Why the right will always be wrong on the Edwardses

You know, there's a very easy-to-understand, very concise, reason why so many right-wingers fail to grasp why John Edwards wouldchoose to stay in the presidential race despite the recurrence of Elizabeth's cancer. And that is this:
Sacrifice, be it personal or shared, isn't a Republican value. Nor is service.
I could expand upon that in much greater detail, and I still might, but that, in a nutshell, says it all. Since Republicans don't understand sacrifice or service, don't respect or honor either, they will never understand what John and Elizabeth are doing. And that fact says as much about their lack of character as it does the Edwardses' abundance of it.

Tags: Elizabeth Edwards, John Edwards, Republicans (all tags)

Comments

7 Comments

Mr. Hughes

I suppose everyone is going to jump on me for this but I think your very well intentioned diary will be misunderstood and used against us.

I'm not sure if it can be claimed that "sacrifice" and "service" necessarily is a trait of any political persuasion.  It is simply a fact that most of our military service personnel vote Republican (the reasons why are not important for the sake of this discussion).  As I recall the absentee votes coming out of the combat areas of Iraq in 2004 from our troops ran close to 90% in favor of Bush (again, the reasons why are unimportant right now).  Some will say that you are arguing that since these soldiers are mostly Republican that you are arguing that these people in COMBAT do not "understand" service or sacrifice.

I think I know what you are trying to say -- and anything anti-Republican I'm probably for -- but please amend this diary because it just comes off wrong.  I do not agree with their mission but I think these fine soldiers of ours in Iraq understand sacrifice and service better than most.

I'm sorry to point this out and disagree.  There are too many Republicans to battle for us to waste time battling with each other.

by MaryGallan 2007-03-27 12:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Mr. Hughes

If we're gonna get all indignant about generalized claims, I must ask that you provide a credible link to support your claim that 90% of absentee ballots in combat areas in Iraq favored Bush's re-election -- on its face this claim simply sounds false.  Now, how do we even begin to account for the shortage of liberal and Democratic points of view that are accessible to our service personnel, which may account for the uncritical support of Bush (and the republican slant)?

by bedobe 2007-03-27 03:48PM | 0 recs
It's hardly the point...

The military for quite some time always votes heavily Republican:  get over it!

The point wasn't about the military vote it was about the insultingly silly claim that Republicans know nothing about sacrifice or service.  Of course they do (Ever hear of John McCain and his years as a POW).

This is where politics gets disgusting, when someone tries to dehumanize the other side just because they disagree with them.

I tried to be polite:  the diary was silly and juvenile and embarrassing to our side.

by MaryGallan 2007-03-28 07:31AM | 0 recs
Re: It's hardly the point...

And I disagree with your over-hyped reaction to what is clearly meant as a simple rant, not a treatise on the psychology of the "other side."  As for your generalization about the military, as a former Marine that votes with the Democratic party and is a strong progressive, I would still like to see a source supporting your claim that 90% of service personnel in "combat areas" voted for Bush's re-election.  I'm also trying to be polite, so I'll simply say that I disagree with your over-hyped reaction to the diary.

by bedobe 2007-03-28 10:30AM | 0 recs
Debate technique..

So when you were left looking silly and inexperienced politically by your lightweight post and my pointing it out as such you thought a successful debate technique would be to try "distraction and diversion" by attempting to switch the issue to exactly how many members of our military vote Republican?  Not a very masterful response.  A response like yours that gives away your embarrassment at being caught on the wrong side of common sense should simply be avoided.

The issue was "sacrifice and service".  Why don't you "sacrifice" and do the rest of us "service" by not posting anymore until you gain a lot more life experience and plain ol' book knowledge?

by MaryGallan 2007-03-28 10:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Debate technique..

Ha, what a ridiculous response -- just like your original over-hyped concerned over what is a clear rant by the diarist.  I'm not one to resort to name calling on any occasion, not even on anonymous blogs, but you're a clear illustration of a "concern troll."  By god, please find something more important to act all indignant about.  As a substantive point, your original point is as vacuous as the slogan "I'm for the children" -- of course, everyone is "for the children" (by it self, the slogan mean nothing).  Likewise, individually, ALL AMERICANS have a rightful claim to "sacrifice and service."  However, as a political ideology/movement, the republican party and conservatives do not hold "shared sacrifice" and "community service" in high regard; in fact, their whole mantra has been about the individual and how individuals do not owe back to the community (hence their calls to dismantle programs/agencies that work for the common welfare).  So, in terms of representing an ideology, I agree with the diarist, the republican and conservative ideology do not hold "sacrifice and service" in high regard; even though, yes, as Americans, some of republicans have "served and sacrificed" for our country.  So what's your point?  Is it as empty as merely saying that you, too, are for the children?  Give me a break.

by bedobe 2007-03-28 11:07AM | 0 recs
Re: Why the right will always be wrong on the Edwa

Is the GOP right on anything?

by stormbear 2007-03-28 06:30AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads