CO-04 (Special Election) See Full Big Line

(R) Greg Lopez

(R) Trisha Calvarese

90%

10%

President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Biden*

(R) Donald Trump

80%

20%↓

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

90%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

90%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

(R) Ron Hanks

40%

30%

20%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(R) Deborah Flora

(R) J. Sonnenberg

30%↑

15%↑

10%↓

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Dave Williams

(R) Jeff Crank

50%↓

50%↑

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

90%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) Brittany Pettersen

85%↑

 

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

(R) Janak Joshi

60%↑

35%↓

30%↑

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
September 08, 2012 01:41 AM UTC

Did Romney just officially kill his chances with veterans?

  • 24 Comments
  • by: SSG_Dan

( – promoted by Colorado Pols)

The RNC based their entire convention on a manipulated misquote by Obama. Now the DNC will demolish Romney for a real quote.

Contrary to right-leaning opinion, the initial criticism of Romney’s deliberate omission of deployed troops in his RNC acceptance speech came from a prominent CONSERVATIVE columnist, Bill Kristol. Since that column, that criticism has been growing against the GOP for not even mentioning veterans and the military in their entire convention…a serious mistake pounced on by Democrats who made sure their real contributions to military families and veteran issues were at the forefront of their convention.

Undeterred, Romney was given a chance to respond to this contemptuous snub of America’s bravest warriors.

His answer? “They’re not important.”

Let me give it to you in text form:


   BAIER: To hear several speakers in Charlotte … they were essentially saying that you don’t care about the U.S. military because you didn’t mention U.S. troops and the war in Afghanistan in your nomination acceptance speech. … Do you regret opening up this line of attack, now a recurring attack, by leaving out that issue in the speech?

   ROMNEY: I only regret you’re repeating it day in and day out. When you give a speech you don’t go through a laundry list, you talk about the things that you think are important and I described in my speech, my commitment to a strong military unlike the president’s decision to cut our military. And I didn’t use the word troops, I used the word military. I think they refer to the same thing.  

Folks, this is not a carefully manipulated distortion of a speech – the GOP Candidate for president specifically stated that the men and women fighting overseas are “not important.”

And despite his unchecked weaseling on a friendly media network, Romney did not even talk about “the military.” He specifically and deliberately excluded mentioning men and women risking their live for their country, and those who have already done so and come home.

Bill Kristol called him on that –

The United States has some 68,000 troops fighting in Afghanistan. Over two thousand Americans have died in the more than ten years of that war, a war Mitt Romney has supported. Yet in his speech accepting his party’s nomination to be commander in chief, Mitt Romney said not a word about the war in Afghanistan. Nor did he utter a word of appreciation to the troops fighting there, or to those who have fought there. Nor for that matter were there thanks for those who fought in Iraq, another conflict that went unmentioned.

Leave aside the question of the political wisdom of Romney’s silence, and the opportunities it opens up for President Obama next week. What about the civic propriety of a presidential nominee failing even to mention, in his acceptance speech, a war we’re fighting and our young men and women who are fighting it? Has it ever happened that we’ve been at war and a presidential nominee has ignored, in this kind of major and formal speech, the war and our warriors?

http://www.weeklystandard.com/…

This seems to be the ironclad proof of what I’ve always know – that the Republican’t Party and it’s erstwhile Presidential nominee could give a shit about about the men and women who fight, bleed and die for this nation.

“National Security” only matters when we stuff the Defense budget so full it collapses our economy….the actual brave Americans who carry out the missions are so many “assets” to ignore and discard once their usefulness in campaign ads expires.

This is not a “gaffe.” This is not a “mistake.” This was THE illuminating moment that shows this aloof, out-of-touch Millionaire is incapable and unworthy to hold the highest office of this great nation.

Repubs, it’s OVER. Once this honest admission gets the full scrutiny it deserves, the veteran vote walks away en masse and takes many Independents and moderate Republicans with them.  

Tweet
Share

Comments

24 thoughts on “Did Romney just officially kill his chances with veterans?”

  1. Based on the omission of one word. Romney said “military” instead of “troops.” That’s what you’re attacking him for? Seriously?

    Romney will reverse cuts to our military under Obama. I predict that the military vote will be overwhelmingly for Romney. Servicemen have a very low opinion of Obama. Most of them are saving their opinion for the ballot box, but they’ll make their voices heard!

    Tell Vote Vets Democrats to get a clue, will you?

    1. …..because he was the first candidate since 1952 to NOT mentioned deployed troops fighting overseas. Play ignorant all you want, it happened.

      And he admits above…it was DELIBERATE.

      And you can make GOP talking-point predictions all you want – the people who have and are serving have already stated who they’ll support:

      Weary warriors favor Obama


      If the election were held today, Obama would win the veteran vote by as much as seven points over Romney, higher than his margin in the general population.

      http://www.reuters.com/article…

      1. Just like he thought it important to note his friendships with the NASCAR owners believing that’s all it takes to ingratiate himself with the fans, Mitt equates “The Military” with the actual soldiers.

        More like, as long as the M-I Complex owners get their billions in hardware and consulting sales (much of which the Pentagon doesn’t need or want), Mitt thinks that’s all it takes to show that he “support the troops”.

        Like the rest of his inch-deep policy positions, just more of the same old facile snake-oil pitch.

    3. And shoveling massive amounts of pork off to defense contractors on expensive white-elephant weaponry is the same as supporting the men and women who serve in the Armed Forces?  

    4. Cuts under Obama?

      Whatcha smoking, idiot?

      Compare to GW.  No, wait, there is no comparison.

      The smart miliary personnel understand that the Pubs are not their friends, whether short term or long term VA care.

    5. I am a vet. I know vets.

      WHat you say is likely for the ideologically R, who can’t articulate any specific policy or action/inaction for which they oppose Obama.  He’s ruined America doesn’t count.

      Meanwhile, the active duty I’ve talked with do not want to get deployed to Afghanistan again. Or Iraq. Are glad we haven’t recklessly invaded Syria, no put boots on the ground in Libya.

      I say vote for the guy least likely to start another war.  Obama has been a responsible and effective CinC, showing  restraint in Lubya, Syria, Egypt and other places.  ANd working the military leadership in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    6. I have a friend who was in the invasion of Iraq, he’s voting for Obama.

      I see the thousands of vets returning home from combat with physical and mental injuries and I want them and their families to be cared for. I don’t see Romney doing that.

      1. but, I’m sorry to say that I know a large number of retired, career vets who rely on a couple of inaccurate blogs who are voting for Rmoney. These are all guys and gals who served in Iraq and Afghanistan and see it as their greatest achievement. They had trained for 10-20 years for combat and finally got a chance to use that training. When asked “Why go to Iraq?” their answer is primarily nation building and WMDs. When asked “What WMDs? they say we just couldn’t find them or “Saddam was a WMD”. These folks are also alarmed that the military may shrink and that they are paying more for TriCare. When it is pointed out that their annual TriCare Cost is less than 1 month premium for a private payer they say that doesn’t matter, they were promised…

  2. I think the Democrats can definitely make hay with this – Romney’s and the GOP’s omission was really stupid, even stupider than the Democrats’ omission of God from their initial platform. Romney is sitting there saying it wasn’t “important” for him to mention the military – and even more importantly, a shout-out to our TROOPS – in his convention speech. Just plain stupid.

    In fact, you have to wonder what it says about this supposedly brilliant organizer and wunderkind businessman when he runs a convention so shoddily that they allow Clint Eastwood to go out and berate a chair, and then forget to mention our troops.

    And saying you want to expand funds for “the military” is not the same as saying you support THE TROOPS. “The military” includes all kinds of pork-barrel projects not even desired by the troops. The troops are – well, just that – the TROOPS – and what’s of great interest to them is protection for them once they’re veterans.

  3. Retired Chief Master Sgt. Lifelong Republican.

    Say what you want, ArapGOP, but the reality is the (R)’s haven’t cared much for the actual men and women in the military, whether active duty, or retired, for years now (they do love them every 4 years, though).

    My father is voting for President Obama in November 2012, and he is not alone. He wants a President who actually supports military veterans and honors their service to this country, instead of one who just give our vets lip service every 4 years in a blatant vote-pandering effort.  

      1. Was ROTC Army, used the GI Bill to get his MBA and has run or owned several business and he is voting for Obama. Of course, he also voted for Obama last time too.

    2. and,as my husband pointed out, last week was the first time in our 35 year marriage that my dad said(and I quote), “I ain’t voting for no dumb*ss, sniveling, groveling Republican.”  

      He’s never promised NOT to vote R before.

  4. There are a lot of vocal, like their verbose right wind wing teasuckers, who would try to convince you all vets are hard core Republicans. However, there are a lot more vets who vote Democratic. The Republicans are making that number swell too.

    Republicans are for defense contractor spending, not spending for troops, veterans and Veterans Administration.

    1. They are so full of themselves and care so little for everyone else that they end up getting fragged by their own men.  Doug was a critical character in Animal House because he was so clueless just like today’s Republicans.

  5. Obama is the one who was a young man during the Vietnam war and got out of the draft to go to France. Obama is the one with a fist full of sons who were old enough but chose not to serve in the recent Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Obama is the one who didn’t honor our troops in his acceptance speech or even remember to mention our serving troops at all.

    Now picture what Arap-Bot and friends would be saying about that.

    When Republican pols, operatives and trolls aren’t lying outright, they’re being shameless hypocrites. That’s it. One or the other.

    Dems are no saints (saints aren’t in politics) and not beyond stretching a point or two or three for their own purposes but for sheer depth and astounding brazenness,  they can’t hold a candle to Rs for pure, unabashed dishonesty and hypocrisy. Hats off. It’s a gift, I guess.

  6. that’s a quote from somewhere.

    U no I luv ya, man,

    but you are not correct when you say

    His answer? “They’re not important.”

    As BluCat sez above, this is an exaample of

    sheer depth and astounding brazenness,  

    …

    pure, unabashed dishonesty and hypocrisy.

    I don’t need to parse or explain; you get it.  

    1. OK, Romney did not say “They’re not important.” However, he did say

      When you give a speech you don’t go through a laundry list, you talk about the things that you think are important…

      Romney did go on in this interview to elaborate about “military” vs “troops” (and I haven’t fact checked that to see if that is accurate as to his speech). However, cutting off Romney’s statement to what I quoted above, and interpreting that as meaning Romney didn’t think the troops were important enough to mention (although perhaps the military was) is one hell of a lot more accurate as to what Romney said than “You didn’t build that” was to what Obama said. Just saying.

    2. Whenever Republicans parse things it ends up being different from the original usually by 180 degrees.

      What is curious to me is the disappearing act at the Republican Convention regarding Bush and ignoring our troops who are still serving in foreign lands.

      Bush – absent/invisible

      Military troops – not mentioned or celebrated.

      It is true that Bush used to use the troops as campaign props but at least he recognized their existence is only to exploit them.  Republicans can’t acknowledge the troops without shining a light on the strategic failures of George Bush and the improvement in our national security since a Democrat has served as our Commander-In-Chief.  I know you don’t agree with that statement but tell me what terrorist attack on American citizens has occurred in the last four years that compares to 9/11?

    3. …I forgot that posting on a website much follow both the AP Styleguide and Turabian citation rules.

      Now, in common-sense language, explain to me how what I say is wrong, based on the posted interview.

      I’m not.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

162 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!