An Internet hub with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, indies, centrists, moderates, and right
They’re Serving Their Country (Not)
Other than John McCain, who has a son at the Naval Academy and another about to report to Marine Corps boot camp, none of the Republican presidential wannabes have sons or daughters serving their country although most are foursquare for the Iraq war and call their Democratic opponents antiwar pansies.
Unless you’re Mitt Romney and you claim that your five sons are serving the country . . . by working in daddy’s campaign.
Are we too inured to hypocrisy in its many forms, large and small?
Should any of this be a campaign issue?
If not why not?
opinions powered by SendLove.to
28 Responses to “They’re Serving Their Country (Not)”
So, it is no longer enough to question a candidate’s military service when smearing them, now if they don’t force their adult children to serve, that is also fair game.
What happened to the concept that they are their own individuals, and make their own choices? I for one would find it beyond crass to have a parent force their children, adult or otherwise, into any major life choice for simple political expediency for themselves.
I’m always a bit uncomfortable when I see politicians being criticised for not having a soldier in their family. After all, what should the kids do, disregard their own life plans, even possible objections against the war in Iraw and join the army just to better their father’s (or mother’s!) chances to become elected? This doesn’t seem fair to me. Let the candidates stand on their own, their kids won’t be on the ballot!
While I think his son’s decisions aren’t really open to criticism, Romney rightfully gets the bashing he deserves for his cavalier answer that his sons are doing service for the nation by helping him on the trail. Sry, but this kind of duty simply isn’t in the same league as that of the troops who risk their lifes every single day in Iraq. It’s not even close.
Of course, Romney certainly really thinks helping him becoming elected is good for the nation, he shouldn’t run if it wouldn’t see it this way, but to compare campaign work with the job US soldiers are doing in war zones diminishes the sacrifices of the troops. If this is really his true conviction, than he doesn’t deserve to become commander in chief.
AustinRoth:
Grab that paper bag and blow into it, young man. Then reread what I wrote:
You are, of course, utterly uncurious as to why most the the candidates are slavish war supporters but none of their kin is doing jacksh*t to advance that effort save for McCain’s. I happen to have a bit more curiosity.
Forcing one’s adult children to do anything is beyond the pale. It is assuredly not an issue here and not something that I would even hint at advocating, so hit that paper bag for a few minutes and try again once you . . . uh, collect yourself.
Thank you.
I thought Romney’s response to the question was lame and he deserves the blowback he’s getting on it (what are his campaign managers thinking, to have not anticipated this question and the ones about his religion, or to have not developed more thoughtful answers?)
But for me personally, the issue of whether or not a candidates’ kids serve in the military is inconsequential at most, or if anything it cuts the other way. I’d prefer that civilian leaders of the military be able to make objective decisions about sending soldiers to war; to me, it’s a bit like a surgeon making life or death decisions and we generally accept that a parent can’t perform that job effectively on his own kid because of the emotional attachment. I give politicians the benefit of the doubt that they have the appropriate level of concern for the lives of the people serving in the military and that they don’t need to have a child in that position to take those decisions seriously.
And, as AR, Gray and others have pointed out, where does anyone get the idea that parents should control the life choices of their adult kids?
Shaun – you are the only one hyperventilating here. So far all comments that weren’t yours had the same basic take I did.
The Shaun doth protest too much, methinks.
It’s only important as a very minor point in the background of a much larger conversation.
Romney’s response is more interesting than the issue itself, and even then it’s kind of dull.
I have a lot more of an issue with his response than the fact that none of kids joined the military.
Wealthy kids are far less likely to join the military than middle class and lower class kids.
“So far all comments that weren’t yours had the same basic take I did.”
Where did you get this idea? We’re simply answering Shaun’s question.
I have a lot more of an issue with his response than the fact that none of kids joined the military.
Wealthy kids are far less likely to join the military than middle class and lower class kids. Simple fact of life.
But his response is just stupid. I don’t know if he thought he was being witty but to compare working on his campaign to being the military is insulting.
Now truth be told if Romney was a Democrat I am CERTAIN that the Right would be crucifying him for comparing being in the military with working on a campaign. They would say that this proves how out of touch he is with the military.
But neither side is very consistent when it comes to their stalking horses.
Gray -
You said: I’m always a bit uncomfortable when I see politicians being criticised for not having a soldier in their family. After all, what should the kids do, disregard their own life plans, even possible objections against the war in Iraw and join the army just to better their father’s (or mother’s!) chances to become elected? This doesn’t seem fair to me. Let the candidates stand on their own, their kids won’t be on the ballot!
I said: What happened to the concept that they are their own individuals, and make their own choices? I for one would find it beyond crass to have a parent force their children, adult or otherwise, into any major life choice for simple political expediency for themselves.
Seemed like similar positions to me, but if I misread your position, I apologize.
“So far all comments that weren’t yours had the same basic take I did.â€
Hmm, maybe I misunderstood you, AR. To make my position clear:
- I also hold the opinion that it shouldn’t be a camapaign issue whether the kids are in the military or not.
- I further think that Romney deserves criticism of his cavalier remark.
- I don’t think Shaun is to blame for raising this valid question (that is also discussed at other sites). Your comment appears as if you criticise him for even asking, and I don’t support this.
What this shows, yet again, is the emptiness of chicken-hawk rhetoric.
Romney, McCain, Bush, Kristol, etc, keep telling us that the fight in Iraq is essential to the survival of western civilization. Is it really too much to ask your sons to go fight in a war that will stave off our impending doom?
Of course Romney won’t ask them, because he doesn’t really believe that we’re facing an existential threat.
If Mitt supported the war, then by default his entire family too? See recent activity by Rudy G’s daughter re: Obama. I think it’s a non-issue, as they are not in public service. True, they blog about their dad’s campaign, but they are entitled to. Focus on the issue at hand, and let’s not make this an ad hominem attack.
Let’s focus on the war hawks themselves, who got notes from their doctors, or “sort of” served in the NG ( who today are putting in more time over there when they could have been helping out over here) or got deferrment after defferment because they had “better things to do”.
Personally, I know one of the sons, and frankly he’d make a lousy soldier.
No one would question if Romney’s sons went into the family business, college or law, that legacy is OK. Some families have a military tradition, these Republicans don’t but they do like the hawkish talk. Shaun- You forgot Duncan Hunter, but so do the Republicans, his son serves.
Doris Kerns-Goodwin, Bacevich and Webb sons/children are/have served. It’s ironic that those who are ambivalent or against the war send or sacrifice their children, while the strong supporters only sacrifice their rhetoric.
Ouch! That’s a good one!
“Ouch! That’s a good one!”
Yup, Wow! That gotta hurt!
Great shot, straight in the bull’s eye, Comrade Rudi!
Gray – If I debate I’m at risk of moderation, if I “attack” I’m at risk of silence. But what this goes to is the Republicans of today are just a rerun of the CountryClub Republicans of years ago. Back then both parties had both Liberals(Chafee Sr and McGovern) and Conservatives(Nunn , Scooper and Reagan). People forget that Mitters dad was a moderate flip-flopper while Kerry won his medals the pretended to throw them away. Mitter learned from George.
Gray – my initial comment didn’t mention Shaun at all, nor make any comment about his raising it. It was a general comment about trying to smear candidates via their children’s life choices, in this case military service.
The fact that Shaun and you took it as directed at him says more about your and his biases than mine, IMHO. Go read my first post again, and tell me what exactly is the criticism against Shaun I committed?
FYI – I also agree that Romney’s statement about ‘serving via his campaign’ was beyond stupid, and jumped right to offensive. I just thought that so obvious as not even needing comment.
Well, Ihave to defend Steck on this issue: Regardless of my opinions on him, his moderation is moderate
Still enough manouevering room for expressing honest opinions here. We just have to remind ourselfs that that bad word is spelled a**hole. That’s totally ok imho.
As for your point on those Country Club Republicans: The more the world changes, the more it stays the same, right?
“Gray – my initial comment didn’t mention Shaun at all,”
Indeed not: “So, it is no longer enough to question a candidate’s military service when smearing them, now if they don’t force their adult children to serve, that is also fair game.”
Imho Shaun did interprete something in the accusational tone of your comment that wasn’t really there – only way his outburst makes sense to me. And then you kind of counterattacked, and that’s what I was referring to. So, ’twas all a big misunderstanding. I should have scrolled up in order to get the whole picture before posting, sry!
Funny, the new flavor of the week in liberal circles brought on by Barak Hussein Obama and Hillary Clinton is a miltary invasion of Pakistan to “get the real killers”. However, I am quite sure that neither of these two have any children serving in the militray so by Shawn’s thinking we can now ignore the foreign policy positions of these hypocrites as well. I guess that leaves us with John Mcain as the only possible presidential canidate.
Paul, Kucinich, and Gravel.
and Duncan, whose son has done 2 tours in Iraq as a Marine and will be doing a 3rd.
test
Shaun,
You have a knack for coming up with controversial titles that inevitably cause more people to read your post. It’s a clever tactic for drawing more readers, but I think it also predisposes more people to react negatively to your post before they even read the post.
In this case, I agree with some of the above commenters that criticizing a politician and his/her family members for not “serving their country” is not particularly enlightened debate. The majority of Americans both on the pro-war and anti-war side) have not served in the military. Are we to believe that they are inelligble to run for president?
I realize that your post was in response to Romney’s somewhat self-centered claim that his sons are serving America by working in his claim, but rather than focusing on Romney’s comments, your post seems to focus more on Romney and his family “not serving their country.†This soundly strangely similar to war proponents who have questioned the patriotism of war opponents.
I think it’s best that we stop focusing on who’s less patriotic, or less supportive of America, or less supportive of the troops, and focus on what policies are best for this country. When a pro-war candidate who hasn’t served in the military criticizes the patriotism or courage of an anti-war candidate who has served in the military, then it is perfectly acceptable to call out the pro-war candidate for the chickenhawk he/she is. But to go on the offense and attack a candidate (not to mention his/her family) for not having served in the military does seem like fair play to me.
Well given the fact that Obama’s children are 6 and 8 I’m not sure we really want them scouring for terrorists.
In the ongoing GWOT why can’t 6 and 8 year olds serve?(/snark)
“In this case, I agree with some of the above commenters that criticizing a politician and his/her family members for not “serving their country†is not particularly enlightened debate.”
Uh, just a moment pls, we didn’t say that the politician himself should be above criticism for not serving, we only said the kids choice of career is their business only! Pls don’t misstate what has been said here.
“your post seems to focus more on Romney and his family “not serving their country.—
Well, dunno for the others, but I didn’t read it this way. the story simply lays the foundation for the question:
“Should any of this be a campaign issue?”
Well, and personally, I like this way of involving the readers into this. It’s nice to see a blogger actually asking for opinions instead of serving a ready-for-takeaway meal.