Okay, I have to give Romney some defending here — the idea that if he doesn't explicitly call out US troops for praise in a big speech means that he's an unpatriotic and evil politician who hates all our men and women in uniform is asinine. It calls to mine the equally petty "Look, he isn't wearing an American flag as a lapel pin, so he must hate America" attacks that Obama fielded 4 years ago.
I don't think Romney's military policies are particularly well thought out, and his and the GOP's partisan attacks on the sequestration cuts that the Republicans agreed to are outrageous. But those are much more objective matters than these kinds of attacks, whether from the Left or the Right.
Reshared post from +Think Progress
Romney tries to defend himself and only makes it worse
Embedded Link
Romney On Omitting U.S. Troops From RNC Speech: ‘You Talk About Things You Think Are Important’
In an interview with Fox News this afternoon, Mitt Romney shot back at critics who complained that he didn’t mention Afghanistan or praise U.S. troops in his convention speech last week, arguing that …
Google+: View post on Google+
I agree with you on this. I think it's kinda lame to watch the very same people who claim to be weary of hyper-patriotism slamming Romney on this. Fear of this gotcha bullshit is exactly why every politician on the national stage gives the military a sound boot-licking every time somebody points a camera at them.
Yup.
What's kind of interesting is the extent to which folks on the Right have dinged him on this. An attempt to whip him into line, or to distance themselves from what they think will be a November loss?
If British politicians acted in the way that US politicians are EXPECTED too, we’d think there was something wrong with them.
FWIW, @LH, I think there’s something wrong with them, too.
Sorry Dave, I’d usually agree with the idea that some things get blown out of proportion and really don’t amount to much. But not this one. What we’re talking about here is a would-be Commander in Chief that has just effectively reduced the men and women who will have to stand in the line of fire to a “cost of doing business”. It may not be objectively measurable, but the damage that does is no less real.
I don’t think Mr. Romney actively hates our troops, I don’t think he gives them that much thought. His vision of a strong military is measured in ships and planes that will turn a profit for defense contractors (who will then pay virtually no taxes on the money). Between this and an obvious case of hair trigger, which seems to manifest any time things go off-script and I see a man unfit for command. And considering that this is the job he’s applying for, I think the gravity of his remarks is very relevant.
I agree fully with all of the comments in your second paragraph. I still think it’s not obligatory on the occasion of every speech to mention our servicefolk (purely for the sake of mentioning them).
I would agree that it’s not strictly necessary to give a nod to our troops in every speech for every occasion. Especially not if it’s simply pro forma. But this was not “every” occasion. Mr. Romney was accepting the nomination to stand for election as Commander in Chief. And he couldn’t spare 30 seconds out of a 40 minute speech to tell those he would command that he thinks they’re worthy of his notice? Because he wanted to talk about “the, uh, things [he] thinks are important” instead?
The Army’s NCO Guide has a word of advice to newly minted sergeants. It goes something like: “You can fool the people you work for, but you can never fool the people who work for you; the soldiers.” Anyone who aspires to lead needs to understand that. And I don’t believe Mitt Romney does.