Skip to main content

Anyone remember a huge story about Romney and his bullying days?

The Romney PR machine has got it neatly boiled down on Wikipedia to read:

"Romney was involved in many pranks."
That is it.  Six words.  Buried so deep few will find it, and it isn't on the page regarding Romney's campaign.  

Yes there is a break out to a paragraph at the very bottom of the page.  Here is what it reads:

Such pranks included sliding down golf courses on large ice cubes, dressing as a police officer and tapping on the car windows of teenage friends who were making out, and staging an elaborate formal dinner on the median of a busy street. The golf course escapade apparently got Romney and Ann Davies arrested, or otherwise detained, by the local police.  Romney was also arrested in 1981 while at a family outing at Lake Cochituate in Massachusetts. According to Romney, a ranger from Cochituate State Park told him his motorboat had an insufficiently visible license number and he would face a $50 fine if he took the boat onto the lake. Disagreeing about the license and wanting to continue the outing, Romney took it out anyway, saying he would pay the fine. The angry officer then arrested him for disorderly conduct. The charges were dropped several days later after Romney threatened to sue the officer and the state for false arrest.
Anyone see any mention above about Lauber being attacked held down and his hair cut? All that is gone.  

Well people, is that it?  Is that all that comes of this is six words?

Bully wins!

Meanwhile theObama birth certificate story still commands a huge full page on Wikipedia.  

Philip B. Maise
I don't know why I bother.
If anyone wants to keep it a little more alive I created a Facebook page.  At least it is still up for now till the PR machine takes it down.   See http://www.facebook.com/...

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (14+ / 0-)

    Philip B. Maise Plaintiff in federal suit Maise v. Political Action Committees et. al.

    by pbmaise on Tue May 22, 2012 at 02:08:50 AM PDT

  •  I don't know much about wikipedia (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Geenius at Wrok

    but I understand that a lot of this is confirmed by the community standards and there are ways to report something that is unfactual -- is the page locked?  Have past edits been taken out?  Have you flagged this for hte editors or the site?

    •  I didnt' mention..I kind of got my hand slapped (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Wee Mama

      When I posted here the link to the page that discussed taking the Cranbrook Incident page off-line I kind of got my hand slapped.  Rather than risk loosing all Wikipedia editor rights I suggest using google search engine or just look directly at Mitt Romney page on Wikipedia.

      Philip B. Maise Plaintiff in federal suit Maise v. Political Action Committees et. al.

      by pbmaise on Tue May 22, 2012 at 02:54:17 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  how much of that discussion could be summarized (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Wee Mama

        I am now rather confused but it is really late at night for me and I am off to bed.  Perhaps the specifics here will make more sense to me in the morning.  But you are right that there should be more of the factual information included (no one disputes that the incident occurred) than just some things happened...

    •  Nonexistent Information isn't Nonfactual Though nt (0+ / 0-)

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Tue May 22, 2012 at 05:48:17 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Looks like (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Thousandwatts, myboo

    the Rmoney campaign has been "tidying up" his entry. Can you link to the offending page so we can examine the history and who actually did the editing?

    Fight poverty, oppression, hunger, ignorance, disease and aggression wherever they occur.

    by Lib Dem FoP on Tue May 22, 2012 at 02:35:58 AM PDT

  •  Somebody should ... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Miggles

    ... do an Urban Dictionary entry for Romney.

    Mitt Romney:  (n.) Mostly dangerous.

    I would tip you, but the man took away my tips.

    by Tortmaster on Tue May 22, 2012 at 02:43:27 AM PDT

  •  It's the Liburuhl Media at it again! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Whitefish, renbear

    Commies I tell you - a rich, white male cannot get a break in this system,

    Newt will explain it to you galdammit!!

    The Kenyan Socialist foodstamp president gets all the softball treatment and all passes- Where's the Birth Certificate William Ayers?

    Enough to make the shareholders of Bain wanta go offshore and invest then off to Europe for vacation.

    "Honey, be sure and pack the dog,"

    Occupy- Your Mind. - No better friend, no worse enemy. -8.75, -6.21<> Bring the Troops Home Yesterday

    by Thousandwatts on Tue May 22, 2012 at 02:50:03 AM PDT

  •  I can reduce it to four. (0+ / 0-)

    "willard doesn't respect privacy"

    People to Wall Street: "LET OUR MONEY GO"

    by hannah on Tue May 22, 2012 at 02:55:14 AM PDT

  •  He's the Mormon Til Eulenspiegel! (0+ / 0-)

    Maybe he ought to watch it with those pranks.

