Character also counts.
Both Mitt and his 5 sons never served in the military.
They have been to busy making money on the backs of those defending the country.
Nathan Jessup would be proud of your post. LOL
I’m not deliriously happy about any of the candidates. They all have major drawbacks.
It is possible for someone to have character without military service. And military service isn’t a guarantee that you can do the job well.
I would prefer someone who had done some service. Did Richard Nixon ever serve? Wasn’t he raised Quaker?
The DebateFor what it's worth, Romney looks stronger and stronger to me. He's in his zone, he's nailed down his positions, he's confident and articulate, and he has charisma. I thought McCain held his own. He, too, was confident. He did a better job than the last debate. However, his position on interrogations is simply ridiculous when held up to scrutiny. I don't think Rudy gained very much. A forum where 10 candidates get equal attention is simply not helpful to a front-runner. But I am becoming increasingly impressed with Duncan Hunter. He's poised, has a good grasp of the issues, and is consistent. He's solid on national security, and I like his idea about zero taxes for the manufacturing sector (although I don't believe I share his overall approach to economics). In my own mind, it would be nice if he'd move into the first tier of candidates. Being a member of the House, however, his name identification and public exposure remains limited.
O my God...on the backs of those serving in the military...that is so looney. Because someone doesn’t serve in the military does not make them any less of character. I am sure that the Romneys appreciate the military alot and we all support them with our tax dollars. Romney has enough character to help many businesses be successful and helped to provide many jobs for people as well as running a very liberal state and he still held onto his conservative core principals.