Why doesn't Romney say "no, that never happened" instead of "I don't recall that"?

[septimus]

Originally Posted by John Mace

Why didn't Bill Clinton just say he smoked pot instead of saying he tried it, but didn't inhale? Does anyone think he didn't inhale?

• Clinton suffers from asthma (or severe allergies mimicking asthma).
• Deep inhaling may be contraindicated with asthma or allergy-caused bronchitis.
• College students often smoked socially just to fit in.

So yes, that Clinton didn't inhale is quite plausible, though hardly certain.

[Chronos]

To be fair, he didn't tie the dog to the roof of the car; he tied a crate with the dog in it to the roof. Which is still bad, of course, but not as bad.

[carnivorousplant]

Originally Posted by septimus

• Clinton suffers from asthma (or severe allergies mimicking asthma).
• Deep inhaling may be contraindicated with asthma or allergy-caused bronchitis.
• College students often smoked socially just to fit in.

So yes, that Clinton didn't inhale is quite plausible, though hardly certain.

"He referred to a book written by a British journalist as his evidence. But he hinted that there was more to the story. "I thought it was funny that I didn't inhale. I didn't say that I didn't try," he said. "It was something I could not do, that didn't have anything to do with the way it was spun out to you. It was a joke.""
Link

[bup]

To answer the OP, I think because one is the truth and one isn't.

Romney said he didn't remember while also acknowledging that he did pull pranks. I took that to mean it was plausible that it happened but that he didn't remember.

It really was thirty years ago. That's far too long to depend on memories for specific events. He really might not remember. He remembers an atmosphere where he did things like that.

[Little Nemo]

Originally Posted by brazil84

I would guess he is worried that stronger evidence will come out. For example if there is a written record of the incident. Even if there is no police report, it is possible that the incident was reported to the school authorities and they took statements. It's also possible that in the last 10 or 20 years, Romney confessed about the incident to a reliable witness.

Political muckrakers are pretty clever people. There's a decent chance they are holding back a few aces.

Or worse yet. He's worried that a flat-out denial will encourage journalists to investigate and they'll find out this wasn't a unique incident.

Think about it. Anyone know a high school bully who only got in one fight?

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

Originally Posted by bup

It really was thirty years ago.

Really? What have you been inhaling? 2012-1965. Do the math.

[bup]

Originally Posted by pseudotriton ruber ruber

Really? What have you been inhaling? 2012-1965. Do the math.

Yeah, that's what I meant.

You know, more than 30 years. By like 17.

Seriously, it's too long to expect somebody to remember accurately. He's probably not as insensitive now.

[Drum God]

Originally Posted by bup

He's probably not as insensitive now.

Do you have evidence of this claim?

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

Or worse yet. He's worried that a flat-out denial will encourage journalists to investigate and they'll find out this wasn't a unique incident.

The Post story described several incidents like this, although most people would agree the haircut one was the worst.

Originally Posted by bup

He's probably not as insensitive now.

If so, he should probably remember it. I don't believe his denial, but it doesn't make much difference at this point.

[Vinyl Turnip]

Originally Posted by Voyager

Since Watergate, at least, anyone asked an embarrassing question about an event in the past has learned to say "I don't remember." Impossible to disprove.

At least he didn't say that "bangs were cut" back then.

[hajario]

Originally Posted by septimus

• Clinton suffers from asthma (or severe allergies mimicking asthma).
• Deep inhaling may be contraindicated with asthma or allergy-caused bronchitis.
• College students often smoked socially just to fit in.

So yes, that Clinton didn't inhale is quite plausible, though hardly certain.

I didn't inhale the first several times that I smoked pot. (I eventually learned though.) It's totally plausible.

[Vinyl Turnip]

What the hell did you do then, blow it out the other end?

[Euphonious Polemic]

Originally Posted by Vinyl Turnip

At least he didn't say that "bangs were cut" back then.

How about "pranks were played"?

As for pranks that were played back then, I don’t remember them all

[filmore]

If Romney regularly engaged in that type of behavior, I could totally understand him forgetting about it. It's just a mundane incident from his past. If it doesn't stand out, it could easily be forgotten.

I remember watching some show where a bully and his victim were reunited. The victim recounted many incidents where he was bullied, yet the bully could not remember a single one of them. The victim was able to recall many details of each incident (i.e. I was playing a video game at the convenience store and you poured a coke on my head). Maybe the bully really did remember, but I got the impression that he didn't. That type of behavior was normal to him, so why should he remember each time he did something like that? It probably happened all the time.

