Mitt: My military-age sons serve America by trying to get me elected; Update: Audio added
posted at 3:03 pm on August 8, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Oof. Either this came out wrong or he was caught surprisingly flat-footed by the question; as stated, it sounds awful. For the record, the answer to this question always is, “Not everyone was born with the courage and commitment to service displayed by the many thousands of left-wing bloggers who enlisted to fight in Afghanistan after 9/11.”
Incidentally, with Rudy and McCain sitting out the Ames straw poll, the only potentially serious competition for Mitt is … Ron Paul, who’s buying ads to try to make a game of it. Exit question: Do Paul’s left-leaning libertarian supporters know he’s not quite as left-leaning libertarian as they think he is?
Update: The Romney camp has posted the audio of the question and answer.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 3 Next »
Its an individual decision to serve.
Sven on August 8, 2007 at 3:10 PM
Yeah, but presumably they all support(ed) the war.
Allahpundit on August 8, 2007 at 3:12 PM
I was wondering if he said it jokingly, but apparently not. That was a weak answer by Mitt; must have caught him off guard.
Spirit of 1776 on August 8, 2007 at 3:13 PM
Doesn’t paying taxes give us enough right to demand other countries be attacked? What is that money supposed to be going towards?
frankj on August 8, 2007 at 3:14 PM
LOL!
jummy on August 8, 2007 at 3:14 PM
AP, I take exception to your saying Ron Paul isn’t “left-leaning” and “libertarian” because he opposes abortion.
This is merely more logical thing as applied toward libertarianism.
I am by and large a libertarian. I’m not a Christian. I strongly oppose abortion on libertarian grounds.
The unborn has a right to life precisely so it can enjoy it’s own life. It’s a matter of do no harm and then let the state get out of its hair.
Then, in its mid-20s, the baby spared from murder can enjoy drugs, prostitutes, and lower tax rates to its heart’s content.
Christoph on August 8, 2007 at 3:17 PM
Stupid questions deserve stupid answers.
bridgetown on August 8, 2007 at 3:18 PM
Mitt^ comes off looking flippant in one of those areas where he probably shouldn’t, given his target audience. Here’s how my wife reads it: “Oh, so his kids serve America and the Constitution by riding around Iowa in motorcades, while [appropriate relation; husband, brother, son, etc.,] serves by getting shot at for a year or more, then coming home and screaming in his sleep. Thanks, Mitt, and your kids.”
Spc Steve on August 8, 2007 at 3:19 PM
Could you imagine a division filled with Beauchamps? It’d be like the French Army.
pedestrian on August 8, 2007 at 3:20 PM
The entire quote:
One of the ways. ONE of the ways. This doesn’t bother me.
However…Mitt is saying how tired he is of all the Mormon questions. That sounds peevish, not presidential.
RushBaby on August 8, 2007 at 3:23 PM
He told you one of the ways his sons show support. Big difference.
He probably could have answered it better, especially since the anti-war types love to ask that loaded question.
It’s also a dumb question given the fact that the US has roughly 130 million men and women between 18 and 49 who are not serving. The Armed Forces need those who are best suited to fight, we don’t need more John F. Kerry’s and Scott Beauchumps’.
reaganaut on August 8, 2007 at 3:23 PM
So now we select a president on whether his kids serve in the military? What next, we look at their SAT scores, batting average? Maybe we could give them a quiz on the tax code, or name the presidents…in alphabetical order and by date of service.
Here is an idea, leave the personal lives of the kids out of the news.
Did Chelsea serve? Her mom voted for the war? Did her husband serve?
This is where the candidates need to look at the reporter and say…That is a stupid question, next question please.
right2bright on August 8, 2007 at 3:23 PM
My first response is that this is a stupid answer, but after reading the context of the quote, it was pretty straight forward.
I wonder if the lefty loons see their volunteer supporters as serving the country?
csdeven on August 8, 2007 at 3:25 PM
The quote you clipped is how the conversation was described by the woman who asked the question, (Rachel Griffiths of Milan, Ill., identified herself as a member of Quad City Progressive Action for the Common Good) who, from the description she gave of herself doesn’t exactly seem to be conservative friendly.
The actual quote, although not a homerun, is not as silly as what she said.
