FollowUp 32: Wisconsin Republican Dirty Tricks

Governor Scott Walker sent me an e-mail today, 24 May 2012. Here we go again.

Patriot,

Well, that is how I view myself.  I didn't expect Mr. Walker to be so astute.

This is it. The Wisconsin Recall election is less than three weeks away.

Um, no.  Less than two weeks away, but it's okay by me if Mr. Walker's supporters turn out a week late.

The liberal special interests and Washington insiders have sworn to spend tens of millions of dollars to defeat me. I need your help right now to beat back this senseless Recall. Will you stand with me today?

No.  Again, he claims that outside money is pouring in to his opponents.  The truth is that Governor Walker has tens of millions more than do Wisconsin Democrats, much of his money coming from outside of Wisconsin.

For more than a generation in Wisconsin, the power of special interests and the liberal elite have gone largely unchecked. My Administration finally stood up to them, and we changed the way we do things in government in Wisconsin.

No.  Mr. Walker wants to pretend that the last generation did not include Republican Tommy Thompson as Wisconsin's longest serving governor ever.  Is he really calling Mr. Thompson a liberal?  If you look at the recent history of governors of Wisconsin, it is fairly balanced between Democrats and Republicans.  Neither side has "gone largely unchecked."  Liar.

That’s why my opponents are so desperate to defeat me in this Recall. They want to roll back the clock and take us back to the days of skyrocketing taxes, bloated budgets, and unchecked and unaccountable spending. We cannot let that happen.

No.  While Governor Walker has cut taxes on businesses, it is not true for the average Wisconsinite.  He is spending money beyond Wisconsin's tax revenue, something that was not true of his immediate predecessor.

The moment I became Governor, I set about the work that the people of Wisconsin sent me to do. We eliminated the deficit left by my Democrat predecessor. We gave the freedom of choice to public employees. Our reforms have allowed public employees to decide if they would like to spend (in some cases more than a thousand dollars a year in dues) or keep their hard earned money. We finally put the control of state government back where it belongs, in the hands of the people.

No.  This is a lie.  Mr. Walker was not left a mess.  His reforms took away collective bargaining from public employees; which is not an increase of choice.  That was after lying during the 2010 campaign and stating that he was not going after unions.  Mr. Walker is a proven liar on this.

I kept my promises to the voters here in Wisconsin. I didn’t raise taxes. We have not had massive lay offs of state workers. Our reforms have balanced the budget and lowered the unemployment rate to a level unseen since 2008.

No.  Mr. Walker is using fake employment figures.  The Bureau of Labor Statistics shows Wisconsin losing jobs in April.  Mr. Walker is a liar.

Now I need you to help me tell the out-of-state special interests that we do not want another tax-and-spend liberal in charge here in Wisconsin.

No.  Again, Mr. Walker is the one who has cornered the out-of-state special interests, CrossRoads GPS and the Koch brothers to name two of the biggest funders of his bid to keep his seat.

This Recall is not just about Wisconsin, it is about the cause of reform across this country. It is about deciding what kind of country we are going to be for generations to come. We must send a message that we can and will live within our means. We must not hand power back to a small group of special interests and let them run state governments into the ground across this great nation.

The recall is about deciding what kind of country we want.  Do we want balance between labor and business?  Do we want a viable middle class?  Do we want women to have control of their healthcare and bodies?  Do we want fully funded schools and strong education for our children?  Do we want fair taxes for everyone including businesses?  Or do we want Governor Walker's radical reform?

When we defeat this baseless Recall, it will send a powerful statement across our country about the kind of government we want to have and the bold reforms that will get us there.

The recall is not baseless.  It is based on the actions of Mr. Walker; actions in contradiction to the promises that he made when he sought the office of governor.

We have less than a month to go. I need your help – not tomorrow, not next week, but right now.

Okay.  Less than two weeks is also less than a month.

Today, I ask you to stand with me so I can continue to stand up for hard working taxpayers. Together, we can defeat this Recall and make history – in Wisconsin and across the country.

Keeping Governor Walker in office increases the burden on "hard working taxpayers" and relieves the burden on big business.  Mr. Walker is a liar.

Sincerely,

Scott Walker
Governor

16 November 2011, Original Pedantic Political Ponderings post.
30 November 2011, FollowUp 1.
4 December 2011, FollowUp 2.
11 December 2011, FollowUp 3.
14 December 2011, FollowUp 4.
15 December 2011, FollowUp 5.
30 December 2011, FollowUp 6.
13 January 2012, FollowUp 7.
17 January 2012, FollowUp 8.
25 January 2012, FollowUp 9.
2 February 2012, FollowUp 10.
9 February 2012, FollowUp 11.
12 February 2012, FollowUp 12.
18 February 2012, FollowUp 13.
22 February 2012, FollowUp 14.
6 March 2012, FollowUp 15.
12 March 2012, FollowUp 16.
16 March 2012, FollowUp 17.
30 March 2012, FollowUp 18.
31 March 2012, FollowUp 19.
3 April 2012, FollowUp 20.
4 April 2012, FollowUp 21.
11 April 2012, FollowUp 22.
14 April 2012, FollowUp 23.
17 April 2012, FollowUp 24.
21 April 2012, FollowUp 25.
29 April 2012, FollowUp 26.
2 May 2012, FollowUp 27.
6 May 2012, FollowUp 28.
10 May 2012, FollowUp 29.
13 May 2012, FollowUp 30.
23 May 2012, FollowUp 31.

30 May 2012, FollowUp 33.
2 June 2012, FollowUp 34.
4 June 2012, FollowUp 35.
5 June 2012, FollowUp 36.

FollowUp 28: Wisconsin Republican Dirty Tricks

A letter from Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker:

Dear Conservative,

Obviously, he doesn't know to whom he is writing.

As the duly elected Governor of Wisconsin I have been steadfast in my beliefs that limited government and fiscal responsibility should be the cornerstone of putting my state back on the road to prosperity.

Mr. Walker was "duly elected" and he may really believe that he has been working toward "limited government and fiscal responsibility".  His actions indicate otherwise.

I am facing a recall by the big-government public employee unions and their minions who are threatened by the voters actually being in charge of where their tax dollars are being spent.

If "their minions" includes over half of the state who dislike being lied to, having their rights limited, and being on the losing end of the GOP "war on women", then this is still wrong because those minions are the voters.

In November of 2010, the majority of Wisconsin voters resoundingly said enough-is-enough to the status quo and put me in charge of a state that had been beholden to big government special interests with a tax-and-spend mentality that created a $3.6 billion deficit.

No.  Former Governor Jim Doyle did not leave office with a huge debt.  The debt was caused by huge tax breaks that happened under Governor Walker.  I covered a few of the details in FollowUp 13 and FollowUp 25.

In less than a year we were able to eliminate this deficit and provide the freedom of choice for public employees . Our reforms are allowing them to decide if they would like to spend more than a thousand dollars a year in union dues or keep their money. We put a stop to the unions’ railroading of the taxpayers' hard-earned dollars.

See my links, just above, to look at the redistribution of wealth in Wisconsin under Governor Walker.  Unions were not "railroading" tax dollars.  That is absurd.  I covered a great deal of what really happened, including the courts overturning part of Mr. Walker's attacks on unions, in FollowUp 19.

What we need now is your help in telling the unions we do not want another tax-and-spend liberal at the reins of power in Wisconsin. You can do this by contributing $20, $50, $100, or whatever you can afford by clicking here .

Sorry, I have disabled that link.  Mr. Walker seems to be getting plenty of money from out of state without my helping him.

I have been a man of my word to the voters of this state and have always led by putting the interests of Wisconsin taxpayers first. 

No.  Mr. Walker is a liar.  He has put corporations first, not taxpayers.

Since taking office, I have eliminated a bureaucratic and bloated budget mess left by the previous administration without raising taxes or laying off state workers . Thousands of Wisconsinites are back on the job, and statewide property taxes have decreased for the first time in years. Stand with me today with a generous contribution of $20, $50, $100, or whatever you can afford .

Really?  Let's see how unemployment looks when compared with neighboring states.

Graphic from the Bureau of Labor Statistics

It looks like Wisconsin is doing slightly better than Illinois and Michigan and not as well as Iowa and Minnesota.  Wisconsin is not doing horribly, but Mr. Walker's brag seems a bit shallow.

The people of Wisconsin deserve to see the bold and courageous choices I have made come to fruition. It is time to stop these out-of-state special interests in their tracks and let them know that our conservative values will not be taken lightly .

The choices made by Mr. Walker were certainly bold.  In fact, they had little to do with his campaign promises.  The out of state special interests are favoring Mr. Walker, not opposing him.  He has the biggest money.  Two days ago, Time Magazine did a story on Mr. Walker's fundraising windfall.  "Since mid-January, Walker’s campaign has raked in more than $13 million, according to financial disclosure statements released this week. During that time, two-thirds of his cash came from outside the Badger State."

With your help, I will be the first Governor of Wisconsin elected twice in my first term.

Thank you for your support,

Scott Walker
Governor

Too many lies.  It is my hope that Wisconsin's Democrats come together after the primary on Tuesday and turn out their voters in June.

16 November 2011, Original Pedantic Political Ponderings post.
30 November 2011, FollowUp 1.
4 December 2011, FollowUp 2.
11 December 2011, FollowUp 3.
14 December 2011, FollowUp 4.
15 December 2011, FollowUp 5.
30 December 2011, FollowUp 6.
13 January 2012, FollowUp 7.
17 January 2012, FollowUp 8.
25 January 2012, FollowUp 9.
2 February 2012, FollowUp 10.
9 February 2012, FollowUp 11.
12 February 2012, FollowUp 12.
18 February 2012, FollowUp 13.
22 February 2012, FollowUp 14.
6 March 2012, FollowUp 15.
12 March 2012, FollowUp 16.
16 March 2012, FollowUp 17.
30 March 2012, FollowUp 18.
31 March 2012, FollowUp 19.
3 April 2012, FollowUp 20.
4 April 2012, FollowUp 21.
11 April 2012, FollowUp 22.
14 April 2012, FollowUp 23.
17 April 2012, FollowUp 24.
21 April 2012, FollowUp 25.
29 April 2012, FollowUp 26.
2 May 2012, FollowUp 27.

10 May 2012, FollowUp 29.
13 May 2012, FollowUp 30.
23 May 2012, FollowUp 31.
24 May 2012, FollowUp 32.
30 May 2012, FollowUp 33.
2 June 2012, FollowUp 34.
4 June 2012, FollowUp 35.
5 June 2012, FollowUp 36.

Repudiation: Republican Opposition to the Violence Against Women Act

Yet another annoying rant by Eugene Delgaudio caught my attention. Sometimes (rarely) he is almost correct.

Some,

I need you to forward this to as many friends as you can.

We don’t have much time to act and it will take the support of every possible pro-Family American if we are going to make a difference.

You see, right now the U.S. Senate is debating the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) -- but with pro-homosexual amendments.

The Radical Homosexual Lobby wants to create a special law for homosexuals and transgendered using VAWA as cover.

Okay, let's stop here for a moment.  The Senate Bill to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 has sixty co-sponsors and is being considered by the Senate.  I have tried searching through the three hundred and eighty-eight pages of the reauthorization for gay, lesbian, homo, and sexuality and there are zero matches for each of these.  Expanding my earlier search to include all instances of trans did have matches.  The matches were for transitional housing, transportation, and transfer from one home or shelter to another.  I finally got somewhere will a search for gender.

The answer begins on page 199 of the bill:

3 ‘‘(39) UNDERSERVED POPULATIONS.—The term
4 ‘underserved populations’ means populations who face
5 barriers in accessing and using victim services, and
6 includes populations underserved because of geo-
7 graphic location, religion, sexual orientation, gender
8 identity, underserved racial and ethnic populations,
9 populations underserved because of special needs (such
10 as language barriers, disabilities, alienage status, or
11 age), and any other population determined to be un-
12 derserved by the Attorney General or by the Secretary
13 of Health and Human Services, as appropriate.’’;

So the definition of who may be protected from violence in the Violence Against Women Act is being expanded.  It does not seem to me that protection against violence is "pro-homosexual" as much as pro-human.

In reality this altered VAWA is just a back-door attempt to create a special class of federally-protected citizens.

An excellent idea, but it just isn't true.  Federal protections are a legal designation that is not included in this legislation.  Further, since the reauthorization includes illegal aliens, it is not only about citizens.  It is about protecting human beings from domestic and sexual abuse.

Something closer to Mr. Delgaudio's concerns can be found on pages 205 and 206.

13 ‘‘(13) CIVIL RIGHTS.—
14 ‘‘(A) NONDISCRIMINATION.—No person in
15 the United States shall, on the basis of actual or
16 perceived race, color, religion, national origin,
17 sex, gender identity (as defined in paragraph
18 249(c)(4) of title 18, United States Code), sexual
19 orientation, or disability, be excluded from par-
20 ticipation in, be denied the benefits of, or be sub-
21 jected to discrimination under any program or
22 activity funded in whole or in part with funds
23 made available under the Violence Against
24 Women Act of 1994 (title IV of Public Law 103–
25 322; 108 Stat. 1902), the Violence Against

1 Women Act of 2000 (division B of Public Law
2 106–386; 114 Stat. 1491), the Violence Against
3 Women and Department of Justice Reauthoriza-
4 tion Act of 2005 (title IX of Public Law 109–
5 162; 119 Stat. 3080), the Violence Against
6 Women Reauthorization Act of 2011, and any
7 other program or activity funded in whole or in
8 part with funds appropriated for grants, cooper-
9 ative agreements, and other assistance adminis-
10 tered by the Office on Violence Against Women.

Unlike Mr. Delgaudio's allegation, the nondiscrimination designation for gender identity and sexual orientation is limited to programs funded by the Violence Against Women Act.  There is no change outside of it.

An excellent explanation can be found in an article in the Washington Post.

Enacted in 1994, VAWA has twice been reauthorized by Congress with unanimous Senate support. This year Senate Republicans opposed the bill in the Judiciary Committee because of provisions that extend protections to gays, lesbians, transgendered people, Native Americans and battered immigrant women. They essentially accused Democrats of using the cloak of battered women to force approval on what they see as controversial social issues. “Maybe then they could accuse you of not being supportive of fighting violence against women?” Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) told the New York Times. Mr. Sessions and other Republicans on the committee voted for an alternative version that they characterized as a clean reauthorization without unnecessarily political provisions.

A comprehensive committee report convincingly details gaps in current programs as identified by law enforcement officers, victim-service providers, judges and health-care professions. No one — gay or straight, man or woman, legal or undocumented — should be denied protections against domestic abuse or sexual violence. The proposed changes are by no means radical. They include a provision that would bar a shelter from turning away a lesbian who has been beaten by her female partner and adjustments in funding formulas to better address the needs of male victims of domestic and sexual violence.

Some changes, such as increasing the number of temporary visas for battered immigrant women, are supported by law enforcement. And the need to do more to protect Native American women is supported by a regional survey by University of Oklahoma researchers that showed that three out of five Native American women had been assaulted by their spouses or partners and a nationwide survey that found that one-third of all Native American women will be raped in their lifetime.

It will be good to reach a time when such legislation is not needed.  But we do have groups of people, most notably women, who have not received adequate protection when attacked.  The Violence Against Women Act is needed for them and other groups who are correctly identified in the proposed reauthorization.

According to the Hill, the Democrats and Republicans might reach some consensus, although it might be for a short term bill instead of something that would stand for several years.  Republican Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson introduced an alternative reauthorization yesterday.  The Republican alternative is not likely to get far.

Links to my repudiations of Eugene Delgaudio and his lies about various legislation:
19 December 2011, Original Pedantic Political Ponderings post.
11 January 2012, FollowUp 1.
14 January 2012, FollowUp 2.
16 February 2012, FollowUp 3.
15 March 2012, FollowUp 4.

FollowUp 22: Wisconsin Republican Dirty Tricks

On Thursday 5 April 2012, as many of us were preparing for significant religious holidays, Governor Walker quietly signed about fifty bills into law.  Some of these bills are ideas that I can support, such as SB 547 [that] allows school busses to be equipped with a supplemental mirror system to enhance visibility of the driver.  But there are a number that one would not expect so soon before an election.

·         SB 237 was authored by State Senator Lazich and Representative Thiesfeldt and relates to providing instruction in human growth and development. 

·         SB 306 was authored by State Senator Lazich and State Representative Litjens and relates to voluntary and informed consent to an abortion. 

·         SB 92 was authored by State Senator Zipperer and State Representative Vos and relates to prohibiting coverage of abortions through health plans sold through exchanges. 

·         SB 202 was authored by State Senator Grothman and State Representative Litjens and relates to elimination of compensatory and punitive damages for acts of employment discrimination or unfair honesty or genetic testing. 

·         SB 386 was authored by State Senator Grothman and State Representative Theisfeldt and  relates to voter registration at high schools and certain tribal schools. 

SB 237 reintroduces abstinence education to the schools, despite the fact that it doesn't work.

SB 306 ensures that women give voluntary consent before any abortion, including establishing failure to follow the state directives precisely as a felony offense for a physician.

SB 92 prohibits health exchange insurance plans for covering voluntary abortions.

SB 202 removes much of the power of the Wisconsin equivalent of the Lilly Ledbetter law.  "This bill eliminates the awarding of compensatory and punitive damages to persons who have been discriminated against in employment or subjected to unfair honesty or genetic testing."

SB 386 makes it more difficult to register to vote for students at teachers at high schools.

SB 237 and SB 386 are of tremendous concern to me as a teacher.  I see each as having deleterious results for students.  The other three are being characterized as a continuation of the Republican War on Women, with many pundits writing about them.

Prominent conservative Milwaukee radio pundit Charles Sykes wrote that there is no war on women.

But simply put, there is no great sex-discrimination problem in Wisconsin workplaces that is not being addressed by federal law and preexisting state laws. Further, by making it easier to extract punitive damages from businesses, the 2009 law made Wisconsin companies vulnerable to frivolous claims.

The facts suggest that Wisconsin does have a problem with a gender gap in wages (ranking 36th in the country in 2009).  When women are discriminated against, they do not consider it frivolous.  The punitive damages are intended to provide a disincentive to discrimination, a disincentive that no longer exists.  State Senator Glenn Grothman, author of the repeal of the teeth of the anti-discrimination law, offered the Daily Beast his reasoning.

For the law’s critics, though, even the threat of lawsuits put an intolerable burden on business. “If tomorrow you woke up and some policeman is at your door giving you a summons for something, the fact that you’re innocent wouldn’t make you happy, because you have to show you’re innocent at some considerable time and expense,” says Republican state senator Glenn Grothman, a major driver of the repeal.

Grothman says companies are being bombarded with false accusations of discrimination. “It’s an underreported problem, but a huge number of discrimination claims are baseless,” he says. “Most of them are filed by fired employees, and really today almost anybody is a protected class.” As a result, he says, many companies are forced to pay fired employees to go away. He argues that the Wisconsin law, which allowed for damages of up to $300,000, the same amount as in federal law, raised the cost of doing business in the state to intolerable levels. “It just puts Wisconsin way out of whack with other states,” he says. “I’m not sure there are any other states this bad off.”

Actually, there are—according to data from 9to5, 33 other states have either no cap on damages or the same $300,000 cap as Wisconsin. Still, even if the law isn’t an outlier, it’s not surprising that Grothman would see it as unjust, because he believes that the whole idea of pay discrimination against women is fraudulent.

Whatever gaps exist, he insists, stem from women’s decision to prioritize childrearing over their careers. “Take a hypothetical husband and wife who are both lawyers,” he says. “But the husband is working 50 or 60 hours a week, going all out, making 200 grand a year. The woman takes time off, raises kids, is not go go go. Now they’re 50 years old. The husband is making 200 grand a year, the woman is making 40 grand a year. It wasn’t discrimination. There was a different sense of urgency in each person.”

He continues, “What you’ve got to look at, and Ann Coulter has looked at this, is you have to break it down by married and unmarried. Once you break it down by married and unmarried, the differential disappears.”

As the Daily Beast notes, Mr. Grothman is wrong.  Mr. Grothman has a local reputation of supporting any business and no tax (similar to Jim Sensenbrenner who represents the same area in the United States Congress).  That he places the needs of businesses above the needs of his female constituents is no surprise at all.

Perhaps even more striking than Mr. Grothman's defense of his legislation is Governor Walker's defense of these bills, as reported by Channel 3000.

The president's campaign even joined the fray, accusing Walker of waging a "war against women." The governor refutes the claim and said his approach is all about job creation.

"We care about their future," Walker said. "That's really what we need to be waging our time and efforts on and that's why when I do public signings, I focus on bills that I think will make a better future for our state."

"Most of the legislation signed by the governor today makes tremendous advances in the protection of women, so I would submit it's just the opposite of what you suggest," said Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen, answering Walker's critics.

The governor said the criticism is the same old out-of-state special interest talking points which he said "seem to have a total disregard for what the facts are."

Of the five separate bills that I choose to focus on, only one has anything to do with business.  None of them will result in new jobs.  None will protect women and by limiting access to abortion they may hurt women.  For a governor who has spent tremendous amounts of time out of state raising money to complain about "out-of-state special interest talking points" is rich.  The facts are fairly clear and Mr. Walker's talking points seem to be out of sync with those facts.

Wrapping up this blog post, former State Senator Mordecai Lee, now a professor of politics and the University of Wisconsin -- Milwaukee, thinks that this may push Governor Walker into the limelight enough to be the running mate of Governor Romney.  Of course, Mr. Walker will have to survive the recall election first ... although Professor Lee thinks otherwise.

Lee said that Walker is a household name nationwide, he can energize the Republican base, isn't a Washington politician and would satisfy both social and fiscal Conservatives.

"In a sense, Scott Walker is the perfect Sarah Palin without her liabilities," said Lee.  "If he loses the recall, he'll be the martyr hero of the Republicans."

Despite all the controversy surrounding Scott Walker, the recall race and John Doe investigations, Lee believes that Walker isn't a risky bet for Republicans to stand behind. 

I am the last person who Mr. Romney might listen to for advice on picking a running mate.  But I can think of few better than the extreme Governor Walker.  Better, that is, for President Obama.

16 November 2011, Original Pedantic Political Ponderings post.
30 November 2011, FollowUp 1.
4 December 2011, FollowUp 2.
11 December 2011, FollowUp 3.
14 December 2011, FollowUp 4.
15 December 2011, FollowUp 5.
30 December 2011, FollowUp 6.
13 January 2012, FollowUp 7.
17 January 2012, FollowUp 8.
25 January 2012, FollowUp 9.
2 February 2012, FollowUp 10.
9 February 2012, FollowUp 11.
12 February 2012, FollowUp 12.
18 February 2012, FollowUp 13.
22 February 2012, FollowUp 14.
6 March 2012, FollowUp 15.
12 March 2012, FollowUp 16.
16 March 2012, FollowUp 17.
30 March 2012, FollowUp 18.
31 March 2012, FollowUp 19.
3 April 2012, FollowUp 20.
4 April 2012, FollowUp 21.

14 April 2012, FollowUp 23.
17 April 2012, FollowUp 24.
21 April 2012, FollowUp 25.
29 April 2012, FollowUp 26.
2 May 2012, FollowUp 27.
6 May 2012, FollowUp 28.
10 May 2012, FollowUp 29.
13 May 2012, FollowUp 30.
23 May 2012, FollowUp 31.
24 May 2012, FollowUp 32.
30 May 2012, FollowUp 33.
2 June 2012, FollowUp 34.
4 June 2012, FollowUp 35.
5 June 2012, FollowUp 36.

Praise: Women in Combat

The Friday 16 March 2012 Stars and Stripes included an article titled, Female Marines aim to blend in, but be visible enough to set an example.  The title is appropriate.

“We don’t like to be singled out. We’re Marines,” Maj. Jennifer Marino said during a panel discussion Thursday about the role of female Marines in Iraq and Afghanistan.

As women are about to be allowed in units that are explicitly designated as combat units, this will get more attention.

