadays, my reaction would have been: Here we go again with the Catholic doctrine, will someone please shut him up? Followed by a lengthy diatribe about how the Vatican and adherence to dogma is bad. Neither reaction is particularly objective, because it comes from my experience as a Catholic. Therefore, I do think it's reasonable to ask you.

Case in point:

I will be honest and say it is hard for me to keep an objective POV about Romney. I try to focus on his position on issues as well as possible, but the fact that he is a member in good standing within the church also factors into it (just like his membership affects other people's decisions that are not affiliated with the church).

The bolding is mine, and my point is that it's very difficult to be wholly objective about something, or someone one has an emotional connection with, or shares/d a world-view with, no matter how critical. I think it is reasonable to ask for clarifications, and also to question oneself. My personal criticism of the Catholic church is filtered through a lens of emotional attachment, which is not objective. My desire to (metaphorically) shake Santorum, as well, because he's sprouting the very worst of Catholic doctrine in my opinion. Someone truly objective wouldn't just hear that, but...I don't know, be able to rationally analyze and assess, without getting all worked-up and Catholic-y about it.

TL; DR: It's very difficult to be objective about someone, whom one shares some defining world-views with, because it gets emotional. Sorry, apparently, I can't do "concise". :oops:

edited for grammar

[deelaem]

Also, I forgot to address this earlier. Would you ask a black person if they could be objective about Obama given they are are black? Would you have asked a woman four years ago if they could be objective about Hillary Clinton given they are a woman? Would you ask a white person if they could be objective about Romney since they are white? Would you ask a Catholic if they could be objective about Santorum given that they are Catholic?

Just because you share certain characteristics with a candidate (in my case, religion) does not mean that you cannot be objective about them. All black people did not vote for Obama four years ago, all white people did not vote for McCain four years ago, not all women voted for Hillary, not all Catholics voted for Santorum this year, and not all Mormons will vote for Romney.

This isn't an answer to my question, but in a way it is. It's just an attempt at deflection, so I'm going to assume the answer is no, you can't be objective. Which makes your Romney-defending baseless.

[JenniferJuniper]

Mitt Romney's bullying behavior has continued. There is the incident with him threatening to excommunicate a woman if she did not give up her baby, the thing with the dog, and they had to redraw ward lines because he was not getting along with certain families. The list of his inconsiderate behavior goes on and on. Mitt Romney does not give a fuck about anyone he views as less than him, and we will all be "less than him" when he is President.

What he did at Bain Capital was bullying on a massive scale.

Romney isn't a business man who built and ran successful corporations. He was a corporate raider who made his fortune looting struggling businesses by acquiring them through leveraged buy-outs and then restructuring them and laying off their employees. Bain Capital would take substantial payments in the form of dividends and fees, and then sell or let the targeted companies fail. In other words, he's a vulture capitalist.

I have no doubt we'll be hearing more about this in the future. The "bully" theme will be running straight until November and while Romney can keep on giggling about the harm he's done to others, I think it's ultimately going to do him in.

[Dhani_C]

This isn't an answer to my question, but in a way it is. It's just an attempt at deflection, so I'm going to assume the answer is no, you can't be objective. Which makes your Romney-defending baseless.

I will say it again: I TRY TO BE AS OBJECTIVE AS POSSIBLE IN ALL SITUATIONS. No one here (with the exception of a few) is even bothering to understand my take on things which is not objective in the slightest. I am being accused of defending Romney because we are of the same religion and trying to excuse his behavior- which I have repeated over and over is inexcusable. I have only offered up a take on his viewpoint of the events and how he may have seen his actions. I even offered an anecdote of my own about being mean to a special needs girl and not realizing the gravity of my mistake until much later (I thought it was hilarious at time when my classmates and I were mean to this girl).

I'm not sure what else I can say. I'm not apologizing for giving someone the benefit of the doubt about a situation that occurred well before my time that I and no one else but those involved know anything about.

