October 13, 2012

Democrats Try to Put Fighter Pilot Back in the Kitchen

Marc Comtois

Rhode Island native Martha McSally is running as a Republican for the 2nd Congressional District in Arizona. Her opponent is Ron Barber, winner of a special election in April and former aid to Gabby Giffords. Nancy Pelosi's Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is running this ad against McSally:

McSally thinks the ad's portrayal of her is "laughable".

“The fact that they use this theme of Martha McSally in a kitchen cooking up recipes is…overtly sexist and insulting to any woman, but it certainly doesn’t fit specifically with me,” she said in a phone interview. “For crying out loud, I served 26 years in the military. I was too busy shooting 30 mm out of my A-10 at the Taliban and al Qaeda to spend any time in a kitchen.”

As Mary Katherine Hamm writes, "Nowhere in the country perhaps is the irony of the Democrats’ 'war on women' attack more glaring than in McSally’s race."

McSally has flown some 300 combat hours over Iraq and Afghanistan, earning the Bronze Star during her time commanding a combat squadron in Operation Enduring Freedom during 2005 and 2006.

McSally also sued her bosses at the Department of Defense in the early 2000s to change Pentagon policy forcing women service members to wear the abaya— Muslim body covering— when they went off base in Saudi Arabia. The policy changed. She uses that powerful example when constituents wonder if she’ll simply toe the party line once she gets to Washington, she said.

“I’m a conservative and I’m an independent thinker.”

Wish she'd move back to Rhode Island.

Comments, although monitored, are not necessarily representative of the views Anchor Rising's contributors or approved by them. We reserve the right to delete or modify comments for any reason.


Wrong ad plays when you click the video.

Posted by: Max D at October 13, 2012 10:35 AM

Liberals hate people who are in their target demographics that do not follow their prescribed train of thought for said demographic.

Posted by: joe bernstein at October 13, 2012 11:11 AM


The not so funny part is the word 'hate' is very fitting. Normally I'd say it was too strong a word but when you listen to liberals they literally seethe when talking about the right. The irony is they're the first to label anyone who disagrees a hater.

Posted by: Max D at October 13, 2012 11:24 AM

The only thing progressives hate more than a conservative (pro-life) woman is a conservative black individual. In their view, women and blacks are *supposed* to act in a preset collective way, so when an individual breaks that mold, it's a a threat to the progressive group-based, identity-politics framework. I've heard Clarence Thomas called an "Uncle Tom" or "race traitor" by progressives at least a dozen times. Always remember that the ends justifies the means to progressives in all things, so racism is okay as long as it's furthering their warped movement. See also: affirmative action.

Posted by: Dan at October 13, 2012 12:36 PM

Thanks MaxD!

Posted by: Marc at October 13, 2012 6:40 PM

Liberals think in group dynamics.They have no real concept of the individual.They have evolved to a near herd mentality.They don't handle the truth well.All their posturing about the individual and freedom of expression is really very narrowly defined-it has to be in a pre approved format,even when it "seems"inconoclastic.Liberals live in a mental safety zone of self deception.I'm not even talking politics here-it goes much farther.Political correctness isn't really political-it's a protective shield to avoid the reality that might be depressing or uncomfortable.
I expect things to be going on without our control and I think we live in a Universe where happiness and security are as fleeting as a breath of wind.Keep hold of it when you can.Liberals think life can be socially engineered.It can't.
I'd recommend any book by Cormac McCarthy to drive this point home-his books are neither political nor religious in any degree.
He elucidates it much better than I am capable of even attempting.

Posted by: joe bernstein at October 13, 2012 6:46 PM

I meant to say"devolved" above,not "evolved".

Posted by: joe bernstein at October 13, 2012 6:48 PM

She seems like a beautiful,patriotic woman. My only objection is that she thinks it's insulting for a woman to cook meals for her family.

That's snobbish and politically correct in the extreme. Too bad she can't get it all together in her head.

Posted by: helen at October 13, 2012 10:56 PM

One other thing;her political opponents have pushed her buttons really hard and she apparently caved.

Posted by: helen at October 14, 2012 2:33 AM


Caved on what?

