Since walking out of a joint session of Congress last week in a huff because he didn't like President Obama's speech, GOP Rep. John Shimkus' child-like behavior has generated plenty of headlines around the country. Over the weekend, the State Journal-Register's Bernard Schoenburg dug deep into the vault and provided some useful historical context:
It’s times like these when I think of Shimkus’ first winning race for Congress in 1996 — when he touted the “citizens’ code of conduct” he had fashioned for himself .
“I will lead by example,” one part of that code said, “always building up my fellow citizens, and not tearing them down.”
Some might question the example he set last week.
We unearthed more of that pledge, which indeed raises more questions over whether Shimkus -- who has defended the Bush administration's use of torture, fudged the facts about the health care crisis and climate change threat, and protected big polluters at the expense of the nation's health -- is measuring up to his own standards.
From a July 26, 1996 Journal-Register article:
-"I will not allow the corrosive elements of cynicism, distrust and hatred to destroy my feelings for my country. I will . . . promote the good and welfare of the state and her citizens [...]
-"I will play this game of life by the rules. I will not lie, cheat or steal, nor will I tolerate those who do. I will lead by example, always building up my fellow citizens, and not tearing them down."
Perhaps we're mistaken, but Shimkus' recent "Just say no" pledge during Republican Day at the State Fair seemed pretty darn cynical.
Finally, NBC5's Steve Rhodes notes that in walking out on the president's health care speech last week, Shimkus "might have walked into an actual re-election fight," referring to Democratic challenger Tim Bagwell's efforts to gain a foothold in the 19th Congressional District. We'll have to wait and see.
Comments
fedup dem (not verified) on Mon, 09/14/2009 - 21:48
Shimkus disregarded his pledge, and disregarded the Honor Code he swore to when he was a Cadet at West Point. It's time to show him the door!
Kermit Bell (not verified) on Mon, 09/14/2009 - 23:46
John Shimkus has taken the path of the harder right than the easier wrong. Maybe if the integrity of our congressmen was of any substance more would have walked out. John leads by example and should be lauded for his courage. Maybe if the writer understood the Honor Code he would not have made this silly comment.
Philosophe Forum on Tue, 09/15/2009 - 06:58
Someone does not understand the nuances of the UCMJ or has ever been on the receiving end of a general's anger. It is true that DOD Directive 1352.1 - MANAGEMENT AND MOBILIZATION OF REGULAR AND RESERVE RETIRED MILITARY MEMBERS, prohibits recalling a retired military member to actively duty solely for the purpose of subjecting them to court-martial jurisdiction. LTC Shimkus (RET) CAN be recalled to active duty for other purposes. Read the fine print.
An angry general can get very creative. And John Shimkus, LTC or Congressman (take your pick), is nothing if not a major screw up. Once back on active duty, he would give the general a reason for that demotion to MAJ, conduct unbecoming, etc.
Why do you think he ONLY did his required 6 yrs. in the Fulda Gap after graduating West Point. He did not even drill after getting into Congress. He has been an insult to the uniform for the past 30 yrs.
As a congressman, he has voted to send(force) men and women in our military into harms way to fight a war; that he, as an officer in the U.S. Army Reserves would not volunteer for. A terrible and disgraceful self-serving lack of leadership on the part of a West Point graduate. Like many congressman after Pearl Harbor, John Shimkus after 9-11 should have immediately resigned his office and requested active duty orders to fight the 'war on terrorism' that President Bush called the equivalent of WWIII. His actions, beyond any doubt, disqualify him to be a congressman or an officer in the U.S. Army.
YES!! As a retired officer he can still be called to active duty. Then again, what man or women would want to follow him into combat??
ALISON, MPA
Philosophe Forum
Post new comment
Progress Illinois' intention is to foster community and to maintain a comfortable and constructive blogging environment. While we encourage and appreciates different points of view, we do not consider it our duty to give a voice to anybody with an opinion.
Discussion on this site is moderated. All comments submitted will be automatically held for review by the editors before posting. Your comment will not appear on the site until it has been approved.
We will not publish comments that we consider:
Please leave a name or nickname when commenting, as it makes it easier for others to respond directly.