[silvia]

I will say it again: I TRY TO BE AS OBJECTIVE AS POSSIBLE IN ALL SITUATIONS. No one here (with the exception of a few) is even bothering to understand my take on things which is not objective in the slightest. I am being accused of defending Romney because we are of the same religion and trying to excuse his behavior- which I have repeated over and over is inexcusable. I have only offered up a take on his viewpoint of the events and how he may have seen his actions. I even offered an anecdote of my own about being mean to a special needs girl and not realizing the gravity of my mistake until much later (I thought it was hilarious at time when my classmates and I were mean to this girl).

I'm not sure what else I can say. I'm not apologizing for giving someone the benefit of the doubt about a situation that occurred well before my time that I and no one else but those involved know anything about.

I think what's giving people pause is that you're simultaneously saying Romney's behavior is inexcusable and offering apologetic arguments such as "during his time this type of behavior was seen as acceptable" so we should "give [him] the benefit of the doubt." (When people have pointed out that this particular incident would likely _not_ have been widely viewed as acceptable at the time, based on its severity, on participants' feelings of guilt, and on the fact that at least one witness expected Romney to be punished for what he did, you haven't given a convincing response.)

And I don't think it's fair to claim no one here is trying to understand your take on things. I think it's more accurate to say that some people have considered your take and continue to (respectfully, in my case) disagree with it.

[Dhani_C]

I agree with you that genetic traits don't come with a whole world-view attached, but are just genetics. The fact that Kim Jong-Il and I share certain genetic traits, doesn't influence my view. My upbringing in the Western world, however does. Margaret Thatcher and I are both women, but our politics are vastly different, because the way we view the world is different.

However, a shared religion at least implies a shared view of the world, so yes, I do think it's reasonable to ask a Catholic about Santorum. There are some believing Catholics here on this forum, but I can't speak for them. Maybe one of them could weigh in? Point being, that the following is how *I* see it.

Back in the day, you could have asked me what I think about Santorum. Back in my Catholic days, I would have tried to be fair in my assessment. But, back then I was still emotionally attached to the church. I might have been a tad defensive, and kept on pointing out that not all Catholics are like that. He's extreme, and all that, but we're really not all that bad...yes, the Vatican may be...but don't hate...and the problem with that is that the rest of the world just hears another Catholic going: "blah, blah, blah, Catholic trying to defend another Catholic, blah"

Neither as a Catholic, nor as a recovering one, am I particularly objective, when it comes to Santorum or the RCC. Either way it's emotional for me, which doesn't make me the best person to assess either Santorum or the church. I was never an old-school Catholic, so with Santorum, I would have said that the man is making the lot of us look like lunatics again, and will someone please shut him up? Followed by a long diatribe, about how not all Catholics are like him. Nowadays, my reaction would have been: Here we go again with the Catholic doctrine, will someone please shut him up? Followed by a lengthy diatribe about how the Vatican and adherence to dogma is bad. Neither reaction is particularly objective, because it comes from my experience as a Catholic. Therefore, I do think it's reasonable to ask you.

Case in point:

The bolding is mine, and my point is that it's very difficult to be wholly objective about something, or someone one has an emotional connection with, or shares/d a world-view with, no matter how critical. I think it is reasonable to ask for clarifications, and also to question oneself. My personal criticism of the Catholic church is filtered through a lens of emotional attachment, which is not objective. My desire to (metaphorically) shake Santorum, as well, because he's sprouting the very worst of Catholic doctrine in my opinion. Someone truly objective wouldn't just hear that, but...I don't know, be able to rationally analyze and assess, without getting all worked-up and Catholic-y about it.

TL; DR: It's very difficult to be objective about someone, whom one shares some defining world-views with, because it gets emotional. Sorry, apparently, I can't do "concise". :oops:

edited for grammar

Thank you for this post and thank you for your objective view of things. I agree that within members of the same religion there is always going to be that "attachment" because of mutual beliefs. With Romney, I try to push that out of my mind when looking at him vs. Obama and deciding who would be better at running our country.

Another aspect that makes this kind of thing emotional for me is how often I was pre-judged based on my religious beliefs. I cannot tell you how many times I had invitations to my friend's homes rescinded because I was a Mormon and therefore a "bad influence" growing up. This kind of thing led me to giving each person I meet with the benefit of the doubt (until they prove it to me otherwise). Anytime I read something that blasts a person's character (or hear something about a person in every day life) I treat it with a grain of salt b/c I know how it feels to be judged based on one aspect or one thing I did during my lifetime. I want to give others this courtesy that was not afforded to me.

