Video: Slate’s ad for Mitt
posted at 1:25 pm on September 25, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
Via Marc Ambinder, a cheap shot off a poor choice of words but funny and thus redeemed. The occasion is the announcement of the nine finalists in Team Romney’s “create your own ad” campaign. They’re all fine, but viewed in sequence they point up just how limited stylistically political spots are (the ad about Mitt’s Olympics leadership is the notable exception). A few shots of the candidate looking commanding and sympathetic, a few stirring soundbites, and most importantly a canny choice of music and you’ve got yourself a spot that could run anywhere with no one thinking twice. Compare them to Hillary’s health-care ad in Iowa. How much did she pay for what Mitt got for free?
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 Next »
Cheap shot, but so deserved. Near to hilarity, too.
MadisonConservative on September 25, 2007 at 1:27 PM
I disagree; it’s not really funny. It’s just a cheap political shot to attack Mitt.
amerpundit on September 25, 2007 at 1:29 PM
Haha. That’s pretty amusing.
Spirit of 1776 on September 25, 2007 at 1:29 PM
Allah–
Can I please have the highly anticipated Halo 3 thread??
JVelez on September 25, 2007 at 1:31 PM
Cr&p! Nothing matters anymore.
Jack Bauer was arrested this morning for a DUI.
The world is coming to an end.
Gregor on September 25, 2007 at 1:31 PM
Gregor, if Janeane Garofalo was added to your show, don’t you think DUI was bound to happen?
Spirit of 1776 on September 25, 2007 at 1:36 PM
Total cheap shot, but it was funny enough to give a pass.
Bad Candy on September 25, 2007 at 1:39 PM
Good shot
Ochlan on September 25, 2007 at 1:41 PM
Swipe! Fore!
RushBaby on September 25, 2007 at 1:49 PM
I still want a video where Michelle knocks Bill Clinton over with a straw for accepting Hsu donations.
Of course then would need Allahpundit to remove Obama’s lips off of Ahmadinajad’s rear before it becomes too embarrasing
William Amos on September 25, 2007 at 1:51 PM
As the mother of a son in the military, I think Romney deserves this… (as does Hillary as her daughter has done nothing but earn money off the backs of her political parents)
Stop the golfing and go defend the country that your father wants to run.
Babs on September 25, 2007 at 1:54 PM
haha nice
trailortrash on September 25, 2007 at 1:54 PM
Funny
EricPWJohnson on September 25, 2007 at 2:05 PM
LOL… I thought it was hilarious. It does drive home the point that there are others who really are sacrificing.
Nineball on September 25, 2007 at 2:12 PM
What nonsense! You make it sound like someone drafted your son.
As for the ad, it’s nothing more than a cheap shot, and Mitt doesn’t deserve it anymore than he deserved the cheap shot question it’s based on.
For one thing, Slate deliberately lies about what Mitt was asked. He wasn’t asked “whether his five sons served in the military or if they were going to join.” Rather, he was asked an incoherent gotcha chickenhawk question. If I remember correctly, the genius who asked him said something like “how are your sons going to serve the country by joining the military”.
His immediate response, that it’s still a volunteer military and will remain so, was perfectly reasonable.
Look, I’m no fan of Mitt, but this is lame all around, including any suggestions that his children are obligated to join the military.
Kensington on September 25, 2007 at 2:13 PM
Looks like Hillary is finally returning some of that money she got from Hsu.
LakeRuins on September 25, 2007 at 2:22 PM
I am so pissed at Romney over this this isn’t funny to me in the least little bit.
Arrogant jagoff. All I know is he better start getting to know what it is really like to have a loved one serve so he’ll stop being so phony and cavalier about it.
csdeven on September 25, 2007 at 2:22 PM
I really like Romney but I have to admit that this is very funny.
Come on Babs. That requirement would have eliminated many of our Founding Fathers from receiving credit for their contributions to this nation, not to mention many great men whose lives took a different course than that of military service.
