I Still Think He Won't Win
But then again, I don't think any of them should
By Thomas Posted in 2008 | bungee jumping | culture | Life | off-the-cuff | primaries | religion | Romney — Comments (96) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Full disclosure: I have no dog in the 2008 Presidential brouhaha, am unlikely to develop a dog in the immediate future, and frankly, share a sentiment with a commenter/diarist whose handle rhymes with MeveFellBay, to-wit: None of the above. Part of this is because I have a hard time getting enthusiastic about political campaigns (yes, a great guy indeed to have a Director of RedState); part of it is because, with or without Fred! I'm underwhelmed by the current candidate pool, which ranges from a liberal New Yorker to a nativist to a crazy libertarian to some guy named Cox, with not a lot of improvement or fall in between; and part because, as I've said so many damned times, we are taking our eye off the ball of Congress, the State elections, and 2007, and royally hurting ourselves in the process.
Believe it or not, however, all of that was a digression. The point of this post was to say, for pretty much the only time in over a year, Mitt Romney blew my socks off (go to 9:30):
Now, the mandatory carping: I disagree with the old Mittster on a few things, not least of which being that if you're going to put faith in the public square -- an enterprise of which I'm an enthusiastic supporter -- you need to be prepared to discuss and defend it there. I'm fully aware of why Romney isn't interested in that conversation, but Catholics have had to do it for decades; I see no reason why this should be different. There's more, but it's just nit-picking.
With that said, Wow. If you could get him to drop the Ken-doll approach that he insists on adopting when the mike is on, I'd have been on this guy's team for a year now. That you can't concerns me in many of the same ways Al Gore concerned me, and the parallels are disturbing; but if this was how Mitt Romney was 24/7, I'd be a Romneybot too.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | Do We Have Conclusive Proof That Ron Paul's Supporters are Mostly Anti-War Lefty Hippies? — Comments (122) »
I Still Think He Won't Win 96 Comments (0 topical, 96 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
he was weak on abortion to get elected in a Communist country (Mass), then he moved to strongly pro life after getting in. This is far from before, then against, then for, nor is he not telling us what he thinks.
The funny thing is, I am not a Romney supporter. However, I am getting a bit sick of people on the "right?" trashing everyone of our candidates other than the non candidate, Fred.
Molon Labe!
Romney moves left to get elected Governor.
Romney moves right to get nominated for President.
The problem is that some people fear a new leftward turn should he decide moving left would help him get elected or re-elected President.
Fred has gotten more than his fair share of beatings-here and elsewhere-skim the Rom and Rudy bots and their blogs...otherwise, I agree with your basic point(s)
haystack's 12th:
Conservatives (and Presidential Candidates especially) shall offer no aid and comfort to the opposition in times of legislative conflict (and ensuing political campaigns).
I do not read all the posts here. I just think there is a group that attacks all the others because they see in Fred what they want to see, or hope to see. He may be the next Reagan, but he has done nothing to show that to date. At this point, Fred is the none of the above non candidate. He may not even join the race, and people will have to backtrack or vote Dem I guess. I hope Fred joins and is strong.
Molon Labe!
If you could get him to drop the Ken-doll approach
What bothers me most about Romney is that he is so effeminate so much of the time. That may seem like it's a trivial objection (it is), but it really bothers me. I much prefer candidates with backbone and a little masculinity.
maybe you should broaden your horizons a bit, larry the cable guy does not = average man. Also, when someone says he acts like a "Ken Doll" and should drop the act, how do we know he is acting? And to compare Romney to Gore is a joke. Gore seemed like a robot, Romney just seems a bit too polished, big difference.
Molon Labe!
watched Mitt speaking on TV, then turned to me and said, "I don't like him. He looks phoney to me. I just don't trust him."
if they care about being re-elected. See Bush 41 lesson.
