Cutting-edge reporting from WaPo: Let’s take an in-depth look at … Romney’s cruel high-school pranks

posted at 9:21 am on May 10, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

And so the general election media coverage begins.  I guess the Washington Post ran out of stories based on Seamus the Roof-Ridin’ Dog.  Despite demonstrating zero curiosity over Barack Obama’s college transcripts to check on just how brilliant the academic actually was, the Post now has a big expose on Mitt Romney’s high school career as … a practical joker:

Mitt Romney returned from a three-week spring break in 1965 to resume his studies as a high school senior at the prestigious Cranbrook School. Back on the handsome campus, studded with Tudor brick buildings and manicured fields, he 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 teenaged 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.

That is a pretty cruel prank.  It’s one reason not to vote for a teenager for President.  It’s not a story that will cover Romney in glory, but this took place almost half a century ago.  Here’s something that happened in the last three years:

In case one wonders how the Post just happened to stumble onto this story, it’s pretty clear in the fourth paragraph, emphasis mine:

The incident was recalled similarly by five students, who gave their accounts independently of one another. Four of them — Friedemann, now a dentist; Phillip Maxwell, a lawyer; Thomas Buford, a retired prosecutor; and David Seed, a retired principal — spoke on the record. Another former student who witnessed the incident asked not to be named. The men have differing political affiliations, although they mostly lean Democratic. Buford volunteered for Barack Obama’s campaign in 2008. Seed, a registered independent, has served as a Republican county chairman in Michigan. All of them said that politics in no way colored their recollections.

You don’t suppose that Buford might have passed that story along to campaign leadership in case Romney won the nomination or got picked to be John McCain’s running mate, do you?  Naaaaaah.  I’m sure the Post got this story by perusing student records from Cranbrook and cold-calling everyone who went to school with Romney in that time.

In the meantime, here’s what else happened in the last 50 years — of recoveries from recessions:

Oh, and also this:

 

And we’re talking about Mitt Romney’s high-school pranks?  Seriously?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

As opposed to “Talk out of your a$$ Tuesday.”

bigmacdaddy on May 10, 2012 at 9:57 AM

I think that much like the Prez, it all depends on which is more politically expedient. ^_^

Gatsu on May 10, 2012 at 10:01 AM

So your answer is no, you don’t care that you’ve been treated like a mind-numbed idiot. I am not surprised.

Flora Duh on May 10, 2012 at 9:58 AM

Do I care? Of course. Do I care about that *more* than I care about a lot of other things? No. Are you planning on pulling the lever for Romney?

libfreeordie on May 10, 2012 at 10:02 AM

Trayvon: Vandalism, drug paraphernalia, suspension = CHILDISH ANTICS

Mitt: Cuts another kid’s hair = ASSAULT!!!!!!!

/Leftists

mankai on May 10, 2012 at 10:03 AM

he ate dog.

upinak on May 10, 2012 at 10:01 AM

I am sure the dog was just thrilled… :-)

coldwarrior on May 10, 2012 at 10:03 AM

libfreeordie on May 10, 2012 at 10:00 AM

They WERE allowed to vote in those states MORON! Obviously YOU didn’t pay attention in history!

LMFAO, did you go wiki Jim Crow?

upinak on May 10, 2012 at 10:03 AM

I am sure the dog was just thrilled… :-)

coldwarrior on May 10, 2012 at 10:03 AM

woof

upinak on May 10, 2012 at 10:04 AM

So Mitt teased a kid in high school that might be gay, based on the word of a now-deceased classmate of a democratic operative.

Barack participated in “kill whitey day” at his Hawaii high school, was a card carrying socialist in the California new party in college, did lots and lots of cocaine, went to a church for 20 years that was anti-gay, anti-white, and anti-Jew (including fundraisers for HAMAS), and started his political career with donations from Pentagon bombers (!!!!!!!!), all the while munching on Fido for a snack.

Mitt is the weird one?

pamplonajack on May 10, 2012 at 10:04 AM

Know what? I’ve been reading articles and comments all over the internet. What I find is a general dissatisfaction with the current administration (except for a SMALL group of special interests). I think Obama is going to lose the election and lose big. Seriously.

Long haired country boy on May 10, 2012 at 10:04 AM

Lib free— Still curious, how are polygamy and incest still illegal once gay marriage is okay ? Seriously. What’s the legal challenge?

pamplonajack on May 10, 2012 at 10:05 AM

Friedemann recalled another incident in which a young Mitt Romney dragged the corpse of a dead female hooker from the trunk of his Rolls Royce while screaming “I HATE ALL WOMEN!”

No really, it says so right there in the WaPo article.

Bishop on May 10, 2012 at 10:05 AM

Know what? I’ve been reading articles and comments all over the internet. What I find is a general dissatisfaction with the current administration (except for a SMALL group of special interests). I think Obama is going to lose the election and lose big. Seriously.
Long haired country boy on May 10, 2012 at 10:04 AM

But boy those supporters are loud right. My Facebook exploded with the 25 or so Obama lovers. But they are a very loud minority

pamplonajack on May 10, 2012 at 10:06 AM

For months after, the kid had split ends. There were no good conditioners then. It was horrible.

RBMN on May 10, 2012 at 10:06 AM

libfree, I don’t think it was innocent. If true, it was a horrible, cruel thing to do that deserved severe punishment. However, the reality is that it happened during the teenage years and thus don’t tell us that much about the Romney of today.

McDuck on May 10, 2012 at 10:06 AM

And I keep pointing out that up until the MOMENT the 1964-1965 civil rights acts passed, each and every one of the southern states would have voted against their provisions had it been on a direct ballot. Especially since blacks were not allowed to vote in those states. And yet, history still moved forward despite the will of the people. The same will be true on this issue.

libfreeordie on May 10, 2012 at 9:50 AM

And I keep pointing out that up until the MOMENT the 1964-1965 civil rights acts passed,

Even so, one final element was essential to passage of the civil rights bill—the strong support of Republicans. Although Democrats had a historically large majority in the House of Representatives with 259 members to 176 Republicans, almost as many Republicans voted for the civil rights bill as Democrats. The final vote was 290 for the bill and 130 against. Of the “yea” votes, 152 were Democrats and 138 were Republicans. Of the “nay” votes, three-fourths were Democrats. In short, the bill could not have passed without Republican support. As Time Magazine observed, “In one of the most lopsidedly Democratic Houses since the days of F.D.R., Republicans were vital to the passage of a bill for which the Democratic administration means to take full political credit this year.”

I intend to keep rubbing every liberals face in this whenever they bring up civil rights..

until they acknowledge and restore the historical record, that the GOP isn’t the enemy of blacks and all other minorities..

do you acknowledge the racist past of the democrat party?

do you acknowledge the vital role of the GOP in acknowledging the equal rights of black Americans?

and do you also, acknowledge,.. Jim Crow.. is NOT the same as simply saying Marriage is between a man and a woman only?

If not.. then why can”t adult siblings marry?.. why not three people? or more?.. why not grant marriage rights to any fringe group, because you opened the door.. how can yo say no now?

.. Civil Unions fine… but you cannot take the word.. because yes, it does insult millions of us who don’t cheat, don’t take our vows lightly, and don’t believe every fringe group deserve a carve out, because they demand that society as a whole, kiss their ring and tell them how special they are..

it’s like giving the whole class an A,.. just because you want to not hurt their widdele fweelings..

mark81150 on May 10, 2012 at 10:06 AM

As usual, some real classics in the WaPo Comments…

Certainly if there were any such incidents with Obama, they would be old news by now. His opponents had to stoop to making stuff up because there was nothing else available. Believe me, if Obama had such a stain on his record, we would have heard about it ad nauseum.

maybe President Obama has and had a better moral compass than Mr. Romney has. Mr. Romney seems clueless as to the feelings of others. He has lived in a bubble his whole life. Maybe a little adversity would have been good for him.

There was a TON of autobiographical info about Obama when he was the nominee 4 years ago. This is Romney’s first time as a nominee and so there are going to be more articles about his early life because a lot of people know very little about him.

Just the other day there was a piece about the President’s ex-girlfriends, including old love letters. I think that is comparable, soft-news coverage of the candidate’s background and personality.

Republicans hate a free press that does not tow the RNC/Faux News Propaganda Machine line.

A spoiled, rich anal-sadistic Republican? Shocking.

And this O’bama Fluffer takes the cake!

You don’t have to love Obama to see there’s something wrong with Romney. Dogs are an animal–meat is meat. Cocaine is idiotic, habit forming, dangerous and ultimately a victimless crime. But holding somebody down & cutting his hair while leading a mob is an entirely different kind of behavior, and much worse than puppy eating IMHO.

lol! You can’t make up this special kind of Stupid.

A+

Del Dolemonte on May 10, 2012 at 10:06 AM

They WERE allowed to vote in those states MORON! Obviously YOU didn’t pay attention in history!

LMFAO, did you go wiki Jim Crow?

upinak on May 10, 2012 at 10:03 AM

The word vote implies choice. I suppose that the people of Cuba have been “allowed to vote” as well? You’re focusing on the semantics of my post in order to ignore the fact that if the 1964 and 1965 civil rights acts or school desegregation had been put on a ballot in Jim Crow states, they would have lost.

libfreeordie on May 10, 2012 at 10:07 AM

libfreeordie — this is clearly your day job. Is the pay really worth it? Or is it the sense of accomplishment that your supervisors instill in you?

Prufrock on May 10, 2012 at 9:59 AM

brainfree is a an affirmitive action hire at some un-named university in the midwest where she “teaches” humanities. She comes here to bestow her vast intelligence on every subject for her own personal amusement…and ours. Apparently, she has way to much time on her hands. But god bless her..the more time she spends here the less time she is in contact with college kids.

She’s too ignorant to even realize she’s a laughingstock.

HumpBot Salvation on May 10, 2012 at 10:08 AM

Lib free— polygamy and incest. Inevitable or not? Why or why not?

pamplonajack on May 10, 2012 at 10:09 AM

don’t=doesn’t

McDuck on May 10, 2012 at 10:09 AM

That’s awful, he should have just drank, smoked pot, and bought some blow whenever he had the cash. That’s what makes a man who makes a gutsy call

WeekendAtBernankes on May 10, 2012 at 10:10 AM

Friedemann recalled another incident in which a young Mitt Romney dragged the corpse of a dead female hooker from the trunk of his Rolls Royce while screaming “I HATE ALL WOMEN!”

No really, it says so right there in the WaPo article.

Bishop on May 10, 2012 at 10:05 AM

Bah, that’s NOTHING, I read in Newsweek that Mitt Romney built an entire mansion with slave labor gold bricks, because he and the rest of the 1% can do that. And then he ground up the slaves to make the mortar to hold it all together, all while throwing solid gold dog statues of dogs that he let die on the roof of his car at orphans and single women.

Totally legit…

Gatsu on May 10, 2012 at 10:10 AM

Nice try

blatantblue on May 10, 2012 at 10:10 AM

pamplonajack on May 10, 2012 at 10:04 AM

Bullseye….

+10

:-P

mark81150 on May 10, 2012 at 10:10 AM

So your answer is no, you don’t care that you’ve been treated like a mind-numbed idiot. I am not surprised.

Flora Duh on May 10, 2012 at 9:58 AM

Do I care? Of course. Do I care about that *more* than I care about a lot of other things? No. Are you planning on pulling the lever for Romney?

libfreeordie on May 10, 2012 at 10:02 AM

You know that you are being treated like a mind – numbed idiot but you care more about who Flora Duh is going to vote for? You should seek help for your obama obsession. It’s gonna hurt come November.

VegasRick on May 10, 2012 at 10:11 AM

The word vote implies choice. I suppose that the people of Cuba have been “allowed to vote” as well? You’re focusing on the semantics of my post in order to ignore the fact that if the 1964 and 1965 civil rights acts or school desegregation had been put on a ballot in Jim Crow states, they would have lost.

libfreeordie on May 10, 2012 at 10:07 AM

Hey Kid, you’re needed on the new thread Ed just started.

The one about how blacks in NC voted 2 to 1 in favor of banning gay marriage.

Now pick up your Talking Points and get over there!

Del Dolemonte on May 10, 2012 at 10:11 AM

The word vote implies choice. I suppose that the people of Cuba have been “allowed to vote” as well? You’re focusing on the semantics of my post in order to ignore the fact that if the 1964 and 1965 civil rights acts or school desegregation had been put on a ballot in Jim Crow states, they would have lost.

libfreeordie on May 10, 2012 at 10:07 AM

Who cares about Cuba? I sure as heck don’t. This isn’t about civil rights anymore. This is about people (as in the Nation) who are tired of catering. Get a clue.

I think mark81150 more or less tells you where to stick it.

upinak on May 10, 2012 at 10:12 AM

John Lauber, a soft-spoken new student one year behind Romney, was perpetually teased for his nonconformity and presumed homosexuality.

Two questions. Did anyone talk to John Lauber? Is he gay or just presumed gay?

Vince on May 10, 2012 at 10:12 AM

I intend to keep rubbing every liberals face in this whenever they bring up civil rights..
mark81150 on May 10, 2012 at 10:06 AM

Lets get this out of the way first. Yes I (and every person who has ever studied American history) am aware that white southern Democrats thought up, passed and enforced Jim Crow laws and were steeped in a white supremacist culture which they enforced through coercion, rape, assault and murder for hundreds of years until the federal government interceded in the form of the Civil War, Reconstruction and finally with the passage of the civil rights laws of 1964 and 1965. I am 100% aware that the Klan was primarily a Democrat party institution and was a key means through which white southerners enforced white supmreacy. In fact, SO entrenched was the Klan within white southern Democratic culture that many lawmakers and police officers were part of the organization. Are we good? Can we now just actually talk about the history? Sweet.
libfreeordie on May 10, 2012 at 10:00 AM

And I’m going to repeat this every time you all pull out that talking point as a means of not talking about racism. Apparently, all of those southern Democrats instantly disappeared and a whole new generation of unrelated white southern Republicans appeared out of nowhere. Did those southern white democrats not have kids? Did they spontaneously combust? Did they instantly say “well, guess we were wrong, black people are equal to us after all.” I’m always curious as to where conservatives think those white southern Democrats went after 1964?

libfreeordie on May 10, 2012 at 10:13 AM

Wasn’t there a story about a rich MA politician who let a girl die in his car and then lied about it? Must’ve been Romney.

/war on womens!!!

mankai on May 10, 2012 at 10:13 AM

Lib free— polygamy and incest. Inevitable or not? Why or why not?

pamplonajack on May 10, 2012 at 10:09 AM

Could care less what happens between consenting adults.

libfreeordie on May 10, 2012 at 10:14 AM

Are you planning on pulling the lever for Romney?

libfreeordie on May 10, 2012 at 10:02 AM

Why, you going to send the New Black Panthers, who your president is quite friendly with, to intimidate me if I say yes?

Flora Duh on May 10, 2012 at 10:14 AM

And remember – since we’re talking about bullies — obamas anti bullying tzar went on an anti Christian rant at a high school the other day, talking about how the bible is bs, it’s lies, it’s hate, and how Christians are pansy a$$e$. He even screamed at the Christians that got up and left during his rant.

Remember the anti prop 8 gays? Full of hate. Beating up Christian seniors with crosses, blacklisting any donors from hollywood, attacking Latinos (strangely they didn’t protest in Compton lol)

There is nothing — NOTHING — to be proud from the lefts actions.

pamplonajack on May 10, 2012 at 10:15 AM

pamplonajack on May 10, 2012 at 10:05 AM

He/She is an Incestaphobe (I can make up words too!).

I thus assume he/she is guided by hate and fear and liberal superstitions.

/

mankai on May 10, 2012 at 10:16 AM

One candidate supports gay marriage, the other was a homophobic teenage bully. Great.

libfreeordie on May 10, 2012 at 9:39 AM

There it is!

Carry that water! Carry it!

Sell that meme! Sell it!

Play that rusty trombone!

…you’ve got no idea what the reaction is going to be to that story.

Have fun, groupthink lackey.

budfox on May 10, 2012 at 10:16 AM

Lib free— polygamy and incest. Inevitable or not? Why or why not?

pamplonajack on May 10, 2012 at 10:09 AM

Could care less what happens between consenting adults.

libfreeordie on May 10, 2012 at 10:14 AM

incest is not usually consenting. But I doubt you would understand that.

upinak on May 10, 2012 at 10:16 AM

One candidate supports gay marriage, the other was a homophobic teenage bully. Great.

libfreeordie on May 10, 2012 at 9:39 AM

Cheney 2012!

mankai on May 10, 2012 at 10:16 AM

I’m always curious as to where conservatives think those white southern Democrats went after 1964?

libfreeordie on May 10, 2012 at 10:13 AM

One of them became the senior Democrat in the Senate and rewmained there until 2 years ago (KKK member Robert Byrd).

Another one continued to serve in the Senate as a Democrat until the early 1970s, and then made a ton of money in the oil industry, something only Republicans are considered Evil for. That would be Albert Gore Senior.

F-

Del Dolemonte on May 10, 2012 at 10:17 AM

Libfree, if those racist southern dems all became GOP (they didn’t), surely you could show me a list of 10 nationally elected (congress senator governor) Southern dems that switched to GOP in the 1970s then?

pamplonajack on May 10, 2012 at 10:17 AM

Why, you going to send the New Black Panthers, who your president is quite friendly with, to intimidate me if I say yes?

Flora Duh on May 10, 2012 at 10:14 AM

Now who can’t answer a question.

incest is not usually consenting. But I doubt you would understand that.

upinak on May 10, 2012 at 10:16 AM

That’s what rape law is for.

libfreeordie on May 10, 2012 at 10:18 AM

Could care less what happens between consenting adults.

libfreeordie on May 10, 2012 at 10:14 AM

So you want to legalize marriage between adult siblings or a father and his daughter/son? And you want to legalize marriage between any number of people with any number of other people? 5 men/four women, etc?

Good to know.

mankai on May 10, 2012 at 10:18 AM

Could care less what happens between consenting adults.

libfreeordie on May 10, 2012 at 10:14 AM

What if they lie about it under oath?

Del Dolemonte on May 10, 2012 at 10:18 AM

I still don’t understand why our President fought so hard to withhold a birth certificate that when finally produced, was so “normal”. Our President apparently spent a few years in Indonesia as a child, but still found time to fall in love as a boy with the Chicago White Sox, yet never learned how to throw a baseball. He apparently spent some time in prestigious prep schools and ended up in the Ivy league where all his records are off limits. At some point in his youth his got baked and snorted coke. Ended up as a “community organizer” in Chicago, yet I’m not sure what that means. What was his job? What accomplishments were there? Did he ever win “Community Organizer of the Year?” Whats his connection with a known domestic terrorist Bill Ayers?

But thanks to the WaPo, now at least I know Mitt Romney cut somebody’s hair against his will in high school…

jjjdad on May 10, 2012 at 10:19 AM

libfreeordie on May 10, 2012 at 10:14 AM

The question is not about what they do, it’s about a certain granting legal status.

mankai on May 10, 2012 at 10:19 AM

changer1701 on May 10, 2012 at 9:57 AM

Of course Lauber died in 2004 so “thought to be gay” is all speculation.

Happy Nomad on May 10, 2012 at 10:20 AM

That’s what rape law is for.

libfreeordie on May 10, 2012 at 10:18 AM

WTF is a “rape law”? I doubt you understand. Sodomy… is that rape or incest/consensual sex with adults?

You stepped in it, you may as well try to dig yourself out of that 6 foot hole you dug.

upinak on May 10, 2012 at 10:20 AM

What if they lie about it under oath?

Del Dolemonte on May 10, 2012 at 10:18 AM

There are laws for that.

So you want to legalize marriage between adult siblings or a father and his daughter/son?

I’m certainly not going to start, organize and fundraise for a movement pushing for polygamous marriage or incestuous marriage. So in that sense, no I don’t “want” those things to be legalized. I just don’t care if they are legalized.

I think polygamous marriage as a legal institution presents unique challenges because of the numbers of parties involved. I think it becomes possible to make an argument for the unfeasability of polygamous marriage. An argument that doesn’t apply to same-sex or incestuous unions.

libfreeordie on May 10, 2012 at 10:21 AM

So, WaPo wants to bring Romney’s high school friends into the discussion huh?

I guess that means we can also discuss:

Obama’s half-brother, Roy, accused of fraud over a charity he set up in family name.

And his half-brother, George, who was arrested on Drug Charges in Kenya.

And last but probably not least, his half-brother, Samson, who was denied entry to Britain because he had been accused of sexual assault against 2 teenage girls on a previous visit.

Sources

Flora Duh on May 10, 2012 at 10:21 AM

Not only is it irrelevant but I see no particular reason to believe that it happened at all. The circle-jerk of clowns who are collaborating on the story have no credibility. And the media serving up this story have even less credibility.

cicerone on May 10, 2012 at 10:21 AM

WTF is a “rape law”? I

Are you kidding me? Rape law criminalizes acts of sexual violence, when sexual intercourse occurs without consent or through violent coercion. If an incestuous coupling is “non-consensual” that makes it illegal under rape laws. Why are you being so unbelievably dense this morning?

libfreeordie on May 10, 2012 at 10:22 AM

On the other hand, there’s a tombstone somewhere with Mary Jo Kopechne’s name on it… Didn’t hurt Ted Kennedy’s image with his sycophantic followers.

cicerone on May 10, 2012 at 10:23 AM

One of them became the senior Democrat in the Senate and rewmained there until 2 years ago (KKK member Robert Byrd).

Another one continued to serve in the Senate as a Democrat until the early 1970s, and then made a ton of money in the oil industry, something only Republicans are considered Evil for. That would be Albert Gore Senior.

F-

Del Dolemonte on May 10, 2012 at 10:17 AM

OK, that’s two of them. The rest?

libfreeordie on May 10, 2012 at 10:23 AM

Are you kidding me? Rape law criminalizes acts of sexual violence, when sexual intercourse occurs without consent or through violent coercion. If an incestuous coupling is “non-consensual” that makes it illegal under rape laws. Why are you being so unbelievably dense this morning?

libfreeordie on May 10, 2012 at 10:22 AM

Rape? Or rape-rape?

cicerone on May 10, 2012 at 10:24 AM

Lib – you never answered my electoral map question.

FL and NV are linked together for decades, going back to LBJ.

Only times they separated was Ford and Perot.

You don’t have that kind of disruption.

How is Barry going to do it?

C’mon. You said the Dems “have this figured out”.

How can Barry sacrifice FL and not expect to lose NV.

budfox on May 10, 2012 at 10:24 AM

Barack Barry (as he was then known)participated in “kill whitey day” at his Hawaii high school, was a card carrying socialist in the California new party in college, did lots and lots of cocaine, went to a church for 20 years that was anti-gay, anti-white, and anti-Jew (including fundraisers for HAMAS), and started his political career with donations from Pentagon bombers (!!!!!!!!), all the while munching on Fido for a snack.

Mitt is the weird one?

pamplonajack on May 10, 2012 at 10:04 AM

One minor correction.

Captain Scarlet on May 10, 2012 at 10:25 AM

Of course Lauber died in 2004 so “thought to be gay” is all speculation.

Happy Nomad on May 10, 2012 at 10:20 AM

Incredible. They publish something from a bunch of Dems that can’t even be corroborated.

Talk about your hit job. Politically-motivated fiction, disguised as “journalism”, is all this piece is.

changer1701 on May 10, 2012 at 10:27 AM

Are you kidding me? Rape law criminalizes acts of sexual violence, when sexual intercourse occurs without consent or through violent coercion. If an incestuous coupling is “non-consensual” that makes it illegal under rape laws. Why are you being so unbelievably dense this morning?

libfreeordie on May 10, 2012 at 10:22 AM

incest is illegal in over 75% of the states. So are you talking about rape, or are you talking about someones dad thinking it is okay to “rape” their 16 yr old daughter because she is now of age due to state law?

Or are you talking marrying your cousin?

Dense, honey schnookem pie, is much like you… keep digging.

upinak on May 10, 2012 at 10:27 AM

I think it becomes possible to make an argument for the unfeasability of polygamous marriage. An argument that doesn’t apply to same-sex or incestuous unions.

libfreeordie on May 10, 2012 at 10:21 AM

Really? What about bi-sexuals? What if they decide they want to marry both a male and a female, because after all, they should “have the right” to marry who they love?

Flora Duh on May 10, 2012 at 10:29 AM

I’m waiting for the next bomb from Breitbart! I’m sure it will be a doozy! They won’t get all jumpy like Obama’s team though, they’ll wait for late summer & early fall to maximize people’s memories before the election.

JAM on May 10, 2012 at 10:29 AM

Really? What about bi-sexuals? What if they decide they want to marry both a male and a female, because after all, they should “have the right” to marry who they love?

Flora Duh on May 10, 2012 at 10:29 AM

That would still be polygamous….jeez you’re slow.

libfreeordie on May 10, 2012 at 10:33 AM

In school I was bullied to the point that I came thisclose to killing myself.
What Mitt did was NOTHING!
Mitt/Somebody 2012!

annoyinglittletwerp on May 10, 2012 at 10:34 AM

Its getting desperate for the demoncrites.

Its not even smoke and mirrors anymore.

Just mirrors.

And the reflection ain’t pretty obie.

FlaMurph on May 10, 2012 at 10:35 AM

Apparently, all of those southern Democrats instantly disappeared and a whole new generation of unrelated white southern Republicans appeared out of nowhere. Did those southern white democrats not have kids? Did they spontaneously combust? Did they instantly say “well, guess we were wrong, black people are equal to us after all.” I’m always curious as to where conservatives think those white southern Democrats went after 1964?

libfreeordie on May 10, 2012 at 10:13 AM

So you just assume, that the south started voting ever increasingly republican,… because the racist democrats wanted to reward the GOP for getting the civil rights act of 64 passed.. by voting for the the party responsible for killing Jim Crow?

Am I getting this right?

The racist democrats… vote for the party which passed the Bill they hate the most?….

right.. got ya..

better assumption,.. the racists stayed… and the conservative white democrats.. the ones who mostly supported the 64 act, moved to the party which still represented the center right of American politics… while the democrat party went ko koo for coca puffs over the hardcore left and McGovern…

we got the sane democrats.. the conservative ones..

you ignore the hard left lurch the democrat party took after the 68 convention… completely ignore you lost the center for decades, while going farther and farther left.

try again..

That tired left wing smear, that all the racists left you to vote for the party which got the civil rights bill passed.. is a nasty slander.. which gets repeated by hyper partisan dems without a shred of proof.. and we keep finding closeted racists in the dem party…

The democrats have lied to the black community since 64.. the one true friend that American blacks had,.. gets slandered to keep those black votes coming in.. and any who dare think for them selves.. get the Uncle Tom treatment.. smeared as being acting White.. or self hating..

The biggest lie of the century..

is that democrats are the non racist party,.. which theey themselves will admit, when it serves their purposes.. see that they blame racists in the dem party for that embarassing vte for the felon?

Your party seems to have a lot of racists lurking around..

doesn’t it?

My wife’s entire family is democrat.. and while she’s normal… a family gathering of her side.. usually has the n word spoken more often than a klan rally when Obama comes up..

don’t you dare tell me.. the racists all left to vote GOP.. we got the conservatives, when your side went left loonytoons.

mark81150 on May 10, 2012 at 10:36 AM

Oh, that Bill Ayers–such a prankster!

Christien on May 10, 2012 at 10:36 AM

So are you talking about rape, or are you talking about someones dad thinking it is okay to “rape” their 16 yr old daughter because she is now of age due to state law?

If she is of legal age and consents to having sex with her father, it isn’t rape. I am suddenly fear that you may not understand what the word “consent” means.

libfreeordie on May 10, 2012 at 10:37 AM

If she is of legal age and consents to having sex with her father, it isn’t rape. I am suddenly fear that you may not understand what the word “consent” means.

libfreeordie on May 10, 2012 at 10:37 AM

I am suddenly realizing that you are okay with fathers raping their children.

Sick F!

upinak on May 10, 2012 at 10:39 AM

That would still be polygamous….jeez you’re slow.

libfreeordie on May 10, 2012 at 10:33 AM

I’m trying to point out to you the slippery slope that can come from legalizing gay marriage. If gay men and lesbians “have the right” to marry who they love, why shouldn’t bi-sexuals, even if it means marrying a partner of each gender? Wouldn’t it be considered “hateful discrimination” to deny them that “right?”

Flora Duh on May 10, 2012 at 10:41 AM

That would still be polygamous….jeez you’re slow.

libfreeordie on May 10, 2012 at 10:33 AM

That’s the point, clueless.

Premise: People in love should be able to marry whom they like.

Premise: Bi-sexuals might want to marry both a man and a woman (polygamy).

Conclusion: Polygamy should be allowed so people can marry whomever the want.

So are you for polygamy or not? And would you put limits on love? That is, can 10 men marry 8 women, etc.? If not, why not?

mankai on May 10, 2012 at 10:41 AM

Trayvon: Vandalism, drug paraphernalia, suspension = CHILDISH ANTICS

Mitt: Cuts another kid’s hair = ASSAULT!!!!!!!

/Leftists

mankai on May 10, 2012 at 10:03 AM

You forgot the part where beating George Zimmerman’s head against a sidewalk is indeed assualt.

Happy Nomad on May 10, 2012 at 10:42 AM

I am suddenly realizing that you are okay with fathers raping their children.

Sick F!

upinak on May 10, 2012 at 10:39 AM

That is sick. I won’t be responding to that person ever again.

VegasRick on May 10, 2012 at 10:42 AM

What if they lie about it under oath?

Del Dolemonte on May 10, 2012 at 10:18 AM

There are laws for that.

libfreeordie on May 10, 2012 at 10:21 AM

Was Democrat Bill Clinton above the law for lying under oath about a blowjob?

And before answering, remember that he had already had his Department of Justice successfully prosecute a female Federal employee for lying under oath about sex.

Del Dolemonte on May 10, 2012 at 10:43 AM

Electing Obama was a pretty cruel prank.

Christien on May 10, 2012 at 10:43 AM

So we now have the “playbook”.

Media does Obama’s opposition research, collecting whatever tidbits (no matter how ridiculous) from Romney’s past and storing same for careful timed release.

Meanwhile, the republic is burning to the ground while its citizens stare mesmerized at the MSM-generated train wrecks.

We deserve whatever we get. Sad we don’t all deserve it.

Mr Galt on May 10, 2012 at 10:43 AM

But no smack!

forest on May 10, 2012 at 9:32 AM

Smack is wack.

steebo77 on May 10, 2012 at 10:44 AM

Expect something like this over and over. They take the subject of the day,in this case gay marriage, and they trot out something in Mitts past to go along with it. See ,Obama is pro gay rights and Mitt hates gays because someone nearly 50 years ago says he cut some kids hair and did we mention he was bullied for maybe being gay.

sandee on May 10, 2012 at 10:44 AM

One of them became the senior Democrat in the Senate and rewmained there until 2 years ago (KKK member Robert Byrd).

Another one continued to serve in the Senate as a Democrat until the early 1970s, and then made a ton of money in the oil industry, something only Republicans are considered Evil for. That would be Albert Gore Senior.

F-

Del Dolemonte on May 10, 2012 at 10:17 AM

OK, that’s two of them. The rest?

libfreeordie on May 10, 2012 at 10:23 AM

lol, aren’t those two enough?

Your selective ignorance is breathtaking.

Del Dolemonte on May 10, 2012 at 10:45 AM

The WaPo article mentions that the long-dead Lauber was ultimately kicked out of The Cranbrook School for smoking a cigarette. If this happened, how is it that Romney was able to hack another student’s hair and get away with it when the rules were so strict that smoking resulted in expulsion.

Of course, we only have these Democrats word for this incident. Romeny doesn’t remember it ever happening and Lauber died in 2004.

Happy Nomad on May 10, 2012 at 10:46 AM

I guess the WaPo couldn’t figure out how to work “macaca” into this story. Then again, the day isn’t over yet.

Physics Geek on May 10, 2012 at 10:47 AM

That is sick. I won’t be responding to that person ever again.

VegasRick on May 10, 2012 at 10:42 AM

Rick, I hope you aren’t talking about me. I have a serious knot in my stomach from the crap lib is saying. It bothers the heck out of me.

upinak on May 10, 2012 at 10:47 AM

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.

Either I’ve been unusually lucky with the bullies I had to deal with, or this is a step beyond what most kids do to one another.

Obama’s designated replacement does seem to have a mean streak.

Aitch748 on May 10, 2012 at 10:48 AM

Was Democrat Bill Clinton above the law for lying under oath about a blowjob?

And before answering, remember that he had already had his Department of Justice successfully prosecute a female Federal employee for lying under oath about sex.

Del Dolemonte on May 10, 2012 at 10:43 AM

No he wasn’t. He was impeached for perjury. He just wasn’t removed from office because the Senate is filled with spineless idiots who favor “civility” over principle. Indiana just de-loused the Senate of one of the worst. Maine gets rid of one because she knew she was going down in defeat.

Happy Nomad on May 10, 2012 at 10:49 AM

I’m always curious as to where conservatives think those white southern Democrats went after 1964?

libfreeordie on May 10, 2012 at 10:13 AM

They didn’t go anywhere idiot. That’s why the state houses, the governorships, the senate and house seats continued to go majority democrat all through the late 60′s thru the 70′s thru the 80′s thru 90′s and even into the 2000′s.

But yeah..I get your premise..only the inbred, knuckle-dragging racists moved to the party that actually passed the Civil Rights legislation and was responsible for all civil rights legislation for the previous 100 years. That makes perfect sense..if someone passed a law I was against..I’d immediately join that party and start voting for it.

OK, that’s two of them. The rest?

libfreeordie on May 10, 2012 at 10:23 AM

Orville Faubus comes to mind. George Wallace, J. William Fulbright, Ernest Hollins, Dick Gephart all enjoyed political careers as confirmed racists from the democrat party.

Oh and who signed the 1972 Equal Employment Opportunity Act?

Oh yeah, Richard Nixon…yep now those racist knuckle-draggers are really going to join the Republican Party in droves.

Seriously..stop beclowning yourself.

HumpBot Salvation on May 10, 2012 at 10:50 AM

BREAKING: Obama ate a gay dog.

Christien on May 10, 2012 at 10:50 AM

better assumption,.. the racists stayed… and the conservative white democrats.. the ones who mostly supported the 64 act, moved to the party which still represented the center right of American politics… while the democrat party went ko koo for coca puffs over the hardcore left and McGovern…

You’re telling me that the white Democrats who voted for the ’64 act where conservative southerners? Why would you make such a claim when the roll call is available.

The original House version:

Southern Democrats: 7–87 (7%–93%)
Southern Republicans: 0–10 (0%–100%)

Northern Democrats: 145-9 (94%–6%)
Northern Republicans: 138-24 (85%–15%)

Care to try that again?

So you just assume, that the south started voting ever increasingly republican,… because the racist democrats wanted to reward the GOP for getting the civil rights act of 64 passed.. by voting for the the party responsible for killing Jim Crow?

Am I getting this right?

Unsurprisingly, you are not. And your random guessing as to why the “solid south” suddenly switched parties for the first time in more than a century after the coincidental end of Jim Crow is hilarious. Remember, we agree that white southern Democrats were super entrenched in their anti-black racism. We agree they were so against basic things like integrated buses, lunch counters and schools that they committed acts of violence and terrorism against their fellow citizens and human beings.

And now you also want us to believe that southern whites turned. on. a. dime. And that all of those legacies and feelings and beliefs just evaporated into nothing-ness. Fascinating. Luckily for you, all Republicans aren’t that naive and, in fact, the Republican party saw an opportunity to capture those voters. Nixon’s “southern strategy” which you should google helps to explain the massive party switch. You also want to look up H.R. Handelman. One of Nixon’s political advisors who explained the southern strategy’s racial motivations very succinctly.

libfreeordie on May 10, 2012 at 10:50 AM

We only have the word of a hack journalist doing a hit piece, that they all had the exact same story, after all these decades, and all painted Romney in exactly the same light,.. evil..

Ask yourself this question..

When… has any group of people, every all retold the same story, exactly the same way, even after three days…

let alone three decades or more..

Ask any cop.. out of a crowd of people, all witness to an event,.. how often they all retell the story exactly the same way..

the answer?

never?

three people, three different versions..

every single time.

But this “journalist” found five people to retell a decades old storty, that they all remember quite clearly.. without any inconsistencies?

really?

this smells.. like a planned hit piece, and a “journalist” with an agenda and a planned outcome..

anyone who truly accepts this as fact without a second source besides the WaPo, is gullible in the extreme.

mark81150 on May 10, 2012 at 10:50 AM

Aitch748 on May 10, 2012 at 10:48 AM

I was stalked in hallways and told that the only way I would ever lose my virginity/get pregnant was if I was ‘lucky’ enough to get RAPED.
What Mitt did was a nothing burger. Life goes on.
Go Mitt!

annoyinglittletwerp on May 10, 2012 at 10:50 AM

The democrats have lied to the black community since 64.. the one true friend that American blacks had,.. gets slandered to keep those black votes coming in.. and any who dare think for them selves.. get the Uncle Tom treatment.. smeared as being acting White.. or self hating..

mark81150 on May 10, 2012 at 10:36 AM

I don’t remember how the topic came up, but I was telling my 12 yr. old about how LBJ destroyed the black family. She was so mad, she wanted to know why she never heard about that before. It made me wonder what else she didn’t know but should. It’s amazing the amount of history that gets buried for whatever reason. You do an excellent job of bringing some of it to light. Thanks!

Night Owl on May 10, 2012 at 10:50 AM

I guess the WaPo couldn’t figure out how to work “macaca” into this story. Then again, the day isn’t over yet.

Physics Geek on May 10, 2012 at 10:47 AM

I suspect this is part of a larger series. Today’s installment is Romney the homophobic bully.

Happy Nomad on May 10, 2012 at 10:51 AM

Out: Romney is perfect almost alien-like automoton incapable of experiencing human emotion.

In: Romney was a jerkass teenager just like you were once.

Obama can’t keep his memes straight.

BKennedy on May 10, 2012 at 10:52 AM

They didn’t go anywhere idiot. That’s why the state houses, the governorships, the senate and house seats continued to go majority democrat all through the late 60′s thru the 70′s thru the 80′s thru 90′s and even into the 2000′s.

How interesting and, on a national level, those states voted for who in the intervening years? If their votes for racist Democrats in state races was motivated by their long held white supremacy, what explains their love for Nixon, Reagan and Bush?

libfreeordie on May 10, 2012 at 10:53 AM

She was so mad, she wanted to know why she never heard about that before. It made me wonder what else she didn’t know but should. It’s amazing the amount of history that gets buried for whatever reason. You do an excellent job of bringing some of it to light. Thanks!

Night Owl on May 10, 2012 at 10:50 AM

Your 12-year-old knows more than many 30-year-olds.

Happy Nomad on May 10, 2012 at 10:53 AM

I don’t remember how the topic came up, but I was telling my 12 yr. old about how LBJ destroyed the black family. She was so mad, she wanted to know why she never heard about that before. It made me wonder what else she didn’t know but should. It’s amazing the amount of history that gets buried for whatever reason. You do an excellent job of bringing some of it to light. Thanks!

Night Owl on May 10, 2012 at 10:50 AM

When Lyndon B. Johnson was in the House of Representatives, he said that President Harry Truman’s civil rights program was “a farce and a sham — an effort to set up a police state in the guise of liberty.” He continued: “I am opposed to that program. I have voted against the so-called poll tax repeal bill. … I have voted against the so-called anti-lynching bill.” When Johnson had become senator, he observed, “These Negroes, they’re getting pretty uppity these days, and that’s a problem for us since they’ve got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness.”

visions on May 10, 2012 at 10:55 AM

libfreeordie on May 10, 2012 at 10:50 AM

Like clockwork you roll out the southern strategy LIE.

Yes, one advisor for president Nixon thought they could win votes in the south via southerners racism of blacks voting democrat.

But here’s the thing

IT DIDN’T WORK.

The first time the GOP carried the south for the house was what 1992? The senate didn’t go majority red until 1994? State delegations are still blue in some states, with some states finally going red in…. 2010.

So your blessed ms NBC version of racism is WRONG

THE SOUTHERN STRATEGY DIDNT WORK. At worst it was a northern hack assuming things about GOP voters.

Or maybe you could show me the majority GOP votes in ’74, ’76, etc???

Lol you even fail basic history

pamplonajack on May 10, 2012 at 10:56 AM

How interesting and, on a national level, those states voted for who in the intervening years? If their votes for racist Democrats in state races was motivated by their long held white supremacy, what explains their love for Nixon, Reagan and Bush?

libfreeordie on May 10, 2012 at 10:53 AM

Let’s see idiot.

1972 election

Nixon 60% 520 Electoral Votes
McGovern 37%

HumpBot Salvation on May 10, 2012 at 10:56 AM

It is great that this type of analysis is done over here on HA. It is just a damn shame that you will not ever see this in any mainstream newspaper or network news broadcast.

This type of analysis is precisely the type of thing that the average voter needs to be exposed to. Compare and contrast!

glennbo on May 10, 2012 at 10:58 AM

How interesting and, on a national level, those states voted for who in the intervening years? If their votes for racist Democrats in state races was motivated by their long held white supremacy, what explains their love for Nixon, Reagan and Bush?
libfreeordie on May 10, 2012 at 10:53 AM

Oh. My. Gosh.

It’s called landslides moron

Nixon won 49 states. Reagan won 49. Bush I won 41 or 42.

In landslides, the winner takes many states.

pamplonajack on May 10, 2012 at 10:58 AM

I’m surprised at the timing of this story. There are no coincidences here, this was planned to come out at the time Obama went public with his support of gay marriage. This hit piece on Romney shows just how desperate the Democrats are.

GrannySunni on May 10, 2012 at 10:59 AM

Yes, one advisor for president Nixon thought they could win votes in the south via southerners racism of blacks voting democrat.

But here’s the thing

IT DIDN’T WORK.

So your defense against the criticism that the national Republican party tried to exploit southern racism for their political gain isn’t that doing so was wrong, but that doing so was ineffective?!? Debate over.

libfreeordie on May 10, 2012 at 11:00 AM

Like clockwork you roll out the southern strategy LIE.

Yes, one advisor for president Nixon thought they could win votes in the south via southerners racism of blacks voting democrat.

But here’s the thing

IT DIDN’T WORK.

The first time the GOP carried the south for the house was what 1992? The senate didn’t go majority red until 1994? State delegations are still blue in some states, with some states finally going red in…. 2010.

So your blessed ms NBC version of racism is WRONG

THE SOUTHERN STRATEGY DIDNT WORK. At worst it was a northern hack assuming things about GOP voters.

Or maybe you could show me the majority GOP votes in ’74, ’76, etc???

Lol you even fail basic history

pamplonajack

Which is why the head of the RNC apologized to the NAACP in 2005 for using race-baiting to win elections in the South.

lostmotherland on May 10, 2012 at 11:03 AM

mittens is not only a milquetoast dog-hating flip-flopping democrat…but he’s an anti-gay bully…more reasons not to like him.

dump the mitt now!

Pragmatic on May 10, 2012 at 11:03 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3