During a Presidential campaign, the reason we want to hear about the past experiences of the candidate, is not to learn about their positions on policies. We can learn that from web sites, and voting records. When a candidate ties Seamus to the top of his car and drives 60 mph down the highway we care. We care not because it demonstrates the policies of Mitt Romney about cruelty to animals,
but it teaches us about his character.
When we learned about the elevator for his car to be built in his vacation home, we were not interested in his position on building codes, but instead it conveyed an attitude about spending money, and his character.
When Romney said that he learned all he needed to know from his wife about women’s concerns pertaining to economic issues, we were disappointed. The problem was not that his wife made the decision to stay at home to raise her five children. The problem was that the statement demonstrated that Romney was out of touch with the average American family. Most American mothers work outside the home and worry about the cost of putting food on the table rather than the cost of automobile elevators in their vacation homes.
The disclosure about Mitt Romney’s attack on a gay student in high school, confirms what we already knew about his attitudes regarding homosexuality. We already knew that Sheriff Paul Babeu was forced to resign from his position as the Arizona co-chair of Romney’s campaign because he was gay. We already know about Richard Grenell’s resignation as the expert on foreign policy to Romney’s campaign.
His resignation was not prompted by any position taken on foreign policy, but simply because he was gay. We already knew that Romney thinks homosexuality is “perverse.” .
It was an omen when Mitt Romney appointed Robert Bork as the chairman of his Justice Advisory Committee.
The “advisor,” most trusted by Mitt Romney, to assist in the appointment of U.S. Supreme Court Justices, is someone so extreme in his willingness to restrict civil rights that he was not approved by Republican and Democrats in Congress. We know that Bork is in favor of a constitutional Amendment preventing homosexual marriages.
The story of Romney planning and leading an attack on a gay student in high school conveys all we need to know about his character. Romney didn’t deny the incident happened, but simply said he didn’t remember it. Either he was lying, or the incident was so inconsequential to Romney that it wasn’t worthy of note. Either way the act, and his remarks yesterday were equally unforgivable. When Romney apologized for the incident, his explanation was that high school kids do “dumb things.”
I know about dumb things high school kids do. Dumb things I remember included toilet papering a house. There was the cat we were dissecting in physiology class whose ear was pierced and then adorned with earrings. That was dumb. When my brother mooned the man making pizza behind the 8 x 8 plate glass window by pressing his naked backside against the plate glass window, most people would agree that was pretty dumb. The really dumb thing was that when the butt of my brother and his friend pushed a little too hard on the over-sized glass window, it shattered. Fortunately nobody was hurt by the shards of glass that fell on the sidewalk as they ran away as fast as they could, with their pants around their ankles. Those were high school “pranks”. They were not personal, physical attacks on a student because of his sexual preferences. In hindsight, we look back on high school “pranks” as being rather stupid,… but funny. What Mitt Romney did was neither stupid or funny. At the time, and in hindsight, it was an unforgivable attack of a fellow human being. The attack was frightening because it was an example of just how far Mitt Romney was willing to go to impose his will on others.
The attack on the student by Mitt Romney would be best described as a hate crime. The student didn’t lose his life, but lost his dignity. Cutting the hair of that gay student may not have been physically injurious, but it did permanently injure that person’s sense of safety and security. Mitt Romney didn’t just participate in the attack, but was the organizer and leader. He was the one who cut the boy’s hair, and the scissors came from his pocket. The assault was pre-meditated. Words are insufficient to convey the outrage we feel when one American assaults another because of his race, religion, or sexual preferences. We call it a “terrorist attack” when our sense of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are put in jeopardy. Phillip Maxwell, now an attorney, witnessed the attack in high school and called it “bullying supreme.” He hasn’t forgotten this incident, even though he only observed it, but didn’t participate in it. Mr. Maxwell said:
“When I saw the look on his [Lauber's] face, it was a look I’ll never forget,” … “When you see a victim, the sense of trust betrayed in this boy who was perfectly innocent for being different.”
Contrast Mr. Maxwell’s account to that of Romney. Romney said that IF anyone was offended, he apologized. It was as if Romney couldn’t imagine, even today, that anyone might find this behavior offensive. Romney’s vicious attack on this high school student was outrageous. His remarks yesterday were equally outrageous. Mitt Romney is 65 years old, but he still hasn’t learned the lessons he should have learned in High School. IF anyone wondered whether Romney learned his lesson in High School, we were convinced after his remarks yesterday that he did not. Mr. Maxwell, who didn’t participate in this act of hatred, learned a valuable lesson, and remembers to this day the look on the innocent boy’s face. Mitt Romney can’t even remember committing the heinous act.