For those of us who aren't like that, those incidents really stand out. There's no way we'd forget if we did something like that. It would be as if someone accused me of tying a dog to my car and driving on the highway. It's so out of character for me that there's no way I would forget it. But if someone asked if I remembered that time I put my dog in the car and drove to 7-11 for a slurpee, I'd probably say I didn't recall. Even if I couldn't remember that incident, it seems like something I would do.

[hajario]

Originally Posted by Vinyl Turnip

What the hell did you do then, blow it out the other end?

It went in my mouth but I didn't inhale it into my lungs.

[hajario]

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/inhale

1. To draw (air or smoke, for example) into the lungs by breathing.

[Vinyl Turnip]

Yeah, guess I'm just curious why anyone who isn't an undercover cop would do that, or why it would take "several times" to figure out you're supposed to inhale when you smoke.

This is a hijack, however, so I can live with my puzzlement if need be.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by Marley23

[Modding]

Moving this to Elections from Great Debates.

[/Moderating]

I mentioned this in another thread, but Romney's comments were designed to get the story in the rear view mirror as quickly as possible. He apologized, which was the right thing to do even though many people would find his apology unsatisfying and self-servingly vague. He didn't deny the events because it would have started a public argument that would have kept the story in the news even longer. (And the evidence suggests they did happen.) He said he didn't remember the incident because if he'd said he remembered it, he would've had to take more questions about it, and that also would have kept the story in the news.

That seems more plausible than my theory.

[Cheryl44]

Originally Posted by Chronos

I think it's because he sincerely doesn't realize there was ever anything wrong with what he did. He's just learned that people are upset by it, but he doesn't know why, so all he can do is squirm around weaselly until he's squirmed into a position that people stop complaining about.

OR, his people don't want him to admit what he did was wrong. Being wrong about harassing the gays is off-putting to a certain segment of the GOP, one that already doesn't like Romney and might be sitting this one out.

[hajario]

Originally Posted by Vinyl Turnip

Yeah, guess I'm just curious why anyone who isn't an undercover cop would do that, or why it would take "several times" to figure out you're supposed to inhale when you smoke.

I don't know what to tell you other than I didn't. I smoked it like most people smoke a cigar. I don't think that it's that unusual.

[gamerunknown]

Originally Posted by hajario

I don't think that it's that unusual.

Get your cheeks nicely stoned?

[kayaker]

Originally Posted by hajario

I smoked it like most people smoke a cigar. I don't think that it's that unusual.

The guy you passed it to probably didn't enjoy the wet, chewed end you handed him.

[42fish]

Originally Posted by kayaker

The guy you passed it to probably didn't enjoy the wet, chewed end you handed him.

And if Bill Clinton also meant "I used it like a cigar" by "I didn't inhale," the guy he handed the joint to must have been really ticked off.

[Little Nemo]

Marley raised a good point. By saying he doesn't remember the incident, Romney takes himself off the hook from having to personally answer any questions about the incident.

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

Can we turn this into "Mitt Romney--early Alzheimer's?" Do we need another Reaganesque "Can't Remember Shit" President? Or do we want a president with a fully functioning brain?

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by pseudotriton ruber ruber

Can we turn this into "Mitt Romney--early Alzheimer's?"

I still think it should be turned into a discussion of his record and his policy ideas, but apparently it's more important to prove he was a dick several decades ago.

[Euphonious Polemic]

Originally Posted by Marley23

I still think it should be turned into a discussion of his record and his policy ideas, but apparently it's more important to prove he was a dick several decades ago.

I realize that "it was so long ago, who cares" is the talking point du jour, but you may have missed that some folks are more concerned with how he's handling it right now. Have you noticed that being brought up?

"I can't remember" is particularly lame. Is he lying for political advantage so he does not have to ask questions? This does not say much about his current character does it? His current character is pertinent when considering what kind of a leader he would be.
Does he genuinely not remember? Then he is an unrepentant bully, who would do the same thing today if given the opportunity. Indeed, some have suggested that his behavior at Bain Capital (destroying firms, cutting salaries, firing people, while staying just this side of the law) was a form of adult bullying.

Experts on bullying have been trying for some time to get people to acknowledge that these behaviors are not "pranks" or "boys will be boys". These people's actions deliver long-lasting damage. Romney, with his recent words and actions, has spat in the faces of these experts, and at anyone who was every bullied.

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by Euphonious Polemic

I realize that "it was so long ago, who cares" is the talking point du jour

It's not a talking point. It's a sensible response to what is basically a trivial issue, and it's the response I hope most people would have to a discussion of something nasty that a man in his mid-60s did in high school.

you may have missed that some folks are more concerned with how he's handling it right now. Have you noticed that being brought up?