The opportunities for women are changing. Though women are still barred from infantry units, a recent Pentagon decision will open to women more than 14,000 active-duty and reserve jobs that were previously available only to men.

 As early as this summer, a few hundred jobs for company grade officers and staff noncommissioned officers in the Marines will be open to women. Those positions would be in ground combat units like artillery, tanks and combat engineer battalions in military specialties already open to female Marines.

 The first woman to command a combat brigade is being installed today, 17 March 2012.

The California Army National Guard's 40th Combat Aviation Brigade will get its first female commander today.

Col. Laura L. Yaeger will be installed as commander of the unit at an afternoon change of command ceremony at the Joint Forces Training Base, Los Alamitos.

She replaces Col. Mitchell K. Medigovich, who served as the unit's commander during its recent deployment to Iraq. Medigovich and his soldiers were among the final U.S. troops to leave that country.

It should be no surprise that some people have objections.  Among the Republican presidential contenders, Rick Santorum is the most vocally opposed,

Santorum had to explain past statements that he opposed contraception because it allows consequence-free sex, and that women should not work outside the home. He also said women shouldn't be allowed in combat.

Most Americans support women in combat roles according to a recent Quinnipiac Univeristy poll.

American voters also support 75 - 22 percent allowing women to engage in close ground combat. Support is 70 - 27 percent among men, 79 - 17 percent among women and 67 - 29 percent among voters in military households. All party, age, income, religious and education groups support the measure.

To be fair, aside from Mr. Santorum, most of the GOP presidential contenders have backed off of this issue.

Asked during the February 22 GOP presidential debate in Arizona about their views of women in combat, the candidates by and large played up to those polling numbers, with at least three of them expressing general openness to an expanded role of women on the battlefield.

Predictably slippery, Mitt Romney said that he would “look to the people who are serving in the military to give the best assessment of where women can serve.” Noting the 100-plus women who died in Iraq and Afghanistan, he expressed his belief that “women have the capacity to serve in our military in positions of significance and responsibility, as we do throughout our society.”

Newt Gingrich pointed out that in the present environment of “total warfare,” anyone “serving our country in uniform virtually anywhere in the world could be in danger at virtually any minute. A truck driver can get blown up by a bomb as readily as the infantrymen.” He added that “you ought to ask the combat leaders what they think is an appropriate step, as opposed to the social engineers of the Obama Administration.”

Rick Santorum, who had been criticized for earlier suggesting that it may not be appropriate for women to serve alongside men in combat, subtly backpedaled on that opinion, saying that while he still had concerns, “I would defer to at least hearing the recommendations of those involved” in making the decisions about where women serve.

On February 10, during an appearance on NBC’s Today Show, Santorum said that “when you have men and women together in combat … men have emotions when you see a woman in harm’s way. I think it’s something that’s natural, that’s very much in our culture to be protective, and that was my concern.” He added that the issue is “is how men would react to seeing women in harm’s way, or potentially being injured or in a vulnerable position, and not being concerned about accomplishing the mission.”

Men react to seeing fellow countrymen in harm's way in exactly the same way, without regard to gender, ethnicity, race, sexual orientation, or any of the other human differences that make for political wedge issues.  When you train and fight together, the rest simply doesn't matter.

It isn't that women don't end up in combat.  We had women earning combat medals during World War II, when a cap of no more than two percent of the military being female was established..  A commentary by Colonel Michael Underkofler tells a small part of the history of women in combat.

Every day women in our country put on combat boots and serve in the air, on the ground and on the seas. While we may define and re-define what it means to serve in combat, make no mistake, women have always served in harm's way. The war today clearly demonstrates the vulnerability of all of us and the evolving nature of warfare. We couldn't fight it as well as we have without the contributions of our women warriors.

They already train for combat, even in competitions.

Integration of women into combat units is no more challenging than was integration of Blacks, both of which are more challenging than integration of lesbians and gays.  In each case, the United States is stronger with the contributions of highly talented sailors, soldiers, and airmen without regard to their minority status.  In each case, the United States is stronger because of the diversity that each brings to her or his unit.  The ideals of E Pluribus Unum work.