Gillispie hated how Obama “drew attention to a wounded warrior while eliding any responsibility for placing the young man in harm’s way”:
Obama’s gesture in the State of the Union will only accelerate the cynicism that already understandably dominates public opinion. There is no more serious decision that a government makes than to send its citizens a war. And there is nothing more disturbing than a president using soldiers’ sacrifices as a way of selling a grab-bag of domestic policy agenda items.
Cassidy agrees that on “one level, of course, it was a political ploy.” But he thinks highlighting Remsburg’s sacrifice served a larger purpose:
Ever since he ran for President, in 2008, Obama’s underlying message has been that too much of what happens in Washington is an insiders’ game that ignores, and often tramples upon, the wishes and interests of ordinary Americans. By inviting Remsburg—and DeMars and Shelley, too—Obama was taking part in what’s now a traditional ritual for speech-givers. But he was also trying to bridge the gaping chasm between politics and political decision-making as experienced by its practitioners in the nation’s capital and by the grunts out there in the factories, offices, and Army battalions.
He was also invoking the concept of public service, which, in Washington these days, is routinely subjugated to partisan advantage. And, finally, he was saying that we can do better, and we know we can—just look at this young man.
The detail that stood out for Charles Pierce:
When all the cheering for Cory Remsburg, the grievously wounded Army Ranger, died down didn’t you stop for a moment and think, “Damn, 10 deployments.” What the hell have we been doing there?
The Dish 