Baseball Crank
Covering the Front and Back Pages of the Newspaper
October 7, 2007
POLITICS: John Edwards Did Not Serve In Vietnam

Just when you thought we had finally gotten past this particular obsession, let us state for the record:

Rush Limbaugh was born in 1951.

Rush Limbaugh was judged, by his draft board, to be medically unfit to serve in the military.

John Edwards was born in 1953.

John Edwards was judged, by his draft board, to be medically fit to serve in the military.

John Edwards did not serve in the military.

So, why is his wife calling Limbaugh a "draft dodger"?

In point of fact, only one of the even marginally significant 2008 candidates in either party, John McCain, served. Let's move along, now.

Posted by Baseball Crank at 10:59 AM | Politics 2008 | Comments (23) | TrackBack (0)
Comments

When are the dims going to learn that they are not running against Limbaugh and Bush?

If we were going to elect a President based on military service, Clark would already be serving. Instead he is a great example of why that is not a must have qualification.

Posted by: maddirishman at October 7, 2007 11:33 AM

Well, it's because of the tendency to dismiss Limbaugh's cyst as being used to dodge the draft, since people served with them both in Vietnam and WW2 - and he's never given a good reason around it. I mean, really Crank - imagine what the general tone would be towards Clinton if he had the same happen - you don't think the same language would be used?
And Edwards had a deferment - which is not a dodge, since you still would be called after it was up.

"When are the dims going to learn that they are not running against Limbaugh and Bush?"
Yawn - I always wonder about people who use LGF/Freeper style insults. Do they think they bother people? Or that they're funny? Honestly man, it's just sad.
Well, you're wrong there. They are running against Bush. Every day, of the next year, will be used to connect every Republican to Bush.

And this? This is just an attempt to get their name in the papers, raise some money, and get some more attention.

Hopefully we'll only have to deal with this for 8 more years. then, no more boomer Presidents.

Posted by: Dave at October 7, 2007 9:17 PM

I say "draft-dodger/resister" is a badge of honor--it was an unjust war that had to be resisted.

Would you be willing to spread the word about www.draftresistance.org? It's a site dedicated to shattering the myths surrounding the selective slavery system and building mass civil disobedience to stop the draft before it starts!

Our banner on a website, printing and posting the anti-draft flyer or just telling friends would help.

Thanks!

Scott Kohlhaas

PS. When it comes to conscription, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure!

Posted by: Scott Kohlhaas at October 8, 2007 3:28 AM

Clinton admitted to having dodged the draft. Anyone complaining about draft dodgers better not have voted for him against two men who saw combat.

FWIW, I don't care about having served/not served.

Posted by: rbj at October 8, 2007 8:39 AM

In my opinion, Bob Kerry made the most effective use of his Viet Nam service record. He won the Congressional Medal of Honor and never mentions it. His biography dedicates all of two lines to winning the medal. Yet everyone knows he's a war hero. It is very Presidential.

Posted by: WD at October 8, 2007 10:36 AM

I'm sure even being a POW, if you don't follow the conservative agenda, doesn't give you anything with the pro-conflict, pro military-industrial crowd. Saw that with Kerry, Cleland, etc.

But again, it is one thing to be anti-conflict, pro-diplomacy and not serve, it is another to challenge whether or not people who served and got purple hearts are "real soldiers" if they don't believe in this conflict in Iraq. Rush asked for this one.

Posted by: AstrosFan at October 8, 2007 11:22 AM

AstrosFan: Listen to Rush's entire exchange on the "phony soldiers" issue. It's available all over the web. He was referring to one particular soldier who lied about his record, not any soldier that opposes the war.

Posted by: WD at October 8, 2007 12:11 PM

It never ends-no standards for liberals, high standards for conservatives.

Posted by: John Salmon at October 8, 2007 12:54 PM

I agree, there is no reason to call Rush a draft dodger. I think there is never a reason to stoop to a lie, when the truth is better. So do NOT call Rush Limbaugh a draft dodger, because he isn't. Drug Addicted Impotent Prescription Shopper Limbaugh sounds a bit more melodious anyway.

And John, while I agree that each side certainly sets different standards for the other, any side that has Bill O'Reilly and Ann Coulter should never ever claim they have standards, unless the bar is set below level.

Posted by: Daryl Rosenblatt at October 8, 2007 2:14 PM

DR-I was talking, of course, about the standards set by liberals.

To lefties, It didn't matter that Bill Clinton didn't serve, but it did that GWB (supposedly) got a break to get into the ROTC and didn't fulfill all of his requirements.

Posted by: John Salmon at October 8, 2007 2:29 PM

"He was referring to one particular soldier who lied about his record, not any soldier that opposes the war."
No, he wasn't WD. Read the transcript.

He might have been thinking about someone who lied. He might have meant someone who lied, and wanted to talk about that. He may have been not paying attention at all - I can believe all of these things. But not what you bring up.
It went:
"They never talk to real soldiers. They pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and spout to the media."
Limbaugh responded, "Phony soldiers."
And then the caller's reply.
"Phony soldiers. If you talk to any real soldier and they're proud to serve, they want to be over in Iraq, they understand their sacrifice and they're willing to sacrifice for the country"
Only after that is your connection brought up.

