TPM Election Central | Talking Points Memo

Alriiiiiighty!!

You go Carol Porter!

Posted by whiterosebuddy
February 21, 2007 12:19 PM | Reply | Permalink

Amen. We all should start using this response to escalation/war supporters.

"If you support this so strongly why haven't you enlisted? Why haven't you urged your sons, daughters, or grandchildren to enlist? Just exactly who do you think should be fighting this war and sacrificing potentially everything?"

Posted by chophouse
February 21, 2007 12:22 PM | Reply | Permalink

She could give the address to Adam Putnam and Patrick McHenry on the House floor.

Posted by BlueinColorado
February 21, 2007 12:23 PM | Reply | Permalink

I'm in love!

More backbone, more often.

This is sooo much better than "I was misled."

Posted by gonzone
February 21, 2007 12:25 PM | Reply | Permalink

You're kidding me, right? How is that comment any different from telling Shea-Porter to donate her salary to the causes she would support funding? Maybe she could cover the health-care premiums for fifty poor families. (I assume she's pro-universal care; if not, the point holds for whatever government programs she supports.)

Certainly it's admirable when people are willing to risk their lives for their political beliefs, much as it's admirable when people donate a large portion of their salaries to their political priorities. But accusing them of not doing so doesn't invalidate their argument, it merely dodges it in favor of an ad hominem attack.

Posted by pdano
February 21, 2007 12:29 PM | Reply | Permalink

This is exactly what I have been saying about Bush and Cheney for what seems like an eternity; too bad the voters didn't share the perspectives of this WWII veteran.

Posted by ronbon
February 21, 2007 12:37 PM | Reply | Permalink

CSP!CSP!CSP!

Seriously, I wonder why some variation of that argument hasn't become standard-issue especially with respect to the surge? I can only think of two GOP members of congress (John McCain and Kit Bond) who could respond adequately to it.

Posted by Expo
February 21, 2007 12:37 PM | Reply | Permalink

Just exactly who do you think should be fighting this war and sacrificing potentially everything?"

I have tried this, and sadly the response is 'they volunteered'. Can you believe that? Whenever I hear it, I know they listen to Limbaugh..and it is futile to continue the dialog.

Posted by whiterosebuddy
February 21, 2007 12:44 PM | Reply | Permalink

pdano:

Yeah I value my money just as much as my life too, chump.

Posted by rustyaustin
February 21, 2007 12:50 PM | Reply | Permalink

The Truth Shall Set You Free, Mr. Cullen.

Go forth and "support the troops" in Iraq, along with your brothers who call in to the Limbaugh and Hannity show every day--the majority of them between the ages of 22-42: Enlistment Age!

But, they aren't enlisting, oh no, not for them, the true costs of war, the ugly brutality, the horrific, nightmarish, shocking, brutality. They'll call and issue their stock hypocrisies about "supporting the troops" but they don't want to be "the troops" who get their support.

Thanks to Rep. Carol Shea-Porter for pointing out that the emperor has no clothes. It should be a regular refrain.

Posted by Tennessean
February 21, 2007 12:51 PM | Reply | Permalink

pdano:

"Certainly it's admirable when people are willing to risk their lives for their political beliefs, much as it's admirable when people donate a large portion of their salaries to their political priorities. But accusing them of not doing so doesn't invalidate their argument."

Right.

So then - by YOUR position - Republicans should rescind their criticisms of Bill Clinton for his not having lived up to his marriage vows? After all - what do his ACTIONS have to do with his WORDS or ARGUMENTS?

But then, any herd that can overlook Rush Limbaugh's drug addiction and drug dealing can overlook ANYTHING.

Posted by GayIthacan
February 21, 2007 1:01 PM | Reply | Permalink

Has Cullen replied to the invitation? Don't hold your breath. Another gutless chickenhawk with "other" priorities. Other than his patriotism to his country. Can't get on the profiteer's bandwagon in the Army in Iraq.