Basically, he was asked a silly question along the lines of “Mr. Candidate, you claim to support the action in Iraq but none of your sons are soldiers…what’s up with that?”
It’s a dumb question because his ADULT children can join or not join the military as they please.
I agree with his answer that his sons made their own decision about military service.
Then, he states that “one of the ways” his sons are showing support for their country is through being politically active (in this case, by helping to get him elected because they think he’d be good for the country).
As AP said, not the best answer. But I don’t see anything that can be seen as a flub or an awful answer. Just nothing to write home about.
JadeNYU on August 8, 2007 at 3:26 PM
I’m ex-military and I’m so sick and tired of the lefties that try to make an issue of who is and who isn’t in the military. I fully support the military and the mission. I also have a son that is of military age and I am not about to enlist him or encourage him to enlist to satisfy the perverse and warped minds of the leftist whack jobs.
jmarcure on August 8, 2007 at 3:29 PM
stupid question in the first place.
Mitt is not accountable for his sons.
TheSitRep on August 8, 2007 at 3:29 PM
Instead of judging Mitt! by the choices his family makes, why don’t the lefty loons ask how he does on ethics issues? Hey, while were at it, lets ask ALL the candidates…..
fred?….pays son for do nothing job
Hillary….sells the phone numbers of old folks to scam artists
Rudy…..?
Edwards….channels children
Obama…..?
csdeven on August 8, 2007 at 3:31 PM
No argument from me. But silly questions hurt campaigns when answered poorly. It’s not a great answer by any stretch.
Spirit of 1776 on August 8, 2007 at 3:33 PM
I did the opposite with my sons. They wanted to join and I didn’t discourage them.
It’s each citizens choice and no one can judge a parent by their children’s choices.
csdeven on August 8, 2007 at 3:33 PM
Probably. In there world, dissent is the most patriotic thing you can do. This is because they’re functionally retarded and haven’t yet realized that if Bush really were a fascist and if this were a fascist country, we’d never even hear from them again.
My response is “as soon as war opponents sign off 2-4 years of their life to become full-time anti-war protesters to truly oppose the war, they’ve no right to demand war supporters spend 2-4 years of their lives serving full-time in the military to truly support the war.”
BKennedy on August 8, 2007 at 3:35 PM
I love when leftists try to tag middle aged politicians’ offspring as chickenhawks-by-proxy. No matter how many times you try to explain it, they don’t quite grasp that no one has the right to compel their adult children to enlist in the military.
Nosferightu on August 8, 2007 at 3:36 PM
And Rudy’s daughter serves this country by supporting Obama. They tried to skewer Rudy on this also. The left….what a bunch of goons.
csdeven on August 8, 2007 at 3:36 PM
Looks like Mitt is just like many other liars running for office.
He panders to the people he is talking to, without any regard to honesty.
Some presidential material. What’s worse is that he hides behind his faith, as if that gives him some moral authority to lie.
right2bright on August 8, 2007 at 3:40 PM
Just once I would like to see someone make that case that any policy is right or wrong on its own merits, regardless of whether or not a person is or was in the military. The invasion of Iraq was either justified or it was not, but neither argument is affected by whether Romney’s sons (or anyone else) is serving.
Of course, that would take the emotion out of it, and without arguments that appeal to emotions liberals are left with what?
Nosferightu on August 8, 2007 at 3:44 PM
Stupid questions deserve a cold steely look of contempt.
When that girl asked Bill Clinton “boxers or briefs” the last thing Bubba should have done is indulged her with an answer. Ditto the “I smoked but didn’t inhale” answer.
Speaking of the Clintons, I don’t remember Bill ever being asked about Chelsea’s lack of military service when he was out there bombing aspirin factories.
highhopes on August 8, 2007 at 3:44 PM
“I recognize the sacrifice that members of our volunteer Armed Forces and their families are called upon to make. I would also hope that you recognize that each individual is permitted to choose his or her career. If my sons joined the Armed Forces, I would fully support and applaud their decision.”
Canadian Imperialist Running Dog on August 8, 2007 at 3:47 PM
I wouldn’t stop or discourage my son if he wanted to join. I just wouldn’t encourage him to join in order to prove to the left that I support the mission. Fact is I have no need or requirement to prove or justify my views to people I have less than zero respect for. What’s their point? It is really doubtful it will sway a voter. It’s a childish taunt from childish people with little grasp of reality.
jmarcure on August 8, 2007 at 3:48 PM
Stirring the cauldron, I see.
