Presidential candidate Mitt Romney has 4 kids that are old enough to be in America's armed forces. None have signed up.

Hopeful Joe Biden, on the other hand, has a kid in the Coast Guard.

Who would you want commander in chief?

Whether a candidate's kids are in the military or not has absolutely no bearing on how I perceive the candidate. It should have absolutely zero relevance. When a kid turns 18, the parents aren't responsible for him/her anymore. Why should an adult's choices affect how we view his/her father?

Andrew

Agreed.

Military service is a life choice that is all about the person choosing, period, end of story.

Said choice has nothing to do with the parents views on things. At the end of the day, it's the GI getting shot at. Their reasons had better be their own, or the parents really didn't do them justice raising them.

This is not to say parents have no influence. Maybe a kids father had a great military career and the kid chooses to follow that path. What if the father embellished? What if not? Parents lied to kid growing up maybe?

Just one fairly solid example of why a decision to enlist does not speak for the parents.

I want the candidate who respects the life sacrifice made by our military volunteers period.

I don't want them wasting it, leveraging it for their own self-serving reasons, being incompetent, or naive regarding these matters.

This means, working hard and with the best and brightest to lead the military well.

I do want them to take care of those people, no matter what it costs. I also want them to set the example for the rest of us, so that these people come home feeling good about their efforts, to know they mattered and that they are supported, loved and thanked.

I want them to structure the military in ways that encourage it to perform as good as it can. This means the best gear, the best training and the best leaders. Military service needs to pay well, provide for the family potentially left behind, be tolerant of all comers, honorable, etc...

There is always enough time to treat people right the first time. On a brutal note, the longer they live, the better they perform, the better our overall return on investment is. The same is true for their life investment as well.

There are zero excuses for how we have treated veterans in general. None, nada. Every one of us should feel like crap about that. Since we can only go forward, that means making damn sure we elect people that will work to make things right, for those so wronged, and work just as hard to prevent future wrongs.

These are things we ask our candidates about, not their kids.

Gotta disagree. Kids quite often reflect the results of their upbringing. (obviously kids under 18, or perhaps 21, shouldn't be included in the scrunity, and those with mental issues).

Lets take a look:

Bush 2: DUI.

Bush 2 kids, DUI.

Clinton: Rhodes scholar at Oxford.

Clinton kid, also went to Oxford.

Bush 1 served in military.

Bush 2 served in military.

Bush 1, having kids with military service, pulled back from engaging saddam in a nutty war in Iraq.

Bush 2, with NO kids with military service, engaged saddam in a nutty war in Iraq.


Having "elected" someone TWICE whose words doesn't match actions, we need to search canidates backgrounds closely for clues, and the Lord knows Bush had plenty of them.

ps: like it or not, older kids put themselves up for public scrunity when they get DUIs, arrests and so on, and things like service in the military are a matter of public record and a necessary bit of information for voters. If a candidate has an otherwise excellent record of public service, they will survive scrunity of their perhaps poor job of raising their kids. Borderline canidates may not make the cut.

Bottom line: Joe Biden is likely to never send our troops in harms way unless it was actually necessary (for example, actual WMDs). Mitt Romney on the other hand may ship troops out with a little less information.

These are clues I want to know of.

Hmmm....


My gut says it's a coincidence. Generally speaking, this does not match my life experience.

Preswident Teddy roosevelt had a son that died flying one of Americas first fighter planes in WWI, he had another son die in WWII, after he had been the first general ashore on D-Day (Normady) and fought with his division across Italy.

President Franklin Eoosevelt had a son, that went ashore on the Makin Island raid, Americas first land attack on a japanese possession.

But generally, presidential children havent had a history of serving. Eisenhower had a son that served, but he was primarily Eisenhowers aide.

With an all voluntary military, we get men and women that want to be there, for many reasons, but they are all volunteers.

The thing that galled me was is statement that his sons were "serving their country" by helping him with his presidential aspirations.

http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2007/aug/09/actress-jolie-denies-shes-in-john-edwar ds-camp/

Skeptical: "Kids quite often reflect the results of their upbringing."