Posted by nellieh
February 21, 2007 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink

There is nothing more refreshing to read about than a war whimp (who is eager to bang the war drum) being put in his place.

Well, perhaps, maybe, to have seen the look Cullen's face.

Bravo Carol!

Posted by wptyree
February 21, 2007 1:10 PM | Reply | Permalink

How is it different?

Apparently Fergus Cullen is willing to send a lot of other people to kill and to die or be maimed for what he claims to believe in. If he's not willing to kill and to risk death or maiming for his beliefs, then he cannot legitimately demand that others do so.

Advocating for a healthcare policy is not the same as advocating the destruction of human beings in a war.

Is Cullen a member of a protected class that could be legitimately exempt from service? Apparently he's not, but is merely another dime-a-dozen political operative. So assuming he is otherwise qualified for military service in Iraq, and he believes so strongly in that cause that he advocates publicly for it, then he obligates himself morally to join the service and request assignment to Iraq.

Posted by ricgerace
February 21, 2007 1:16 PM | Reply | Permalink

Apparently, Fergus Cullen has other priorities.

Posted by jeffgee
February 21, 2007 1:31 PM | Reply | Permalink

I'm with pdano that it's an ad hominem attack and not a logical rebuttal. He can always reply that it's because he does more in fighting terrorism by working as a politican. Heck, he can work to send lots of people to die, rather than just offer himself up. That doesn't make us like it, but there you go.

So I'm not at all pleased with those who accuse him here of hypocrisy, and I agree with pdano, too, that it reminds me why I'm sick of accusations that Edwards earns too much or someone else is a limousine liberal, when I know who they're fighting for.

That said, if we don't allow ourselves the smugness, it's a great one-liner when used in the right spirit. It's funny, it's punchy, and it's a reminder that many of the war's supporters no longer really think their family's deaths would be anything now but in vain, even if they won't admit it.

John

http://www.haberarts.com/

Posted by jhaber
February 21, 2007 1:32 PM | Reply | Permalink

Remember when TPM was linked from littlegreenfootballs a few days ago and we had a flood of sewage into the message boards as a result?

i asked one of those turds floating through that exact question, and i this is what the response was:

As far as those pro-freedom and not serving: It's a free country - for the moment. One can freely voice his/her opinion without the need to justify it to anyone. And an all-volunteer force, which has no trouble meeting recruitment goals, irrespective of what your beloved left-wing media might convey.

it's like asking a horse with three legs why it isn't racing in the kentucky derby. suddenly it's the fastest thing on three legs you've ever seen, running away from you.

these people are mentally insane, should we give them more credit than that?

that's my opinion.

Posted by lyleleander
February 21, 2007 2:05 PM | Reply | Permalink

Thanks to Rep. Porter. Whenever two or more College Republicans gather together, a military recruiter should be there, too. Surely they don't ALL have other priorities than service. Alas, most of them would rather shoot off their mouths than shoot a weapon.

Posted by Long Memory
February 21, 2007 2:14 PM | Reply | Permalink

i'm in all honestly really trying to figure out if you guys are serious when you're saying this rebuttal isn't a legitimate question to ask someone that is of fighting age, thinks the war in iraq is the last line of defense between us and fighting them in our streets, and yet can't find the courage to serve.

it's not an ad hominem attack, it's a completely legitimate question. much like asking the dad who's standing outside a schoolyard watching his kids get beaten up while he talks on his cellphone what the fuck he's doing.

and in case you didn't notice, every branch of the military is short on their recruiting goals. in fact, i think the army last year reduced their quotas by like 80% just so they could phonily say they had still made it for the year.

on top of the stories coming out recently where every branch of the military is now actually accepting people with violent felonies on their records, people who haven't graduate from high school, etc., because that's how desperate they are to meet recruiting goals.

it's a very real and honest question, and for you and the other guy on here calling it a cheap shot, exactly what war are you paying attention to?

Posted by lyleleander
February 21, 2007 2:17 PM | Reply | Permalink

Its obvious Fergus supports the troops, he just doesn't want to be one.

Posted by JohnW1141
February 21, 2007 2:25 PM | Reply | Permalink

Ha. I'm sure Mr. Cullen is very similar to the head of the College Republicans I interviewed when I was in law school. After lobbing him softball after softball I finally asked him the date he was supposed to report for duty to contribute to the "defining battle of our lifetime" - his words - he just kind of sat there confused. The guy couldn't have been older than 22.

Posted by Legalize
February 21, 2007 2:27 PM | Reply | Permalink

pdano, Fergus Cullen isn't asking Americans to donate a few dollars to the "Republic ?Party" or his favorite charity. Fergus Cullen is sounding the war cries while pounding his ?chest, demanding Americans fight and DIE for a cause that he himself is unwilling to ?even fight much less die for. When you ask people to die for a cause ya better be willing ?to risk your own life... If ya don't, you'll eventually find yourself short of followers. After ?all, Cullen isn't the Commander in Chief of the US armed forces ya know. He's just a ?healthy young man who is ripe for the pickings in Iraq. Indeed, it's high time Fergus ?enlist --- or shut the hell up. There’s nothing worse than a young vibrant, healthy ?pusillanimous chest beater who claims to fervently believe in a deadly war that he has ?no intention of ever fighting. Now, it hardly seems fair that he’s asking others to kill and be killed ?for a cause he doesn’t consider important or serious enough to risk his own life dying ?for.

Posted by Leslie Pool
February 21, 2007 2:43 PM | Reply | Permalink

pdano:

If you believe we should have universal health care your obligations are as follows:

vote for candidates who agree with you
volunteer for, or donate to, candidates who agree with you
win elected office and vote accordingly.

If I'm not mistaken, Rep. Shea-Porter has certainly managed No. 3 and I would guess 1 and 2 are in the bag as well.

If you believe military action is necessary, justified, and appropriate, and are not otherwise disqualified then the most direct path to reaching your goal is to take action yourself (as Shea-Porter has done in support of her goals).

If you support an action, but decline to take it, be prepared to explain yourself. I can accept that you have other priorities, but if you think this is a battle for the very survival of the nation, please tell me what comes ahead of that.

BTW, Jhaber, before labeling something an ad hominem attack, you might want to make sure you know what one is.

Posted by Lindsey
February 21, 2007 2:59 PM | Reply | Permalink

I see Lyleleander made the point. Sorry for the redundancy.

Posted by Lindsey
February 21, 2007 3:01 PM | Reply | Permalink

pdano:
Democrats were willing to pay taxes (their own included) to fund programs.

Republicans? They cut taxes so they don't even have to pay for the war, much less go fight in it. They're willing to do it on the government's big credit card and leave the bill for future generations to pay.

Posted by peperepaul
February 21, 2007 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink

This is a bad argument. It is bad because it is no way specific to the surge, but to any military action. It is bad because it incorrectly equates the desire to accomplish a military aim with the willingness to do it oneself. It is most significantly bad because it has absolutely nothing to do with whether the surge is a good idea. If a 45-year-old had said the same thing, then Shea-Porter's response would be... what? She simply took the cheap way out and attacked the speaker.

You simply assert the existence of a difference between health care and the war, but there actually isn't a difference in kind, only in degree. Where are Shea-Porter's donations to veteran's services? Yellow fever in Africa? Legal aid in L.A.? My point is not that she's obligated to donate her full salary, but that it's hypocritical to criticize Cullen for not making a huge sacrifice while not saying that Shea-Porter is a hypocrite for not donating her full salary and saving far more lives than Cullen's one-soldier contribution would make.

Finally, given that Cullen has a position of not-negligible power within the Republican Party of New Hampshire, it is entirely possible that he is more of an asset to a successful surge plan by continuing the political argument than by providing one more soldier in six months.

Posted by pdano
February 21, 2007 3:14 PM | Reply | Permalink

SeeDee

Lindsey: I think the 'redundancy' is excusable...even demanded...for emphasis.

That Carol Shea-Porter's statement to the mis-guided (and craven) loud-mouth is appropriate; and, that it is un-assailable as an 'ad hominem' attack is clear to anyone.

And the same goes for others who have expressed such emphatic disgust with this well-known trait of the chicken-sh...er..hawks.

In all due respect, Jhaber is a bit off base.

Posted by SeeDee
February 21, 2007 3:20 PM | Reply | Permalink

It might make an interesting media project to put large numbers of young up-and-coming chicken-hawks on record as to why they choose against military service during a time of war. In a generation or two it might be handy to know who had a boil on their ass or who had 'better things to do.'

Posted by waltdv1
February 21, 2007 3:21 PM | Reply | Permalink

Oy. People should live up to their moral obligations. Hypocrisy is bad. But a person's acknowledgment that something must be done by an arm of the government does NOT require that that person be the one to do it. You support that statement because it's politically convenient to do so, as it aligns you with a Democrat against a Republican. But you don't really believe that, unless you personally are doing what you believe creates the most social good. Are you, and do you hold everyone to that standard? Because I would respect that. Otherwise, I don't think your (and Shea-Porter's) position is defensible.

Posted by pdano
February 21, 2007 3:21 PM | Reply | Permalink

She's a member of Congress. As far as the issues you're talking about, she's joined up.

I do like the argument that GOP functionaries are more valuable than soldiers though.

Posted by benton
February 21, 2007 4:13 PM | Reply | Permalink

"Courage of his convictions?" Such an antiquated, strange notion.
One wonders how it is these neocon assholes are allowed to style
themselves hawks, despite Vietnam era draft dodging. Or for those who are in my age group, why it is they were so inspired by Reagan, yet wearing the uniform wasn't a priority.

Well, what do I know. I'm simply a traitor who served in Iraq, a war I opposed from the outset.

In our "Alice in Wonderland" world, hawkishness is never having to risk your ass.

Posted by Tec619
February 21, 2007 5:46 PM | Reply | Permalink

Coward and liar are both ad hominem attacks, but they have the advantage of completely invalidating his argument.

If he believes that Iraq is the most important front in the most important conflict facing the world and he isn't there, then he is either a coward for not going yourself, or a liar about what he believes.

If he is a liar, then Iraq isn't the most important front in the most important conflict facing the world. If he is a coward, well that explains why he is so afraid of terrorists.

Posted by Ray
February 21, 2007 6:09 PM | Reply | Permalink

"But a person's acknowledgment that something must be done by an arm of the government does NOT require that that person be the one to do it."

Excuse me pdano but the government is us.

We all pay taxes to support various activities of government. I am not qualified to perform various medical services but I gladly pay taxes to support such activity.

Serving in the armed forces is different because that is an action that a citizen, any able bodied citizen, is qualified to perform. We don't have an army without direct citizen participation.

Rep. Shea-Porter's challenge to Cullen is valid and appropriate and should be pressed at every opportunity.

Posted by cal1942
February 21, 2007 6:21 PM | Reply | Permalink

Maybe this argument would not resonate so much if it weren't for the inconvenient truth of this: George -- my daddy got me out of the shooting war and I still went AWOL -- Bush; Dick -- I had other priorities -- Cheney -- and the myriad other administration chickenhawks. This regime loves war because it enriches them and their friends. They just want other peoples' children to die in them. Anything else would be unacceptable.

Yeah, hypocrisy is bad, but it rises to the level of immorality when it means that you send people to die for it when you're not putting any skin in the game yourself.

You know the difference, or else you're a troll.

