On Hardball, Cillizza falsely claimed "most" Dem candidates said "our kids don't go to" public schools
SUMMARY: Washingtonpost.com's
Chris Cillizza asserted
that during a debate for Democratic presidential candidates,
"Democrats were
asked, 'Are your kids in public
schools?' Well, most of them said, 'Yes, we believe very strongly in public
schools. But no, our kids don't go to them.' " In fact, three of the
candidates said their children currently attend or did attend public schools,
two said their children attended both public and private schools, and two said
their children currently attend or did attend private schools.
On the August 9 edition of MSNBC's Hardball, washingtonpost.com staff writer Chris Cillizza asserted, "There was a debate in New Hampshire, I believe. Democrats were asked, 'Are your kids in public schools?' Well, most of them said, 'Yes, we believe very strongly in public schools. But no, our kids don't go to them.' Well, the whole point is that we need kids like that to be going to public schools so that the schools get better." In fact, at the Democratic debate to which Cillizza was apparently referring -- the CNN/YouTube debate on July 23 in Charleston, South Carolina -- three of the candidates said their children currently attend or did attend public schools, two said their children attended both public and private schools, and two said their children currently attend or did attend private schools.
Cillizza made this false claim as a purported illustration that "politicians saying one thing and doing another isn't just a Republican thing." Host Chris Matthews had asked Cillizza about Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney's statement that "[o]ne of the ways my sons are showing support for the nation is helping to get me elected, because they think I'd be a great president." Romney made the comment in response to a questioner who asked him how many of his five sons are serving in the military. Romney said, "The good news is that we have a volunteer army, and that's the way we're going to keep it." He added, "My sons are all adults, and they've made their decisions about their careers, and they've chosen not to serve in the military and active duty, and I respect their decision."
From the 5 p.m. ET hour of the August 9 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews:
MATTHEWS: Chris, let's get back to you on this. And all the National Guardspeople, men and women who are over there, suck -- stuck over there for years in that war. You know, you could call it a volunteer commitment if you want, but really, it's a result of a national policy, a political policy of one political party that took us into that war and supports the war even now. And apparently, according to the president today, wants to keep us over there ad infinitum.
That's a decision he's made. That's a political, ideological cause, he put it today. We're in a war of ideology. Why shouldn't the ideologues, the American Enterprise Institute, and all the people that supported this war, why aren't they the ones fighting it? I don't get it. And they get a free ride on this.
CILLIZZA: I don't have an answer. I don't think they get a free ride, simply because we're having conversations like this. And I think that --
MATTHEWS: Well, these are rare, I've got to tell you.
CILLIZZA: Well, I think that Romney has gotten a fair amount of negative publicity three or four days before the Iowa -- you know, the Ames straw poll, which he didn't want over this issue.
Let me just -- one other quick point, Chris. Politicians saying one thing and doing another isn't just a Republican thing. It's a different issue. But look at education. There was a debate in New Hampshire, I believe. Democrats were asked, "Are your kids in public schools?" Well, most of them said, "Yes, we believe very strongly in public schools. But no, our kids don't go to them." Well, the whole point is that we need kids like that to be going to public schools so that the schools get better. I mean, you know --
JOAN WALSH (Salon.com editor-in-chief): Chris, I really think there's no comparison. I -- you know, I've had this argument with friends. My daughter went first to public school for nine years. She goes to Catholic school now. I searched my soul about it. But there is just no comparison between sending people off to die while privately holding your five sons back, and then sending kids to private school. There's just absolutely --
CILLIZZA: Joan, Joan, holding your -- I don't want to get in a big argument with you, and I don't want to be a Romney defender, because I'm not.
WALSH: There's no comparison.
CILLIZZA: But I think "holding your five sons back" is a rhetorical device that I don't think is accurate. Because his five sons chose not to serve in the Army, that would be like saying my parents held me back from serving in the --
WALSH: It didn't sound like he encouraged them. It didn't sound like he felt like they ought to have gone. You know, I don't think that's a Romney family value, if you ask me.
