Sister of Alleged Romney Bullying Target Starting to Dispute Parts of Washington Post Story
First there was the story, then the controversy surrounding the story, and now a new controversy about the controversy surrounding the story. ABC News:
The older sister of Mitt Romney’s former high school classmate said she has no knowledge of any bullying incident involving her brother and the GOP presidential candidate.
Read our earlier post that included a roundup of some of the reaction. MORE:
Betsy Lauber, one of John Lauber’s three sisters, spoke with ABC News Tuesday night regarding the accuracy of the story.
“The family of John Lauber is releasing a statement saying the portrayal of John is factually incorrect and we are aggrieved that he would be used to further a political agenda. There will be no more comments from the family,” she said.
Romney has since apologized for what he said were “pranks” in high school but has said he doesn’t remember the specific event.
Romney said “homosexuality was the furthest thing from his mind” when it came to the jokes he played on classmates.
“Even if it did happen, John probably wouldn’t have said anything,” Christine Lauber said.
She added she and her sisters will likely put out a statement later via a family attorney.
“If he were still alive today, he would be furious [about the story],” she said with tears in her eyes.
The Washington Post contacted and quoted both Christine and Betsy Lauber in their original story.
John Lauber died of liver cancer in 2004, according to the Washington Post.
My earlier post was wrong: this story WILL have legs.
It sounds like the next development will be whatever the family says being pitted against the five sources the Washington Post used in its story. As I noted in my earlier post, when I worked on newspapers in Wichita and San Diego, and even on some of the freelance reporting I did from India and Spain in the 70s for the old Chicago Daily News and the Christian Science Monitor, on something extremely controversial editors would ask if you had several independent sources to confirm an allegation. The Post had FIVE. If you ask working journalists, most will tell you that editors require confirming sources (papers became extra vigilant after the Washington Post’s Janet Cooke “Jimmy’s World” fiasco in 1980).
This will then boil down to partisans touting the version that promotes their political interests and — as usual — other readers and Americans making up their mind as they watch this newest twist unfold.
It will also mean the media will be looking at Romney’s record more than ever (remember the way Obama was vetted when he was new on the national scene with Reverend Wright and the visits to the schools he had attended overseas as a boy). This kind of scrutiny is normal.
ABC News has been doing its own aggressive reporting on this story as well. One report quoted a former classmate of Romney as saying his behavior as a student was “evil” and like “Lord of the Flies.”
This story will likely go on for a while…….
Share This
Interesting personal side note…
I am from Kansas City, which has a notably large Mormon population. We also have a decent sized gay community that for a period of time in the past was known to meet at the Liberty Memorial. KC had a serious problem with gay bashing at the Lib Mem in the early 90′s. Young men with bats would beat gay men almost to death. I once met one of these gay bashers…he was a fellow employee at the pizza joint where I had worked….
He was mormon…and his group of gay bashing friends were all mormon.
Not all mormon men all gay bashers… but in my personal life, the only gay bashers I have ever met where all mormon.
““Even if it did happen, John probably wouldn’t have said anything,” Christine Lauber said.”
If that is true he may have never said anything to his family about such an incident either. As usual the truth (whatever it is) will be rode hard and put away wet to suit political interests. Also one can’t help but wonder about the motives of the Lauber family are in all this. Too bad John isn’t still around to shed some light on this himself.
By the way, I find it interesting that Romney isn’t denying the story. From the AP:
“”I participated in a lot of high jinks and pranks during high school, and some may have gone too far. And for that I apologize,” Romney told Fox News’ Brian Kilmeade during a hastily arranged radio interview. Romney said he did not remember the Lauber incident but did not dispute that it happened.”
So… what is going on here?
you’d make a good PI Zephyr. I wonder also why Lauber family wants to suddenly issue statements about a deceased man. Better to only have said, ‘our family notes the media stories, and we have nothing to say pro or con.’
what they’ve done is literally throw out raw meat to media. Dont know why. But time will likely tell motive or naivete.
I don’t even understand what’s going on here. The family is saying both that, if this happened to John, he wouldn’t have said anything… and also it never happened to John?
I’m so confused.
Being a victim of Bullying during Hi School in the sixties, it would not surprise me if an alpha male like Romney (as well as many other politicians)had actually been a bully when he was much younger. However, we’ve got to be mindful of the fact that, whatever we might say or do at the age of 17 does not absolutely reflect who we are now.
although I find Romney an unlikable candidate and and I abhor his political and economic philosophy, I would prefer that he be judged on his more recent actions as a hedge fund manager, who aggressively targeted certain companies in order to obtain profit, rather than whatever may have happened way back when.
