home

Mitt Romney on Why His Sons Aren't in the Military

Republican hopeful Mitt Romney didn't serve in the military because he had a religious exemption for his missionary work and a high draft lottery nuimber.

Why aren't his sons serving? Because they are supporting the country by helping him get elected. Seriously, that's his reason.

"My sons are all adults and they've made decisions about their careers and they've chosen not to serve in the military and active duty and I respect their decision in that regard."

He added: "One of the ways my sons are showing support for our nation is helping me get elected because they think I'd be a great president."

< FISA Amendment Allows Collection of All Our International Calls | Rudy Won't Answer Faith-Based Abortion Questions, Promotes Drug War >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Because $$$$$... (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by desertswine on Wed Aug 08, 2007 at 04:26:37 PM EST
    Romney was the founder and head of Bain Capital, a private equity firm. Analysts who track executive compensation say his compensation over 20 years was at least $500 million.

    And you ask why his kids don't go and get their legs blown off in Iraq?  They're too rich to do that, and not stupid enough either.

    Like Father, Like Son (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by RedHead on Wed Aug 08, 2007 at 05:46:12 PM EST
    Mitt's old man, Gov George Romney of Michigan was a big supporter of Vietnam, yet Mitt didn't enlist.

    Today, Mitt wants to double the size of GITMO, yet his kids won't enlist to serve at GITMO.

    That's the "conservatives" - "we love america, more than you do" for ya, putting the chicken into Chicken-Hawk.

    And let's not forget the original definition (none / 0) (#21)
    by Sailor on Wed Aug 08, 2007 at 06:13:02 PM EST
    This Young Republican National Federation Chair has uhhh, blown his chances. Twice. Warning, PDF.

    Gee, what is it about rethugs that they claim family values but just can't help themselves. (Want links?)

    Parent

    sailor complains (1.00 / 0) (#22)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Aug 08, 2007 at 07:53:26 PM EST
    What is it about "Universal" Military Service that you fail to understand???

    Parent
    Gee, I guess ppj is for ... (5.00 / 0) (#25)
    by Sailor on Thu Aug 09, 2007 at 01:57:23 AM EST
    ... rethuglicans sexually assaulting folks.

    Parent
    Personally, (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu Aug 09, 2007 at 09:16:03 AM EST
      I advocate keeping candidates kids out of it-- period.

      Exploiting where someone sends their kids to school, what the kids look like, the mistakes the kids make, the family tensions, whether they serve in the military or whatever is mean, tawdry and enlightening only in the sense that it illustrates how low people will go to damage others.

    Except of course (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by aj12754 on Thu Aug 09, 2007 at 09:23:09 AM EST
    when the "kid" is campaigning for daddy or mommy.

    Parent
    Except when the parents make them part ... (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Sailor on Thu Aug 09, 2007 at 11:25:34 AM EST
    I think you see the point. (1.00 / 0) (#17)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Aug 08, 2007 at 05:50:16 PM EST
    So you can't understand that you may a baseball fan, but not a player?

    Like to discuss politics but not a politican??


    Hmmm (5.00 / 0) (#23)
    by TomStewart on Wed Aug 08, 2007 at 09:09:45 PM EST
    Like to watch TV but not an actor or director? Like to read but not a writer? Like to excrete waste but not a toilet? Oh, wait, you don't need to be a toilet to excrete waste...

    Sorry folks to work blue...

    Parent

    I didn't know Guam was invaded (1.00 / 0) (#49)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Aug 09, 2007 at 12:34:26 PM EST
    at the end of the Vietnam war. If you want to pat yourself on the back for standard service where there was no chance of harm by the enemey, please do so. Being a witness to historical events doesn't mean that one had any influence on them.

    -- you do not have to be against all wars to be opposed to this one.

    I didn't say that.

    I said you can not make a moral argument against war unless you are against all wars.

    And no, I am not fixated on Chelsea serving. In fact, I don't think I have ever made that point before. I only mentioned her because it is obvious that the Right can make the same argument.

    The issue isn't the kids, the issue is you branding Romney a "Chickenhawk" and then condemning his kids not serving. They have as much right to campaign for their father as Elizabeth Edwards has to campaign for her husband. If you want to disagree with their politics, fine. But calling them names doesn't improve your position.