I've seen that "concern" brought up many times by people who want to keep an old and unimportant issue in the news, so I find it difficult to treat that concern as sincere. If the issue isn't important, it's hard for me to get worked up about how he deals with it. And that comes from someone who thinks the haircut thing was sadistic and that Romney is lying about not remembering it.

[brazil84]

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

Or worse yet. He's worried that a flat-out denial will encourage journalists to investigate and they'll find out this wasn't a unique incident.

Think about it. Anyone know a high school bully who only got in one fight?

Good point. Perhaps he doesn't remember because this was just one of dozens of incidents.

[Euphonious Polemic]

While I"m sure you don't consider it to be a talking point, it certainly is being used as such by Romney's political handlers, and it is being repeated ad nauseum throughout the web by the usual right-wing apologists. Which you are not, of course.

"Forgot" or not, his team should be worried about whether or not more incidents are going to come to light in the future. Getting a group together, holding down a student and assaulting him is frequently not the sort of behavior that is a one-off. Romney has a pattern in his life of not really giving a shit about others, and I would not be surprised to hear of new incidents from his 20's 30's etc. More sophisticated bullying to be sure, but bullying (or "pranking") nonetheless.

[Cheesesteak]

Originally Posted by Marley23

I've seen that "concern" brought up many times by people who want to keep an old and unimportant issue in the news, so I find it difficult to treat that concern as sincere. If the issue isn't important, it's hard for me to get worked up about how he deals with it. And that comes from someone who thinks the haircut thing was sadistic and that Romney is lying about not remembering it.

The person who organized the sadistic attack isn't the one who gets to decide whether or not it is an old and unimportant issue.

You, Marley, get to decide for yourself whether or not this will impact your voting decision. I get to decide for myself, and other voters decide for themselves. Romney has taken that choice away from you, and all of us, because he feels it isn't politically expedient to acknowledge the attack he orchestrated.

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by Euphonious Polemic

"Forgot" or not, his team should be worried about whether or not more incidents are going to come to light in the future.

The Washington Post reported several others. None were as horrifying as the haircut story, but leading a blind teacher into a storage closet (to name one example) didn't make Romney look good either.

Romney has a pattern in his life of not really giving a shit about others

It'd be much better to demonstrate this based on his busines career and his platform than his high school years.

Originally Posted by Cheesesteak

The person who organized the sadistic attack isn't the one who gets to decide whether or not it is an old and unimportant issue.

I never said Romney gets to decide. I said the subject itself is transparently unimportant. Say he'd been by all accounts a fantastic guy in high school but had the same career as a venture capitalist, been the same governor of Massachusetts and senate candidate and run the same presidential campaign he's running. Would you give half a crap? Would it alter your perceptions of his political and business career- the questionable impact of his Bain deals, the desperate flipflops, the cases where he demonstrates little concern for anybody else? I'm guessing it wouldn't, because I know I wouldn't care at all. I've never argued there was anything wrong in reporting this stuff. I'm arguing that it's just not important.

[Little Nemo]

Originally Posted by Marley23

I still think it should be turned into a discussion of his record and his policy ideas, but apparently it's more important to prove he was a dick several decades ago.

I think there's a valid issue being discussed here. Romney shows a pattern of how he uses his power against those who don't have the same level of power - a popular straight student harassing a gay student; a seeing guy playing jokes on a blind guy; a pet owner putting his dog up on the car roof; a executive talking about how he fires people. And while these things happened a long time ago, he hasn't disavowed any of them.

Now this guy is running for President of the United States. So there's legitimate reasons to ask how he would handle the power of that office. Would he show restraint or would he say "I'm the most powerful man in the world. I can do anything I want to anyone."

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

Now this guy is running for President of the United States. So there's legitimate reasons to ask how he would handle the power of that office.

That should be asked about anybody who is running for president. I think it's discouraging that three of the four examples you're talking about happened 30 to 45 years ago and only one has anything to do with his time in business or politics. Those are the centerpieces of his campaign - particularly the business side; we're supposed to oblige him by pretending he was not the moderate governor of a liberal state - and we're arguing about what he was like in high school and how he crated a dog that died 20 years ago. I grant you that it makes Romney come off as personally unlikeable, and he needs no help in coming across that way, but it implies there aren't more serious criticisms to be made.

Or maybe I misunderstood how it applies to Romney today. If he's elected, do you think he might hold down a visiting head of state and forcibly cut his hair or give him a swirlie? I admit the president probably shouldn't do that.

