Mitt Romney

Mitt Romney: Self-Made Cop

|

Liberal loyalist Joe Conason has the latest deeply important revelation about a presidential candidate:

My name is Detective Romney, and I'm gonna bust the meanest crew on the streets -- the Choom Gang.

When Mitt Romney was a college freshman, he told fellow residents of his Stanford University dormitory that he sometimes disguised himself as a police officer—a crime in many states, including Michigan and California, where he then lived. And he had the uniform on display as proof.

So recalls Robin Madden, who had also just arrived as a freshman, the startling incident began when Romney called him and two or three other residents into his room, saying, "Come up, I want to show you something." When they entered Romney's room, "and laid out on his bed was a Michigan State Trooper's uniform."…

Said Madden in a recent interview, "He told us that he had gotten the uniform from his father," George Romney, then the Governor of Michigan, whose security detail was staffed by uniformed troopers. "He told us that he was using it to pull over drivers on the road. He also had a red flashing light that he would attach to the top of his white Rambler."

In Madden's recollection, confirmed by his wife Susan, who also attended Stanford during those years, "we thought it was all pretty weird. We all thought, 'Wow, that's pretty creepy.' And after that, we didn't have much interaction with him."

On the "How much should this affect your opinion of a candidate?" scale, I rank this allegation higher than "when he was eight someone served him some dog" and lower than "favors extrajudicial assassinations of American citizens."

Don't expect the exhumations of the candidates' pasts to end anytime soon. I'm just hoping there's some way the competing oppo research teams can surprise everyone by bumping into each other. Maybe Kid Romney fake-arrested Kid Obama for smoking weed.

NEXT: A. Barton Hinkle on the Dangers of Giving Drones to Virginia Cops

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. was Romney ever put on double-secret probation? Inquiring minds wants to know!

    1. It wants me precious!

  2. Whatever. I did stupid, asshole stuff in college, too, but that doesn’t have anything to do with the kind of person I am now. I’ve got plenty of issues with Romney, but this crap just makes me think the other side is desperate.

    1. I’m a bit more concerned about him calling the cops on his neighbors, but not as concerned as I am about Obama and Romney both actually directing the cops to bust pot smokers and medical marijuana places.

    2. The number of times I should have been arrested in college is staggering to the mainstream but probably below-average as compared to other college students at the time.

      1. I had a streak of screwing with people’s minds, too, including some pretty elaborate practical jokes. All in fun, but, taken out of context, could make me look a little bad.

        1. I once impersonated a maintenance man to gain access to the girls dorm at my prep school.

          This girl at my school who was diggin’ me? had a cop come on campus and arrest and detain me once–just so she could ask me to a school function.

          I once forced freshman to leap like bullfrogs from inflatable raft to inflatable raft across the Shenandoah river. It was a freshman lily-pad leaping contest!

          Pranks is pranks. Makes Romney more human if you ask me.

          1. “This girl at my school who was diggin’ me? had a cop come on campus and arrest and detain me once–just so she could ask me to a school function.”

            Run bro.

        2. I once sent 2 of my room-mates who were massive homophobes a spoofed email from the campus gay and lesbian club welcoming them to the club and inviting them to “the annual pajama party. BYOL – Bring Your Own Lube”. And it went downhill from there.

          For some reason they didn’t think it was very funny, but the rest of us who were in on it were literally ROTFL.

        3. Haha, old P Brooks trick. Reply to a comment in another part of the thread with an already-responded-to claim, so that the person you’re responding to is less likely to find it.

          Now you are just being paranoid.

    3. It is somewhat telling that this, the dog story, and the fact that he was apparently a meanie in high school is all the dirt they’ve been able to dig up so far. None of that really makes me dislike him anymore than I already did.

      1. Ooo, see, but apparently in college he was a blue meany.

    4. that doesn’t have anything to do with the kind of person I am now

      So you say. So you say.

    5. I’m not so sure Pro L. I think we need to further investigate your past so we can make baseless assumptions about your present self. It’s the only way to be sure.

  3. Yes, but did he racially profile?

  4. I’d be more impressed if he had been wearing a policewoman’s uniform

  5. Since Ivy Leaguers tend to be from the wealthy echelons of society, usually rub elbows with others in their social group, and are generally more authoritarian, I find it hard to believe that these classmates thought it was weird or creepy. More likely, they went with him on a few of these joy rides before going back to their dorm rooms, smoking some pot, and laughing at how they had made some “townie” wet his pants.

    1. This.

      Who in the world thinks this is creepy? Dickish, maybe. But not creepy.

      1. I don’t know. If he really did use it to pull people over, it’s pretty damn weird (I try to avoid the word “creepy” as I think it is stupid and overused). It really doesn’t change my opinion of him and I don’t think it matters much, but it goes beyond normal dickishness and practical joking.

      2. Playing dress up is one thing. But if he was pulling people over, that is damn creepy and dangerous. Yes everyone did stupid stuff when they were young, but pulling people over crosses the line from stupid to “should be put in pound you in the ass prison.”

        1. Lighten up, Francis.

          1. Touch my stuff…

        2. Ok, that makes at least 4 people in the world now that think it’s creepy: Zeb, Chris Mallory, Kaptious Kristen, and Robin Madden.

          I stand by thinking it’s not creepy but I’ll be backing off my shock that anyone would think it’s creepy.

        3. Depends on what he was doing with it.

          If he was just pranking friends or something, that’s probably not so bad.

          Here’s a video of some actors playing cops to play practical jokes on people:

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLlVzT9tCL4

          Do you find the actors playing those cops to be creepy?

          I don’t. I think it’s funny.

          If Romney were pulling people over as an adult, it would be creepy. If he were busted for doing it as a college kid, he should suffer whatever the legal penalty is.

          But “creepy” back when he was a college kid?

          Probably not.

          1. It is borderline creepy. Shows he had poor judgement and thought he was entitled. There have been several rapists and serial killers who did this.

            I had a friend who drove a lime green duster in h.s. and had a cheap flashy red light and played a siren over his stereo to a speaker mounted outside. But he only pulled over friends and since he drove a lime green car they soon knew it was not real. This was for a few weeks till novelty wore off.

            I will have a hard time voting for Mittens. It will be a last minute decision. This incident is just piling on but it reinforces how much I dislike him and his policies.

            1. There have been several rapists and serial killers who did this.

              Serial Killers brush their teeth too.

              I will have a hard time voting for Mittens. It will be a last minute decision. This incident is just piling on but it reinforces how much I dislike him and his policies.

              If this influences you in any way, I respectfully submit that you need to make your intellectual process a little more rigorous.

            2. bill,
              if you are judging electoral worthiness on the basis of something a candidate did 40 years ago, please turn in your voting privileges today. This incident is a flimsy allegation, though your acceptance of it serves to buttress Tulpa’s point on this thread.

              1. your acceptance of it serves to buttress Tulpa’s point on this thread.

                Can there be any worse offense?

                1. “buttressed” is an inherently funny word.

            3. I didn’t realize that cops drove white ramblers 45+ years ago.

              Serial killers and rapist dress up as UPS delivery guys too. Should we harp on every freshman that dresses as one?

              Holy shit I can’t believe I’m having to defend Romney on this.

              1. Holy shit I can’t believe I’m having to defend Romney on this.

                He’s turning into the Republican guy right before our eyes. He’s becomiong the punching bag for everybody that doesn’t like whatever about Republicans.

                I’m afraid it’s working the other way, too. There are a lot of Republicans who are starting to jump to his defense at every criticism–like saying something bad about him is saying something bad about everything they believe in.

                If he becomes president, it will get even worse–on both sides of the ball. Every single thing he says will be a reason for people on the left to denounce him as a religious fanatic or monocle twirling capitalist. …and any criticism of him will be denounced on the right as some form of treason.

                Remember when criticizing Bush the Lesser got people called a terrorist sympathizer or worse?

                Heady days.

  6. maybe there is a contest we don’t know about – silliest incident disguised as campaign attack. I can hardly wait to see what nefarious act either committed in pre-school.

    1. I have it on good authority that in pre-school Obama once put gum in a girl’s hair that he liked, and Romney once put in a thumb tack in another kid’s seat. Also, they both ate their own boogers on a dare.

  7. Didn’t Obama once eat a cop’s uniform?

    1. Muslims don’t eat pork.

      1. *snickergiggle*

  8. If this is the best Obamabots can do, Romney’s going to trounce them. Who the fuck cares that he may have dressed up like a cop (and I think this is about as likely as the “Romney’s bullying made a guy kill himself” line they were pushing a couple weeks ago) when we don’t even know what President Butt Naked’s grades were in college?

    1. A trouncing isn’t in the card absent the dead girl/live boy scenario. It all comes down to Ohio and Virginia.

    2. Well, since it is criminal to dress as a cop and then try to convince people that you are a cop (assuming that is what he really did), I’d think that law and order conservative types ought to care. But they are sure a fuck not voting for Obama.

    3. Actually, it was Romney’s bullying made a guy kill himself three decades later.

      I fucking detested Romney in the primaries, but these bullshit smears and Obama’s class war bullshit are making me defend him.

      Good Job Team 0.

      1. It is some weak shit. But still less pathetic than “Obama is a secret Muslim” or the birther shit.
        There are so many real reasons to criticize both candidates, why do so many people need to resort to irrelevant or made up bullshit.

  9. Wait, does this make him the first actor to play RoboCop?

    1. RomnoCop: Layoff your staff or there will be… trouble.

      ObamnoCop: Dead or alive, you’re voting for me.

  10. Don’t expect the exhumations of the candidates’ Romney’s pasts to end anytime soon.

    The media still seem oddly incurious about details of Obama’s past.

    1. au contraire. The media is hell-bent on hiding as much of Obama’s past as humanly possible.

  11. Somebody says Mitt Romney said he did something when he was in college. This is a story how?

    Funny, Reason wasn’t presenting as fact the accusations of one person about Rand Paul’s “Aqua Buddha” incident when he was in college. Obviously Rand is a much better person and politician than Romney, but still — journalistic standards should be the same.

    And don’t give me shit about “shilling for Romney”. There are plenty of more discouraging and certainly true things about Mitt than this.

    1. Face it. You’re just a Romney shill.

      1. You are truly a master of assertion.

        1. You are truly immune to sarcasm.

          1. Sarcasm is a lame weapon. Try reason.

            1. It must be Humorless Prig Day on Camp Stupid.

              1. It must be Humorless Prig Day on Camp Stupid.

                LMAO!

              2. It must be Humorless Prig Day on Camp Stupid

                Nice! I will be stealing that.

            2. You can go with this,
              Or you can go with that,
              You can go with this,
              Or you can go with that,
              You can go with this,
              Or you can go with that…

              1. For sarcasmic. That’s stuck in my fucking head now.

                1. I can’t get to youtube from work, but can I assume Christopher Walking is flying around the room?

                  1. *Walkin*

    2. Reason wasn’t presenting as fact

      Note the word “allegation.”

      1. Forget it, Jesse. It’s Tulpatown.

      2. Note the word “revelation” in the lede and the headline “Mitt Romney: Self-Made Cop”.

        Oh yeah, there’s an “allegation” buried in the third paragraph. That doesn’t blunt the first impression people reading this are going to get.

        1. “deeply important revelation” used with a sarcastic tone.

          “Self Made Cop” mirroring the narrative that Mitt Romney is a “Self Made Man”.

          Keep reaching, Tulpa. Or you know, admit you’re wrong and show yourself the door on this one.

          1. He was being sarcastic about the importance, not the truthfulness.

            And yes, I got the pun, but that’s irrelevant. When your title says “Name : Description” you’re claiming that Description describes the person named Name. There are dozens of ways he could have made that joke without giving the impression that he thinks the story is established fact.

            1. Like using the word “allegation” in the post?

              -10 points from Tulplepuff!

              1. So if I write a 10 page recitation of various gossip about how horrible a person is, with no hint of questioning the reliability, make a title containing one of the claims with no hint of questioning it, and then on page 8 call the claims “allegations” in a throwaway sentence, you would call that responsible journalism?

                1. It would be more honest than the average New York Times hit piece.

                2. -5 more from Tulpflepuff.

                  reason didn’t:
                  a. Say this makes Romney a horrible guy
                  b. that they accepted Madden’s statement at face value
                  c. Did not make a title as such (as discussed below)
                  d. didn’t write eight pages

                  Of the five sentences Jesse Walker wrote, one is sarcastic, one is a joke that mirrors a narrative, and one says “allegation”.

                  1. Mr Walker writes long and complex sentences, with lots of clauses and stuff. So it’s not like 1/5 of his content is devoted to pointing out that they’re only allegations (and it’s more than canceled by the lede and title, which carry more weight).

                    In any case, my example was a “reductio ad absurdum” of your implicit assumption that using the word “allegation” in an unemphasized part of the content immediately absolves the writer of repeating dubious claims in more emphasized parts.

                    1. There’s a reason it’s called “ad absurdum”.

                    2. Please don’t use logic terms when you have no training in mathematical logic.

                    3. Aren’t logic terms the purview of philosophy?

                    4. He’s on Vanneman levels of wrong on this thread.

                    5. I was parodying Randian/RBS chiding me for using the term “negligence” without being a lawyer.

                    6. Ahhh. I’m slow on the uptake sometimes.

                    7. So that’s the deal? You’re a mathematics professor?

                      How about “Please don’t use logic terms when you refuse to think?”

          2. I mean seriously, he could have just put a question mark after it and that would have been fine.

            1. Stow that nonsense. You said this:

              Funny, Reason wasn’t presenting as fact

              That made it sounds as if it were an intentional act. In other words, you accused reason of deliberate misrepresentation and double standards, and now you’ve walked it back to “ah, it’s a misfired headline that could be fixed with one punctuation change”

              Just stop already.

              1. “Presenting as fact” involves relating a questionable claim without including information about its questionability. Generally, when someone says something without any reliability information, we assume that that person thinks it is a fact.

                Like all instances of negligence, failing to emphasize the questionability of hearsay statements does not have to be an intentional act.

                Is it intentional? Possibly. Given that it’s Mr Walker, who seems like a pretty even-handed bloke, I don’t think that’s likely, it’s probably just an oversight. If it were Riggs or Krayewski I would be much more believing in it being intentional.

                1. Like all instances of negligence, failing to emphasize the questionability of hearsay statements does not have to be an intentional act.

                  Don’t use legal terms when you don’t understand them. You clearly implied that this was intentional and deliberate, and now you’re asserting negligence.

                  “Presenting as fact” involves relating a questionable claim without including information about its questionability

                  Unless you call it an allegation.

                  1. I swear, Tulpa throws around legal terms like some 1L during his second week of law school.

                    1. Well, jeez, RBS, you saw the headline! Res Ipsa Loquitor, dog! Rule Against Perpetuities! Material Breach!

                  2. “Negligence” is not merely a technical legal term, RBS/Randian.

                    And both of you are random Internet people, not lawyers on this thread. As am I. For all any of us know we’re all 10-year-old girls stroking our My Little Pony’s next to the computer.

                    1. “Negligence” is not merely a technical legal term, RBS/Randian.

                      Thanks, Prof. Pedant.

                      Anyway…you clearly implied intentionality to the act of writing the headline. Then you got called on it. Then you moved the goalposts (“The words allegation didn’t come fast enough!”, with your lip all a-quiver), then you got called on that, too.

                    2. I stand by my comment as originally stated. Not moving the goalposts at all. The claim about “allegations” was irrelevant.

                      And here you go again with calling me a pedant after I correct a pretty glaring mistake on your part. Just what HR needs, another sophist now that Neu Mejican has gone to the great hereafter.

                    3. And here you go again with calling me a pedant after I correct a pretty glaring mistake on your part

                      You didn’t correct a damn thing, and everyone reading this thread other than you knows it.

                    4. So what term were you referring to when you said I was using a legal term without knowing what it meant?

                    5. You moved the goalposts by strongly implying that this was intentional.

                      you moved the goalposts when you said that reason “presented this as fact” when the word “allegation” was in the write-up.

                      Instead of admitting you just didn’t read the goddamn article, you’re grasping at every straw, including “reason negligently represented this as fact because they didn’t add a question mark at the end of the sentence.”

                      That has got to be the stupidest goddamn thing I have heard all week.

                    6. I didn’t imply intent, strongly or otherwise.

                      When you say “God bless you” when an attractive woman sneezes, but then don’t bother to do so when a fat guy does, it doesn’t mean you intentionally snubbed the fat guy, you just weren’t as adamant about following etiquette in his case. In this case Rand Paul is the hot chick and Mitt Romney is the chub.

                    7. What legal term were you telling me not to use when I don’t understand it, BTW?

                    8. Anyway…you clearly implied intentionality to the act of writing the headline. Then you got called on it. Then you moved the goalposts (“The words allegation didn’t come fast enough!”, with your lip all a-quiver), then you got called on that, too.

                      Straw man / moving the goal posts?

                      Say it isn’t so!

                2. OMG Tulpa.

                  It’s a Hit’n’Run piece, and you’re treating it like it was deposition.

                  Take a freaking sedative already!

                  1. I’m not the one castigating another poster for using technical terms like “negligence” without passing the bar exam first.

                    1. If the conniption fits, wear it!

                    2. How much math training is required before I can use terms like “median” and “extrapoloate”?

                      OMD but are you ever a douche nozzle.

                    3. Um, dude? It was Randian and RBS that started the freaking credential-pulling, not me.

                      Perhaps it was a mistake to do my parody of them in the subthread above, because now people probably think I started it.

      3. Oh, snap! Usually the authors come on here to make a pithy comment or to address a grammatical correction made by a commentator. It’s rare indeed that they come on here to slap someone in the face for making a bullshit claim.

        Well done, Jesse.

        1. Nah, they do that to me all the time because they know the weight my words carry.

          1. But oddly enough, your words have no mass.

            1. Or force, gravity, or magnetism.

    3. Didn’t Rand Paul admit to the Aqua Buddha thing?

    4. Huh, Tulpa, where did reason present this as fact? Because it says right there in the post that it’s an “allegation”.

      I assume you read the entire thing before your knee-jerked.

      LOL JK I know you don’t do that.

      1. It also says it’s a “revelation” and the title doesn’t mention the dubiousness of the story.

        1. It’s Propaganda 101, nothing more.

    5. I read this post as being another entry in the running theme at Reason of looking at the absurd things journalists will focus on to avoid substantive issues.

      1. Well, so did most normal people.

      2. ^^THIS^^

      3. Then why does it have Mitt Romney in the title instead of Joe Conanson?

        Titles mean things, Bee.

        1. To repeat:

          “deeply important revelation” used with a sarcastic tone.

          “Self Made Cop” mirroring the narrative that Mitt Romney is a “Self Made Man”.

          Keep reaching, Tulpa. Or you know, admit you’re wrong and show yourself the door on this one.

          1. So he made a title that had nothing to do with the point of the post.

            1. Says Tulpa the Editor!

            2. But it did have something to do with Mitt Romney. Huh, imagine that.

              1. From the comment that you were allying yourself with:

                I read this post as being another entry in the running theme at Reason of looking at the absurd things journalists will focus on to avoid substantive issues.

                I don’t see anything about Romney or cop uniforms there.

                1. So what?

                  Regardless, next time some dumb shit like “The Choom Gang” comes up, I better see you in there in Pedant Hulk Superrage.

                  Somehow I doubt that’s gonna happen.

          2. admit you’re wrong

            Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha!

            I needed a good laugh.

            1. I don’t believe in lying.

              1. Man, Tulpa, I have to admit that you take obstinance to a whole other level.

              2. Then why do you do it?

              3. But clearly you believe in selective thinking.

  12. On the “How much should this affect your opinion of a candidate?” scale, I rank this allegation higher than “when he was eight someone served him some dog” and lower than “favors extrajudicial assassinations of American citizens.”

    But dressing up like a cop is against the law, and we all know that the drone war is perfectly legal. At least that’s what I was told by a government employee recently.

    1. a college kid dressed up like a cop; a sitting president is pushing assassinations. But maybe you’re right; illegal is illegal and we’re just debating a matter of degrees.

      Like the ESPN guys say, “come on, man.”

      1. I’m just presenting the argument someone made to me on here the other morning. Over and over and over and over and over again for that matter.

  13. I’m sorry, but that is just creepy as fuck, and goes way beyond “stupid college hijinks”. Not that I was gonna vote for the guy anyway, but yeesh. *shivers*

    1. Yeah it’s really creepy but I give it about .01% chance of being anything other than a bullshit smear.

      1. Yeah anybody can say anything. Romney was in college a _long_ time ago. The people sourced may even be honestly recollecting this and it could still be wrong (they remember it as Romney but it was actually a different politican’s son or whatever).

    2. It isn’t as if he pulled them over, copied down their driver’s license information and then stalked them / looked up their public records. THAT would be creepy.

      Pulling someone over and giving them a warning for going 66 in a 65? That’s just fucking with people.

  14. Said Madden in a recent interview, “He told us that he had gotten the uniform from his father,” George Romney, then the Governor of Michigan, whose security detail was staffed by uniformed troopers. “He told us that he was using it to pull over drivers on the road. He also had a red flashing light that he would attach to the top of his white Rambler.”

    By way of comparison, Barack Obama nationalized two-thirds of the American auto industry–and put me on the hook for the bill.

    Can you guess which one I think is worse?

  15. I have a good source that says Obama engaged in Gay Nazi sex parties in college.

    1. Would anyone find it all that surprising if Obama had “experimented” some in college? I wouldn’t.

      1. Yeah, I experimented with Nazism in college too.

        Wait – you weren’t talking about that, were you?

    2. Actually, there’s some evidence for the gay sex part that’s been floating around the web, including the death of one of the people supposedly involved. The media has been investigating all that, of course… not.

      1. I want to say there are three deaths involved.

  16. And the “other witnesses” who actually saw Romney in the uniform described pulling pranks on friends (who obviously knew he was not a police officer once they saw him), not cruising around pulling over strangers who really thought he was a cop.

    Yes, it’s technically illegal, but it’s not the abuse that the law was designed to prevent. If Hollywood hasn’t been lying to me all these years, strippers coming to stag parties often dress as cops. Are we going to impugn them too?

