Based on your description, I don't think that was so cringeworthy. It always bugs me when people say stuff like, "Why doesn't Bush SEND his daughters to Iraq?" like he can just pack them up and ship them out regardless of whether they want to go.

I don't think there's anything wrong with his kids not serving. That makes him no different from the other 20 guys running for president. It's the "my son is serving America by driving an RV across Iowa to campaign for me" part.

So I was Googling for "Chinese wedding traditions" to add a little bit of my fiancee's culture to our upcoming ceremony, and here's what I got:

Retreating to the Cock Loft
In preparation for her impending departure, the bride-to-be retreated from the ordinary routine and lived in seclusion in a separate part of the house with her closest friends. During this period, the young women sang laments, mourning the bride’s separation from her family and cursing the go-between as well as the groom’s family and even the girl’s own parents. Since this extended ‘sleep over’ often took place in the cock loft, the bride’s emergence on her wedding day was sometimes referred to as "coming out of the cock loft."

Honestly, I agree with Andrew Sullivan on this. It's amusing, but not important. Like seeing someone walk into a glass door.

Yes, but how does Sullivan feel about the cock loft?

GB, it's a question designed both to point out the gap between the words of war-supporting candidates and their actions (or actions of those close to them) and to remind potential presidents that the troops are the sons and daughters of real people. Given that the only domestic constituencies helped by the Iraq war have been corporate elites and insiders, while the costs have been shifted to others, I'd say this question is on balance a fair one.

Romney's son's RV has a cock loft? Wow. Pretty hip for a Republican.

TT: In other words, it's cheap demagoguery. More shocking news: many candidates are wealthy, yet oppose raising the minimum wage.

GB, BS.

Why is it a cheap shot for any citizen to point out that our politicians are sending our sons and daughters off to fight in battles in which they have no personal stake, having neither served in the military or any children serving? We should never lightly wage war, and the absence of this personal linkage is one factor that makes it easier for Presidents and Congress to make poor decisions that are paid for by others.

Isn't that in fact what has happened here? This particular war has cost us a trillion so far, precious blood (not including ragheads, of course), and our good name, and will continue to pay dividends for decades - for a war that was sold to us with lies, without adequate planning and without explanations that would sustain long-term citizen support.

You might think this question to be a cheap shot, but it can be posed to candidates across the spectrum and I for one think that it is absolutely appropriate, nay, even essential, for citizens to find ways to make politicians feel the costs of war.

Moreso in light of the republicans' current rationale that the neverending war on the middle east is the apocalyptic struggle of the millennium. If it's that urgent, you and your family can do more to support it than drive an RV. If it's not, GTFO.

The point, I think, is that Romney's moral leadership is so weak he has been unable to motivate any of his own children to take up the cause he so fervently supports. Imagine if it came out that he had paid for a daughter's abortion.

I basically agree with 4, and "Has he forgotten 9/11?" was much, much more cringeworthy.

What I love about this statement is the implied monarchic ideology: "my sons are serving The Nation by serving Their Father." Bring on the great chain of being!

He should have said no, and pointed out that his son's actions are their decision. That said, he responded to the implied question rather than the stated one--do you put your money where your mouth is--accurately: he doesn't.

Have Mitt Romney's children forgotten 9/11?

Also, I like the phrase, "Start your cringines."

4
Andrew Sullivan,
"he did a great job of putting his foot in his mouth"

And he should keep it there >: [

11: "Romney's moral leadership is so weak he has been unable to motivate any of his own children to take up the cause he so fervently supports."

Charles, are you serious? It may perhaps be a systemic failing that the ruling class has better opportunities for their children that they don't need to get involved in occupations that are quite liable to get them killed, but it's hardly a moral failing, especially as we live in a society where we don't control the choices of our adult offspring. That's why protests of "demagoguery" may have some slight resonance (though NOT when directed by a citizen against a politician).

11: It's interesting to look at this situation and say that a politician's kids aren't supporting GOP rhetoric, in that they're not "fighting for their country's freedoms"; rather than think they might be taking an "I don't want to kill people" approach to avoiding military service.
I'd be far more appalled with a candidate who pleaded/forced one of his kids to enlist because it would look better for his campaign. His children aren't his "money" to put where his mouth is. They're autonomous people.

11: Of course kids are free to make their own decisions, but had their father himself served, then perhaps at least one would have felt the call to take part in such a nobel cause as this. I wonder whether the boys have done their missionary service.

BTW: Giuliani's daughter has said she plans to vote for Obama. I guess she won't be taking the bus tour.

Giuliani's son has said he'd be too busy working on his golf game to campaign for his father. That's gotta sting. I'm guessing Rudy won't be running as the "family values" candidate.

He can still run with family values: the New Hotness Family values instead of the Old 'n Busted Family values. It's all about trading up.

While my heart bleeds for those American soldiers being killed every day, what really bugs me is the way the candidates nearly unanimously continue to embrace the concept of expanding the American Empire with not a wit to the looming danger of its imminent financial and moral bankruptcy.

Yeah dammit the notion of drafting these candidates' children into war is pleasing to me. Chelsea Clinton, GI Jane, marching in combat boots across a crackling, smoldering, glowing radioactive landscape in Iran whose invasion had been softened by tactical nukes in strikes ordered by her own mother.

That would be the day. Or any other candidates' kid for that matter.

Jon, I'm with you. Everyone else seems focussed on handicapping the race, but neglecting to see that the mainstream candidates are all running on more of the big government/big empire platforms that have got us into this mess in the first place. Seems that the past few decades have no lessons to teach.

Sanctimonious much?

Sorry. I guess I'm just trying to engage on the wrong level here.

Why try to have serious conversations about why Democrats Say Leaving Iraq May Take Years, or why Dems do nothing about the war despite having control of Congress - except to even more broadly authorize Bush's illegal domestic spying? Especially in the dog days of summer, we all much prefer lighter fare, don't we?

25: I'll take that as a "yes".

Ever consider that www.apostropher.com might not be the sole, or even prime, outlet for "everyone else['s]" political activism and advocacy? Ever think that maybe, just maybe, serious conversations might take place outside your online presence? Ever ponder whether perhaps it's your sanctimonious tone that makes others unwilling to engage you in such conversations?

Yes, yes and yes, thanks. Except I see it as a burdensome seriousness and occasional needling sarcasm rather than sanctimony, but I do lack an instinct for tone, so let me ponder than some more.

I've always believed messages boards could use a scratch 'n sniff feature so we can all smell the sarcasm.