Letters to the Editor: Mitt Romney is a good man. That doesn’t mean he deserves an apology for 2012

Romney and Obama
Mitt Romney and then-President Obama after their debate in Denver on Oct. 3, 2012.
(Win McNamee / Getty Images)

To the editor: While I can agree with columnist Jonah Goldberg that negative campaigning (also known as “mud slinging”) is unsavory, I can’t agree with his contention that Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) is “owed” an apology for the political attacks he suffered when he was the Republican presidential nominee in 2012.

This kind of campaigning is nothing new, and let’s not forget how Republicans portrayed Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012 -- as a militant, a terrorist sympathizer, a communist and not really an American. In 2004, Democratic nominee John Kerry’s military service was smeared.

Romney knew what he was signing up for when he decided to run for high office, and any current good deeds do not make him more deserving of apology than anyone else who ever ran.

Pete Skacan, Manhattan Beach


To the editor: In defending Romney against charges that he once mistreated his family’s dog by transporting the dog on his car’s roof, Goldberg made the specious comparison that Obama dined on dog as a child.


Yes, former President Obama admitted, in his book “Dreams From My Father,” to having eaten dog as a child. It was customary in Indonesia, and it is customary for children to eat the meals they’re served by their parents or guardians. It is not customary to load your Irish setter atop your station wagon for a 12-hour car trip.

I have grown in respect for Romney and his recent courage of conviction regarding President Trump’s impeachment and his participation in a Black Lives Matter protest, but most anyone would have put the Irish setter in the “way back” of the station wagon and loaded the luggage on top, probably even in Indonesia.

Liz White, Los Angeles


To the editor: While Mitt Romney may not be a racist, sexist or a coldhearted monster, he did make clear his disdain for lower income individuals when he said this during the 2012 campaign:

“There are 47% of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47% who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to healthcare, to food, to housing, to you name it.... My job is not to worry about those people. I’ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.”

Helene Kunkel, Los Angeles