Romney Campaign: Remark About Sons Was Taken Out Of Context

Comments (87)

gonzone wrote on August 8, 2007 2:36 PM:

Shorter Mitt:

Yes, it's great to be born with a silver spoon, why?

Or:

Our kind don't do that sort of thing.

lj629 wrote on August 8, 2007 2:36 PM:

As a republican, shouldn't Romney expect his niece to pull herself up by her own bootstraps and landscape her own damned yard? Sounds like she's lucky to live in a neighborhood full of socialistic liberals!

wglad wrote on August 8, 2007 2:38 PM:

Sounds the same to me.

ohiomeister wrote on August 8, 2007 2:41 PM:

Absolutely, 100%, the same.

It's great to serve, but they won't and I support them. But they support me, and that's also supporting our country.

Except it's not.

Unless they are also looking for terrorists while performing surrogate duties for Mitt in the Winnebago. I bet a bunch of those KOA trailer campgrounds and Walmart parking lots are just crawling with terrorists.

rustyaustin wrote on August 8, 2007 2:43 PM:

Pure unadulterated evil.

gonzone wrote on August 8, 2007 2:43 PM:

Another shorter Mitt:

They're just chips right off the old Mitt block, eh?

Blue in IA wrote on August 8, 2007 2:44 PM:

Support our troops ... do their landscaping for them so they won't be fined by their neighborhood associations???

This man is unspeakably trivial. I think we're entering a new era (with apologies to Arendt): The Evil of Banality.

bjlgr wrote on August 8, 2007 2:47 PM:

Same

skiddlybop wrote on August 8, 2007 2:50 PM:

Typical Republican spin move, adding words and claiming they don't mean the same fucking thing.

It's actually MORE SELFISH and self-centered discussion about how the rich Mittens and friends do for each other and themselves, and NEVER have a care for the actual suckers serving.

Of course they support the war. They don't fight it.

rssrai wrote on August 8, 2007 2:50 PM:

Sometimes the media gets it right the first time.

joyshapes wrote on August 8, 2007 2:50 PM:

the exact same, and even funnier now with the family winnebago bit. because visiting 99 counties in an air-conditioned car is equivalent to serving a couple of tours in baghdad, right mitt?

frankly0 wrote on August 8, 2007 2:53 PM:

OK, Mitt, if they took those remarks out of context, kindly explain what the context really was?

Thanks in advance.

anonymous wrote on August 8, 2007 2:55 PM:

The bonus niece story digs the hole deeper. Sorry mitt. You are a phony.

DaveW wrote on August 8, 2007 2:56 PM:

Doesn't change a thing. What's stunning is that Romney apparently thinks the context makes it all OK because he threw in the sanctimonious boilerplate about supporting the troops. All it does is make even starker his genuine cluelessness about how real Americans live and think. I've never seen a better argument for a 100 percent inheritance tax.

Old 33 wrote on August 8, 2007 2:56 PM:

He really needs to get a new "National Guard" story. Most Guardsmen about to deploy are concerned about getting their will written/updated, making sure their wife/children have health care, making sure their employer keeps their job available for them when they get back, worrying about making mortgage payments, etc.

What are the concerns of Mitt's "National Gaurdsman"? Landscaping.

GOP aloofness in a nutshell.

anonymous wrote on August 8, 2007 2:59 PM:

The bonus niece story seems to have a tinge of magical realism to it. The time frame of the call is one week ago, but suddenly it's some lengthy time down the road, and the evil home-owners-association is scratching at the door and all of these happy westerners show up in their wagons with rolls of sod and full-grown trees.

It's a fake.

edog9 wrote on August 8, 2007 2:59 PM:

Give a guy enough rope. This guy is toast!

Glenn in NYC wrote on August 8, 2007 3:00 PM:

Nothing out of context about the AP quote...it's exactly what he meant.

Farinata X wrote on August 8, 2007 3:01 PM:

This response shoudl be framed and posted everywhere in this great land. It encapsulates so many republican topoi: chickenhawks, landscaped yards, people who can afford homes in places that have homeowners' associations with rules like these, complete ignorance of how most Americans actually live. Incredible! And did I mention chickenhawks?

penalcolony wrote on August 8, 2007 3:01 PM:

Of course there's no difference. All the neighborliness malarkey, inserted solely to put some distance between his sons' unwillingness to serve and his own colossal narcissism, will work on some people if they're just listening to it, but put the same thing in print and the attempted misdirect is quite clear.

Fred_Mac wrote on August 8, 2007 3:02 PM:

Right on the money, Blue!

When are our men in women in uniform going to realize the truth about republican politicians?

Few of them served and the fact is they don't support the troops ... they may support the "military-industrial complex," but they don't support the troops.

Think about it, we spend as much on defense as the rest of the world combined, but our young men and women were not just sent to Iraq unneccessarily ... but were sent without the proper equipment. Bush and the republican congress spent billions for high-tech weaponry that went to military contractors which made huge contributions to their campaigns, but our troops went to war without the necessary vehicle and body armor!

And do you recall Rummy's response to our troops when asked about deficiency? No acceptance of responsibility or apology ... he basically just told them that is the way it is so deal with it!

marcNYC wrote on August 8, 2007 3:04 PM:

Same, but the more he tries to explain it, the funnier (in a very sad way) it will get.

Heraldblog wrote on August 8, 2007 3:05 PM:

"Typical Republican spin move, adding words and claiming they don't mean the same fucking thing."

It sounds like he had been anticipating the controversy for some time. His solution: to spin the definition of "serving one's country" to include driving an 8 mpg Winnebago around Iowa, or just about anything else for that matter. Looking at internet porn all day? Then you're supporting the troops by exercising one of the very rights our troops are fighting to defend! Are there any activities that Mitt Romney can't spin as a way to support the troops?

Old 33 wrote on August 8, 2007 3:07 PM:

Well, all the President asked us to do after 9/11 was continue to shop...

If shopping is a service to the nation, so is driving a Winnebago.

jackrussell wrote on August 8, 2007 3:08 PM:

Romney has five sons? That in itself ought to be considered a crime against humanity.

fracas wrote on August 8, 2007 3:11 PM:

That's a great story: "got a call on a Tuesday that he was going to be called up and shipped overseas on a Thursday"

I was in the Army. Been on a few deployments.

A National Guard soldier "got a call on a Tuesday that he was going to be called up and shipped overseas on a Thursday"

Yep, quite a story. Did he have time to pick up some sun block?

jeffgee wrote on August 8, 2007 3:12 PM:

The story about the mudhole front yard: pure deflection, a feel-good anecdote. He should have used the opportunity to condemn the use of National Guard troops in overseas wars. I'm always irritated by the ads in movie theaters for the National Guard. The Guard is never shown dodging IEDs and sweating in 120 degree heat in Iraq. The Guard is shown helping people in natural disasters (except for the shot of the tank- that's the giveaway)
Cue the French horns.

geazer wrote on August 8, 2007 3:19 PM:

Bush Lite. Half the brains of Regular Bush, with the same bloated feeling and rotten after-taste. The only difference is that he can't even spell "Moron" correctly. How, exactly, though I'll settle for approximately, does he think "in context" improves his idiotic statements/philosophy?

beowulf wrote on August 8, 2007 3:21 PM:

Charity begins at home Mitt.

Its too bad those neighbors didn't volunteer their time and money on behalf of someone who doesn't have an uncle worth $250 million. Mitt could have easily hired a landscaping company to handle everything.

chastened wrote on August 8, 2007 3:21 PM:

They tried but could not volunteer as they are too rich.

Only people from families struggling to get by are allowed to volunteer to kill and be killed.

Besides it was not Romney in the video it was his clone.

chastened wrote on August 8, 2007 3:23 PM:

"It’s remarkable how we can show our support for our nation and one of the ways my sons are showing support for our nation is helping to get me elected, because they think I’d be a great president. My son, Josh, bought the family Winnebago and has visited 99 counties, most of them with his three kids and his wife. And I respect that and respect all of those in the way they serve this great country."

He was joshing, right?

buckley wrote on August 8, 2007 3:25 PM:

You people should be ashamed of yourself!

You think rolling out sod is easy work?

I thought I was reading "The Onion" for a minute.

Josh's boss must be so nice to give him a month off to drive around in "the family Winnebago."

I'm surprised he doesn't use "the family jet" or "the family driver."

RWN wrote on August 8, 2007 3:28 PM:

WHAT A CROCK...I hope the blogster researchers are watching the reaction to this...of course this audience is not their target...

It is the best example of the unspoken class system now prevalent in the US Society, the military is a place for 'losers' except the officer class which is the place for God's Warriors...and those loyal to the President who is the Commander and Chief of the US Society.

They are going to get the come upence...but it won't be easy.

unpoetaloco wrote on August 8, 2007 3:29 PM:

I agree with Mitt completely: the way to win the greatest challenge of the 21st century is one roll of sod at a time.

I mean, if that kind of 21st-century Mormon barn-raising isn't enough to stop the tide of radical fundamentalist anti-American jihadism, I don't know what is.

And let's not underestimate the sacrifice his son the Winnebago-driver is making. That's as close to driving a Humvee through Baghdad streets as it gets.

CSTAR wrote on August 8, 2007 3:32 PM:

Hmmm, for a minute there I thought I read that his son Josh had visited 99 countries on his Winnebago.

Now in the Americas there are about 25-30 countries, 60 or so in Europe. Maybe, just maybe I thought that might have left some chance for the Josh Romney barreling into Baghdad on the family Winnebago.

Dave Adams wrote on August 8, 2007 3:33 PM:

Mitt makes it sound as if his niece and her husband were in danger of violating some rigidly-enforced law with mandatory sentencing.

The truth is that fines in a Condo association are assessed by a board composed of owners, and all his niece had to do was go before the board and ask for a waiver or an extension. Case closed.

The fact that the neighbors went out of their way to pitch in and help was nice. However, another factor that might have played into it is that improving Romney's niece's yard improved their own property values.

A perfect Republican anecdote if you ask me.
Not only did they look patriotic, but they increased the value of their own property at the same time.

Just makes you want to go "awww..." doesn't it?

-Dave Adams-

RedshiftX wrote on August 8, 2007 3:34 PM:

I think he knows that the context doesn't make it any better, but is hoping that loudly repeating "out of context" and releasing a longer text will muffle the outcry. It wouldn't work for a Democrat, of course, but since he doesn't have the Mighty Wurlitzer repeating the story ad infinitum, he just might get away with it.

frankly0 wrote on August 8, 2007 3:35 PM:

Even forgetting about the "context" here, the comment is extremely damaging simply standing by itself:

"It’s remarkable how we can show our support for our nation and one of the ways my sons are showing support for our nation is helping to get me elected, because they think I’d be a great president. My son, Josh, bought the family Winnebago and has visited 99 counties, most of them with his three kids and his wife. And I respect that and respect all of those in the way they serve this great country."

He's saying in the plainest of terms that his son is supporting our nation by going around in a Winnebago talking up his Dad.

How do you put a good spin on this?

Beyond this, Romney really has a problem here because his remarks, as rambling as they are, are in response to a direct question about why Romney's own kids haven't joined the military. That is why Romney felt obliged to bring what they are doing into his remarks. How is his saying that his son is supporting our country by going around in a Winnebago selling Dad not to be understood as an attempt at a response to that explicit question?

Dave Adams wrote on August 8, 2007 3:37 PM:

Those rugged Republican gardeners...

fighting terrorism one weed at a time.

-Dave Adams-

Old 33 wrote on August 8, 2007 3:37 PM:

Helping people in natural disasters is, arguably, what the Guard SHOULD be doing...not acting as an auxiliary active duty force for 5 years.

fishbrake wrote on August 8, 2007 3:48 PM:

Worse, way worse. There's nothing in those previous 2 paragraphs that mediate the stupid comment in any way. And when asked about why his sons aren't serving, he invokes the husband of his niece. Beyond lame.

Don Slack wrote on August 8, 2007 3:55 PM:

I think everyone here is going off the deep end with their sanctimonious indignation. When did working to make the country a better place stop being a service to the country?

Was Ralph Nader not serving the country when he brought us seat belts? Is Al Gore not serving the country (and the world) by speaking out against the Iraq War and the dangers of global warming? Is MoveOn not serving the country by working to elect politicians with the right politics? Is Josh not serving the country with this blog?

Of course, I'm not saying that the level of personal sacrifice involved in lobbying, educating, politicking, and blogging is remotely comparable to that involved in being stationed in Iraq. But in terms of benefiting the country, it's quite possible (and many people on this website have argued this) that the US's involvement in Iraq is actually bad for this country (and the world), and the soldiers who are over there are therefore, completely unintentionally and with the best of intentions, contributing to doing this country a disservice. Please don't misunderstand me here — even if the last sentence is true, the fault does not lie at all with the soldiers; it lies with the politicians who placed them there. But the fact remains that the soldiers might be benefiting this country — serving this country — less than Nader, Gore, MoveOn volunteers, and Josh Marshall (and many others).

Personally, I think that a Mitt Romney presidency would be terrible for this country and for the world. I therefore think that anyone who works to bring it about is doing this country a disservice. If his sons are working to elect him, they are not serving the country; they are harming the country.

Nonetheless, there seems to be an opinion on this site that working to improve this country's politics is not a form of service; the only way to serve the country is to pick up a gun. I think that this view is completely wrong, and moves the debate toward trivia instead of real issues.

Previous remarks notwithstanding, I think that Romney does sound horribly out of touch with the lives and concerns of people who are not extremely wealthy, and his remarks, if widely publicized, should hurt his popularity.

Still, I think that ultimately the forces of evil are served by trivia and obfuscation, and the forces of good are served by transparency, truth, and reason. Whether Mitt Romney thinks that the majority of people have to deal with fussy homeowners associations is as irrelevant to whether he'll be a good president as whether Kerry thought that Swiss cheese goes on a cheesesteak. Let's talk about issues, people!

rk wrote on August 8, 2007 3:57 PM:

He tells the story about his niece, notes her concern over getting the landscaping done, doesn't offer any example of his immediate family helping anyone (including his unturfed niece), then launches into the description of the five brother's service to America by working for his campaign. I'd say the AP did him a favor.

ohiomeister wrote on August 8, 2007 3:58 PM:

That's true. I respect my sons for not serving, but this sucker of a husband my niece ended up with is serving other there. They're poor folks who can't even afford proper gardeners.

donkeydharma wrote on August 8, 2007 3:58 PM:

Stunning, in the most negative sense of the word. Is he that naive? Does he think we are? If the landscaping thing's the best Mitt can do to conceptualize sacrifice, he should never be allowed within shouting distance of elective office again.

Chunche wrote on August 8, 2007 4:01 PM:

To me, the context makes a pretty big difference. His answer is rambling and unpersuasive, but I don't read it as trying to equate service in Iraq and his sons' supporting his candidacy.

joyshapes wrote on August 8, 2007 4:12 PM:

the context was a question that explictly asked how his sons were planning on supporting the war on terror. his answer was that his sons are serving the country by campaigning on his behalf. the link seems pretty clear to me, even if he never comes right out and compares the two.

delmoi wrote on August 8, 2007 4:18 PM:

Yeah it's exactly the same. Or even slightly worse to my ears with that landscaping B.S. but maybe for the average republican complying with local HOA regulations is a major life concern. They seem like the type who take that stuff seriously.

SeamusD wrote on August 8, 2007 4:32 PM:

Romney said that his niece's husband is going "overseas", implying that he's going to Iraq. But is he? Why didn't he say so? He could just as easily be going to Germany, and Romney gets credit for someone in his family is in Iraq.

a.callidryas wrote on August 8, 2007 4:45 PM:

Wow. That is just so much worse. There's so much wrongness it's hard to know what to say. Firstly, perhaps if Mitt's sons and a few more young Republicans would join the army, people in the national guard wouldn't have to be called up.

Secondly, that was really nice of his neice's neighbors to help landscape the yard so she wouldn't be paying fines on her new home. You know what some other people whose spouses got called up have to worry about? Losing their home. Nice, landscaped yards not withstanding.

Or losing their legs, arms, having head injuries, getting post-traumatic stress injury, dying, etc. My dad's friend who's around 40 and in the guard is worried about all those, the significant loss of income, his kids' college fund, and more. But the yard- wow. That was quite a pickle she was in. Thank goodness her neighbors support the troops.

Oh, and whoever mentioned that Romney's niece has a wealthy uncle who could have helped out? I second that. A wealthy uncle and five able-bodied cousins (at least) who could have helped instead of making her rely on the kindness of her neighbors.

arubyan wrote on August 8, 2007 4:48 PM:

All four sons of Franklin Roosevelt were officers in World War II and were decorated, on merit, for bravery.

They were, to say the least, not drafted.

The End.

Landmine wrote on August 8, 2007 4:54 PM:

More time needs to be spent on that "volunteer" bull@#$t.
These guys "volunteered" when the rule and expectation was they would be defending us here at home, not being misled about what their service would be. Additionally, we know they were misled about the legitimacy of the mission.
They "volunteered" for the part-time duty and for VA benefits which have been cut to shreds.
Some "volunteered" due to economic pressures.

Romney wanted to get off his kids as fast as he could, because like every other elite, he knows he loses on it. He is a girly man squirmer.

"Serving" in Iraq gets you killed. "Serving" in Iowa can only get you cooties from too much glad handing.

miggsathon wrote on August 8, 2007 5:00 PM:

I guess I'll be the jerk here, but I don't think there's anything wrong with Romney saying that his kids are serving their country by working on his campaign. I've worked on campaigns before, and I did that precisely to serve my country. If someone works or volunteers for Hillary, or Barack, or Edwards, or Rudy, or Romney, or whoever -- if their motive is to make the country better, then they're engaging in a kind of public service.

Of course, the underlying assumption to Romney's remarks is that military service is just one of many equally important ways to serve. That's fair enough, as far as it goes. But this assumption ignores that military service is, shall we say, a tad riskier than other kinds of service, and is only voluntary in a superficial sense, since most kids who have money and education don't feel the need to enlist. In other words, kids with privilege have the luxury of "serving" in safe ways; kids without privilege put their life on the line.

Ignoring these points is small-minded and self-serving, obviously. But I'd go so far as to say that any non-pacifist who opposes a draft -- liberal or conservative -- is guilty of the same sin that Romney is. If volunteering for the military isn't really volunteering, and if rich folks should bear as much risk as poor folks, then we need a draft -- one with a minimum of deferments or exceptions.

Incidentally, a draft would stop this war awful quick.

al75 wrote on August 8, 2007 5:02 PM:

Remember: This is the guy who wants to "Double Guantanamo". Torturing people who have never had a trial to the point of suicide is another way those so inclined can serve America

fuzz wrote on August 8, 2007 5:04 PM:

No. The conservative (and libertarian) point of view is that charity should come from individuals and private groups rather than be subsidized by the government. They feel it isn't fair to force people to pay taxes to support whatever causes the government decides are worthy. And, further, they believe that individuals who control how their charity dollars are spent will see that that money is spent efficiently rather than having government-sponsored programs administered by indifferent civil servants who just do enough to get by and don't care about waste or fraud.

You can agree with that or not, but don't make the mistake of thinking the conservative point of view does not include charity. Many of these people are deeply religious and belong to (and give generously to) churches that do excellent charity work.

Don Slack wrote on August 8, 2007 5:08 PM:

I tried to make a similar comment earlier. I think you said it better. Anyway, I entirely agree.

Fawlty wrote on August 8, 2007 5:14 PM:

I think it was unfair to Romney on a number of levels. 1st, he didn't exactly compare campaigning and enlisting as being equal "service to the country", that is leap made by the AP.

2ndly, his children are adults who make their own decisions and they should be the only ones required to defend those decisions.

You can dislike the man for many reasons, but I don't think this one of them.

erica wrote on August 8, 2007 5:22 PM:

I noted that Romney specifically said A Tuesday and A Thursday. He didn't say "that Thursday" or "the following Thursday," just "A" Thursday. Kinda makes you wonder how many Wednesdays came in between.

And how long did these people have their house without landscaping the yard? Just a couple of weeks, or 11 months?

pollkatz wrote on August 8, 2007 5:41 PM:

Hey, Mitt -- maybe you should compare notes with Al Gore and John Kerry. Payback's a bitch, ain't it?

erica wrote on August 8, 2007 5:46 PM:

Everybody has the right to choose how they serve the nation. But in a time of war, you'd think a few more wealthy Republican sons and daughters would make serving in the military their choice, especially since our whole way of life is supposedly at stake.

And what Romney needs to remember is that choice goes both ways, so people who choose to serve the nation differently have the right to stand outside every Mitt Romney and Sons campaign appearance between now and the day he ends his campaign and play the old Pink Floyd song featuring the line:

Forward he cried from the rear
And the front rank died.

myrna wrote on August 8, 2007 5:49 PM:

Isn't this a comparable situation to George W Bush in 1972 taking leave from the Texas National Guard to work on his father's campaign? Isn't that the reason that was given when he failed to fulfill his commitment in Alabama, where he had been transferred after losing his flying status in Texas?

Bush had the clout to avoid Vietnam, and the Romney boys have the clout to avoid Iraq - same difference.

The sad thing is that the shallow hypocritical Romney is not the worst of the candidates fielded by the Republicans.

frankly0 wrote on August 8, 2007 5:53 PM:

Look, words have meanings.

When one says, "supporting our nation" or "serving our nation", that properly covers only service that is quite directly on behalf of the country in a public service role. Serving in the military is a paradigm example. One might also include serving in a diplomatic role, or perhaps serving in the Peace Corps as a representative of the United States. But it is in some official governmentally sanctioned role in which the service is offered. Perhaps in extraordinary cases the terms might be extended to those who effectively serve similar functions but who are operating as private citizens.

Other activities may very well constitute very honorable civic contributions, but they are rightly described with other terms.

And the problem that Romney has is that what his sons are doing doesn't even come close to that kind of honorable activity, because they so obviously lack the dimension of clear altruism. In fact, they are hawking for their own Dad. You simply can't get around the narrow self-interest and self-preoccupation implicit in that. If Romney can't see that their activities don't embody the pure concern for others and the larger nation that, say, one might find in a typical volunteer for a campaign, then that is just one more way he is socially and morally blind.

Official A wrote on August 8, 2007 6:11 PM:

WTF is he talking about? Sounds like this could be Mitt's "Shining City on a Hill" moment. Will he be drooling and wearing Depends before the first primary vote is cast?

Official A wrote on August 8, 2007 6:12 PM:

Who landscaped their yards?

someparisian wrote on August 8, 2007 6:51 PM:

You mean liberal horns.

realitybasededucator wrote on August 8, 2007 7:04 PM:

I think everyone here is going off the deep end with their sanctimonious indignation. When did working to make the country a better place stop being a service to the country?

You're missing the point entirely. Mitt is a raving war supporter and a surge supporter. There is absolutely no daylight between him and Bush on this issue. Supporting the war and the surge in this context means you are directly advocating that tens of thousands of troops have their tours extended and have their discharges (and lives) postponed indefinitely to fight Bush's and Romney's war.

Mitt is telling tens of thousands of troops, guard, and reserves that he expects them to sacrifice even more for his war. Do they have a choice but to go along? Not hardly. In that context it is entirely fair to ask him how much sacrifice he expects from his own sons.

slb wrote on August 8, 2007 7:11 PM:

I don't think there's anything wrong with Romney saying that his kids are serving their country by working on his campaign. I've worked on campaigns before, and I did that precisely to serve my country.

First of all, as someone else said either here or in the earlier thread, "serving your country" is normally taken to have a more specific meaning than just civic involvement. It's normally taken to mean military service, or some other sort of volunteer service that involves significant risk to one's person and/or significant personal sacrifice: joining an intelligence service, the Peace Corps, etc. Holding a major political office can also qualify, but I wouldn't say of every major officeholder that he had "served his country" in that capacity.  It would apply to Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt, for example, but not, IMO, to James Buchanan or Warren Harding.

Secondly, it seems to me there is a difference in the credit you can claim for working on your father's campaign and that you can claim for working on a campaign for someone to whom you have no personal ties at all. You don't get "extra credit" for helping your family -- that's what you're expected to do in the first place.

trogdor wrote on August 8, 2007 7:14 PM:

Awwww is right. It's so sickeningly sweet it makes me want to puke.

I wondered how far I would have to read to find a comment on the National Guard in-law and the HOA. I mean, if they really supported the troops, they wouldn't have made that poor woman wait almost a whole year worrying about when the HOA would swoop down on them.

Of course, most of us ordinary folks don't live in a neighborhood with an HOA. I don't. In fact, I live in an unincorporated area, which means that if my neighbors want to burn their garbage, park an old car on blocks in the front yard, or paint their house Traffic Orange, I wouldn't have any recourse. I doubt Mitt the Twit would know anything about that sort of thing.
Steaming Pile Of Crap. - It's a steaming pile!

trogdor wrote on August 8, 2007 7:22 PM:

He didn't say Tuesday of what week. It's still a load of BS. If they had the money to buy a house with an HOA, they had money for sod and some spindly little trees from Home Depot. Heck, if they were really that broke, one could just as easily have grown a lawn from about $20 worth of seed in a year's time. Oh, those poor, helpless Republican women. One must really have pity on them. This one probably got "educated" at the most exclusive private women's Christian college and she still can't do the simplest things without Hubby to do it for her.
Steaming Pile Of Crap. - It's a steaming pile!

trogdor wrote on August 8, 2007 7:24 PM:

It makes me wonder which one of these ridiculous nincompoops will wind up getting nominated. Wouldn't it be a hoot if none of the current "frontrunners" won, but some dark horse who makes Pat Robertson look sane?
Steaming Pile Of Crap. - It's a steaming pile!

trogdor wrote on August 8, 2007 7:30 PM:

Well, this particular war was started based on nothing more than caprice and lies. It's a hell of a reason to send somebody else's kid to his or her death, don'tchathink? Draft or no draft, the President is responsible for his decisions. Too bad he probably won't ever be held to account for any of them.
Steaming Pile Of Crap. - It's a steaming pile!

CandyceG wrote on August 8, 2007 7:37 PM:

The Romney brothers document their war stories from the campaign trail at http://fivebrothers.mittromney.com/.

"...we're eating pizza from Centro again ... we can't get enough when we come to Des Moines. We had some before and after catching “The Bourne Ultimatum” last night. We don't get many chances to see movies together as a family...so it was a rare treat." Matt, writing about how difficult it is to keep the family together on the battlefield, and how even simple food is welcome after all those MREs.

"Tagg and I visited Albert, the world's largest bull, in Audubon County." - Josh, talking about some of the strange sights he and his brother have seen as they travel from battle to battle.

"Matt, Josh, and I had an in interview yesterday with Greta Van Susteren in Dubuque, Iowa. We gave Greta a tour of the Mitt Mobile and even let her sit behind the wheel." - Craig, writing about Greta being embedded with their unit in the field, and the difficulty of living in an unarmored Winnebago.

"We have a great history of pulling pranks on each other in the family. This past weekend Ron Kaufman, one of our campaign advisors, and I short-sheeted my parents bed while they were downstairs hosting a barbecue." - Josh, and some hijinks back at camp to break the monotony of daily patrols.

"Due to time constraints with medical school, my involvement with my dad's campaign is going to be somewhat limited compared to my brothers, but I do support my dad 100 percent and can’t wait to help where I can. " - Ben, feeling guilty that his brothers are risking their lives on the campaign battlefield while he pursues his career.

"Mixing two of my passions--baseball and politics--has been a lot of fun." - Tagg, a little R & R helps one forget the stresses of campaigning, at least for a while.

Don Slack wrote on August 8, 2007 7:46 PM:

Fair enough comment. Words do have meanings.

One meaning of "serve" is "to be a servant: to do military or naval service". Here's another meaning: "to answer the needs of; to contribute or conduce to". Here's another meaning: "to provide services that benefit or help".

Allow me to paraphrase Mr. Romney:
"We have a volunteer military, and my children have chosen not to serve in the military. Blah blah, I'm an rich idiot and I want to talk about landscaping rules and Winnebagos. Despite not serving in the military, my kids are working to make the world and the country a better place by contributing to civic life. They are doing this by working to elect the best candidate for president — me."

What's wrong with that statement?

Well, in a sense, everything's wrong.
(1) As others have pointed out, the military isn't really volunteer, or at least it selects volunteers from only part of the country.
(2) Yes, he is a rich idiot who's out of touch with most Americans.
(3) The way his kids are contributing to civic life is not making the world a better place.

But in another sense, this isn't worth talking about.
(1) Aside from Charlie Rangel, who's talking about ending the volunteer army? Chelsea isn't serving in the military; Edwards never served; Obama never served.
(2) Sure, he's a rich idiot, but come on, people, let's keep the discussion on the issues. Dan Quayle was, too, but that was not the best reason to vote against Bush-Quayle. Issues, not trivia.
(3) Sure, Romney won't make the world a better place — but people will only believe this once they are convinced that Romney is the wrong choice on the issues. And I think that, in the abstract, making the world a better place by contributing to civic life is a wonderful thing to do.

Georgie buck wrote on August 8, 2007 8:58 PM:

You that hide behind walls
You that hide behind desks
I just want you to know
I can see through your masks

--Bob Dylan...Masters of War

Dave Adams wrote on August 8, 2007 9:07 PM:

I don't have too many complaints about that HOA. its not like they were out there throwing press conferences to prove what great people they are. Nope; it took Romney attempting to exploit the story for anyone to even notice it. What they did was actually a nice gesture; its just not quite as purely noble as Romney wants to portray it. Nothing wrong with what they did though.

On other hand if I were one of those neighbors, and Romney was exploiting the story, I'd want to know where was Uncle Mitt when his niece needed financial help? Why did it take the generosity of strangers to get her family out of trouble? The well-being of his niece is apparently important enough to Romney to use as cover for the lack of involvement of his own sons, but not important enough to actually spend a little of his own enormous pile of money on.

-Dave Adams-

Dave Adams wrote on August 8, 2007 9:18 PM:

The side story about his neice's family is meant to convey the idea that someone in his family is sacrificing.

Although that someone isn't close enough to Mitt for him to actually help out when they're in need. Good thing their neighbors aren't as tight with their money.

-Dave Adams-

Nancy Irving wrote on August 8, 2007 9:20 PM:

This is why most nice, rich Republicans live in high-price subdivisions: so they can be sure that when they have to perform their "love thy neighbor" duties, said neighbors will also be nice, rich Republicans.

Georgie buck wrote on August 8, 2007 10:01 PM:

"...she woke up one morning and looked out the window and all the neighbors were out there, rolling down sod, putting up trees, getting it all done."

Romney's niece is the only person in the whole danged neighborhood who doesn't get out of bed until...long after sun-up, apparently.

busdrivermike wrote on August 8, 2007 10:57 PM:

If one of Mitts sons takes the Winnebago over to the Nieces house, and does some landscaping, would he be servicing the country, the subdivision, or the niece?

And by Winnebago, I mean penis.

Yes, I am having a laugh.

acf wrote on August 8, 2007 11:55 PM:

Bush was in the Guard during the Viet Nam War, at a time when there was still a draft. Even so, he still walked away, using his father's political pull to get a pass on failing to fulfill his duty. Romney's boys came of age at a time when there was no longer any draft, and a volunteer military. It is reasonably within their rights not to be in the military. Having said that, if Romney had just stated how his sons were grown and made their own choice not to enlist, and left it at that, there would have been little more to say about it. However he couldn't shut his mouth, or control the arrogance of his tongue. He had to go on and flippantly state how they are doing their patriotic part for the country by campaigning to help him get elected President because he would be a good President, as if that was a good reason, itself. Also, as others have mentioned, Romney is a rabid supporter of this war, and to do that and not expect more personal sacrifice from himself, and his own family is hypocritical, and not a quality I want in my President.

acf wrote on August 9, 2007 12:09 AM:

I think you're misreading, or misinterpreting counties for countries. I can easily imagine that Josh has traveled through 99 counties in his Winnebago. Does that sound like an onerous trip? It could even be accomplished by visiting Iowa alone.

terryhallinan wrote on August 9, 2007 1:31 AM:

No. The conservative (and libertarian) point of view

That's ludicrous.

You can't be both Libertarian and conservative.

Libertarians are ideologues who wish vast changes in society that mixes anarchism with an authoritarian drive to keep the peasants in line. They have a prescription for a police state though they are horrified by the notion.

Conservatives are the ultimate big government types, who would hold back change at all cost. Takes a lot of government, mainly a huge security apparatus, to make time stand still.

Maybe conservatives and Libertarians end up at the same point but they take decidedly different paths.

Best, Terry

Stephennnn wrote on August 9, 2007 6:04 AM:

Stephen
Romney had a Macaca Moment. If it was a anyone other than a Republican candidate I would suggest that Romney could kiss his Presidential hopes goodbye. However, since hypocrisy is rampant amongst the Republican it will go unnoticed. I am certain there's some head shaking going on in the backroom of Romney's campaign.
Romney campaign released the full video in the hopes that it would dampen the negative response to his comments. This only suggest to me that damage control is in full effect and they are worried. I suggest that this video clip be distributed to every person you know without comment! Let Romney show them his true colors.

ricgerace wrote on August 9, 2007 1:01 PM:

Romney is such an easy target. Seems like every time he opens his mouth a Republican value pops out and condemns him.

Grumpy Lion

CSTAR wrote on August 9, 2007 2:30 PM:

I thought I made it clear that I misread counties for countries on my first reading. I'm not too adept at sarcasm. Oh well.

freaktown wrote on August 9, 2007 4:21 PM:

I think its amusing how far politicians (not just Romney) who don't have family on active duty will reach to show that they actually do. His neice's husband? Your brother's daughter's husband? Well...i guess it could have been a third cousin twice removed. The point is not many, if any, politicians today have any firsthand experience of what its like to have your family sacrifice one of their own for their country. If the best they can come up with is a distant relative you havent seen in years...you should probably stop supporting a war in which other people are sacrificing.

Oh...and i fail to see how the AP took that line out of context. Seems to me they got the qoute right.

Army wife wrote on September 6, 2007 4:44 AM:

I lost complete respect for Mitt Romney. I think reading the complete context of his remarks is even worse. The fact that his niece could have been fined by her homeowners association because they waited a year to landscape- oh the horror! Then he insists that his sons' are serving the country by helping with his campaign. God forbid they actually have to "work" every once in a while. Mitt Romney is completely out of touch with reality. My husband served in Ramadi, Iraq during the time when it was very dangerous. Romney's sons' campaign efforts are no comparison to our brave soliders commitments and sacrifices. I am completely offended by Mitt Romney's outlandish comparisons and I suggest that he get a reality check. He has lost my vote and I will now be voting for John McCain.

Post a comment

Name:
Email Address:
URL:
	Remember personal info?
Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)