Jan Knaus

Posted by CVille Dem
February 21, 2007 7:22 PM | Reply | Permalink

everyone's being a bit too logical -- although there is admittedly an important difference between advocating a goverment policy that would allow all to share in providing health care (explicitly espousing risk sharing and collective contribution) and having to take the entire burden on oneself. In supporting public health care the supporter has ALREADY expressed their willingness to participate in the collective sacrifice that would make it possible. If their plan is implemented, they will HAVE to contribute. This is not the same as advocating a policy for which one exempts oneself from having to bear the burden. That said, logic is not conservative's strong point -- or better said, they use it any way they please. They respond to affect, gut level appeals; and Shea-Porter's rejoinder gets them right on their own level. Still, anyone who has actually talked to young Republicans knows right away what their response will be: that they are contributing in other, "just-as-important" ways. Cheney was saving himself for his "destiny" when he managed to get three or four deferrals. Conservative warmongers believe this: that some people are born to be soliders and others are born to be policy makers, pundits, and business people living off the fat-back of the land that others die to defend. And they call liberals elitist...Talk about unmitigated gall!

Posted by benteddy
February 21, 2007 7:39 PM | Reply | Permalink

if the gentle Lady from NH has the courage of her covictions, she shold vote to cut off funding for the war in a BINDING resolution.

she is a lawmaker, has a voice and a vote. if she needs to know where the House of Reps is, call me.

see how easy it is? its like a mad lib!

I GUESS that we can now replace our politicians with fourth-graders. they dont command the same salaries or retinues...

Posted by jc chasezbian
February 21, 2007 8:23 PM | Reply | Permalink

I GUESS that we can now replace our politicians with fourth-graders. they dont command the same salaries or retinues...

JC, I certainly hope you're not advocating the use of child labor.

~~~~~~~~~~~
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.

Come visit PROJECT: Lucidity.

Posted by Eric Stepp
February 21, 2007 10:45 PM | Reply | Permalink

State GOP Chair in New Hampshire, eh? The man better be very careful what he says because GOP support up in that part of the world going down like a homesick mole.

Posted by Eddie-george
February 22, 2007 6:43 AM | Reply | Permalink

Nancy Irving

Ad hominem ("against the man") arguments may be technically fallacious according to Aristotle, but without them our political discourse would be much impoverished, if not entirely outlawed, as a ban on ad hominem argumentation would mean disallowing all accusations of hypocrisy, which are, by definition, arguments "against the man."

Republicans might enjoy being indemnified against such attacks, to which they are peculiarly subject, but we Democrats ought never to intimidated by such Latinate bluster.

Onward and upward!

Posted by Nancy Irving
February 22, 2007 7:53 AM | Reply | Permalink

it is entirely possible that he is more of an asset to a successful surge plan by continuing the political argument than by providing one more soldier in six months.

Translated: other priorities.

You would think that a person so passionate about a cause would be more than willing to put his person where his mouth advocates. Nothing wrong with pointing this out I say. But then, could be Cullen was just spouting the party line and didn't really mean what he said (i.e.lying).

Posted by gonzone
February 22, 2007 9:16 AM | Reply | Permalink

Hear, hear!!

Posted by gonzone
February 22, 2007 9:23 AM | Reply | Permalink

'One wonders how it is these neocon assholes are allowed to style
themselves hawks, despite Vietnam era draft dodging"

They are actually aptly called chickenhawks, for that very reason

Posted by glissade
February 24, 2007 10:40 AM | Reply | Permalink

[URL=http://www.pgdisdetta.info/video-clip-porno] video clip porno [/URL] video clip porno [URL=http://www.pgdisdetta.info/gogle-hearth] gogle hearth [/URL] gogle hearth [URL=http://www.pgdisdetta.info/albo] albo [/URL] albo [URL=http://www.pgdisdetta.info/google-ro] google ro [/URL] google ro [URL=http://www.pgdisdetta.info/serie-a] serie a [/URL] serie a [URL=http://www.pgdisdetta.info/ricorso] ricorso [/URL] ricorso [URL=http://www.pgdisdetta.info/tuttosport-it] tuttosport it [/URL] tuttosport it [URL=http://www.pgdisdetta.info/calcolo] calcolo [/URL] calcolo [URL=http://www.pgdisdetta.info/anteprime-video-porno] anteprime video porno [/URL] anteprime video porno [URL=http://www.pgdisdetta.info/vocabolario] vocabolario [/URL] vocabolario [URL=http://www.pgdisdetta.info/gogle-eart] gogle eart [/URL] gogle eart [URL=http://www.pgdisdetta.info/argento-asia] argento asia [/URL] argento asia [URL=http://www.pgdisdetta.info/escort-it] escort it [/URL] escort it [URL=http://www.pgdisdetta.info/ferro] ferro [/URL] ferro [URL=http://www.pgdisdetta.info/www-sesso-it] www sesso it [/URL] www sesso it [URL=http://www.pgdisdetta.info/sintomi] sintomi [/URL] sintomi [URL=http://www.pgdisdetta.info/il-treno-dei-desideri] il treno dei desideri [/URL] il treno dei desideri [URL=http://www.pgdisdetta.info/erotico-video] erotico video [/URL] erotico video [URL=http://www.pgdisdetta.info/pissing-video-gratis-pompino] pissing video gratis pompino [/URL] pissing video gratis pompino [URL=http://www.pgdisdetta.info/gay] gay [/URL] gay [URL=http://www.pgdisdetta.info/puzzle] puzzle [/URL] puzzle [URL=http://www.pgdisdetta.info/perizoma-donna] perizoma donna [/URL] perizoma donna [URL=http://www.pgdisdetta.info/gazzetta-it] gazzetta it [/URL] gazzetta it [URL=http://www.pgdisdetta.info/prestiti] prestiti [/URL] prestiti [URL=http://www.pgdisdetta.info/goole-video] goole video [/URL] goole video

Posted by Kristine
September 25, 2007 9:06 AM | Reply | Permalink

[URL=http://www.pgdisdetta.info/scientifico] scientifico [/URL] scientifico [URL=http://www.pgdisdetta.info/pasticceria] pasticceria [/URL] pasticceria [URL=http://www.pgdisdetta.info/www-winx-it] www winx it [/URL] www winx it [URL=http://www.pgdisdetta.info/claudia] claudia [/URL] claudia [URL=http://www.pgdisdetta.info/emoticon] emoticon [/URL] emoticon [URL=http://www.pgdisdetta.info/agenzie] agenzie [/URL] agenzie [URL=http://www.pgdisdetta.info/inviti] inviti [/URL] inviti [URL=http://www.pgdisdetta.info/charter-voli] charter voli [/URL] charter voli [URL=http://www.pgdisdetta.info/perdite] perdite [/URL] perdite [URL=http://www.pgdisdetta.info/annunci-toscana] annunci toscana [/URL] annunci toscana [URL=http://www.pgdisdetta.info/diocesi] diocesi [/URL] diocesi [URL=http://www.pgdisdetta.info/culi-sfondati] culi sfondati [/URL] culi sfondati [URL=http://www.pgdisdetta.info/porno-gratis] porno gratis [/URL] porno gratis [URL=http://www.pgdisdetta.info/gratuito] gratuito [/URL] gratuito [URL=http://www.pgdisdetta.info/keygen] keygen [/URL] keygen [URL=http://www.pgdisdetta.info/corsi-milano] corsi milano [/URL] corsi milano [URL=http://www.pgdisdetta.info/www-jessica-rizzo-it] www jessica rizzo it [/URL] www jessica rizzo it [URL=http://www.pgdisdetta.info/lesbiche] lesbiche [/URL] lesbiche [URL=http://www.pgdisdetta.info/freeones] freeones [/URL] freeones [URL=http://www.pgdisdetta.info/window-media-player] window media player [/URL] window media player [URL=http://www.pgdisdetta.info/porno-siti] porno siti [/URL] porno siti [URL=http://www.pgdisdetta.info/lavorare] lavorare [/URL] lavorare [URL=http://www.pgdisdetta.info/transex-annunci] transex annunci [/URL] transex annunci [URL=http://www.pgdisdetta.info/cam-ragazze] cam ragazze [/URL] cam ragazze [URL=http://www.pgdisdetta.info/annuncio-donna-matura] annuncio donna matura [/URL] annuncio donna matura