I am sure almost everyone reading this remembers the infamous Bill Clinton quote, “I did not have sexual relations with that woman.”
From what I remember, Clinton was quite comfortable providing that statement because he felt the manner in which he and Monica Lewinsky enjoyed each other intimately could not be described as sexual relations in the strictest sense.
There are many teenagers who feel that any foreplay that does not progress to sexual intercourse cannot be categorized as sexual relations. I beg to differ – I believe, without going into explicit detail in this blog that a variety of activity can fall into the “area” of sexual relations. I would also include foreplay as falling into that broad category.
So, let’s move on to Mitt – because the actions he is being accused of are, to me, much worse that what Bill Clinton was accused of with Monica Lewinsky.
Most people, who have read various accounts of how Mitt and a group of his friends chased down a boy they presumed to be gay and where Mitt repeatedly clipped his hair with a pair of scissors, might respond with a “yawn.” It is believed that the young boy, John Lauber, was singled out because he was believed to be gay and in addition he had bleached blond hair. Unfortunately, John died of liver cancer in 2004 and as a result cannot be called upon to verify the accuracy of the story – but others have come forward to confirm the basics of the story. How is it that so many can remember the incident but Mitt “Scissorhands” Romney, the one who gave John the haircut can “conveniently” forget?
Romney, himself, admits to participating in high school pranks that MAY have hurt others. I am sure it is easy for Romney to write off his activities as simple “pranks.” Unfortunately, others who were on the receiving end weren’t so fortunate because they were the ones being bullied and for them I am sure they weren’t pleasant memories.
So, how is it that Mitt can acknowledge being involved in so many pranks but has a problem remembering being involved in one that falls in the “bullying” category and also appears to have been carried out on a person perceived to have been gay?
I believe it is because bullying is such a hot button and the whole issue surrounding LGBT issues is currently drawing so much attention that it would reflect unfavorably on Mitt’s campaign – even though these incidents happened roughly 45 years ago.
Maybe Mitt was personally involved in so many bullying incidents he is having a problem sorting them all out and cannot focus in on one specific bullying incident.
A kid of more modest means doing things like Mitt is being accused of would be considered a punk or a wise guy, but not a rich kid like Mitt – he would be someone just committing an innocent prank – after all, boys will be boys.
I am three years older than Mitt and I can assure everyone reading this that I would surely remember chasing down and tackling someone down and cutting his bleached blond hair with scissors. I would also man up and admit it – even if I were running for president.
Considering that he has already said that he participated in different high school pranks I think he would be respected more if he simply fessed up for what he is being accused of – if in fact that he really cut the boys hair.
If he did not do what he is accused of, then why issue a blanket apology? That would be ridiculous. It is pathetic of Mitt to say that he cannot remember but just in case he wants to apologize for forgetting.
Is Mitt already showing signs of dementia? If so, maybe the Republicans might want to nominate someone else before the convention.
My guess is that he does not want to be accused of being against gays no matter how long ago it was. Considering the current anger being directed at bullies and bullying, he might be seen as someone who cannot be trusted to represent all Americans equally.
For anyone who thinks I am crazy for saying that cutting someone’s hair is worse than being accused of having sexual relations with someone, I would like to defend my position.
Even though it was most “inappropriate”, what Monica Lewinsky and Bill Clinton did in the oval office, it was something they did as consenting adults.
When Mitt tackled John Lauber, it was not consensual – not by a long shot. At the least, it would now be considered simple assault – along with another charge or two I am sure.
To be sure, rich parents of kids like Mitt and his cronies would say that it was just boys being boys. To that I say, it was partly because of people like Mitt and his friends that bullying has gotten so way out of hand. Rich kids like Mitt are also partially responsible for the perpetuation of hazing across the country. Bullying sometimes results in the victim committing suicide and hazing, at times, results in death. Again, if rich kids are the perpetrators, their parents are quick to use the “boys will be boys” defense – even when the incident results in a death.
Romney could work this whole issue to his advantage. He could simply acknowledge that he did a bunch of bad things – including cutting John Lauber’s hair – things that he thought were funny and cute and entertaining at the time but now as an adult he finds them quite distasteful and regrets each and every one of them. He could even say that John was “different” and they picked on him because he was different in some way – without going into detail.
He could also say that he has matured into a responsible father and a responsible citizen who will do everything possible as president to put an end to bullying and to strongly discourage hazing – especially when those activities cause others undue mental anguish or even bodily harm.
By not owning up to the incident in question, what example is he giving his own kids and grandkids? Will they all grow up to steal yet another page from the Clinton playbook? Maybe!
If he chooses to do nothing else and lets that incident stand as simply something that he cannot remember, I believe voters should forget him at the ballot box and check off another name for President – a Democrat or one of the other candidates from alternative parties.
It is not known if young George Washington chopped down that infamous cherry tree, but at lease he admitted it – as the rumor goes. The ball is in your court, Mitt.
What would a good Mormon do Mitt?
Oh, I almost forgot – this could be a case that Mormons refer to as, “Lying for the Lord.”
“The right to lie in the service of your own interests is highly valued and frequently exercised”-Nero Wolfe.
There are thousands of references, including Mormon quotes and guidelines that encourage Mormons to not tell the truth – especially when the truth would be detrimental to the church.
Here is one link:
The above link finishes with:
“Mitt Romney has served a Mormon mission. And so the question must be asked. Mitt Romney, where do you stand? What comes first? Church or country? And are you lying if we ask you which comes first and you say “The Country?” Are you “Lying for the Lord” there? What a conundrum.”
I encourage each of you to do your own search for “Lying for the Lord”. None of the search I have done returned any references to any religions – only the Mormon Church.
Is this Mitt’s first lie in a line of many lies to come to insure that a Mormon will be elected President of the United States?