The reason I think the media has run with the story is because the Romney's themselves have been pushing his high school "pranks" as part of his campaign. Ann Romney has talked often lately about how he has so funny and not-at-all stiff in high school to make him seem more likable to voters, so people started digging up the story and it backfired. Cynically i wonder if Dems were sitting in the story until the week the president came out for gay marriage to say Romney used to bully gay teens, but they were the ones to open up his high school days.

He probably doesn't remember because the story has been blown out of all proportion, and it's simply filed in the forgotten recesses of his mind. The man has led a very eventful 50 years since this "incident". If this is the kind of smear tactics that we can expect for the rest of this year, then it's going to be one long sleazy campaign season.

Clinton and John Edwards "forgot" having affairs. Why does forgetting bullying someone puzzle u?

Personally I like the idea of this stuff coming out. As long as both parties get the same treatment by the news media. It gives the public a chance to ask questions and get answers. Remember that a sitting President could be blackmailed just as anyone else. If a candidate or a sitting President running for re election cannot handle a little heat, how is he going to handle having his finger on the "button"? The problem is that the news media is run by people acting to further their own agendas or choices. This kind of skews the process and spoils a good race. Kind of like an umpire making bad calls to help a team. There is a reason why news media gets little respect.

Why doesn't the media look into Obama's past with even half the effort they do for Romney. Obama admitted that he "experimented with drugs enthusiastically" yet somehow no one cares. Only when it is discovered that a Republican has a past incident does it make front page news. This story isn't worth paying attention to.

Nice spoof, now lets poke fun at the other side. Marriage is whatever you want it to be,with whomever you want it to be with. We don't need no stinkin morals or guidelines. and the Government should make it legal. Also don't put it up for a vote, the people are too stupid, lets let our lobbied,biased politicians make the decision for us. Amen

Jack: The media HAVE looked into Obama's past. There's no there there, at least not the kind of sociopathic tendencies that Romney's pattern of "hijinks" indicates. Obama's past is clearly one of a very careful man who has always felt (rightly) that he had to be twice as saintly as everyone else.

Obama saintly? Seriously? I want some of ur meds!!

He was asked to produce his birth certificate by some conspiracy theorist kooks with an agenda, not the mainstream media (Washington Post).
All I am saying is that there seems to be a sick pleasure in digging up dirt (even 50 year old stuff) on Romney, while the media fawns over Obama . (see Chris Matthews when he declared "when Obama speaks, I get a tingle up my leg"

I think liberals are wondering about who is in fact learning and growing. No, liberals aren't entirely happy with Obama, who acts as if he got elected on a platform of "Can't we all just get along" instead of on the backs of rage at the machine. However, when it comes right down to it, Romney will get a tiny bump from the gay-bashing contingent and the good old boys who were amused by the dog-on-car stunt, Obama will get a bump from the "can't we all get along" crowd (and those who are doubtful about dog on car stunts and bullying). What will happen next depends mostly on how much of the vote both sides get out, and which side of which base the independents will come out on.
It comes down to how many are turned off by the Republican and Tea Party rhetoric, and how many just vote for a change leadership.

The birth certificate issue was big way before Obama had an opportunity to show what he could do. It's mostly faded, except among some cranks. But there were plenty of calls to investigate his birth certificate and his education while Obama was campaigning. I think we all feel there's some sort of bias against our candidate and our side. It's why NPR listeners are hanging on every word of the Murdoch scandal, and why Murdoch consumers are all over CNN.

>> how important would this birth certificate issue then be ... being Muslim <<

Those never were important!
The facts had been on the table from the start (and it was kind of funny that the same kind of people who were trying to keep the "muslim" myth alive were also fabricating an outcry over a particular pastor and church -not mosque- he had attended in the past... I guess they were trying to cover all the bases)

These items are simply serving as fail-safe pretense for those who can't come up with any rational fact to explain their pre-determined choice. They were never "issues" for any voter who actually was/is giving consideraton to all available candidates during the primary or the presidential election.