If you look at Mitt's life, you will find that he states a goal and acheives it. This is a good man with talent, knowledge, and character that has arrived at the right positions on the issues. Has he been a calculating pol at times? Yes
I think a lot of the slick talk about Romney is jealousy. truly
Now, I admit that this same argument could be made about Bill Clinton, but the differences outweigh the similarities.
One is party. See above and also understand that dems don't require character and trust is communicated with a wink and code words.
Not so in the GOP.
Now, having said that, I do have a problem with some Mitt's statements on the Iraq battle, but ultimately trust him to do the right thing.
Yes, he's slick, but he's also good, so let's not hold it against him.
more later
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
having lived most of my life in Michigan, I still have fond memories of his father, and what he did for our state. Like Mitt, he proved himself in the private sector, bringing AMC back from the brink of extinction (WOW, do they have to go through a crisis every 20 years?) before taking over this state and bring IT back.
One STUPID statement about Vietnam, taken somewhat out of context ended his Presidential ambitions. As a result, I have mixed emotions about Mitt.
I think you have hit the nail on the head on why Mitt is so "polished". He has never forgotten the one statement that killed his dad’s ambitions. He doesn't want to make the same mistake, so I think he tries to stay with rehearsed replies and speeches. I think the video though shows that he is very capable to speak extemporaneously though, caution just prevents him.
“It is not the possession of truth, but the success which attends the seeking after it, that enriches the seeker and brings happiness to him.”"-Max Planck
game,
The Velveeta man Mitt is the prefect late 00's kind of politician. Slick, well packaged, well presented and devoid of passion or sharp taste, just like Velveeta cheese. It's rather sad because I actually think he's a way smart guy, way decent person who would make a good President.
In the clip you saw the real Mitt come out, darn shame he don't let that Mitt out more often, probably would shut some of us neigh sayers up won't it?
As it is, his Velveeta over processed persona is just not selling well, no matter how much money his Astroturf machine spends.
_______________________________
None of the Above !
he needs a moment like when Bush I stood up to Dan Rather on TV,
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
I used to work in a fancy restaurant. We had a great recipe for a cheese sauce. We used three different types of cheese, blended together with seasonings in a double boiler to keep it from burning or seperating...
The people prefered Velveeta.
A simple sauce using melted Velveeta. We saved the time and money making the fancy sauce, and served Velveeta.
There might be a lesson there.
David,
You probably used some snooty French term like "sauce à fromage" imported especially for your restaurant from Chateau pieds de puanteur.
_______________________________
None of the Above !
they still prefered Velveeta. Of course, we never TOLD them it was Velveeta -- you think we were crazy?
worked for a while at a 4 diamond Sheraton resort in Scottsdale, AZ. The room service kids menu had mac & cheese for something like $14.95. It was the microwavable Kraft crap, they paid $0.35 per serving buying by the case.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
If you look on Amazon.com, you'll find that Velveeta is classified under Gourmet Food and:
1) Is a good source of calcium
2) Is Pasteurized
3) Is "Cultured"
Truth to tell, all of the best people in the world have eaten Velveeta at one time or another. It's my secret ingredient in my patented Grilled Cheese n' Chili Jalapeno Esplendido sandwiches. And I only serve those to the upper crust.
accomplishments in business, the Olympics and in Mass; and think he is a man of great character.
As to passion, do you know the story of when he shut down Bain to mobilize the whole company to go to another city and seach for the missing daughter of an employee?
Do I wish he were more animated? yes
Heck, I don't even think he was animated enough in the radio clip.
But I saw passion when he stood up to the Mass Court and the libs in Mass.
I think he would be good on all issues conservatives of all stripes care about.
Plus, he has creative ideas on health care that increase market forces.
I hate velveeta btw
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
another of those veiled flip-flop charges.
However, as I pointed out, most people seem to prefer Velveeta.
OK, so what's that Orange stuff they put on Nachos at the ball park, with jalapenos and such? It's not Velveeta is it?
Who knows, maybe over Nachos or something Velveeta is OK, never been my thing, not to mention lactose intolerance. Way too much information?
_______________________________
None of the Above !
and I don't know if it's an urban legend or not, but somewhere along the way I read that the stuff is actually pretty much clear before they put in the artificial coloring... ie. it doesn't have real cheese in it.
...when they see me they'll say, "There goes Loren Wallace,
the greatest thing to ever climb into a race car."
all cheddar in America is dyed yellow too. But it still has cheese in it. The original cheddar is from a small area in England, the grass there makes the cheese yellow.
Molon Labe!
The Cheese Shop:
...
Customer: You...do *have* some cheese, don't you?
Owner: (brightly) Of course, sir. It's a cheese shop, sir.
...
http://www.minderella.com/words/cheeseshop.htm
...when they see me they'll say, "There goes Loren Wallace,
the greatest thing to ever climb into a race car."
you would be troll rated for that if this were my site!
and by the way, I love stinky French cheeses too :)
Molon Labe!
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
feminine truly is in our Belles! And it don't resemble Mitt!
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
haha!
wow, that host was a real ass. he wants "nuance" and more than soundbites when he won't let the guy talk for more than 5 seconds?!? unbelieveable.
the host deserves a shout out. He was a total jerk and will never move beyond Iowa i bet.
Molon Labe!
I agree with Ms Hinz, he's too slick, too polished, and too much a product of politics.
But I'll take it. I'm looking forward to seeing Fred in this race: I really want to see Romney and F.Thompson go toe-to-toe as we get into the really serious phases of the campaign.
Romney's doing pretty well right now: much better than I expected he would, much better than a lot of people expected he would. I'm happy with that, and I want to see The Contest.
But I can see how it came across that way. The essential point is that he's moved from Far too plastic and I don't believe him to Not as plastic as I thought and I might even be able to believe him maybe in my estimation.
Now, just to undermine what limited good faith I've managed to communicate, I'd point out that
Romney's doing pretty well right now: much better than I expected he would, much better than a lot of people expected he would. I'm happy with that, and I want to see The Contest.
Romney is doing significantly less well than I thought he would, and quite frankly, I think he's toast, but it'll be a while. I rather wish he wasn't, because a good primary will keep the others honest, but there it is.
-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
This post, Thomas, makes me think I have been SO far off base, I should remove myself from voting eligibility...like, I must not be paying appropriate attention to necessary detail.
sheesh...
haystack's 12th:
Conservatives (and Presidential Candidates especially) shall offer no aid and comfort to the opposition in times of legislative conflict (and ensuing political campaigns).
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
haystack's 12th:
Conservatives (and Presidential Candidates especially) shall offer no aid and comfort to the opposition in times of legislative conflict (and ensuing political campaigns).
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
The thing that I need to know is if he will revert to his business dealing background.
Most business people (pc) are trained to "get the deal done". In politics, that can be a hindrance. There are some things that cannot be compromised,(judges, etc) and still "dance with who brung ya".
I don't know what he has to do to show me that, but I, hopefully, will know it when I see it.
JP
Businessmen see profit as the goal of a deal and if they can't acheive that, then their is no deal. I think that Mitt's background makes it less likley he would cave just to make a deal.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
Mike,
That is not necessarily true. Often, particularly in larger corps., the deal is to build a bigger company, more stock options, etc.
That scenario is what scares me a little about Mitt.
I haven't seen yet where his line in the sand is.
It is awfully tempting to "make the deal" if it means get re-elected, or achieve some nebulous "bi-partisanship. Or even just get plain rolled, thinking you have a deal and the other party is just playing you.
ok, well I prefer businessmen to politicos. As Dan Akroyd said in Ghostbusters "You have not been on the outside, in the business world, they expect RESULTS!"
Molon Labe!
I happen to love Velveeta, dammit. Don't care for Mitt, though. His overgroomed schtick gets tiresome after a while.
Well, Romney is my third choice, but I find it hard to believe that anyone can get too excited at this point - ha. Has the election started while I was away?
Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."
It seems clear from what Romney said about not forcing his religious beliefs (and by extension anyone else's) on others (not to mention the emphasis he put on Mormon leaders who are pro-choice) that as president he will oppose any efforts to legally restrict abortion.
But some of the leaders oppose government proscription.
There is a strong libertarian streak in Mormons, as they remember American Governments that denied them trial by jury, the right to vote, not to mention the extermination orders.
Lots of feelings that Government ought to stay out- of everything. (Notice that the Mormons rejected all those "faith-based" gov't grants).
For some this has expanded to opposing federal restrictions on Abortion. (This is not the majority by any means , but there are some).
Of course these same people oppose abortion as immoral, and as occasion demands might even excommunicate those who have abortions, provide abortions or pay for abortions. (Interestingly I have noticed that Mormon Ecclesiastical Courts tend to come down harder on the boyfriend who pays for an abortion than they do the young woman).
So it's not that they favor abortion- as much as they don't like government doing anything.
in the middle of their exodus 500 men formed the Mormon militia at the start of the Mex-American war.
They had that strange (Old) New England mixture of distrust of their government combined with a heady patriotism for their country.
(The above of course is tounge in cheek)
It is true though that Mormons have combined a strong patriotism and love of America with a healthy distrust of her government.
Back to the main subject of people who oppose abortion as immoral and yet are pro-choice:
Sometimes, the claims of people like Kennedy to be Pro-life in private life, and pro-choice in governance obscure the fact that there do exist those who sincerely hold that position.
I think it is much harder for someone in a position of political power to hold such a position for long- but when your life is focused and based around private life- I think it is easier to conceive of political positions as being separate.
In fact this is one of the reasons I find Romney's pro-life conversion plausible. I think he was pro-life in private (ie he would counsel against abortion as being immoral) but "effectively pro-choice" in politics- they didn't come into conflict when he was a private citizen.
Once he became governor and started having to actually deal with issues around life and abortion- suddenly private and public were no longer neatly compartmentalized. Since Romney's private opposition to abortion was sincere, and since his private life was his identity- that private opposition became the motivating factor in his conversion to being politically pro-life.
It's a natural evolution for someone who had never served in a government position before- to suddenly realize that his decisions couldn't be neatly divided between private and politics- and have to come to a single synthesis whole.
People like Ted Kennedy- I have trouble believing the sincerity of their "private" opposition to abortion- as I think that if is was true it would have affected their public position long ago.
However I know many people who I know are truly opposed to abortion and yet are pro-choice politically. I think that if those people ever became political leaders they would suddenly have to reassess their positions.
I think that's what happened to Romney.
Mitt Romney's conversion (whether real or not) was not allegedly based on his religious beliefs. I don't think he converted to a different religion. He claims it was based on science.
When are the American people going to wake up and get a clue that abortion is not a religious matter? It's not about people's personal lives, beliefs, or behavior. It's a matter of stopping a practice of mass genocide. I see no reason why such a goal should be religious. I find far less religious or Biblical justification for prohibiting abortion than I do secular or scientific.
In any event, the next President will likely see no "efforts to legally restrict abortion." He (or, heaven forbid, she) will most likely be facing efforts to promote abortion.
Liberals know its life, they just don't value it. They want to be able to kill the unseen so that they can have consequenceless sex. Its easier to make the BMW payements, have cake and eat it too you know. The problem is the Roe effect on a generation of children that realize how lucky they were to be born and the new pictures in the womb. Spolied the lib party.
Yes, science is enough if you see the intrinsic values that religion best supplies. See the slippery slope in europe to encourage the infirm elderly and severely handicapped to off themselves for the public good and the docs that have admitted infanticide for babies with cleft pallets w/i an hour of birth.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
could you consider a conservative like Ted?
"We should scrap this “comprehensive” immigration bill and the whole debate until the government can show the American people that we have secured the borders -- or at least made great headway."
Fred Thompson
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
Where can I get some of this "consequenceless sex"? It always costs me at least ten minutes of mindless post-coitus conversation.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
If you mean anticipated consequences, I see what you mean. Women can make us pretty short-sighted in particular situations.
A lot of them don't seem to admit it with quips like "don't know when life begins" or "not yet human" or "potential life" or "potential human." Those are the most common arguments I see. Those and the "lump of cells" argument that cannot matter if one's appearance is not a criteria. We're all "lumps of cells."
If one cannot value all life, then the criteria must be arbitrary or religious. I've heard both, and neither makes sense. In a society that allows that arbitrary criteria for something so crucial and fundamental, anyone is fair game. That is not part of a civilized society and not one I care to be in.
It is sad to see what many (but not all) European nations have started doing. They are not having children or killing off their younger population; then the older population, disproportionately greater in number, has no one to care for them.
Main Entry: op·por·tun·ism
Pronunciation: -'tü-"ni-z&m, -'tyü-
Function: noun
: the art, policy, or practice of taking advantage of opportunities or circumstances often with little regard for principles or consequences
Fool me once.... You know the rest! We saw a self proclaimed "Compassionate Conservative" in 1999 royally put the screws to us in too many ways to allow it again!! No Child..., left too, too many Clinton hold-overs in place and look what a mess we had, IMMIGRATION, spending/entitlements, did I mention IMMIGRATION.
Mitt is in it for Mitt!! We need more, much more than what he offers. I agree, that side of Mitt that we witnessed when the mike went off took me by surprise and I actually had the same sort of reaction (he "WOWed" me). But then I saw him on FNS this week, in the auditions/debates, other interviews like Stephastupidous, etc... and you see this fake "Ken doll" trying to make his way toward the White House and you question his motives. You have to! As happy as I am about GWB being there after 9/11, I am equally disappointed over the domestic issues, the attempts to "get along" with the opposition, the lack of reform and change in government as an operation, IMMIGRATION reform. I dont think that we should be so ready, this early to jump the gun again. He's just another RINO!
How dare you! He hasn't been a RINO since 2005! Now he's a hard core social conservative (just in time for the primary race).
I am curious about commenters opinons on why Mitt's 5 sons did not and are not now, serving in the military. I will assume here that many posters support the invasion. I will also assume that many posters are currently enlisted or are veterans. Veterans, what do you think of people who support the invasion but do not serve?
(Soldiers and veterans, thank you for your service!)
... of all the Democrats and "Progressives" (in and out of Congress) who assure us that they strongly supported and continue to support the War in Afghanistan but are strangely, enough, not serving there.
PS: I think you'll find that most veterans do not wish to live in a Robert Heinlein novel.
George W. Bush: He's A Folder ... Not A Fighter.
I think it is totally irrelevant whether his sons (or daughters, if he had any) have served in the US Armed Forces.
I also believe that you can support the policy goals of a war or conflict, without serving, or having served in the military. To believe otherwise, is to believe that anything you do not have direct experience in disqualifies you to have an authoritative view point or opinion.
Having served in the military, perhaps gives one an experiential view point that is not shared by those that have not served and thereby gives somewhat more credence to that specific point of view. That does not mean that other, well thought out and logical, viewpoints are without merit.
I served from 1960 to 1964 in the USAF, that doesn't mean that I am qualified to speak authoritatively about the present military, including the AF. It does mean that the experiences I had, while not "modern" are still uniquely military and not that much different in the day to day details of todays military.
JP
And, as such, have not only the right but the obligation to give their opinions on matters of state; that the merit of an argument has almost nothing to do with the person making it; and that people who use the chickenhawk argument are invariably fascists, militarists and/or people who routinely wear their underpants over their heads.
You do agree with all of this, yes? Please explicitly say so in your next post, unless of course you'd like it to be your last one.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
Mitt's son's not serving. This Marine Corps dad is very proud of his Marine Corps vet son and every bit as proud of his son who didn't enlist and is a chef in San Francisco.
I can say, with some authority since I spend some time around USMC active duty and families, that we don't want people who aren't committed to the military life in the military. Soldiers and Marines fight for the guy next to them, and I can assure you they want the guy next to them committed. I've seen what happens to guys who manage to get through the enlistment process and who turn out to be "not committed". It's not pretty. And they don't last.
And, FWIW, I think you are an idiot for asking the question.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
It's an honest question. We are commenting on it at the progressive blogs, and I wanted to hear what conservatives really thought--without a filter.
I appreciate your comments. I accept them for what they are. I was curious.
What shocks me is the vitriol I get when I bring these things up.
I have only posted a few times on this blog. However, I have always been respectful and as factual as possible. My question was meant to elicit your initial comment of your first two paragraphs. And I thank you for your opinion.
An idiot? I'm an idiot because I wanted to hear an honest opinion from conservatives?
For the record with the other comments above:
I would have fought in Afganistan and Kosovo, but I am too old. Also, as a woman, I cannot be in combat situations.
I have absolute respect for our soldiers. I am against the invasion and occupation. (Big surprise!!) I want our soldiers to only go to places where we are asked, or to defend the US. Not invade countries that had nothing to do with our being attacked.
Ignoring moderators is not a viable strategy here.
Bye.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
this person was not a troll, they were open as a progressive. The person asked a question that started a serious discussion. Personally, I am not that worried that she ignored a moderator lol.
anyway, it is your site, you run a tight ship, I guess that is a good thing in ways. however, we better be able to respond to things we don't like or we will not win over too many newbies.
Molon Labe!
Chickenhawking is a 100% reliable indicator of a bad faith poster. I'm amazed that ProudProgressive got a second shot.
That's been the policy of this site for over 2 years.
------------
This kind of liberty is, indeed, but another name for justice; ascertained by wise laws, and secured by well-constructed institutions.
-Edmund Burke
I hate that chickenhawk slop! But the poster never said that word. She asked a question, yes a loaded question, but it DID spark some real discussion among serious posters here. I would have liked to have seen the "progressive" have a chance to respond to OUR fair comments. Maybe we could have even found some room to agree. Now this will be just another Kossack saying we ban anything we don't like.
I did not mean to make two comments on this, I thought the first one did not go through. I am not trying to pick a fight with mods here, I just think the question itself was not bannable. Yet, probably for a good reason, I have no power here :)
Molon Labe!
The Germans never attacked the U.S. before WWII (the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor and the Germans were furious about it).
I suppose you were against the European front of WWII? If not, why?
There were Iraqi dissidents who begged the U.S. to come in and overthrow Sadam. Yet, you disagree with the Iraqi war. In your world view, who needs to make the request for U.S. troups?
Whose request matters?
and yes, you are liberal on a conservative blog. Also, your question was a loaded one and I can see why many would be offended. However, I do think your question was fair and respectful. I would like to read a fair and respectful response to those who answered you.
Molon Labe!
You didnt get the memo? It's an all volunteer force. I see you did get the memo for substituting progressive for the dreaded L word. Don't buy that anymore than I buy BCE for BC.
The longer we dwell on our misfortunes the greater is their power to harm us - Voltaire
I am a veteran and I have no desire for all to serve. Those who have served did so to protect Democracy, not practice it. I do not want to country to move towards facism or be a military state.
I understand that the meme of the left is to question all Republicans about their service. This is just not part of American history, our Constitution was very clear that civilians must control the military. We fight so people have the freedom to choose whatever they want to do in life.
Let me state this another way, how can anyone ask I father why their kid is not in the military? Even a few years ago this would be considered an obscene question. How can "progressives" support the idea of parents forcing their adult children to go to war?
This is a free country, people are allowed to have opinions for or against war or any other subject. It is a said comment on our present political landscape that this issue even comes up.
One disclaimer: I do think more people should serve in the military. I think it should be a conscious decision based on patriotism. I think this country is beggining to reap what it has sown. We do not teach history correctly, we do not teach civic and national pride well. We have less of a melting pot and more of a fragmented society. These are just some examples why military recruiting is down.
Molon Labe!
Doc,
I'm sort of stuck between the Lefites and those on the other side of the shouting match.
I see the hyprocacy of those who cry the loudest for the military to do this or that thing and they are have never severed a day in uniform nor have any family member or close acquaintance serving, but at the same time I have to ask, do you have to experienced at first hand a threat or evil to know it's a threat?
I'm probably stuck somewhere on the concept that those that are so in favor of war had better have been interested and supporting those very same troops that they want to send into combat before there was a need to support them. It's sort of you can't just decide to wrap yourself in the flag when you were too busy to be worried about that flag when it wasn't popular. VP Chenney fits that model as do most of the leaders I see in the Republican party today as folks that have cared for a long time. Gung Ho political types, who are rah rahing the need to make war at their conventions while making plans to go to graduate school, not so much. Oh, and campaigning for one's dad does not count ether in my book as serving one's country.
I've never met that many real warriors that thought that going to war was something they relished, or at least would it admit to it. They were mostly quite professionals who had a job to do and did it well. The rest of the time they were mowing the lawn just like you and me.
_______________________________
None of the Above !
It is a complicated subject. We can also throw in that we have had drafts before and may need one again. If we need to troops, we need to troops.
The Republicans are not perfect on the subject of the military. In general, Republicans prefer to spend on new weapons systems and Democrats want to spend more on health care for the troops etc. Don't get me wrong, I think Republicans are better overall on the issue, but neither party is perfect. The biggest difference I have found is Republicans admire the troops and Democrat progressives feel sorry for them. This is a generalization, but it is something I have seen a lot.
A final point. Our entire free capitalist society is based on people doing what it is they do best. Did Dick Cheney need to be a Vietnam vet to become a great Secretary of Defense? Who were better war time presidents, Lincoln and FDR, or Kennedy and Nixon? The first two had little military experience at all, the latter two had a lot. And I am not even getting into former generals such as Grant.
Also, the basic question or attack the progressives are asking with this "chickenhawk" meme is that a leader would not choose to go to war if his own son had to go. This is a serious attack, it is saying our leaders do not care about our troops. That is just something I can not believe. I even think Carter and Clinton cared about our troops lives. But that did not make them good Commanders in Chief.
Molon Labe!
Doc,
You hit on a problem with this war in Iraq, the lack of shared pain in the country.
There's been no tax increase to fund the war, and with no draft the majority of the middle class don't feel the urgency or fear of a prolonged war in Iraq. I came of age during the early stages of the Vietnam conflict, the mood and the pain in the country was more spread around in general society.
In that sense, the looney left is trying to get that pain spread around, that chance of getting your draft number coming up and being drawn into active duty. It's the real game they are at.
_______________________________
None of the Above !
steve,
I get what you are saying. There is no question fewer and fewer are sacrificing more and more for all of us. It is amazing that the average joe doesn't even know someone serving today! This was simply not the case in Vietnam and even more so in WW2. In fact, the reason so many former presidents and Congressmen had served is the shared sacrifice of WW2.
Now, here is the thing. I take this a little differently than you do. My biggest worry is I think the average joe DOES feel the pain of Iraq. He is not experiencing any pain, he is doing nothing for the cause, yet he STILL is ready to give up! If you think about it, this is a scary thing, it is ominous for our entire country. Think of the Londoners in WW@ that dealt with food shortages, nightly bombings and ever present death, they stood stronger than the average guy today complaining about the price of gas.
I do think there is a problem, I do think we have many issues to deal with. I think we DO need new leadership and we need to look at the society we have created for ourselves. Are we even fit to win the War on Terror? Are we ready to do what it takes?
Molon Labe!
Its is critical that those that are charged with making the decision to wage war or not, wisely decide, whether they or they children serve or not.
It is equally critical that those that choose to execute the waging of war do so effectively.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
game
So does competency of the political leaders to make decisions on going to war and then how they engage in the conduct of the war count?
Sorry to say, I rate the Bush team, not the serving military but the political types, as a D - at best. They might have now pulled that grade up to a C -, but it's not clear what the final grade is going to be.
_______________________________
None of the Above !
you are right, they have bungled it. Yet, the Democrats never even tried to help, only hinder. I am not positive how much this has hurt the cause but we ALL could have done better. Obviously there were serious mistakes.
I have an idea that works in most situations, military, business, personal etc. Never get into a challenge when you must rely on an outside force to allow your success. Here we are today in Iraq, our troops are doing a bang up job, yet the Iraqis themselves will not get with the program. We put ourself in a position where we are relying on Iraqis to give us success or failure.
What we should have done is just blow up all presidential palaces, possible wmd areas, and most of their military. THen tell the next Saddam he will get it worse if he does not fly right. Look at Libya and Khadaffi, that is what Reagan did.
Molon Labe!
promises to betray the Iraqis again if given the chance, no strategy was going to work before we showed staying power.
Bush has
grade: A
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
I supported the war and still do. But I can not deny the chance that the Iraqis may simply have no national conscience. They seem to focus only on tribes and ethnicities. For many, the goal is to "get over" on the other tribe and that is about it. I hope they do decide to have a national character and are willing to fight for freedom.
Molon Labe!
And since I try to be nice as well, I understand why he is not the "Howard Dean/Shillary/Miserable Failure" kind of speaker. He tries to stay on an even keel and avoid torquing people off. That is part of the reason he seems Velveetaish. In real life, most of us don't live on an even keel.
However, he is a real guy, with real emotions, real experiences, and real talent. If Fred! doesn't pan out, I'll be perfectly content with Mitt as my candidate.
I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.
Romney is not my first choice but I do like him. I think he was right here and that host was out of line.
4 million dollars spent so far in Iowa to amass a whopping 31% of 14,000 votes.
Pretty impressive.
Now it will only take him about 723 million dollars to beat Hillary in a general election.
Other than the fact that he is a bigger flip flopper than John Kerry is (I seem to vaguely remember most of RedState castigating Kerry for that kind of thing- but not to nitpick)
other than the fact that he would lose badly to Hillary, that a goodly number of Evangelicals will not vote for a devout Mormon, and that he has ZERO military or diplomatic experience..
other than all that- Mitt is a great candidate.
United States Air Force
http://airforcepundit.blogspot.com
So often identified as the swing vote -- I'm sure they'll line up for a man who has flouted almost every pragmatic and spiritual teaching like the Catechism was going out of style.
And hey, with Rudy's history of nominating judges, he'll easily appoint more center-left-left judges than Hillary, who will be much more intent on center-left-left-left and left-left.
You know what? Your act just got old. I'm putting a one-month hiatus on your ability to say negative things about any candidates for the GOP Presidential nod. A violation of that ban will end your commenting privileges here. (I'm the sole judge and executioner. No appeal.)
Good luck.
-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
Here's a virtual beer for you:
...when they see me they'll say, "There goes Loren Wallace,
the greatest thing to ever climb into a race car."
When Thomas says he's the sole judge and executioner, that doesn't mean he's the only pair of eyes on the drool that passes for your posting career. Just a heads-up.
------------
This kind of liberty is, indeed, but another name for justice; ascertained by wise laws, and secured by well-constructed institutions.
-Edmund Burke
Thomas,
I think what you are searching for is the overall Velveetaness of the Romney persona.
He's for then he's against, but then he's for. Perfectly blended, perfectly bland and devoid of flavor that brings you back for more.
Come on Mitt, get crazy, tell us what you really think and what you would do if we elect you. It's OK to p*ss off parts of the party, heck that way you'll know you are hitting home.
_______________________________
None of the Above !