    No idea (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by aj12754 on Thu Aug 09, 2007 at 12:51:32 PM EST
    where the first part of your quote is from.  And I have no idea what you can possibly mean by patting myself on the back about standard service. I find it interesting that after you ask the standard "gotcha" question about serving and you get the unexpected "yes" then you move to the combat question.  And if I'd answered yes to that, you'd have asked if I'd killed....and on and on.

    Sigh.

    Why on earth would you say you can't make a moral argument against a particular war?  Of course you can.  Morality (except in heaven and hell) is always and forever a matter of weighing ends and means.  It's the most basic question in moral philosophy.

    I didn't say they didn't have the right to campaign for their dad.  You are just muddying the waters there ... or trying to.  

    Romney himself raised the question with his purely idiotic response to a question about his kids.   The only real debate on this thread is actually whether or not the question itself is legit as it relates to Romney's kids.

    The larger question -- can any war supporter of abled body and sound mind make a rational and moral defense of his or her decision not to serve? -- is clearly legimate whether it is asked of a politician's kid or of my kid.

    It's pretty clear Romney is nowhere near bright enough to be president.  His kids have probably figured that out by now.

    Parent

    I see that you forget. (1.00 / 0) (#54)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Aug 09, 2007 at 01:42:44 PM EST
    You wrote:

    US Army medic 1974-1977. For Jackson, Fort Sam, Fort Meade, Guam when Saigon fell, Livorno...

    Perhaps you don't know much about the aftermath of the fall of Saigon so you fail to see the point of being in Guam at the time. Not my problem.

     

    I replied:

    I didn't know Guam was invaded at the end of the Vietnam war. If you want to pat yourself on the back for standard service where there was no chance of harm by the enemey, please do so. Being a witness to historical events doesn't mean that one had any influence on them.

    You were the one who raised the importance of service in Guam. I merely asked why. You responded with no answer given in a snarky way.

    Guam wasn't invaded, and there was no question about combat service. And I never asked about combat service. I pointed out that there was none.

    Morality (except in heaven and hell) is always and forever a matter of weighing ends and means.

    No, that is called justification of acts. They are either moral or they are not.

    Once you start justifying, anything becomes possible.

    My point was that when you starting calling Romney a Chickenhawk and demanding why his kids don't serve you have substituted name calling, smearing, for logic, and open up every politician's kid for the same type question.

    What you forget is that I am for Universal Service. I would have everyone serve.

    And why do you think a person needs to make a moral decision not to serve?? The law of the land has put a volunteer army in place. Those who serve do so at risk.

    I think your problem is that, down deep, you understand that it is wrong to oppose the war in the manner that the Left and Demos have. You can not misunderstand that when Reid declared the war lost, our enemies were encouraged, emboldened and empowered.

    Parent

    You might want to try (none / 0) (#59)
    by Alien Abductee on Thu Aug 09, 2007 at 03:37:06 PM EST
    this - not much different from having a conversation with Jim.

    Parent
    Can't answer, eh?? (1.00 / 0) (#62)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Aug 09, 2007 at 03:56:47 PM EST
    Eh? (5.00 / 0) (#63)
    by Alien Abductee on Thu Aug 09, 2007 at 04:10:01 PM EST
    To quote BlogWarBot:

    Stop placing your oppressive expectations on me!

    Are you saying that just to be an *sshole?

    Parent

    Can you understand?? (1.00 / 0) (#65)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Aug 09, 2007 at 04:55:59 PM EST
    A comment that you are unable to answer my point is not an expectation.

    It is a statement of no expectation.

    Glad to see you are so flustered you have to go to the vulgar attack. Confirms the expectations I did have.

    Parent

    More BlogWarBot (5.00 / 0) (#67)
    by Alien Abductee on Thu Aug 09, 2007 at 05:53:01 PM EST
    Typical. An expression of privileged ignorance.

    Or maybe: You're projecting. And in denial. And ugly.

    Can you be any more clueless Jim? Did you miss my link?

    Parent

    Alien offers nothing (1.00 / 0) (#69)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Aug 09, 2007 at 07:58:55 PM EST
    Nope I didn't miss a thing.

    Alien, you have provided no arguments. I really can't have respect for people who claim some intellectual position and then immediately resort to starwmen and personal attacks.

    I offer you a chance to redeem yourself.

    I claim that it is possible and logical that people can support an activity without being part of it.

    That would be the war, education, NHC or baseball among the thousands.

    I claim that UMS will provide a ready source of manpower should we become involved in a war in which our technological advantages are overcome by sheer numbers and/or location. It would also have great societal benefits by making those who would get in a war understand that it is their children would might very well be involved. I also claim that just the act of forcing people from the hood to the burbs from the drop outs to the Harvards bound to associate and know each other is good. I also claim that it is important to keep the professional military in close contact with the civilian world.

    Your turn, if you can.

    Parent

    Just keep posting from your script, Jim (none / 0) (#70)
    by Alien Abductee on Thu Aug 09, 2007 at 08:27:52 PM EST
    You don't respond to substance any better than BlogWarBot does. BlogWarBot sez No substance. Lemme guess: you voted for Lieberman.

    You hijack whatever thread you're in. The topic of this thread is not UMS - it's the hypocrisy of war-supporter Mitt Romney and his sons who are "supporting the country" by trying to get their dad elected instead of getting shot at in Iraq like the kids of less privileged folks.

    Parent

    Alien (1.00 / 0) (#71)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Aug 09, 2007 at 10:35:52 PM EST
    You can run, but you can't hide from the fact that I posted, you offered nothing of substance.

    Instead you complain that my solution to Romney, and all others, is UMS. But you don't want solutions, you want to complain. Is it because my solution requires you and others to give something back? I have heard the Left demand scarifices, but when I say, here, do this, you run away. Oh, I know. You probably want a tax increase, as if money can replace service. Is it because that you think the tax would be only on the "wealthy" and you could walk away clean, not giving money or service?

    In the end, dear Alien, we are known for what we write. You write nothing. Come. Debate. But you won't.

    Like others you define yourself.

    Parent

    "solution to Romney" (5.00 / 0) (#72)
    by Alien Abductee on Thu Aug 09, 2007 at 10:52:33 PM EST
    The only good solution to Romney and all the other hypocrites like him is to defeat them at the polls.

    You wouldn't know what "the Left" stands for if it bit you on the ass. You're always writing what you think people are thinking but you haven't a clue - you substitute your own judgments and then argue against them. Talk about straw men.

    Against my better judgment I'll answer your substance - I support universal service in theory, and have said so here if you want to search my comments. But under the current circumstances of this rogue administration, considering what it would send people to do if it had the power to compel such service, I don't support it. I'm going to have to see some checks and balances return to government, and the willingness to enforce them, before I'd place such trust in the government.

    Don't make me sorry I've answered you substantively, or I swear you'll never get anything but BlogWarBot insults from me here on in.

    Parent

    Alien - Really?? (1.00 / 0) (#74)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 07:55:11 AM EST
    Don't make me sorry I've answered you substantively, or I swear you'll never get anything but BlogWarBot insults from me here on in.

    When I think of all the bad things that are happening to people all over the world this morning, your "threat" doesn't seem significant.

    And yes, after reading their comments for over four years on TL and watching them since the mid 60's, I have a good idea of what they think.

    Insult away if you think that is the thing to do. I think it demeans the attacker more than the other person myself.

    You can not support UMS in theory. You either do, or you do not. Your opinion of this, or that, administration has nothing to do with it. If we had UMS 10 years ago my guess is that we wouldn't be here.

    Shorter: You have to start somewhere.

    Parent

    To paraphrase BlogWarBot (1.00 / 0) (#75)
    by Alien Abductee on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 02:13:30 PM EST
    It's been nice chatting with you.  Let's do it again soon! /irony

    Parent
    Yes, and next time bring some talent. (none / 0) (#80)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 05:04:57 PM EST
    Pathetic (none / 0) (#1)
    by HeadScratcher on Wed Aug 08, 2007 at 01:12:22 PM EST
    But, is Chelsea Clinton serving? I seem to recall that her mom voted to authorize the war.

    It works both ways Jeralyn. I know you're a Hillary supporter and that's fine, but that's what a volunteer army is all about.

    It's the lame excuse (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Aug 08, 2007 at 01:17:05 PM EST
    not whether they are serving. It would be fine if he just left it at "That's their decision." But to suggest that they are performing an equally important role for the country by working in his election campaign is ridiculous.

    Parent
    if you support the war ... (5.00 / 0) (#5)
    by Sailor on Wed Aug 08, 2007 at 01:26:13 PM EST
    ... you should bet your life on it.

    if you don't support the war you have a moral duty not to participate in it.

    Mitt and his ilk are chickenhawks.