From the July 23 Democratic debate:
QUESTION: Hey, I'm Mike Green from Lexington, South Carolina. And I was wanting to ask all the nominees whether they would send their kids to public school or private school.
ANDERSON COOPER (moderator): The question is public school or private school. We know, Senator [Hillary Rodham] Clinton [D-NY], you sent your daughter to private school.
[Former] Senator [John] Edwards [NC], [Sen. Barack] Obama [IL], and [Sen. Joseph] Biden [DE] also send your kids to private school.
Is that correct?
CLINTON: No.
EDWARDS: No.
COOPER: No?
CLINTON: No, it's not correct.
COOPER: OK. There we go.
EDWARDS: I've had four children, and all of them have gone to public school. I've got two kids who are actually here with me in Charleston tonight, two kids, Emma Claire and Jack, just finished the third grade in public school in North Carolina, and Jack just finished the first grade in public school in North Carolina.
COOPER: Senator Clinton?
CLINTON: And Chelsea went to public schools, kindergarten through eighth grade, until we moved to Washington. And then I was advised -- and it was, unfortunately, good advice -- that if she were to go to a public school, the press would never leave her alone, because it's a public school. So I had to make a very difficult decision.
COOPER: Senator Obama?
CLINTON: But we were very pleased she was in public schools in Little Rock.
COOPER: Senator Obama?
OBAMA: My kids have gone to the University of Chicago Lab School, a private school, because I taught there, and it was five minutes from our house. So it was the best option for our kids.
But the fact is that there are some terrific public schools in Chicago that they could be going to. The problem is, is that we don't have good schools, public schools, for all kids.
A U.S. senator can get his kid into a terrific public school. That's not the question. The question is whether or not ordinary parents, who can't work the system, are able to get their kids into a decent school, and that's what I need to fight for and will fight for as president of the United States.
COOPER: I do want to ask this question of everyone.
Senator Biden?
BIDEN: My kids did go to private schools, because right after I got elected, my wife and daughter were killed. I had two sons who survived. My sister was the head of the history department. She was helping me raise my children at Wilmington Friends School.
When it came time to go to high school when they had come through their difficulties -- I'm a practicing Catholic -- it was very important to me they go to a Catholic school, and they went to a Catholic school.
My kids would not have gone to that school were it not for the fact that my wife and daughter were killed and my two children were under the care of my sister who drove them to school every morning.
COOPER: Congressman [Dennis] Kucinich [OH]?
KUCINICH: My daughter, Jackie, went to the Columbus public schools and got a great education. And I want to make sure that that commitment that sent her to public school is a commitment that will cause all American children to be able to go to great public schools.
COOPER: [Former] Senator [Mike] Gravel [AK]?
GRAVEL: My children went to public school and private school, and I'd recommend that we need a little bit of competition in our system of education. Right now, we have 30 percent of our children do not graduate from high school. That is abominable, and that's the problem of both parties.
COOPER: Senator [Chris] Dodd [CT]?
DODD: My daughter goes to the public school as a pre-school-kindergarten. But I want to come back to the No Child Left Behind.
I think remedying this -- and I understand the applause here -- accountability is very important. This is one country -- we've got to have the best prepared generation of Americans that we've ever produced in our educational system. No other issue, in my view, is as important as this one here.
And getting the No Child Left Behind law right is where we ought to focus our attention here so that we have resources coming back to our states. You measure growth in a child. You invest in failing schools. But I would not scrap it entirely. Accountability is very important in this country. We ought not to abandon that idea.
COOPER: Let's try to stay on the topic.
I generlly like Chris Cilizza, but he apparently didn't do his homework on this. And I like Joan Walsh, but she didn't exactly counter the public school part of the discussion - maybe she was concentrating on the Romney boys lack of service. I think that latter point should be getting lots of discussion since the genesis of Romneys expalnation of why his boys aren't serving militarily strikes me as fallacious at best.