Buy Danish on September 25, 2007 at 2:22 PM
His immediate response, that it’s still a volunteer military and will remain so, was perfectly reasonable.
Look, I’m no fan of Mitt, but this is lame all around, including any suggestions that his children are obligated to join the military.
Kensington on September 25, 2007 at 2:13 PM
Hollowpoint on September 25, 2007 at 2:26 PM
He wasn’t cavalier about it! It’s wrong to respond to chickenhawk baiting by groveling or validating it. It’s a volunteer military, and political activism is a valid way to serve your country.
Mitt didn’t equate the two!
Kensington on September 25, 2007 at 2:30 PM
Oops, sorry for the previous post. Wrongbuttonitis
In the tank much?
However unfair the question, Mitt’s response wasn’t limited to reminding us that it’s a volunteer military- he suggested that his sons were also serving their country by serving on Mitt’s campaign. It was a stupid thing to say that made it seem that he was comparing military service during wartime with campaigning for your Dad’s (doomed) campaign as morally equivalent.
Perhaps Mitt didn’t mean it that way and simply used a poor choice of words- still, he said it and of course is going to get some grief about it.
Hollowpoint on September 25, 2007 at 2:31 PM
It’s still funny folks………..get a sense of humor.
omnipotent on September 25, 2007 at 2:33 PM
Plus, most chickenhawk baiters don’t respect the military or honor military service; all they’re doing is looking for gotcha opportunities, leftists who think that the biggest threat to the western world is right-wing hypocrisy. They’re nothing more than children who infantilize the military in the first place.
Kensington on September 25, 2007 at 2:33 PM
Gosh, just when I thought I could agree with Hollowpoint for once, I find that he screwed up his post and was quoting someone he disagreed with.
I knew it was too good to be true.
Buy Danish on September 25, 2007 at 2:36 PM
You know why it’s not funny? Because it lacks the element of truth. The commercial acts like Mitt responded to the chickenhawk bait by saying “My sons don’t need to be in the service, they’re serving the country in an equivalent capacity by working on my campaign to become Blood and Guts Romney,” and that just ain’t how it happened.
So, yes, I’m in the tank much for honest disagreement and fair discourse, none of which is on display in this ad.
Kensington on September 25, 2007 at 2:38 PM
Pre-emptive strike. Had to make sure people still had reason to argue with me :p
Hollowpoint on September 25, 2007 at 2:38 PM
I can see how it would be kinda funny. If I weren’t so sick and tired of “gotcha” journalism and personal attacks and the general attempts to “anoint” candidates in the MSM, I might give it a pass….but not this year.
TBinSTL on September 25, 2007 at 2:40 PM
One more reason it’s not funny? If there was a gaffe, it was Mitt’s gaffe, not his sons, yet the commercial is making fun of his sons.
Kensington on September 25, 2007 at 2:42 PM
RESPECT THE MITT-HATERS.
-Allahpundit
MadisonConservative on September 25, 2007 at 2:44 PM
You wouldn’t get that from your post.
The full text of his response. Even if he didn’t to, his answer definitely made it sound like he equated the two.
I’m not currently in a position to watch the ad, but some found it funny, so perhaps you should just acknowledge that the ad was a joke about Romney’s mistake in bringing up his son’s campaign activity as an example of serving their country when answering about whether they’d serve their country in the military.
Hollowpoint on September 25, 2007 at 2:47 PM
You’ve insulted me in this thread twice now, which makes you seem like a troll, so I’m not going to waste much more time on you, but the link you provided also leads to the full audio which demonstrates quite clearly that he was not equating the two.
Kensington on September 25, 2007 at 2:52 PM
Actually, they seem like great guys. Mitt would do well to emphasize his fine family more. Yeah, the absense of military service became a goof issue, but it has no legs. I didn’t serve, and we’ve already seen lots and lots of Democrats who served in the military in some capacity (nurses, PR people, butt washers, etc.) and yet have the same political positions as the goofiest of their leftists.
So, apparently military service does not cure stupidity. (See the Brooks headline above for a reminder about how important the DKos schwanzlickers are to Democrats).