    Parent

    Sailor loves strawmen (1.00 / 0) (#8)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Aug 08, 2007 at 03:10:50 PM EST
    Nope.

    It is perfectly logical to support the war and not join, just as it is possible to support education and not be a teacher, support minority rights and not be a minority, etc.

    However, if we had a draft, and if you had just wangled an appointment to the Army Reserve, and if you had almost at the same time received such a high draft number you knew you wouldn't be drafted and if you then wrote a letter resigning/refusing the Army Reserve appointment.... well yes. At that point we could call you a hypocrite... Remember who I am taking about??? He became quite famous..

    Parent

    illogic (none / 0) (#13)
    by Sailor on Wed Aug 08, 2007 at 03:41:44 PM EST
    if you supprt education you should be a STUDENT, if you support minority rights you should give money and time to the cause.

    And yes, we all know your position on forcing involuntary servitude on Americans, and your support of dictators and terrorists. After all, you were for the Taliban and Saddam before you were against them.

    Parent

    sailor's logic ?? (1.00 / 0) (#19)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Aug 08, 2007 at 05:54:45 PM EST
    So if I am not a student I should not support education??

    And I don't donate money to minority organizations I am not for minority rights??

    Even for you that is a stretch, but does illustrate your logic capabilities quite well.

    And yes, I believe in Universal Military Service. For the rich and the poor all between. And you wouldn't have to serve. That is, if say Mexico would let you in.

    ;-)

    Parent

    illogig again (5.00 / 0) (#24)
    by Sailor on Thu Aug 09, 2007 at 01:47:53 AM EST
    So if I am not a student I should not support education??
    Since you don't want to pay taxes for education, you are obviously against it.

    And I don't donate money to minority organizations I am not for minority rights?
    If you've never donated time or money for minority rights you are obviously part of the problem, not the solution.

    And we all have read your diatribes about 'universal slavery' but the point is folks who believe in the war should join, and folks who don't believe in the war should protest it.

    The first are hypocrites, the second are not.

    But this thread is not about you, we all know you never served in a war, it's about Mitt's hypocrisy
    in saying his kids are 'serving' by trying to elect him prez.

    Yet another self-serving rethug hypocrite.

    Parent

    sailor tries to change the subject (1.00 / 0) (#29)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Aug 09, 2007 at 08:52:20 AM EST
    Hmmmm. All you know about my military service is that I served 10 years in milirary aviation. I seem to remember you mentioned that you had served, although you gave no indication of service name or time.

    And you aren't going to make this about me. You brought this subject up at 1:26PM yesterday.

    If you support the war ..... you should bet your life on it.

    I pointed out you don't have to a member of anything to support them, and gave several examples. And then took a system crash and became illogial.

    Now that's fine, but I'm not going to let you make things up. I have never said we shouldn't pay taxes for education. And if you bring some link in, please be sure to have it in total because I have a record of catching in you in misquotes and leaving things out.

    And I said you don't have to be a minority to support minority rights and you decide that you can't be for them unless you donate time and money.. What nonsense.

    The point was, is and will be that with a volunteer military, you can be for the military without being in the military. Note I said "military." You can also include the word war because you can't be for one without the other.

    As for Universal Service, yes. All should serve.

    Rich man, poor man, beggar man, thief. Doctor, lawyer, Indian Chief.

    Parent

    Well, I disagree with that because (none / 0) (#9)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Aug 08, 2007 at 03:33:11 PM EST
    the first rule of being a soldier is that you aren't serving yourself you are serving your nation by obeying your elected President.  

    Parent
    I do my best to not should on people (none / 0) (#10)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Aug 08, 2007 at 03:35:37 PM EST
    because some how should always goes hand in hand with some sort of copout for myself in the shoulding process.

    Parent
    Not quite (none / 0) (#2)
    by eric on Wed Aug 08, 2007 at 01:16:33 PM EST
    The difference, you see, is that Mitt is a big cheerleader for the neverending war, and Hillary isn't.

    Parent
    Exactly, Hillary was for the war before she (none / 0) (#6)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Aug 08, 2007 at 01:33:58 PM EST
    was against it.

    Chelsea was plenty old enough to enlist when Hillary voted for the war.

    Parent

    can't really back a politician (none / 0) (#73)
    by oculus on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 12:47:25 AM EST
    pressuring an adult daughter to enlist to make the pol. look good.  

