Monday, December 19, 2005

What the media won't tell you.

Now, let me put my "disclaimer" up first. I have no problem with anyone running for office. Democrat or Republican. I won't vote Democrat, but I have no problem with anyone running. I also repsect all people who serve in our armed forces, and if they run Democrat after serving active duty, more power to them.

Now, on to my post!

Here in Northern Illinois, all the "buzz" is about Major Ladda "Tammy" Duckworth. She is a double amputy running for congress in a VERY Republican district of 32 years. She is hoping to replace a retiring Republican congressman.

I don't know much about the race so far, since my district is Speaker of the House, Denny Hastert's district. However, I know that the area Tammy is running for includes Hoffman Estates, and that alone will make it hard for a democrat to win.

I love how this is getting national attention on the news. And, only because she is an Iraq war veteran running as a Democrat.

What isn't the media telling you?

That the reason why her (and other Iraq veterans) are running as Democrats, is because the Republican veterans re-enlisted. But, of course no one is lending an ear to the brave people who go back in because they believe in protecting our country. Have you heard any stories about the people who go back to fight? Of course not, but there's many who have a story to tell. Trust me, it shouldn't be a surprise that there are more Democrat Iraq veterans running for office than there are Republicans, for the very reason I wrote above. Republicans believe in this war, and keep gonig back to fight it. Democrats are cowarding over here, trying to buy votes with the "I hate Bush" mantra. However, it is always amuzing, if not irritating, to see the media focus on any "anti-Bush" B.S. than the good news of the war.

Tammy is forbidden from making political statements until she is discharged, but I bet $10, that anti-Bush diatribe is the first thing out of her mouth.

posted by Angry Republican Mom @ 2:07 PM  

31 Comments:

  • At 5:14 PM, Blogger Meegan said…

    You're Republican -- did you ever serve?

     

  • At 6:01 PM, Blogger Angry Republican Mom said…

    First of all, I don't think women should serve in combat.

    Second, I did a step below that, Civil Air Patrol (if you haven't heard of them, google search it). I'd still be in it, if there was an active unit close by me. And, because of that involvement, I was sponsored to learn to fly by the USAF, and had a full acceptance to Colorado Springs (an officer school), but a combo of heart surgery and an engagement (not to Karl, lolol) called that off. :(

    I tried to get back in, but you can't have a heart surgery to fly fighters.

    Karl has served in the infantry, and did for several years. He tried to re-enlist recently, but his age and children prevent him from doing so.

     

  • At 6:11 PM, Blogger Angry Republican Mom said…

    Meegan:

    BTW, how was the relevant to the post? I'm talking about the media being biased.

    It doesn't matter, Cindy Sheehan is getting old, so I suppose this is the new person to squeeze all the hate out of.

    And, for all the "heroes", I still don't hear a plan anywhere. Do the democrats even have a platform anymore? I'm sorry, but hating Bush and war isn't a strategy. I don't hear about how the dems are going to solve terrorist problems, how they would have cleaned up Katrina (oh wait, that IS a democratic state and city, a supposed example of how we idiot republicans are supposed to live). I don't hear about how to clean up the air, other than various special interest groups arguing w/each other over how windfarms kill sparrows.

    I could go on.

     

  • At 5:51 AM, Blogger NAL said…

    And there are those, ARM, who choose to not enlist because they no longer believe in the war. I think it's a shame you would go down the path of denigrating their service. AT LEAST she had the balls to actually serve during wartime. I think Mr. Cheney's 5 deferments and Bush's Vietnam avoidance are apparent.

    Yes, we appreciate those men AND women who re-enlist. As a feminist supporter, I actually do advocate female enlistments and I certainly think she along with Paul Hackett and others not only have the right but the obligation to serve the country when and if they feel they are 'called' to do so.

    Your litany of excuses for not serving (along with Karl's) is usually what war mongering Republicans resort to. You're better than that. Admit it: there is no desire on your or your husband's part to serve...

    And remember, I still like ya'...

     

  • At 6:50 AM, Blogger Angry Republican Mom said…

    What are you talking about Doc? I said that I respect anyone who would run for office. I sign everyone's petitions to get on the ballot in my area, Democrat or Republican. I said that within the first couple lines. Encourage everyone to run, but then vote for who you would support.

    And, I also told Meegan that my husband TRIED to re-enlist. Look up the rules, Karl cannot because of age and children. He was on the phone, trying to convice them to take him back, much to my shock. You're going to call him a coward? Did you ever serve? You're opportunity to do so was during the Clinton years, did you serve your country then, when we were in "peace" and you didn't have anything to worry about (other than the terrorists building their plan to attack)?

    As far as I go, I also cannot enlist. I had heart surgery in 1998, and that bucks me out right there. I would not enlist anyway, I'd go to officer school as I intended to be a fighter pilot. But, I can't. Gina would tell you it was always my dream to be in a dogfight, since what, 11? Sigh. If it wasn't for my responsibility to my children and if I didn't have the heart condition, I'd LOVE to fly again. I love it.

    I also think that once you have children, you shouldn't enlist anyway. Kudos to the families that make it work, but I don't think it's fair to the kids to have both parents gone, which is what you are asking. It's a career choice that should be thought out, and if you go that road, at least one parent should not be serving, because of undue pressure to the kids, and the social system. Gina stays home, and teaches with her two children. That's a good way to go. Both parents being gone? Not good...

    But, I'm not surprised that you look past my reasons. I'm also not surprised that you saw past my point of the media being biased, and immediately started talking about my "lack of service". I'm sure I've done more than you in this arena, even before the war.

    Do you think as a 26 year old mother of two I should be serving? Do you think my husband, a business owner and father of 5, should fold everything up, put three employees on unemployment, and cause two households to go bankrupt? What kind of service is that? That's a pretty shitty point you're trying to prove. But, that's a liberal to me, someone that doesn't think past their immediate point. If Karl could re-enlist, that is exactly what would happen. If he served again, that's not showing bravery or support for Iraq, that's showing a lack of repsonsibility to what he has to support at home. There is no person that can fill his position. He's the only guy, and not replaceable. He goes, the business goes. You work in a replaceable position, you go, someone else can be hired to perform your job.

    If I was 18-19 when the war started, I'd be there, or at least in officer school training to be there! However, the military has rules, and I'm beyond those rules now. Will you tell a 50 year old supporter of the war to enlist? At least know what it takes to join the military before telling people what to do.

    And, know what people should be serving, to keep the military strong, and not put additional social burdens on our country. Certain people should serve, certain people should not. It all depends on what they are providing to society.

    Liberals ask so many questions, but don't have answers. I got an email from some dolt telling me to "question everything". What about working for answers? Liberals are also continuously finding a new icon to worship, whether Sheehan, this woman, or whatever. It's not a real showing of respect, you guys are using them to bolster your positions (whatever those are), and cast them aside when something better comes along. Just like "If you support the war, why aren't you serving?" That's your new tag line? Let me tell you why: Because some of us had families and businesses to run before the war started. Some people, like Karl, served in the military before going to college. You're going to call him a coward? Whatever.

    The young single men of the present have to make their choices now. It isn't THEIR war, it should've been back in 1979 during the Iranian hostage situation. SO, they have an unjust war because Carter was a spineless jellyfish. But, it is better now to fight these things before they turn into another 9/11, than to sit around waiting, like Clinton did with Osama, in 1993 & 1996. If Clinton would have taken Osama, 9/11 wouldn't have happened.

    Anyways, I am rambling, if only because your points seriously don't make any sense to me. How can you not know what runs this country? Putting people like Karl back into the military, even if possible, harms more people than it does good.

    ;P

     

  • At 9:27 AM, Blogger Meegan said…

    I find it amazing that you are picking on a woman who served her country. I can't wrap my head around what you are thinking. You are saying that because she is a Democrat (and therefore, a coward?) she is not re-enlisting. The woman has no legs. Are you serious? I truly believe that if she happened to be running as a Republican, you would be holding her up as a hero. I think turning this into a political argument is incredibly low.

     

  • At 10:15 AM, Blogger NAL said…

    ARM,

    Surely, asking questions is how one gets to answers. Seeking answers without asking the questions - and the right ones to boot - proves ignorant at best. Like the conservative leadership -most in the Republican camp find it's best to charge ahead without bothering themselves with actual truth seeking vis-a-vis asking the right questions.

    For some reason you went on some tangent about Liberals and Sheehan: the typical crap spewed from conservatives regarding liberals.

    Yes, there are lemmings. But, yes, there are indeed many lemmings in the conservative establishment as well (dittoheads, hannitized boneheads, and savages and savagettes who believe liberalism is a mental disorder). Their lemming status is demonstrated through 'support the war at all costs', the 'she's running as a democrat and the 'she's an Iraq veteran running as a brainwashed liberal' crap. And, of course, the old tried-and-true liberal media bias garbage gets bandied aboug. Get out of the Sean Hannity mindset for a minute and think through what you're saying on these topics.

    First of all, Sheehan represents a certain segment of the liberal population that is against this war for a number of accurate and inaccurate reasons. She lost a great deal of credibility with many liberals because of her strange stance pertaining to 9-11 and the war in Afghanistan. She was on mark when it came to Iraq and alas, people - liberals, conservatives, and moderates - started listening because, in fact, she was right on many of these issues. It's what many people have been saying since the war was being conceived.

    I think Meegan makes an excellent point in her last posting and pretty much drives it home: if this were a Republican, there would be no ballyhooing. And, yes, there would be reporting on it - though not to a great extent. Why? Because the story is that she served and chose not to re-enlist so that she could run as a democrat...possible (we are not sure) to take issue with what's happening over there. Just like great Republican leaders who have used their service to win political office and make change, so she to is doing the same. I am not sure what's difficult about that.

    Is it liberal media bias? Possibly. Possibly not. It's a total picture. If the paper is rabidly anti-Bush, then perhaps it is. But I ask you: what is the purpose of the media, then, if not to ask questions, seek out stories of interest, and question the judgment of politicians? Since we're on the topic, I find it fascinating that this issue of liberal media bias was never fully bandied about when Clinton's affair was plastered all over the front pages, the constant discussion of the Democrats' demise, blah blah blah. The media takes its aim at whomever is in office and usually does a good job of destroying reputations and lives of liberals and conservatives alike. That's their job.

    As for my service, nope - never served. The only point in time I had interest was after 9-11...but, that quickly dissipated...so no desire.

    I think that makes me intrinsically American because I have that right. I also support the troops, but not the decision to go to war in Iraq. However, I agree with Lieberman's stance that at this point - since the Republicans have by-and-large got us into this cotton-pickin mess - we need to stay the course and finish the job.

    Your point is well-taken re: your and your husband's interest to serve. I issue you an apology. Far be it from to judge. However, the loudest clamoring to go to war and stay at war has often come from the Republicans - and wealthy ones at that - who typically have no interest in sending their kids into battle or service in general. It's hypocritical and you know it. They're called chickenhawks for a reason. I say that with a caveat. Most people in this country (a resounding 84%) felt Afghanistan was a justifiable war. Iraq, regardless of what the outcome (think beyond your nose here, ARM, because the outcome is more than just an election) was and is a fiasco of the highest order. If a Democrat were responsible for Iraq - there would be bloodlust, and again - you know that to be true. Don't insist it isn't. It's called team player politics. It was the case with Bosnia and Clinton...

    The government - ARM - is controlled, essentially, in all three branches by the GOP. They own the bullypulpit, they (you as well) have gotten their way in almost every legislative and executive pathway.

    The only true liberal media bias is the one that exists in Republican lore. Should you desire that more stories be covered on those re-enlisting, demand it from the paper. Demand it on the radio waves. Demand it on the television waves. That's your right.

    As for the young female veteran running, she will most likely lose and lose big. The only story there is that people continue to enjoy status quo.

     

  • At 10:24 AM, Blogger Angry Republican Mom said…

    Meegan:

    Read the title of the post, first.

    Second, I am bringing attention to it because the media is giving so much attention to this woman. Do you realize how MANY people are running for congress this year? Hundreds. What makes her so special?

    I'll tell you why, because she is running DEMOCRAT.

    Third reason. The media and liberals are USING her as a tool to show that the war is wrong, because a Iraq veteran is running DEMOCRAT. The underlying hope is that average voter Joe will think, "She came bake from the war a DEMOCRAT, therefore, this war MUST be wrong". You KNOW that's the only reason why this is in the news. I won't be fooled otherwise.

    Fourth. Why give so much attention to her, when there ARE so many other heros? So many OTHER amputees that DO re-enlist in lesser non-combat positions? So many people that don't have to go on tour, but VOLUNTEER to do so? (Gina's husband being one of them). Where are they is the news? That's right, because most of THOSE people support the war, therefore shouldn't be in the news.

    Ok, now that you SHOULD have my point by now, what do all these reasons have in common?

    Answer: The media is putting the two things that mean most to them on a pedestal above all else: They have a wounded Iraq veteran running as a democrat.

    I support her decision to run, because it's not easy to run for office. I also feel bad that she lost one leg, and part of another. But, that's not the point. The biased media is my point. Please stop taking me for a fool and trying to turn into something you can have the upper hand on. If you want to argue appropriately about the post, come back at me with examples of other Iraq veterans running for office. Because, MY point is, I haven't heard any other than her.

    However, I find it amazing that the media is hopping all over her, when #1, she doesn't stand a chance in her district. #2, she's only lived in IL for 11 years, and that is another strike against her to win in that district. It's not even news.

    I'm not politicizing this, the media does that all on their own. Liberals have their new hero to exploit (Sheehan is old news now). Why do you say I'M politicizing this, when I'm talking about biased media, and when it's the MEDIA exploiting her? You have your targets messed up.

    This shouldn't even be a story past local newspapers, like the rest of the congressional elections.

    So, please Meegan, YOU stop pretending I'm bashing a veteran, because I'm not. If you think me saying she's going to espouse "anti-Bush" speeches, how is that bashing? Isn't that what you all do? That's not bashing, that's calling it how I see it. The truth hurts. I'll give you $10, if she skips the anti-war, Bush-bashing, and instead outlines plans on how to keep her district clean, functioning, and prosperous. That's what a congressman does. Represent the district. And, the views of that district are pro-war & republican.

    If you still want to say I'm stooping low, quote me in that post where I was "low". If anything, I said I supported her, I just wouldn't vote for her.

    Seriously, do it.

    This is why I don't understand liberal mentality. I didn't "go down the path of denigrating their service" as doc said. And, I am not "picking on a woman who served her country"

    I'll say it again, quote me where I'm doing this. I'm attacking the media for EXPLOITING a woman who is running for the same office hundreds are running for. And, MANY people have been wounded in Iraq, but have not had "face time" in the news. The only reason why this is sensational/special is because she is running as a DEMOCRAT.

     

  • At 10:32 AM, Blogger JB said…

    What isn't the media telling you?

    That the reason why her (and other Iraq veterans) are running as Democrats, is because the Republican veterans re-enlisted.

    Wow, that sucks. It seems to me that you are kinda putting down the fact that she's running simply because she's a Democrat. There are decent Democrats out there. You are in a sense calling her a coward.


    But, of course no one is lending an ear to the brave people who go back in because they believe in protecting our country.

    They get plenty of press, every day. And her service is no less valid if her opinion is that she doesn't agree with the war. When you are a soldier or sailor, your opinion doesn't matter, only that you do your job and do it right. I'm a veteran, so I know this.

    Trust me, it shouldn't be a surprise that there are more Democrat Iraq veterans running for office than there are Republicans, for the very reason I wrote above. Republicans believe in this war, and keep gonig back to fight it.

    This is the first time I've ever had to call "BS" on one of your posts. You are saying here that Republican soldiers are re-enlisting because they are brave and Democrat soldiers are not re-enlisting because they are cowards?

    You're stating that ALL Republicans are good decent patriots and ALL Democrats are evil hateful traitors. These soldiers know no politics when they serve, they're just doing their job.

    Come on ARM I thought you had more sense than that.

     

  • At 11:22 AM, Blogger JB said…

    Why give so much attention to her, when there ARE so many other heros? So many OTHER amputees that DO re-enlist in lesser non-combat positions? So many people that don't have to go on tour, but VOLUNTEER to do so? (Gina's husband being one of them). Where are they is the news? That's right, because most of THOSE people support the war, therefore shouldn't be in the news.


    Hey now that's a low blow....just because she didn't continue to serve as am amputee doesn't make her any less patriotic. Is her service any LESS important or worthy because of her political party?

    How can you say such things?

     

  • At 11:23 AM, Blogger Angry Republican Mom said…

    Jessica:

    I'm sorry, but she is going to use her "soldier status" for politics. She's even hired a publicity firm.

    So, "These soldiers know no politics when they serve, they're just doing their job". It's not flying here. You don't hire a publicity firm before you're discharged, do you? And, most congressman DON'T hire publicity firms anyway.

    And yes, there is a certain line drawn between Democratic soldiers, and Republican ones. The Republican ones WILL and DO go back, and the Democrat ones say they don't support the war, so they won't go back. That's not a career soldier's attitude. That's a "do my time and get out" attitude. Which is FINE with me. Karl didn't make a career out of the military, but wanted to serve at least once to do a duty. I wanted to make a career out of it, but wasn't able to.

    Soldiers ARE politicized, but hopefully some of them will remember there is a job to be done, because the Commander in Chief issued an order. Karl served during Clinton's first term. He wasn't happy, but he coughed it up to his duty. Some of the soldiers I've seen have whined and complained about having to go to war, when this is a volunteer military. It's like Cindy Sheehan saying these kids sign up for money for college, when all the paperwork you sign all points to your life is now owns by the US!

    So, I'm not sure where you're coming from, because there IS a difference between Democrat and Republican soldiers. Whether you say I think they're cowards, or you think it's dissention, the fact is the Republican ones are most likely to re-enlist, period. And, IMO, I think it's more honorable to re-inlist because your country gave you a calling, than to cry dissention, and then go about your life.

    Doc:

    You are right that people and the right and left will pick out they're favorites and put them on a pedestal. You are right that there are sheep on both sides. I'm not going to disagree with you.

    I DO think past my nose, though. I'm VERY active in politics, and have had a run-in with Denny's Democrat opponent. In 2005, I've ciculated 5 petitions for office. I have been to many functions, and have met many people. I have read many books. I have heard many people speak, from both sides. I DO listen to my democrat friends, (one was over last night). We laugh about it. At the end of the day, the news is the news, and if I REALLY don't like it, I can go back to being a sheep and read the National Review. (I gotcha there, because I don't listen to Hannity. Karl and I have agreed that he is too into himself, and that at least Rush will back his stuff up with quotes and recordings. Yes, he has spin, no doubt about it, but I am quite capable of hearing the info and coming to my own conclusions). I just hear things on Rush that I typically wouldn't hear anywhere else. Even then, 9/10, I can't listen to Rush because of reception issues or time. Most of my news is from NPR in the morning (ugh, but it's the only news station I get in my podunk town). I get irritated, and then go searching the internet for more about the topic.

    Karl and I had a discussion over religion last night, and how many different opinions there are within a religion. (I'll get to how this relates). I was questioning how we can celebrate Christmas (or saints), when this is a blatant celebration of pagan traditions. I was perplexed at WHY there are Christians that don't mind this, and then there are PURITANS, which make more sense to me. Karl came up with that all religions adapt, and used how Republicans used to be Democrats, back when the party was founded. He said things change, and there's nothing wrong with that.

    I understood his example, but didn't buy the reasoning. So, we moved on into the evolution of the discussion, and we started talking about how this IS a great country because of the differences of opinions. It keeps the "balance". Yes, Republicans are in power now, but if the country TRULY thinks that we have hijacked the US, then we will be voted out in the coming years. This is why Marxism, while a hypothetically perfect system, can't work because of the human element.

    We all differ in opinion, but that's all it is, opinion. It's better to back that opinion with fact, but more than likely there are differing facts that can argue a different opinion. We hear what there is, and align ourselves with the beliefs that go most inline with our own. Mine are big military (definately Republican), States rights (Republican again), Capitalism (Republican), and not modifying the constitution (most of the time Republican) Gun rights (Republican). So, I'm republican. I don't appreciate the hijacking by the Religious Right, and will fight that because it would lead to a bad road in the future.

    My opinion in this post that the media is unfairly giving more attention to her, IS true (at least to me), because it's not even a contest in this area. If it's impossible to win, what other reason is there, other than to make a political statement? It's like Ralph Nader. He's knows he's not going to win, but he knows it gets his idea out. Do you REALLY think this woman is any different, especially having a publicity firm handling everything? Now who's being blind?

     

  • At 11:25 AM, Blogger JB said…

    And, know what people should be serving, to keep the military strong, and not put additional social burdens on our country. Certain people should serve, certain people should not. It all depends on what they are providing to society.


    Could you elaborate? The only thing I can agree with you on is that TWO parents should not be serving in AD or in reserve at the same time, the children should have at least ONE parent.

    But do tell, who do you think should not serve? In what capacities in society should they not be taken?

     

  • At 11:53 AM, Blogger JB said…

    This post has been removed by a blog administrator.

     

  • At 11:58 AM, Blogger JB said…

    Hey trying my post again!

    And yes, there is a certain line drawn between Democratic soldiers, and Republican ones. The Republican ones WILL and DO go back, and the Democrat ones say they don't support the war, so they won't go back. That's not a career soldier's attitude. That's a "do my time and get out" attitude. Which is FINE with me.

    First of all on the comments about her hiring a PR firm, if she did, more power to her. If she can work to make this country better more power to her.

    Now as to the above comments you made...you are making a blanket statement that Republican soldiers are more patriotic than Democrat ones, that is the most ridiculous thing I've heard in a long time. There are as many patriotic anti-war soldiers who are Democrat as there are from any other party. Many people have many reasons for wanting to serve, but it has NOTHING to do with political party.

     

  • At 12:07 PM, Blogger kbonline said…

    Thought you might want to know that the reason Duckworth is getting so much press is that she was recruited to run by Rahm Emanuel, head of the DCCC and he's using his PR machine to get her coverage. Other Dem vets aren't getting the same exposure this woman is. It's about the political machine exercising it's muscle. Lots of Dems aren't happy about it either (I'm one of them) because there's already a great Dem running in the district Duckworth is trying to win. Doesn't make sense to recruit someone to create a contested primary - again, it's all about power to the ones who have it - Democrat and Republican.

     

  • At 12:31 PM, Blogger Angry Republican Mom said…

    Jessica:

    1st post: It's not up to me on who or shouldn't serve. However, people like Karl should not, because he supports two families, and employs three people. That's a prime example of someone who should not serve, don't you think? However, he did, BEFORE becoming a parent or business owner.

    2nd post: Jessica, some of your reasons are true, but it doesn't discount the fact that if you are democrat, and against the war, that it influences your decision to go back or not. Soldiers are not machines. They have their own opinions, and while a guy in town thinks of the war as therapy for him, others think they "didn't sign up for this war", and shouldn't have to go. That's a HUGE difference in approach to service. And yet another expample is serving for the sake of performing a duty for your country, as did Karl. I wanted to serve as a career because I loved to fly (learned at 15), and loved the USAF with all my heart. My approach was as a career. That's FOUR different opinions, on the same service to our country. So, I'm NOT being ridiculous.

    Democrats are SCREAMING they wouldn't serve because this is an "unjust war" (as doc did). My buddy is over there for "therapy" because he thinks this needs to be fought NOW, and not grow into something bigger, a Republican attitude.

    Where am I out in left field about this? To think soldiers serve without opinion is completely out of sorts with the whole reasons as to why this woman is running. She's going to use her service and her political opinions to run for office! And, before all of you start putting words in my mouth (again), I said that's not a bad thing, I just think she's getting more press time than it's worth.

     

  • At 12:32 PM, Blogger Angry Republican Mom said…

    kbonline:

    Thank you, it just blew these posters right out of the water.

    She is a puppet, just like I said.

     

  • At 1:00 PM, Blogger NAL said…

    Under the reasoning that she is a puppet - I guess GW was and is, too.

    Faulty logic, ARM. It's called POLITICS.

    Good lord.

     

  • At 1:29 PM, Blogger Angry Republican Mom said…

    doc:

    "Good Lord" my dupa, you're just looking to pick a fight. Let it go, my point was proved in my post; that the media is giving more attention to someone (REGARDLESS OF HERO STATUS, can we move on?) that isn't warranting it. She could be a one-eyed purple people eater, but this is a Republican district, and shouldn't even be on the "this is news" radar.

    Of course it's politics, you think I don't get that? Please, at least a few times a month I'm up to my EYEBALLS in politics.

    "Good Lord"...

     

  • At 1:56 PM, Blogger NAL said…

    LOL - just using your logic, ARM...

    Afterall, since all we have are your opinions to base comments off of, we are left with few options.

    Gosh, I just "feel" the liberal media bias.

    I just "feel" the world will be safer for democracy.

    Feelings are great...when they get in the way, we have trouble - like wars and comments about service people being puppets.

    Again, Good Lord...help us.

     

  • At 2:00 PM, Blogger JB said…

    ARM I would absolutely agree that a man supporting two families should not be serving. But I don't think it has anything to do with what he gives to society I think he did his time and he owes his families to be there for them.

    Getting back to the issue at hand, in regards to Democrats being less likely to serve than REpubliacns, there is absolutely NO basis for this. I can't tell you how many soldiers and sailors I know who are Democratsl who continue to reenlist. It has nothing to do with "party" it has everything to do with their sense of duty or whatever other obligation led them to serve and continue to serve.

    When I served on Active Duty politics did not come to mind. I had a job, I did it. THat's because my politics didn't mean diddly squat when I served, I was there to do a job that was IT.

    At this moment in time I am only focusing on your comments where you insinuate that Democrats are cowards and not likely to return. You are so involved in the spin that Democrats = traitors and cowards that you're not even listening to what you're saying or reading what you're writing. There is NO evidence that party has anything to do with whether or not a person enlists or re-enlists. It's about BELIEFS and what a person thinks he or she must do. I know REpublicans that would NOT be involved in this war.

    We all seem to forget that Republicans don't own the right to patriotism just as Democrats don't own the right to peace. I'm an Independent and I am a veteran who not only was a Democrat (from a die hard Democrat family) while on A/D BUT I admired and respected President George H.W. Bush and met him while I served. I also supported the first Gulf War.

    I am not sure what your intended service or Karl's service has to do with this, you keep talking about it. And you keep talking about a career soldier vs. a one or two term soldier. It's all about life goals ARM. A career soldier is no better than a one or two term soldier (or sailor). It's just a matter of what one wants out of life. I wanted to be a lifer but then I realized that I didn't want to spend 30 years in, I wanted to get out in the civilian world. Did that make me less of a patriot? Hardly.

    You think Dems are the only ones screaming they wouldn't serve because they don't support this war. There are Libertarians, Independents, and REpublicans out there also crying the same thing.

    Again, don't lump all these people together. Not all Republicans are for this war just as not all Dems are against it.

    You are trying to equate patriotism with one particular party and I don't buy it. YOu're saying Republicans = good, Dems = bad. It's not true.

    My buddy is over there for "therapy" because he thinks this needs to be fought NOW, and not grow into something bigger, a Republican attitude.

    Oh give me a break. A Republican attitude? Since when do Republicans own the right to patriotism? Since when do they own the right to fight the war on terror? That is so much crap being fed by the right wing. You're going to sit there and tell me that a Republican soldier is more likely to serve and serve honorably, more likely to be a patriot than a Democrat soldier?

    Where am I out in left field about this? To think soldiers serve without opinion is completely out of sorts with the whole reasons as to why this woman is running.

    Let me put it to you this way--as best I can and only someone who has served can truly understand. Military folks do have opinions, BUT when you are in the military, you know you have a job to do, a very important job and you cannot question authority and you cannot let your political opinions get in the way of your job. If you do, you don't need to be serving. If you want to let political opinions get in the way, get out and run for office.

    THis woman, if she wants to run for office and wants to be someone's guinea pig, let her do it. She has every right to use her service as any other person. BEing against the war doesn't mean she didn't do her job and do it well.

    Normally I don't get angry in blogland, I mean it's just opinions, but it angers and frightens me that you are sitting here putting this kind of stuff out there as truth, as Republican gospel. This is why I became so disenchanted with the REpublican party, because they thought they owned the rights to patriotism and liberty and that they were the "defenders of freedom". Well they are wrong.

    I disagree with you, I think your post reeks of the same thing I've been hearing over and over from the right wing. It doesn't mean I don't normally like your posts, I do, and enjoy reading this blog, but when I see this kind of thing thrown out there as "truth" it just makes me shake my head in disgust.

    I like you but we disagree. :) Now have a nice day :)

     

  • At 9:08 PM, Blogger Gina M. said…

    My husband refuses to discuss politics. Quite frankly, I don't even know his political orientation - and that's saying a lot because I know everything else about him. He just believes in doing his job the best he can for the country that provides for and protects him and his family.

    Second, I'm pretty sure Lisa mentioned all the info about her husband's service and her own wishes to serve because meegan asked if Lisa had served (due to her Republican stance.)

    Third, I feel it is quite logical to surmise that Ms. Duckworth is getting a lot of press because she is not only a vet but a democrat. And though I wholeheartedly disagree with the fact that soldiers only come from one political party, SOMEONE somewhere (i.e. in the press) must believe in the standard "republican soldier" or this woman would not be considered so newsworthy as a result of going against that stigma. I don't think Lisa is trying to discount this woman's service, but merely state that others who followed the assumed status quo (i.e. republcans who reenlist, democrats who choose not to fight) would NOT be given the same amount of coverage as this woman. Does that make sense? It's not really an opinion, but a statement based on current attitudes on our country. Maybe I got it wrong, but that's how I took it...

     

  • At 2:10 PM, Blogger HM2 Viking said…

    All I will say as a Naval Reservist is that if you want to serve it can be done. (There are such things as waivers).

    I have deep questions and concerns about this war but If I was called I would report.

    I found your comments about Democratic War Veterans disturbing. Disagreeing with a policy does not make a person unpatriotic. After all America was founded on dissent. I think one of the characteristics of many democrats is the desire to serve society at large. This takes the form of serving in the military and holding public service positions.

     

  • At 2:34 PM, Blogger Angry Republican Mom said…

    I love it when people put words in my mouth. I didn't say anyone was "unpatriotic".

    I just said that the press is ignoring people that return to service (have you seen any primetime stories about soldier's returning to combat? No, only the people that dissent). But, the press is all over a veteran running for congress as a Democrat, when that doesn't seem so special to me. Especially in the area in which she's running. She's not even native to IL, she's from HI, and will bring HI socialist principles to a VERY conservative area. It's not a match. Her only ticket is her service, and she will have to exploit it to get ANYWHERE.

    I also said there will be more democratic veterans running because they don't feel this is a "just" war and have something to say about it, and want to use it as a platform, and won't return if they don't have to.

    There are republican soldiers that DO feel it is a "just" war, and have gone back on three tours already, voluntarily.

    I didn't think I said anything out of the ordinary. If you are enlisted, and you believe in the war, you go. If you don't believe in the war, and you're enlisted, you try to get out of going. Am I wrong to assume this? Is this NOT what is occuring?

    Somehow people are applying that statement I made to Duckworth. It's not only amuzing, it's typical spin. It's as if people neglected to read the first paragraph that I mentioned as a "disclaimer" to prevent this, but people only read what they want. And, Duckworth COULD serve out the rest of her term in a different position, as others that were wounded have. I just wanted to point that out. DOWN PEOPLE!

    Hell, I've had liberal sites quote this article, and then decend into calling me a man, Hastert's wife, paid to write, I should enlist my 5 & 2 year old children, and my husband is disabled.

    So, if I get this right, I'm Denny's wife, originally a man, I make money off of this, my kids are now able to make a difference in the military before they can read, and my husband is disabled? And, they got this all from my website? And, then everyone calls ME misinformed, insulting, and crazy! It's amazing what is on the internet.

    However, for all the attention the article is getting, I must have hit close to home in calling a spade a spade. Duckworth is another liberal puppet, and while she is to be commended for running for office, it's just another day in the liberal press to prey upon it and make it national news...

    I'm sure she is not stupid, and will see this. THEN, since in order to remain in the limelight (therefore get more votes) she will have to spout the "Bush lied, people died" mantra, or face being dumped for the next liberal puppet.

    Good times...

     

  • At 6:28 PM, Blogger The WordSmith from Nantucket said…

    However, the loudest clamoring to go to war and stay at war has often come from the Republicans - and wealthy ones at that - who typically have no interest in sending their kids into battle or service in general. It's hypocritical and you know it. They're called chickenhawks for a reason.

    That is such a straw man argument. People don't choose whether to send their kids to war or not. Those "kids" who are grown men and women, make their own decision to enlist or not. Parents don't force their kids into the service. Although I'm sure some (and I won't label any specific political orientation on this) will try and talk their "kids" out of it.

    I think it was a USA Today article not too long ago that found the bulk of enlistees since 9/11 have come from middle and upper class families. There was another study reported by the Washington Times.

    As far as asking ARM why she herself isn't serving in Iraq...as one military blogger puts it, that is an argument that liberals like to make to shut down debate. The majority of soldiers never fire a shot. Not all serve in combat capacity (infantry, artillery and such). Does that make their political opinions less right, their insight less valuable, than the soldier who engages in a firefight? I guess that disqualifies ALL opinions then.

    It'd be as a ridiculous as someone criticizing another person who happens to support police and firemen...asking her, "well, why don't you become a peace officer; why don't you send your kid out to fight fires?" or "Since you are such a chicken-hawk at believing fires have to be fought, why don't you go and become a fireman? I don't see you out there risking your life fighting crime; yet you support others out there risking their lives fighting criminals? You chicken-hawk!"

    The majority in the military, including my father who served 32 years, consistently vote Republican in greater numbers than vote Democrat. Now, why do you suppose that is? Many support the war effort. Since they've eliminated your chicken-hawk/chicken-shit line of arguing, what are you going to argue them with when they vocally advocate for victory in this war? How about some substance?

     

  • At 9:30 AM, Blogger Angry Republican Mom said…

    Wordsmith:

    Thank you for the back-up!

     

  • At 10:58 AM, Blogger Mel said…

    So far all I have read is Republicans do this and Democrats do that. Where are the figures and documentation to back up your assertions. When I served I never noticed political affiliation to have any bearing on reenlistment. If there is one thing I despise more then run of the mill demagoguery it is unsubstantiated character assassination.

     

  • At 12:08 PM, Blogger JG said…

    Actually I have read stories about soldiers reenlisting. But they don't mention whether they're Democrats or Republicans. I have a feeling your "facts" are pretty much the same quality as the facts that Bush used to get us into Iraq in the first place. But if you do have some real facts, not just opinion, please link to the source.

     

  • At 12:38 AM, Blogger LanceThruster said…

    Stating that Democrats don't have a plan is just more of the same spew from the GOP Ministers of Propaganda. Plus, the crooks and liars of the Bush misadministration are such a real threat to the Republic that working to boot their corrupt, incompetent asses is a commendable plan, especially since it's hard to concentrate on draining the swamp when you're up to your neck in alligators. Your general knowledge seems on par with your knowledge of firearm safety. I'm sure the NRA is thrilled with your particular psycho-sexual fixation. Careful mommy, or you may be an unintentional forehead "amputee". No one should be that angry.

     

  • At 8:33 PM, Blogger LanceThruster said…

    Told you that the "GOP and gun safety" is an oxymoron. Just like the "GOP and ethics" is. Maybe you can tutor Deadeye Dick on how to nuzzle his firearm with his face. The world would be a much better place.

     

  • At 6:11 PM, Blogger Alan said…

    You post has no logic whatsoever. You are basically discounting her service and sacrifice and asserting that because she is a Democrat and running for office, she is a coward.

    How dare she run for political office to further serve this country! Yes, indeed. How dare she.

    It is a hypocritical argument I have come to expect from angry tyrannical republicans bent on violence and war.

    Your excuses for not serving (i.e. kids, employment) are unconvincing. Everyone who enlists makes sacrifices. I would say even potential sacrifices count here too (i.e. foregoing or delaying a college education, family, etc.). But it is as I expect from republicans - evaluating the world from only their viewpoint without any sense of empathy.

    Finally, your conclusion that Democrats are running for office because they are cowards is highly dubious. You have no proof of that other than your own opinion. And, despite the fact that you are aware of your obvious bias, you cling to that opinion as if it were divine revelation.

    Perhaps more Democrats are fired-up to enact political change. Perhaps there are a whole host of reasons you have not considered. And perhaps, the media is covering this story of an amputee running for political office because, even though some Americans have discarded her as a coward, she still believes in this country enough to actively partipate in the political process to protect liberty and democracy for all.

     

Post a Comment

<< Home