His response is directly about "soldiers that come up out of the blue" - and his caller says that real soldiers want to be in Iraq, as a definition to what is opposite of what he suggested.

Posted by: Dave at October 8, 2007 3:15 PM

Dave: I listened to the entire segment. After the exchange that you quoted, he talks about Jesse Macbeth. It seemed pretty clear to me that he was referring to Macbeth - and a few others who did similar things - the whole time when he brought up phony soldiers. That is what Rush is saying that he meant and the audio, to my ear, supports that. As I said, my impression; I could be wrong.

Posted by: WD at October 8, 2007 3:57 PM

So, I think this is kind of relevant... John Edwards is running for national public office where he will be responsible for policy decisions and formulation.

Rush Limbaugh is a radio talk show host whose influence extends to people who listen to his radio show (which excludes a huge number of the people who generally agree with him).

So why the heck was the comparison even brought up? Mrs. Edwards needs to realize that she's part of a political campaign, and that Rush Limbaugh is not relevant to that campaign.

Posted by: Joel Baughman at October 8, 2007 4:25 PM

Joel, I disagree that Rush is not part of the campaign. Since he, like Hannity, got enormous amounts of mileage out of the Swift Boat Veterans Who... Sorry can't use the word truth with them, they injected their own opinions into the campaign. As is their right. However, if you dish it out, you have to take it. Rush has made himself, with the right wing's assent, among their prime spokesmen. So yes, he has to take it.

Was Bush wrong in his service? Yes, considering the argument was used vs. Gore and Kerry, both of whom served a lot more honorably (and in Kerry's case, bravely) than Bush, who did weasel an appointment he really did not earn, and seemingly did not keep. Should Edwards' wife bring that up? Of course not..Crank, the truth, which you pointed out, ended that argument. But she did not start it, just went into it.

Posted by: Daryl Rosenblatt at October 8, 2007 4:48 PM

Daryl, what the heck is "the Campaign?" Elizabeth Edwards is a very visible part of one candidate's campaign.

Rush is an independent advocate of one political movement. He's part of the political debate, of course, but doesn't speak for Mitt Romney's campaign any more than Markos Mousilitas speaks for Clinton's.

But I guess since I didn't serve in Vietnam (having been born several years after we pulled out), I'm not qualified to make any kind of commentary on the military or the war in general. Nor is John Edwards, his wife, Rush, nor most of the people who have posted on this topic. So if Edwards has a point, none of us have a point.

Posted by: Joel Baughman at October 8, 2007 5:45 PM

She should have just mentioned Limbaugh is a coward, and left it at that.
BTW, the fact of him being a coward has NOTHING to do with his avoiding service in Viet Nam. That was over 35 years ago.
Look at his personal cowardice on display in the last 15 years.

Posted by: Robert at October 8, 2007 10:36 PM

Of course, sending your cancer-stricken wife out to do your dirty work for you, that's the kind of political courage I look for in a presidential candidate.

Posted by: spongeworthy at October 9, 2007 11:19 AM

Better to send your maid out to score you Oxycotin.
But Limbaugh is not held accountable, of course, because he's not poor and powerless.

Posted by: Robert at October 9, 2007 11:28 AM

Sponge...I presume every time W is in trouble he doesn't go to the Laura card? C'mon. Better yet, let's start doing all of our public events in front of military guys ordered to cheer for you. That's political courage. But oh, that's right...IOKIYAR...

Posted by: AstrosFan at October 9, 2007 2:19 PM

You must be joking. The Laura card? WTF are you even talking about, the Laura card.

And since when is Limbaugh running for anything? Are you telling me you see nothing wrong with a candidate who lets his wife play attack dog while he stand back and preens? Does that spell courage to you?

Hey, maybe if you write the Edwards campaign a really big check, the Slky Pony can wheel out a crippled person to attack Sean Hannity! He's got that kind of political courage you know.

Posted by: spongeworthy at October 9, 2007 4:43 PM

sponge,
Do I see something wrong with a candidate who lets his wife play attack dog while he stand back and preens?
Yes, but i see something wrong with starting a war because my dad is on the board of a war profiteer like the Carlyle Group too, so you can't go by me.

Isn't Limbaugh running for "World's Biggest Phony"?
I smell a landslide.

Posted by: Robert at October 9, 2007 9:06 PM

"Are you telling me you see nothing wrong with a candidate who lets his wife play attack dog while he stand back and preens? "

I do see something wrong with that, but I see something wrong with starting a war because my dad is on the board of a war profiteer like The Carlyle Group too--so you can't go by me.

Posted by: Robert at October 9, 2007 9:09 PM

Rush Windbag cares about one thing, and one thing only in conducting his daily bloviations: ratings. High ratings allow him to command a larger salary which in turn allows him to pay for all his hillbilly heroin and other smack like substances.

To think people with Harvard Law degrees take this guy seriously for one second is incomprehensible. To think that they take the time to defend his honor boggles my mind.

Tomorrow we can discuss the teachings of the honorable William O'Rielly, loudmouth extraordinaire.

Posted by: Patrick at October 9, 2007 10:08 PM
Site Meter 250wde_2004WeblogAwards_BestSports.jpg