    Romney '12: The Power of Crass Commands You!

    by Rich in PA on Tue May 22, 2012 at 03:35:54 AM PDT

  •  Wikipedia is Open Source (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mamamedusa, Wee Mama, myboo, Sylv, renbear

    The reason that the Wikipedia entry is that way it is is because it is an Open Source information site.  There are many good things about that, but one of the bad things is you can manipulate almost entry for a short amount of time (longer depending on the amount of time invested).  My guess is Romney people have been working overtime trying to scrub the Cranbrook incident out (many things go under the radar).  It is probably not gone but on the disputed page.  It would take a major effort by members of the Dailykos community to make sure it gets back in, and it probably won't be right away.  People need to go to the disputes page and put in LINKED stories to reliable sources about Cranbrook.  It will make it back in before the election which is most important.  It might also work to go to the Cranbrook page and put in the incident.  Cranbrook then will be highlighted on the Romney page and take the reader straight to the incident on the Cranbrook page which people might see as more reliable.  But again, it is very dependent on being active on Wikipedia and not complaining but overwhelming the pages with Linked, reliable sources.

    •  The Entry Is Locked (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Sylv

      You can see the lock icon in the upper right hand corner. This means that Wikipedia moderators are actively taking a hand in deciding which content appears in the topic and which does not.

      "I'll believe that corporations are people when I see Rick Perry execute one."

      by bink on Tue May 22, 2012 at 04:03:37 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Nope. It is semiprotected (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        bink, renbear

        To cite Wikipedia on semiprotextion:

        Semi-protection prevents edits from unregistered users (IP addresses), as well as edits from any account that is not autoconfirmed (is at least four days old and has at least ten edits to Wikipedia) or confirmed.
        which, for what its worth, is a sensible policy for high profile biographies.

        The Obama entry has the same status.

    •  that is oversimplified (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      exlrrp, mamamedusa, distraught

      Wikipedia is most of all an arcane and next to impossible to navigate power structure.  Dailykos is open, and transparent ion comparison.

      I've looked at the talk page in the article. There is a small core of determined conservatives effectively dominating the debate.  These peoples do not only "vote" (you don't vote on Wikipedia, unless you do ... its quite complicated) but they also produce most of the editing on the article. They also seem to be reasonably integrated in Wikipedia's internal politics, which makes them essentially unassailable for an outsider. (Despite its "open" structure, there is virtually zero room for newcomers in Wikipedia to effect changes if an entrenched editor dislikes them).

      To effect real change this group would needed to be countered by an equally effective group of progressives.  They need to be somewhat numerous  (around 5 or more), determined, with a good standing in Wikipedia, and they need to have substantial staying power. You cant just helicopter in, do your thing and go away again.

      I doubt this is feasible in the short term.

      •  I am aware of other instances (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mamamedusa, myboo, Sylv, cris0000

        where it has happened that a small group of powerful editors completely removed the existence of an inconvenient controversy in favor of something that supported their agenda, although it was essentially already proven false.

        People have an awareness that Wikipedia may be unreliable because "anyone can edit it". They do not have a corresponding awareness that if the editors have a different vision in mind, what you read on a page can be complete hogwash.

  •  Here's the problem: Has the Washington Post (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mamamedusa, Wee Mama, Sylv

    article been linked?  The citations for "pranks" are from the Deseret News ('07), Fortune ('07) and Boston Globe ('94).  Clearly the Washington Post article should be included as it repeats some of the referenced "pranks" (I don't remember the ice stuff), is more recent and is from a newspaper that is as reputable as the other sources.  If anything the WP article should be cited because it is the most recent and the most inclusive as it lists all the major above referenced pranks and then some.

    So you are almost there.  The most important thing is to get the WP article footnoted.  The six words aren't as important as having that link there.

    Good luck.

  •  some of the background (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Wee Mama, myboo, Sylv

    Apparently a tree falling in the woods only makes a sound, if Wikipedia's editors can agree that they heard it.

    On May 17th a summary of the bullying incident was deleted, (apparently because there was no consensus) http://en.wikipedia.org/...

    During the 2012 presidential election, [[Mitt Romney Cranbrook incident|four former Cranbrook classmates stated]] that as a senior in 1965, Romney was offended by the sight of a quiet, non-conformist boy who had dyed his hair blond. They stated that he led them in pinning the crying boy, one year younger than Romney, down while Romney forcibly cut the boy's hair off with scissors. When reports of this came to light decades later, Romney said that he did not remember the incident, but acknowledged that he may have taken some high school pranks too far and apologized for any harm that may have resulted from them.{{cite news|url=http://www.nytimes.com/... title=Bullying Story Spurs Apology From Romney |first=Ashley |last=Parker | first2=Jodi |last2=Kantor | newspaper=The New York Times|date=May 10, 2012}}
    that was replaced with:
    and also in the [[Mitt Romney Cranbrook incident]].
    That one throw away line referencing the bullying/haircut was then deleted on May 19th (not sure about the date).

    There apparently was a very involved discussion about this.

    I would love to know if the people advocating deletion of this story would also advocate deletion of the dog on roof story (which is summarized as a footnote on Willard's page)?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site