"I thought it was because they were too stupid."
Posted on 11/26/2006 9:43:09 PM PST by mdittmar
Look, Rangel is a clown and his pitch is really a hidden anti-war screed. But you have to be honest when taking him on in that some of his points are on the mark.
For example, go down to your local country club - the one the doctors and lawyers and town social leaders belong to, and ask the members how many of their kids are in the military or how many have ever encouraged their kids to join the military. You might find a few, but most of them think their kids are too good to be in the military.
A Pat Tillman that everybody criticizing Rangel uses as a counter actually reinforces Rangel's point. Tillman is unique! What other pro atheletes have followed him into this "battle for survival" or "world war III"? Name two children of big company CEOs, the ones getting $100 million a year, who are in the military. Name one of the virile movie stars women fawn over. How many Ivy League alumni are in uniform? Go through Congress and after you cite the kids of Duncan Hunter and Tim Johnson and a few others, who else has sons in the line of fire? Or presidential candidates Gore and Bush and Kerry and Lieberman and Cheney and Edwards and Clinton.
Nope - their kids are too good for the military.
It is a false premise to say that just because our current military is staffed by some of the brightest troops in our history, everything is well. John Kerry comments aside, the middle and lower class have always had bright people.
Hidden in Rangel's anti-war agenda is the unsavory little fact that the elites in our society, who also have some bright people, are not pulling their share of the load. As Frank Schaeffer says in the title of his new book, the elites are AWOL in our fight for survival.
Kick Rangel all you want, but you better start addressing the nasty fact that those who are running the country in government, academia, business, the ones benefitting most from its blessings, are noticeably absent in rising to defend it. Until that changes, Rangel has an uncomfortable point to make.
Chuck doesn't want to bring back the draft because he wants a stronger military. He wants to bring back the draft because he wants a stronger anti-war movement.
Senator Rangel's elevator does not reach the top floor.
Yep, and how easy it will BE for the MSM to give Rangel a pass! If it comes up at all, they can just excuse his comments as those of an incontinent, rambling, post-lobotomized and senile old kook. Shouldn't be tough.
I understand YOUR point, but I don't think that is Rangel's point. A draft, of course, wouldn't bring elitists into the military. They would get exemptions or otherwise avoid being drafted. I think his idea, other than only poor or dumb people are in the military, is that if he pushes a draft, he says to Americans "Now you or your child can be drafted into this war. Are you still for this war?"
Okay, that wasn't stated very well, but I think you'll get the idea.
Gargles the Clown has been a botched joke his entire career.
btt
Frankly, the fact that he has a career says more about the people that vote for him than it does about him.
Exactly
No, I agree - Rangel's point is an anti-war screed. But he does address the no-shows amongst the elite, and that is a problem that we are going to have to address. It can't be avoided forever. You can't have a bifurcated democracy where the privileged are exempt from their responsiblity in defending it and contract all the dirty work out to the rest of us.
I did not address the draft, but you have to admit that when properly implemented, it was a great equalizer. I got to serve along with a lot of people who in their prior social circles would never associate with common folk like me. An once shorn of their elitism, most of them turned out to be pretty good troopers.
A draft is one tool. Better yet would be shame. The Ivy Leaguers of WW II were ostracized if they did not join up. For 40 years after that war you could not advance in politics unless you had military, and preferably, combat service in your resume. John Kennedy, Richard Nixon, George Schultz, George McGovern, they all served.
Now the press (who also served in that generation) idolizes the Obamas and Edwards and Clintons. And the Eisners and Gates and Cruise and Afflecks.
Quick! Name any American Idol or Survivor contestants.
Now name any Iraq Medal of Honor recipient.
"I thought it was because they were too stupid."
Not to worry. Rush will be on this like flies on sh!!te.
First of all, your test is unfair. I can't name any medal recipients, nor can I name and Idol or Survivor contestants.
Second, we are in a different place than the WWII generation. We are much closer to the Vietnam era in terms of attitudes. Elites were not ostracized for avoiding that war, and I do recall we had one draft-dodger as a president not long ago. To put it bluntly, the WWII generation had their heads on straight while we're still standing around wondering why our enemies hate us instead of fighting them. "Shame" is not even a state that is recognized today, I'm afraid.
The elites are exempt from service because we have a volunteer service, just as some poor kid in the city can exempt himself too. I don't see how we need to "address" this in a volunteer army. Are you saying we need to institute a draft in order to get more rich kids to fight? I don't think that is good reasoning, nor do I think it would work.
It's because they don't have opportunities BECAUSE they are stupid. C'mon, you have to be a little more flexible here. lol
Do you actually have the answers to these questions, or are you engaging in non sequitur-palooza? I bet it's the latter, because I don't know who would be searching for that information or how it would be gathered.
Go through Congress and after you cite the kids of Duncan Hunter and Tim Johnson and a few others, who else has sons in the line of fire? Or presidential candidates Gore and Bush and Kerry and Lieberman and Cheney and Edwards and Clinton.
I will say the same thing to you that I have said to supporters of the Murthas and Clelands who spit the "chickenhawk" sentiment to those who have not volunteered.
We have a volunteer service, and no parent has the right or authority to force his or her child into volunteering. So when you hear Michael Moore or his ideological sibling Rosie O'Donnell ask "Would you send your child to Iraq?" it's a crock, because no "children" are sent, only adults, and they don't go unless they have agreed to obey orders to go of their own volition. (Click here to watch Rosie pull that trick question on Bill O'Reilly at 5:43. O'Reilly was ready for it, and so was Elizabeth Hasselbeck.) And regarding elected officials' dearth of service: unless you would support a Constitutional amendment requiring House and Senate candidates to have served in the military before they can qualify for a ballot, knock off the pointless and divisive griping about the leadership of elected people who have not.
Off the top of my head... Alvin York; John McCain. And the Survivor or Idol people? Don't have a clue. Oh wait, that gay kid with the bad hair... can't remember his name.
Give the Dems more of the inches/rope that they could ever dream of, then give'em some more.
Some people feel they have an obligation to serve in a career that idiots like Rangel think is below their lofty ideal of worthy pursuits. And many of them, once they are there, find they really love doing the job.
Not everyone wants to be like Rangel and earn money by lying to people and finding new ways to get their hands in other people's pockets.
Exactly. And I'm sure that Pat Tillman had no hope of making more money in the NFL (where he already was) and thereby being with his young family, than he would have received serving in the military.
Richard Hatch. The one who is in jail for tax fraud/evasion. Guess he couldn't find a steady job... /s?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.