Wait, haven't we already been through this
with Joe Walsh? When you're running against a military vet who lost both their legs in a war zone, maybe you might want to, at the very
least, refrain from being a total asshole about it
Understand something about John McCain. His political advisers, day after day, had to take him and almost throw him against a wall and hit him against the head and say, “Senator, you have to let people know you served! You have to talk about what you did!” He didn’t want to do it, wouldn’t do it. Day after day they had to convince him. Finally, he talked a little bit about it, but it was very uncomfortable for him. That’s what’s so noble about our heroes. Now I’m running against a woman who, my God, that’s all she talks about. Our true heroes, it’s the last thing in the world they talk about. That’s why we’re so indebted and in awe of what they’ve done.
So the definition of being a "true" hero is that you're not allowed to bring it up. This follows the precedent of Obama vs. bin Laden, in which any accomplishment is immediately nullified if you, um, point it out. John McCain could run on his military record because, according to Joe Walsh, he felt bad about it. Tammy Duckworth isn't allowed, because Joe Walsh is in charge of what all military vets are and are not allowed to mention—or at least, the military vets who have the gall to run against him
Hopefully Duckworth will eat this guy for lunch. Joe Walsh's sole accomplishment over the last few years is to make everyone even more irritated with Congress than they already were.