The person who bullied me was a survivor of Vietnam and I’m sure that this experience took a lot of the piss and vinegar out of his sails. He died not too long ago due to a freak accident, and his obituary was full of warm and glowing praise from his friends and family. So, whether or not Romney did what he is purported to have done, should not be the defining issue of his campaign. I would much rather hear his rationalizations concerning the health care reforms he made in Massachusetts that are quite an accurate template for our present national health care reforms and I would also prefer to hear criticism of his job creating record and his ambitions as a person who destroyed faltering companies and laid off their employees in order to remake them for profit.
No matter what most of us did as teenagers, we are quite probably not the same now. We deserve a debate about real issues not about a petty and possibly irrelevant rehashing of the past! And this applies to any candidate who runs for high public office.
I’m not sure what to make of this yet. What is most disturbing is not that it happened (I’d say most of us have things we’ve done in our youth that we regret) but that, if it did happen (and it’s hard to argue with 5 witnesses), I’d expect Romney to remember. The guilt alone should be enough to make the memory linger. And in that case he should own up to it and apologize and explain why he’s a different person now. I’d respect that. But instead he issues a waffling statement which isn’t reassuring at all.
Dr. E, I think it’s understandable that the family would be upset. “nothing pro or con to say”? Why not? He was their brother. Why should they have no opinion on what’s being said about him?
It seems this is a personal issue for them not a political one, which is understandable. It appears that he was an unusual and perhaps troubled man with some secrets, and it’s not hard to see why the family objects to his name and history suddenly being made public for political (which is not to say, unjustified) purposes. The questions raised about Romney are legitimate, but so is their concern about the man’s dignity and privacy.
If you read the WaPo article the sisters are quoted multiple times. I wonder what impression they had of what the story would be about.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/mitt-romneys-prep-school-classmates-recall-pranks-but-also-troubling-incidents/2012/05/10/gIQA3WOKFU_print.html
How can the sister dispute the account? It was supposedly a group of boys at an all boys school tormenting another boy. She would not have been there. And most bullying victims don’t talk about it.
As to the fact Romney doesn’t remember it very well, that seems to indicate it was something so normal in his mind it didn’t stand out. I went to a private all boys school in the 90′s, and stuff like this was not that uncommon. I don’t know if other schools are like that, but there is definitely a touch of “Lord of the flies” to my memories of school and I would not be surprised at all about something like this happening in the 60′s.
It’s not the economy stupid, it’s about what pranks/bad behavior you pulled 45 years ago.
If this was the same story about Obama, would there be the same uproar? I say yes, and it also would be a waste of time.
ABTES.
I think we need to give the sisters a break. They didn’t ask for their brother’s personal life to be drawn into the middle of a national political debate. They say that the “portrayal of John is factually incorrect”. We don’t know what exactly about the portrayal is incorrect, but that’s their view. One also said that she questioned that he would have talked about it to the person that claimed he did. Who’s right? Who knows. I think it’s best we take the sisters’ view for what it’s worth and cut them some slack for not responding exactly the way some would like them to have.
“I think we need to give the sisters a break…. They say that the “portrayal of John is factually incorrect”…. I think it’s best we take the sisters’ view for what it’s worth and cut them some slack for not responding exactly the way some would like them to have.
I have a differing viewpoint. (As has been noted) many bully victims do not talk to their family and friends about what happened. So the sisters cannot claim their brother was the victim of bullying by Romney is “factually inaccurate”. As I recall from the story there were witnesses. Because the sisters do not know the events they should not respond as though they do.
I’m sorry if the sisters don’t like the story, but it seems to be true. Perhaps if the sisters spoke to the witnesses and tried to understand how bullying effects everyone- including people they purportedly love(d), then the world would be a better place. To just sweep something under the rug and not deal with it because it doesn’t fit into your world view is the big problem here.
As far as how I think the sisters should have responded… first, by not claiming the story was factually inaccurate. Other than that, it doesn’t matter. They could even say they believe that such matters are personal, their family has been through a lot with the passing of their son and they do not want the media involved. I think that would be appropriate. Ideally, they would say that they are saddened by learning that their beloved brother was bullied and believe that everyone should work together to end bullying.
There were details about John’s appearance and demeanor and personality in the story. Like most of us, the way that we are generally seen by our peers is not necessarily how the people who love us see us. It was my impression from the sister’s quote that she was saying the impression given by the article, which came from the 5 witnesses, was untrue as far as the descriptions of her brother. She doesn’t dispute the events, and in fact it seems like she has no knowledge of them. Not surprising, really, that John didn’t come home and start gushing about the popular kids holding him down and cutting his hair while calling him gay. That’s the sort of humiliation a lot people keep even from those they love.
On the other hand, I do love (=loathe) the fact that Romney can’t remember anything about the incident, doesn’t even know if it actually happened or not, but knows for certain that nobody called the vicitm gay.
“So the sisters cannot claim their brother was the victim of bullying by Romney is “factually inaccurate””
My point is that they have the right to claim whatever they want to. Whether you/we believe it or not is a separate matter, but I don’t like the idea of criticizing them for saying what they think. They are not “sweeping it under the rug.” They’re expressing disapproval of how John was portrayed.
They didn’t say the bullying account is factually incorrect, they said the “portrayal of John” is factually incorrect. Subtle but important difference. They appear to be interested in protecting their brother, not protecting Romney. Who can blame them for that? Do you suppose that they have an obligation to make their brother into the anti-bullying poster boy, despite his unwillingness to do that himself while he was alive?
“As far as how I think the sisters should have responded… first, by not claiming the story was factually inaccurate”
What if they think it is or that if parts of it (separate from the bullying account) is? Have you independently verified everything that was said about John?
““If he were still alive today, he would be furious [about the story],” she said with tears in her eyes.”
I honestly don’t know how John Lauber would react. However I know that when someone stands up for victims who feel helpless then those victims feel relieved and grateful. Their lives suddenly become better.
If they feel people are misusing their brother then of course they would want to say something.
Also we no nothing of the boy, the man he became, or much else but we have people here stating that by the tiny bit of info they are sure they know better than the family. This is not political to me because the idea of not only transferring current morals to 40 years ago but also that what one did when on e was 17 defines a man today, the whole idea is absurd to me. There seems to be a lack of respect for the family that I find disheartening.
I can assure that every teen has a secret life, and that their brothers sisters mother father may know NOTHING whatsoever about it. It would be accurate to say: my sibling never told me this. It would not be accurate to say something did not happen unless they were siamese twins. Just my .02… and back in the day as NOW, kids do not report bullying as they ought, just as many adults do not report assault. It’s a theme in our nation. Victims often feel afraid of MORE abuse if they report. That is true across the world.
Ah dregstudio, everyone’s favorite offensive spammer that somehow doesn’t ever get banned from this site…
Congradulations to the media supporting Obama. For three days now the attention has been off Obama’s economic programs and problems and on social values and Romney’s being/not being a gay basher in high school.
But how far can this carry Obama into the fall election?
We must look ridiculous to the rest of the world. Our press is bringing up stories from some one’s high school days. Really, It makes us look so petty and our journalists look so unprofessional. We have some serious problems that need solutions and one of the premier papers thinks is an important story. Almost as bad as the stupid press stories in the Brown/Warren race in Massachusetts. It is just sad.
Mrmarket, I agree we have “serious problems that need solutions”, but since our leaders seem determined to ignore them I guess we’ll just start out small and work our way up.
Dr E, the sisters didn’t say that the bullying didn’t happen, even though that keeps being repeated as if they had said that.
EEllis: “There seems to be a lack of respect for the family that I find disheartening.”
I agree. This thread is disturbing to me. We’re used to making judgments on politicians. Sometimes unfortunately we also jump to conclusions about each other based on our political views. But that comes with the territory of engaging in political debate. This family didn’t ask for this. They are not public figures, and they didn’t go out and push some agenda. They are private citizens who suddenly found themselves in the middle of a national political story, and said, essentially, “You did’t know our brother like we did. Please keep our family out of this.” And they are criticized for it!
I know many people who would never comment on a board like this. Why? Because they wouldn’t want their opinions subject to criticism by people they don’t know. They are private people. They don’t discuss politics even with their own family. They want to live their lives and be left alone. They would be horrified if their names were used for political ends, and especially on the national scale, even if the cause where arguably justified.
I would think it would be common decency, but in case there is any doubt, let me state this: if I die and then some story comes out about some situation that involved me and a public figure, and then my family says that I’m being inaccurately portrayed and expresses dissatisfaction that my name is being used for political purposes, please spare me the defense against my own family. You can disagree. You can continue against their wishes anyway, if you feel the cause is just. But don’t tell my family what they should have said on my behalf. Don’t jump to conclusions about them not understanding the problem of bullying, or that they are trying to sweep something under the rug. Are we sure, in our zeal to condemn bullying, we aren’t engaging in some of it ourselves?
adeline’s dad, was speaking specifically about kids’ secret lives and that their families prob couldnt say yes or no if/or most things happened, but not about the Laub family. But can see how one might take it another way by their sights.
MrM, well said………….
A, I agree, and further, some of the media people still continue to want to make news rather than report news.
Dr E,
Since it is being said by others that the sisters did say that, I took your comment as agreement to that.
To clarify, the rest of my comment was not directly a response to your last comment, but to the thread in general and a few particular comments especially.
adelinesdad said, “They didn’t say the bullying account is factually incorrect, they said the “portrayal of John” is factually incorrect.”
So which part of the portrayal in the media is factually incorrect according to the family? Or, what, exactly does the family object to?
I don’t know what specifically they objected to with regards the the portrayal of Mr. Lauber. They apparently didn’t want to get into the details, and considering they didn’t bring up the issue, I respect that and certainly wouldn’t want to put words in their mouths that they didn’t say.