Milquetoast Mitt: The Ultimate Coward

^
I'm not surprised that a teenage Mitt Romney was a bully. He was a kid of privilege and he wanted to be seen as the "man in charge." So nearly a half-century ago, he led at least one attack -- that's my word; his would be "prank" -- on a defenseless, effeminate kid, holding the screaming boy down and using scissors to cut the victim's bleached blond hair.

When I read about the incident Thursday on the Washington Post online site, I wanted to give Romney the benefit of the doubt. I also wanted to give him credit for improving as a person since his teen years, which he now admits were full of "dumb things" and "hijinks."

Sadly, bullying was very common way back when. I witnessed many incidents, some incredibly cruel and violent, during my years as a mediocre high school athlete. (I honestly can say I never was a perpetrator; indeed, I was scared to death that I would be a victim. I wasn't strong enough ever to report the bullying, though, and I feel badly about that even today.) Unfortunately, bullying is extremely common now, too.

Romney lost any benefit of the doubt, however, with his reaction when confronted with the information the Post detailed about the incident.

The incident was corroborated by several men who were Romney's friends back then, men who also took part in the act.

Romney didn't dare try to deny the incident took place. He merely denied remembering it ever took place. Seriously. That's his defense.

He wants us to elect him President of the United States, and his defense is: Sorry, I can't recall holding the kid down and cutting off his hair while the kid wailed in agony, begging him to stop.

Really? That slipped Mitt Romney's mind?

Funny, the other bullies who took part in the "hijinks" didn't forget. They told the Post they were haunted by their participation. They gave incredibly detailed accounts of their involvement -- and the involvement of Romney, whom they called the ringleader.

Romney, whose autobiography is titled "No Apology," did take a swipe at contrition:

"Back in high school I just did some dumb things and if anybody was hurt by that or offended by it, obviously I apologize. I participated in a lot of hijinks and pranks during high school and some might have gone too far and for that, I apologize."

Yes, the old "I apologize if I offended anybody" non-apology apology. Pathetic.

Some might have gone too far? How many is "some"? How many victims are out there?

Romney showed how weak and small he is when he refused to stand up to the far-right wackos who forced out one of his chosen advisers (because that person is gay, which Romney knew when he made the hire). Now this convenient amnesia, which is even weaker. 

Pair that weakness with the constant pandering (which most politicians do), with the Etch-A-Sketch position shifts (which he has elevated to an art form) and with the inability to relate to anyone who doesn't share his station in life ... and this is what we want in the leader of the free world? 

This guy wants us to believe he would have had the courage to order the hit on Osama bin Laden even though the intelligence suggested the mission could have failed spectacularly?

Please. Mitt Romney's definition of a difficult decision: How much starch should I have my servants put in my shirt collars?

I do not want a weak, pathetic man for my next president. I'd rather have Rick Santorum or Ron Paul ... somebody who at least stands for something. And for all of his warts, I definitely would rather have Barack Obama.

No wonder so many conservatives were willing to do anything -- even elect Newt Gingrich or Herman Cain or Rick Perry -- to avoid choosing Romney.

Milquetoast coward who stands for nothing. That's quite a campaign slogan.

^

Today's High 5: GOP Debate Edition

^

5. I wouldn't vote for Rick Santorum because he and I have significant ideological differences. Still, I find it repulsive and despicable (two words favored by Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich) that a legitimate candidate who appeals to millions of voters and has strong convictions cannot compete because he lacks a gazillion-dollar "war chest."

For what it's worth (not much), I thought Santorum "won" Thursday's debate -- the last GOP debate for a while, thank Yahweh, Jesus, Allah, Joseph Smith and Richard Dawkins -- in part because he stood above the petty silliness of the Dueling Liars. His attempt to calm the rhetoric between Mitt and Newt and concentrate on issues was practically heroic (albeit failed).

Unfortunately for Santorum, he has absolutely no chance to emerge as the GOP nominee. Unlike his main rivals, he wasn't born with a silver spoon in his mouth and he doesn't have a Vegas Sugar Daddy pouring funds into his attack-ad account.

Instead of making our elections more "of the people," the Supreme Court made them even more about who has the most corporate financial backing.

Until a constitutional amendment that repeals the Citizens United decision and crafts fair campaign finance rules is enacted, things will only get worse and worse for regular folks who want to serve their country.

4. Romney claims that he doesn't make his own investments and that he has no input in the brutally negative ads his Super PACs have been running.

I'm pretty sure he'd be a lousy president, but I'm confident he'd be one heck of an Ostrich in Chief.

3. Ron Paul makes a lot of sense when he talks about the need to stop America's ruinous nation-building policies and to significantly reduce the national deficit.

However, he couldn't sound more out of touch every time he makes a reference to the way things were done in the olden days.

He needs to stop suggesting that we ignore the plight of poor people and let churches take care of them "like they used to." He needs to stop pretending that seniors "did just fine" before Medicare was enacted nearly 50 years ago; a huge percentage of them lived in abject poverty, unable to afford even basic care. He needs to realize that every time he starts a point by saying, "Back in 1962 ... " he reminds everybody how old he is.

Paul is a smart man and I'm guessing he was a fine doctor. But no matter how often he longs for simpler times, today's doctors aren't going to start making house calls again and they aren't going to accept chickens as payment.

We have a health-care crisis now, and longing for the good ol' days of leeches and castor oil won't solve anything.

2. Oh, Stephen Colbert ... please come back!

1. The Great Debater -- a.k.a. The Newtster -- is a myth.

Turning legitimate questions about his character into blame-the-media diatribes is not debating. It is bloviating. Such a tactic might be able to incite a frothing-at-the-mouth, intellectually suspect audience of tea partiers, but it hasn't worked when the crowds have been more civil and more diverse. And it certainly won't work in the general election, should Gingrich get that far.

He tried it again Thursday, but Wolf Blitzer, bless his heart, wouldn't let him. Gingrich was forced to deal with a difficult question, and he got his clock cleaned by Romney.

Romney easily out-pointed Gingrich in the two most recent debates, helping explain his renewed rise in the polls. And with Blitzer giving them more opportunities to talk Thursday, Santorum and Paul were more appealing and respectable than Newt.

Gingrich believes he could out-debate Barack Obama, but I doubt there's any way Newt would be viewed as anything but a bully and a blowhard by the independents who will decide the election.

Fortunately for the GOP, it's doubtful Newt will get that far. Republican leaders are coming out strong against him, and the public finds him mostly repugnant. His "likability" numbers are so low they'd lose a limbo contest to Muggsy Bogues.

This will be the ninth presidential election since I turned voting age, and I'm struggling to remember if there has been a more loathsome and revolting candidate for either party's nomination than Newt Gingrich.

Help me out here ... did Charles Manson, David Duke, Bobby Knight or Rosie O'Donnell ever run for president?

^

Herman Cain, we hardly knew ye

^

So I'm reading the McClatchy Newspapers account of Tuesday's GOP debate -- the 406th of 874 scheduled debates, I believe. And I'm reading about the foreign policy opinions of Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul and Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann and Jon Huntsman. And then I get to the final paragraph:

Businessman Herman Cain and former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum also took part in the debate.

Kind of reminds me of the time I flew from Oslo, Norway to Goteborg, Sweden on a small prop plane with members of the 1994 U.S. Olympic hockey team. The player in the seat next to me was sweating out the bumpy ride when I turned to him and said: "At least people will cry about the loss of you and your teammates. The newspapers won't even mention me until the final paragraph: 'Also perishing was a sportswriter from Minnesota.'"

Yes, Mr. 9-9-9 has reached that level of insignificance. It takes a special kind of incompetence to fail so miserably in that field of knuckleheads.

Oh, and speaking of turkeys ... tune back in tomorrow for my annual Turkey of the Year countdown. More fun than a trip to Plymouth Rock!

^