Btw, Mitt’s strength on the family issue plays hard against his GOP competitors…
Jaibones on September 25, 2007 at 2:54 PM
I insulted you? OK, Mr. Hypersensitivity.
There, now you at least have a mild insult.
Hollowpoint on September 25, 2007 at 3:03 PM
Wow, good one.
Aggie85 on September 25, 2007 at 3:05 PM
HAHAHA! Hilarious.
csdeven to start dropping hand grenades in this thread in 5….4…3….
infidel4life on September 25, 2007 at 3:07 PM
In humor there’s always a kernel of truth. I’m with csdeven on this one. If Mitt would have stopped at what Kensington said in the first comment, this would not exist. But, alas, he didn’t. All other is minutiae.
p.s. Hollowpoint is not a troll.
Entelechy on September 25, 2007 at 3:09 PM
infidel4life, good morning :) – tip – read further, above.
Entelechy on September 25, 2007 at 3:10 PM
Oh, cs did already, but probably not like you think he did.
Bad Candy on September 25, 2007 at 3:10 PM
Bad Candy, perfectly synchronized timing :) Cheers!
Entelechy on September 25, 2007 at 3:11 PM
oooops!
That’s what I get for skimming the comments.
infidel4life on September 25, 2007 at 3:16 PM
infidel4life, only those who care about you rib you – the rest ignore you :)
Entelechy on September 25, 2007 at 3:23 PM
BUGS
OK, just watched it. It was funny though not hilariously so, and not the mean-spirited attack that I thought it would be after reading some of the responses in this thread. It’s almost universally accepted that Mitt gave a poor response, and he’s being goofed on for it. It’s not exactly Swift Boat matterial that’s going to finish off his already stagnant campaign.
Gotta agree with the “lighten up” crowd. I’m in Fred’s corner, but I’m sure he’ll get similar treatment at some point too.
Hollowpoint on September 25, 2007 at 3:25 PM
After pointing out that the military is voluntary, Mitt spends the next 90 seconds extolling and praising those who serve in the military and arguing in favor of increasing our support for them at home.
He then elaborates on what people can do at home, telling an anecdote about neighbors who stepped up to help a military wife landscape her home so she didn’t get fined by her city. He follows this up by referencing his son’s support for the country by working to get him elected. If he’s equating anything, he’s equating their non-military show of support for the country by campaigning for him with the non-military show of support that led the neighbors to landscape the military wife’s lawn.
Some will disagree with that equivalence, too, but it’s not the same thing as claiming that Romney was comparing electioneering with military service.
Give it another listen.
Kensington on September 25, 2007 at 3:30 PM
Allah posts/links to Marc Ambinder blog.
Marc Ambinder blogs on Atlantic, hollowed blog site of St. Sully.
Marc Ambinder posts Slate cheap shot hatchet job video.
What a waste of time.
Brat on September 25, 2007 at 3:44 PM
That was a beatdown of Mr. Romney. Attacked his credibility as Commander in Chief. Very effective. And it came from that pack of retards at Slate, too.
jaime on September 25, 2007 at 3:47 PM
The laugh-out-loud feel good hit of the season :-)
Ordinary1 on September 25, 2007 at 3:55 PM
Kensington on September 25, 2007 at 3:30 PM
I agree with everything you’re saying with the caveat that, however unfair and partisan, the video is funny in a Leno-esque kind of way.
Where we will be in trouble as conservatives is if we unfairly go after Mitt (or other good candidates) over idiotic non-issues like this and cede the floor to Hillary in the process.
I also thought it was very unfair that Fox/Carl Cameron let that man in a restaurant booth in New Hampshire pose what was not so much a question as a rhetorical rant to Mitt during the last debate.
I also thought Mitt responded really well under the circumstances but a negative, non-objective tone had already been set and the damage done. None of the other candidates had to deal with anything approaching that situation.