[treemom]

Also, I forgot to address this earlier. Would you ask a black person if they could be objective about Obama given they are are black? Would you have asked a woman four years ago if they could be objective about Hillary Clinton given they are a woman? Would you ask a white person if they could be objective about Romney since they are white? Would you ask a Catholic if they could be objective about Santorum given that they are Catholic?

Just because you share certain characteristics with a candidate (in my case, religion) does not mean that you cannot be objective about them. All black people did not vote for Obama four years ago, all white people did not vote for McCain four years ago, not all women voted for Hillary, not all Catholics voted for Santorum this year, and not all Mormons will vote for Romney.

You choose your religion, yoy don't choose your race or gender.

[Dhani_C]

I think what's giving people pause is that you're simultaneously saying Romney's behavior is inexcusable and offering apologetic arguments such as "during his time this type of behavior was seen as acceptable" so we should "give [him] the benefit of the doubt." (When people have pointed out that this particular incident would likely _not_ have been widely viewed as acceptable at the time, based on its severity, on participants' feelings of guilt, and on the fact that at least one witness expected Romney to be punished for what he did, you haven't responded.)

And I don't think it's fair to claim no one here is trying to understand your take on things. I think it's more accurate to say that some people have considered your take and continue to (respectfully, in my case) disagree with it.

I'm not trying to create apologetic arguments here. I simply presented a view as to why he is not making tearful apologies and cutting a large check to the family for his actions. He may have realized what he did was wrong after the fact (believing he was being "funny" during the incident), made restitution for his mistake, and then moved on and forgot about the incident.

That aside, the timing for this story is too convenient. These guys have had 40 years to open up about this and choose to do so during a time when Romney is running for President and to do so in a public matter? It would have read as more sincere if they had met with him privately about things rather than running to the media. I know that if I have an issue with a person I talk to them personally- I don't tell the whole world and then expect them to take me seriously.

[treemom]

Why does it matter it took 40 years and it went public? First the guy who was bullied is dead. It was the other guys who were with mitt who were interviewed for the story. And they all were apologetic and regretful.

[Dhani_C]

You choose your religion, yoy don't choose your race or gender.

You may not choose your race or gender, but it still influences your actions and thoughts/beliefs. The majority of my black friends voted for Obama because he was black. Many of my female friends voted for Hillary because they believed they owed it to her as a fellow female.

[Guest Anonymous]

For example, my southern ancestors (on side of the family) owned slaves. At the time, they thought there was nothing wrong with it because the slaves helped to keep them financially well (working on the plantations). Now, almost 150+ years later, we have abolished slavery and are still making strides to eliminate racism and bigotry. I'm certainly not going to call my ancestors scumbags b/c of their actions that occurred over 150 years ago. Were they wrong to have slaves- yes, we can say that now, but they could not see that then because, to them, that was how you ensured that you had food on the table every night.

It is worth pointing out that '150+' years ago, people knew that slavery was wrong. The campaign against slavery had started in earnest over 200 years ago and other countries had banned the slave trade, and slavery and pretty much automatically freed slaves who set foot on their land. Anti-slavery movements in America were pretty big too.

In order to own slaves your ancestors, and others like them, had to actively ignore a whole avalanche of evidence that what they were doing was wrong so yes, it is fair to call them scumbags.

[Elle]

Another aspect that makes this kind of thing emotional for me is how often I was pre-judged based on my religious beliefs. I cannot tell you how many times I had invitations to my friend's homes rescinded because I was a Mormon and therefore a "bad influence" growing up. This kind of thing led me to giving each person I meet with the benefit of the doubt (until they prove it to me otherwise). Anytime I read something that blasts a person's character (or hear something about a person in every day life) I treat it with a grain of salt b/c I know how it feels to be judged based on one aspect or one thing I did during my lifetime. I want to give others this courtesy that was not afforded to me.

