There’s another thing about Romney’s chuckle chuckle notpology.
“Back in high school, I did some dumb things, and if anybody was hurt by that or offended, obviously I apologize for that,” Romney said in a live radio interview with Fox News Channel personality Brian Kilmeade.
Here’s what the other thing is about that. He was responding to the Washington Post article, so he knew what he was notpologizing for – he knew that it was for collecting at least five other senior boys to attack a junior boy, hold him down while he screamed for help, and cut off his hair.
Yet his response is to say “if anybody was hurt by that or offended, obviously I apologize for that.” If? If? If anybody was “hurt” or “offended” by being attacked by a gang of older boys?
What does he mean “if”? What can he possibly mean by it?
There is no “if.” It’s not an iffy thing. Assault isn’t conditional in that way. Assault isn’t a matter of taste – no, not even for masochists; assaulting a masochist is still assault. There is no “if.” Romney doesn’t get to change the well-understood meaning of things like a gang of boys attacking one younger boy, because he wants to make himself look better.
It’s odd, really. He could have done better. He could have promptly admitted it was a dreadful thing to do, and talked about how horrible it was for John Lauber, and said he feels really terrible that he was a mean, privileged bully as a teenager. I should think that would play better even as public relations. Instead he laughed, and minimized it as dumb, and made his apology conditional on people being petty and whiny enough to be “offended” by being attacked by a gang of older boys.
So he’s a shit; instinctively a shit. Not surprising, but not pleasing, either.
Exactly!
At my 30 year high school class reunion, a girl from my class went to an actual effort to look me up and apologize for the horrible way she treated me in high school. I never asked for the apology; I didn’t actually need it at this point. But I appreciated it. That’s how an apology is done. It shows that you’re truly contrite, it gains you nothing, and it is NOT a political calculation.
I had someone apologize to me at my 10th high school class reunion for picking on me or something like that. I did not remember it (I might have been to socially inept to realize it at the time) but I appreciate that he apologized.
Violent gay bashing is a plus in Republican circles; there’s no way Romney was going to issue a real apology and confirm the doubts the Republican base has about him.
Lessee: Democrat who gets outed for smoking marijuana (though he ‘didn’t inhale’) = everybody’s up in arms. Republican who gets outed for bullying = move along, nothing to see here. Oh, how I shudder at the character of my country.
@ 4 – ah yes, I suppose that’s it. I somehow didn’t conceptualize it that way. Aw, fuck. What rikitiki said. [shudder]
There we go, Mittens, fixed it for you.
Oh wait, you are neither expected nor able to do ‘honest’ are you?
Never mind, we know what you really think anyhow. Least-a-ways we can guess and be pretty close most of the time. Right?
No don’t answer that Mr Etch-a-sketch, I wouldn’t believe you anyhow.
…
…That makes too much sense. The others involved could apologize openly because they aren’t running for office. Bleargh.
R. Johnston @ 4: precisely.
That’s why he will never apologize. An apology won’t play well in PR terms with the people whose support he depends on.
Let’s remember that these are the people who are insisting on Christian teens’ right to bully gay teens as a matter of religious freedom.
Remember “I did not have sex with that woman”? Politicians lie, all the time. We continue to vote for them anyway.
I have no explanation as to why. Anybody else?
I thinking we need an atheist candidate to run for pres; that’s about the only way I can feel good about my vote this year.
This is why I hate the word “offended” — it puts inflicting violent assault and public humiliation against someone on the same level as minor faux pas like using the wrong fork at a snooty dinner party. The “if” supplies additional moral distance by sneaking a little deniability in there.
If Mittens had said (more or less): “I was young and an asshole; society condoned treating gays badly back then, and I’m ashamed and sorry — now *I* know better and *we all* know better” then I could respect that (even if I suspected it was insincere). But the people that would play well with are probably not the people he wants to court anyway.
You’re right, Ophelia, in thinking that it would have played better if he’d just fessed up and said sorry, but the problem is that it would have played better with the wrong people. Decent people. People who think it’s right to stand up and say when they realise they’ve got it wrong. The way all politicians seem to be schooled by their PR people these days is never to admit they might be wrong about anything. At all. Ever. You only have to listen to a failed electoral candidate the day after an election to hear how, well, actually, they didn’t lose. If you look at it a certain way …
If it looks like a computerised manikin, and talks like one…
@Brigadista: “but the problem is that it would have played better with the wrong people. Decent people. People who think it’s right to stand up and say when they realise they’ve got it wrong.”
Yes. Precisely the people he needs to vote for him. The fascisti will all vote for him anyway because he will be the republican candidate and regardless of what they think of him.
OTOH: would anybody have believed Mitt if he had really apologized? I know I wouldn’t have. As previously noted, the man is a pathological liar.
I think I would have, if he had said something along the lines of “I was a real shit that day, and that was a disgusting thing to do.”
But that was never on the cards…
It’s not just that – the entire hierarchical, authoritarian mindset actively approves of bullying in all its forms, although they’re usually smart enough not to say it openly. Bullying is one of the primary means by which dominance hierarchies are established and maintained. The precise nature of the bullying is almost irrelevant – all that matters is that the “strong” assert dominance over the “weak”.