    Parent
    Also, just to be clear (none / 0) (#4)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Aug 08, 2007 at 01:19:16 PM EST
    I have not endorsed a candidate in the Democratic primary. My favorites at this juncture are Hillary and John Edwards, but I'm not committing to either just yet.

    Parent
    I agree with most of you, (none / 0) (#7)
    by HeadScratcher on Wed Aug 08, 2007 at 02:33:44 PM EST
    But please say that Hillary and Bill Clinton are chickenhawks also...They have sent or supported sending troops to die and they and their child have never served in the military.

    Scratch this (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by TomStewart on Wed Aug 08, 2007 at 05:06:31 PM EST
    It's been explained to you by Jeralyn why this was posted (see above, I'll wait). Back now? Good. It's not the fact that he supports the war and yet doesn't send either himself (too old) or his kids, but he treats military service with such a flip and lame excuse.

    I know you really want the chance to crap on the Clintons, and I understand that. You miss them so very much and have a ton of manure allllll saved up with their names in crayon written all over it. Fine, keep it handy, there will be lots of chances to use it coming up. But this isn't one of them.

    Sorry.

    Parent

    Can't help this hijack (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Aug 08, 2007 at 05:50:35 PM EST
    just seems fitting.

    Parent
    "Universal ____ Service" ... (none / 0) (#26)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu Aug 09, 2007 at 07:50:14 AM EST
      is an idea worth serious discussion. One can easily posit countless economic, social and cultural advantages to a policy requiring ALL young people to serve their country. The obvious downside is the inescapable tension between compulsory and individual liberty (Hey, I'm free to hate my country, so why should I be forced to serve it in any capacity? There are less extreme examples to illustrate the infringement.)

      "Universal MILITARY Service" though appears an unworkable idea in this era.  Our military does not need or  want ALL young people, and one can imagine that being forced to "babysit" a large number of resentful, unproductive  and less capable, etc.   people would waste resources and manpower better employed elsewhere.

    Missing full quote by Romney (none / 0) (#27)
    by Aluwid on Thu Aug 09, 2007 at 08:29:29 AM EST
    You are missing large parts of his comments which clarified what he was saying.  In particular he was explaining that there are more ways to serve your country than to join the military.  The comment about his son was a lighthearted way to say that one way to support the nation is to get active in political campaigns.

    The bolded lines are what you are missing:

    The good news is that we have a volunteer Army and that's the way we're going to keep it. My sons are all adults and they've made decisions about their careers and they've chosen not to serve in the military and active duty and I respect their decision in that regard.

    I also respect and value very very highly those who make the decision to serve in the military. And I think we ought to show an outpouring of support just as I suggested, a surge of support for those families and for those individuals who are serving. My niece, for instance, just to tell you what a neighborhood can do and how touching it can be, my niece Misha --living out west-- her husband, I think he got a call on a Tuesday, he's in the National Guard, he got a call on a Tuesday that he was going to be called up and shipped overseas on a Thursday, and they'd just bought a home, they hadn't landscaped it, but the rules in the neighborhood were that unless you got your home landscaped within a year of the time that you bought your home, they began fining you because they didn't want people having mudholes in front of their homes. And she was very worried, and just before the year expired, she woke up one morning and looked out the window and all the neighbors were out there rolling out sod, putting up trees, getting it all done. It is remarkable how we can show our support for our nation.

    One of the ways my sons are showing support for our nation is helping to get me elected because they think'd I be a great president (laughter) and my son Josh bought the family Winnibago and has visited 99 counties most of them with his three kids and his wife, and I respect that and all of those and the way they serve this great country.

    Here is the recording if you're interested in the full context:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljf2myZFNBw

    He respects their decision (5.00 / 0) (#28)
    by aj12754 on Thu Aug 09, 2007 at 08:50:57 AM EST
    NOT to take part in the defining struggle of their generation?  A stuggle that:

    will cost us a trillion dollars
    has cost us our constitutional protections and international reputation
    makes unremitting demands on our military and our economy.

    What part of that decision does he respect?  The "I'm saving my butt" part?  The "let the cannon fodder do it" part?

    Perhaps someone should ask these men if they have "forgotten about 9/11"?  (his nasty accusation against those who argue that we should leave).

    Romney's five sons range in age from 37 to 26 and have worked as real estate developers, sports marketers and advertising executives. They are now actively campaigning for their father and have a "Five Brothers" blog on Romney's campaign Web site.

    Well ... blogging is arduous duty.


