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.
Editor's note: This post has been updated.