Gitzo Loc: Indiana

Pryor: Being a Veteran Gives My Opponent a "Sense of Entitlement"

Article by; Daniel Doherty | Mar 05, 2014


Embattled Sen. Mark Pryor (D-AR) is grasping at straws. Nonetheless, while he did say he was grateful -- and thankful -- for Rep. Tom Cotton’s (R-AR) military service, his comments reek of desperation, arrogance, and contempt.

Last month’s polling numbers must have got under his skin, or something (via WFB):


Ed Morrissey reminds us that the irony here is exceedingly difficult to ignore. Pryor, after all, is the dutiful son of a former senator and governor himself. In other words, running for and winning high national office is oftentimes made easier when Daddy Dearest is the patriarch of a burgeoning political dynasty. Evidently, this irony was completely lost on Mr. Pryor, who accused his opponent of suffering from a false sense of entitlement. Really?

Nonetheless, it’s true that many great public servants have not served in the military. And I agree with Pryor’s suggestion that serving in the military is not -- and should never be -- a prerequisite for serving in Congress, although it almost once was. But I also agree with Cotton -- and MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough, apparently -- that the American public would be better served if more U.S. Senators were veterans. Over the last 40 years, the number of American veterans serving in Congress has declined steadily. Thus, at a time when we’re constantly at war, fighting nameless and faceless enemies, electing more veterans to the upper chamber would serve us well.

They know better than most the exigencies of war.


*****************************************************************************************************************

Take a real good look at this guy; I'm guessing that you're not going to be seeing him in the U.S. Senate any more, after the first of the year. (Another Obummercare "victim" )

BTW.......I also agree with Joe Cotton and "Morning Joe Scarborough" that we need MORE, not fewer, Veterans in Congress.

Mark Pryor, Arkansas U.S. Senator, DemocRAT

warrior Loc: Paso Robles CA

:thumbup: Korea and Viet-Nam vet

Gitzo Loc: Indiana

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: Warrior; Korea here; But because I spent my entire 4 years on active duty on two Sub Tenders and shore duty as part of ComSubLant, (Atlantic Fleet ), I never made it to Korea; saw quite a bit of the Atlantic, from Greenland down to Cuba, got to see the Nautilus launched and later worked on her in dry dock.

CaptainC Loc: Colorado, south of Denver

I know it will never happen, but I believe for anyone to be eligible for the presidency would be 3 years in military service. Any branch, any rank.

Infantry would be best!

ole sarg Loc: south florida

Yes, infantry would be best. You learn to really hate war as an infantry man! You learn more about people there than anywhere else.

pbearperry Loc: Massachusetts

Boy Scout here,no experience involving war,but pretty much "Prepared" for many other things.All except old age.

FrumCA

I don't usually agree with you ole sarge but you are spot on on this one. I think you learn to hate war by serving in any combat arm of the Army.
:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

guts Loc: texas.

Where you served is not important,What is important is that you did serve so Thank you and all other veterans. Viet Nam 66.