Saturday, May 12, 2012

The Washington Post has “Trayvon Martined” a Romney story.

A very silly story was reported about the likely GOP presidential nominee, Mitt Romney by The Washington Post a few days ago.  Reportedly, Romney bullied a gay classmate by cutting off his hair as other classmates held him down.  This happened in 1965;  forty-seven whole, long years ago.  Is this a clue as to how desperate liberals really are to cast shadows of doubt over Romney?  And is it a sign to show just how liberal media entities will go to help Barack Obama get elected?
There are many problems with this article; the first is that it was actually written, but also, after reading the article, it was never reported that Romney made any comments about the alleged victim’s sexuality.  The story only reported that Romney commented about the alleged victim’s “style” or manner of dress…his looks.  
It’s becoming clear that The Washington Post “Trayvon Martined” this story; meaning they created hype, exaggerated details, or totally  manufactured the story.  Breitbart News has already begun to dismantle the shanty “details” pulled together by the Washington Post.
Automobile Magazine also interviewed some of the same characters that were interviewed by The Washington Post; however, the portrait of Romney emerges a bit differently.  And even The Washington Post’s story actually compliments Romney:
It was at Cranbrook where he first lived on his own, found his future wife and made his own decisions. One can see the institution’s influence on his demeanor and actions during those years, but also how it helped form the clubbiness and earnestness, the sense of leadership and enthusiasm, apparent in his careers as a businessman and a politician. “He strongly bought in to community service,” said Richard Moon, a schoolmate at the time. “That hard work was its own reward.” What is less visible today is what was most apparent to his prep-school peers: his jocularity.
So, Romney was a prankster who showed a sense of leadership and enthusiasm even back then?
Any credibility that this story had for the first ten seconds of being published is dissipating quite quickly and anything from the Washington Post should be viewed with a side glance from now on.
John Lauber died in 20044, so there is no possibility of getting his side of the story, but ABC News is reporting outrage from Lauber’s family over this seemingly fabricated story. Betsy Lauber stated:
“The family of John Lauber is releasing a statement saying the portrayal of John is factually incorrect and we are aggrieved that he would be used to further a political agenda. There will be no more comments from the family.”
Another sister, Christine Lauber also spoke out and made this comment: 
“Even if it did happen, John probably wouldn’t have said anything.  If he were still alive today, he would be furious [about the story], she said with tears in her eyes.”
How far is too far to go back into someone’s life for “vetting purposes”? While it is extremely important to know as much information about a potential President of the United States as possible, is it really necessary to go back to their high school days? Especially in the absence of a pattern of behavior? If any stage in one’s life is fair game for digging into, then I’m sure we’ll be reading about how Romney crapped in his diaper when he was an infant because it is certainly looking as if  the Left is just that desperate.


  1. Remember that Clinton's "youthful indiscretions" were considered off-limits because they happened long ago. You know...marching with communists, protesting the Vietnam War, a few months spent in the Soviet Union. Insignificant stuff like that.

  2. This comment has been removed by the author.

  3. I was just starting high school in 1965. Back then just a few years prior to the hippy days the Beatles shook up the USA with their music. They were also known for their uniquely styled long hair. Teenage boys in areas of our country and in social spheres where the Beatles music, hair style, and sort of counter cultural wit were embraced started copying the Beatles hairstyle, (if their parents allowed them). If not many of these youngsters dodged haircuts at the barbershop and made certain trims on their hair in ways that they could hide what they were doing from their parents. Long hair at that time was clearly part of the youth rebellion of the teen years for many young Americans. Rather than being a weak person or gay, growing your hair long was a sign of expressing individuality and making your own personal statement of individuality !

    However not all social groups and not all areas of the country embraced the Beatles music, look and style. In areas or groups that were more strict culturally the Beatles look was viewed negatively, even as an affront to culture and values. In many areas of our country there were both social groups that embraced long hair and social groups that vehemently despised it. So wearing your hair long could get you harassed, beat up, or the recipient of a haircut by mob rule back then. The reasons for those attacks had more to do with the defense of social values and a sense of affront on the part of those lashing out against long hair or just and example of knuckled headed bullies taking advantage of a situation to vent the evil natures.

    This portrayal of Mitt the gay basher by the Washington Post is just more of the sleazy propaganda and sophistry that many of us expect them to spew in their daily attempts to advance their vile and destructive agenda. They really need to be put on Commie Slim Obama's official payroll.