Buy Danish on September 25, 2007 at 4:02 PM
My problem is that Mitt has very little experience with military life and it shows. He needs to spend a week with a family who has a loved one serving in harms way. He’d get an entirely new perspective and his future discussions on the issue would reflect that.
csdeven on September 25, 2007 at 4:03 PM
jaime on September 25, 2007 at 3:47 PM
Spare me. This does not “attack his credibility as Commander in Chief”.
Buy Danish on September 25, 2007 at 4:06 PM
Awww shucks, thanks Entelechy………I think…
;-)
infidel4life on September 25, 2007 at 4:14 PM
csdeven on September 25, 2007 at 4:03 PM
What is it you want him to gain from this experience? It’s not as if he is not incredibly supportive and respectful of the military already. I’m not saying that it wouldn’t be valuable in a way, but to make this a criteria is awfully demanding and egocentric. Frankly, statements like yours remind me of Cindy Sheehan and her whiny demands that Bush meet with her.
All this business of demanding that people meet your unique criteria is bound for failure as it is impossible to satisfy anyone, never mind satisfy enough people to vote for you.
Moreover, for all of McCain’s heroism and hands on military knowledge, he would make a really terrible President IMO.
Buy Danish on September 25, 2007 at 4:16 PM
No? What is the intent, then?
jaime on September 25, 2007 at 4:20 PM
As the mother of a son in the military, I think Romney deserves this…
Babs on September 25, 2007 at 1:54 PM
As someone who is not the mother of someone in the military and never can be, something to do with my physiology the last time I checked, but someone who was in the military, U.S. Army XXIV Corp RVN (1971-1972), I do not.
He said that his sons were serving their country by being in his campaign and I would hope that no one would run for President if he did not think that his being elected would be good for the country. He never said that was the same as serving in the military any more than he said that was the same as them being doctors.
MB4 on September 25, 2007 at 4:25 PM
It’s funny, and less mean-spirited than I expected. It’s obvious what Mitt meant with his answer, and his intentions were good, but what actually came out of his mouth did sound dumb. It’s nothing to freak out over, but giving the guy some good-natured ribbing will give him an incentive to think through his answers better in the future.
ReubenJCogburn on September 25, 2007 at 4:53 PM
ANYONE who aspires to our CinC ought to have very intimate experiences with the realities of military life if they are going to speak on it. He doesn’t seem to have a real empathy for them. It’s like he learned it out of a book and says the right stuff, but it has no feeling or depth. I think it would do him a world of good to experience it.
csdeven on September 25, 2007 at 4:58 PM
jaime on September 25, 2007 at 4:20 PM
Perhaps I misunderstood you. I thought that you were saying that his answer destroyed his credibility and therefore makes him unworthy of the position, not that Slate is effectively destroying his credibility.
csdeven on September 25, 2007 at 4:58 PM
Look, I have great appreciation for you as a military dad, but you are reacting emotionally. What you are saying sounds like a Frank Lunz focus group’s response, not a clear-thinking conservative who is guided by intellect over emotion.
Buy Danish on September 25, 2007 at 5:10 PM
Quite possibly the rudest thing ever written on HA, lol.
Spirit of 1776 on September 25, 2007 at 5:18 PM
Spirit of 1776 on September 25, 2007 at 5:18 PM
I didn’t mean it to be rude, just accurate :)
Buy Danish on September 25, 2007 at 5:29 PM
Did Mitt say his sons were “working” for him, they wouldn’t be on his payroll would they?
That was funny, the little band of brothers, saving America, and comparing themselves (per their dad) to military service. Hope they run into some real marines (or any other servicemen) and find out what it is really like to serve your country. Or be honest and have Mitt say they are serving their dad, which is cool and good…but honest. Honesty may not be in the playbook yet, but there is still time.
right2bright on September 25, 2007 at 5:44 PM
Succeeded to do both and evoke a laugh from me.
Spirit of 1776 on September 25, 2007 at 5:46 PM
I think it was an effective attack by Slate.