[Euphonious Polemic]

Originally Posted by Marley23

I never said Romney gets to decide. I said the subject itself is transparently unimportant. Say he'd been by all accounts a fantastic guy in high school but had the same career as a venture capitalist, been the same governor of Massachusetts and senate candidate and run the same presidential campaign he's running. Would you give half a crap?

I've never known a venture capitalist, a governor nor a senate candidate.

I have known shitty bullies who take it upon themselves to object to how someone looks, and are too gutless to pick on a victim by themselves so instead get a gang together to help them.
I have known shitty people who were bullies and then who either "forget" what they did in the past, or brush it off as "pranks".

The bully thing makes it personal. So he was an asshole venture capitalist. Whatever, this does not really resonate with me. However, if I learn he was an asshole high school bully? This makes me hate him on a visceral level.

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by Euphonious Polemic

It's personal. So he was an asshole venture capitalist. This does not resonate with me. He was an asshole high school bully. This makes me hate him on a visceral level.

That's extremely unfortunate because it suggests you're judging candidates by the shallowest criteria. Putting thousands of people out of work or slashing funding for social programs is a hell of a lot more important than being a dick to a few people in high school because it says much more about his policy ideas and can't be written off as a youthful mistake.

[Cheesesteak]

Originally Posted by Marley23

Putting thousands of people out of work or slashing funding for social programs is a hell of a lot more important than being a dick to a few people in high school because it says much more about his policy ideas and can't be written off as a youthful mistake.

I'll put it this way. Sometimes that kind of decision is necessary. Sometimes it's just one choice out of many. I'd prefer that my President, when making a decision like that, actually cares about the people it affects. When he puts those people out of work, I want him to lose sleep that night, and say "I wish there was a better option." I want him to look for better options.

These stories illustrate to me Romney's inability to care. It reinforces the idea that my discomfort, my problems, are utterly meaningless to him. Stories about sick dogs strapped to cars and shuttered factories are funny, lighthearted tales from his youth. Sadistically attacking a kid from his school is such a non-event in his life, he either cannot recall doing it, or his primary goal is to avoid the topic. Can't he feel a little shame for his poor behavior, can't he care about this person he harmed? Can't he tell us he wishes he made a different choice? (and not just because it makes him look bad today)

This is the person I want to have enormous power over the welfare of my country's residents, the power to order military strikes, the power to affect economies all over the world?

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by Cheesesteak

I'd prefer that my President, when making a decision like that, actually cares about the people it affects.

There are reasons to think Romney is not that guy that having nothing to do with haircuts or Seamus the dog.

[Voyager]

Originally Posted by Marley23

That's extremely unfortunate because it suggests you're judging candidates by the shallowest criteria. Putting thousands of people out of work or slashing funding for social programs is a hell of a lot more important than being a dick to a few people in high school because it says much more about his policy ideas and can't be written off as a youthful mistake.

In today's climate Republicans avow dickish policies openly, which does make it easier. But what positions a president really holds may or may not be reflected by what he campaigns on. The best way to judge him is to judge his background.

Remember, Bush campaigned as a compassionate conservative. I looked at his background and personality and concluded he was a moron and a jerk, and voted for my first Democrat for president ever. I think I was right. Anyone thinking that the Mass. Romney is the real Romney and the primary Romney was a fake to appeal to the right might think again given his background. He may shake the Etch-a-Sketch, but there is a background pattern of bullying burned into the screen. We ignore that at our peril.

[Ludovic]

Originally Posted by Marley23

There are reasons to think Romney is not that guy that having nothing to do with haircuts or Seamus the dog.

That's hilarious! "Seamus, that's the dog, was outside.....THE CAR!"

[Shodan]

Originally Posted by Euphonious Polemic

The bully thing makes it personal. So he was an asshole venture capitalist. Whatever, this does not really resonate with me. However, if I learn he was an asshole high school bully? This makes me hate him on a visceral level.

I bet you were his biggest fan before this.

Regards,
Shodan

[Euphonious Polemic]

Originally Posted by Shodan

I bet you were his biggest fan before this.

Regards,
Shodan

Didn't think he was the best choice, no. But now I think he's an asshole bully. He was a bully then, and his behavior this week has shown that he has not done any reflection or grown as a person since high school.

[filmore]

I just thought of something. Romney's "I don't recall" gives great possibilities to people who want to discredit him. I could see scores of people from his past coming forward with similar allegations--some true, some false. How could he defend himself? Is he going to say "I don't recall giving Joe a swirley, but I know for sure I didn't give Dave a wegie."?

[Monty]

I'm getting curious now about "boarding school" culture of the boarding schools for the very or even filthy rich in the US. I've always heard about hazing at boarding schools in the UK, with a fair portion of that hazing being physical as opposed to just mental torture. At the time Romney was a student, what kind of hazing did the students expect to undergo?

And, no, I'm not asking this question in an effort to vindicte Romney. I'm genuinely curious.

[Measure for Measure]

Horserace Claptrap
Marley23: That Scissorhands Mitt is an unrepentant bully is an emotional lens by which some will interpret his subsequent behavior as an adult. A small but nontrivial share of the population find schoolyard violence more than disturbing-- it hits their reptilian brain. What makes this electorally toxic is that this share cuts across ideologies. So methinks this story can move the needle. Mitt could have defused this bomb with ease, though as you pointed out in another thread that also would have given the story more oxygen in the media. So now it's sort of a whispering campaign, relegated to the water cooler and comments section of the web.

Policy

Originally Posted by Voyager

Remember, Bush campaigned as a compassionate conservative. I looked at his background and personality and concluded he was a moron and a jerk, and voted for my first Democrat for president ever. I think I was right.

The best guide to GWBush's Presidency came from the dishonesty with which he promoted his tax-cutting plan. Through that lens one could suss his deficit enhancing polities as well as the lies leading up to the Iraq War. Digging a little deeper into the policy issues is the best way to measure the character of the politician. But most people don't have wonkish tendencies -- and there's no reason why they should.

My take is that a superior system would have fewer checks and balances and more accountability. That way disinterested voters could evaluate results rather than guess at what might have happened if say the Dems had 60 votes in the Senate rather than 59 for a longer period of time, because Al Franken was only seated in July 2009 while Ted Kennedy passed on on in August 2009. See? Only political junkies can follow this stuff. I'm not even sure I got that right. The two party system, buttressed by winner-take-all voting, also permits an undue amount of tribalism and affinity voting.

Link to thread on Romney's problems with the truth: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/...d.php?t=644946 Steve Benen has had a weekly column on the subject for a while.

ETA:

I'm getting curious now about "boarding school" culture of the boarding schools for the very or even filthy rich in the US.

Good question. I suspect though that the relevant variable is "Boarding school" rather than "Very rich". I remember rumors that boarding schools could get a little rough at times, though I never learned the specifics AFAIK. I've had female relatives of an older generation than Romney's who weren't too happy at them.

[Little Nemo]

Originally Posted by Marley23

Or maybe I misunderstood how it applies to Romney today. If he's elected, do you think he might hold down a visiting head of state and forcibly cut his hair or give him a swirlie? I admit the president probably shouldn't do that.

Are you serious? Do you honestly think that's what I was saying?

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

Are you serious? Do you honestly think that's what I was saying?

No, I don't think that's what you were saying. I was attempting to illustrate what I see as the absurdity of worrying about Romney's presidency based on what he did in high school. I'm not sure I want to go farther in arguing about this because there's no defense for doing something like this, and the haircut thing is cruel enough to be actually disturbing. But I think it's the least relevant possible way to raise a legitimate issue about the guy.

[Euphonious Polemic]

Originally Posted by Marley23

No, I don't think that's what you were saying. I was attempting to illustrate what I see as the absurdity of worrying about Romney's presidency based on what he did in high school. I'm not sure I want to go farther in arguing about this because there's no defense for doing something like this, and the haircut thing is cruel enough to be actually disturbing. But I think it's the least relevant possible way to raise a legitimate issue about the guy.

You are correct from an entirely unemotional, logical point of view. Frequently though, humans don't always operate on a 100% logical level.

Measure for Measure had a good point when they said:

A small but nontrivial share of the population find schoolyard violence more than disturbing-- it hits their reptilian brain. What makes this electorally toxic is that this share cuts across ideologies.

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by Euphonious Polemic

Frequently though, humans don't always operate on a 100% logical level.

Of course- and I'm not criticizing people's emotional responses to the story. But if we're talking about logical ways to predict the actions of a president Romney or raise issues about his judgment, I don't think this is a good way.

[Cheesesteak]

Think of it this way, the high school incident isn't THE thing that should cause someone to distrust Romney. It is a data point, a set of pixels, or one more puzzle piece in the picture that we're painting of Romney the Man. By itself, it's nothing, a stupid youthful mistake. Add to it other instances of his misbehavior, his lousy reaction to being reminded of the event, and one may begin to think he's not just a Moderate Republican from Massachusetts, or a guy parroting the Rep party line.

Sure, I have a set of political goals, and prior decisions, but what goes on behind the scenes, who he is as a person, is something that will crop up during new decisions that he hasn't actually had to make before.