One of the major allegations regarding Obama's birth was based upon something that Obama was quoted as saying while he was a US Senator. Obama was quoted as saying he was the first US Senator that was born in Kenya. Clearly the birther "kooks" could not have back dated an article from years before Obama became president.

Yeah, those of us who are "Anybody but a Republican" and those who are "Anybody but Obama" are going to have to wait and see what the independents think, I'm afraid.

How about Hillary?

Indies are already heavily leaning towards Romney.

In my opinion a giggling unrepentant gay basher with selective memory that still wants to deny gays their rights is worse. Much worse.

probably from the same playbook that call Romney a " a giggling unrepentant gay basher "
this country is divided and it is getting worse. People that run political campaigns present and practice character assassination. We as voters need to seek out true facts and shun the negative garbage.

it's in Obama's book

Republicans don't blindly support anyone. We balance the two people running for public office. Then decide that we are tired of protecting this country, watching brave men give their lives for what we consider important, only to have our current Commander n Chief apologize for what we were ordered to do. I have yet to hear any nation apologize for the brave men decapitated, dragged threw the streets and hung from bridges in the middle east. So do not state that you love republicans blindly supporting any candidate. It's insulting and offensive.

well if thats what you really believe you should vote for ron paul or gary johnson. if you dont want "brave men decapitated, dragged threw the streets and hung from bridges in the middle east" than romeny (or obama) would be a bad choice

Thank you for your recommendation. Instead of rendering me advice, perhaps you can take the time to instruct your 10 year old son not to make the generalizations that you seem to be inclined to make.

@ funny rep's: is there a voting %age that constitutes "blind support"?

how about 96% of a certain group's voting for obama in 2008 (vs 3% for mccain)? a support so well informed, even (or should I say, only?...) Howard Stern could mock it publicly....LOL

http://articles.cnn.com/2008-11-04/politics/exit.polls_1_exit-polls-obama-camp-john-mccain?_s=PM:POLITICS

Do you know for a fact that anything that you just commented on is true?
are there no people that blindly follow Obama?

chris i really mean this as an honest question. obama is not doing a good job and that has to change quick, but do you really think romney is the answer. to me its just replacing big governtment with a different big government.
also im always curious why republicans dont like ron paul. they preach the constitution but when they actually have a guy who wants to follow the constitution they ignore him or call him crazy.
if you could fill me in here, im not trying to instagate, ive just always been curious why rep's would prefer romeny instead of a who actaully stands up for the constitution and social and economical freedom

@ funny rep's: kidding aside, you ask 2 good questions: 1) is romney the answer? 2) why republicans don't like ron paul? on 1) a system and election process that renders, for a country of 300 million, 2 candidates will give a choice: bad and slightly less bad. 2) I think republicans generally do, but Paul "breaks down" w/ a few key issues: 1) middle class entitlements: while what Paul says people agree with, his remedy of slashing middle class entitlements makes, for example, old people AARP in their pants; military: while a poll I read suggests Paul received the most amount of votes from current & former enlisted republicans, he often times has similar policies, especially on Israel, to folks regarded as foreign policy weaklings (eg, Jimmy Carter). THat's just my attempt at objective analysis. CHeers, GXR

Funny,
Obama is way too radical and social with his agenda. He had no experience in a leadership capacity prior to taking office, and still has not learned to move to the center (See Bill Clinton '95). His Senate leader refuses to put forth a budget, and he has surrounded himself with community activists ill-equipped to run anything. It's bad all the way around.

Romney was a business leader and a Governor. He has the executive experience and will most likely surround himself with others that have leadership experience.

Chris: What exactly is "radical" and "social" about Obama's agenda? If you are talking about health care "reform", what is social about buying insurance from private for-profit companies? Are you opposed to Medicare too?

