I just came across this today, and I was surprised no one had mentioned it here yet.
My feelings on Romney's actual position on medical marijuana aside, I can't believe he blew this kid off the way he did.
Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It does seem like he was pretty arrogant. In a situation like that, faced with a textbook case, you would have to be pretty foolish to not question your opposition to medical marijuana use. For Romney to simply state his position and then rhetorically and physically dodge the consequences it pretty bad, especially when the kid asking the question can's pursue.
Posts: 145 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
For a minute, I thought the title meant that Romney was on marijuana for medical reasons. That would be an interesting twist in the race.
There are some contexts I can think of in which Romney's response wouldn't be rude or would at least be reasonable, but I agree that clip looks pretty bad when taken at face value.
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
It looks like he was a complete douchebag, but it also looks like he was flustered, crowded, and cameras were rolling. The kid asked a very aggressively phrased question. Romney's choice may seem poorly thought out, but it may have seemed like the best possible choice to him at the time compared to committing to an answer one way or the other.
At least he didn't say "I don't support medical marijuana...for cripples and hippies."
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Note: My views on this issue are strongly influenced by the fact that my mom's physical well-being, including her ability to be the breadwinner for the family, is completely dependent on her access to a drug that is at great risk of being pulled from the market, and for which there is no substitute.
It certainly isn't a black and white issue, but when you are confronted with real people who will be harmed or are being harmed by the unavailability of a drug, it gets really hard to say no. Romney chose to dodge, when the right response is to say "we [the government] need to find a good way to make this drug available to you, without disastrous consequences for others."
In the case of marijuana, it is not at all clear that legal medical use would lead to a significant increase in illegal abuse, and it is even less certain that that increased abuse would result in significant societal harm. There are plenty of substances with great potential for harm that are still readily available to those who are permitted to use them (radiological materials, for instance, are well-controlled and still handy for undergraduate labs). It really seems like the biggest hurdle for making medical marijuana available is admitting that it isn't all bad.
Posts: 145 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
There really isn't any reason for Romney (or any other Conservative Republican) to answer any of these and other Liberal questions with any seriousness. Those who ask them wouldn't vote for him anyway. And yes, I find it hard to believe anyone who would vote for him would ask a question like this.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, but that sounds an awful lot like saying a politician should only answer questions from those who are going to agree with him anyway.
edit: It was an honest question, and it was a good one because it it aggressively and directly challenged Romney's position. It deserved a better response.
Of course, Jon and eros make a good point. There was no good answer to that question, and it's understandable that he would be flustered by it. But that's kinda the point, isn't it?
Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm with rollainm on that one. It definitely sounds like Occasional supports a divisive two-party structure where all the issues are defined along partisan lines, and compromise is out of the picture. I don't want to live in that country. I'd rather live in a democracy.
Also, if issues like that don't matter to Conservative Republicans like Romney and his supporters, what's the harm in giving a polite answer?
Posts: 145 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
I disagree with Romney, and he's pretty low on my list of people I could conceivably vote for, but I pretty much agree with JonHecht and Occasional. Those who are criticizing him are really criticizing his opinion, not his behavior. He spoke to the kid, and he was polite enough. When it became clear the kid wanted to engage in a debate, he moved on. He has a right not to engage every single person who wants to criticize his positions. The fact that the guy is in a wheelchair doesn't give him some special claim to Romney's time. There was no way to hold on to his opinion that would not have left him open to criticism--nor would changing his opinion have allowed him to fare any better. I really have no problem with his behavior here.
This was quite clearly an ambush, given that it seems to be the operator of the video camera we hear talking.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
"nor would changing his opinion have allowed him to fare any better."
In what way besides in the eyes of his current supporters? Ultimately, "changing his opinion" would have been my goal in asking that kind of question. The point is, according to Wheels ( ), that Romney's current opinion is wrong.
Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm with rollainm on that one. It definitely sounds like Occasional supports a divisive two-party structure where all the issues are defined along partisan lines, and compromise is out of the picture. I don't want to live in that country. I'd rather live in a democracy.
It is no surprise that I support a "divisive two-party system" because I am very openly Conservative. However, even without that I think the United States is already defined along partisan lines with specific feelings toward politicized issues.
Edit: rollainm seems to prove my point, if correct on the questioner. It wasn't an honest question, but a partisan attack meant to prove an existing point.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rollainm: "nor would changing his opinion have allowed him to fare any better."
In what way besides in the eyes of his current supporters? Ultimately, "changing his opinion" would have been my goal in asking that kind of question. The point is, according to Wheels ( ), that Romney's current opinion is wrong.
Okay. They guy has a right to an opinion you think is wrong. Let's stop pretending it was all about his behavior toward the kid, then, when any behavior short of, "Well, damn, I hadn't thought of that! You're right!" would have been wrong.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
My last point aside, there's a number of acceptable responses between "Well damn, I hadn't thought of that!" and "I don't support medical marijuana...for cripples and hippies." that he could have gone with. Especially given the knowledge that he is under heavy scrutiny as a politician, specifically one that is running for President, it just seems to me he could have responded a bit more intelligently, if not more humanely.
Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Romney's first response was to try to assert that there were alternatives to medical marijuana. There are most certainly cases where that isn't true, and this kid is probably one of them. The kid then offered up his question, "would you arrest me and my doctors if I used marijuana?" Romney didn't answer that question. He simply stated the he doesn't support medical marijuana use, and ran off. He also gave no acknowledgment that his only stated justification might not be valid.
The encounter didn't even come close to being a debate. Romney started trying to blow off the kid before the kid could even finish introducing his situation, let alone actually asking a question. Romney made it clear that this was an issue that he wasn't willing to acknowledge was on the table.
If Romney wanted a politically correct, non-weasel response that didn't support medical marijuana, he could have said "I would have to talk to your doctors about why they say medical marijuana is your only option." But that would have acknowledged that the issue was on the table.
Once you acknowledge that there can be a situation where marijuana is the only effective treatment, you more or less have to try to legalize marijuana for limited medical use. Since Romney doesn't want to do this, his only option (other than obvious cruelty) is willful ignorance.
And politeness does require Romney to listen to the whole question, and answer that specific question with a real justification. Instead, he interrupted the kid long before he should have, and from that point on, he didn't respond directly to anything the kid said.
Also, the kid's status as being confined to a wheelchair doesn't give him any more right to Romney's time, but it makes it all the more despicable when Romney takes advantage of that to slip away.
Edit: Occasional: If you're not willing to confront issues that aren't part of your party's platform, you have no business running to be president of the whole country.
Posts: 145 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Having watched the "question" one more time, I think he had answered it just fine. Romney said, "I am against medical marijuana." I would say that pretty much is a "yes" to the question and any other related to the issue. He even said, I answered the question.
Besides, he wouldn't be the one making the arrests, it would be law enforcement. Now, I suppose he could have said that, but what is the point? It is clearly a set up from the start.
quote:If Romney wanted a politically correct, non-weasel response. . .
Can you say that with a straight face? Again, it isn't that he didn't answer the question (he did, just not the "gotcha" one), but that the critics don't like the answer he gave.
Romney cannot win no matter what. When he answers intelligently he is called "smooth." If he answers directly he is called "rude."
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Edit: rollainm seems to prove my point, if correct on the questioner. It wasn't an honest question, but a partisan attack meant to prove an existing point."
Substitute the biased use of "attack" with a more neutral term like "argument" or "position" and you will hopefully see the flaw in this reasoning, or at least in the dishonest label.
Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you consider what Romney said to be a satisfactory answer (a point which I'll concede is debatable), you still have Romney's unwillingness to confront the consequences of that stance or to offer detailed justification. Now, obviously Romney doesn't have to do either on the spot, but he owes it to that kid and the rest of the country to find the time to explain the basis for his opinion and to show that he is willing to accept the consequences of his resolute stance.
Edit: I see that rollainm understands that, like it or not, the Socratic method is a very good teaching tool.
Edit 2:
quote: Can you say that with a straight face?
Sure, if you'll look me in the eye while I'm speaking to you. The response I posted is more or less what I would expect from a reasonable politician: it is still a politician's response, but a diplomatic one and not the blatantly offensive response we actually saw.
Posts: 145 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Other than rollainm, the kid in the wheelchair, the cameraman and maybe a few interested bystanders, and some youtube watchers, I have a VERY hard time considering this worthy of "finding the time" to even answer the question. Frankly, if I was Romney I would have been MORE rude and point blank asked what he wanted because I didn't have the time for his ramblings.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't find his answer "blatantly offensive" in the least, unless you emotionally disagree with his position. It was direct and to the point. The only REAL point to be made.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:the Socratic method is a very good teaching tool.
The Socratic method is a horrible teaching tool, unless the participants already accept you as a teacher.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Medical marijuana has been enough of an issue over the past several years (most notably in California) that it is obviously important enough to be part of the election process.
And Romney's response is very offensive to anybody who would be affected by his denial. They deserve a justification for why they can't have that treatment. Without that justification, Romney's denial is simply inhumane.
Posts: 145 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am finding it a very, very, very hard time understanding any reason Romney should have given that kid the time of day he did. As far as I am concerned the kid and the cameraman were the rude ones since they forced themselves on his time. For instance, you don't see anyone else asking him questions. He was on his way out. Perhaps they could have asked their "question" (i.e. I am sticking with attack) at a better and more convenient time. Perhaps there was a question and answer session. If not, then they were intruding on his business as to how he wanted to conduct things.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
In fact, I don't know why I am giving either of you two the time of day. Obviously you would never vote for Romney no matter what kind of answer he gave short of agreeing with you.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:the Socratic method is a very good teaching tool.
The Socratic method is a horrible teaching tool, unless the participants already accept you as a teacher.
A presidential candidate should have the humility to be willing to learn from the ones that he would govern.
In all the reasonably civilized cultures I've encountered, the ones considered the best leaders are the ones who are the servants of those they lead.
Posts: 145 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Other than rollainm, the kid in the wheelchair, the cameraman and maybe a few interested bystanders, and some youtube watchers..."
You forgot NotMe.
But seriously, NotMe beat me to it. It is very much worthy of response, especially for a presidential candidate, because it is a nationally acknowledged issue.
Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
NotMe, can you point to ONE person (especially one you have disagreed with) that is that way in the United States government at this time? I have said it once, I will say it again. Such idealized democracy is already dead and I don't believe you believe your own words.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"because it is a nationally acknowledged issue." Then they should have asked in a nationally acknowledged venue.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: In fact, I don't know why I am giving either of you two the time of day. Obviously you would never vote for Romney no matter what kind of answer he gave short of agreeing with you.
Well, I would have said because you enjoy a spirited, intellectually stimulating discussion...
Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
From this video, it seems pretty clear that Romney wasn't in a hurry to leave. He was wanting to smile and shake hands, but he was also willing to talk with the Harvard student for quite a while.
Posts: 145 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: "because it is a nationally acknowledged issue." Then they should have asked in a nationally acknowledged venue.
posted
I think I side with how NotMe put it on this one. I imagine Romney was pretty flustered and he would go back and respond differently if he had the time to analyze his own face on camera like we're doing, but that's not really the point.
Absolutes can be very dangerous when forming principles, to the point where at times, the only way to maintain your position is to deliberately avoid the occasional dilemma that pops up.
Posts: 349 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's pretty hard to find humility in the upper echelons of our government, but I would start my search with public health.
Also, you can't throw away an ideal just because it is far from the status quo or unobtainable. If you did, it wouldn't be an ideal. Edit: It also has nothing to do with democracy.
Posts: 145 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: NotMe, can you point to ONE person (especially one you have disagreed with) that is that way in the United States government at this time? I have said it once, I will say it again. Such idealized democracy is already dead and I don't believe you believe your own words.
Such "idealized democracy" was never dead or alive. It's an ideal. One that I will venture to say most Americans believe is a goal worth pursuing.
Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Why?" Because of the context you are trying to force this with.
I agree that he spent more time with the Harvard group. However, I believe the question they asked was more open to an intelligent response and far less partisan bickering.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
How is a public talk by a presidential candidate not a "nationally acknowledged venue"? The guy is running for president! Everything he says in public, especially at an event centered around him, is fair game. The whole point of a campaign stop is for people to judge you by what you say and do on that stop.
Posts: 145 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why even bother having one country if we have two populations and two sets of candidates that refuse to address the issues that aren't those of THEIR half of the country?
Seriously, it's like saying half the country has to sit down and shut up for four years depending on who wins the election because their voices, issues and concerns have just stopped mattering. That's the dumbest thing I've heard in recent memory. Every candidate should have to have a position on every issue, they shouldn't be allowed to say "Well you aren't going to vote for me anyway so I won't speak to your issue." Once we've reached that point, I think our democracy is seriously damaged.
quote:Romney cannot win no matter what. When he answers intelligently he is called "smooth." If he answers directly he is called "rude."
Given how many Democrats have suffered similarly at the hands of Republicans, I find this highly amusing.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Can anybody find a video that doesn't have the Harvard girl's question cut off? I'd like to hear how partisan it is compared to the marijuana question, and whether it was more conducive to intellectual discussion.
Posts: 145 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: I didn't think you would.
Are you trying to get a rise out of me? If so, it's a wasted effort. I'm too tired. (edit: this was a joke. I really am making an effort in general, not just here, to engage in discussions without succumbing to emotional reactions)
Honestly, if you don't care enough to discuss this, then why even respond?
I would very much like to understand where you are coming from here.
Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Why even bother having one country if we have two populations and two sets of candidates that refuse to address the issues that aren't those of THEIR half of the country?
I just find it strange and funny that people think this isn't how it is already. As far as I have seen every candidate already has a position on every issue. Often times how they answer the "issue" says "Well you aren't going to vote for me anyway so I won't speak to your issue."
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
And if everyone thought that way, and was of the opinion that that's already what our democracy has become....how would that help?
Posts: 349 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
i think it's too easy to criticize someone over things like this that, IMO, don't reflect on how good a president he/she could be. i think no matter who the candidate is, thats a fishy question to answer. "are you going to arrest me;" phrasing it like that makes me think he wasn't really there trying to get help or to decide to vote for him.
Posts: 813 | Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think saying, "I'm sorry I don't have a better answer for you" would have been better than suddenly trying to pretend the guy wasn't there. I think "I cannot support the use of medical marijuna but I will support research to find an alternative for people in your situation" would have been even better.
I also think that it must be extremely hard to think on your feet in a crowded situation and having cameras following you around so that people can pick apart every blunder you make must be rather obnoxious. But it was a blunder.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Saying he's sorry he doesn't have a better answer does imply that he thinks what he said is lame.
I don't blame him for not saying that - he probably doesn't think that. He shouldn't have to apologize for his stance.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
As a point, Romney's been asked and has answered this question several times from the group Granite Staters for Medical Marijuana (for which the young man was at the rally acting as a volunteer). If you check out the portion of their website dedicated to Romney you'll see that Romney has repeatedly stated that he opposes legalization of medicinal marijuana because of its potential to result in widespread abuse and overall increase in non-medical marijuana use. I imagine his failure to engage the young man had more to do with the fact that he'd been asked, and answered this question several times, and his recognition that they were simply using the situation to attempt to make him feel bad.
Personally, I think he should have broken down crying and told the young man how he wished there was someway to help him without having a terribly adverse effect on the rest of society. If he'd taken the opportunity to show his humanity rather than walk away from a difficult situation, even if he didn't change his opinion, he would have come off better.
As it was, they were hijacking him to score cheap political YouTube points. He played into it, and now the blogs are all a-twitter with Romney the Callous.
<edit>This was in response to the Lyrhawn, Occassional, Saephon subthread about candidates only answering questions from those who will/may vote for them. Romney has, in fact, addressed this question repeatedly and in some detail, specifically when delivered by those unlikely to vote for him.</edit>
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kat, he didn't give an answer to the second question -- that's the part I think he should have acknowledged. He either needed to say, "Yes, I would support your arrest," "No, I wouldn't," or acknowledge that he doens't have an answer as to what to do with people who are using marijuana with a prescription from their doctor.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:As far as I am concerned the kid and the cameraman were the rude ones since they forced themselves on his time.
You know, this is the biggest problem I have with modern campaigning.
We have a citizen here with a personal question that strikes directly at the heart of one of Romney's policy decisions. And yet, in order to even get that question asked of a major candidate, this citizen had to ambush him and "force himself" on Romney's time.
It's just as bad over on the Democratic side, of course; good luck getting Clinton or Edwards to answer a straight-up question that hasn't been carefully screened.
That incenses me. If candidates don't have the time to answer honest questions, even the tough questions, they don't deserve to be president. It's really that simple.
Right now, my frontrunners are Obama, Paul, and Gravel, despite the fact that their positions are widely disparate, because they will by and large take the time to answer difficult questions honestly. Obama scored major points, for example, for being frank about not wearing the tie pin because he thought it was a cheap sop -- and then taking the press savaging he received for that squarely on the chin, without much dodging. (Similarly, I think Obama's lowest point was shortly after he announced his candidacy, when -- after being anointed a "major candidate" -- he played it way too safe in a few debates. Sadly, after he started being frank again, his numbers tanked. Apparently we like our candidates to mouth mealy platitudes.)
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
), that Romney's current opinion is wrong.