You chose your religion. If a friend of mine or my daughter chose a religion that said all women who have babies out of wedlock are hell-bound and that gays should be stoned to death and was vocal enough for us to know about it, we would not have that person in our home. You chose your religion, and you've chosen to publicly align yourself with that religion. Why are you making sure others know your religion before they know you as a person? Because your religion and its teachings are important enough to you that you want them to know that right off the bat. This is your decision.

I've had close Mormon friends, and you know what? Making sure I knew their religion came down the line. They let me get to know them as people first because that was more important than what church or temple they attend.

You make sure that one of the first things people know about you is your religion. My friends make sure people get to know them first.

Don't whine about the choices you make. Don't whine if you choose to share choices you make that you know are controversial because of the people those choices condemn. Between standing up for gay rights (people can't choose their sexuality) or coddling you for your religion (which you chose), you're going to lose, especially when the first impression you make sure to make is what your religious beliefs are.

[Rosa]

What he did at Bain Capital was bullying on a massive scale.

This. If I thought he'd changed, I'd totally ignore this story. If a similar story came out about Obama and he named the incident and apologized, I'd think he learned and grew since then. Given Romney's behavior as an adult, and his statements during this campaign, and his non-apology "apology", I don't think Romney is a reformed bully. I think he's a bully now, when he gets the opportunity.

[Elle]

You may not choose your race or gender, but it still influences your actions and thoughts/beliefs. The majority of my black friends voted for Obama because he was black. Many of my female friends voted for Hillary because they believed they owed it to her as a fellow female.

Race and gender influence someone as far as wanting to make sure they won't lose rights for it.

Obama is black and favors gay rights.

The majority of blacks in America are more conservative and are against gay right (the hypocrisy makes me want to scream - equal rights for blacks, but not for gays).

Do you think those anti-gay-rights blacks will side with Obama because he's black? Or do you think they're more likely to side with Romney, who, despite being another race, is anti-gay like they are? Having a black or white president doesn't improve their standing in this country, nor does is lower them, but one will be more likely to abide by their wishes of keeping gays fro having rights. Or are we supposed to believe they'll vote for the black make because he is racially seen as one of them?

[Dhani_C]

Why does it matter it took 40 years and it went public? First the guy who was bullied is dead. It was the other guys who were with mitt who were interviewed for the story. And they all were apologetic and regretful.

The fact is they ran to the media and did not consult Mitt about it or talk to the family privately. If it were my brother they were using as a political game piece I would be furious (as the sister of the victim is: [link=]http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/05/sister-of-alleged-romney-target-has-no-knowledge-of-any-bullying-incident/[/link]).

[JenniferJuniper]

I'm not trying to create apologetic arguments here. I simply presented a view as to why he is not making tearful apologies and cutting a large check to the family for his actions. He may have realized what he did was wrong after the fact (believing he was being "funny" during the incident), made restitution for his mistake, and then moved on and forgot about the incident.

That aside, the timing for this story is too convenient. These guys have had 40 years to open up about this and choose to do so during a time when Romney is running for President and to do so in a public matter? It would have read as more sincere if they had met with him privately about things rather than running to the media. I know that if I have an issue with a person I talk to them personally- I don't tell the whole world and then expect them to take me seriously.

No one is looking for "tearful apologies" from Romney, so please skip the straw man stuff. It's the giggling that many find disturbing. Giggling over this issue, giggling about what he did to his dog, giggling over a story about people who lost their jobs when his father closed an auto plant in Detroit. Sorry, but the guy is a creep.

And the timing is exactly what it should be. He's the GOP's nominee for President of the United States now; he's not running for local dog catcher. Why should it be kept private? Why don't voters have the right to know what his classmates thought/think of him? It's hardly the first time a candidate's past has been addressed by the press. And character does count.

[silvia]

This. If I thought he'd changed, I'd totally ignore this story. If a similar story came out about Obama and he named the incident and apologized, I'd think he learned and grew since then. Given Romney's behavior as an adult, and his statements during this campaign, and his non-apology "apology", I don't think Romney is a reformed bully. I think he's a bully now, when he gets the opportunity.

Exactly. This is the bottom line for me.