Presidential hopeful Mitt Romney recently spoke before a crowd in Iowa. A full account of the story can be found here. Long story short, Romney equated his sons' work on his campaign to service to the country. Of course, a gaffe like this wouldn't be acceptable during peacetime, but with an ongoing war in the Middle East, Romney's comments should just about finish him off, sturdy chin and all.
Shockingly, the mainstream media all but ignored the gaffe. Luckily The Daily Show devoted a segment to it, which can be viewed here.
Believe it or not, the Right flocked to defend Romney's comments. Comments on USA Today's blog offered these gems:
"Lets see, what army did Hilly and Barak serve in? Maybe the career politician's wife army, the Wal Mart army or the Nigerian madrassa army."
"Is Mit(sic) Romney running for president or his sons?...They are adults and they make their own decisions. "
"This is America and, right now, there is no conscription so get over it."
"I guess I forgot that Clinton was a war hero, as was Obama and Hillary. And let's not forget that Chelsea was a Navy Seal when she decided to serve her country."
Not surprisingly, these Righties completely missed the relevance of Romney's statements. The point is NOT that Romney's sons chose not to serve in the military. No one is suggesting a parent should steer their children into military service (that's what military recruiters are for). The point of the story is that the ever-hawkish Romney is equating military service with working for your dad's election campaign (and doing so in wartime, no less). There are few things one can do that can compare to wartime military service. Maybe an undercover police officer or firefighter, but I'm pretty certain working on your dad's presidential campaign is not even in the same ballpark as military service. Just because your dad is running for public office doesn't mean you are providing some public service.
The problem with Romney's statement is that he should have stopped talking at: "They've chosen not to serve in the military in active duty and I respect their decision in that regard."
To add the line: "my sons are showing support for our nation is helping me get elected because they think I'd be a great president," is disrespectful to the many, many Americans who don't think Romney would make a great president and don't feel his sons' work should be considered "supporting our nation." Last I checked, our nation was made up of many diverse people, not just those who would vote for Mitt Romney, which by recent polls is only about 6-8% of Republicans.
Helping to elect a president is not any service to the country. It is service to one particular candidate from one particular party. In Romney's case, it is a service to a very small percentage of Americans who want to see Mitt elected (as I mentioned, only 6-8% of HIS OWN PARTY!). Given that many of Mitt's views (Guantanamo, the Iraq surge, the environment, health care, Mormonism) are out of touch with MOST of America, one could reasonably argue that aiding Mitt's campaign is actually a DISSERVICE to the country AS A WHOLE.
I have volunteered for my political party before, and I can proudly say I lack the audacity to call my service a "service to the country." I was providing a service to my political party, and no one else. By contrast, our military doesn't discriminate who it supports and defends. The military defends ALL Americans EQUALLY, regardless of gender, race, economic status or political ideology, thus military service qualifies as "service to the country."
Perhaps if Mitt is elected, and his sons were to assume government posts (and not political ones), they could be considered public servants. However, if the current Bush administration is any indication, the office of the presidency doesn't exactly serve all Americans equally either. If you are a GOP campaign contributor, a corporation, an evangelical, a right-wing pundit, or "loyal Bushie," the service you receive from the executive branch is much different from the service the rest of us get.
Shockingly, the mainstream media all but ignored the gaffe. Luckily The Daily Show devoted a segment to it, which can be viewed here.
Believe it or not, the Right flocked to defend Romney's comments. Comments on USA Today's blog offered these gems:
"Lets see, what army did Hilly and Barak serve in? Maybe the career politician's wife army, the Wal Mart army or the Nigerian madrassa army."
"Is Mit(sic) Romney running for president or his sons?...They are adults and they make their own decisions. "
"This is America and, right now, there is no conscription so get over it."
"I guess I forgot that Clinton was a war hero, as was Obama and Hillary. And let's not forget that Chelsea was a Navy Seal when she decided to serve her country."
Not surprisingly, these Righties completely missed the relevance of Romney's statements. The point is NOT that Romney's sons chose not to serve in the military. No one is suggesting a parent should steer their children into military service (that's what military recruiters are for). The point of the story is that the ever-hawkish Romney is equating military service with working for your dad's election campaign (and doing so in wartime, no less). There are few things one can do that can compare to wartime military service. Maybe an undercover police officer or firefighter, but I'm pretty certain working on your dad's presidential campaign is not even in the same ballpark as military service. Just because your dad is running for public office doesn't mean you are providing some public service.
The problem with Romney's statement is that he should have stopped talking at: "They've chosen not to serve in the military in active duty and I respect their decision in that regard."
To add the line: "my sons are showing support for our nation is helping me get elected because they think I'd be a great president," is disrespectful to the many, many Americans who don't think Romney would make a great president and don't feel his sons' work should be considered "supporting our nation." Last I checked, our nation was made up of many diverse people, not just those who would vote for Mitt Romney, which by recent polls is only about 6-8% of Republicans.
Helping to elect a president is not any service to the country. It is service to one particular candidate from one particular party. In Romney's case, it is a service to a very small percentage of Americans who want to see Mitt elected (as I mentioned, only 6-8% of HIS OWN PARTY!). Given that many of Mitt's views (Guantanamo, the Iraq surge, the environment, health care, Mormonism) are out of touch with MOST of America, one could reasonably argue that aiding Mitt's campaign is actually a DISSERVICE to the country AS A WHOLE.
I have volunteered for my political party before, and I can proudly say I lack the audacity to call my service a "service to the country." I was providing a service to my political party, and no one else. By contrast, our military doesn't discriminate who it supports and defends. The military defends ALL Americans EQUALLY, regardless of gender, race, economic status or political ideology, thus military service qualifies as "service to the country."
Perhaps if Mitt is elected, and his sons were to assume government posts (and not political ones), they could be considered public servants. However, if the current Bush administration is any indication, the office of the presidency doesn't exactly serve all Americans equally either. If you are a GOP campaign contributor, a corporation, an evangelical, a right-wing pundit, or "loyal Bushie," the service you receive from the executive branch is much different from the service the rest of us get.
No comments:
Post a Comment