    Parent

    aj (1.00 / 0) (#30)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Aug 09, 2007 at 08:56:16 AM EST
    If he is to respect the ones who are active opponents of the war and did not serve, actions that many think hurt our efforts, he must also include his children.

    I beleve that all should serve. That would be Universal Service.

    But until then I won't complain about those who don't serve. The list would be too long.

    BTW - Have you served??

    Parent

    Yes (5.00 / 0) (#32)
    by aj12754 on Thu Aug 09, 2007 at 09:21:55 AM EST
    US Army medic 1974-1977. For Jackson, Fort Sam, Fort Meade, Guam when Saigon fell, Livorno.

    Are you somehow implying that his kids are opponehts of the war and that he has to respect their decision?   I don't think you meant to say that although your post is poorly phrased enough to support that interpretation.

    Or are you somehow equating their decision not to serve with the decison not to serve by those who do oppose the war?  If so -- HELLO anybody home?  

    War opponents have a rational moral basis for their decision not to serve that can be articulated and defended.  These "kids" are campaigning for a chickenhawk and their reason for not serving is the arduous duty of blogging?  At least that's what daddy says.  Well, they are between 26 and 37 years of age.  Let 'em speak up.

    Parent

    aj (1.00 / 0) (#39)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Aug 09, 2007 at 11:06:58 AM EST
    Glad to know you also served, although why you think serving in Guam at the time Vietnam fell is significant I do not know. Did you visit the beach the Marines had to come ashore on? They faced in place guns, sighted for the exact location. What heroes all of those men were.

    Working backwards.

    Your logic is that Romney is a Chickenhawk. That goes back to my point that you can support the war and not be in the military. "Chickenhawk" is just a word coined by the Left to tar the people who support the war. I could call those who oppose the war any number of names. "Surrenderers" would be one of the nicer ones.

    So what you have done is declare Romney bad and his kids bad for campaigning for him.
    As you said, "Hello anybody home?"

    Pick a Demo candidate who is against the war and I can say the same things about him, or her. Remember, Hillary voted for the war. At that point Chelsa should have enlisted. Right??

    So I find such arguments false.

    For moral arguments against war to be effective, the person making the argument must be against all wars. The only person I have seen on this blog to do so is Peaches. The remainder seems to be against this war, and frankly, their position is "I am against this war because I hate Bush."

    So I remain convinced that you can support the war without being in it. That seems to be a logical position that covers many situations in life.

    And I remain convinced that the only way to solve such arguments is Universal Military Service, as I have previously posted. Two years at age 18 or high school graduation, no exceptions except for severe medical problems, followed by a regime of active reserve training until age 26-30.  Those who wanted to volunteer for further active duty could do so at anytime.

    Parent

    If the kid (none / 0) (#34)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu Aug 09, 2007 at 09:45:04 AM EST
      is actually speaking in public on behalf of the candidate then, yes, I think he or she injects himself or herself into the public debate and is fair game to a limited extent. It isn't perhaps as mean and lowdown to focus on the kid in that situation but it's still very unenlightening about the candidate.

       If on the other hand the kid just wants to be left alone then leave him or her alone even if he or she  is playing golf or downing shooters or has a bad overbite.

     

    Does blogging count? (none / 0) (#35)
    by aj12754 on Thu Aug 09, 2007 at 09:49:02 AM EST
    I don't think anybody's talking about dragging in a "kid" who is not putting him or herself out there.

    Parent
    Depends on the blog (none / 0) (#36)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu Aug 09, 2007 at 09:57:08 AM EST
     if it's a "vote for my mom or dad"  blog then i guess that counts.

      I'm not sure on which  planet  you have been living the past 30+ years if you believe nobody talks about dragging kids  who show no desire to be there into the fray. From Amy Carter, at least, forward, it seems kids have  been considered fair game by the baser elements on both sides.

    Parent

    I had assumed (none / 0) (#37)
    by aj12754 on Thu Aug 09, 2007 at 10:03:46 AM EST
    we were talking about political discourse, not gossip rags.  

    I don't really think politician's kids have it all that bad compared to soldiers' kids so I'm all dried up on sympathy for Mitt's kids or Carter's kid or Clinton's or Jenna and Barbara.

    Maybe Mitt's bloggers can hustle on down to Ft. Hood and commiserate with the kids at local high school or elementary school.

