Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney (R) recently told an Illinois woman that while his grown sons have never served in the military, they are displaying their patriotism by campaigning heavily for their father's nomination for the presidency.
The Politico and USA Today have picked up on the item. USA Today's "On Politics" blog noted in an entry posted at 11:45 Eastern that:
The questioner, 41-year-old Rachel Griffiths of Milan, Ill., told Susan later that she is not a Republican and is in fact a member of a "Progressive Action for the Common Good."
Asked if she was satisfied by Romney's answer, Griffiths said:
"Of course not. He told me the way his sons are showing support for the military of our nation is to buy a Winnebago and tour across Iowa and help him get elected."
An AP story posted at 12:20 Eastern on USAToday.com has the same information, but shorter AP write-ups lack the information, like this brief posted at 12:14 Eastern at WPRI.com:
BETTENDORF, Iowa (AP) - Mitt Romney responds today to an anti-war activist who questioned why none of his five sons have served in the military.
He said his sons are serving their country by working on his campaign.
He also said his sons are adults and he supports their decisions about their careers.
The question from Rachel Griffiths came after Romney spoke of a "surge of support" for U.S. forces in Iraq.
Griffiths said she wasn't satisfied with Romney's response. She said Romney was saying his sons are supporting the military by traveling around Iowa with him in a Winnebago.
—Ken Shepherd is Managing Editor of NewsBusters
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Romney Blew It.
August 8, 2007 - 16:43 ET by mattmHe should never have dignified that question with a direct response. It's a bogus question, based on a non-sequitur, from a hypocrite who's not interested in a real answer to a legitimate question.
Any candidate dumb enough to answer that question without at least putting doubt to the credibility of the person asking it, shouldn't be president.
The ready answer should be something like:
"That question is based on the false notion that only those who have served in the military can make policy decisions regarding the use of the military. By that logic, most members of Congress are unqualified for their jobs. Our country was designed to have a citizen-accountable military, so the past military service, or lack thereof, of its elected officials is irrelevant. Next question please..."
Romney's learning - I hope
August 8, 2007 - 16:53 ET by TruthMongerRomney's learning - I hope sooner than later
Regarding Romney, as Newt Gingrich said yesterday
August 8, 2007 - 16:59 ET by RJ"shouldn't be President..."
Yesterday, in his talk at the Press Club, Gingrich said we put far too much credence in how glibly a candidate responds to a question he hasn't anticipated. He said it's much more valuable to focus on what a candidate says after time for consideration.
He's right.....again.
True, but...
August 8, 2007 - 17:04 ET by mattmThis question should be anticipated...
But your answer explains
August 8, 2007 - 17:08 ET by balboaBut your answer explains why it's not necessary for Mitt to have served in the military, not why none of Mitt's sons have done so, correct?
his sons should be forced
August 8, 2007 - 17:14 ET by TruthMongerhis sons should be forced to serve against their will
that's how the US mil works right?
this is fine liberal logic
I'm not asking for an
August 8, 2007 - 17:17 ET by balboaI'm not asking for an answer, because I think it's a dumb question. But mattm's answer didn't actually apply to the question.
well if you're not looking
August 8, 2007 - 17:30 ET by TruthMongerwell if you're not looking for an answer then matt did just fine id say:)
This question from Liberals
August 8, 2007 - 17:15 ET by BDThis question from Liberals always leaves me perplexed.
Being that 85% of the military self-identifies as conservative, that leaves a MAXIMUM of 15% that self identifies as liberal (a more likely number would be around 2% as moderates can be expected to serve in higher numbers still than liberals).
If one were to then follow the obvious logic train, Conservatives would have four times as much credibility on military issues regarding Iraq. Mitt not having his sons serving would only be paralleled by the liberals themselves who do not actually serve as a general demographic.
Under this logic train, liberals should just shut up and sit down.
bd libs through punches in
August 8, 2007 - 17:20 ET by TruthMongerbd libs throw punches in the air most of the time - what does that tell you?
this is a derivative of the chickenhawk attack - very clever
im a chickenhawk
im all for the bush's iraq policy - but im too damn scared to fight
so what about it? any libs here care to mock my fear of fascist dictators as well as dying in battle?
please show me some of your notorious compassion here
Nope
August 8, 2007 - 17:17 ET by mattmNope - wrong again sir. My answer explains why the question is bogus...
You miss Newt's point
August 8, 2007 - 17:10 ET by RJYou miss Newt's point.
But, because of your willingness to claim Romney shouldn't be President due to his response to a single question, I suspect you don't really want to seriously consider it.
A worthy candidate should be
August 8, 2007 - 17:18 ET by mattmA worthy candidate should be ready to answer that question since it's been brought up every year since 2000.
You're just repeating yourself, mattm
August 8, 2007 - 17:27 ET by RJYou're just repeating yourself, mattm....and still ignoring the point Newt made.
To claim the immediate response to a single question invalidates a candidate for the Presidency is either being extremely simplistic or covering a decision already made for other reasons.
i think matt is right Romney
August 8, 2007 - 17:32 ET by TruthMongeri think matt is right Romney should have had a better answer ready P.S. the world will not end because of this tomorrow Hillary will do something with her cleavage and this will all be forgotten
Perhaps, TM, but you're overlooking
August 8, 2007 - 17:36 ET by RJA better answer ready? Perhaps, TM, but you're overlooking mattm's statement that Romney's response disqualifies him for the Presidency.
yes RJ
August 8, 2007 - 17:46 ET by TruthMongermissed that part - sorry
I certainly don't think it's an automatic disqualification either
I said what you said was
August 8, 2007 - 18:52 ET by mattmI said what you said was true.
That's why my subject line said "True, but..." This means I am conceding your point - that as a rule candidates shouldn't be judged based on their ability to give snappy, glib answers to any question they have not anticipated. However, my point (my secondary point, actually) was that that particular question should have been anticipated.
The last election was almost defined by it: Kerry tried to convince us that he was more qualified for the job than Bush because he served in combat in Vietnam while Bush escaped by joining the Guard - and skipping out, as the accusation was. So why wouldn't any candidate expect that question? Especially since the Iraq war and the WOT are still top priorities.
Worthy candidates definitely should anticipate questions like this and they should be ready to answer them...If they aren't, what else won't they be ready for?
Besides, my main point was the bogus nature of the question itself...
bush and clinton said sure
August 8, 2007 - 17:05 ET by TruthMongerbush and clinton said sure said some wingdingers on the campaign trail
Generally it is bad policy
August 8, 2007 - 17:29 ET by Conservative VoiceGenerally it is bad policy to put regular people in their place. While I agree with what you said, it would of been considered an attack. Hence Romney's answer. He says essentially the same thing, without the knives. That is he indirectly says you can support the military by helping someone who understands Iraq and foreign issues better than say Obama who wants to have tea with our enemies and bomb our friends. ( paraphrase of what Romney said on Sunday )
Did you serve?
August 8, 2007 - 18:18 ET by BradyMitt should have said, "Did you serve? And do any of your children or immediate family?" If so, bless them and their sacrifice.
I didn't serve in the military. Like the clergy, serving in the military is often a calling. I wasn't called to either the military or the clergy. I grew up in a time of peace with the exception of the cold war. I was too young for VietNam although all my junior high buddies thought we would, and too old (in the sense that I had already started down my life's path) for Desert Storm.
Am I a chickenhawk because I support the war even though I wasn't in the military? No. I am a patriot and support my country in other ways.
Look To Your Own House First
August 8, 2007 - 20:18 ET by stratmanBasing the credibility of a candidate on whether they or their children are or have been in the military makes as much sense as being fit for police and firefighting assistance only if you are or were a policeman or fireman.
Police, firefighters and military personel voluntarily place their lives on the line for the populace at large without expectation of serving for only one subset of the population. These brave individuals perform their duties for all citizens.
To frame the discussion based on military service is juvenile and reeks of the Libs trying to apply a tactic they rebelled against in years past. I have not heard a Conservative rallying cry for only an ex-military person as president or that the candidate's children must serve. I have heard the Liberal hypocracy though.
As further proof of the Liberal idiocy, I don't recall the Clinton's, Obama's or the Edwards' having military service in either the candidate's or their immediate family's history. Why aren't the Lib pieholes spouting off that assinine question to the Dem candidates?
Killing them with kindness isn't working. Time to get scrappy with the Donkeys.
Somethings Fishy
August 8, 2007 - 23:07 ET by stratmanLiberal activists are attacking Republican candidates and the MSM is headlining every nuance and inflating every interaction. Nothing unusual there except for the fact that the very vocal Leftists are not being identified properly by the media. It's not a case of the media not knowing who the activists are, since the press identifies them by name. What is insidious and subversive is that the full identity of the interloper is purposefully left unsaid.
This story about Romney in the AP is today's example. Yesterday it was Giuliani and his religion, also an AP story. (Pattern emerging?)
(http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070808/ap_on_el_pr/giuliani_catholics_5;_ylt=An9L1ugWFK91TBIhzhaNZQz5buRF)
It turns out Fritzsche has been or currently is an Administrative Law attorney in Bettendorr, Iowa, Assistant Scott County Attorney, Harvard Law School graduate, donated to Democrat campaigns and ran for office in House District 81 Democratic Party (I don't know if he won but IowaPolitics.com gave him 47 words of stock bio info while his opponent recieved 211 words detailing his position on issues.)
Exactly how did AP miss the boat of either knowing or reporting the obvious bias of these two potential self-appointed or encouraged DNC operatives? It's not like the reporter couldn't enquire while getting the name for the quote or even google the name before submitting the article.
Maybe the dictionary should add another definition for "macaca":
Rhesus Monkey
A Racial Slur
A DNC operative or Liberal activist who stalks Republican candidates and who's purpose is to embarass the candidate, preferably on camera for MSM replay ad nauseum.
Killing them with kindness isn't working. Time to get scrappy with the Donkeys.
When asked whether or not
August 9, 2007 - 06:38 ET by annoyedmanQuislings. I have no use for them.
The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left. ~~ Ecclesiastes 10:1-2