However, I don’t think it resulted in the destruction of Romney’s credibility as CiC. But they were able to cast a negative light on it.
jaime on September 25, 2007 at 5:48 PM
Once again you add your own special and predictably false spin to things. His sons never made any such comparison.
Honestly interpreting reality may not be in your “playbook” either but hope springs eternal.
And I mean that to be both rude and accurate.
Buy Danish on September 25, 2007 at 5:56 PM
Once again you add your own special and predictably false spin to things. His sons never made any such comparison.
Buy Danish on September 25, 2007 at 5:56 PM
What part of this “(per their dad)” did you not understand?
Now, let’s see how honest you are at apologizing.
Looks like at least the “rude” part is accurate.
right2bright on September 25, 2007 at 6:03 PM
jaime on September 25, 2007 at 5:48 PM
The good news is that very few people who would vote for any Republican candidate are apt to be influenced by Slate.
I’m more concerned with the knee-jerk criticism from our side of the aisle who have discovered a new found criteria for Presidential candidates.
Buy Danish on September 25, 2007 at 6:03 PM
Yes I am. Having a family member in harms way is a very emotional event in a family’s life and I’m not going to feel bad about it.
csdeven on September 25, 2007 at 6:12 PM
right2bright on September 25, 2007 at 6:03 PM
I “got” that clever little addendum. All the verbal contortions in the world does not change the fact that you completely twisted what he said and what his sons said.
Which makes you——->>>Dishonest.
If not dishonest, someone who lacks even a rudimentary command of the English language.
Buy Danish on September 25, 2007 at 6:12 PM
What’s the new found criteria for Presidential candidates?
jaime on September 25, 2007 at 6:12 PM
ANYONE who aspires to our CinC ought to have very intimate experiences with the realities of military life if they are going to speak on it.
csdeven on September 25, 2007 at 4:58 PM
That would apply to a lot of folks.
Hilary, John Edwards, Obama.
Rudy, Fred and yes, Dick Chaney and George W. Bush.
To name but a few.
MB4 on September 25, 2007 at 6:17 PM
Yeah, ok.
If you cannot understand what I write, and you get caught mis-interpreting it, thats ok…we all do it. Just admit it and move on. Or, don’t respond to my posts…that is what I asked the other day, just ignore them. You are the only one not reading “per their dad” and understanding that it was from their dad. However, I am glad that you read it on the second pass, you are doing better. But you are reading things that don’t exist, maybe get your monitor fixed, or we will work on that and help you better read what is written. (Do you see words appear and disappear on you screen often? do you think I am tapping your phone, or intercepting your internet? Just askin)
I can see why you support Mitt, and I can see who he caters to.
right2bright on September 25, 2007 at 6:22 PM
csdeven on September 25, 2007 at 6:12 PM
Of course you should not “feel bad about it”. You should be beaming with pride about it.
And of course you are understandably concerned for your child’s welfare. However, it is a bit unfair of you to project your own very personal and emotional experience onto Mitt Romney.
Buy Danish on September 25, 2007 at 6:23 PM
A slippery slope for sure (Cheney the consummate draft dodger). That is why it is best, during a campaign, to honor the servicemen, not put them on the level of “RV driving campaigners”. He used a bad choice of words, now he needs to back away.
Little (and I mean little) things like this sink campaigns..anyone remember the “rabid rabbit”? Unless they get corrected.
BTW, I love Cheney, but during the war he let others fight for him (and perhaps die) so he could live safely and comfortable.
right2bright on September 25, 2007 at 6:28 PM
jaime on September 25, 2007 at 6:12 PM
Military service either by the candidate or their children. Or in the case of some, feeling what military families feel.
right2bright,
Blah blah blah. You said what you said and despite your little parenthetical caveat you said, and I quote:
To those of us who speak and understand the English language (even very poorly written examples of it) “comparing themselves” means they themselves made the comparison. “Per their dad” means that according to their dad they made this comparison.
Buy Danish on September 25, 2007 at 6:31 PM
Here we go again.
not2bright. Getting a deferment that is accepted by the government of the United States is not “draft dodging”.
