Mitt Just Lost the Military Vote
Posted by MEC on August 13, 2007
I certainly hope Mitt Romney has blown his chances of getting any votes from military personnel with this stunning display of Yellow Elephant Syndrome.
“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.”
We don’t need another president who thinks serving the country really means serving him.
(H/T Dependable Renegade)
______________________
Update, 8/14/07. Charles adds:
The YouTube film is here. A transcript is here.
39 Responses to “Mitt Just Lost the Military Vote”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Braden said
Romney admitted that he misspoke on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace. Check it out.
Charles said
Will anyone–should anyone–believe that Romney, with his long and gallant record of service anywhere except in the US military, knows or cares about our troops?
If you’re a member of a military family, you know he spoke what was in his heart when he “misspoke.”
Phoenix Woman said
It’s like how Bushie Monica Goodling misspoke under oath, when she talked about taking an oath to serve the (Republican) president, as opposed to the country. Leahy jumped down her throat on that one, IIRC.
MEC said
I suspect that when Romney said he “misspoke”, he meant, “shouldn’t have said that out loud, I guess.”
If Romney can “misspeak” so egregiously, he’ll make a bad President. Just imagine him “misspeaking” during a summit conference, and then having to fall all over himself backtracking and explaining he didn’t mean it. Not good for the country, that.
And he still hasn’t answered the question of how he can call for other people’s children to risk their lives by going to war but doesn’t think his own children should have to.
Ryan said
We don’t need another president who thinks serving the country really means serving him.
“I did not have sexual relations with that woman…”
I guess that’s an acceptable case of a president who “misspoke,” right?
MEC said
The classic diversion tactic when a Republican is criticized is to yell “CLINTON GOT A BLOW JOB!”
When you change the subject, you admit you’re losing the argument.
Ryan said
I’m not changing the subject. I’m pointing out the double-standard. Romney’s comment, as innocuous as it was to being with, has simply been misrepresented by you liberal bloggers. To clarify, he admitted that he misspoke. He never equated his son’s service with military service. Hardly anything to get in a twist over, either way. And Romney’s only a candidate anyway.
On the other hand, a sitting president telling actual lies with the intent to deceive the people…that’s obviously much worse, yet you give him a pass.
Apply the same standard across the board and we have no argument, even if we disagree on political issues.
MEC said
“He never equated his son’s service with military service.”
Mitt supports sending other people’s children to military service in Iraq. He sees no reason why his own children should do military service in Iraq.
What was that about a double standard?
Ryan said
Oh man…I’ve already had this conversation.
Charles said
Oh, yes. It’s always the fault of liberals.
Are you of age to serve in the military, Ryan? If you are, why are you posting on the blog of people who are hopelessly confused rather than serving your nation in Iraq? Do you have a child or a sibling or a friend of age to serve? Sign them up!
When you do that, you’ll find that Romney’s comments sound a bit different than your disingenuous presentation of them.
Ryan said
Uh…aren’t you guys the ones harping on about liberties being supposedly taken away by the Bush administration all the time? What part of “volunteer” do you not understand?
MEC said
“Uh…aren’t you guys the ones harping on about liberties being supposedly taken away by the Bush administration all the time? What part of “volunteer” do you not understand?”
The part that involves stop-loss orders, so members of the military aren’t permitted to leave even after they agreed-upon length of duty is up.
Ryan said
Won’t argue with that. It’s a valid point, except inasmuch as those who enlist (voluntarily) agree to the terms of service before they are enlisted, which reserves the right of the military to extend their duty as needed. I’m not saying I like it, but that’s how contracts work.
I definitely have my complaints about how the war has been executed, but that’s beside the point. You’re calling out Romney for supporting the effort but not requiring (or coercing) his friends and family to enlist. The logic behind that position is faulty, so all I’m asking of liberals is to get off the anti-Bush, anti-conservative bandwagon (and believe me, I’m no Bush lover) and apply the same standard to one side that you apply to the other.
Phoenix Woman said
Shorter Ryan: How dare anti-military Commie liberals like you guys and Jack Murtha talk about the military!
Charles said
The issue is that Romney is a phony, Ryan.
FWIW, so are you, coming over to this website pretending to debate issues when you’ve already made up your mind and have no intention of letting other viewpoints sway you.
Ryan said
Give me an argument that holds water and I’ll give it due consideration (as I think I’ve shown). I’m just tired of people who don’t seem to want to think for themselves spouting the same party (or anti-party) lines without independent thought.
I’ve laid out a perfectly sound argument as to why the core tenet of this post is flawed. I’m more than happy to hear other points of view, but some things are not subject to interpretation. It’s disingenuous to hold Romney (or any conservative) to one standard and not to apply the same standard to liberals or Democrats (i.e. Bill Clinton). So far, no one that I’ve discussed this with (some more rationally than others) has had a sound argument. If you have one, I’d love to hear it, but it has to be better than “Romney is a hypocrite; why aren’t you in the military, Ryan?”
Charles said
Give you an argument that holds water, Ryan?
I’m the one with a real, live human being as a family member being sent back into the meat grinder in Iraq without proper treatment for the PTSD he got in 2003 thanks to the Deserter-in-Chief and the Vice Draft Evader lying him into this unnecessary war and refusing the funds to treat men like him.
You give me one valid reason why I– or any of the millions of family members with skin in the game– should take Romney’s word that he “misspoke.”
They may not teach you this in the Republican School for Young Idiots, but “because” is not a reason ever– but especially not when the lives and limbs and minds of young Americans are at risk.
Ryan said
Sorry to hear that, Charles. Why did your family member enlist? He must have known the risks, and if not, he should not have enlisted.
You know, your argument would carry a lot more weight if you weren’t so obviously already a Bush hater long before this war even began. You lose credibility on that count. It really doesn’t matter what happens in Iraq or with the soldiers serving; for you, everything on the right is wrong, no matter what, right?
And what does any of this have to do with Romney? It is so obvious to any rational thinker that he didn’t intend to say that serving in the political process carries the same risk as serving in the military. He was simply saying that 1) service in the military is voluntary and he supports his family (and anyone else) in their decision to serve or not to serve; and 2) there are many ways to serve the country, one of which is for the public to be engaged in the political process, which his sons are.
You’re bitter. You have a right to be if that’s the choice you want to make. That’s not Romney’s fault and it doesn’t make him a liar or a hypocrite just because he hasn’t served and isn’t forcing other to serve in the military. What is this, Nazi Germany?
MEC said
Do you want to compare presidential lies, Ryan? How about comparing Clinton’s lie about personal, private behavior with Bush’s lies about the invasion of Iraq? When Clinton lied, nobody died.
Mitt Romney is supporting a disastrous policy that’s caused thousands of deaths. By this support, he advocates getting other people’s sons and daughters killed. But not his own.
Your argument that our troops “accepted the contract” and therefore it’s okay to extend their tours of duty would be valid, except that contracts should not be enforced where there is evidence of fraud by one of the parties. Bush & Co. definitely committed fraud to get their war.
Ryan said
You’ll have to do better, MEC. The left likes to beat that “Bush lied, people died” drum, but there is no evidence to support that at all. If there were, then the majority of the house and senate lied too, because they voted for the war. It just doesn’t wash.
And since you brought it up, there’s no such thing as “personal, private behavior” for an elected official while they are in office. What do you think Monica Lewinsky could have done with the information she had about Clinton? How badly could she have compromised the country’s security and justice systems if she were anything more than a doe-eyed bimbo? Clinton showed a willingness to put the country at great risk for this “personal, private behavior.” That’s unacceptable.
Finally, Romney does not even support President Bush’s war policy. He’s been very critical of the way things have been done. He’s supporting this “surge” measure, which seems to be working (though it’s early yet), but that doesn’t mean he’s a Bush clone.
Look, I’m no Bush fan and I think it’s disgraceful how this war has been run up to this point, but that doesn’t mean I’m going to throw the baby out with the bathwater and just vote to bring everyone home. It’s a fight we have to engage in, regardless of your politics, and it has to be won.
Charles said
Actually, Ryan, despite your attempt to trivialize this, I am telling you exactly what many military families are thinking about Mitt Romney.
Mitt Romney is applying for a job that lots of people would like to have. One of the questions he gets in his job interview is, “How do we know that you won’t screw our loved ones the way that George W. has?”
He blew off the question, leaving the listeners– not just me or my co-bloggers– with the distinct impression that he has no idea what military families are going through.
And you tell us we should just take his word and that we’re fools, just fools for not doing so.
That’s not persuasive, especially coming from a chickenhawk.
A chickenhawk who is posting here just so that he can brag on his blog how much smarter than the silly liberals he is. Here are some choice comments from Google cache.
“This is by far the funniest debate I’ve ever had with liberals. They were more than happy to continue to dig and bury themselves in their own logical holes. Shows you how highly enlightened liberals are.”
“Any blogs–especially political blogs–that require you to sign up for an account before you can comment on posts is run either by cowards or people more interested in monetizing their blog (by selling your information) than in true conversation. Here are some of the big cowardly offenders:The Daily Kos
Blue Mass Group Political Forum MyDD.com”
“Man, liberals are so smart and rational, and they’re not judgmental or hypocritical at all…. No cursing or anything, yet I got moderated. Good ol’ liberals. You can always count on them to manipulate the truth of things if given the power to do so.”
On and on, this juvenile narcissistic preening as you show the world how smart and bursting with integrity you are and how vile and ridiculous the liberals are.
This from a guy who doesn’t have the personal integrity to sign up for the war he voted for.
Feh.
MEC said
“The left likes to beat that “Bush lied, people died” drum, but there is no evidence to support that at all.”
No evidence that Bush lied? Now you’re just being silly.
“If there were, then the majority of the house and senate lied too, because they voted for the war.”
The House and Senate voted one the authorization of force measure based on intelligence provided by the Bush Administration. We now know that the intelligence findings were reported selectively or outright distorted in order to justify Bush’s desire for war. There is a significant difference between “lying” and “being lied to”.
And if Mitt is supporting the “surge”, he’s supporting Bush’s war policy, because the surge is Bush’s war policy.
I’m beginning to suspect you’re just making things up as you go along in order to continue to disagree with us eevil libruls.
Ryan said
Funny how what started out as mostly rational conversation has degenerated into bitterness. Shame, but no surprise. That’s straight out of the Liberal Debate Tactics Handbook.
How do we know that you won’t screw our loved ones the way that George W. has?
When was that question ever asked, Charles? You’re rephrasing the question that was asked to make it sound like Romney’s ducking a very important–and fair–question. That’s not true. If you get a chance to ask him that very question (though I’d recommend you rephrase it if you want to be taken seriously), please do. I’d love to hear his response.
And I never called you a fool. I have generally called liberals fools, or similar designations, as you have generously pointed out on my blog, which is highly trafficked as I’m sure you can tell, because they act like fools. If there was ever a sound argument from a liberal, I would acknowledge it (which you conveniently fail to acknowledge from my blog). In fact, I was almost going to give you guys props for being passionate, but still reasonable…until now. You’re obviously just conservative haters, the defining characteristic of liberal these days (Jefferson would be so ashamed of you). Everything on the right is wrong, no matter what.
MEC, you can’t make such claims about selectively reported intelligence, etc. without providing some kind of proof. Otherwise it’s just propaganda. If you have such proof, please cite it. I’m sure the other intelligence agencies in the world that came to the same conclusions as the US would be interested to know about it.
Charles said
So, go suck your thumb elsewhere, Ryan. You come here just to be an ass in public.
Mission accomplished.
Phoenix Woman said
Nice try, Charles, and I know you’re doing it for his own good, but Ryan just doesn’t understand how badly he’s coming off here to the casual observer. He’s a few years away from having the sort of epiphany that David Brock and John Cole have had.
Ryan said
Please…how badly I’m coming off? I’ve been reasonable and impersonal. You guys have shown true liberal brilliance by avoiding the real issues and throwing tantrums when you have no moral or logical ground to stand on…”Wah! Bush is stupid! Gore really won! I want an Umpa-Lumpa now!”
Real mature. Thanks again for helping to prove my point about liberals. (Although now I have to say *most* liberals, because I’ve recently met some that actually do have brains.)
Charles said
No, Ryan, you have systematically ignored what you didn’t want to hear.
You’ve attempted to label as “evidence” the self-serving statement of a politician.
You dismiss as bitterness the honest reaction of a member of a military family to Romney’s “misstatement.”
You have labeled as “hate” simple exasperation with your misbehavior.
You boast about having been identified as a troll on well-regarded sites such as Daily Kos and MyDD, obnoxious to the point that your posting was restricted.
When the world thinks you’re an idiot, and you think you’re a genius, it would pay to at least entertain the possibility that the world might have a point.
You don’t want to hear any of this.
And so you don’t.
Ryan said
Well regarded…that’s a good one.
Phoenix Woman said
Oh, I get it now. Ryan’s one of those trolls that thinks that so long as he gets The Last Word, he wins. Even if his words are nothing but word salad.
Reason with Passion » Blog Archive » Just when I thought there was hope for liberals… said
[...] Check out these morons. [...]
Phoenix Woman said
Thanks for the traffic, Ryan. Too bad that you’re not really helping your own cause that much by letting everyone see how silly you are.
Charles said
Kos gets, what, half a million hits a day? Most of them from people who love the site.
Ryan gets, what, 10 hits per day? Most of them presumably people ticked off at his trolling.
But Ryan thinks he is well regarded and Kos is not.
There has to be a sitcom in this.
MEC said
“MEC, you can’t make such claims … without providing some kind of proof. Otherwise it’s just propaganda.”
You want proof that the intelligence was selectively reported? Here’s just one of the many pieces of evidence.
The Congressional Record, February 3, 2004
Phoenix Woman said
(Actually, I spoke too soon: We’ve got all of three hits from Ryan’s site, and they’re all from him. So much for my dreams of a huge traffic boost from him. ;-)
MEC said
(Maybe that’s an indication of how many readers Ryan has?)
Phoenix Woman said
(I think so! ;-)
shelbinator said
Just wanted to pop in and say howdy, since both our blogs caught the same internet herpes known as Ryan the Supergenius Romneybot. We just had a ball with him over here in Atlanta after I posted a video mocking Romney’s recent visit. There was much bed-wetting involved.
We could SO make a YouTube sitcom about him, Chris. He’d be like the Travelocity Roaming Gnome, only more annoying.
MEC said
“He’d be like the Travelocity Roaming Gnome, only more annoying.”
Okay, this made me laugh so loudly I scared the cats.
Charles said
I’d certainly like to introduce him to European electrical outlets.