As for Romney being a business leader and a governor, Romney is what we used to call a "corporate raider" or "leveraged buyout" specialist. For more on this, watch the original "Wall Street" -- especially Gordon Gekko's "Greed is good" speech. That's Romney. And his gubernatorial record? You ARE aware, I hope, that "Romneycare" is the model for Obama's HCR, right? And are you also aware that Massachusetts when from 37th in the state to 47th in the state for job creation during Romney's tenure? Only Ohio and Michigan, both battered by the manufacturing slump, and Katrina-devastated Louisiana did worse.

What kind of people with "leadership experience" do you expect Romney to surround himself with? People like HP head Meg Whitman, who announced today that HP will jettison 25,000 jobs this year and who made $16.5 million last year? Is that the kind of "job creators" you're placing your faith in?

Just because they are "business people" doesn't mean that they know how to, or even WANT to, create jobs in this country.

@B@B, Greed IS good. It's nothing more than someone else's self interest. Health care and health care insurance are two very different things. It's radical to confuse the two. It's radical to think that inserting a third party into a transaction doesn't come without additional cost. It's radical to think there is a free lunch.

Romney maybe "bad" but Obama is worse. You can make an argument that voting for the lesser of two evils still gets you evil, but I don't see how you can make an argument Obama is the lesser of two evils.

HP improves millions of lives with its technologies, just because their workforce needs have decreased, doesn't mean less people are working, just less people working for HP. There are millions of small and medium business that take advantage of HP's products and hire millions of people. Your comment highlights how progressives don't think beyond the superficial. When you change an interdepency, it impacts the results. It's why we often see revenues increases after taxes rates are cut.

thanks for trying to explain the ron paul situation.

i also dont understand the point allen is trying to make in this article

"And that ignores the fact that what he did (or is accused of doing) was not criminal (no matter how "hateful" it was or is perceived in 2012)."

Gary - If I'm understanding it correctly, he was accused of taking part in an attack where a person was forcibly restrained while someone cut his hair off. I think that qualifies as assault and battery, whichever era we're talking about. Now, if you want to make the case that someone of Mitt Romney's social status would not have been charged for something like that, especially back then, I will agree with you there. But that doesn't negate the criminality of it.
Still, what bothers me more than the incident itself is that Romney doesn't remember it.

I got a bad haircut once too? Can I charge the hairdresser?

Then lets do away with all state recognized marriage. The government isn't supposed to meddle in religion anyway. Declare all already recognized marriages civil unions, and let religious institutions handle marriage.

Preemption clause of US Constitution gives the States right to deal with laws that the Federal government does not regulate. Gay rights and abortion rights are two such areas. There is no denying that. Your statement is mixing apples and oranges. As of this date, the Federal government has not included these social issues under their "life liberty" definition.

@Gary It's realty. As it currently stands, each State decides whether gay marriage is legal : In NY it is, in NJ it is not, etc. So I don't understand how my expection/hope could be "false".

@ Luca D. - I agree that's how "it currently stands," until it doesn't when (if) the US supreme court decides otherwise. There but for the grace of the supreme court goes any state law, in other words. I am going by precedent Luca D - no insult / offense intended - look at immigration laws (federal courts nullified AZ and AL), state abortion laws - as merely 2 examples. Their contorted judicial logic, invented whole cloth out of nothing, defy precedence. I hope the state's decisions & jurisdiction over gay marriage "as it currently stands" remain so. My hope notwithstanding, I just don't think they will. We shall see.....cheers, GXR

@Gary I appreciate your statement, but while the Supreme Court may strike down state laws that are not constitutional, they are not going to change who initially decides to make the law. So unless and until the Congress decides that gay rights and abortion are federal issues, the States will continue to regulate it and be struck down by the Supreme Court like a ping pong game. No matter what Obama declares about gay marriage or abortion, his statements remain hollow, meaningless, just a publicity stunt and spin.

Allan, that is fun stuff! Will you be donning full pirate regalia around town?

@ Allan Fineberg: your responses are stranger than fiction. Please find another venue for your weird & incoherent posts.