    1. Who are you arguing with again?

      1. A straw man, as usual.

        1. the straw man LOOMS LARGE!

      2. I’m not arguing with anyone. Just pointing out that while technically illegal it’s more of the TP’ing someone’s house kind of illegal than the actual officer impersonation with intent to commit a crime kind of illegal.

          1. Who are you posting too when not replying, Randian? I hate it when you get like this. Which is all the time recently.

            1. I hate it when you get like this.

              Not making the bed. Leaving dishes in the sink and dirty laundry on the floor.

              Bitch, bitch, bitch…

              1. He has been grumpy lately. I wonder if something’s going on at work…

                Usually he brings me flowers on Fridays.

                1. So you’re conceding my point by your ad-homs, I see. Such childish anti-intellectualism.

                  1. So you’re conceding my point by your ad-homs, I see. Such childish anti-intellectualism.

                    Tulpa == LoneWacko?

                    1. Certainly has the same exaggerated sense of self-worth bordering on megalomania.

                    2. I don’t know why anybody responds to him. How can you argue with someone who reads a headline, gets all worked up because it doesn’t convey the information he thinks it should then refuses to acknowledge that the actual article contains that information. Leaving aside the fact that Jesse clearly doesn’t think this kind of “reporting” isn’t as significant as the people who report it think it is.

                    3. I assumed that once the word “allegation” had been pointed out to him, he would retract and just admit that he hastily read the article and had a knee-jerk reaction.

                      We’ve all done it. I’ve seen people link to stuff that was explicitly talked about in the article. It’s embarrassing, a little bit, but it’s not a big deal.

                      Instead, he had to “double down” on his laughable assertion that he didn’t “miss” the word allegation and that this is all some Super-Secret-Clever Criticism from the World’s Wisest commentator.

                    4. Obviously I don’t think responding to him is that big of a deal. It’s pretty entertaining watching him keep digging when he’s already in a hole. The fact that he thinks he so fucking smart makes it even better.

                    5. A sufficiently advanced wisdom is indistinguishable from stupidity.

                    6. It was a LW homage, obviously. If Randian isn’t careful I’ll start making VagueLegalThreats against him.

    2. If Hollywood hasn’t been lying to me all these years, strippers coming to stag parties often dress as cops.

      They are lying to you. Most strippers I’ve seen came dressed as heroin addicts. And they must have been working another party afterward, because they left dressed as heroin addicts as well.

      1. That just proves you’ve seen shitty strippers.

        1. But you repeat yourself.

        2. True story: At the Hawaiian Hut in San Juan, PR, I saw a woman take a ten dollar bill…make it disappear…and produce an entire roll of quarters one by one all with not a stitch of clothing on and very, very little use of her hands.

          1. I mean this in all seriousness:

            Cool story bra.

          2. Dude, tell me you hang out at Lucky 7s too….

            1. Never been there that I can recall. This was 15 years ago, by the way, and my friends usually wanted to go to the Black Angus, but I was a Hawaiian Hut guy because I wasn’t partial to a woman unzipping my pants and pulling out member while I was trying to order a Medalla.*

              That and I went for the cheap drinks and pool.

              *When I went to San Juan. I usually went to Papa Joe’s near Rosie Roads (Gate 3 IIRC) on the rare occasion that I went to a strip bar close to home.

              1. And by “rare occasion,” I mean about 4 times a week.

          3. I… I… don’t know what to make of this…

          4. That’s one hell of a laundromat.

      2. It was cocaine addicts where I came up.

    3. Just because I am bored.

      And the “other witnesses” who actually saw Romney in the uniform described pulling pranks on friends (who obviously knew he was not a police officer once they saw him), not cruising around pulling over strangers who really thought he was a cop

      Yep. So what does that have to do with the post?

      Yes, it’s technically illegal, but it’s not the abuse that the law was designed to prevent.

      Nobody said it was.

      Are we going to impugn them too?

      you got a mouse in your pocket?

  17. Romney is a turd for many reasons, most of which have had no impact on me.
    Obama is a turd for many more reasons., many of which have had a great impact on me.

    I will vote for neither of them.

    1. GJ’s got my vote

  18. Eh. I had a friend in high school who wanted to be a cop at the time and had a flasher in his car. He turned out alright once he got over it.

    Heh. Once he and another friend of mine played a horrible practical joke on a third friend who was tripping. Friend with flasher pulls into driveway with flasher going. Friend not tripping goes into the whole “oh shit its the cops! Run!” routine. Tripping friend goes out the back and over a wrought iron fence. They found him hiding in the scrub around a retaining pond a block away.

    Cruel yes, but also funny.

    1. Wow. Talk about how setting and company can make the trip what it is.

      1. Karma balanced everything out. The tripper later stole the instigator’s smoking hot girlfriend.

    2. We were never big on pranks in high school. The closest we ever came to one really was when one of us was taking a piss on the side of a tree leaned his head against it and dozed off. His pants slipped around his knees. Naturally, we tied him to the tree and took pictures.

  19. Alt-text winner winner chicken dinner.

  20. Hmm… why would Romney have a Michigan state trooper outfit with him in California?

    I’m thinking he wore that to frat party or something and was just messing with the gullible.

  21. Well, I was going to vote for Romney. But this revelation has given me pause to question whether his character is truly fit for this nation’s highest office.

    I think I shall vote instead for his esteemed opponent, Barack Obama, whose character is, as we all know, unimpeachable.

    1. Obama probably executed people in a secret Communist ritual in college. But the media is unconcerned with his youthful transgressions.

      1. He’s sooooooo cool. I wish I could have hung out with him in college.

        1. Were you a Maoist in college?

        2. I don’t know about college, but I wish I could have hung out with him in high school. Taking the choom van to puff by some beautiful Hawaiian scenery sounds pretty great.

    2. I was never going to vote for Romney but now I know he had a rape suit in college (isn’t that the implied point of this story?) I’ll have to keep in mind the possibility he will be outed as a Satanist and in the case I’ll feel obliged to vote for him.

  22. Looks like every Team Blue partisan who Romney ever came into contact is going to have some story or another to tell about him. Obama on the other hand never actually met anyone on the other side until he ran in to Joe the Plumber in ’08.

  23. Here is the factual content we are presented with: Some people who say they went to college with Romney say that he told them something and showed them a Michigan State Trooper’s uniform.

    Romney seems to have been a bit of an asshole as a young man (something I’m not sure he denies), so I can imagine him doing this, but we don’t have any real evidence he actually did.

    Assuming he did, all he has to do is say that he was a bit wild as a kid and learned his lessons.

    1. BTW, I’m hardly a Romney partisan. I’d just rather keep the focus on the present day. There is plenty to criticize about what he’s proposing (or not proposing).

  24. So his dream of being an authoritarian ass clown dates back to at least his teenage years.

    1. I think that’s true of most politicians. It’s almost a prerequisite.

      1. This is why most of the Framers wanted the elected officials to be part-timers with real jobs. Someone with nothing better to do than be a full-time politician is almost always going to be an assclown.

        1. George Washington wasn’t a part-timer with a real job…so the Framers must have been disappointed real quick.

          1. George Washington wasn’t a part-timer with a real job

            I’m sure the people who worked on and did business with his plantation, distillery, and other business interests would have been surprised to learn this.

            1. So I guess BO’s book sales and promotions are his “real job”.

    2. And I might add, Obama knew he wanted to president from a very youg age, so his dream of being an authoritarian ass clow also went back a long way. It’s almost like they’re politicians or something.

      1. In other news, I can’t type worth shit today.

      2. Almost every American kid says they want to be president at one time or another.

        1. Then they grow up and realize what a shitty job it is and that you basically have to be a sociopath to get there.

          1. Which leaves only the actual sociopaths who still want to be pres. Neat, huh!

        2. I didn’t really fantasize about being president as a kid, but did during the Dukakis* campaign. O only because I wanted a girl like Kitty of my own.

          * You count that as a spelling error Firefox spellcheck? That’s just mean.

          1. What does it suggest for correction?

            Two khakis?

            Dookies?

            1. Sukiyaki.

  25. Holy shit Tulpa. While I admire your determination to stick with your assertions, it’s not like Jesse is the one making the original revelation.

    I mean, would it really surprise you if he did something like this? You know, being a privileged punk ass 18 y/o you do all kinds of stupid shit.

    1. It’s not a revelation if it’s not true.

      If you repeat gossip as fact, you’re just as guilty as the person you got it from.

      Now, I think Jesse was just a little too anxious to get a funny title and a witty lede and has enough disrespect for Romney (an understandible attitude) that he didn’t think to emphasize that it was just an allegation in those weighty parts of the post.

      1. People with no sense of humor bore me.

        *yawn*

      2. prop?a?gan?da/?pr?p??gand?/
        Noun
        1. Information, esp. of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.
        2. The dissemination of such information as a political strategy.

        Does this help?

      3. Here, Tulpa, since you think I am up to “tricks”, here you go again:

        If you repeat gossip as fact, you’re just as guilty as the person you got it from.

        When you say it’s an allegation, then you aren’t fucking reporting it as fact, are you Tulpa?

        1. The title and lede contain no hint that it’s just an allegation. We’ve been over this already (and I note you haven’t responded to my RAA above other than to make a silly joke about the name).

          1. “Hi, my name is Tulpa, and I pride myself as an intellectual professor, even though I cannot be bothered to read more than 34 words before leaping onto a writer like a frenzied, rabid Partisan Pomeranian”

            1. YIP! YIP! YIP! YIP! YIP! YIP! YIP! YIP! YIP! YIP! YIP! YIP!

              grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!

            2. What I think reading it doesn’t matter. What about the people who don’t read the entire article? What impression are they left with?

              1. *pulls up the goal posts, takes several strides, inserts goal posts into the ground*

                You’re welcome, Tulpa.

              2. Probably that a libertarian magazine doesn’t support Romney.

                Well no shit.

        2. But, but, but it was a “revelation” before it was an “allegation”!

          And the word “allegation” wasn’t in the title!

          And… and… *sputter* … why have you been so mean to me lately? I thought, well…

          Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah

          1. I’m now joining as a Proud Member of the Axis of Glib.

            He said revelation! Even though it was sarcastic, it’s still a clear case of ANTI MITT ROMNEY BIAZ?

            Oh, Jesse, why didn’t you just use a question mark, for Galt’s sake!

            1. I’m now joining as a Proud Member of the Axis of Glib.

              Good thing. They’ve been dropping like flies lately.

              Wait a sec. Glib, not Gibb?

              *blushes*

              Never mind.

      4. I’m sorry, I must have missed the part where Jesse said it WAS true.

        He did not repeat gossip as fact. He DID post what another reporter wrote and then called the whole damn thing an allegation.

        Holy shit, how do you not see this?

  26. If you repeat gossip as fact, you’re just as guilty as the person you got it from.

    Good thing the word “allegation” appeared in the post then, huh?

    1. Haha, old P Brooks trick. Reply to a comment in another part of the thread with an already-responded-to claim, so that the person you’re responding to is less likely to find it.

      1. so that the person you’re responding to is less likely to find it

        Straw man assertion. Time to move the goal posts!

        1. *insert “complete” after “assertion”*

      2. I responded right below your own comment. I quoted your own comment that is immediately above this one.

        Please shut up now.

        1. Quoting doesn’t help me to find it, and you know my comments draw a crowd so it will be distantly separated before long.

          1. my comments draw a crowd

            Sort of like the Special Olympics.

          2. You know what? Fuck you, Jack.

            There was a time where I thought you served a valuable and important role here. Now you’re just a sophisticated troll in the same vein as MNG.

            1. Sorry Tulpa, but I don’t think he’s that into you.

            2. I’d be lying if I said that didn’t hurt, but oh well. You’re not exactly upping your stock with your behavior toward me either.

              1. If you’re hurt by what some anonymous person on a magazine forum says, then you’ve got some serious issues. Loser.

          3. you know my comments draw a crowd

            …because everyone wants to hang out with the cool kids, and they don’t come much cooler than me.

            Sorry for jumping into an argument that I’m not really a part of, and don’t want to be, but the smug in that statement is practically impenetrable. It’s like George Clooney’s oscar acceptance speech all over. Careful, you might make San Fransisco disappear up its own asshole again.

            1. It’s not usually a crowd of fans, obviously. My fans tend to be fairly silent.

              1. My fans tend to be fairly silent.

                Empty bleachers are like that.

  27. college romney ™ sounds like a real horses ass, but i wouldn’t want some of my college antics held against me, either.

    there is a time and a place for (insert behavior here) and it’s called college.

    i should also note i am not familiar with the laws in those states, but in every state i am familiar with the law , it is only illegal to dress as a cop if you
    act in some official capacity, like try to make some sort of subject stop, or arrest, or other “coplike” action

    i’m not saying there might not be a state that criminalizes MERELY dressing up to look like a cop, but i’m not aware of one. and in such a state, i am confident prosecutors wouldn’t prosecute somebody merely for dressing as a cop unless they did some kind of fuckefd up shit while dressed that way.

    fwiw, in a state like WA which is an open carry state, there is apparently nothing illegal about dressing as a cop AND being fully armed as a cop, although i would not recommend it.

    just because it’s legal, doesn’t mean it’s not colossally stupid.

    1. just because it’s legal, doesn’t mean it’s not colossally stupid. Cops won’t go all powertrippy and fuck you up for doing it.

      There. Fixed it for you.

  28. Whoopee. So he did crazy things and had funny ideas as a youth. So did I.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.