Grover the problem with your argument is that the off spring of politicians aren't clones they are individual people who make there own choices. No one should try to force there child into a military career against there will nor should any parent try to prevent there child from joining the military if they wish to.

Is it a problem for a politician's child to not serve in the military? Is going to war the only patriotic thing we can do for our country?

I oppose the double standard that we inject on the children of our politicians, simply because their mother or father may be a public official. If I choose to refrain from serving, why am I scrutinized any less than that of a politician's son or daughter?

I'm not saying anyone here is buying into this double standard, but the standard itself can not be denied. Unjust in my opinion.

[edit on 9-8-2007 by chissler]

I have to agree with both of you fully... my real objection was to Romney's assertion itself that helping their dad get elected is patriotic. That is true in only the loosest sense of the word and is incredibly arrogant and self serving.

But do we want our politicians to be insecure and unsure of themselves in the public eye? They are a pawn in the game, and they are forced to play it in this manner.

Don't hate the player, hate the game.

They aren't in the military? So what?

One is 26 and the other is 37. They already have other careers chosen.
Most people (Pat Tillman is the exception) don't interrupt their chosen careers to go join the military when they are in their late 20's and late 30's.

The 37 year old is TOO OLD to join anyways. No one over 34 is allowed to join.

Helping get positive changes accomplished in America here at home is patriotic. (As long as you are in it for the good of America and not for your own glory - and we don't know the motivation of the 26 and 37 year old sons)

True, his children are free agents with their own free will but at the very least he should account for reason why his kids don't feel the need to go to battle when their father thinks the war is worth fighting.

He should explain to the American voter why his sons choose not to fight in a war that he thinks is worthwhile fighting. Do his sons disagree with the value of the War on Terror? Do they think their father is mistaken in his belief of the need to fight this war? At the very least fess up to Americans that not even his sons share the view that it's worth risking their lives for.

Arrogant? Talk about the pot calling the kettle black...

Absolutely encouraging his sons to help in his campaign is a patriotic act. They are participating in and actively contributing to the democratic process. Few acts are more patriotic.

Not everyone is cut out to run off and join the military. Just because someone decides a military life is not for them does not mean they are unpatriotic.

So we're to believe that their paramount loyalty is to the United States in their efforts to get their own father elected President? Give me a break. They're doing it for their father, not for their country.

And if Mitt Romney, or his sons, think that trying to get Romney elected is "patriotic" then yes, the OP claim of arrogance is warranted.

[edit on 9/8/07 by subz]

Originally posted by subz
So we're to believe that their paramount loyalty is to the United States in their efforts to get their own father elected President? Give me a break. They're doing it for their father, not for their country.

And if Mitt Romney, or his sons, think that trying to get Romney elected is "patriotic" then yes, the OP claim of arrogance is warranted.

[edit on 9/8/07 by subz]

Thank you.

From what I have seen Romney and Guilliani are cut from the same self serving cloth... since Romney decided to run he has changed just about every position he has held to bring him more in line with the Republican base and now claims that his sons aren't serving so they can get their father elected; give me a break. And as for Gulliani, he is just running on 9/11 and exploiting that horror for his own gain.

I wouldn't vote for either of them.



[edit on 9-8-2007 by grover]

... it doesn't matter who they are helping campaign. They are actively contributing to what in their opinion is something that is good for the country. That defines patriotism.

If they chose to help campaign for Hillary, while I would be concerned about some form of mental disorder, they would still be patriotic.

Sitting on the couch whining about the world without helping their father, and their father doing nothing... THAT would be arrogance.

apc it is not what they are doing or not that I am objecting to, it is the arrogance of Romney's claim that I find offensive.

America, as a country, is arrogant. So why do we fault it's leaders for being arrogant?

It isn't a slight against Romney's children in any way that they chose a civilian life for themselves, regardless of the choices their Father made and regardless of their Father's political position and aspirations.

That being said, I feel grover clearly makes a valid point in that Romney comes across as quite arrogant and self-serving with his boasting of patriotism on the part of his children helping to advance him politically, rather than serve militarily.

Views of Romney and his statements are naturally subject to interpretation and perspective, personally I agree with grover's take on it and I imagine a few Parents out there with children serving militarily would agree as well.

I don't personally know anyone who is serving in the military but I imagine that for those who have loved ones that are fighting or have fallen in a foreign land in the expression of true patriotism, they perhaps could view it as insensitive to see the word used so loosely in description of someone merely helping a politician run for office... a politician who happens to be their Father.

Granted, Romney's children may genuinely believe their Father is the best choice for the future of our country, perhaps their support of him is through a genuine sense of patriotism afterall. Or maybe it's just instinctive family loyalty and Romney is misinterpreting it himself, or worse - using it for a cheesy political boost.

As I already said - The ADULT ... 37 year old .. IS TOO OLD to enter the military. He has been for many years now. He couldn't even if he wanted to. (and who says that he wouldn't want to?)

The other ADULT - 26 year old - already has his career path and, LIKE MOST OTHER AMERICANS of this age with parents who approve of the war, he has decided NOT to give up the career he has chosen to enter the military.

So why are some people here dis'ing the 26 year old for doing what most other Americans are doing?

So why are some people here complaining about a 37 year old not entering the military when he CAN'T and hasn't been able to for many years?




[edit on 8/9/2007 by FlyersFan]

Originally posted by FlyersFan

As I already said - The ADULT ... 37 year old .. IS TOO OLD to enter the military. He has been for many years now. He couldn't even if he wanted to. (and who says that he wouldn't want to?)

That is no longer true.... the pentagon has raised the recruitment age to I believe 42. But this is not about Romney's sons, its about his arrogance.

Originally posted by FlyersFan
... or it may be pride in seeing his adult children take part in the democratic process in an effort to make this country better.

It depends on what you think of the person making the statement.

That's how I see it. And I think Romney's a douche.

I would have far more respect for Romney if he hadn't gone and totally changed his positions prior to announcing his run for president, just to satisfy the right wing base. He should have just said I am a moderate and if you don't like it too bad. I for the record say the same thing about Democratic candidates as well....stick to your guns if you want anyone to take you seriously or to respect you.