On the relevance of R’Money the Bully – Markos nails it:
On the other hand, Romney’s bullying has been so resonant precisely because it confirms what we already know about the Republican—that he is a callous, privileged, entitled asshole. He is such a jerk, that he even bullies the 1 percent. He is such a jerk, that his campaign-selected prep school friends trashed him as well, calling him “evil” and “like Lord of the Flies.” It’s not hard to see what happened: The governor’s son bullied everyone into submission and he mistook that for friendship. He is the classic mean entitled rich kid from every 80s teen movie.
It is confirmation that Romney isn’t just an insufferable dick today, but that he has always been that way. Had Romney responded to the bullying revelations with a heartfelt apology, admitted that his behavior was wrong, and called for an end to bullying in schools today, that would show the kind of maturation and growth in character that would render the issue into a positive for him. But of course, he didn’t. He just doesn’t think he ever did anything wrong.
UPDATE: The Washington Post has made some minor corrections to the original story, according to The Atlantic Wire. The substance of the story remains intact, that Romney and a gang of classmates attacked another boy without provocation (unless you consider long blonde hair a provocation). The story links to another article about Horowitz and how he got the information for his story on Romney. It’s a great example of dogged journalism.
Horowitz went on to get four of those schoolmates on the record as witnesses to the incident, and another’s account anonymously, which strengthens his report against charges Horowitz misrepresented a source. Poynter directs us to the blog DC Porcupine, which documented the change the post made to the account of one Stu White (emphasis Poynter’s).
Since White isn’t one of the sources who the story relies on as a witness to the haircut incident, the change doesn’t really undercut Horowitz’s report, but what Poynter and DC Porcupine rightly call into question is the Post’s decision not to include an editor’s note about the change when it first made it.
The story on Horowitz makes it quite clear that what Horowitz did was pure reporting.
Not a single one of the people Horowitz interviewed contacted him before he began working on the story. Not a piece of information was given. All of it was found out through reporting.
And that paragraph at the top of the story is what makes that self-evident. And it’s the reason, as much as the predictable sources are saying the story is “cracking” under pressure from “investigations” being conducted and “fact-checking” missions by right-wing blogs and self-professed Internet truth-monkeys, why this story will be in every credible biography of Mitt Romney that’s ever written.