JJ apparently can't spell tonight. JJ is sorry :)
I think the Romney story is a non-issue. I think it is totally disengenuous. What does Romney have to do with the choices his sons made. This garbage about whether people's children chose to serve is stupid. They are adults they make their own decisions. I don't think it is even a legitamate question to be asking.
I can't find fault with the sons, but I do find fault with the father's choices.
His choice to support the surge and the war and his ridiculous implication that his sons are "doing their part" by working to see that he's elected president.
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
Why concern yourself with pesky things like the truth, or facts, when you have such a effective counter point to Republican hypocracy?? I mean the Democrats and the progressive agenda isn't on his pay check, yet if not for a corporate conglomerate he wouldn't be on air!!
The rule is men like Robert Sheer, David Sirota, and Bill Moyer whom are real experts are left to the bloggers and or late night PBS broadcasts!!
We lost honest, fair discource in America when Reagan deregulated the media, and set the ground work for a completely owned corporate media in line with the Neo-Con agenda!
When an opinion must be expressed without any opposing opinion to have any credence, then the reasoned mind becomes suspect of that opinion. What happens when whole networks adopt this method??? Freedom of speech? Democracy???
Wake up America, we are handing our democracy to criminals for their personal enrichment, and enpowerment!
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
I agree...all those are legitimate gripes.
Whether or not you think the question is legitimate doesn't counter the comparison to military service Romney made. He started out okay by saying his sons made their own career choices. Then he said they chose to make their contribution to the country by supporting him for Prez. Now unless there are IEDs in Iowa, I don't see a true comparison with military service and self serving campaign support for your dad. Seems like such a persuasive man as Mitt could have talked one or more of his progeny to fight this awful war if he really beleived in it. Since people with Rs after their name are making this an issue, I say it's fair game.
Yeah, you are right about the idiotic they are doing their part by supporting his campaign...he should have stopped at it was their decision. I just think the question itself is ridiculous because adults sign up for military...it is voluntary and it is their choice to make.
it is voluntary and it is their choice to make.
lostlogic
Yes, it's very nice when children of wealthy individuals that have good educations can make their own career choices. Too bad a large number of those doing the fighting (that Romney beleives in) didn't have much in the way of a career choice. But I take your point. You are way more gracious than I choose to be.
You're correct JJ.
Romneys sons have every option available to choose from for their futures.
Those people who are now enlisting because of a $20,000 signing bonus don't have any options left at all.
Romney's comments are disgraceful and demean those who are serving their country and minimize the sacrifice made by those who've sever in the past.
I hope that both he and St. Rudy keep talking and that the media airs most of the comments they make.
I'm not sure which comment is worse. The comment made by Romneyconcerning his sons or St. Rudy's comments that he spent more time at Ground Zero than "most" of the rescue workers did.
Keep talking Republicans.
Romney and Rudey the saint
Keep digging a hole with a taint
It's a truth we can cheer
That their brains aren't in gear
Serving foolish talk with no restraint
Romney equated his sons campaigning for him with the troops serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. Just last week, he suggested that Hezbollah was a role model for US social and humanitarian policy (something that the media didn't cover well). I am a conservative but it strikes to me that Romney is a total phony - the John Edwards of the GOP, so to speak.
Naturally I don't agree with your comparison; unlike Romney, who has changed his policy positions radically, Edwards has been consistent in his advocacy for labor and health care, etc.
Who then do you like for prez? Just curious...
The idea of trying to embarrass presidential candidates, by even asking them whether their children attend public schools (let alone then criticizing them, in the case of those who send their children to private schools)...
...its low.
Attempting to embarrass or criticize any parent, candidate or just anyone at all, for sending their children to private schools, is low.
Why not just naturally extend it to college, and thinking less of anyone who sends their children to a private school, as opposed to a state school.
It's low... it's stupid. There's only about a dozen reasons why, if you can afford it, to send your children to a private school; and not a single one of those reasons is anything to be embarrassed about, or is anything to criticize.
And so it's a very low thing, to try and embarrass or criticize a mother or father, for sending their child to a private school.
...you know, the more I see of this MSNBC show being cited here, the more I think it should be titled
Lowball
I do agree that a candidate is not accountable for whether his children serve in the military or not. It's still fun to see the chickenhawks squirm when asked about it.
I never served in the military. I'm neither proud nor ashamed of that,and have no trouble answering questions about it.
If I was cheering on the perpetuation of war to bolster my own self-esteem, I might not feel so comfortable talking about my own, or my offsprings, avoidance of that same glorious pursuit.
Oh Yeah, I forgot to mention what a phony Edwards is for forcing his kids to go to public school. Obviously a calculated move, initiated years before his candidacy.
I distinctly remembering fighting along side you in last years War on Chistmas.
I guess when O'Reilly threw that bullsh_t grenade into our foxhole and you threw yourself on it to save my lie, it must have effected your memory. In any event, Thanks HBL. See you next Xmas.
I'm trying to forget, King! Just kidding, I think it's just my P.Y.S.S. (Post-Yuletide Stress Syndrome) acting up, but I'm seeing a therapist who's charging me 200 bucks a week to knock the PYSS out of me.
And I'll see you before Xmas, as W.O.X. bootcamp starts up in a few weeks. I'm presently constructing strawman carolers for pistol-whipping drills, and dummying up some nativity scenes for target practice.
Strange, HBL, I commented on the very point you bring up on my blog (Subject: Major Query)...
[link to www.myspace.com]
I guess its been in the unified field since the Mittster made his commentary. BTW, I hate when people plug their blogs here, but...
Yeah, Mick, I read your post over there. I have the same feelings as I do about other things I've never done, feeling unqualified to comment.
I appreciate vets like Worrierking and other of our friends here who served in one Hell or another and seemed to have at least picked up a little insight and wisdom while they were there.
WARNING:off-topic personal rambling-(advise skipping if you're pressed for time)
My old man was born in New York in '24, meaning he was 5 when the depression hit, and turned 18 in 1942, just in time to sign up for the Navy, and he did it gladly.
His dad was a poor Mick from a little town called Doon who pushed a produce cart around NY until he opened a small market.
My Dad served as a sailor in WWII(I think I brain-farted here once saying he was a medic in WWII), after the war he went to NYU and Columbia on the Gov's dime, with the promise to serve a couple more years. He served these as a ship's medic in the Korean war.
I turned 18 in 1980, shortly before Reagan was elected to his first term.I had recently signed up with selective service, I believe a law changed around that time making it mandatory.
I was throwing around the idea of military service, but had also been doing some research regarding Vietnam and other fiascos we had gotten involved in.
I went to my Dad to talk it over, and that old vet of 2 wars that he served in without hesitation told me to go to college, and if they started calling up numbers, find some friends in Canada or Mexico.
I didn't have the money for college,so I just startd working instead.Sorry for the babbling post, I hope the meaning was clear.
HBL, a personal recollection in response -
I'm a few years older than you (cough), having turned 18 in 1966. My father was a corpsman (the Navy's equivalent to a medic) in the Pacific in WW2. He didn't tell a lot of war stories; he regarded his service as necessary but not glorious.
He did, however, believe in following the law and I know he was against my draft resistance. (I turned in my draft card in 1971 and before anyone asks, by that I meant I handed it back to my local draft board in person and told them I would no longer carry it.) However, he had enough respect for my ability to make my own choices and take my own risks that it, happily, caused no rift between us - unlike what too many other families experienced in that time.
Which explains why is is that I think, contrary to some here (note that I'm just using your comment as a jumping-off point), the choices made by Romney's children are not the point and they are not the issue.
The issue is Romney in effect equating military service with campaigning and calling getting him elected, "serving the country." That kind of monumental hubris is deserving of a level of expert mockery beyond my meager ability in that area.
Dude, thanks for that, and thanks for reading the blog. Mostly I guess my point was about sliding doors, equating all the "fork in the road" decisions in life with the point and the attitudes I have now. Classic midlife crisis stuff.
"startd"
I'm sorry HBL, Im gonna bust your balls for no reason, I usually go against my "if I understand what they meant then I won't bring it up" rule, but I can't help myself.. ITS started not startd. Other than that, I love you brother..
NOT!
Thanks, DTrain. I can't really type very well, and always appreciate constructive criticism. I'll take that as a friendly bit of help. ;0)
I'm not finished with you yet HBL.
Constructive Criticism and Correction are not the same. Normally, I usually stick to my "If I understand the intent and meaning, then I won't say anything" rule, but I just couldn't help myself, SORRY. It's just a pet peeve of mine. Idid not "constructively criticize" your spelling error. I corrected it.
You criticize peoples actions or behaviors. You correct spelling errors or factual inaccuracies.
----------------------------------------------------
Let this be a lesson to you, KEVINO and the other "perfect" people on here who feel the need to nit pick other people's grammatical, spelling or syntactic errors (usually inadvertent).
Matt. 7:1 - Judge not lest ye be judged.OK, DTrain. Now I know that "started" is not spelled "startd", and you know that "irregardless" is not a real word.
I'm humble and secure enough to know that there are a million things I don't know.I will try not to question your infallibility ever again.
Cheers, HBL.
Hold on a second there cowboy before you ride off into the sunset your foot in your mouth.
So you will never question MY infallibility? Your joking right?
Funny how people react when the shoe is on the other foot.
Now you move to RIGHTWING TACTICS and try to project and misdirect. OK, I'll play your game.
LET'S RECALL YOUR POST:
OK, "irregardless" is a pet peeve of mine too. I have a co-worker who uses it all the time, especially when he;s trying to impress people in a meeting. He'll start several sentences in a row with it.
I think Kevino's point was, it's not a word. In fact, if you break it down, it means the exact opposite of what your intent is.Not like "ain't", where you know it's not a word, but it works.
Everybody who posts here has had spelling and grammar mistakes pointed out.I've had those, factual errors, and misuse of phrases noted.I've done the same to other people.Not that big a deal.
Think of it this way;Some of your friends won't tell you you have a chunk of food in your teeth for fear of making you self conscious. That means you walk around for hours with that thing on your teeth.
Real friends tell you "Hey, get that f*cking stuff outta your teeth!"
We've all been on both sides of it, and Kevino was about as far from an ASS as anybody could be.
Sorry to butt in.I also get bugged by "for all intensive purposes" and "apropos" used for "appropriate". Lighten up, I like you too.
- HuntingtonBeachLefty / Sunday August 12, 2007 05:00:38 AM EST
If anyone's infallibility is in need of questioning.. its yours and Kevino's. And just for the record, I HAVE NEVER, EVER corrected anyones misspelling or grammatical errors (not to be confused with factual errors related to the topic(s) discussed), UNTIL NOW. And I do see them. If I don't understand, I ask for clarification.
Just remember how you felt when you got called out. I know you will. NICE TRY at misdirecting and projecting. It's really sad you had to stoop to rightwing tactics.. your better than that HBL.
Cheers, Daniel aka DTRAIN.
"...the sunset your foot in your mouth"
was supposed to say..
"...the sunset WITH your foot in your mouth"
-Daniel
only a million HBL?
Reporters do not have the ability to stroll the halls of public schools at will. Sen. Clinton's rationale for sending Chelsea to an elite private school is pure hogwash, and has been thoroughly debunked already.
Why didn't Matthews take her to task for this lame excuse?
LL "I think the Romney story is a non-issue. I think it is totally disengenuous. What does Romney have to do with the choices his sons made. This garbage about whether people's children chose to serve is stupid. They are adults they make their own decisions." Romney's sons took their cue from Dad, he managed to avoid Vietnam (thanks to his dad, the Governor of Michigan) by being a missionary in France for a religion that he doesn't want to talk about now. "W" got in a champange unit, thanks to his dad. To pretend that these fathers don't influence their adult sons is what is disengenuous. If we are in the fight of our lives as Romney and the rest of the Republicans would have us believe, then his sons should be on the front lines, like FDR's were.
Sorry, don't buy it...whatever pressure and help he did or didn't give his sons doesn't chnage the fact that ultimatley it is their choice. I don't buy this crap that if you support a military action then you must serve and of course force any children you may have to serve too. I agreed with the decision to go into Afganistan and I didn't sign up nor did I encourage anyone in my family to do so. I would imagine there are many others like me who supported Afganistan (even on the left) and didn't sign up or have their children sign up. Those who enlist in the military are outstanding for that very reason they volunteered to do something most of us are unwilling or unable to do. Fireman and police officers are special that way too. Although I do believe that serving gives you added insight and credibility to discuss the issue. I think there is more then enough points one could make about his unwise choice to support the surge that you don't need to lower yourself to such a silly factually inacurate argument about forcing adults to enlist. As far as his religion goes...why should he have to discuss his religion...I would prefer he didn't...as I would prefer others didn't...it just has no place in government in my opinion.
I'd prefer he kept his religion private too. But, he used his religion to avoid service in his youth.
Today, we're embroiled in another unpopular war and Mitt Romney is one of the foremost salesman for this war.
I think that anyone who shills for this war should explain why they feel it so important for our national security. Why is is necessary for Americans to be dying in the Middle East?
They should also explain why when Americans were dying in South East Asia, they had other priorities.
I could not agree more about children not being blamed for their parents choices.
King, I am a little out of my depth here in the sence that I don't know enough about Romney's position on previous wars to determine his level of hypocracy. I agree totally with you that they need to explain why they support this war and explain how it is in our best interest and explain how they are going to move forward with it. I guess I have a reaction to the "children and serving" argument because I think it takes away from the more important questions and allows them to dodge the answers we really want by using a disengenuous, pointless question like if you support the war why aren't your children serving. Of course if you get an asanine answer like Romney's it may end up having a certain value in the end (-;
Cillizza is way off base here.
Equating going to war with going to school and thus equating avoiding military service while sending other people off to die with going to private school while sending others off to public school is bizarre beyond all bounds of rationality.
I mean, I always thought school was dull, boring, and stultifying, but geez, it wasn't literal death and murder.
I regard public education as an obvious public good and therefore a community responsibility, one to be supported (including through taxes) by the community as a whole. That would include those who have children in private school, those whose children are out of school, those who have no children - everybody.
Draft. Left off the ending. The point is that if a politician (or anyone else) says "my kid is in private school, therefore I should not have to support public schools through taxes," that is selfish and narrow-minded.
Saying "my kid goes to private school but I continue to support public schools through my taxes and the public programs I endorse because everyone should have access to quality education" is just fine with me.
Whether or not your own kid is in private school is irrelevant. Whether or not you support providing public schools with what they need to offer a good education and your willingness to pay your fair share in achieving that goal is what matters.
Thanks, Larrye, good points.If I wasn't clear, I do think it was cheesy of Romney to equate his sons campaigning as "service", but their not serving in the military alone is not any mark against him.
BTW, I think it was in a response to you that I said my Dad was a medic(or corpsman) in WWII, it was a while back.
Another point I didn't really get in to was my take on my old man's attitude towards the military. In his time, the country took care of the boys.
The GI Bill and other programs created a pretty solid middle class of those whose obstacle wasn't brains or ambition, but money and connections.
My mom was a South Dakota farm girl whose dad moved to the bay area to work for Kaiser Steel as the war loomed. I asked her recently if she remembered what it cost her to go to Berkeley in the 40s. She told me the state schools were free, she paid a $12 health fee for the year, I think it was insurance.
Another wandering post by me, but my point is this; I find it interesting that those who glamorize war the most, who revere the "Greatest Generation" and seem to miss the mythologized era (White families living comfortably without all of the "scary stuff" to think about) of WWII are the conservatives today.
These same people, if you were to suggest a return to the social programs we had then, the Governments support of education, veteran benefits, and fighting truly necessary wars, these same people would be ready to brand a hammer and sickle on your forehead.
If any politician were to propose eliminating the favorable conditions to the wealthy and corporations in exchange for the system that really benefitted the average American, the same people who can't shut up about the greatness of that period would start speaking in tongues - "socialism, bootstraps, entitlements, wealth distribution, etc."
With all of its problems, I think there were some great things about that era, the mid-20th Century; Most Americans were still demanding that the Government work for them.
Today we're left with half the country ready to give the Gov. carte blanche, for a vague promise of "safety".
Your mom and dad remind me of mine. My father was in the Navy in the South Pacific and my mom was building planes at a factory near us.
They both were proud of our country and at first could not imagine a time when anyone would question our leaders and our foreign policy.
The in the late sixties the Vietnam Vets started returning to our neighborhood. Most were OK, but a lot of them had something missing. It wasn't physical. They'd left part of themselves back there.
My parents noticed his too. They couldn't find answers to the question of why we were there.
They their oldest son got the call. (Me).
They said that they'd support whatever path I chose.
The last thing my dad said before I got on the plane was that he had served 4 years at war. That's two for him and two for me. He said that he would be just as proud of me if i did not get on the plane.
I got on the plane, and looked back. The last thing I saw was a tear in my dads eye.
I should have gotten off the plane.
King, I appreciate your eloquent and thoughtful post (as I appreciate all of the things you write here--you're one of the best posters here.) We went through a similar scenario in my family. My brother was drafted to go to Vietnam at 19 years of age, and my other two brothers, who got medical deferments, urged him to go to Canada. My father, a WWII vet, said to him, you have my blessing whichever way you decide. But my brother, much like you, believed it was his duty and got on that plane, too. Unlike you, however, he never made it back, as he was electrocuted when a radio cable ran over a booby trap in the middle of some godforsaken jungle, two weeks past his 20th birthday. His death devastated our family, of course, though, mostly because of my father's strength, we actually became closer as a family--and uniformly virulently antiwar I might add, even my dad.
I think what Romney should have said is "it's none of your damned business what my sons do with their lives because last time I looked it's still a free country", instead of the weaselly nonsense he did offer up
Romney should have said is "it's none of your damned business what my sons do with their lives because last time I looked it's still a free country"
If he had said that, notwithstanding all my disagreements with him, I still would have said "right on, Mitt."
I actually have a lot of respect for the people who have refused to serve in this war with no end, such as Lt. Ehren Watada. I sent him a letter of support before his trial. There are others who have refused to go and I support them as well. You know that question "what if we had a war and nobody came?". I think these guys are on to something.
That being said, I profusely despise these war hawks who want to send other people's kids to a ridiculous war, but not their own skin. It makes me sick. Now don't get on me, I realize the Romney boys can decide on their own careers but in my opinion this war hawking by Romney is repulsive.
Thanks for the kind words Chimp. I'm sorry for your loss. And I'm glad your family has been able to pull together.
I know that you'll always keep your brother in your heart. I'll add his memory to the list I keep in my heart.
Worrierking & Chimpevil- Thanks.
clinton always has an excuse for everything she does and the media just plays along with it
psufball, I think you really cut to the most important aspect of this item.The name "Clinton" was mentioned, and it was not followed by "is/are Satan". Well done.