Why didn't you include Al Gore's son, Al Jr.? He's been arrested for drug possession and drunk driving.

"Bush 2 kids, DUI." Not True

Well DD, that's exactly what I was thinking!

Gore is a good guy, regardless of what his son does right?

They're serving their country by living off of his means and not doing anything on their own. Similar to GW.

It is correct that a child shouldn't be forced to serve in the military. However if your a "hawk" but you don't want any of your children to fight in the war, then you believe that due to money you inherited is a birthright.

I'm sorry what's good for the goose is good for the gander. If Romney wants to be pro war then his kids should have to serve, otherwise he's just another two faced candidate.

If Skeptical believes that "Kids quite often reflect the results of their upbringing", then he needs to be consistent.

He should go back to the thread: Al Gore's Son Arrested on Drug Suspicion.

I said the same thing. According to Skeptical I'm not worthy of being admitted to Heaven.

Clinton: Rhodes scholar at Oxford.

Oops. Forgot these:
Raped our military while reportedly raping Juanita Broaderick.
Monica-gate.
Whitewater-gate.
Travel-gate.
Loathed the military.
Impeached in disgrace.
Never inhaled and didn't enjoy it.
Declassified our secret missile technology, then sold it to the communist Chinese.
And those are his better points.

Herb

And even if all those were true (they aren't), Bill Clinton would STILL be a far superior president than the miserable failure we are stuck with now.

Andrew

There it is!

*Bam!*

Good god, it's gotta take some serious mental gymnastics to continue to support that clown.

I believe the Gore kid has mental issues as a result of being hit by a car. Gore's kid also wasn't driving a car. Of course, all this doesn't entirely let Gore off the hook which brings me to my other point -- weighing the other reedeming qualities of a candidate:

Gore VOLUNTEERED to serve in the military, and actually went to Vietnam. He is currently spending his time trying to save the planet -- something that he gains no finacial benefits from. As far as I know he has no DUI, and neither does his kids, and I believe he had no bankrupt companies society had to bail out.

So, if Gore's is guilty of bad child raising, he'd get a pass.

DD sez: "According to Skeptical I'm not worthy of being admitted to Heaven."

You're not. What you're doing is passing judgement on people and attempting to put them in a lower class than you. God will not be pleased. Neither will Jesus. You should leave the judging business up to God and keep your mouth shut while you're here visiting this planet. You're not God and you're no better or worse than the rest of us so F off. Believe me this is what God would like to say to you if he only could. By closing off your mind, not even God can get in.

Amen!

"...they aren't..."

Nice spin. Unfortunately for the revisionist left, Mr. Clinton's crimes and failures are all too true.

Herb

Skeptical has so much HATE in his heart he doesn't see the irony of what he said.

"You should leave the judging business up to God..."

Skeptical should practice what he preaches.

Let's give that a big AMEN!

Herb writes:
Nice spin. Unfortunately for the revisionist left, Mr. Clinton's crimes and failures are all too true.

Welcome to Herb's "because I said so" standard of proof. Yeah, and George Bush personally ordered the 9/11 attacks, and if you disagree, you must be part of the revisionist right, eh? See, it's easy to throw out wacky, extremist rhetoric and put the burden of proof on anyone who questions you, isn't it?

Andrew

The beauty of it is simply that it does not matter.

Herb is perfectly free to employ the "because I said so" standard. Nobody cares.

Why?

Because CLINTON was GREAT, period, end of story.

And to follow on that note:

No amount of "because I said so" defense of Bush, will change the reality there either. Again, nobody cares because...

Bush is HORRIBLE.

"Skeptical should practice what he preaches."

Mere mortals should leave the judging business up to God. Those that attempt to play God on this planet need to be scolded, and sometimes, detongued.

It does and should not matter if a canidates kids serve, if you think it should then you should not be voting. I will not vote for the guy, but not because of that.

"CLINTON was GREAT..."
Sure, to leftist revisionists.

To everyone else, he remains a pathetic, impeached lech.

Herb

People vote for candidates for all sort of reasons, some are "Yellow dog democrats, or republicans", which means thats all they care about, the party label. Some vote for how the candidate looks, some vote their "Gut" feeling.
some vote on 1 issue, be it abortion, gun control or gay rights. In a republic , thats their right, if they dont want to vote, because someones son or daughter didnt serve, thats their right.

Skeptical: "Mere mortals should leave the judging business up to God. Those that attempt to play God on this planet need to be scolded, and sometimes, detongued."

Skeptical are you talking about yourself?

Yes Gore served in vietnam, less tehan 6 months, everyone else served 12 or more.

Even though he enlisted, which usually meant you had some choice in your job, the minimum voluntary enlistment was 3 years, Gore served about 2 years. President Bush has been repeatedly hammered for not fulfilling his service obligation, where is the uproar about Gore getting out of 1 year of service, + there is no record of him completing his reserve obligation.

I believe there is no uproar because Gore didn't flunk an exam for an airman's certificate. Bush's behavior wasted the taxpayers money invested in him.

Gore's service in Vietnam was as a military reporter. He had no exposure to combat.

There's more risk involved flying jets in the National Guard, than writing about a war you didn't experience.

Why did Gore only serve nine months in Vietnam? Did he use his Father's connections or did he get writer's cramp?

"airmans certificate", whats an airmans certificate, can women get them too?

DD writes:
Gore's service in Vietnam was as a military reporter. He had no exposure to combat.

But he enlisted and went to Vietnam, instead of taking a national guard slot that was actually offered to him. Only in the chickenhawk mind does volunteering for service in a war zone seem less brave than flying jet planes in the Texas Air National Guard.


There's more risk involved flying jets in the National Guard, than writing about a war you didn't experience.

Not really. Charlie wasn't much of a threat to George Bush in Texas. Gore was at least at some risk being over there.

Why did Gore only serve nine months in Vietnam? Did he use his Father's connections or did he get writer's cramp?

Actually, thank Richard Nixon for that. Nixon pulled strings to make sure young Al was kept away from combat zones. And young Al didn't go to Vietnam until his father had already lost re-election to the Senate in 1970. In a biography of Gore, it is noted that he tried to get closer to the action anyway, trying to thwart orders to the contrary.

Andrew

Al Gore enlisted in the Army on August 7, 1969 as PR for Al Gore Sr.'s Senate relection in 1971.

What is the worst that could happen is a typewriter malfuctions? What is the worst that could happen if a jet malfuctions?

I've posted the statistics before, flying jet fighters for the air guard, was more dangerous than any military job, except infantry in vietnam or flying in vietnam.

And Gore didnt complete his contract, he was given an early out, just like the President received. Which was normal at that time, Vietnam was winding down, and the military was downsizing itself.

nw sez: "Vietnam was winding down, and the military was downsizing itself."

Downsizing? And Nixon, a Republican, was president, right?

Yep

Herb spewed this>>>>
Nice spin. Unfortunately for the revisionist left, Mr. Clinton's crimes and failures are all too true.

And with your rose colored glASSes on DUHbya can do no wrong.

Hardly, Trixter.

Please don't lie, because I disagree with Mr. Bush on plenty and have stated it here many times.

When you start spinning lies, that's when I know you're running scared.

Herb

LIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
WTF!

Running scared.....
LMFAO!

How much Lithium do you take a day. It's time to get a grip on REALITY! Take some Geritol and wake the F up!

You continue to lie about what I believe and what I have stated here many times.

I would like to think that the 'L' in Liberal doesn't stand for Lie. Prove me wrong.

Herb

Prove you wrong?
WTF!
Prove to us that your not a Fascists wind bag that wants everything his way because he remembers a time long ago when EVERYONE thought his way.
By the way I'm a Republican.

Trixter, please stop lying about being a Republican.

Why?

He's a registered Republican. That IS ALL it takes to be able to say: "I'm a Republican."

It's like being a fan of a sports team. If one says they are a Republican, they are. Simple as that.

Hey Trixter, check this out:

The PDXRadio dodge list was lost in the last board reset. No biggie. Seems someobdy else has the same idea, only refined it into a whole book!