Posted by: Max D at October 14, 2012 7:35 PM

Cops, prosecutors, astronauts, baseball players, tv actors, military veterans, and millionaires that have sold real estate, used cars, or risky get rich schemes ,,,,,, when they run for elected office they can use their past experience to prove their competence, or , at least their noteworthiness. But they still have to present an agenda that is electable. The ads against McSally describe her positions. Those positions are what you should be talking about. Good veteran. But maybe not good legislator.

Posted by: David S at October 14, 2012 8:06 PM

Well,one thing is for certain-there enough scumbag lawyers who are legislators and screwing things up

Posted by: joe bernstein at October 14, 2012 8:39 PM

" But maybe not good legislator."

I know this hard for you to comprehend but just because she doesn't see it your way doesn't make her a bad legislator.

Posted by: Max D at October 14, 2012 11:08 PM

Joe - Do you think they are bad legislators because they are lawyers or are you implying a correlation there? I've never seen any evidence that this is the case. Lots of legislators are lawyers, regardless of whether they are good or bad, and that makes sense based on the training. On the other hand, there are numerous legislators who are union members, union leadership, or pensioners who explicitly run on behalf of union interests with union funding and endorsement and then do everyone else a disservice by rewarding those interests when they take office.

Posted by: Dan at October 15, 2012 9:46 AM

Just at the state level,I see too many shyster type lawyers using the Statehouse as an extension of their law practice.

Posted by: joe bernstein at October 15, 2012 10:51 AM

I hear the "too many lawyer politicians" gripe often, but I've never heard a sound rationale behind it. I don't participate in a blanket defense of the legal community, but I do ask that people identify why they consider it a problem to have lawyers writing laws. It only seems natural to me that lawyers would be drawn to and qualified for lawmaking positions. A background in government, research, and writing is an objectively good thing. I don't see the same special-interest-capture concerns with the legal community that I see with unions and other groups that are directly financially motivated. Sure it pays for lawyers to get the "connections," but that's true of anyone and any profession. It's not like attorneys can vote themselves pay raises as the unions can.

Posted by: Dan at October 15, 2012 11:25 AM

Give me a break-how many criminal defense attorneys are in the GA who vote on criminal laws?And the other laws that affect their practices?Most other occupations have to recuse themselves.

Posted by: joe bernstein at October 15, 2012 6:28 PM

Joe - I'm not aware of any criminal defense bill that would lead to an attorney getting more business. The worst I can think of is a bill that makes them look like they care about defendants, but I seriously doubt they'd get contributions from them.

Posted by: Dan at October 15, 2012 8:02 PM

When people like David Cicilline who are hard left ideologues get into the GA and also are defense attorneys,they do what they can to protect criminals,not for the money,but because at the bottom of their hearts,they resent normal society.

Posted by: joe bernstein at October 15, 2012 10:52 PM

I agree to the extent that "hard-left" candidates, such as Cicilline, engender a dysfunctional and dependent society, but that's a problem with progressives, not attorneys.

I think being a progressive, not being an attorney, makes David Cicilline a bad candidate. It may make him a bad attorney as well, but I'm not familiar enough to comment.

Posted by: Dan at October 16, 2012 8:43 AM

@Dan-I know you're an attorney-don't take it personally-attorneys have a role in society like any other legitimate occupation-I have a niece and cousin who are attorneys and I think highly of both of them-I was concerned about conflict of interest and certain individuals who use the Statehouse to enhance their private business dealings.

Posted by: joe bernstein at October 16, 2012 2:47 PM

Joe - No offense taken. As I said, I don't have anything invested in a blanket defense of my profession. It's just that I hear the "too many lawyer politicians" gripe often and it's always struck me as an odd complaint because I view the legal training as a plus. It does irk me when the complaint is made by those who see no problem with unions explicitly running candidates to further their financial interests and controlling a huge percentage of the General Assembly. Not saying you're one of those apologists - we know who they are.

Posted by: Dan at October 16, 2012 4:09 PM

My view of unionist/legislators is this:if they are just union members,it's not that big a deal-if they have a policymaking position in a union,it surely is.
I've had this complaint about Ruth Bader Ginsburg ever since she was confirmed-she was a major policymaker for the ACLU and never recuses herself from cases where they are litigants-if she had merely been a member,it wouldn't be an issue.

Posted by: joe bernstein at October 16, 2012 8:29 PM
Post a comment

Remember personal info?

Important note: The text "http:" cannot appear anywhere in your comment.