    Parent

    Well, the poor here don't (none / 0) (#38)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu Aug 09, 2007 at 10:56:00 AM EST
    have it "all that bad" compared to the poor in, say, Sudan,  but I think many still find it possible to sympathize. One can almost always point to some instance worse than the subject of "bad"  at hand, but that's a very dubious means of justifying "bad."

    Huh? (none / 0) (#41)
    by aj12754 on Thu Aug 09, 2007 at 11:32:57 AM EST
    Kind of a stretch comparing the poor here to Romney's kids don't you think?  It's exactly that kind of diversionary tactic that shows how very desperately you are trying to ignore the simple question here.

    Why are Mitt's kids campaigning actively for their chickenhawk flip-flopper dad who still thinks we can win in Iraq and wants to supersize Gitmo -- and then supporting the war effort by electoral blogging?

    Have they created any jobs for returning veterans?  Are they supporting military families with any kind of assistance?  Are they financially supporting veteran's organizations that help returning soldiers deal with war wounds or PSTD?  Are they contacting their legislators to lobby for the best equipment for active duty military stationed in war zones?

    Or are they blogging funny/endearing/humanizing stories about robodad?

    Parent

    you miss the point (none / 0) (#42)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu Aug 09, 2007 at 11:42:02 AM EST
      Identifying something worse than the subject at hand does not make the subject at hand any better. If you feel proud of yourself and consider it a positive contribution to society to behave the way you advocate, you are free to do so. Others are free to disagree with you and criticize you for being petty, trivial coarse and unappealing.  

    Parent
    I didn't miss the point at all (none / 0) (#44)
    by aj12754 on Thu Aug 09, 2007 at 11:48:50 AM EST
    you have been reduced to an ad hominem argument instead of addressing the actual point.  

    Romney's chickenhawk kids.

    You just can't perfume up that stinky package.

    I just love how you guys always get reduced to arguing civility.  

    Parent

    "universal service" (none / 0) (#45)
    by diogenes on Thu Aug 09, 2007 at 12:01:45 PM EST
    Romney's a Mormon, and they DO have universal service-they all become missionaries for two years, and work for what they believe in.  That's more than most of the rest of us pundits have done with our lives or would have our kids do.

    Really? (5.00 / 0) (#48)
    by aj12754 on Thu Aug 09, 2007 at 12:22:53 PM EST
    I think most of us parents -- of whatever religion or no religion -- try to instill the idea of putting our money (or our time, effort, bodies) where our mouth is.  I can't think of any parent that instills hypocrisy as a value except possibly Dick ("I had other priorities" Cheney.  Philosopher-king of the Chickenhawks.

    Parent
    You call them missionaries ... (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Sailor on Thu Aug 09, 2007 at 01:07:18 PM EST
    ... I call them proselytizers.

    Parent
    sailor (none / 0) (#56)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Aug 09, 2007 at 01:48:31 PM EST
    All you have to do is say "not interested."

    Parent
    diogenes (none / 0) (#55)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Aug 09, 2007 at 01:47:43 PM EST
    Just to be clear.

    I am for Universal MILITARY Service. Other government funded social programs must stand or fall on their own merits.

    Parent

    Universal military service (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by jondee on Thu Aug 09, 2007 at 02:29:59 PM EST
    a strawman that, if it were any larger, would be rampaging through Tokyo.

    Maybe Mr Hannity Wannabe knows that the Right seriously entertaining such a possibility wouldnt be tolerated for 1 sec by it's "Libertarian" wing, maybe he dosnt, either way it's bandwidth wasting smoke and flatulence.


    Parent

    Jondee (1.00 / 0) (#61)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Aug 09, 2007 at 03:55:52 PM EST
    Just to remind you, I am an Independent Social Liberal. I do not need to agree with anyone.

    Is your position that you are against national defense in total, or that you expect others to defend you while you complain?

    Parent

    The fact (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by jondee on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 03:53:34 PM EST
    that you miraculously have agreed with whatever O'Reilly, Hannity, Rush & Co said the day before for the last four years, seems to indicate that you do have to agree with someone.

    Parent
    the topic is romney's sons avoiding iraq (5.00 / 0) (#64)
    by Sailor on Thu Aug 09, 2007 at 04:10:51 PM EST
    there's an open thread perfect for your rants about compulsive slavery.

    Parent
    any "reduction" (none / 0) (#46)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu Aug 09, 2007 at 12:03:30 PM EST
     in this argument is coming from you.

     You are now saying that Romney's chickenhawk kids are the important issue? (You also might want reconsider asserting others are resorting to ad hominem argument when you blithely throw around such terms.)

     You asked: why do his kids support him? I'll go out on a limb and suggest BECAUSE HE'S THEIR FREAKING FATHER! now that we've cleared up that mystery perhaps we can focus on what we think about Romney's positions and his character and stop being silly.

    You really can't stay on point can you (none / 0) (#47)
    by aj12754 on Thu Aug 09, 2007 at 12:15:26 PM EST
    Tt should be excruciatingly clear from the posts in this thread that Romney's kids exemplify a larger problem -- namely the hypocrisy of war supporters who are able-bodied and of sound mind -- staying home to support the war.

    I never asked why Romney's kids support him.  I simply pointed out that they do so by blogging.  

    Still trying to muddy the waters because you just can't find any even marginally credible reason for war supporters to show that support by blogging can you?

    Parent

    say what? (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu Aug 09, 2007 at 12:36:58 PM EST
    Why are Mitt's kids campaigning actively for their chickenhawk flip-flopper dad who still thinks we can win in Iraq and wants to supersize Gitmo -- and then supporting the war effort by electoral blogging?

      Those are YOUR words not mine.

      You are making such ridiculous and trivial arguments 180 degrees from the REAL issue that it is mind boggling.

      People who support the war do so  BECAUSE THEY SUPPORT THE WAR. The "credible" reason for them to show that support through blogging or any other means they choose is that it is their inalienable right to do so, same as it is your right to express your opposition through any medium you choose.

      THE ISSUE is the war. It's something some support, some oppose, some view with ambivalence and some don't much consider.

      If you want to persuade more people to both oppose the war and to vote for people who oppose it and will act to end it, i'd suggest there are countless far more "credible" ways of doing so than ranting incoherently because one of the candidate's children support the father and are not in the military. focusing on that just makes you appear an highly irrational and angry person with absolutely no perspective. That doesn't much appeal to the many people who have not decisively and irrevocably made up their minds about all aspects of the issue.

    Parent

    Well -- (none / 0) (#52)
    by aj12754 on Thu Aug 09, 2007 at 12:54:23 PM EST
    somebody here just descended into incoherent rambling -- let's take a vote shall we?  I vote for you.

    Parent
    And of course (none / 0) (#58)
    by jondee on Thu Aug 09, 2007 at 02:46:57 PM EST
    it would be "irrational" and "incoherent" to also point out that the foreign policy that leads to military interventions, is generally designed and implemented by those with little direct experience of combat and it's effects.

    Irrational, incoherent and wholey irrelevant. It's just their right.

    Parent

    So, why aren't you (1.00 / 0) (#60)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Aug 09, 2007 at 03:53:13 PM EST
    for Universal Military Service?

    It would place every son and daughter potentially in that line of fire.

    Parent

    So why aren't you for staying with the topic? (5.00 / 0) (#66)
    by Sailor on Thu Aug 09, 2007 at 05:27:19 PM EST
    The adults were talking about the hypocrisy of romney's children, supporting our troops by trying to get their dad elected instead of, you know, actually joining to fight in a war they believe in.

    Your continuing rants about compulsive military service belong in the open thread.

    In WWII folks who believed in the war signed up, same as in VN, but chickenhawks only believe in sending others' kids to fight.

    Parent

    sailor loves strawmen (1.00 / 0) (#68)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Aug 09, 2007 at 07:47:45 PM EST
    As has been pointed out to you time and again, the world is more complex that letting sailor and friends beat up on the target of the day.

    UMS is a viable solution to the problems preseted by an all volunteer army.

    And the issue of some politicans child not serving can be solved by that.

    It would also let the jondee's, edger's and sailor's do their fair share.

    That you complain indicates that you understand this and seek to avoid the truth.

    Parent

    Im for Universal Education (none / 0) (#76)
    by jondee on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 03:35:28 PM EST
    which is something you obviously missed, or else you'd know that service and military service aren't always synonomous.

    Parent
    That you went (none / 0) (#77)
    by jondee on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 03:39:39 PM EST
    in an ignoramous and came out one proves your "fair share" didnt count for much.

    Tell the libertarians; or would you be afraid of offending the way you're afraid of offending the socially illiberal?

    offending them (none / 0) (#78)
    by jondee on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 03:40:38 PM EST