Top ways we see people trying to support the unsupportable:

False Choice: Offering only two options for consideration when there are clearly other valid choices.

Example: "If we give up the fight in the streets of Baghdad, we will face the terrorists in the streets of our own cities." ---George W. Bush

Strawman: Oversimplifying, exaggerating, caricaturing, of otherwise misrepresenting your position without regard to fact. In doing this, your opponent sets up a figurative strawman that he can easily knock down to prove his point.

Example: "Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 in the attacks and prepared for war; liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers." ---Karl Rove

Shifting The Burden of Proof: Presenting an argument as commonly accepted truth, failing to support it with any evidence, and then forcing you to prove otherwise. This tactic is employed out of laziness or to mask the reality that the facts are not on your opponent's side.

Example: "I think the burden is on those people who think he didn’t have weapons of mass destruction to tell the world where they are." ---[Former White House press secretary] Ari Fleischer, on Saddam Hussein's alleged WMDs

Slippery Slope Leaping to wild, sometimes inexplicable conclusions---going, say, from Step One to Step Two and then all the way to Step Ten without establishing any discernible connection. By using this kind of leapfrog logic, a person can come to any conclusion he damn well pleases.

Example: "All of a sudden, we see riots, we see protests, we see people clashing. The next thing we know, there is injured or there is dead people. We don’t want to get to that extent." ---Arnold Schwarzenegger, on the dangers posed by gay marriage

Of course this all works to sway the ignorant. Sadly, that's enough of us to make that 23 percent quite the problem.

And we've got Herb here with that brilliant:

"I would like to think that the 'L' in Liberal doesn't stand for Lie."

That's a solid one Herb! Nicely done!

I guess the 'L' in Liberal does stand for lie.

That's because not only does Trixter not distance himself from his false statements about my beliefs, he then tries to play the blame game.

Of course, what are we to expect from the apostles of Bill Clinton.

I can't wait until 2008. Keep it up.

Herb

I really cant believe Trixter hasnt atleast upgraded his style of post over the years, everything he says is a carbon copy of all his other post and or topics. He has one thing going for him though, he is a hell of alot smarter then 90% of othet Bush hating morons here, he atleast knows the Democrats are a fucked up party and registered Republican.

Now off I dissapear again......

Herb what you don't understand is it's the likes of yourself that are going to lose it for US upstanding centered Republicans.

Keep the shit up that your doing now and November will belong to Hillary!

Trixter, I would never believe anything that self-hating so-called Republicans like yourself have to say about the GOP.

In fact, I see you like John Kitzhaber, the ACLU and NARAL. Pick a topic, find out their position and vote the EXACT opposite.

If you're at odds with your own party as a so-called Republican, why should anyone listen to what you say?

Herb

"I can't wait until 2008. Keep it up." -Herb

Yeah, I'll bet you can't wait for 2008 like the Buffalo Bills can't wait for the next Super Bowl.

I can't wait for 2008 either. It will be another ass-whupping for your team, big time.

Hey Mr. Brains-Place your faith in leftist politics all you want.

The more American voters learn about your soft on terror candidates, the more likely they'll be to vote Republican.

Herb

"The more American voters learn about your soft on terror candidates, the more likely they'll be to vote Republican."

Yep, just like the right was going to gain seats in the Senate and House in 2006 because the left was "soft on terror".

See, the problem for you is this: The voters have figured out that your way doesn't work. Your way has increased terror, not decreased it. So, when things don't work, things get replaced. See the 2006 results as an example. See the current state of John McCain's quest to be president by continuing the mistake in Iraq as another.

With 22 GOP Senate seats up for grabs in 2008, compared to only 12 Dems, care to place a wager that the GOP gives up more seats? We can go double or nothing if you want to throw in the House as well.

"Your way has increased terror, not decreased it."

I seriously thought you were smarter than that.

On 9/11, we were not in Afghanistan, nor were we in Iraq.

But we were attacked anyway. Don't make us the bad guy here. That kind of socialist sniveling makes most Americans puke.

If you think that the terrorists will take it easy on us if we stop our fight on terror, think again.

It hasn't kept them from bombing Spain, London and other socialist-friendly locations, whilst cutting off the heads of innocents.

The socialist left indeed remains soft on terror. And it doesn't work. But you know what does work? Taking care of guys like Zarqawi and Saddam Hussein. You know why? Because they can't kill the innocent anymore.

Stop defending the good guys for once and start going after the bad guys for a change.

Herb

Herb, you're in denial of the facts here.

First of all, who was president on 9/11 and why didn't they do a better job of dealing with the terrorist threat of planes being flown into buildings when they were warned this was a possibility? Why wasn't airline security increased?

Second, Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 or terrorism in general until we invaded. Now we have something called "Al Qaida in Iraq" that didn't even exist before our presence.

Third, I don't advocate just turning over on our bellies and letting the bad guys do what they want. That's a straw man and you know it.

Fourth, Zarqawi and Saddam may be gone, but there are thousands waiting in the wings to take over for them. We can't kill them all, therefore we must use other options at our disposal.

This is all the same crap we heard prior to the last election.

Isn't that one where...

the GOP took it HARD in the sack?

Yeah, I thought so too.

So, what's changed now?

Maybe they like it?

Herb said>>>
In fact, I see you like John Kitzhaber, the ACLU and NARAL.

A bald face LIE!

HERB!!!!!
EARTH TO HERB!

WAKE THE F UP!!!!!!!

OPEN YOUR GD EYES AND READ OTHERS POSTS!

First of all, Mr. Bush had been in office mere months when 9/11 happened. Prior to that, YOUR guy had been in office for EIGHT YEARS as Mr. Clinton sold our secrets to our enemies whilst stripping our military capability.

Second, terrorists oft work in concert. In addition, Saddam used gas to kill his own people. To deny these facts is to deny reality.

Third, actually, you are wrong. Many on the left are admitted pacifists. Those who aren't are either willing to cut and run or concede that a win in Iraq is a lose for democrats.

Fourth, using your irrational line of reasoning, it would be better to allow evil to triumph. If we ran our military your way, we'd be speaking German, Russian or Japanese.

More leftist drivel from you guys. I hear plenty of platitudes from you on this board. Let's hear your plans, not simply partisan bashing.

Oh, and Trixter: you have now officially become irrelevant. Get back to me when you decide to actually dialogue with those you disagree with.

Herbert Milhous

Clinton did it...


Where's your plan....

Left soft on terror...

That reduced the GOP by one third.

"Clinton did it"

He was impeached, lost his law license and disgraced the white house in multiple ways.

"Where's your plan."

Democrats have none, or they would do more than just carp....even though they're the majority party and are supposed to lead.

"Left soft on terror."

Actually, it's worse than that. The left has not simply rolled over, for we could still fight by stepping over them. Instead, the left is actually helping the enemy like their fellow traveler Jane Fonda in encouraging terrorists to fight and attempting to discourage our troops by saying we can't win.

"That reduced the GOP by one third."

The democrat-controlled party has lower approval than the president they bash.

More of the same from hand-wringing socialists. You guys need some new talking points.

Herb

Obstructionists...

False, "Look, your numbers are low too" comparison...

Socialists...

Hand wringing....

That too saw the GOP shrink by a third.

Bonus points for "Attack where they are weak."

It's you that needs new talking points Herb.

Whilst adhominimly hamfisting Nixon!

With extra cheese!

Yick!

Hey guys, the Troll is STILL eating 2006 election day crow. Consider his posts as burps from his digestive system. If you want to engage in converstation with troll-crow digestive burps, be my guest!

Herb IGNORANTLY said>>>>
Oh, and Trixter: you have now officially become irrelevant. Get back to me when you decide to actually dialogue with those you disagree with.

You became irrelevant months ago when you kept bringing up Nixon who resigned in DISGRACE and ramming abortion down our Fin throats all the GD time!

Herb said>>>
He was impeached, lost his law license and disgraced the white house in multiple ways.

So did TRICKY "DICK" when he resigned in DISGRACE and put Ford in charge. What's your point???