« Midterm Roundup | Home | IN-08: Bizarre Hostettler Radio Ad Says Dems Will "Advance Homosexual Agenda" »
IL-06: Roskam Proxy Accuses Dem Amputee Duckworth Of "Retreat"
David Beamer -- the father of the man killed aboard Flight 93 on 9/11 after saying "let's roll" to rally passengers -- has been very busy of late attacking Dems around the country on national security. Beamer appeared in TV ads funded by the right-wing Progress for America which featured the burning Twin Towers, and he recently called for the booting of John Murtha. Beamer's latest target? Antiwar Dem vet double amputee Tammy Duckworth. Beamer yesterday did a press conference with her GOP foe, Peter Roskam, at which he was careful to "honor" her service before slamming her as "dangerous." "The enemy doesn't have the word `surrender' in the dictionary," Beamer said. "We cannot have the word `retreat' in ours." View it here.
Advertisement
Once again, we see Democrats anticipating that a candidate's actual sacrifices for this country will immunize them against attacks on their national security credentials from Republicans who didn't serve in the military. Once again, the Republicans hurl slime with no regard to truth or decency. And once again, judging by the polls on this race, the attacks work.
Please. Stop getting outraged and start fighting back. Peter Roskam knows that our strategy in Iraq is failing, and yet he refuses to push President Bush to change strategies because he's afraid of losing an election. How many more servicemen and women are going to die for the sake of preserving Republican power? Where are the ads that hit Republicans for their willingness to leave our troops in harm's way until it is politically convenient for them to change course?
This is Illinois politics. If they put one of ours in the hospital, we put one of theirs in the morgue.
October 24, 2006 12:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
La Follette, I agree with what you're saying. But I think it's possible for a Dem to both point out GOP rhetorical sleaze *and* argue back aggressively on the substance of the issues at the same time. It's not clear why these have to be mutually exclusive.
October 24, 2006 1:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Greg how about taking down the 12:38 and 12:47 comments too? Thanks.
October 24, 2006 1:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
...and Beamer's credentials are precisely.....????
Or is he just another Republican wannabee who hides behind the sacrifices of his son, his father, his uncle or perhaps....his dog?
October 24, 2006 1:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Speaking of which the NRCC has a new attack against Duckworth up. Accuses her of wanting raise taxes on everybody in the family except for the dog.
October 24, 2006 1:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, the people bringing this man in to slam Tammy Duckworth, these are the same people who say that Cindy Sheehan is exploiting her son's death to get attention?
Don't get me wrong, I don't blame the elder Beamer, he's angry and has been through the worst thing a parent can live through, but will Melanie Morgan and Ann Coulter be calling him a delusional grief pimp?
If anything, that label belongs to Roskam: He should be deeply ashamed of himself for exploiting this man's grief over the actions of a group of Saudis and Egyptians to smear a woman who left her legs in Iraq. As a once and future Chicagoan, I'm embarrassed.
October 24, 2006 1:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Shall I hold my breath waiting for Ann Coulter to claim that Beamer is "enjoying his fame too much?" I wonder how long the Republicans actually had to look before they found a like-minded relative of a 9/11 victim.
October 24, 2006 1:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
That would be Chicago politics. Everything else (IL-06 included) is "downstate."
October 24, 2006 1:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mmmmmmmm...I wouldn't be so critical.
I'd be interested to know more about the man and how he's reacted to the death of his son.
This could be a coping strategy, evidence of persistent rumination.
The reactions to sudden and unexpected death are varied. But Mr. Beamer wouldn't be first survivor of something that was truly horrific to purposefully walk along the edge of the abyss.
A different reaction is reserved for the Republican apparatchiks who exploit his loss....
October 24, 2006 1:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are you kiddin' me? Bensenville, Elgin, Rosemont, all those strip joints and motels around the airport? The bodies buried around there aren't figurative....
October 24, 2006 1:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
IL-06 is mostly DuPage county in the Chicago suburbs... home of the brilliantly corrupt Republican machine that produced George Ryan, and hardly "downstate." But I lived in downstate Illinois for 6 years, and I can assure you that the politics there aren't exactly a garden party, either. It's a statewide bloodsport.
October 24, 2006 1:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
There's an old story, probably too good to be true, about some one we would today call "a source with intimate knowledge of the Kennedy campaign" calling old man Daley on election night, wondering when the hell they were going to able to call Illinois for JFK, and Daley (or, "a source close to City Hall") responding "every time I dig up ten thousand votes, those sonsabitches downstate steal ten thousand more!"
October 24, 2006 2:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course it is.
In my opinion the only proper course is to give the man a respectful hearing without condemning or necessarily agreeing with him.
Maybe most atrocious is to taunt him as just prejudiced.
Yes indeed.
Times like this one might wish to be a Christian and believe in hell for evildoers.
Best, Terry
October 24, 2006 2:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did anyone ask him any questions?
He also talks about the economy and taxation, which is very odd at best.
October 24, 2006 3:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Roskam's position is apparently that we should stay in Iraq forever, at the cost of many more lives of young Americans, billions more dollars, and the continual loss of respect of the entire world.
Iraq is not making us safer. The Republicans just don't have a plan other than more of the same.
October 24, 2006 3:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly. If he were campaigning for Democrats, he'd be getting the full Swift Boat level smear from the Right on Fox News every night this month, just like Cindy Sheehan (they wrote a whole freaking book in an attempt to discredit her, for God's sake!) and the "Jersey Girls" whose husbands died on 9/11.
Beamer's foreign policy views are really out there, and if America pursued them, we'd be in even worse shape than we are now. Americans have overwhelmingly rejected his viewpoint. What qualifications does he have for his opinions, other than emotional involvement? Dem candidates should just credit his views to their opponents, since he's campaigning with their opponents, and then run against those and where they would necessarily lead America (further down the rabbit hole). That's taking the high road.
October 24, 2006 3:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is it just me or do you find former Solicitor General Ted Olson's low profile interesting? Why isn't he the GWOT poster boy because of his wife's death?
Maybe he is pissed that he didn't get the memo that led to Ashcroft flying charter. He might be blaming the WH for Barbara's demise.
October 24, 2006 9:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Since Iraq and the Osama bogeyman aren't playing well, taxes seem to be the only ploy the Repubs have left. I'm in IL-08 and today I received an unidentified robocall (didn't say paid for by the Repub Nat'l Comm. or anything) advising me that before I voted I should remember that Democrats want to raise taxes. Truly pathetic.
October 24, 2006 9:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lets get off our goddamned high horses, this guy is a political whore. Its a classic Repug attack, start by telling everyone how much you respect the opposition, showing the world how level headed and compassionate you are, then brutally attack them. That this whore chose to appear in this particular race shows how cheap he is. This David Beamer is the 2006 version of
Paula Jones.
October 25, 2006 8:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
cow·ard (kourd)
n.
1. One who shows ignoble fear in the face of danger or pain.
2. Republican who surrenders his rights in fear of standing up for America's ideals.
Yes, we all know that there are bad men out there that want to do us wrong. We deal with them... not take out an entire country and kills multiple thousands of innocents so we can "feel" a bit safer.
As a veteran, I am getting sick and tired of deferment receptients and "I had more important things to do than to serve" Republicans telling me about courage and sacrafice... then calling into question my patriotism because I disagree with them.
If they want to cower in fear and surrender that which makes us American, then the are free to do so... but please, do not disguise cowardice as patriotism. It isn't.
October 25, 2006 8:28 AM | Reply | Permalink