<p>but Romneys sons serve our country by serving him</p>
<p>1sokkermom–The “too rich” spin is getting a royal ride with Edwards as well, but in the end I don’t think it’ll work. There have been a number of very affluent presidents (Roosevelt, Kennedy, Bush, Bush) and that factor just seems irrelevant after awhile. … However, the fact that Romney has five sons with no military service might hurt him … or not. It would have been good PR for at least one of them to have some military background. The problem with affluent Americans, both Republican and Democrat, is that they’re perceived (probably correctly) by many as having an unfair “out” when it comes to risking their lives in battle. … People tend to give presidential daughters a free ride–Chelsea, the Bush twins, etc., are not seriously expected to serve. Does anyone know the approximate percentage of female military in Iraq?</p>
<p>(Re: post #61) But Guilliani’s kids don’t even talk to him. At least one of them sure isn’t voting for him. At least the Romney’s seem like a cohesive family. ;)</p>
<p>And we are not sure who Chelsea serves. She has been very invisible in this campaign. Probably a good thing for everyone, especially her. :rolleyes:</p>
<p>The Bush twins serve themselves. A lot.</p>
<p>I don’t even know if Obama has kids.</p>
<p>Post 60 …But, today’s big spin against Romney is that he is just TOO RICH. .</p>
<p>1sokkermom…Can you show me “today’s big spin” somewhere, or is this just something you think is today’s big spin, the reason I ask, to quote a post from long ago and far away, there are other posters who are often deceptive on these threads, and spout out a lot of things that may not be completely accurate. That is really not fair to the other posters who are looking for information.</p>
<p>Yes, I think Chelsea has purposely kept a low profile (probably). She’s certainly not out campaigning for her mom. … She, and the Giulliani kids, have personal reasons to be bitter toward their fathers. Who knows how Chelsea feels about her mom’s presidential campaign, though I assume she’ll quietly support her.</p>
<p>tommybill–I’ve heard the same thing about Romney, as well as Edwards. Too rich, too pampered, perhaps too out of touch with real America–whatever that is. Remember when Bush senior toured a grocery store and was incredulous over the electronic scanners?</p>
<p>From the time their child was born to today the Clintons have been very protective of her….for the most part they have kept her out of the side show that is part of politics…stop making stuff up…. it is unbecoming….</p>
<p>I’ve heard the same thing about Romney,…,does that make it “the big spin” of the day</p>
<p>"I wonder what kind of “good news” the House majority whip could possibly be concerned about?? "</p>
<p>There is a fair amount of good news coming out on Iraq - starting with several New York Times articles/reporters and also most recently from a der Spiegel reporter:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But, as long as the Dems have their allies in the major networks working to proliferate the views of bombs and bloodshed, the Democratic Whip may breath a bit easy and he and the other Dems can still talk about the war being “already lost”.</p>
<p>But, you miss the real point - the fact that he would admit that good news in Iraq translates into bad news for “us” speaks volumes about where he stands with respect to good news for the country versus good news for the Dems.</p>
<p>(Re: Post #64) Gee, tommybill, if that is a quote from me, I’m flattered. Although, I have to admit that it is a bit creepy that you went back and looked for a quote in order to prove a point. Still flattering, though, I guess. Thanks.</p>
<p>That said, I was referring to the media “spin”. Unless you live under a rock and do not read newspapers or listen to the news, you may not have heard anything today about Romney’s wealth. </p>
<p>You told us (not that long ago) that you read newspapers. I won’t waste your time or mine regurgitating your words exactly. Did you skip that section today?</p>
<p>I’ll help you out finding the information. Google the word “Romney” under “News”. The first hit includes at least 89 articles about his “wealth”. Is that media spin? You can decide. :eek:</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>agree with all those adjectives, hindoo–especially “scary”…</p>
<p>tommybill–You’re absolutely right about Chelsea. The Clintons, despite whatever personal issues they may have had with each other, did an amazing job under the most difficult of circumstances, of raising their daughter into a fine young woman. She was never cited for underage drinking, always deported herself with grace and dignity, graduated without scandal from a great college, and has since stayed out of the public eye as much as possible. All of this after having been verbally and very publicly assaulted years ago by the Rush Limbaughs of the world–those big, brave, right-wing souls who saw fit to make fun of how an adolescent girl looked, for God’s sake. What could be more despicable than that? … So, who’s making things up about Chelsea Clinton? And what are we making up? Is the fact that she might have been mortified by her father’s antics with Monica Lewinsky a fairytale? I voted for Bill twice and have never forgiven him for throwing the door wide open to hypocritical Republican criticism of Democratic morality.</p>
<p>
My “information” is really my opinion. You are welcome to your opinion as well, but perhaps if you substantiate it with facts or supportive arguments other than a god-like pronunciation that I am not correct, it would be more credible.</p>
<p>From Today’s Washington Post: (an example of the many stories posted today)</p>
<p>"Romney is by far the wealthiest candidate in the presidential field. He has already pumped about $9 million into his campaign from his personal wealth. The report suggests he could easily tap that vein again.</p>
<p>Presidential candidates had been required to file such disclosures by May 15, but Romney asked for two 45-day extensions to obtain detailed values of his and his wife’s blind trusts.</p>
<p>The delay allowed Romney to file two days after the Iowa straw poll, a nonbinding but politically significant rite of passage in a state that holds the first presidential caucus. Romney won the straw poll with 31.5 percent after spending generously in the state on ads and mobilizing supporters."</p>
<p>“In many cities and villages in Iraq’s 18 provinces, terrorist networks are either weaker or have been destroyed entirely.”</p>
<p>Do you really, honestly believe that we’re weakening the terrorist networks or destroying them entirely? It’s the height of naivete if you do. The Islamic terrorists are rabidly insane and as elusive as mercury–push them out of one place and they’ll most assuredly reappear in another. Multifold. Rather than weakening terrorist networks, I think we’re strengthening them dramatically. Radical hatred doesn’t play by gentlemanly rules of war. We won’t be gathering the “defeated” troops on board a ship someday and declaring victory. Rather, our invasion of Iraq has opened the gates of hell for the forseeable future, with exponential ramifications similar to a stone hitting water. </p>
<p>I wish I could believe as you do. It would at least be comforting, even if totally inane and wrong. But as far as I’m concerned, we’re killing people, we’re being killed, and the situation is getting worse with each passing day.</p>
<p>“But, as long as the Dems have their allies in the major networks working to proliferate the views of bombs and bloodshed, the Democratic Whip may breath a bit easy and he and the other Dems can still talk about the war being “already lost”.”<br>
Five American soldiers killed today in a helicopter accident in Iraq. Did CNN, that zany, left-wing mouthpiece just make this up? Ask the parents of the soldiers on that helicopter.</p>
<p>“In many cities and villages in Iraq’s 18 provinces, terrorist networks are either weaker or have been destroyed entirely.”</p>
<p>Do you really, honestly believe that we’re weakening the terrorist networks or destroying them entirely? It’s the height of naivete if you do. The Islamic terrorists are rabidly insane and as elusive as mercury–push them out of one place and they’ll most assuredly reappear in another. Multifold. Rather than weakening terrorist networks, I think we’re strengthening them dramatically. Radical hatred doesn’t play by gentlemanly rules of war. We won’t be gathering the “defeated” troops on board a ship someday and declaring victory. Rather, our invasion of Iraq has opened the gates of hell for the forseeable future, with exponential ramifications similar to a stone hitting water. </p>
<p>I wish I could believe as you do. It would at least be comforting, even if totally inane and wrong. But as far as I’m concerned, we’re killing people, we’re being killed, and the situation is getting worse with each passing day.</p>
<p>“But, as long as the Dems have their allies in the major networks working to proliferate the views of bombs and bloodshed, the Democratic Whip may breath a bit easy and he and the other Dems can still talk about the war being “already lost”.”<br>
Five American soldiers killed today in a helicopter accident in Iraq. Did CNN, that zany, left-wing mouthpiece just make this up? Ask the parents of the soldiers on that helicopter.</p>
<p>Hindoo,</p>
<p>Even though I am not currently supporting the Dem’s current front-runner, I agree with most of what you say about the war. The very scary thing to me is that my (only) son decided to join ROTC (against my better wishes), and will be commissioned as an Officer in the army in one year. </p>
<p>The war has become a very very personal issue to me. The current Democratic front-runner has not made herself clear on that issue in my opinion.</p>
<p>I’m still an Independent…finding myself with very conflicting feelings about most of the candidates on either side. I am concerned about the war, but I am concerned about a lot of other issues too.</p>
<p>1sokkermom–Bless you, and your wonderful son! I have two girls of military age–almost 18 and almost 20. I am so opposed to this war, if it ever comes right down to a draft, I’d volunteer myself rather than put either of them in harm’s way! An enraged middle-aged, menopausal woman with an AK-47 gripped in her clenched fists–heh! … I’m a Democrat, but independent enough to anyone who makes sense to me. Right now, the Iraq war doesn’t make sense. But give me that automatic rifle and turn me loose on some Taliban …</p>
<p>I love my son (and daughter and husband) more than anything, but its probably good that I didn’t have the AK -47 (whatever that is) in sight when my son made this big announcement. At least he didn’t drop out of college. He’ll graduate first *. ;)</p>
<p>My daughter has a chronic illness (Insulin dependent diabetes) that prevents her from joining the army. This is the first time that we have seen her condition as a blessing. So, health care is a big issue for me too.</p>
<p>I also own a small business (that I may have to sell because I am getting slaughtered with employee related issues), and I work for an environmental/recycling company, and my husband works for a transportation/infrastructure company. </p>
<p>I guess I am every candidates’ worst nightmare! I have too many big issues, and so little time… :D</p>
<ul>
<li>Education is a BIG priority in our house.</li>
</ul>
<p>Plus, you’re a Soccer Mom! As am I. The universal language–soccer!</p>