May 16, 2012

Mitt Romney… spotted something he thought did not belong at a school where the boys wore ties and carried briefcases. John Lauber, a soft-spoken new student one year behind Romney, was perpetually teased for his nonconformity and presumed homosexuality. Now he was walking around the all-boys school with bleached-blond hair that draped over one eye, and Romney wasn’t having it.

“He can’t look like that. That’s wrong. Just look at him!” an incensed Romney told Matthew Friedemann, his close friend in the Stevens Hall dorm, according to Friedemann’s recollection. Mitt, the teenage son of Michigan Gov. George Romney, kept complaining about Lauber’s look, Friedemann recalled.

A few days later, Friedemann entered Stevens Hall off the school’s collegiate quad to find Romney marching out of his own room ahead of a prep school posse shouting about their plan to cut Lauber’s hair. Friedemann followed them to a nearby room where they came upon Lauber, tackled him and pinned him to the ground. As Lauber, his eyes filling with tears, screamed for help, Romney repeatedly clipped his hair with a pair of scissors.

The incident was recalled similarly by five students, who gave their accounts independently of one another.

“It happened very quickly, and to this day it troubles me,” said 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.”

“It was a hack job,” recalled Maxwell, a childhood friend of Romney who was in the dorm room when the incident occurred. “It was vicious.

“He was just easy pickin’s,” said Friedemann, then the student prefect, or student authority leader of Stevens Hall, expressing remorse about his failure to stop it.

The incident transpired in a flash, and Friedemann said Romney then led his cheering schoolmates back to his bay-windowed room in Stevens Hall.

Friedemann, guilt ridden, made a point of not talking about it with his friend and waited to see what form of discipline would befall Romney at the famously strict institution. Nothing happened.

Mitt was 18 years old when he did this. He wasn’t a kid. Bullies don’t change. They just lash out their sexual frustrations in other ways.

Lee Hirsh, the director of the film Bully, makes the case that Mitt could’ve really shown some leadership by stepping up and denouncing his act. Instead, he lamely say’s he doesn’t remember the incident. What a fucking liar.

Here’s the article in the Washington Post

More from Huffington Post

photo credit



  1. Romney? A liar?? More like an insecure, weak-willed, intollerant, narcissist who wouldn’t have had the guts to bully anyone if his daddy’s money and influence weren’t directly behind him. People like that always lash out at others first before someone can do it to them. Because they have no cognitive reasoning ability, they use intimidation, belittling and insults to get others to agree with them and their backwards ideas – or others will suffer the same tactics.

    You can see it plain as day on the campaign trail today! A smile delivered with a clever insult. That’s the all-American way to win friends and influence people! They never have the guts to admit they made a mistake – it’s too harsh for their fragile little egos to bear. They have no character. They would run away screaming if things ever got tough, and leave you to die to save their own skin. Bravery, courage, valor. These are the characteristics of REAL men. Real men stand up for others who can not stand up for themselves.

    This is the personal fortitude of our grandparents. It takes REAL courage to admit it when we are wrong. It takes REAL courage to stand up to a bully. It takes REAL courage to put your life on the line for someone you hardly know. Mitt Romney would NEVER do any of these things, but yours and my grandparents would have. They stood up for what was right. They believed in themselves, and they had the moral conviction to tell someone when they were out of line. Mitt Romney bullied a dog for crying out loud! Then he convinced himself that the dog liked it! That’s the mind of an insane person at work!

    It’s just like the JP Morgan CEO, Jamie Dimon. He didn’t know that people under his watch were losing billions of dollars in shareholder wealth. It wasn’t his fault. He wasn’t to blame. BULLSHIT! When you are the man in charge, it’s your problem! Own it. It’s what you get paid for, for christ sake! Its why you get $8 million a year! Accountability. If you can’t do the job, then get the hell out of the way. What good are you? Be a man. Have courage. If things had gone well, Mr. Dimon sure as hell would have taken the credit! You can’t have the credit if you don’t take the responsibility!

    No accountability has lead us to this point. No personal accountability, just credit for fragile egos who can’t deal with defeat or loss. And WE let them get away with it! It has to stop. We’re collectively producing generations who get credit and praise when things go well, but, heaven forbid, anyone has to lose or admit they made a mistake! The Baby-Boomer hippies started it with their “better world” philosophy, and we’re just continuing it right along. It’s killing the fiber and discourse of this country.

    It’s not “spoiling” this country, this country is flat-out spoiled. It has to stop, and accountability is the way to stop it.

  2. OK – so the same applies to everyone else. Obama still does coke and eats dogs. LOL. And everything else he admits to in his book. Equal rights, right?

    Nice rant Norm – one could insert different adjectives and apply to any politician.

    The country has been spoiled by the social liberal disease that hopefully has peaked with Obama’s only term.

    • Tony – the problem with your logic is that Mitt Romney denied that he could recount the incident. To his recollection, this incident never happened. He won’t admit it took place. If one does not admit the past happened, how can they ever make ammends for their actions?

      That’s the main and crucial difference, Tony. One cannot account for their past and make a positive change, if they don’t admit, both to themselves and to everyone else, that the past events happened. Romney is living in denial of his past mistakes, and therefore he has not atoned for those mistakes. Obama admitted his mistakes to himself and everyone, and he has made a positive personal change.

      So your analysis is quite inaccurate and incorrect. I only hope the holier-than-thou infection of social conservatism, and the greedy blight of fiscal conservatism, is long over since G.W. Bush’s last term.

      Thanks for your comments, though. I would be happy to rebut any other comments you might have on the subject.


      • Well it’s not “my” logic – it’s just simple logic. Hold everyone accountable and give everyone equal consideration. I’m no Romney supporter – he’s way to close to Obama for me – but to attack one politician on one point when all politicians have ghosts is pretty lame. I’ve read so many things about Obama it makes my head spin. Is that where you are coming from? Emotional defense of your savior? Sorry that holds no weight.

        So because Obama admitted a heinous act that makes it ok? That’s real fallacy there man! Liberal hypocrisy stinks so bad when it is exposed. What atonement was made? Do you know what that term means? These acts speak to character – of both men. At issue here is the tainted selection by which you seek to further your cause. “Positive personal change”. How often do you check in with him and his support groups to check on his progress? Amazingly powerful rebuttal there!

        Your feigned appreciation really doesn’t support your case either.

        Classical liberalism reflects the ideals this country was founded on – and what has made it great. Conservatives hold to these same principles so it is an utter absurdity that the same concepts responsible for the founding of this nation contribute to it’s demise. That’s just crazy talk – but what I’ve come to expect from liberals.

        Next I expect you have magically determined that I watch to much Rush Limbaugh. I watch none at all – his style of inflammatory media sickens me. Next I suspect you will call me a hater or a bigot – or perhaps throw a couple phobe-suffixed terms around. Be prepared to back it up.

        In terms as clear as possible my objection to the statements above is simply that IF you seek to expose an individual regarding an objectionable act BUT seek to cover a second individual for a similarly objectionable act THEN you are engaging in hypocrisy and in fact impeding the actual progress you are so adamantly attempting to forward.

        Rebuttals are welcome but please refrain from pedestrian devices and comical rants.

      • Look, Tony. I don’t know you. I don’t claim to know what you watch, think or understand. I only know what I see. What I see is you attacking my opinion of a person who is running to possibly lead our country, Obama is not my savior. I’m quite unhappy with his performance, truth be told. I’m also not to pleased with Romney or his principles, character or ideology. He takes credit where none is due. He won’t admit his past mistakes. His support of policies that have clearly lead this country into near financial ruin are not something I would promote. That is what I see from Romney.

        Because Obama admitted his mistakes (heinous? – your opinion), he knows that he made them, and I know that he made them. One can only ask God for forgiveness if they know what mistakes they have made, according to the bible. I am also no fan of Religion, but I know it very well. Forgiveness is based on admitting a mistake, repenting, and asking forgiveness. I would say, althought I can’t see into his heart, that Obama is much closer to redemption and ATONEMENT for his mistakes than Mitt Romney. Why won’t Romney just admit the event happened? Forgiveness and the acts of obtaining forgiveness are NO FALLACY! Your ignorance of the concept is what stinks to me.

        Tony, I never claimed that i have any idea about who you are. I never attributed any position to you or claimed that you got your information from any specific source. I never once said what I thought about you, but you sure have said what you think about me. If you would like to have a pissing match, keep it up. I can surely hold my own without dipping into personal attacks, as you have clearly done, without labeling you, as you have clearly done to me, and without assuming I know your politics, as you have done to me. So stop putting words into my mouth and then attacking me on those words. They are all yours, buddy-boy, and a sign of a weak argument.

        I will debate you any time of day, Tony. Please refrain from personally attacking me or my opinion. I’m pretty sure I have a right to my own opinion just as you do. If you think I am defending Obama by attacking Romney, you couldn’t be further from the truth. In fact, I ddidn’t say one word about Obama or what I think of his character, so how can you possibly claim that I was defending him? I made no mention of the man! YOU DID! You said I supporrted him. You said I was attacking Romney to defend Obama – not me. You put words in my mouth and then attacked me for it. You sir, are the one who created your whole argument, not me. You outrage is just a fabrication in your own mind of what you think I am. Believe me, you have NO idea who I am.

        Objectionable acts are a mattter of personal perspective. I don’t think eating a dog is objectionable. I don’t think former drug users are objectionable, especially if they never hurt anyone. Mitt Romney engaged in acts of Bullyism. He won’t admit it. I find bullying QUITE objectionable. In fact, you just engaged in a bit of that yourself with your previous statements. You tried to intimidate me with your comments, a sophomoric attempt at best, but an attempt nonetheless. To me, bullying is a deplorable act of cowardice. I am being quite straight forward. No hypocrisy here.

        If you would like to examine Obama’s own faults and debate them seperately, I would be glad to oblige you. That wasn’t what this post was about. It was about examining Mitt Romney and his character.

  3. I don’t understand your sensitivity to meager (at best) personal attacks. Insinuation surely but not really outside of scope. Ok maybe I assumed your support of Obama – sorry about that – but the other points are just argumentative. I made no reference to your prowess other than ability to rebut. With the voracity you attack others I assumed you yourself had thicker skin – my bad.

    Weak argument? I see no reference to the argument in your rant at all! The matter at hand is not “examining Mitt Romney and his character” it is as follows, I repeat:

    “IF you seek to expose an individual regarding an objectionable act BUT seek to cover a second individual for a similarly objectionable act THEN you are engaging in hypocrisy ”

    You can’t hide behind relativism in your defense. “Objectionable” is not relative to one’s opinion. You have identified a key point that infuriates me as illustrated: “It’s not OK for me but it is OK for you”. This is a liberal tenet that I find not only inconsistent logically but bordering on insanity.

    Not that it matters but the assumption of Romney’s guilt is at issue as well. He said he did not recall – maybe it was so insignificant that he forgot and the media and political forces are blowing it all out of proportion? Gee that never happens. And politicians never lie? Give me a break.

    By Religion I assume you mean religiousness. Since you mention the bible I assume you mean Judeo-christianity. If you base your understanding on this platform then your description is wildly inaccurate however completely in line with typical liberal assumptions.

    In fact you do have a right to your opinion however said belief has no impact on it’s validity. See reference to relativism above. Your opinions form your worldview and if you choose to act in politics your worldview impacts my life and then yes flawed opinions will come under attack.

    My opinion is that lying, doing drugs and bullying are objectionable in the context of public office. These are character flaws that many people have, myself certainly included, but I am not in competition to be the leader of the free world.

    There are many points here that can be debated but I must admit I had to search your post to find any clear rebuke. I hope you can handle this level of attack and form a concise argument against the core argument as repeated above. I hope so because I do agree with several points you made in your original post so am interested in your response outside of relativism.

    • There you go, Tony. You ASSUME. You assumed you knew me, you assumed you know what my political affiliations are, you assumed that I was covering for Obama by questioning Romney’s character, and you assumed i am being a hypocrit. Don’t assume anything – just ask.

      I am engaging in no hypocrisy. You assume that I am covering for Obama with my criticism of Romney. That is where your argument falls apart. You can’t base an argument on assumption – it’s argumentative – you are drawing an inference based on statements that I never made. Like I said, if you would like to discuss Obama and his character, I would be happy to do so. I am not covering for Obama – get that through your thick skull! Obama’s character is a matter for a different discussion which I am happy to have – seperately! The topic of the post was Mitt Romney and his character.

      As to the point of relavatism in my argument, yep, there sure was some of that. Its my opinion based on observation of the direct actions of the person in question, and the individual corroboration by several witnesses to the event. Romney can’t recall the incident? Give me a break. The incident in question was a MAJOR event in several other people’s lives who have no difficulty whatsoever recalling the event. If it was, in fact, insignificant to Romney, then he is a psychopath. A relative argument based on his inability to recount the occurrence.

      I stated that the objectionability of the act was my opinion. If you don’t find bullying objectionable, that is your opinion. Relativism isn’t the question here. Obama is not under scrutiny for bullying. The examination of Obama’s past behavior is a different subject with different behaviors. I never once said – “if Obama did it, its ok, but not for Romney”. You made that assumption all by yourself. If Obama had been accused of bullying, then fine, we can compare the two and combine the character examination. But he isn’t, so we can’t. You can’t just lump “bad behavior” into a single category and treat them all equally. The Law doesn’t do that – there are degrees of punishment for different criminal acts based on their severity. So my point that Obama’s acts were not as objectionable is valid – and realative to my opinion. If you find Obama’s indescretions objectionable, then, by all means, please do elaborate on how they affect his character and trustworthiness. To me, eating a dog is not a criminal offense or an indication of a character flaw. Million of people aroound the world do it daily. To me, using drugs is not a character flaw, unless you are using money to buy them that should go to feed your child, or you steal from someone to get your drugs, or you kill someone, intentionally or unintentionally, while you are under the influence. Using drugs is not objectionable. Millions of people abuse prescription drugs. Is abuse, whether legal or illegal drugs are involved, any different? Obama didn’t abuse drugs, he simply used them. George Bush used cocaine – and was arrested for potentially putting the lives of others at risk. Bill Clinton smoked pot. So because George Bush found “god” and quit, I should just overlook his indescretion and not Obamas? That’s relativism, Tony.

      How is my description of the biblical account of redemption inaccurate? You make these inflamatory statments, and then don’t provide any evidence to back your argumentative statements. How am I wrong, smart guy? Is there another religion that is predominant in this country?

      How can an opinion be flawed if it is based on observation? I didn’t base my opinion on heresay, did I? I didn’t base my opinion on an assumption, like you did. I didn’t base my opinion on a lie, especially if several witnesses to the incident had no problem recalling the event independent of each other. Politicians always lie? So that’s your argument as to why I shouldn’t condemn Mitt Romney? He isn’t the only one? Weak, man, weak. Lame even. Are some lies worse than others? To you, aparently not.

  4. Yeah assumed. Apologized for that. Ranting ineffectual.

  5. Talk about thick skull. How many times do I have to tell you? The first line in my first comment “so the same applies to everyone else”. Translated, for the 3rd time, “IF you seek to expose an individual regarding an objectionable act BUT seek to cover a second individual for a similarly objectionable act THEN you are engaging in hypocrisy”. This is getting boring.

  6. You are just blathering in circles! “Romney can’t recall the incident?” but he should because “a MAJOR event in several other people’s lives”. That’s not how things work. People do things all the time that are insignificant to them yet significant to others. Anyway I don’t give a crap about whether he did/remembers it or not. Like I said I don’t like the guy. Let it go.

  7. I didn’t say bullying wasn’t objectionable.

  8. Didn’t Obama admit to bullying a girl in his book? Whatever seems you misunderstand the term relativism.

  9. “as objectionable”? THAT is what relativism is. Acts committed by people are either objectionable or not. Degrees of severity there are – that is irrelevant.

  10. Just clear the I said you said nonsense!

    “I should just overlook his indescretion and not Obamas? That’s relativism, ”

    Well first that is not relativism – and second you are illustrating my point exactly. NO you should NOT overlook ANY indiscretion. Again, see the logical argument I stated. I guess by this comment you concur with it. So we agree.

    I don’t care to debate Obama’s actions – never did – point is ranting on about Romney and rich people who lack accountability serves to purpose other that to further divide. If you want to call Romney a “fucking liar” you have to admit everyone lies – which they do – therefore the statement is moot and reduced to merely inflammatory.

    • Ok Tony. Let me see if I understand you.
      So because all individuals are flawed and have committed acts that are objectionable, I can never form an opinion about someone based on his/her specific actions becasue all objectionable acts are equal and must be applied equally for a valid opinion? I must therefore take everyone at their word, because their word is the final say in the matter of relevance and importance of any questionably objectionable behavior, no matter what my perception is?
      Isn’t that absolutism? If absolutism is the norm that must be followed, then no one can have an opinion because in absolutism, all opinions are based solely in fact and not in relative occurrances subject to perception? It isn’t an opinion at that point, its a universally accepted truth? Are all facts universally applicable, or are they just generally accepted as facts and truth by the cultural group??

      Philosophy sucks the big one, dude.

      People make relative arguments about others all the time. Judges do it based on the sworn testimony of others, and they apply their own morality judgement and their interpretation of the law as written as to the appropriate punishment. The trial jury does the same thing – based on evidence provided from those with ancillary involvement, they apply the law based on the relative facts given through accounts of the incident from other people who have their own perception of the events that took place. The jury then applies it own relativism to the events as recounted and determines guilt or innocence. And it has to be relativism because all accounts of events are based in individual perception of the events from each particular viewpoint, not a universally accepted view.

      BTW – I never called Romney a liar. That wasn’t my comment. I also never read Obama’s book. If his accounts of his past are relative to his view of those accounts, then what’s the point? Why would I possibly give a shit what anyone thinks, if the only relative point someone can make is simply based on facts that are based in absolute terms and universally accepted? Who is to say whether a fact is universally applicable or universally acceptable? You? Me? Our peer group? Who makes that determination?

      That is why Philosophy sucks. You don’t like my opinion? Fine. I don’t like your philosophical bullshit argument as to why my opinion is invalid.

  11. “then don’t provide any evidence to back your argumentative statements. How am I wrong, smart guy?”

    Yeah thanks for playing by your own rules and avoiding personal attacks.

    Because that is a topic fork within an already too long reply. I will come back to this. I particularly enjoy theological debate – it’s kind of a hobby and yes I consider myself a smart guy on this subject.

    • A smart guy on the subject?
      You meant that you are a hypocrit just like me, right?
      You call me a hypocrit when I “cover” for someone else by not including them in my critique of objectionable behavior. Yet you exhibit the same hypocrisy by saying that the relativism behavior I exhibited is a “Liberal tenent” or that Liberals are MORE llikely to exhibit the behavior than Conservatives or Independents. That is relativism! Liberals are no more predisposed to the use of relativism than Conservative or Independents, so you are just as hypocritical as I am.

  12. “How can an opinion be flawed if it is based on observation?” VERY easily. This statement makes me believe I am wasting my time.

    I observe the earth is flat. That’s now my opinion. I believe my opinions are facts. I form my worldview around this and seek to influence others in that regard.

    Baby stuff man. Oops please consider that an opinion and not a personal attack.

    • Ok, ok. I get it. But how can you be so one-sided and say that the basis for my opinion is “typical Liberalism”?
      Trust me, I view as much Conservative relativism as Liberal, so how can you hate one more than the other, or imply that one is more typical than the other? If both are guilty of it, then your rant that one is more common than the other, or the “liberal” form of relativism is somehow a specific Liberal tenent and not a Conservative one, is ridiculous if both sides are guilty of the behavior. Your argument, not mine.
      It;s the selective application of the behavior, in your words, to Liberals and not to Conservatives, that makes your point also relativism. Correct?

  13. I don’t even no how to replay to those last few sentences but I’ll try.

    “shouldn’t condemn Mitt Romney” never said that. Said if you condemn one individual for an objectionable act that many commit that is hypocritical, useless and inflammatory. Back to the same argument again. Sheesh.

    One lie is ABSOLUTELY not better or worse than another. THIS is relativism. In your own way I think you’ve got it! Bravo!

    Note unless I receive any concise (non ranting), objective (not tainted by opinion), coherent (not self-refuting) replies I will not respond – bored already.

    • Just for you Tony!

    • So, becasue of relativism, I have to basically hold everyone accountable to the same standard if they are guilty of the objectionable act in question.

      a) Bill bullies a girl daily by calling her ugly.
      b) Joe bullies a boy by punching him in the face once a week.

      Both are guilty of bullying, correct? I agree both are guilty. Is one more guilty? No – guilty is guilty. Is one subject to a more harsh JUDGEMENT by others or myself for the behavior? Absolutely. I don’t condone either party in the example for their behavior, but if I had to choose between Bill and Joe for a position they both wanted, I would choose Bill 100% of the time. To me, one example does have a higher severity of the act of bullying, and that variable played into my decision. Right or wrong, people do this all the time, and it isn’t just Liberals, and Liberals are not MORE guilty of the behavior than anyone else.

      The Law (Legal) system does this all the time!
      a) Arrested for 5 grams of cocaine gets you 3-5 years
      b) Arrested for 5 grams of Crack gets you 10-15 years.

      Both arrests are for illegal drugs. Both drugs are derived from the same source, are similarly addictive and have similar effects. 1 drug is more prevalent in white communities, one drug is more prevalent in black communities. It’s relativism alone that says one user is worse than another and deserves a more harsh treatment!

  14. 1. Romney attended Cranbrook Academy.
    2. Romney, along with several other individuals, attacked another student.
    3. The attack was based on the students physical appearance alone, because his hair did not conform to Romneys ideal – the student was different.
    4. The attack was physical, resulting in physical disfigurement (hair chop), and possible psychological damage – as indicated by the crying of the near adult individual.
    5. Romney was never held accountable for the attack as no disiplinary action was ever handed down by the school or his family.
    6. Several decades later and in the time since the incident, Romney never acknowledged the event nor apologized to the student for the incident.
    7. Several students involved were questioned independently of each other about the incident decades after it took place, and NONE of them had any difficulty recalling the day or the event in detail.
    8. Romney can not recall the incident, even though he was the main perpetrator, and it was his idea to carry out the attack. If the attack was so insignificant to Romney, and so traumatic to another, what does that indicate about the objectionable behavior and the person who committed the act?? The behavior is common, acceptable, and needs no apology.

    Therefore –
    Romney is a bully &/or a psychopath.

    1. Are other people guilty of Bullying &/or other similarly objectionable behaviors? Yes.
    2. Are they psychopaths? Not necessarily. If they admit their mistake and apologize, then forgiveness should take place and the behavior, it is assumed, will not happen again. Either way, some restitution was given and a resolve was reached.
    3. If a person guilty of the behavior does not acknowledge the behavior happened and that it was objectionable, then how can they be sorry for the action? The behavior is internalized as acceptable because no consequence for the objectionable behavior has taken place.
    4. If a person is not sorry about the behavior, how can forgiveness take place? If no forgiveness has happened, the objectionable behavior is still in tact for the perpetrator along with the in tact action against the individual wronged by the action.
    5. If no apology has taken place or no consequence handed down by an authority, no realization of the objectionable behavior has taken place, and the objectionable (psychopathic) behavior continues in the same, or other forms.

    How;s that for concise, objective, and coherant?

  15. Obama Bullying incident – recounted

  16. Romney apology:

    “Back in high school, I did some dumb things,” Romney said during a radio interview Thursday morning. “And if anyone was hurt by that or offended, obviously I apologize for that.” “I’m a very different person than I was in high school, of course, but I’m glad I learned as much as I did during those high school years,” Romney said. “I’m quite a different guy now. I’m married, have five sons five daughters-in-law and now 18 grandchildren.”

    “There’s going to be some that want to talk about high school. Well, if you really think that’s important, be my guest.”

    “You just say to yourself that, back in high school, I did some dumb things. … But overall, high school years were a long time ago and I’m glad I’ve got some good friends from those years,” Romney said.

    “I don’t remember that incident and I’ll tell you I certainly don’t believe that I – I can’t speak for other people, of course – thought the fellow was homosexual.”

    “That was the furthest thing from my mind back in the 1960s, so that was not the case,” Romney said.

    I wonder if John Lauber, the bully victim of Romney, would remember his incident experience the same way Obama’s bullying victim remembers her experience.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: