Romney Gets It Right And Wrong On Military Enlistment
In the wake of a campaign appearance gone bad in Bettendorf, Iowa, Mitt Romney is on the defensive. A person in the audience at a speech he gave there asked an unexpected question: How could Romney support George W. Bush’s policy of sending yet more soldiers into battle for the sake of a failed escalation strategy when not one of Mitt Romney’s own five sons has joined the military to fight in Iraq, though they are all of age to do so?
Mitt Romney’s response got it right and wrong. Romney responded that his sons were serving his country quite adequately, by working on their father’s campaign. That sounds like a self-serving answer, and it was awkwardly given, but the idea behind it is essentially right. In a democracy, citizen involvement in the political process, not military enlistment, is the highest form of service. It’s not politically popular to say so, but it’s not at all clear that America’s soldiers are actually serving the interests of the nation so much as they are serving the interests of certain political leaders who like to use soldiers as props.
However, in a larger sense, Romney’s answer also got it wrong. The question wasn’t just about the worth of military enlistment. It was about the decision by Mitt Romney not to encourage his own sons to join the military, given their his prominent push of other Americans’ children into battle. Mitt Romney’s position is hypocritical, given the fact that he is asking other young men and women to put themselves in harm’s way while not asking his own children to do the same.
The moral position of Mitt Romney’s sons is much more questionable. They have no obligation to go into battle just because their father supports an unwise war. However, by serving on their father’s political campaign, Romney’s sons are also supporting the policy of sending more soldiers into war. The position of Mitt Romney’s five sons is a position of craven cowardice. They say that they support the war. They say that they support sending more soldiers into battle, at a time when the military is having trouble recruiting enough soldiers to maintain the current level of fighting. Yet, they themselves are unwilling to go and do the fighting. They say that fighting is for others.
It’s fine to serve the country by being a politically active citizen. It is not fine to push other people to put their lives fighting in a war if one is not willing to fight in that war oneself.
Eight years of that kind of cowardly lack of responsibility has brought America dramatic military failure. We cannot afford to have four more years of it. We need a progressive President who opposes war for all Americans, not just for the people he or she knows and loves.
(Source: Associated Press, August 8, 2007)
The police officer analogy is the first reasonable point I’ve seen you make (although you’re making an assumption in it).
In response, please back up your analogy by reporting me the death rate for U.S. soldiers in Iraq versus the death rate for police officers in the United States. That will let me know whether the analogy works.
No…as I said, they are irrelevant because they are impossible scenarios. They can never actually happen in the real world. Obama as president, however, is possible, therefore must be considered and given the same standard that you give to Romney in this regard. Otherwise, it is (say it together) a double standard.
Wow…I’m a little bit speechless, Jim. You actually conceded something. (not really, I’m never speechless, as you can tell.)
The death rate has nothing to do with it. Of course it’s much worse in actual combat zones than in domestic law enforcement. No one is questioning or marginalizing that. It’s the principle. You can’t just call someone a coward just because they support the war but aren’t in the military, just like you can’t call someone a coward who accepts police protection, but doesn’t join the police force. It’s the same thing.
Incidentally, Jim, this is the point I’ve been making all along, you’ve just been ignoring that.
In fact, now that I think about it, given that the death rate is presumably much lower for local police–which would make that job much less dangerous–wouldn’t that make someone who doesn’t join the police force even more of a coward?
Yes, they are impossible scenarios, they can never actually happen in the real world, which is why your Obama jag is inappropriate.
Being a police officer is the same thing as being in a war zone. Right. No, wrong, actually, because it’s not, see. It’s different.
Then in the next comment you move from your point of “all along” saying the two were the same to suddenly realizing they’re different, and you go with that new opposite standard, then. Why? Because it leads to the conclusion you like, so you can “win.” Kind of like when you started out claiming that Barack Obama had never actually been against the war, until I pointed out that it was documented he was, and when you said he wasn’t a politician at the time anyway, and then I showed he was — you just kept right on chugging, changing your argument. Charming. No, not, actually, not charming at all.
Win, win, win! That’s what matters, right Ryan?
boy, where to being…
My Obama “jag” is not inappropriate. It’s well reasoned and correct. It’s only inappropriate to try to justify your giving him a pass by pointing to impossible scenarios.
You’re still dodging. I never said the being a police officer and being in a war zone were the same. I said the principle is the same. It is. The danger is not the same (agreed), but the principle is the same. Both are services to the country. Both require occasional life risk (live combat obviously more frequently). The point is the same. You’re being disingenuous by trying to redirect the focus onto the comparison of the danger rather than the principle.
Misrepresentations galore. I did not claim that Barack “had never actually been against the war.” I said that he conveniently *claimed* to have been against the war. I did say he was not a politician at the time, and on that point I concede. He was a politician, but was not a US Senator. He famously *claimed* that he would not have voted for the war if he had been in the US Senate at the time, which he was not. That is, however, beside the point. Belaboring it is just another lawyer-ball tactic to place misdirected importance on an irrelevant issue. It’s not really about whether or not he was a politician, or even whether or not he was against the war. The truth is that he doesn’t even know how he would have voted, given “access to the information that [he] did not have.” So it’s very convenient for him to claim that he would not have voted for the war. Maybe that’s true, maybe it’s not. It’s all beside the point. If he were to win the presidency he would be in exactly the same situation for which you are branding Romney a coward and a hypocrite. A point that you still have not addressed.
My argument hasn’t changed since the beginning of this thread. It’s on the record.
Yes. Win. That is what matters. Both in the current war in Iraq and in this debate which is symptomatic of a broader debate taking place right here in the homeland. It’s perhaps the most important debate in history and you can be sure that I’m not going to walk away from my little fields of battle until I’ve won or been proven wrong. I’ll admit when I’m wrong. So far, other than a semantic issue about whether or not Barack was a politician (i.e. irrelevant), I haven’t been proven wrong.
You want to keep going? I’ve got plenty more for you.
Ok, I’ll clarify a little further: Obama conveniently *claimed* that he would have voted against the war. I won’t argue whether he was actually against the war. It’s a convenient claim, though, considering that he did not have all the information that the Senate had. I’m skeptical that he would have been so cavalier as to go against the entire Senate in his vote, but that’s something that no one, even Obama himself, will ever know.
I do think it’s important whether Obama was a politician. Get the facts right. Obama was a politician. He has paid his dues.
Obama did much more than “conveniently claim” to be against the war. He was a key speaker at an anti-war rally in downtown Chicago in 2002. You should follow the link and read the speech. http://paulenglish.com/2007/03/barack-obama-speech-from-26-october.html
Why does Ryan think Obama would have “followed the Senate” in his vote? The senate doesn’t elect politicians–the voters do. He would have represented his district–which is very supportive of his anti-war stance.
Ryan must be from Texas or something that he thinks everyone else should be all gung ho about Iraq. Believe me, the south side of Chicago doesn’t think any war that’s cooked up in Washington is going to benefit them. They’re just the ones who are going to be expected to do all the dying.
Oh…poor little south-side ghetto child of disadvantage. Spare me.
What does paying dues have to do with anything? I read the speech, and to me it read like a very carefully considered protest, not against the war, but against President Bush, playing to the liberal base everywhere. Obama is definitely a clever opportunist and that was about as perfect an opportunity as he could have hopef for to up-shoot his popularity among his base, by striking out, not specifically against the war, but specifically against Pres. Bush. It was very cleverly (and carefully) worded to indict the Bush Administration without being specifically anti-war. It was brilliant in its evasiveness, actually. And, as history has now proven, it worked exactly as planned. His popularity among his base has sky-rocketed, not on political merit, but by beating the most cherished of all liberal drum-beats: hate Bush. All of this anti-war b.s. you guys are spouting has nothing to do with being anti-war, and it has no foundation in concern for American troops (it’s actually the most heinous insult that you would couch your anti-Bush ranting in some kind of mock concern for their well-being). This is all about one thing: an eight year long temper tantrum that you have been sustaining since Bush beat Gore in 2000. That’s all.
All that aside, however, Obama being a politician or not, or being anti-war or not, or whether he would have voted for the war or not, is still beside the point. The point is your double-standard, which you won’t address, even though time and again I have asked you to directly answer a simple question. After nearly 60 comments and much back and forth, you still won’t answer the question. You know you’re caught in your own disingenousness, but rather than just copping to it like men and standing on some semblance of true conviction, you dodge, change the subject, and place false emphasis on irrelevant points. So, in other words, you are GREAT liberals…right in line with standard liberal procedure.
And nope…not Texas. Not even close.
Ryan, when are you going to explain why you’re such a coward that you ask other people to fight a war for you, but run away and hide under your bed and refuse to enlist in the military yourself?
You’re so irrational that you claim that Irregular Times writes anti-war material but isn’t anti-war.
Why don’t you just decide:
1. Be for the war, and go help fight it yourself.
2. Stand against the war.
Don’t be a wishy-washy flip flopper trying to have it both ways, Ryan.
Oh, Horatio, don’t waste your time with Ryan. He’s just shown, yet again, that he has as many problems with the facts as he does with logic. “I’m skeptical that he would have been so cavalier as to go against the entire Senate in his vote…”. Of course, in the reality-based community, we can check the actual roll call vote of the Senate in 2002 and find that, if Barack Obama had voted NO, he would not have been going “against the entire Senate in his vote.” The following are Senators who voted against the war authorization:
Senator Daniel Akaka
Senator Jeff Bingaman
Senator Barbara Boxer
Senator Robert Byrd
Senator Lincoln Chafee
Senator Kent Conrad
Senator John Corzine
Senator Mark Dayton
Senator Richard Durbin
Senator Bob Graham
Senator Russell Feingold
Senator Daniel Inouye
Senator Jim Jeffords
Senator Edward Kennedy
Senator Patrick Leahy
Senator Carl Levin
Senator Barbara Mikulski
Senator Patty Murray
Senator Jack Reed
Senator Paul Sarbanes
Senator Debbie Stabenow
Senator Paul Wellstone
Senator Ron Wyden
Ryan just isn’t in touch with reality, Horatio. You’re wasting your time.
See? You keep making my point for me. You don’t actually address the real issue, you just try to redirect accusations as me. Talk about cowards…can’t even answer a simple question.
I guess we’ll have to go over this again, Horatio, since your feeble brain can’t seem to get it. You, by your own reckoning, are a coward too, because you accept the protection of police, but you are not a police officer. Why are you such a coward? The police protect you every day, right here in the USA. You would’t even have to leave the country or suffer the same level or life risk by joining the police force. WHY ARE YOU SUCH A COWARD THAT YOU HAVE TO HAVE OTHER PEOPLE ENFORCE THE LAWS TO PROTECT YOU WHEN YOU WON’T EVEN JOIN THE POLICE AND ENFORCE THE LAW YOURSELF?
Soldiers are brave people, to be sure. They have chosen their military life voluntarily. It’s not a life that I have chosen, and I wouldn’t have chosen in whether we were at war or not. So far, not a single recruiter of any service has contacted me to enlist. They obviously don’t need me that bad. There are plenty of brave people who have chosen to serve. That leaves it to your assumption and speculation to decide whether or not I am a coward, but just apply that same judgment to yourself and I’ll go away. Call yourself a coward for not being a police officer and I’ll call myself a coward for not joining the military.
And you’re STILL avoiding the point, still playing your little liberal lawyer-ball games, placing false emphasis on irrelevant points. Of course I knew the that not the entire Senate voted for the war. I was exaggerating to make a point. A handful of Senators voted against the war. Maybe Obama would have been one, maybe not. No one knows. It’s irrelevant. Yet you have avoided the real issue for yet another comment…the count is really growing, and you still can’t just address the issue of your own double-standard.
And you say I’m not in touch with reality. That’s a good one.
I’ve answered your question and you’ve made at least three glaring factual errors. You’re done, fella. I’m moving on to better things.
Run, coward.
I win.