But you’re a really dodgy thinker, so it doesn’t surprise me you confuse deferments with a permanent and pre-meditated plans to escape military service.
But hey, maybe Cheney, Romney and the like knew in advance when the Vietnam War was going to end and planned everything after an evening with a Ouija Board.
Buy Danish on September 25, 2007 at 6:37 PM
I have not experienced that, although more than a couple of my neighbors sons are serving.
It is not any projection on your part, the most honorable thing a parent can do is send their son (or daughter) off with love, to a foreign land to defend liberty.
Those are the true patriots, the parents who sit at home with the thoughts and prayers. And any defense, any reaction, can only be deemed appropriate and honorable…and never dismissive as a “projection”. Your “projection” is felt by tens of thousands of parents, and the families and neighbors that are close to them. And you have a special standing in life right now, you are a first among equals, for your sacrifice. The sacrifice of raising someone who felt it in their heart to defend the country that this old man lives in…and I honor that, and have honored it, my whole life. One of my true blessings, is understanding that thousands have given their lives for my freedom. What a great choice, and what a great family.
right2bright on September 25, 2007 at 6:41 PM
Nothing wrong with these ads. Whether or not the candidate actually served is not nearly as important as how well they demonstrate a real understanding of the miltary men and women. There are issues important to them as well that their non-military fellow citizens have no awareness of. Not a knock, just a fact. He could just as easily play it to his advantage in his reply. Crying about the ad or making painfully convoluted explanations about his sons is not the way though.
Bradky on September 25, 2007 at 6:42 PM
You think it’s wise for Mitt to avoid the reality of life for a military family? My point is that he says stupid crap and a little bit of experience would go a long way to helping him avoid those kind of remarks. Remarks I might add that he had to apologize for. It would make him a better candidate and eventual president.
csdeven on September 25, 2007 at 6:44 PM
R2B and others…
Thanks for understanding.
csdeven on September 25, 2007 at 6:46 PM
I understand CS. Although I was 44 at the time, I will never forget the excitement, relief, and pride in my Dad’s voice when I called him to let him know I was back in the states.
Hang in there.
Bradky on September 25, 2007 at 6:46 PM
Better take some time and read up on deferments and Cheney. Like I said, I love that guy, but on this he falls short. And those of us who lived during the deferments, understand what many of them were, and how they were obtained. They had pamphlets printed with “how to”, the priviledged had special attorneys to advise them. If you think deferments weren’t used in “draft dodging”, well, then this post won’t convince you. Anymore than pointing out that “per your dad” meant Mitt. You just won’t get it.
Take some time and read some history.
Your new mantra should be: “Post less, read more”
right2bright on September 25, 2007 at 6:47 PM
I was basing my comments on what Mitt had said some weeks ago as my system will not play the video. Do I perceive that the video has some much different “input” that might give me a different perspective?
MB4 on September 25, 2007 at 6:49 PM
Whether or not the candidate actually served is not nearly as important as how well they demonstrate a real understanding of the miltary men and women.
Bradky on September 25, 2007 at 6:42 PM
Just as a “sidebar”, don’t forget that all military men and woman are not alike, not by a long shot. Just as, on another thread, not all atheists are alike.
MB4 on September 25, 2007 at 7:14 PM
Give Mitt a break. It’s not as if he gave legal advice to Libyan terrorists.
tommylotto on September 25, 2007 at 7:31 PM
Give Mitt a break. It’s not as if he gave legal advice to Libyan terrorists.
tommylotto on September 25, 2007 at 7:31 PM
Or gave sanctuary to people illegally in the country.
MB4 on September 25, 2007 at 7:36 PM
I guess I should have clarified that they understand the military lifestyle. Things like child care, survivor benefit, and even health benefits are unique to the military family/individual.
Too many times politicians are quick to get the photo op with the troops but very rarely do they sit down with them privately in their homes or dorm rooms.
Bradky on September 25, 2007 at 7:51 PM
Things like child care, survivor benefit, and even health benefits are unique to the military family/individual.
Bradky on September 25, 2007 at 7:51 PM
I guess even I don’t/didn’t fully appreciate that, as when I was in pretty much everyone was late teens to early twenties and single.
MB4 on September 25, 2007 at 7:56 PM
csdeven on September 25, 2007 at 6:44 PM
Gosh, now you’re making him out to be a kind of draft dodger like not2bright.
You are not just suggesting that he spend time with military families, you are insisting that he (and others) do so. When you do that you also presume to know what he has done and who he has met with privately, which you have no way of knowing anyway.
right2bright,
I don’t have time to deal with your fantasy world of revisionist history right now, but let’s just say that for starters Cheney was hardly “priviledged” (SIC) so that kinda blows that theory of how deferments were obtained right out of the water.
Buy Danish on September 25, 2007 at 8:01 PM
Your saying that deferments were not used to get out of going to Vietnam? Thinking that is revisionist history. The ones who couldn’t get deferments,went to Canada…but then you probably believe that is just a fable.
You don’t think 5 education deferments were out of the ordinary? Clinton had two (I think two, one for Georgetown and the other for Oxford), but he used his to set up demostrations against the war, overseas…much worse.
I have a dozen names of friends that used that ploy to get out of service. Had one catholic friend marry his sweetheart in civil service and told no one but the Selective Service. He married her in a Catholic church 4 years later to make it right in the eyes of God. But that is revisionist history, revisited.
Cheney’s 5 was highly unusual, but at the same time used by most everyone to get out of the draft. Until they stopped that, then you had to be married…and he Cheney did that, then you had to have a child, and Cheney did that…
But then, you don’t beleive people manipulated the rules to get out of serving…ok, believe that fantasy…
right2bright on September 25, 2007 at 9:33 PM
Hey, don’t get soft on me. It means I respect you, not agree with you…
And the respect for your family and your son in particular is genuine. I know this means something to you; a day does not go by without devout prayer for our service men, whether overseas, or at home. They are the ultimate defender of our freedoms, prepared to give the ultimate sacrifice.
Funny, I don’t ever remember saying a prayer for our Congressmen…guess I just don’t feel most of them would sacrifice anything for me…although they would be more than happy to sacrifice anything I have to give for them.
And remember the thousands each day that die, that were in WWII, everyday those great heroes are losing their brothers.
right2bright on September 25, 2007 at 9:42 PM
right2bright on September 25, 2007 at 6:41 PM
r2b, you said it so beautifully, for me too, and I cried. Thanks for these thoughs.
csdeven, big hug – you are our betters and you sacrifice for all of us.
Entelechy on September 25, 2007 at 9:44 PM
I agree.
Spirit of 1776 on September 25, 2007 at 9:51 PM
Spirit of 1776 on September 25, 2007 at 9:51 PM
What csdeven said at 6:44 pm has been modified a bit from what he said earlier and is thus more reasonable, although his allegation that Mitt wants to “avoid the reality of life for a military family” is a new assertion based on nothing but his own emotions.
Think about it. What evidence is there that Mitt would purposefully avoid this sort of contact? None?
From reading the comments of csdeven and right2bright, I am beginning to understand why someone like Bill Clinton is such a successful politician. It’s that “I feel your pain” thing.
Buy Danish on September 25, 2007 at 11:18 PM
right2bright on September 25, 2007 at 9:33 PM
There are so many falsehoods and fallacies in that statement that I cannot begin to address them. Suffice it to say that you consistently make up your own version of reality, and distort what was said so it is no longer recognizable.
Cheney and Romney were not Draft Dodgers and your constant assertion that they and others who received similar deferments met the definition of a Draft Dodger clearly illustrates that you don’t know what the phrase means.
I have repeatedly pointed out to you that a deferment is not an exemption, but you are too filled with a sense of rage to grasp that distinction.
Furthermore, according to what I infer is your “no deferment” policy, we would have had very few doctors, engineers, scientists, scholars, or the like during the Vietnam War since they all would have been drafted into the military. Any clearheaded person should be able to realize that that would have had disastrous consequences.
The fact is that there are many honorable, worthy and necessary pursuits and it does not serve this country well to pit one group against the other.
That being said, I have nothing but profound admiration and respect for anyone who chooses a military career, and I am immeasurably grateful to parents like csdeven who instill such outstanding character traits in their children that they voluntarily put their lives on the line to serve our country.
Buy Danish on September 26, 2007 at 12:45 AM
Please, if you do not understand what I write, do not comment. I have asked you this before. You have a comprehension problem.
Where in this post about Romney being a draft dodger. What I said was:
You mis-interpreted it, and now you are embarrassed and are making things up. Where did I mention Romney as a draft dodger in my posts on this thread?
Show me and I will apologize…or you can apologize to me for making things up.
You don’t think Cheney manipulated the system, I do…it is not a case of lying or truth, it is believing what you want to believe, don’t take it so personal. I am glad you don’t think Cheney is a draft dodger, I happen to think his 5 deferments where a dodge, just a difference in opinion.
Now where did I mention Mitt was a draft dodger on this thread?
right2bright on September 26, 2007 at 1:12 AM
That’s what I thought.
Nite nite.
right2bright on September 26, 2007 at 1:21 AM
The ability for a CinC to understand the realities of life in a family who has a loved one in harms way is important to those families. I trust Bush and I don’t trust Hillary. I want to trust Mitt, but he has said some stuff that is basically revealed as opportunities for photos or sound bites. I would much rather he get to know the actual emotions that our military families experience so he could speak to us with compassion and knowledge. He could easily do so by taking the time to meet with families. Spend a day or two on the eve of a deployment. Get a feel for it. I would not want it to change his course of action, but I would expect he would have a keener sense of what our guys and gals sacrifice. And that keener sense would come out in his speeches and I dare say he wouldn’t say another thing concerning the military that he would have to apologize for.
csdeven on September 26, 2007 at 1:25 AM
Thanks for the analysis. Here’s what I’ll do, when I want to comment of something that been said, I quote the parts that I agree with and write “I agree” under them. ;)
To the meat of your comment: yes, Bill Clinton is a superb politician because he generates the sense that he ‘understands’ and ‘cares’ for you the voter.
Now there are 4 possibilities:
1- He does care and he shows
2- He does care and he doesn’t show it
3- He doesn’t care and he doesn’t show it
4- He doesn’t care and he fakes it
So again, I agree with CS’s statement. Mitt should avoid these statements because they do not reflect #1 and flirt dangerously with the appearance of #3 or #4.
Spirit of 1776 on September 26, 2007 at 2:03 AM
Cheney and Romney were not Draft Dodgers and your constant assertion that they and others who received similar deferments met the definition of a Draft Dodger clearly illustrates that you don’t know what the phrase means.
Buy Danish on September 26, 2007 at 12:45 AM
Thinking back to that time, and looking at it from the perspective of the guys, most of whom were or would be in some branch of the military, that I knew at the time, most would not have considered Romney to be a draft dodger, about half would have considered Cheney to be one, but basically all would have considered Guliania to be one.
MB4 on September 26, 2007 at 2:32 AM
Heh.
Tanya on September 26, 2007 at 7:50 AM
At the time in the 60’s+ you are probably accurate. Maybe knowing a little more now about how the Mormon church met with the Selective Service and brokered a deal, and only selected men were chosen for missions, and the fact the Mitt just happened to be chosen to go to France, and given his conflicting statements about going or not going to war…well, I place him on the side of dodging, mission was a better cover than the academic deferments, but he still took the easy way out. Doesn’t make him evil, or anti American, or the level of Clinton, but moves him into the “I don’t have to go (by my choice), you go in my place” category.
right2bright on September 26, 2007 at 7:51 AM
*smirk*
Compare the Romneys to the Hunters. No contest.
Mojave Mark on September 26, 2007 at 7:53 AM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »