Paul Hackett shares some traits with the man from Hope. They’ve also both been slimed by hatchet man Rush Limbaugh.
Breaking News
Oprah Quitting TV Show In 2011
Oliver Willis
Like Kryptonite To Stupid
-
-
Breaking News
- Tila Tequila Live Streaming Mental Meltdown
- 31 Die In Chinese Mine Blast In Heilongjiang Province, 82 Trapped
- Victoria Justice Stars In New Nickeloden Show “Victorious”
- CERN’s Large Hadron Collider Back Up And Running
- Megan Fox Alive For Transformers 3
- Maryna Linchuk @ 2009 Victoria’s Secret Fashion Show
- Madison Parker Works Out
- Sony Reveals Lame Attempt To Fight iTunes
- Brian Thomas: UK Man Gets Away With Killing Wife In His Sleep
- Olivia Wilde @ US Weekly Hot Hollywood 2009 Party
Live News
Amazing.
And now we see just how much the Republicans actually care about the military – they don’t even think twice about smearing a war hero/veteran if it will help further their agenda.
What’s even more amazing is this is coming from a chickenhawk who actually refused to serve because of a cyst on his ass and, yet, feels the need to criticize a man who lost his limbs in Vietnam.
Gotta love Republican values, huh?
Ahh, Hackett ran a “dishonest” campaign, pretending to be a conservative.
And consistently, even after years of liberal self delusion and wishful thinking, the military thinks and votes Republican (which they/we interpret as being strong(er) on defense, personal discipline and accountability, and self reliance). It won’t change. Hackett did do do as badly as could have because his deceptions worked to some extent and because the R opponent was a weaker candidate.
Dugger
Dugger,
WHile I agree that the military projects themselves as a largly Republican/Conservative institution, that all really depends. Civilian and high ranking military officials are not lock step Republican. Some in the military see thier job as protecting and promoting the general welfare around them, not just soldiers with guns. I laugh when Republicans talk about how strong they are militarily, yet no matter what you say, I find it disengenous to smear military men, especially from people who have not served. Repugs need to look deep inside and stop smears on the military while parading as the party of the military man. Soldiers are programable to a degree but they are not all idiots. This will eventually bite conservatives in the ass, when soldiers stop listening to the lip service. Republicans are now the party of slashing VA benefits and combat pay, which in my opinion is not in line with the silly “SUpport our troops” sticker philosphy that makes them feel like they are doing their job as patriotic citizens. Just as a side note if I do not have a sticker do I not support the troops? Never sure whats the point of a sticker. Oh Dugger, since when were responsibility and self reliance Republican strong holds? Do you think this administration or the Senate for that matter actually lives up to those standards. One look at the Energy bill or the Highway bill suggests nobody lives up to those ideals let alone conservatives.
White Whale
“All men live enveloped in whale-lines. All are born with halters round their necks; but it is only when caught in the swift, sudden turn of death, that mortals realize the silent, subtle, ever present perils of life.”
WW,
If we get really frank and honest, we are not talking about smearing military men but rather criticizing individuals who happen to be military. I an ex military and you do not smear me when you tell me my ideas on Iraq are cockeyed. You do smear me in a way if you were to say the military people like to torture individuals. And also the military does not “project” itself as being conservative or repub, rather data shows they tend to vote disproportionately that way (though not as disproportionately as say blacks to Democrats etc).
And I by no means beleive Repubs or myself have any kind of arm lock on self reliance or personal accountability. Its just that their policies, IN GENERAL, have tended to be a little more towrards that position than Dems. There will never be a perfect party, but of my two options, I believe the Repubs offer the best long term hope for this country.
And yes Bush and repubs have spending a lot. Which makes we wonder how they can be the rradical right wingers as described on this site. In my mind, Bush has always been a moderate Same as Clinton.
Dugger
Dugger,
Think back to when you lived on the base, in my case Heidelberg and Manhiem Germany. Remeber the “commercials”? From the infomercials, base activities, officers-wives clubs to the newspaper (Stars and Stripes) they portray a Republican image. Forget U.S. policy and look at the military community. Plus what Rush is doing is smearing his character. It would be one thing if Hackets opposition stated that his IDEAS on Iraq policy were faulty, but they chose to call him a liar and a fraud. Rush belittling his right to run for office and assuming that he is this liberal wolf in patriotic clothing. How about Hacket is a soldier who served IN COMBAT honorably and should not be ashamed that he isn’t a conservative polemicist like Rush? I think another distinction should be drawn to what makes Bush a “right-winger”. Republicans hate the term Neocon but it really fits just as neoliberalism fit in places like Bolivia. He is not a true Republican. He is for big spending and is anti-military. Sure he is socially conservative unless it interferes with his pro-coropration views hence the Neo-con tag. Plus I am not in anyway suggesting a smear to your service. Just don’t protect people like Rush who are not arguing anything substantive but attacking military men. In case like John Kerry, Max Cleland, John McCain(who has been smeared by his own party…sad) and Hacket the republican party has smeared thier SERVICE and CHARACTER when they themselves have 1: never served , and 2: use this tatic to cover the fact they are scared the American public believe in people who have experience in what they are talking about.
White Whale
“By this, he seemed to mean, not only that the most reliable and useful courage was that which arises from the fair estimation of the encountered peril, but that an utterly fearless man is a far more dangerous comrade than a coward.”
WW,
I don’t know all Rush said but as you relate it, he is still “smearing” the man, not the uniform not the discipline. I do not know of a single military person who has said his uniform makes him or her immune from criticism. Again: my ex service or yours does not mean jack squat insofar as arguing on this site or anyplace else, including the national political arena – except where maybe I or you or whoever might have first hand experience. And here is a little clue: most military train for but do not see combat. Most military do not participate in operational planning.
Re Bush. I don’t think he is a true conservative. He does spend a lot. I peferred him to Kerry because, for me, he was the better of two imperfect candidates. And he still may be dead wrong about Iraq. But if it turns out well there, then I’ll be the first to congratulate the wisdom the neocons had, that I didn’t.
Dugger
Dugger,
I do not want to suggest either that the military are beyond criticism. Believe me the military has a WHOLE heap of problem and the way they run it, but Rush clearly smeared him and the virtues of service. He said that he went to war because as a liberal “it would pad his resume”. How is that not smearing him along with the uniform? So I suppose the military is just a political stepping stone? I would argue that the military is something very unique in a nations discourse or operation because unlike an energy business, or being a teacher, or being the ice cream man, the experiences in the military are unique. Being in combat is not neccessary to understand the meaning of being a soldier, but the problem is that this postion is being exploited by phony politicians. I do not care so much that John McCain was tortured but care more about that he served in the military and not keeping Texas sky’s safe from the Viet-Cong. As a side note isn’t hilarious that the conservative Bill Orielly will argue with a tortured vet about how torture does work ?
“All visible objects, man, are but as pasteboard masks. But in each event in the living act, the undoubted deed there, some unknown but still reasoning thing puts forth the mouldings of its features from behind the unreasoning mask. If man will strike, strike through the mask! How can the prisoner reach outside except by thrusting through the wall?” The Quarter Deck
Again, if Rush said Hackett went in the military to pad his resume, that doesn’t criticize the generic military or service. It smears liberals but not the military. Clearly the implication of that is that it is DESIRABLE to have military service on ones record, particularly a liberal’s. I’m sure conservatives do similar things: something liberal-ish because they feel it inoculates them from being considered a close minded ideologue. Agree re O’Reilly, but the impuation that being a (Guard) fighter pilot isn’t honorable and courageous service is wrong. The fact that some other’s duty was even more challenging and dangerous, like Kerry or Oliver North, does not mean that flying F-102s in not an inherently dangerous job. Nor does it mean that somebody who didn’t do as much as Bush, like either Clinton, could not be a good pres.
Dugger, “Is there a choice between a painless surrender death and the horror of resistance death?” Ro-Man dialogue.