Amid allegations that high-school aged Mitt Romney brutally bullied a fellow student in a way that would meet any legal definition of assault, Mitt Romney says “I don’t recall”. Whether or not he’s telling the truth is NOT my question. Whether or not this is relevant to him becoming president is NOT my question.
My question is: tell any normal person “you did a terrible thing 50 years ago”, then if that person honestly doesn’t recall any such event, they wouldn’t say “I don’t remember”, they’d say “No, that’s not true”. (I don’t recall murdering my neighbors, and it’s possible maybe I did and just forgot; but if anyone ever accuses me, I will say “no, that’s not true”). Presumably Romney does recall and just won’t admit it for the obvious reasons.
But even if it is true, why isn’t he flat out denying it? The victim in question is already dead. The event was 50 years ago, there is no videotape, no police report, no evidence whatsoever other than a couple of former classmates and he can always claim they’re lying to smear him. Romney is not under oath, he doesn’t have to worry about perjury. If he lies and says it never happened, there’s no conceivable way to prove him wrong other than my word vs yours.
He’s already (presumably) lying about not recalling the event, so why wouldn’t he extend the lie further and say the event never happened? Or if he’s telling the truth about not remembering any such event, then why isn’t he making the reasonable assumption that it never happened and then honestly saying “no I never did that”?
I’m more interested in the answers of what his PR team was thinking in crafting that answer, rather than debates about the morality.
There are 4 or 5 people on record who participated in the hazing and who say it did happen. That’s some pretty strong evidence. Saying they are lying would just prompt more intense investigation.
There were 4 or 5 people on record against John Kerry with the Swiftboat Veteransthing, too. Everyone now thinks they were lying for political reasons. Why wouldn’t Romney claim that’s what happening to him now? (Regardless of whether its true or not, why wouldn’t he claim it?) It sure sounds a lot better than “I don’t recall”, and since he’s already lying anyway, why not go the whole way?
It’s a way of “pleading the fifth,” so to speak. When being accused of something, we have a right to remain silent. Technically, this pertains to actual criminal charges. In a criminal trial, eventually, you have to present your side of the story, usually through a lawyer. In the judicial system, you do have a right to remain silent - but you do not have the right to ignore an accusation.
The situation Mitt Romney finds himself in is obviously not a formal judicial one in which he’ll have to go to court. The accusation is purely in the media, and the only potential cost is in how he will be viewed by voters. My guess is that Mitt Romney’s team has guessed that people aren’t going to change their vote based on this new information, so to simply prevaricate and “plead the fifth,” by saying “I don’t recall,” acknowledges the accusation, doesn’t take a stand on it (which would just garner more media attention), and let the issue just die down is not an unreasonable approach.
It’s a good strategy - and the key reason for this is because the more someone talks, the more material that person gives to the other side. Everyone knows that the accuser is just trying to find his 15 minutes of fame - the best thing to do when distractions come up is to say as little as possible.
That may well be true. But you’re talking reality, and running for president is about perception.
I believe most people who hear “I don’t recall whether I did that bad thing” immediately assume the guy is guilty and is just pleading the fifth. By saying “I don’t recall”, most people interpret that as an admission. Do you disagree that’s how most people would interpret it?
So far as I am aware, not a single member of SVPT actually had anything to say of particular relevance to John Kerry’s service. Their beef with him was based on his testimony before Congress that he gave after his service. No there weren’t really any direct lies for Kerry to deny.
Furthermore, Kerry had plenty of former soldiers, including people who actually served with him in combat, saying that SVPT was full of crap. That’s a critical difference here, in that Romney has nobody saying “hey, this never happened, it’s a lie.”
Yes, but then it becomes “he said, they said”, and more investigations are launched, and people start taking sides on who they believe, it becomes a whole thing and it’s on the headlines as long as it remains a thing. Plus, if it turns out he *did *do it and someone caught him on camera, then he’s in a whole lot of shit over his denial.
“I don’t remember” is a more discreet road to “let’s just stop talking about it, eh ?”. After all, if he doesn’t remember he doesn’t even have to answer any questions about it or give details or answer why he did what he did etc…, all things which might dig him much deeper (as Mr. Clinton learned the hard way).
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 why doesn’t he just admit to it and say he’s changed a lot since those days of immaturity? People can appreciate that more than weaseling.
The thing is that over and over again Romney’s efforts to save face just end up looking inept. One minute he says he “doesn’t recall” the incident, and the next he says he didn’t know the person was gay.
Except for sociopaths, most people don’t like to lie because the thought of getting caught makes them very uncomfortable. The one exception is lying about your own mental state, because nobody can ever really know that, so people do it all the time. That’s why most people trying to dodge accountability will say “I don’t remember” or “I’m not sure” rather than saying “That never happened.”
Which is a long way of saying, simply, that he did it, and he thinks there’s a tiny but non-zero chance someone could catch him red-handed if he denied it.
But none were actually present for any of the events described. Their beef was Kerry’s testimony. In fact, many members of the Swift Boat group made a point of saying Kerry DID serve with bravery; they objected to his testimony, not his service.
You may be confusing the PAC with the book about Kerry, which is a cousin of the PAC but not the same thing.
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.
My take is is similar to the OP’s: if he’s lying, why not just lie all the way? So I tentatively conclude he’s not.
Why not deny it happened? Because he says to himself, “I don’t recall dong that, but that’s just the kind of stuff I did all the time.” So he doesn’t deny it happened; it rings too true to do that.
