Yesterday, somebody Tweeting for the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) made an unfortunate choice to attack US Senate candidate Tammy Duckworth (D-IL), saying that she "has a sad record of not standing up for our veterans."
Duckworth's policies should be fair game for critique. However, she herself is a veteran and lost both legs while serving in the Iraq War, making the word choice within the Tweet suspect at best and reprehensible disablism at worst. Was this Tweet the result of some communications intern's use of poor judgment? Did an actual professional intend it as a snarky jab at her disability?
Whatever the case, someone at NRSC quickly deleted the Tweet. As, I suppose, one does when one supremely fucks up and can't even muster a non-apology apology.
And then, this gem, via the above-linked Politico article:
"Republicans have criticized Duckworth for an ongoing lawsuit about her time at the Illinois Department of Veterans Affairs and for allegations that she used her position to build her political career."So, here's a question: What aspiring politician doesn't make employment choices in furtherance of their future political career?
It's another can't-win double standard in which women are penalized for having ambitions, especially ambitious in which they are competing with men, while men are rewarded for making "strategic career choices" that benefit their political ambitions.
What next, an indictment of that ever-so-objective assessment of her "likeability"? You see, while male Republican politicians can successfully run for office on platforms of "who can be the worst person ever," it is essential that women remain sufficiently likable to all people everywhere.
In response to the NRSC Tweet, Tammy Duckworth re-Tweeted the following: