You are hereBlogs / Suzi LeVeaux's blog / Romney the Shape Shifter

Romney the Shape Shifter


By Suzi LeVeaux - Posted on 15 April 2012

Obviously, the 2012 Mitt Romney platform plays to the conservatives to win the Republican nomination, while Mitt Romney's earlier platform played to the liberals in Massachusetts to try to unseat Senator Edward Kennedy. In fact, Mitt Romney's earlier platform was actually more liberal than Kennedy's liberal platform.  Here are but a few examples:


Mitt Romney on Abortion:

1994: "Abortion should be safe and legal in this country."
2002:
“Let me make this very clear, I will preserve and protect a woman’s right to
           choose.”

2011: "I believe people understand that I'm firmly pro-life."

Mitt Romney on Homosexual Marriage:

1994: “As we seek to establish full equality [for gays], I will provide more effective
           leadership than my opponent, [Edward Kennedy]".

2011: “I believe we should have a federal amendment to the Constitution that defines
         marriage as between a man and a woman.”


Mitt Romney on Homosexuality in the Military:

1994: "[I support] gays and lesbians being able to serve openly and honestly."
2007: "‘Don’t ask, don’t tell’ has worked well... We’re in the middle of a conflict. Now is
           not the time for a change in that regard, and I don’t have a policy posture as to
           allowing gays in the military to serve there openly."


Mitt Romney on Healthcare:

2007: “I’m proud of what we’ve done... If Massachusetts succeeds in implementing it, then
          that will be a model for the nation.”

2011: "What works in one state may not be the answer for another."

Mitt Romney on Immigration:

2006: "[I am against] rounding up 11 million people and forcing them at gunpoint from
          our country."

2008: "I disagree fundamentally that the 12 million people who come here illegally should
          be allowed to stay here permanently. I think that is a form of amnesty and that it's
          not appropriate."


Mitt Romney on Campaign Finance Reform:

1994: "I would like to have campaign spending limits."
2007: "The American people should be free to advocate for their candidates and their
           positions without burdensome limitations."

Mitt Romney has taken many positions on every issue.   How would anyone know what they are voting for if they vote for Romney?  Will the real Mitt Romney please stand up.......

 
If elected, which Romney do we get? Conservatives don't trust him, liberals don't trust him, and he lies whenever his lips are moving.
 
He is the biggest phony in politics that have come across in a long time.

.

I do not see much difference between Obama and Romney and this you tube will plainly show you ...

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWDJEc92d38

Advisor says Romney's public views don't reflect what he privately believes

In a Wall Street Journal op-ed piece on Thursday, the veteran conservative journalist Fred Barnes offered Mitt Romney some advice for improving his campaign, including the sensible (and one might also say humane) suggestion that on immigration, the presumptive nominee “would be wise to move away from his harsh position in the primaries.” Then Barnes included this fascinating sentence: “According to a Romney adviser, his private view of immigration isn’t as anti-immigrant as he often sounded.”

What exactly does that mean? Does it mean Romney said things that he doesn’t really believe? What are we supposed to make of a candidate who takes certain public positions to court one group of voters — and then tries to reassure an entirely different group of voters by leaking the fact that he doesn’t really believe what he said to win votes from the first group? .... (Source)

 

Hi guys. Massachusetts Dem here (Former Republican). This is my first post, so go easy on me... J/K.

When "Flip" Romney was governor up here, he "shape shifted" more than that guy on Star Trek. I learned not to believe much of what he said, because not only did he change positions all the time, he eventually lost interest in governing the state when he decided to run for President 6 years ago (in actuality, he's been running for President since he was Governor).

I see someone like this and it scares me somewhat, because I'm not sure he even knows why he wants to be President other than he's done everything else in his life, so why not?

So, in order to get elected, he'll now have to vacillate between the center to attract moderates who don't trust him, and the far right to get the votes of the evangelicals and social conservatives.

My thoughts: Tim Pawlenty would have made a WAY better candidate than "Flip" and he has the credentials that appeal to the right. Moreover, his positions don't change depending upon which way the political winds blow.

Do I like Pawlenty's positions? No. But I respect him for having the conviction to stand by them and not try to placate people just to win an election.

I was a Republican back when the party stood for things like working together to make the country strong, taking responsibility for your actions, and the message was "you can achieve anything if you're willing to work." Sadly, those values were last sen in the White House during Bush 41's sole term, and they're not likely to be seen again anytime soon.

 

The guy must confuse homself with all his positions and flip flops! Funny to look at Romney's comments just 3 months ago as we hear him defending women who choose to stay home with their children. I guess poor women raising children is not work in his world. Wow-this guy is an idiot!!! check this out from TPM: Mitt Romney and his campaign have been on the offensive for days, attacking Democrats and President Obama for not respecting motherhood as work. Sparked by comments made by Democratic strategist Hilary Rosen suggesting Ann Romney might not be the most qualified expert on women’s economic woes because she’s “never worked a day in her life,” the Romney campaign seized on the opening to accuse the Democrats of waging a “war on moms.” But the attacks don’t gibe with comments Romney made just three months ago on the campaign trail. In January, Romney touted his proposal as governor of Massachusetts to raise the amount of work required of parents on welfare so that they could “have the dignity of work.” The comment was uncovered and aired on MSNBC’s “Up w/Chris Hayes,” Sunday morning. “I wanted to increase the work requirement,” said Romney in New Hampshire. “I said, for instance, that even if you have a child 2 years of age, you need to go to work. And people said, ‘Well that’s heartless.’ And I said, ‘No, no, I’m willing to spend more giving day care to allow those parents to go back to work. It’ll cost the state more providing that daycare, but I want the individuals to have the dignity of work.’” But it was this very idea, that raising children is not “work,” that started the Romney campaign’s “war on moms” attack against Democrats this week. Immediately following Rosen’s comments on CNN Wednesday night, the Romney campaign kicked into high gear attacking Rosen and defending motherhood as “hard work.”

It appears the Willard Romney etch-a-sketch is already at work, and has been for some time.

I just don't see how anyone could vote for this guy, not knowing in any way what they would be getting (I realize the bubbas probably don't care about that, just as long as the guy has an [R] behind his name).

Link from TPM. Romney plans caught on open mic. A few things stand out:

-He is willing to gut important programs or agencies

-He clearly has no serious way to pay for his big tax cuts (he thinks a tax on 2nd homes for the wealthy will do it??)

Mitt Romney has made it very clear he wants to keep it vague on the campaign trail when it comes to the way he’ll change how the American government looks. The politics of actually saying what he plans to do are just to dangerous for him to speak in anything else but gauzy language, he’s said.

That’s the standard for the general electorate, anyway. Romney’s big-time donors, however, are another story. Two reporters on the trail with Romney over the weekend overheard Romney detailing his vision for eliminating the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and dramatically trimming the Department of Education — specific proposals he’s yet to unveil on the trail.

His campaign predictably tried to put the genie back in the bottle.

Here’s Romney talking specific government cuts at a Sunday evening high-dollar fundraiser in Palm Beach, Fla., via NBC News:

“I’m going to take a lot of departments in Washington, and agencies, and combine them. Some eliminate, but I’m probably not going to lay out just exactly which ones are going to go,” Romney said. “Things like Housing and Urban Development, which my dad was head of, that might not be around later. But I’m not going to actually go through these one by one. What I can tell you is, we’ve got far too many bureaucrats. I will send a lot of what happens in Washington back to the states.”

Eliminating HUD appeals to the conservative base Romney’s trying to consolidate after all-but-sewing up the nomination last week. But when it comes to the Department of Education — a favorite target of the right, who want it gone — Romney said he’s not prepared to go all the way:

The Department of Education: I will either consolidate with another agency, or perhaps make it a heck of a lot smaller. I’m not going to get rid of it entirely,” Romney said, explaining that part of his reasoning behind preserving the agency was to maintain a federal role in pushing back against teachers’ unions.

As Romney noted, according to NBC, calling for an end to the Education Department is “politically volatile.” Romney tried it back during his 1994 Senate run against the late Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA), and it didn’t go over well with the blue state electorate. Just a couple weeks ago Romney used this exact same anecdote to explain why he was avoiding the kind of specificity he outlined to the wealthy audience in Florida.

“One of the things I found in a short campaign against Ted Kennedy was that when I said, for instance, that I wanted to eliminate the Department of Education, that was used to suggest I don’t care about education,” Romney told the Weekly Standard in March.

“I think it’s important for me to point out that I anticipate that there will be departments and agencies that will either be eliminated or combined with other agencies.” Romney singled out housing vouchers as one place where he would make significant changes, but kept it purposely vague when it came to how he plans to chop the Cabinet. “Will there be some that get eliminated or combined?” he said. “The answer is yes, but I’m not going to give you a list right now.”

Romney also named names on changes to the tax code he’d propose. A Wall Street Journal reporter outside the Palm Beach fundraiser overheard him proposing the elimination of mortgage deductions for second homes, as well as other changes aimed primarily at the wealthy. That new money would be used to pay for Romney’s tax-cut plan.

Both the proposals themselves — and the fact that he revealed them to wealthy donors after keeping the public in the dark — will provide fodder for Democrats. It was little surprise, then, that Romney’s campaign quickly dismissed reports from the fundraiser.

“He was tossing ideas out, not unveiling policy,” a Romney spokesperson told CNN.

Republican -- Not A Good Thing

Featuring Mitt Romney's blatant discomfort with a Republican label and repeatedly disrespecting the GOP

As a Bishop in his church, Romney actually went to a congregant’s hospital room and told a young single mother, Peggy Hayes, who had just given birth that she was shaming the church and should give her baby away.

 

 

That's classy!

President Barack Obama:

Welcome to the newly created “Socialist States of America”

A LAND WHERE:

POVERTY IS REWARDED: Obama is actively creating a populace ever more slavishly dependent on the federal government.

SUCCESS IS PUNISHED: The president has openly declared war on those who have worked hard all their lives to achieve the American dream.

OUR WORST ENEMIES ARE PRAISED, BUT OUR ALLIES STIFFED: He treats radical Islamists in the Middle East like friends, then stiffs Israel and our western European allies.

THE MILITARY IS USED AS A PAWN: While Obama used proud Navy SEALS for a publicity stunt, the overall strength of the military has been decimated.

OUR BORDER DESCENDS INTO CHAOS: While we weaponize the border, Obama attacks states for enforcing immigration laws.

AND CORPORATIONS AND CRONIES MAKE OFF WITH ALL THE WEALTH

For more, read the book, “Trickle Down Tyranny” written by Dr. Michael Savage

http://www.michaelsavage.wnd.com/

While Obama used proud Navy SEALS for a publicity stunt

This is what the far-right has resorted to to describe the courageous decision to take down Osama bin Ladin? To finally bring a sense of justice and peace to the victims of 9/11? Ask the families of those who perished on 9/11 if this was a publicity stunt and whether they give President Obama respect and credit for this bold decision. Or do they thank Bush for abandoning bin Laden when he had a chance to take him down?  Well, we don't need to see more. That one quote tells us everything we need to know and speaks to just how unpatriotic these folks are. I think saying things like this or refusing to give credit to the President for an achievement every sane person agrees on is their biggest mistake because it reveals the pure hatred they feel for our Commander in Chief. Very revealing, desperate, misguided and sad post.

Unfortunately, this site is going to be getting more and more "loonies" as it gets closer to the election. Anyone who describes getting Bin Laden as a "publicity stunt" can only be one of two things: an unpatriotic American, or a foreigner. Even most foreigners would not use those terms to describe finally bringing to justice our country's number one enemy.

That post had the look of a paid troll.  It's best not to feed them.

Any "Republican" for Obama needs to ask themselves which is more troubling. 1.Romney's "evolving" positions over 40 years; or 2. a president that holds opposing views simultaneously??  The gap between Obama's words and actions knows no bounds.  Most currently, energy, immigration, gay marriage, debt reduction, and Israel top his list of duplicity.  It's stunning to me that with the complicity of the media, Obama's true intentions remain hidden from so many.  His vision for the future: EXACTLY the same as the last 3 years.  Massive deficit spending, exploding social programs, wars on the "rich" and fossil fuels, $$$$$billions siphoned off to "green" boondoggles, closer associations with mediamatters, color of change, unions, etc., amnesty, devaluation of the dollar, job-killing regulations, and unelected bureaucrats controlling EVERY activity of life.  Obama talks boldly of the need to invest in infratructure, education, and "green" energy to have growth for the future. Not just that it sounds exactly like the stimulus, but it's clear he intends for government to control the "investments". He has spent $6 trillion above revenues in 3 years and has the worst record of economic development in history.  Education spending increased 64% under Bush, another 18% to $70 billion under Obama plus another $168 from the stimulus and directed appropriations.  Results: in LA only 15% of high school graduates are qualified for college, in TN only 22% test at grade level.  Money is not the problem, it's the students growing up in a culture where single parent households are the norm and failure is an acceptable option.  Has there ever been an administration that places national ads to recruit for food stamps, offers free legal assistance for illegals and encourages an entitlement mentality and divisiveness?  Obama is aggressively increasing the numbers of those to be enslaved and dependent on government.  His demonization of Romney for being financially successful should alert everyone. First by the absurdity of criticizing success and secondly by Obama's clear preference to have the maximum amount of capital in the hands of government for "investment" and "distribution". Anyone who thinks Obama and bureaucrats have the wisdom and integrity to control the economy must get all of their news from Msnbc. Romney's biggest negative is the albatross of the Republican Party.  I ask anyone supporting Obama to study the history of nations where the government controlled and distributed resources.  You will not find a hint of "fairness" or prosperity.  Wake Up. The 2012 election is the last chance for liberty.

 I have, since the rise of Newt Gingrich in the 1990s, marveled at this Republican party's ability to elevate dishonesty, duplicity, and MSU (Making ummm.... Stuff... Up) to virtues equivalent to patriotism.  They have mastered the ability "to change the reality" along with the muster to intimidate the mainstream media (now variously "liberal press" or in Palin's childish term "lame stream media"-- although I think she has a point in terms of their courage) into giving the  GOP a pass on practically everything, including willful fiction, in the name of "equal time" or "fairness."

>John Kerry was a decorated Vietnam war hero (undisputed documentation)
GOP counterpoint: He was a traitor... no evidence.

>Affordable Care Act: Has ZERO end of life mandates
GOP/Tea Party counterpoint (reported in press as OPINION): "Death Panels" (Palin), It will "pull the Plug on Grandma" (Sen Grassley, R of Iowa)

> All of the above on Romney.

I don't often quote Bill Maher, but he nailed it when, in his disgust at the complicity and laziness of the so-called professional media in giving credence to right wing nonsense, he said,

"You don't have to give equal time to both sides when one side is total bullsh%t."

 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-talk-huppke-obit-facts-20120419,0,809470.story

Tom:

Just for you.  Tongue-in-cheek "obituary" for facts.  For a sample:

"To the shock of most sentient beings, Facts died Wednesday, April 18, after a long battle for relevancy with the 24-hour news cycle, blogs and the Internet. Though few expected Facts to pull out of its years-long downward spiral, the official cause of death was from injuries suffered last week when Florida Republican Rep. Allen West steadfastly declared that as many as 81 of his fellow members of theU.S. House of Representatives are communists.

Facts held on for several days after that assault — brought on without a scrap of evidence or reason — before expiring peacefully at its home in a high school physics book. Facts was 2,372."


 

Amazing the brainwashing which occurs by the far-right and the above post is an example. I know because I used to be one of brainwashed, even buying into some of the Clinton conspiracies while ignoring the strengthened economy under the Clinton's presidency. Clinton was also called a "tax and spent liberal" but somehow his policies just happened to inspire growth, unlike the deregulation and massive unpaid-for tax cuts of the Bush administration which created the terrible market crash, consequences which Pres. Obama still has to deal with. Research shows that trickle down economics just doesn't work. Please tell me how many jobs Romney created this year thanks to his generous rate and tax cuts. Their argument is that people like Romney are "job creators." Evidence paints a different, much more sobering picture. It's not about class warfare. It's about basic fairness. If the Ryan plan had even slight tax increases on the wealthy, they might have some credibility as being serious. But tax CUTS for the rich in their plans while screwing the poor and middle class? They aren't even pretending to fight for the middle class anymore. It's standing up for the 1% all the time. Krugman pointed out long ago that austerity just doesn't work. We should have had a larger stimulus. Other nations who cut, cut, cut when they should have invested are now seeing the failure of austerity. President Obama did make some mistakes in his presidency trying to "meet in the middle" (giving in to smaller stimulus than we needed, not fighting for the public option, renewing the Bush tax cuts, etc.) Not that he had much choice with the "just say no" Republicans. But I think he's learned his lesson and will be much more assertive and on offense in a second term. Republicans know this-and they know those policies will work and prove the Republican way wrong once and for all when the economy bounces back via "liberal policies"-and they are scared to death of that. So they will continue to demonize President Obama (and send messages out like the one above.) The truth is that if Romney wins, we'll need to brace for a return of the failed Bush policies and will see our middle class erode and the poor suffer the most as the safety nets disappear. But at least the fat cats will be happy with no regulation and even lower taxes. Now that's scary!

Fantastic write up! Romney the shape shifter is very complicated topic. Thanks a lot! @ Felix Investment

I am really beginning to think that Romney hinges on the border of mental illness. He displays some signs of narcissism and delusion. How can he honestly take credit for the Auto bailout??  !! lol----- I mean like really?? Is he serious??? He stood there with a straight face and commented that he takes credit for the bailout!! Lol-------- even when there is evidence that he outright lied, he still holds firm to his twisted lies!!--- As far as the bullying, I usually don’t hold people to what they did as teenagers and kids but these behaviors are early signs of what has turned out to be a reflection of his COLD demeanor. His apology seems so manufactured and unauthentic!!  I can tell now that Romney is not able to answer spontaneous questions regarding a whole host of issues that a President has to deal with. The only way Romney can function in a debate is if it is scripted. If he is veered from his scripted path, his lack of comprehensive knowledge regarding social issues (gay rights, women’s rights, Domestic abuse laws, contraception, Medicare, Social security), foreign policy, strategies regarding a national debt/ Economy, the handling of Iran, North Korea and the Israeli/Palestine issue are completely none and void.

 

He does not demonstrate a real conviction for anything. He talks about how Obama cannot run on his record; Well what about his record as Governor???--- Why is he running away from his record as a Governor?? I have not heard not one iota of what he did as Governor which would reflect on his ability to govern as a President!! --- He shies away from his record as a Governor because he does not want the light to be shined on his imperfect governing; I am sure there are lots of holes that could be dissected and exploited as to how many errors were made in his Governorship despite his positive aspect as Governor. He wants to run on his ability as a multimillionaire. He talks a lot about cutting the budget, cutting Medicaid, cutting family planning, increasing the military budget, avoiding raising taxes on the Millionaires, getting rid of/ Repealing Healthcare, demolishing  the department of education, He has no plans on how to deal with immigration and the list goes on!!-- Here we have an egomaniac who wants to take the Office so he can restore the “Good ole boys club” (He has not said anything to date that would indicate a diverse mindset in Governing).  The perception of this election is the restoration of the “Good ole boys club” and the Empowerment of the states to impose on people’s social rights by subtle signals of theocracy!!

 

I am getting the impression that as the general election gets closer, the “Right” will protect Romney fiercely because President Obama would rip him to pieces if they were in a spontaneous debate!! Romney would not know his head from his tail if Obama would go head to head with him. However, to save Romney the embarrassment, his campaign will make sure the debates are carefully scripted and no spur of the moment questions are asked lol ----he will be placed in his protected cocoon where only certain questions are presented to him. I am sure his campaign people are prepping him for this tough debate ahead on a wide range of issues!! lol

Source: Forbes

While this behavior is completely offensive, I don’t believe that one’s actions in high school—some forty-eight years in the past— should be a disqualifying event for someone running for public office or that the behavior provides any real evidence of a character flaw in the man as he is today. We all, hopefully, change and learn as we age and there are more than a couple of high school jerks I knew who grew up to be solid citizens.

But do you know what does reveal some serious character issues?

Laughing it off when confronted with one’s participation in a case of teen bullying.

 

May 10th

Inappropriate laughter calls Romney sincerity into question

Anyone who has suffered bullying never forgets. It scars and damages. The other thing that people who know they have done wrong, don't snicker and remember and show remorse. He didn't care and his snicker tells us that. It's nervous, guilty laughter. He is a sociopath. Referring to him as "out of touch" is no longer appropriate. This assault was the missing puzzle piece that that made all the other stories, gestures, statements bewildering and incomplete.

Romney wants this position of power for reasons that should terrify everyone. Even Republicans know there will be dangerous consequences if he were ever elected. I'm predicting there will be more stories to come and this is just the beginning. We now know this guy is a liar and bully.

I am picking up some strange vibes from Romney. It appears he has some deep seeded issues he needs to work out with himself. In the mean time keep this man away from the White House.

 As a possible reflection of character I am  more concerned with Romney leading a nearly blind teacher into a glass door and then laughing with his buddies than I am about the hair cutting assault.  There would have been no cultural re-enforcement from  adult males for humiliating a blind teacher. As for teaching the first long-haired boy in school  a lesson he'll never forget, that's another matter.

I am Romney's age. Never mind rich kid privilege. In 1963-1965, the first boy to wear his hair long in a predominantly white high school or middle school was a marked man -- upper class prep school, middle class, lower class -- cities, suburbs.

The hateful derisions were everywhere: "Get a haircut, homo." "You look like a girl." "Five minutes in an army barracks would straighten him out," "Seriously, what is WRONG with that kid?" -- and they were not necessarily originating in the boys' bathrooms or gym lockers.  That stuff was coming  from the guys in the bars, the local  country clubs, the hunting lodges, the (all-boys, of course) little league coaches, back yard barbeques (husbands presiding as expected of them) and dads across America -- to say nothing of the neighborhood barbershop where   dads and sons gathered for the father-son bonding ritual of the weekend haircut; you can bet the subject of long-haired boys came up there.  Throw in the visual association of anti-Vietnam war movement with "long-haired hippies,"  and you've got a case for long-hair = hate America to boot. And this stuff was not just coming from the Goldwater wing of the Republican party -- it was all over the friggin place.

Men with long hair jokes on the Bob Hope tv specials and stand up routines on the Ed Sullivan show, although not overtly cruel, re-enforced the darker message of the alien in our midst.

Seventeen year old boys will do stupid things to impress girls, but they will do even stupider things to win the approval of male adults they admire and whose approval they seek in stumbling  their way to manhood.  The young Romney is quoted as saying the student he  targeted "doesn't belong here."  That sounds to me like a young man, a designated "future leader of men," channeling a thread from male authority figures around him --  not necessarily his own dad, but ask any 17 year old boy if he isn't taking in messages from lots  of men that he knows, sees,  hears about, and looks up to.

Obviously I do not know Romney or his case... but I know that the only physical fight i have ever been in my life was joining three of my terrified 10th grade friends in protecting, yes, "the first boy in our school to wear his hair long" from getting his hair cut during his gym  shower from some members of the football team who brought  scissors into the locker room during our gym class under the pretext of working out or some such.  Our own surprisingly effective "interference," the levelling effect of a wet tile shower floor (naked football players  sloshing around unable to stand up aren't as tough as they are on the playing field), and a quick arrival from a gym teacher prevented any injury or humiliation -- just a surprisingly even distribution of bruises from everybody slipping and crashing on the wet floor trying to have a fight.

No one was punished. I was not surprised.  I did not have the words for it then, but intuitively I knew. These were the enforcers of the sacred law of the "clean cut" young man. They were technically over the line, but they were upholding some seriously held adult values.

I am willing to wager that Romney felt something like this... and somewhere inside the "prankster," the future leader of men felt -- with good reason and justification -- he was doing what was expected of him.

Besides, Romney gives me about three new reasons a week to think he is sewage as a leader.
I don't need anything prior to 2000,

 

We all go thru stages of development as young people whether we were born in the forties or the 1990's. Of course I was not born in the 1990's lol hahaha--- Girls can equally bully just as boys can bully. I have always been an independent thinker and never cared to follow the crowd. I could have bullied other kids because I had plenty of opportunities to do so, but my conscience as a teenager would not allow me to directly bully another person. I do realize that kids play pranks on each other, but it is "Not okay" be it in the 1960's or the 2012. My family would have to deal with my wrath if I thought they were going to bully other kids lol --- What I have noticed growing up, kids who were wealthy or upper middle class were expected to dominate other kids simply by virtue of their social status. WHY? Because it was permitted of them because they were viewed as "special" : it was the "survival of the fittest mentality" at play. Experts reveal that kids who bully come from homes where bullying were modeled; their family structure was too lenient, lack of supervision by parents, some exposure to acceptable levels of violence and some kids use bullying as a way to enhance their social power and protect their prestige with peers.

I know plenty of childhood bullies who are not renowned world leaders lol --- The perception is that when you are rich, the bullying behavior is a type of "strength" but when you are poor and bullying, then it is perceived as "Violence". So I guess it depends on where the axes swing to. I will agree that it is pervasive in our society for those with the most to prey on those with the least. It seems like Mr. Romney has not moved to the next stage of development (Erickson Stages of Development lol), because he still hungers control lol---- somehow with all his leadership capacities, he does not carry the human quality to empower others. He influences others by control and not thru positive motivation. Look at Romney's leadership style verses President Obama's leadership style. I wonder how it would have been perceived if news came out and said that President Obama (beat up another kid, cut off his hair and continued to torment him??), it surely would not reflect leadership lol hahaha; that type of behavior would make president Obama look like a maladaptive person if he was accused of the same thing lol---- However, society rewards those who are rich with bad behavior and punishes the poor with bad behavior. I don’t know Mr Romney neither, but so far, he seems like he has issues with “humility”. It is difficult for him to demonstrate modesty, meekness and openness!!  I guess after 40 years of lying, being phony, controlling; it is very difficult to be open, and genuine lol--- Well that's my take on that lol hahaha

I don't disagree with any of the princples you are asserting. I certainly don't think Romney's hair cut assault on the kid was "ok" in any way.  The rightness or wrongness of his action may not be different from decade to decade  but young white men with long hair brought strong reactions from the adult male world, including males in all manner of authority, during a limited,  discernible period of time in the US.

In terms of potential revelation of character, a group of 17 year old boys forcibly cutting the long hair off a peer was simply a different political and social act in 1963 than it would be today.

As for sending a blind teacher into a wall for one's amusement... that totally creeps me out, be it 1963 or next Thursday

I raised a son (now an adult) and remember him and his guy friends at age 17 very well.  Most of our close friends have raised one or more sons past high school. These boys were not all 24/7 angels by any stretch. But if any of them had been lying  in wait after class to  torture and humiliate a teacher for their amusement, to say nothing of a disabled teacher, there would have been shock waves in our small town.

I don't excuse or accept the 1963 hair cutting incident, but I "get it." I know where it comes from. The tormenting of the blind teacher... blows my g^^d^^n mind.

Tom I totally agree with you that long hair was not popular during that time; therefore, it was not uncommon for people to make negative stereotypes of people with long hair so "I get it" too. I am sure being Gay, Fat, African American and Female was a struggle in the early sixties but I am more focused on the principle of bullying rather than which bullying behavior is more redeemable. I fit into at least two (maybe three with the weight lol) of those stereotypes that I mentioned above and dealing with other people’s distorted stereotype and perception can have a significant impact on a person’s life.  I do understand your reasoning for someone who is disable should be a complete hands off with mocking; however, what we have learned thru greater enlightment throughout the years is that bullying and stereotyping can be very profound to the individual being targeted whether they are physically disabled or not. Unfortunately, bullying has the ability to mentally and emotionally paralyze a person. However, you must be my alter ego because I am beginning to like this dichotomy in our philosophies lol hahaha chow lol

Yeah, I am starting to like our "heated agreements" too. Who'd uh thunk it?  :-).

Great cartoon analogy to social programs! I went to a Catholic school and remember that some the richer kids, especially those whose parents were lawyers, seemed to get away with bullying more than the average kid. I was always raised to see good in everyone and tried to be friends with all types in high school-did not just hang out with one clique. I think my parents regretted their lesson to me when they saw some of the boyfriends I dated (really thought I could change those bad boys...lol.) I almost got myself beat up by the toughest girl in school when I stood up for a boy she was picking on. So I just can't identify with Mitt's mean-spirited behavior. But I agree with Tom that, while the haircutting incident was most disturbing, the "prank" against his blind teacher was even more sickening. As a special ed teacher, I have little tolerance for such heartless behavior against our most vulnerable. How can polls in this race be so close? You are right Misty-we can't let this guy anywhere near the White House!

How can polls in this race be so close?

The country is divided. Both candidates are fighting over the 5 percent who will determine the winner.

http://theweek.com/article/index/227698/mitt-romneys-1981-arrest-and-4-other-times-he-lost-his-cool

 

Here again we have an article regarding Mitt Romney’s character. I guess we have to take  it with a grain of salt but these red flags and subtle indicators speaks to some portion of Romney’s personality. NOTE how Romney gets flustered when he is asked direct questions from reporters because somehow the reporters should only ask questions that he favors lol--- When he is presented with questions that he doesn’t like, then he seems to take the questions as a personal attack on himself instead of dealing with it as a policy issue, or insight into his worldview. Romney comes across as if he is irreproachable on his public record as Governor and a Businessman. He claims there is a referendum on the President; therefore, when Romney’s economic record comes into question, he accuses the Obama team of attempting to distract from the failing economy by highlighting his decision making skills on the economy as a leader. The Romney campaign claims that the Obama team is out to paint him as a bad person and attack his character instead of his record. (Here he goes crying wolf lol ).

 

Romney wants to keep the spotlight on the President while he goes unscathed on his record. Romney is proving to be cleverer than we think! Lol---- since Romney wants to be President then he has to be transparent regarding his record as Governor!!! Shessssh this guy thinks he can talk a good game rather than show his record!! lol

I like it if it helps him lose. 

Since the Romney campaign is so eager to hide incidents of the guy blowing up, one might hope or think the DNC/White House communications staff  would have all their pundits, strategists, columnists slipping in  the phrase "Romney and that famous temper of his" every chance they get.  If democratic strategists or pundits get on CNN, MSNBC, (and even the token liberals that appear on FoxNews occasionally), as well as  the Sunday network shows and persist in referring  to "that famous temper of Romney's," Romney's  temper will be famous by June 1.

Obama can win a "leadership temperment" press and image battle with Romney, but Democrats would have to make it a campaign issue and get it into the news cycles. Romney's camp isn't going to for the very reasons you point out.

 

This post is a precise, concise presentation of the fatal flaw in Willard. He cannot or will not sustain a principled position. Extensive and increasing evidence shows that he will reverse himself when and wherever he thinks it is advantageous to do so. This is not normal political spin which tries to put things in the best light. This is cylonic twisting that tries to be all things to all people if there is a perceived chance to make traction toward the magical 50.1%.

That standard also shows the poverty of Willard's aspiration. He does not want to lead a rising chorus of unity toward has ever changing vision. He merely wants to squeak by and virtually sneak into the presidency.

In my opinion, Willard is the most duplicitous and unprincipled person to seek the presidency since Aaron Burr gave up the ghost.

 

Follow RFO:

TwitterCafe PressFacebook

RSS

 

 

RFO Gear

Subscribe to General RFO Newsletter

General news and announcements for republicansforobama.org. We will never share or sell your email address.