Well, it's official -- outspoken opposition to the commander in chief during wartime is no longer the supreme expression of patriotism. Even though this was all the rage a decade ago, while an earlier conflict raged in Iraq and a Republican named Bush was at the helm, anyone engaging in it today will face accusations of treason.
With the midterm elections only weeks away, MSNBC's Rachel Maddow is doing all she can for Democratic candidates, namely by smearing their opponents.
Her most recent target is Doug Lamborn, four-term Republican congressman from Colorado. At a campaign event in late September, Lamborn responded to a remark from a person who urged him "to support the generals and the troops" despite "the fact that there is no leadership from the Muslim Brotherhood in the White House." Here's what Lamborn said in response --
A lot of us are talking to the generals behind the scenes, saying, 'Hey, if you disagree with the policy the White House has given you, let's have a resignation. You know, let's have a public resignation and state your protest and go out in a blaze of glory.
After the Maddow show called Lamborn's office for clarification, spokesman Jarred Rego said the congressman was referring to defense cuts as mandated in sequestration and changes to the military's don't ask, don't tell policy. Rego also told The Hill that there are "no current discussions taking place and there are none that have anything whatsoever to do with criticizing our current military strategy to combat ISIS."
Nonetheless, two of Lamborn's GOP House colleagues from Colorado quickly distanced themselves from his remarks. "As a combat veteran, I know to keep my politics off the battlefield," tweeted Rep. Mike Coffman. Rep. Cory Gardner said there is "no room for partisan politics when it comes to our men and women in uniform."
This was all it took for Maddow to pile on -- "Both Mike Coffman and Cory Gardner are in tough, close races right now in Colorado, so it's understandable that they would not want to be associated with, you know, effectively trying to inspire mutiny in the military during wartime."
What a surprise it wasn't that Maddow's guest for the segment was retired Air Force general Irv Halter, the Democrat challenging Lamborn, who was more subdued in his criticism. Even though Halter said he was "appalled" by Lamborn's remarks, he labeled them "absolutely inappropriate" -- a far cry from Maddow's claim of "mutiny" --
MADDOW: As I understand it, general, your district has a huge population of service members and veterans. How do you think service members and veterans hear this when Doug Lamborn makes a comment about this about wanting generals to quit?
HALTER: Well, I think their reaction was what my reaction was which was, I was appalled. In fact, I had to ask them to show it to me twice before I believed what I heard. And having talked to veterans around the district, we have almost a hundred thousand here, they when they've seen this have all had the same view -- a sitting member of Congress, it is absolutely inappropriate for them to be encouraging military members, especially senior officers, to resign their commissions to make a political point.
Maddow then upped the ante and Halter did not take the bait, while also not pushing back on her hyperbole --
MADDOW: Is there any reason to believe that he's just making this up? I mean, there's always the possibility that he hasn't done anything like this, he wants to sound tough in front of a crowd, this is in fact something outlandish that he'd never do, or do you think that Congressman Lamborn has actually been trying to essentially pull off this kind of coup? Is there any evidence that this sort of lobbying is happening?
HALTER: Well I certainly don't have any evidence but there are a lot of questions out there.
If this is an attempted coup, it's the most transparent in history -- boasted of openly at a public event in the obvious presence of a campaign tracker, who dutifully provided video of Lamborn's remarks to the Halter campaign.
But as coup attempts go, it seems to lack a crucial element -- those allegedly involved actually attempting to take over the government after resigning from military service. I'm reminded of that Seinfeld episode when Jerry rented a car and the rental agency didn't have it for him. It was a two-step process, an annoyed Seinfeld pointed out to the agency employee -- there was the taking of the reservation, and the holding of the reservation. And of the two, holding the reservation was "the most important part." Much the same can be said of coups -- they don't stand a chance unless the conspirators, after having quit government service, then actually conspire to take over the government. It's that second step that's essential for the whole thing to succeed.