RushBaby on August 8, 2007 at 3:53 PM
How about:
That took all of two seconds to think of and one draft to write… Romney’s answer was a bit goofy.
Still, the question was unfair. Of course he’s not responsible for his sons who are right now serving their nation in a Winnebago.
Christoph on August 8, 2007 at 3:54 PM
Absolutely! The ignorance of the left never fails to dominate any discussion with them.
csdeven on August 8, 2007 at 3:54 PM
.”
There’s not a damn thing wrong with that.
Never forget that quotes are a very relative thing to moonbat journalists. It’s not her fault really; it must be very hard to separate a Republican politician’s words from all those voices screaming inside her own head.
Move on; nothing more to see here.
logis on August 8, 2007 at 3:57 PM
More honorable than hippies hating their nation in a VW van.
RushBaby on August 8, 2007 at 3:59 PM
No, but I think an amendment requiring military service to be qualified to run for president isn’t a bad idea. If the president is going to be the commander in chief of the military, a little experience with it would be a plus.
And you can say. “He can choose advisors to help him”. Yes, he can, but in my mind he still wouldn’t be able to grasp certain things. Sometimes you have to have the benefit of experience to really understand. Maybe not the best analogy, but several years ago I was sitting around with family and friends watching “Full Metal Jacket”. During the first half of the movie, when they were in boot camp, there were several times when those of us who had been through it were the only ones laughing. The ones who had not been there didn’t understand the experience and therefore didn’t get the humor in relation to it. We tried explaining it but most of them still didn’t understand.
Kowboy on August 8, 2007 at 3:59 PM
I have no problem whatsoever with Romney’s sons not going into the Army or Marines. Hardly anyone does these days. If I was twenty something now, I probably would not either. I think that I might well have gone in right after 9/11, but I would be out by now and if I was just coming of age now I don’t think I would want to go to Iraq and try to get Sunnis and Shiites to “nation build” together which I personally believe is in all likelihood hopeless, despite any “surge” successes.
Now if I hear any of Romney’s sons beating the Iraqi “nation building” drums loudly, sis-boom-bah-rah-rah, keep going back troops on your 15 month tours again and again, well then I would say they should go in (put their “money where their mouth is”)or shut up.
MB4 on August 8, 2007 at 4:01 PM
Look, I’m a big fan of honorable veterans running for office and/or serving in government, but requiring it because POTUS is Commander in Chief of the military is silly. It’s a civilian job, not a military job!
Kensington on August 8, 2007 at 4:05 PM
Can’t get anything by you, can I?
How about this on abortion: He was for it, before he was against it.
The problem some people have is that if they are adament that one party is a liar, or he is not worthy because he drives a red truck or has changed his position. Then the rules have to apply to all of the candidates. And one by one they are diaqualified, because everybody who has been in a decision making position, has made decisions they regret, or was “right” then but not now. Those people attacking Fred, now, if they are honest, have to turn their guns onto Mitt.
And if Newt jumps in…hoy cow!
Eventually the tactics they use to defeat or defame Fred, comes back to haunt them. That’s why it is best to comment on policy, if you are astute, the character will be revealed.
right2bright on August 8, 2007 at 4:08 PM
What the Hell is happening here today? Now even the right is playing the chickenhawk card? Folks, get a grip: the military is voluntary, and advocating on behalf of military action is not reserved solely for soldiers any more than advocating on behalf of law enforcement is the sole province of cops.
I can’t believe what I’m reading here today…
Kensington on August 8, 2007 at 4:08 PM
cackle, cackle!
RushBaby on August 8, 2007 at 4:10 PM
RushBaby on August 8, 2007 at 3:59 PM
It’s an unfair attack, obviously, but he opened himself (or his sons) up to a bit of ridicule by badly handling that question.
Christoph on August 8, 2007 at 4:10 PM
I see nothing wrong with Mitt’s answer, though he might have been better served by leaving off the part of serving the country by helping him get elected.
It was a silly question, and it reflects on the person asking it, more than the one answering.
MarkB on August 8, 2007 at 4:14 PM
So then should he/she have a degree in Finance or Accounting? After all he helps manage the budget or at least can veto budget items. Should he also have a degree in law, seeing as he deals with laws and states rights. Should we make him be an ambassador before becoming president, after all he deals with many nations.
Get the idea? A person can’t have all of the attributes and experiences needed to beoome a fully informed president. Leadership, character, intelligence, committment to the constitution and the people, forthrightness, ability to correct errors in judgement, “good” judgement, are some of the ideals he needs. Military experience would be an asset, but not a requirment.
right2bright on August 8, 2007 at 4:15 PM
Ah, yes! We are having a field day ridiculing Mitt and his sons today!
RushBaby on August 8, 2007 at 4:16 PM
right2bright on August 8, 2007 at 4:08 PM
Amen! I don’t ever want to hear about Freds truck again…
jdawg on August 8, 2007 at 4:17 PM
and advocating on behalf of military action is not reserved solely for soldiers any more than advocating on behalf of law enforcement is the sole province of cops.
Kensington on August 8, 2007 at 4:08 PM
Nuance. It depends on what and just how much of it the cops are being “asked” to do and how few of them are being “asked” to do it. Nuance.
MB4 on August 8, 2007 at 4:18 PM
RushBaby on August 8, 2007 at 4:16 PM
With an answer like that, I think he deserves a little ridicule.
jdawg on August 8, 2007 at 4:18 PM
Requiring experience in a field related to the job is silly? Yes, it is a civilian job, but with the responsibility of commanding the military. I’m just saying requiring a little experience in that area would normally be a plus.
Now to counter my own argument, I don’t think it would have helped Kerry. He has experience but is anti-military.
Kowboy on August 8, 2007 at 4:19 PM
Kowboy on August 8, 2007 at 4:19 PM
A requirement like that would certainly have kept Hitlery out of the equation, as well as her husband…
While we’re at it, we should also make it a requirement that people pass a basic civics test before being allowed to vote.
jdawg on August 8, 2007 at 4:24 PM
A little wince did it for me.
RushBaby on August 8, 2007 at 4:24 PM
NOW you’re talkin!
RushBaby on August 8, 2007 at 4:25 PM
Or, do Paul’s right-leaning, Christian Libertarian supporters know he’s against the Death Penalty? And its for the same reason he’s pro-life and anti-war/isolationist/Ostrich….he’s against the use of “force”, especially by the state against other humans. He is Ghandi.
they have an interesting interview with him at Human Events yesterday, if you are well versed on the issues and the war it will drive you nuts to read portions of it.
jp on August 8, 2007 at 4:27 PM
The question was unfair. The ridicule for badly handling an unfair question is fair enough.
Guess what? Presidents, just like fourth graders, have to deal with unfair questions.
Christoph on August 8, 2007 at 4:27 PM
Good points. Finance, accounting and law degrees don’t seem to have helped congress one damned bit.
Too bad we can’t grade common sense. That’s what we really need in a president.
Kowboy on August 8, 2007 at 4:28 PM
Which is why I pointed out upthread that his growing impatience with Mormon questions is more significant than this little episode.
RushBaby on August 8, 2007 at 4:29 PM
RushBaby on August 8, 2007 at 4:25 PM
Ever watch any of those “man in the street” interviews where they’re asked things like “who’s the VP” and no one gets it right?
Some of those people actually vote. How scary is that?
jdawg on August 8, 2007 at 4:30 PM
He’s going to have to find a way to answer or counter those questions if he ever wants to be President.
While many of my friends are members of the Mormon faith and I was once too, he has to understand that most people who have studies their beliefs in depth find them very bizarre.
Does he have to address that? I don’t know. People, however, have a right to take all factors into consideration when choosing who to support including the core beliefs that define them as human beings.
For my money, most Mormons are great family people, a point their religion drives home and this is beyond a good thing, it’s a great thing. Indeed, it’s the main attraction for many converts.
Yet… the idea that Mitt, if but he will behave himself and follow Elohim’s (God’s) rules — the Elohim who was once a sinning man himself just like you or me — and then he will go before the Council of Gods and perhaps be declared a God himself, where he and Ann can have spirit sex to populate his world with new beings in the billions… just doesn’t sit right with many people.
Unfair I know.
Christoph on August 8, 2007 at 4:36 PM
Quote, Romney. The first part of his answer… and the better part.
Of course, we could do this differently. Just give me the power to force others to bend to my will as I make everyone’s decisions for them, and you can blame me for these choices.
All I ask is a title for life, and maybe a stipend for my time and effort. Call me Dictator.
Or maybe we’ll just bring back arranged marriages. Since adults can’t be expected to make their own decisions…
Who is asking these questions again?
gekkobear on August 8, 2007 at 4:37 PM
“I’ll thank you to leave my family out of your campaigning.”
Kralizec on August 8, 2007 at 4:47 PM
I registered for selective service, until they draft its an ALL VOLUNTEER military.
By that logic, I can’t complain about my car since I have never built one.
DavidM on August 8, 2007 at 4:50 PM
I’d believe him that they really are serving if they were riding a bike with ties on and backpacks.
Tim Burton on August 8, 2007 at 4:51 PM
Answer them or deflect them without coming across as peevish. As for us, we will have to decide between demanding answers or accepting deflections. We can’t have it both ways. I worry because we live in a country founded on freedom of religion…and have to bear in mind that a muslim will probably be running for president in our lifetimes.
Don’t recall ever seeing any of those (haven’t watched TV in 7 years) but I used to hear them on Hannity. Got to where they grated on me so much I would have to turn it off.
RushBaby on August 8, 2007 at 4:56 PM
There are twenty million males in their twenties in America. Out of 1.3 million people in the US military, 85% of them are male, or about 1.1 million, most of them in their twenties. That means 5.5% of twentysomething males are in the military. That means that the chances of five sons not choosing to serve in the military is about 75%, or 0.945 to the 5th power.
Simply put, the US military only needs about one out of twenty guys in their twenties. That means it’s impossible for most guys to join. Even in a family of five, the odds are three out of four that none will enlist in the military. The odds are 50-50 that any would join even if there were twelve sons.
In other words, it’s an intellectually bankrupt question, the specialty of lefty radicals. It’s also a fallacious argument to mix up the messenger with the message. Does the truth change depending on who says it, or is it the truth no matter who says it? If Romney supports the war and none of his sons enlist, does that mean he is wrong. If Romney supports the war and all of his sons enlist, does that change the merit of his argument? What the radicals don’t recognize is that the truth is the truth whether it’s spoken by a king or a beggar.
This is the confused thinking of lefty geniuses who think they’re smarter than us. Sheesh.
Tantor on August 8, 2007 at 4:57 PM
I don’t want them all to have military experience. Can you imagine a liberal CinC with an absolute moral authority card? Ala Murtha?
csdeven on August 8, 2007 at 4:59 PM
How did he handle it badly? The quotes AP is using are from a moonbat who heard what she wanted to hear instead of what Mitt! actually said.
csdeven on August 8, 2007 at 5:01 PM
Well, Mitt! has plausible coverage on that issue. The gaff he has made that is the same as freds? fake pickup truck is his claim to have been a life long hunter.
Bwahahahha!
Yeah, right Mitt!. Give me a break.
csdeven on August 8, 2007 at 5:07 PM
Wow, the way Romney really answered the question is far different then the way it was reported that he answered the question. Why am I not surprised.
Zetterson on August 8, 2007 at 5:12 PM
**Gasp** Do you mean that they should know what duties are required of the federal government and which are left to the states? Like the requirement to PROVIDE for the defense of the country at it’s borders and the promotion of general welfare like health care?
/sarc on
You’re scaring me.
/sarc off
csdeven on August 8, 2007 at 5:14 PM
this is very poignant. And is the best answer I think to this debate
Mike Lester cartoon
William Amos on August 8, 2007 at 5:21 PM
Just listened to the audio, and I hear nothing wrong with the way he answered the question. The moonbat’s comments (and what the MSM cherry-picked) are way out of context.
crazy_legs on August 8, 2007 at 5:22 PM
Ah, it wasn’t that bad. How many town hall type gatherings does he speak in, anyway? He’s bound to goof up sometimes, but this wasn’t a gaffe that will do anything to his campaign ala Allen in VA.
congsan on August 8, 2007 at 5:22 PM
Jesus christ monkey balls.
Honest, but stupid. Now I’m really afraid.
MadisonConservative on August 8, 2007 at 5:28 PM
csdeven on August 8, 2007 at 5:14 PM
Yeah, that is scary, isn’t it? Some of these people are so blasted dense they couldn’t tell up from down. And even with cue cards, they don’t know who the VP is. This is what’s going to decide the fate of our country.
jdawg on August 8, 2007 at 5:29 PM
Thing is, we Mitt fans have Romney’s actual governorship to point to. As he was about as pro-life as you can get with pro-choice courts and a pro-choice legislature to deal with on a daily basis, we have certification that his position has indeed altered based on his actions. Anti-Mitts like to point to a 93′ Senate campaign against Uncle Ted. They ignore his governorship, a far more recent experience where he actually acted, because those facts are inconvenient to the ardent anti-Mitt.
Mitt: Took tangible action.
Fred: Served on Committee. Several. Call me when I want a President who serves on a committee of co-presidents. Then Fred will be in his element. Perhaps if we’re lucky he can declare his son VP so he won’t have to cut his consulting company a check, he can send the funds straight from John Q. Public.
As far as I’m aware, Mitt never cut a check to any of his sons using money generated from a PAC. Mitt didn’t live his life by serving on a committee every waking hour. Now, Rudy, I just don’t like his politics. I’m sure he’d do a fine job in not screwing us vis-a-vis Islamic terror, but he’s a bane on our cultural foundation.
My trouble with Fred isn’t his politics. Its his fakery and blatant lack of principle and ethical sense. Not to mention all his questionable hires showing him as a buffoon politically. My issues with Fred are bigger than politics, he’s the fundamental antithesis to anything I could support. Arm-twisting any-trough eating lobbyist, Hollyweird sycophant, irrelevant Senator. And those are just his last 3 occupations.
BKennedy on August 8, 2007 at 5:38 PM
I thought he handled that well. This moonbat was just trying the same ol’ gotcha that led others to ask why Bush’s daughters didn’t enlist. The idea that you have no moral authority to mobilize US defenses as POTUS (or even support it’s mission if you’re still just a candidate) unless you or your own family has sacrificed is absurd.
And if those boys help Mitt win the nomination and then beat Hillary, I say they deserve a medal.
Dork B. on August 8, 2007 at 5:40 PM
Yeah, but presumably they all support(ed) the war.
Allahpundit on August 8, 2007 at 3:12 PM
You support the war. What is your point?
–
Having listened to the clip in its entirety and not just the part excerpted by AP, I don’t think he handled it that badly, although that moment of the clip was definitely the part the left and other Romney detractors will remember.
What came before it was fine.
Christoph on August 8, 2007 at 5:44 PM
What was that stupid remark that Boxer made to Condi last winter? Something about not having a child or something?
Do the people who support Boxer cringe at that crap or do they sit there and go…”Yeah! Yeah! You tell em Babs!!!”?
csdeven on August 8, 2007 at 5:47 PM
csdeven on August 8, 2007 at 5:47 PM
Has she EVER said anything intelligent?
jdawg on August 8, 2007 at 5:50 PM
Nothing comes to mind.
csdeven on August 8, 2007 at 6:11 PM
I guess if I’m of military age, I’m a coward or a liar if I support the War without enlisting.
If I’m President, I really am not justified in mobilizing any of our armed forces unless I or one of my children has served, preferably in actual combat, even though I have full Constitutional authority.
Judging by the rules as observed, I’m assuming that this lady has the right to question the Romney family’s integrety by virtue of her own service or that of her spouse or children. To assume that she’s just a moontard without knowing those facts is out of the question for me, as I have never served in the military myself. Uhh, I think.
Dork B. on August 8, 2007 at 6:12 PM
I’ve heard of campaigns being desperate, but until seeing what Brownback is doing, I never really ever seen one. This doesn’t look good for Brownback. We have four different candidates being attacked on their religion and Brownback is the only common denominator. I don’t see how this helps him. He is effectively counting on Iowans being narrow minded bigots looking to vote for a theocratic leader instead of CinC.
csdeven on August 8, 2007 at 6:20 PM
The answer was great right up to the end. He said it almost half joking and I wonder if that’s not how he meant it.
I wonder how many people here listened to the answer before they commented?
TheBigOldDog on August 8, 2007 at 6:48 PM
And how abut Mitts fakery on abortion? Freds voting record is more consistent and more conservative than Mitts. Look up Freds voting record, and show me where his total voting record shows his “liberal” side.
That is he went shooting with basically lobbyists (major donors) and lied about it.
The whole point is that if you like a candidate, like some of you like Mitt, then you overlook lies and deceits. If you hate then a red pick-up truck becomes your center of argument and you ignore the voting record that is recorded. Mitt objected to war, his kids aren’t going into the military, one could conclude that the Romney’s won’t fight for the country. Wrong, but no more wrong than saying 33 hours of billing over several years constitute a huge lobbying effort.
Get it? You guys who attacked Fred, are now giving a pass to Mitt. RushBaby caught on with my first posting. You guys need to take a class on discernment from RushBaby.
right2bright on August 8, 2007 at 6:48 PM
csdeven on August 8, 2007 at 6:20 PM
Considering his polls, I think he’s grasping at anything to get a vote.
jdawg on August 8, 2007 at 6:49 PM
right2bright on August 8, 2007 at 6:48 PM
Wasn’t that 14 hours he billed? And you’re right – those attacking Fred don’t seem to have the same angst toward Mitt for essentially doing what Fred is accused of…
jdawg on August 8, 2007 at 6:51 PM
I can’t possibly be the only one that’s sick and tired of every Fred Thompson or Mitt Romney thread devolving into a name calling/aspersion casting thread which further devolves into a “I’m going to point out this about Mitt/Fred just to show you how it’s exactly the same as what you pointed out about Fred/Mitt last time.”
We get it! What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
I’m certainly not the boss of the thread (by any means), but I can’t help but thinking it would be nice if there were more of a purpose to some posts than pointing out that some supporters of Mitt/Fred aren’t 100% consistent with how they view each of the candidates.
JadeNYU on August 8, 2007 at 7:12 PM
Look at this post, Jade. Not the thread, the post.
It shows what is arguably a gaffe by Mitt. Like other posts have criticized Fred, John, or others.
You can’t have a post criticize someone without the thread discussion the issue.
And if we’re going to discuss Mitt’s mistake in fairness, why not contrast him to other options and thrash it out while people decide whom to ultimately support?
Mistakes in the primaries do matter when choosing who to back for the campaign!
Christoph on August 8, 2007 at 7:17 PM
Abortion fakery? Didn’t I just say his record as governor, which occurs AFTER his ‘93 RUN for Senate?
And Didn’t I just say my problem isn’t with Fred’s politics? I know Fred is a conservative and votes like one, my problem is that he’s a fraud. He’s all ideology no action, and his past experiences don’t offer me any comfort. Thompson is nothing like Reagan, only Democrats think Reagan was elected because he was an actor. What Fred was is a shameless lobbyist and an irrelevant Senator, and in case you haven’t noticed, I loathe Hollyweird types, which Fred is. You could replace anything Fred’s done during his years in the Senate with a robot designed to vote conservative Republican, and you’d have the same level of action as Fred. He’s always been a voter who never put any of his money or his sweat behind any conservative cause.
Fred has never had to stand up to Democrats. He’s from a conservative state with a conservative base, and his tenure was in years where Republicans led the congress. Since Fred is dragging his feet I haven’t seen him in any debates, and therefore can’t guage his difference between other candidates in semi-pressured situations. I can read campaign rhetoric between sites all I want, that’s no-pressure no-opposition, a situation a President rarely finds himself in.
Feet-dragging, Cowardly, Hollyweird, Crony-loving, Lobbyist. I can’t vote for anyone like that. I’ll hold my nose and vote for him should God be unkind and he gets the nomination, but only because I hate Lying, Pandering, Crony-loving, Socialist, Sociopath (Pick a Dem) More.
BKennedy on August 8, 2007 at 7:19 PM
Yeah I thought about that. I had to go hide for a while until the fear subsided.
Kowboy on August 8, 2007 at 7:31 PM
Dang. That audio is completely absolving as it is complete flushed out; I retract my previous statement.
Spirit of 1776 on August 8, 2007 at 7:33 PM
As the parent of a soldier* currently stationed in the heart of the Afghan mountains (that means I get absolute moral authority, right? :-) ), I was okay w/Mitt’s answer up until the very end. Intellectually I know he wasn’t equating his son’s “service” (driving around in a Winnebago) with what my son and thousands like him are doing (living in rough conditions, getting fired at – just this week an RPG killed one of their comrades). But it sticks in my craw just enough to irritate, because it seems like he’s comparing the two.
I watched the 60 Minutes interview of Mitt and family earlier this year, and I thought then, too, that their response to this question was facile and glib.
Now, I’m not throwing the chickenhawk card on the table. I just agree w/somebody upthread who said the best thing Mitt could have done was to stop his answer after he urged everybody to support the troops.
Do we REALLY have to sit through 15 more months of this crap?
*said soldier having signed up of his own free will and with no pressure from either parent
Lurking Vet on August 8, 2007 at 7:40 PM
Year 1776, I agree. He handled that okay even as much as I don’t like his speaking style.
Gee, turn OFF the smile. You’re happy. I get it.
Christoph on August 8, 2007 at 7:41 PM
And for those of you who say we can’t see him beaming during the audio clip, you know he was.
Christoph on August 8, 2007 at 7:42 PM
I’m going to repeat my insight from the last Romney thread:
Romney threads go like this:
1. Soundbite Shocker! Romney is Doomed!
2. Hollowpoint Rant [Filling in this time: right2bright (relax, this is the joke line)]
3. No wait, Romney knows what he’s talking about.
4. Topic Dies/Gets rolled out of sight.
This is the third or fourth time this has happened. You know its funny, you almost think HA has it out for Romney, but every time something bad happens, so soon as any context beyond the soundbite is given, the soundbite is rendered meaningless.
Seriously folks, dispite HA’s best concerted efforts, Romney seems to be invulnerable.
BKennedy on August 8, 2007 at 7:45 PM
If polling 3rd behind a declared and undeclared candidate is invulnerable, I concur.
Christoph on August 8, 2007 at 7:49 PM
The undeclared candidate is just that: A void for poll numbers. Fred would be taking votes away from Romney, not Rudy. My money is on Fred’s announcement being either another postponement or a “sorry, oh, and I already funelled your support dollars to my Son’s company” announcement. National polls are also meaningless. It isn’t one national election, its 50 state elections. Mitt polls the highest in the early primary states. A win there is a momentum boost for Romney.
BKennedy on August 8, 2007 at 7:55 PM
You don’t mean me, right? you mean Mitt smiling?
Whatever dude. Fredheads complain when AP puts up Fred threads as Fred-bashing. Mitt fans complain when AP puts up Mitt threads as Mitt-bashing. You convinced me. Clearly AP is a Nader fan.
Spirit of 1776 on August 8, 2007 at 7:57 PM
Okay, BKennedy, let me correct that. If never having polled first nationally during this primary season is “invulnerable” you’re right.
Christoph on August 8, 2007 at 8:03 PM
Yes, Mitt smiling. Check out my 7:42 PM comment.
Christoph on August 8, 2007 at 8:15 PM
Righto. I read it right afterward, sorry about that.
Spirit of 1776 on August 8, 2007 at 8:17 PM
I don’t know if I’m misunderstanding you or if you’re misunderstanding me.
I have no problem with putting up something critical of a candidate.
I have no problem with AP posting this or anything else that doesn’t make Mitt (or any other candidate) smell like a rose.
The only thing I’m weary of is the battle between some Mitt supporters and some Fred supporters (I could be wrong, but, I haven’t seen the same arguments on threads about other candidates) where people criticize something silly about Mitt/Fred and say that they are just doing that because someone else criticized something silly about Fred/Mitt.
By all means, if you have a genuine criticism, post/discuss it. But posting silly things to prove that you can post silly things about candidate A just like other people posted about candidate B is what I find tiresome.
JadeNYU on August 8, 2007 at 8:20 PM
Jade, fair enough, but if you support your candidate (and I don’t support Mitt) and he’s being attacked by a somewhat influential blog, at least in primary season, and its commentators, you’re going to defend him not just by saying, “He’s great,” or, “He didn’t do it,” but by attacking what you see as his main competitors.
Offense is the strongest defense, yada yada.
Like it or not.
Christoph on August 8, 2007 at 8:39 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 3 Next »