Veterans for Congress: A winning strategy?
December 26th, 2007 – 12:27 PM by Mark BrunswickSteve Sarvi and Aswhin Madia are joining about a dozen other Iraq and Afghanistan veterans running for Congress this election cycle.
Madia, who was a Marine captain working as a lawyer with Iraqi judges and attorneys, is 
A closer look at the Sarvi and Madia candidacies can be found here.
U.S. Rep. Patrick Murphy, a Pennsylvania Democrat, is currently the first and only Iraq War vet elected to Congress. Congressional Quarterly recently reported that 15 men and women who have served in the current war are running for the Senate or House in one of the 79 House districts rated as potentially competitive.
What does being a veteran bring to a candidacy?
Remember the “Fighting Dems” of the 2006 elections? They were a group of vets, disenchanted with the war, who ran for Congress last year. Perhaps epitomizing that group was Tammy Duckworth, who lost both legs when her helicopter was shot down in Iraq. She announced her candidacy on ABC-TV’s “This Week with George Stephanopolous.” C-SPAN followed her recovery and therapy at Walter Reed.
While the Democrats registered some victories – including Tim Walz in Minnesota’s First Congressional District – in the end, the results for the “Fighting Dems” were mixed at best. Duckworth, for instance, lost to Republican Peter Roskam in her Illinois district.
This time around, a number of Republican veterans are running as well, including Duncan Hunter, the son of the congressman and presidential candidate.
James Bootz, the chairman of the Minnesota DFL’s veterans’ caucus, said there are a number of reasons vets face an uphill battle when they announce intentions to run. As it was in Walz’s case, the party infrastructure may be slow to embrace the vet as candidate, particularly in Congresional races where long-time party faithful may have lined up for years waiting for a chance to run. In many cases, the veterans are first-time candidates with little experience or currency with their parties, Bootz said.
Campaign officials for Sarvi, the former mayor of Watertown and current city administrator for the City of Victoria, say his combat experience should level the military playing field against Kline, the retired Marine lieutenant colonel.
Sarvi, whom many in Carver County had always thought was a Republican, describes a middle-of-the night epiphany in the Iraqi desert when he decided to run. He had been sent a large green packet from Wellstone Action, the training and leadership development center for progressives founded as a legacy for Paul and Sheila Wellstone.
“About three a.m. I stumbled out of my room, my brain was just kind of on fire, and I looked up at the stars and I said, ‘You know, not only should I run but I can win.’”
While he was still deployed, he had his father embark on a district-wide listening tour to determine the viability of his candidacy.
At least in Democratic circles, from the presidential race on down, how early a candidate came out publicly opposing the war has become an issue, particularly among stalwart Democrats. But that can present some problems for someone still in the active military. Madia often talks about how it was illegal for him, a Marine captain, to publicly question U.S. military policy while he was on active duty.
Madia left the Marines on July 4, 2006. “On July 5, 2006, I publicly came out against the war,” he told a crowd at a recent debate on Iraq, generating applause.
81 Responses to "Veterans for Congress: A winning strategy?"
“Madia left the Marines on July 4, 2006. “On July 5, 2006, I publicly came out against the war,†he told a crowd at a recent debate on Iraq, generating applause.†Madia is simply expressing his personal opinion at a point in time, no different than Rep. Murtha has expressed his opinion, only to change his opinion and recant his earlier declarations. Behold, the surge is now working!
“What does being a veteran bring to a candidacy?”
It certainly doesn’t hurt. In my opinion though, it probably brings less to a candidacy than whichever party endorsing them would hope. That would apply to either of the major parties.
Being a veteran used to be sort of a requirement to being elected to Congress. In the days of the “citizen military” that existed prior to the AVF, when there was a much deeper connection between soldiers and society, a much broader range of citizens entered the service and it was a natural thing for someone interested in future public service to do, and gave one a real connection to the government.
In the era of our new militarism, however, we basically have a bunch of (usually conservative) white male Congressmen who wouldn’t have dreamt of “serving” now outbidding each other for who can be a more crazed advocate of aggressive, baseless foreign wars and hairtrigger “use” of the military. In short, who is “stronger” on national “defense” for America’s multinational corporations. This is a foundational principle of today’s “conservatism”.
Thus, the neocon Cheneyites of conservative Right Wing World (who had “other priorities” during Vietnam) now are the incompetent architects of the worst military quagmires in US history, while shortchanging VA benefits. Support the Troops, indeed.
These Dem Iraq vets seem to run mostly in Repub districts, challenging entrenched Repubs. Since such districts are by definition “conservative”, the citizens need some assurance that the Dem will continue the blind militarist policies that these voters think “necessary” and the highest priority of government.
Most of these Dem vets (quite rightly) see the Iraq Adventure and occupation as a misuse of the military and a disaster for the troops. Unfortunately, I doubt many of them have reexamined their foundation of unquestioning militarism and love of wasting mountains of tax money on the Pentagon. So in this sense they are good matches for these extremely miltarist suburban Congressional districts.
Our now more overt imperial aspirations–such as occupying Iraq indefinitely— will naturally result in our economic destruction and diplomatic isolation—this is already occurring as a result of the failed “policies” of Cheney and his puppet Bush.
As long as we waste these appalling sums of money on unproductive, self-defeating militarism and de facto colonial occupations, no meaningful progress is possible for us as a country and inevitable collapse and violence is all we can look forward to, whichever party is behind it.
parthian rants: Since such districts are by definition “conservativeâ€Â, the citizens need some assurance that the Dem will continue the blind militarist policies that these voters think “necessary†and the highest priority of government.”
If these inherantly ‘conservative’ districts are sending rich, white guys to Washington who had ‘other priorities during Vietnam.’ what need would they have to require a Dem candidate with a service record? You imply earlier in your poast that the current officials in power did not serve…..eventhough one of the districts you are talking about is #2 where Klein’s military career is well-known.
Seems you are tripping over yourself in your rush to use big words and your usual zeal for spewing nonsensical venom.
Still waiting to see $5/gal gas and a meltdown of third ring suburbs, by the way. Only a couple of days left. You never know, I guess.
“What does being a veteran bring to a candidacy?â€Â
Ask John Kerry
Wow, jay, I give you credit for actually reading all of pippylongstockian’s post. I can’t stomach reading more than a sentence or two usually.
What does being a veteran bring to the table? It surely cannot hurt you but in my 12 year military career, i had met some truly fubar’d individuals. One of the guys in my charge actually thought if you had checks in your checkbook, then you have money to spend. Unfortunately, his 500 a month he got as an e-1 private didn’t go evry far. Even after about six of us tried to counsel him on everything, he got away one weekend and married a 17 year old fat chick. and then the real troubles began, subsequently getting dishonorably discharged soon after.
So, a long story short, just being a vet isn’t enough of a qualifier to me.
Partisan,
It must really pain you that the USA is winning in Iraq. The surge is working and all of your hot air won’t change that fact.
God bless you President Bush!
*What does being a veteran bring to a candidacy?*
Some measure of protection against anti-military attacks from the opposition. But only some. Depends on your opponent.
*The surge is working…* – Crash N. Carnage
I just had to repost that. We need to hold you to such comments.
wish, why do you want the US to fail? You can be pessimistic all you want but you give the odor of partisan desire to have us lose badly just to win an election.
Any success in Iraq is bad news for liberal democrats. That’s why they are playing all these games with our national security.
Adare2: “Any success in Iraq is bad news for liberal democrats”
Success in Iraq has already been achieved…..Hussein was overthrown, found living in a rat hole, convicted by a court in his own country, and killed. The part that has not been achieved is simply passing the batton to the Iraqi security forces. Let’s all keep in mind that our difficulty is in effectively stepping down from the podium, not stepping up to it.
The President appears to be whipping the Democrates at their own war obstructionist game.
*wish, why do you want the US to fail?* – predictible rhetoric from O.T.
I also noticed it gets dark at night. If I say so out loud, maybe it means I want the sun to fail? I understand your logic now.
Jay, you nailed it. We were sold this war entirely on the single premise that Saddam was plotting to hit us with nukes. The U.S. mission has been accomplished. But the 30 or so variations of that premise Bush has presented since then to keep us in Iraq has led to tragedy.
“But the 30 or so variations of that premise Bush has presented since then to keep us in Iraq has led to tragedy.”
I suspect this might as close as we will ever come to actually agreeing on anything, so I’ll go with that. Personally, I still feel we did the right thing by rooting Hussein out of power in Iraq…..nukes or no nukes. I question what we are still doing there, and why the Iraqi ‘military’ and politicians are not assuming control in a more effective and prompt manner.
funny, but oddly true:
The following “speech” was written recently by an ordinary Maineiac [a resident of the People's Republic of Maine]. While satirical in nature, all satire must have a basis in fact to be effective. This is an excellent piece by a person who does not write for a living.
The speech George W. Bush SHOULD give:
Normally, I start these things out by saying “My Fellow Americans.” Not doing it this time. If the polls are any indication, I don’t know who more than half of you are anymore. I do know something terrible has happened, and that you’re really not fellow Americans any longer.
I’ll cut right to the chase here: I quit. Now before anyone gets all in a lather about me quitting to avoid impeachment, or to avoid prosecution or something, let me assure you: There’s been no breaking of laws or impeachable offenses in this office.
The reason I’m quitting is simple. I’m fed up with you people. I’m fed up because you have no understanding of what’s really going on in the world. Or of what’s going on in this once-great nation of ours. And the majority of you are too damned lazy to do your homework and figure it out.
Let’s start local. You’ve been sold a bill of goods by politicians and the news media. Polls show that the majority of you think the economy is in the tank. And that’s despite record numbers of homeowners, including record numbers of MINORITY homeowners. And while we’re mentioning minorities, I’ll point out that minority business ownership is at an all-time high. Our unemployment rate is as low as it ever was during the Clinton administration. I’ve mentioned all those things before, but it doesn’t seem to have sunk in.
Despite the shock to our economy of 9/11, the stock market has rebounded to record levels and more Americans than ever are participating in these markets. Meanwhile, all you can do is whine about gas prices, and most of you are too damn stupid to realize that gas prices are high because there’s increased demand in other parts of the world, and because a small handful of noisy idiots are more worried about polar bears and beachfront property than your economic security.
We face real threats in the world. Don’t give me this “blood for oil” thing. If I were trading blood for oil I would’ve already seized Iraq ‘s oil fields and let the rest of the country go to hell. And don’t give me this ‘Bush Lied; People Died’ crap either. If I were the liar you morons take me for, I could’ve easily had chemical weapons planted in Iraq so they could be ‘discovered.’ Instead, I owned up to the fact that the intelligence was faulty.
Let me remind you that the rest of the world thought Saddam had the goods, same as me. Let me also remind you that regime change in Iraq was official US policy before I came into office. Some guy named ‘Clinton’ established that policy. Bet you didn’t know that, did you?
You idiots need to understand that we face a unique enemy. Back during the cold war, there were two major competing po litical and economic models squaring off. We won that war, but we did so because fundamentally, the Communists wanted to survive, just as we do. We were simply able to out spend and out-tech them.
That’s not the case this time. The soldiers of our new enemy don’t care if they survive. In fact, they want to die. That’d be fine, as long as they weren’t also committed to taking as many of you with them as they can. But they are. They want to kill you, and the bastards are all over the globe.
You should be grateful that they haven’t gotten any more of us here in the United States since September 11. But you’re not. That’s because you’ve got no idea how hard a small number of intelligence, military, law enforcement, and homeland security people have worked to make sure of that. When this whole mess started, I warned you that this would be a long and difficult fight. I’m disappointed how many of you people think a long and difficult fight amounts to a single season of ‘Survivor.’
Instead, you’ve grown impatient. You’re incapable of seeing things through the long lens of history, the way our enemies do. You think that wars should last a few months, a few years, tops.
Making matters worse, you actively support those who help the enemy. Every time you buy the New York Times, every time you send a donation to a cut-and-run Democrat’s political campaign, well, dang it, you might just as well FedEx a grenade launcher to a Jihadist. It amounts to the same thing.
In this day and age, it’s easy enough to find the truth. It’s all over the Internet. It just isn’t on the pages of the New York Times or on NBC News. But even if it were, I doubt you’d be any smarter. Most of you would rather watch American Idol.
I could say more about your expectations that the government will always be there to bail you out, even if you’re too stupid to leave a city that’s below sea level and has a hurricane approaching.
I could say more about your insane belief that government, not your own wallet, is where the money comes from. But I’ve come to the conclusion that were I to do so, it would sail right over your heads.
So I quit. I’m going back to Crawford. I’ve got an energy-efficient house down there (Al Gore could only dream) and the capability to be fully self-sufficient. No one ever heard of Crawford before I got elected, and as soon as I’m done here pretty much no one will ever hear of it again. Maybe I’ll be lucky enough to die of old age before the last pillars of America fall.
Oh, and by the way, Cheney’s quitting too. That means Pelosi is your new President. You asked for it. Watch what she does carefully, because I still have a glimmer of hope that there are just enough of you remaining who are smart enough to turn this thing around in 2008.
So that’s it. God bless what’s left of America. Some of you know what I mean. The rest of you, kiss off.
“That means Pelosi is your new President.”
What a frightening thought! I hope I can sleep tonight now.
Ha-ha, Our Clown-in-Chief as the “bitter conservative”! As if.
Thanks for this laughably retarded piece of hysterical nonsense, OT—well, I’m sure it made a lot of sense and quite an impression on you. And on lots of half-wits who can’t think straight. Where ever did you dredge this up?
Yessir, we didn’t know how good we had it with Worst President Ever! Could anyone imagine what a New Year’s gift a dual resignation would be?
Around three quarters of the country in one poll last year simply wanted the Bush “presidency” to be over and done with. Most of the country would welcome President Pelosi and delightedly cheer the end of the Bush Era of lies, incompetence and lawbreaking—yes, that is indeed the speech our ignorant, felonious prezlidenterer SHOULD give.
Come on George, you and Dick give us what we so richly deserve! Resign! You were too good for the ungrateful US….
The greatest comedy, of course, is that quite a few buffoonish wingnuts out in BushAmerica actually think that the nation didn’t deserve the clear greatness and vision of “conservative” Dick and his Tex-*ss sidekick Dubya….right, OT? Are there any “Stabbed in the Back” ™ conservative email trees you’re a member of yet?
*…I still feel we did the right thing by rooting Hussein out of power in Iraq…..nukes or no nukes.* – Jay
Getting rid of Saddam was a good thing. I just don’t believe it was in our vital national interests, anymore than rooting out any number of other murderous dictators around the world. The man was contained and essentially harmless to all but his own people.
If anything, getting involved hurt us. The 9/11 connection was crap, the WMD claim was a thinly-veiled stretch, Iraq became a major hinderance in our efforts against the real bad guys in Afghanistan/Pakistan, and it created a magnet for every anti-U.S. terrorist around the globe.
What an excellent, succinct summary of errors by wishl.
I’m sure his list was not meant to be inclusive, as the invasion and indefinite occupation of Iraq also removed the region’s chief strategic bulwark against Iran, massively increased the sunni/shi’a tension in the region, turned Afghanistan into a resource-starved, guerilla-infested backwater, and been a boon to jihadi recruiting and propaganda according to the CIA, whom the Rightists used to believe.
Bush’s Iraq Adventure destroyed our credibility in the world community, isolated us diplomatically, greatly damaged our national image in the world and tarnished the image of “democracy” in the muslim and developing worlds.
Our invasion and occupation has caused a substantial increase in world oil prices, broken our ground forces, severely degraded most of their equipment, destroyed the Reserve and National Guard, played a significant part in increasing our national debt by over 60% to $9 trillion (and climbing!), and generated over 60,000 US casualties, all for nothing.
It has also physically wrecked Iraq, torn it to ribbons as a nation, resulted in the excess deaths of over 750,000 Iraqis, the displacement of around 3.5 million people and the ethnic cleansing of tens of thousands—not that too many Americans care about the costs and sufferings of Iraqis.
Certainly not too many “conservatives” care, as they utterly deny any attempts (by anyone anywhere) to quantify the damage and suffering whatever.
Happy New Year, Iraq! You can always thank us later!
Papasan chair say: Certainly not too many “conservatives†care, as they utterly deny any attempts (by anyone anywhere) to quantify the damage and suffering whatever.
I see it, I see the suffering of all those who have to work or live with, near or anywhere around you and your bds driven babblings. I do feel for them- it has to be terrifying and frustrating for them. next time, try the red pill, it may work better.
The Iraqi interior ministry spokesman Maj. Gen. Abdul Kareem Khalaf announced today that 75% of al-Qaeda in Iraq’s terrorist network had been destroyed this year.
unrefuted recitation of Iraq implications = “bds”
Whatever would the online conserva-cogs do if the coaches of Team Conservative hadn’t come up with this meaningless slogan for them? Thank God you’ve got someone to call your “plays”, eh, OT?
“75% of [AQI] network has been destroyed this year”
Is this the fourth or fifth time that AQI has been “destroyed”? I’ve lost track.
“Is this the fourth or fifth time that AQI has been “destroyedâ€Â? I’ve lost track.”
…..kind of like the fourth or fifth time gas was going to $5/gal. I’ve yet to see it happen in my neighborhood.
Your last post was too stupid to even respond to, so here is a little ditty so funny ya can’t even make up this stuff.
Hillary says she risked life on White House trips
Glenn Thrush
December 31, 2007
VINTON, Iowa – Ever since Barack Obama suggested Hillary Clinton’s eight years as first lady were a glorified tea party a few days back, she’s looked for an opening to strike back.
On Saturday night in Dubuque she pounced, arguing she risked her life on White House missions in the 1990s, including a hair-raising flight into Bosnia that ended in a “corkscrew” landing and a sprint off the tarmac to dodge snipers.
“I don’t remember anyone offering me tea,” she quipped.
The dictum around the Oval Office in the ’90s, she added, was: “If a place was too dangerous, too poor or too small, send the first lady.”
It turns out that Clinton wasn’t quite flying solo into harm’s way that day.
She was, in fact, leading a goodwill entourage that included baggy-pants funnyman Sinbad, singer Sheryl Crow and Clinton’s daughter, Chelsea, then 15, according to an account of the March 1995 trip in her autobiography “Living History.”
As the plane approached the runway, the pilot ordered the Clintons into the armored front of the plane, Clinton writes.
What’s not clear is whether Sinbad or Crow were invited to the cockpit or had to brave it out in the unprotected rear.
O.T.,
What’s not clear is the point you are trying to make.
Are you questioning the flight’s danger or the flight’s roster?
Does having a comedian and a singer on board somehow suggest the danger wasn’t life-threatening? Or maybe that the mission wasn’t important enough to take such risks? Or that tea should have been served after all?
There must be a funny little ditty in there somewhere…?
What is funny is that she thinks it is a qualifier for her to be potus.
O.T.
Check out the previous topic. Partisan really looks like a leftist fool.
CNC, you’re half right, the new Iraq strategy is working. God or his antithesis, Bush, had little to do with it.
It happened after the two main Bush administration micromanagers Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld quit, which meant that after 4 years, the military actually got to do things their way.
So, let me get this straight. War goes bad= Bush’s fault, war goes good= “Bush, had little to do with it”.
Gas prices go up= thatt da*n Bush, gas price go down= you can hear crickets.
Yep, thats clear, liberal thinking alright.
Wish, now we find out not only is she a joke, she is a liar too, but I think we all already know that.
OT, try to unpolarize yourself long enough to analyze each politician as an individual entity.
For example, IMHO Bush isn’t a bad president because he’s a Republican. He’s a bad president because because he’s incompetent.
That makes him a bad Republican as well.
The same applies to certain Democrats.
Bush is doing a great job with the war on Islamic terror, but he gets an F as far as I’m concerned when it comes to controlling our borders from the massive flood of illegal aliens.
Mike B….go ahead and give a short list of Republicans who’s performance you approve of. I’ve found this often serves useful as an icebreaker in the attempts to illustrate one’s bipartisanship. Few around here will value that, and some won’t even notice. But humor me.
No problem Jay.
Of recent note is Sen Chuck Hagel. His quote regarding being an outspoken senator is one of my favorites “if you want a safe job, sell shoes…”.
Former Sen Barry Goldwater is another personal favorite.
I like Gov Pawlenty and Sen Coleman – back when Colman was mayor, it seemed like anytime more than 3 people met in St Paul, the mayor would show up as well:)
Sen Arlen Spector has impressed me with his even handed approach.
President Reagan in his 1st term was impressive.
H.W. Bush was spectacular in his handling of the Gulf war. I honestly wonder if Dubya is really his son.
Former Rep Gingrich makes more sense than most…
According to Wishlwuzz2; On Dec 30 @ 7:08 PM
“If anything, getting involved hurt us. The 9/11 connection was crap, the WMD claim was a thinly-veiled stretch, Iraq becam a major hinderance in our efforts against the real bad guys in Afghanistan/Pakistan, and it created a magnet for every anti-U.S. terrorist around the globe.”
I am rather new to this blog site so you will have to excuse me if I am unfamiliar with this individual. I wonder, if the Iraq situation is in fact a magnet for “every anti-U.S. terrorist around the globe” all we really need to do to end global terrorism is to kill everyone in Iraq.
Or is it as parthian says;
“turned Afghanistan into a resource-starved, guerilla infested backwater, and been a boon to jihadi recruiting…”. If parthian is correct, it may be that we need to reevaluate just killing all the terrorists in Iraq and do the same in Afghanistan also.
Do either of these people really believe that prior to our involvement in Afghanistan or Iraq the Islamist fanatics didn’t already hate the United States? Do they really believe that these fanatics are open to reasonable discourse? Do the really believe that appeasement is the answer? Have either of them ever heard of Neville Chamberlain, Adolph Hitler, or World War II?
IMHO these two are the poster children for why, sometimes, abortions are a really good thing.
billmelater43,
Thanks for your comment and welcome to BQ.
I really don’t think you can reason with people like Partisan. He is so blinded by his hatred for our President that he can’t carry on an intelligent debate.
“all we really need to do….is to kill everyone in Iraq”
As I said above, the enormous concern for the people of Iraq is really in the forefront of the cretinous authoritarian wingnut mind!
Just so you know, billme, killing everyone in Iraq would be a clear war crime, and genocide to boot. So however attractive a (juvenile) fantasy it may be to someone of your limited authoritarian mentality, it’s not something that actually can be done, sorry—but it sure shows you’re quite a serious thinker about the problem! Perhaps you should email the WH with your idea.
Also lost on you was the notion that it was the misdirection of resources away from the actual al qaeda enemy in Afghanistan (through Bushco’s foolish invasion of Iraq) which has permitted the resurrection of the Taliban and bin ladin’s organization. Bushco is losing the war on terra ™, not winning it.
As usual, every new member of the authoritarian online brigade simply deploys strawmen arguments, willful mischaracterizations and bogus “historical” analogies they read at some rightwing internet garbage trough (“appeasement” “Hitler” etc, etc).
These silly bromides have all been demolished so often by so many (including me dozens of times) that I’ll not waste time in this new year on such stale boobery by yet another day late and brain-power short rightist—just trotting these thread-bare “arguments” out shows that billmelater43 is a run-of-the-mill conserva-clown, with some really, really second rate, lame “material”. A dime a dozen, unfortunately.
billmelater43, welcome.
I get the anti-Bush pun, but not the pro-Bush logic.
You called me correctly on my use of “every”. My mistake. Certainly we’ve managed to make enemies around the globe who haven’t found their way to Baghdad.
Is your suggestion of ending global terrorism by killing everyone in Iraq just a tease for the conservative absolutists on this blog? There are several who would gladly cut off their heads to end their headaches — in the name of freedom.
*What is funny is that she thinks it is a qualifier for her to be potus.*
Maybe. Seems more like she’s defending herself against Obama’s charge that her experiences were no more harrowing than a tea party.
I’m not defending Hillary. She’s been caught in several contradictions. But looking at recent quotes from Romney, Giuliani and McCain – she seems to fit right in.
Subject: Swift Boat issue becomes crucial to Kerry anew, http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/11/21/swift_boat_issue_becomes_crucial_to_kerry_anew/
Kerry takes up $1 million offer to disprove swiftboat vets
Senator says he’s prepared to present evidence to Texas oilman in person
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58741
Of course, Senator Kerry could prove or disprove most of the swiftboat claims by simply releasing his full military record to anybody who wants to review it, something he has never done.
DOES ANYBODY KNOW WHO WON THE BET?
Yo, Les, you around?
Here’s an article on the dude that owns & flys the only privately-owned Harrier…
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/01/AR2008010102135.html?hpid=sec-metro
Thanks Bsimon.
Just got back from the holidays.
Sounds like the dude could use a good crew chief for his Harrier!! He must be having a blast.
I note they dont mention that the machine was demilled.
I also note that the holidays haven’t changed the tone of the blog much.
Happy New Year everyone.
“swiftboat issue becomes crucial to Kerry anew”
Boy, you sure can focus on the issues that really matter, Krogy.
I think you’ll have to be the one to find out about this riveting “bet”—and I’m sure you’ll report back to BQ…..unfortunately.
Thank God for the SBVT and their efforts to show us that military service is useless and medals are handed out like candy on Halloween. Anyone idiotic enough to sign up for military service and idiotic enough to actually go to war deserves nothing, especially anything like respect or admiration. GWB and Cheney did the smart thing. They avoided service and when that didn’t work out for George, he simply avoided fullfilling his duties. All during a time of war. Bravo gentlemen. These are the men we need to respect and admire. Especially, now, during a time of war.
billmelater43, don’t worry about the bashing that partisan shells out. This isn’t a refelction on you but demonstrates that his heart isn’t filled with Jesus.
God bless yo bml43!
Regarding vets running for office, I’m all for it, but if that’s your criteria, your awfully limited by the numbers. People like myself who were part of the first wave of all volunteer military make up only a small fraction of my generation. Those numbers haven’t changed since then (1970′s).
That sad fact and the eye opening experience of military service makes me think that America needs some form of compulsory federal service. Nothing makes one appreciate and cherish what we have like seeing those who don’t.
Not everyone serving would or should carry a gun. The number of contractors hired to do the work “behind the lines” soldiers used to perform, makes me think there’d be plenty of work and opportunity for everyone.
I’m confused CnC, since parthian doesn’t want to kill all Iraqi’s shows that his heart isn’t filled with Jesus?
Not everyone serving carries a gun? Yes our president proves that. The contractors like Blackwater, Kellogg and Root, and Haliburton, aren’t they getting paid even though the work isn’t getting done. So, where is there incentive to finish?
parthian says: “swiftboat issue becomes crucial to Kerry anewâ€Â
Boy, you sure can focus on the issues that really matter, Krogy.
I think you’ll have to be the one to find out about this riveting “betâ€Ââ€â€and I’m sure you’ll report back to BQ…..unfortunately.
parthian, you always have some snide and unhelpful comment…unfortunately. The purpose of this thread is to explore the advantage, if any, of being a veteran when running for public office. As bsimon wisely commented, “Ask John Kerry.” Kerry, not I, is the one fighting this lost battle. I am just a curious bystander.
Righto, krogy, now I get it.
I took bsimon’s point to be that when a (Dem) vet runs, he can expect the Conservative Noise Machine to smear his service and combat record.
And here you are, voluteering for such “service” despite your official bystander status….we salute you and your noble curiosity!
BTW, would a simple curious “bystander” declare that Kerry is “fighting [a] lost battle”? Just curious.
richard is right, w is cowardly unlike the brave and noble billy clinton who went to england looking for the enemy but only found bongpipes and peace rallies. what is your veteran status, rich, like we even need to ask.
“I took bsimon’s point to be that when a (Dem) vet runs, he can expect the Conservative Noise Machine to smear his service and combat record.”
You took it wrongly. Being a vet is certainly worth noting on the political resume when running for office, but it is not something on which to base an entire campaign, particularly for a guy who’s service was completed 35 years prior to the election at hand. Likewise for these folks running for the House – their military service is certainly a part of the package, but they’d better be informed on more issues than the wars in Iraq & Afghanistan. Take the military service out of the equation & look at Patty Wetterling – she was a one-issue candidate who didn’t appear prepared to answer basic questions about big issues of the day. She certainly deserves accolades for her work on missing & exploited children, but there’s a whole lot more that we expect from our Reps.
To get back to Kerry, he & his campaign put a little too much faith in his military service and should have focused more on other issues. In my opinion, Kerry’s service probably influenced primary voters as well, who made a poor decision by factoring that into their vote.
O.T. says:
richard is right
–
Now, I now you said it tounge in cheek, but you’r wrong, O.T.
Richard and his posts are suddenly and permanently irrelevant.
Someone take the “I support the troops” ribbon off his vehicle.
Well, if you saw the 2004 Kerry campaign as not focusing on current issues and instead basing his “entire campaign” on his Vietnam service, I guess we watched different campaigns.
It’s so nice to see Reverend Cash bestowing his BQ “blessing” on the new rightist who’d like to kill everyone in Iraq.
Who would Jesus torture, Reverend Cash? It’s probably in your Bible under “enhanced interrogation”.
God Bless you, American Bombs!…Your hearts…er, guidance systems….are filled with Jesus!
parthian says:
Well, if you saw the 2004 Kerry campaign as not focusing on current issues and instead basing his “entire campaign†on his Vietnam service, I guess we watched different campaigns.
—
I hate to agree with you, but I agree, the SBer’s weren’t the reason he lost.
It was the “I have a plan” speeches followed up by the “I just dont want to talk about it, look it up yourself” tactic that did him in.
Much like the current crop of defeatocrats.
Military service a pol’s resume is a good thing, and is prefereable to not serving, but a bsimon said, it’s not a make or break issue with most of us. The candidate’s position on issues and the methods he or she intends to reach the goals is much more important.
“Well, if you saw the 2004 Kerry campaign as not focusing on current issues and instead basing his “entire campaign†on his Vietnam service, I guess we watched different campaigns.”
Percpetion is everything. ‘Entire campaign’ was an exaggeration. ‘Significant parts of’ or ‘too much of’ would be appropriate substitutes for ‘entire’. That jaunty little salute at the convention would have been a good thing to skip. Kerry’s Vietnam experience was touted by him and his party as the perfect counter to Bush’s ‘Champagne Wing’ service, which was a terrible strategy, in my opinion.
In any case, bickering over the Kerry campaign is irrelevant now; its over. My original point stands: military service can help a candidate, but they’d better be prepared to offer more than their service as qualifications for office.
Richard, you have to understand that the BQ village rightists simply cannot understand sarcasm and satire. Over their heads. Authoritarian minds are completely literalist.
OTOH, I found your post quite funny.
partian, you slay me. Now that no one buys your tortured logic, you label it sarcasm and satire. Your post is not over our heads. In fact I found your post quite funny.
Parthian was right, I was being sarcastic. My post reflected the dicotomy of positions of the right. First let’s worship the military but only so long as they agree with our war mongering. Look at Max Cleland and John Kerry. These guys went to war and were shot at. Kerry volunteered for one of the most dangerous details in that theater. Meanwhile the deserter and chief, our criminal president Bush can’t even finish his duties in a champagne division. His assignment is with a group, well known amoung service people as a place for the connected and weathy. Even one of their own, John McCain was targetted by these guys with a whisper campaign suggesting that because of his service, because of his experiance as a POW, he wasn’t mentally fit enough to be president. I didn’t serve in the military as many of my peers didn’t serve but I supported the Veterans Benefits bill that was in Congress a couple of years ago. You remember, the one that John Kline voted against.
what a surprise, dick isn’t a vet. I never woulda guessed.
“Look at Max Cleland and John Kerry. These guys went to war and were shot at. Kerry volunteered for one of the most dangerous details in that theater. Meanwhile the deserter and chief, our criminal president Bush can’t even finish his duties in a champagne division.”
You’re cherry picking, and while that may serve as a fine source of childish entertainment for the blog masses, it is of little use beyond that. Over the course of our history, we’ve had numerous vets and a few generals get elected President. One of the very best Presidents (Eisenhower) and one of the very worst (Grant) were such military heroes.
Your ‘Deserter in Chief’ reference is cute and all, but what was Clinton doing during that point in his life again? Matters not. He was a successful President anyway. You cite John Kerry, et al; but in the halls of Congress there are plenty of examples of draft-dodging Democrats, or vets who served and are now completely worthless Congressmen. There are also worthless Republicans, some of who served, others who didn’t. Its a complete mixed bag.
Your cherry picking illustrates you can read their bio’s. Nothing much more than that.
….and since you mentioned John Kline, I would tell you that I have voted for him a couple of times, as that is my district. If you care to know why I voted for him, I would cite two reasons:
1) I met him and he appeared to be a very stand-up, reasonable guy
2) the DFL has failed to provide me with a better option
Diehard Democrats like to bitch about some of the ‘terrible’ Republicans that are in office, but they sure don’t seem to prioritize finding anyone worth a hoot to run against them. In my mind, there is only one reason Michelle Bachman is in office. Patty Wetterling.
RESULTS:
Obama 36.94; Edwards 30.09; Clinton 29.79
Huckabee 34; Romney 25; Thompson 14
As much as I like to see Billary get trounced, I would much rather have her as the dem nominee, to guarantee a repub win.
I am not a big Huck fan, theres something about him I don’t like- can’t put my finger on it though.
Senator John Kerry lost his bet.
http://jewishworldreview.com:80/cols/tyrrell010308.php3
Adieu, crybaby Kerry clock
“Kerry volunteered for one of the most dangerous details in that theater. ”
hahahaha…..John Kerry did not enlist in the regular forces, he joined the Navy Reserve. Further, John Kerry did not volunteer for “the most dangerous detail in the theatre”. Lets look at Kerry’s own words. “I didn’t really want to get involved in the war,” Kerry said in a book of Vietnam reminiscences published in 1986. “When I signed up for the swift boats, they had very little to do with the war. They were engaged in coastal patrolling and that’s what I thought I was going to be doing.”
On the other hand, it is documented that George W. Bush volunteered for service in Viet Nam.
As for the Iowa Caucus, and you are reading it here first, the biggest winner without a doubt, RUDY GUILIANI.
The biggest loser, without a doubt, Hillary Clinton.
Finishing with less than half the votes Ron Paul got is a win for Guiliani?
Have to say, that’s what I call optimism..
Sure was fun to see Billary get her butt handed to her.
Rudy is smart enough to spend his time/money in other places than Iowa. I’m not ready to join Mark in proclaiming him the biggest winner last night, but what I assume he means is that someone other then Romney came out on top, leaving the door ajar for the balance of the month and Super Tuesday to follow early next month.
One analyst I was watching predicted that if Obama came out on top in Iowa, we could expect a “knife fight” with the Hillary campaign right up to the convention. I suspect that is probably accurate. Lucky us.
“that someone other then Romney came out on top”
Exactly. Romney was seriously damaged in Iowa and with McCain surging in New Hampshire ROmney could be out very quickly. Where do Romney’s supporters go? Answer: To the other Northeastern moderate Republican.
It further adds to the equation that the “winner” of the Iowa caucus was a candidate that does not have the organization or funding to seriously compete in the latter stages of the campaign. And that McCain and Thompson did not perform well in Iowa to gather momentum.
FOr Huckabee, most of the next contests are not events that can be dominated by evangelicals that came out in support of him.
Mark wrote:
Where do Romney’s supporters go? Answer: To the other Northeastern moderate Republican.
—
If true, Romney would have lost anyway, drawing 29% to Huckabee’s 30.
And I question your characterization of Guliani as a “moderate republican”. His position on at least two issues makes him a ‘conservative democrat” and I think he would have done better running as a dem.
“His position on at least two issues makes him a ‘conservative democrat†and I think he would have done better running as a dem.”
I would tend to agree with that assessment. What pisses me off is that in a world with any common sense, it should matter which ticket he runs on….he’s the same guy either way. Our ability to say that he ‘would have done better/worse’ running on one ticket versus the other, tells us that far too many voters vote party lines, not based on the candidte themselves. That is unfortunate.
s/b ‘should *not* matter which ticket…’
“it should matter which ticket he runs on”
—
Tend to agree with you concerning a general election, but this was, after all, a “party” party.
My “Pie in the sky” would have candidates running as individuals, elected based on thier positions on issues, and their plans to reach their goal on the issue. The party platform be danged!!
Of course, I’d love to beleive in Santa too.
“If true, Romney would have lost anyway, drawing 29% to Huckabee’s 30.”
SNORE…what this reveals is that you really do not have any understanding of the Iowa system. It is a caucaus, not a primary. Because of this turnout is everything. To get turnout you must put money, organization, and time into the state. Guiliani did not do this, and rightfully so.
The reason for this is that these events are often dominated by evangelicals. Up to 60% of the voters last night in Iowa were evangelicals. That was Huckabees real strength and the event dictated the outcome. Exit polling showed that if you remove the evangelical vote, Huckabee finished 4th in non-evangelical gathering just 14% of the caucus attendees.
But Romney, unwisely, decided to contest this event. He poured tons of money and time into Iowa hoping to create initial momentum with a one-two win in IA and NH. Now, he lost Iowa and probably will lose NH. Despite all of the money he has raised these two losses could end his campaign.
Guiliani did what Clinton and Romney should have, skipped Iowa and put his resources into the primaries down the road.
“on at least two issues makes him a ‘conservative democrat—
And Mike Huckabees positions on more than two issues puts him as a Democrat/Democrat.
But nitpicking these things is just ridiculous. Guiliani’s position on the main issues puts him squarely in the Republican party.
You can attack his position on “Democrat” issues like gun control and I will counter, name one person who has his credentials on the crime issues. His tenure as mayor marked a remarkable reversal in the City. Everyone else can try and take credit, but the fact is that it happened on his watch and he instituted policies that his opponents not only opposed, they ridiculed. HIs position on guns is marginal compared to his record.
Guiliani’s position on the main issues puts him squarely in the Republican party.
–
Wrong. His position on the 2nd amendment and abortion are clearly outside of the republican platform. I, for one, will not vote for him regardless of who wins the Dem nomination.
Why do you confuse the 2nd amendment with crime control. The Soviets had a better handle on crime than Yeltsin did or Putin does, so you’d prefer Stalin?
Sorry, I cant support your favorite candidate, but that’s the way it is.
FWIW, I’m not calling for Huckabee to be crowned either.
“His position on the 2nd amendment and abortion ”
A couple of marginal issues. Neither issues is a national issue. Abortion and gun control laws should be determined at the state level. It clearly is within the state’s police power to regulate, if they choose, these issues. And, on that issue, Rudy Guiliani is clearly in the Republican side. He would appoint judges that agree to exactly that. Then the PEOPLE of the states can determine their own codes.
And, I do not “confuse” the 2nd amendment with “crime control”. But since crime control is the most forward issue in the gun debate they are related.
again, who gives a crap about party platforms? If you support the guy’s ideas, vote for him. If you don’t, then don’t. Guilaini probably gets my vote regardless of who the Democrats endorse. Also, regardless of who the Republicans endorse.
Bill Clinton is the only candidate to lose both Iowa and NH and win his party’s nomination.
4% Rudy didn’t campaign in Iowa and has no chance to win NH.
Based on history, the ethically challenged Rudy is almost certainly dead, as great as it would be to run against him and his hilarious parroting of “9/11, 9/11″ every 15 seconds.
The GOoP will be lucky to emerge out of this disaster with McLame and not Huckabee—
“Based on history, the ethically challenged Rudy ”
If Hillary is the Democratic nominee I HOPE it is a battle of negatives, then whatever limited chance of winning she has will evaporate. The Democrats will be wise to steer clear of her because of these negatives.
” If you support the guy’s ideas, vote for him. If you don’t, then don’t”
Not really. Very few candidates will match ideas one for one with very few of the electorate. The fact that politics is the art of compromise is proven by the fact that even for such an important office you must make choices about which issues that a candidate stands for is most important for you.
For me, Rudy Guiliani is clearly the closest to my own political views. I can support just about every other candidate and would support the Republican candidate over every potential and hypothetical Democratic candidate other than Joseph Lieberman. I would support Lieberman over several of the Republican candidates.
That is why I think that a couple of posters who would not support Guiliani because of “abortion” and the 2nd Amendment are totally ridiculous.
Mark;
What we have here is a difference in priorities. If you consider 2nd amendment rights and abortion as marginal issues, then Guiliani looks OK.
However, what you consider marginal issues are litmus tests to me. The main reason I cannot support a DFL candidate has to do with these two issues. It would be dishonest of me to support Guliani when he has (or had) the same position on these issues as the DFL party.
If they’re such marginal issues, why is Guiliani running from his past on them?
Would it suprise you to know I have request a position on these issues from Obama? I dont expect to get a satisfactory answer from them, but if I were, then I’d consider looking at him closer.
So, Guiliani’s your man becasue he most closely meets your requirements. He isnt even an viable candidate to me becasue he doesnt come close to meeting my requirements. Fair enough.
“He isnt even an viable candidate to me becasue he doesnt come close to meeting my requirements. Fair enough.”
If Rudy was runnign for your local state legislature, maybe I would agree with you. However, he is not. He is running for national office. The only impact he can have on these issues that you think are important is to nominate judges for the federal judiciary. And, on that issue he should clearly be acceptable.
I think that sometimes we inject issues into political campaigns that have nothing to do with the office. FOr example, the question of abortion has nothing to do with a US House of Representatives. THere is nothing that they can do to impact this issue. Yet, abortion and other polictics impacts everything to you guys, and frankly, that is a mistake.
Nor supporting a Republican candidate, assuming that for the most part on other issues you do, because of some minor differences in marginal issues that have nothing to do with the office helps candidates that are even further from the positions on these issues you believe in.
This is a place where open-minded critical thinkers of all political persuasions encounter information and arguments that both support and challenge their preconceptions. The goal is not to eliminate differences but to narrow and clarify them. We begin with a bedrock agreement that the search for insight and clarity is important, serious - and fun.
We ask commenters to be civil and substantive and, if possible, good humored. We reserve the right to delete comments that disregard this request.
Do you use Twitter? Follow The Big Question.
Subscribe to The Big Question
Learn more about RSS
Politically Connected Blogs
Archives
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- January 2006
- December 2005
Categories
- 1st District (3)
- 2nd District (2)
- 3rd District (9)
- 4th District (2)
- 5th District (5)
- 6th District (1)
- Al Franken (27)
- Amy Klobuchar (1)
- Barack Obama (7)
- Collin Peterson (1)
- Conventions (7)
- economy (9)
- Erik Paulsen (2)
- Fred Thompson (2)
- health care (15)
- Hillary Rodham Clinton (6)
- House (3)
- In Congress (1)
- Iraq (14)
- John Edwards (3)
- John Kline (2)
- John McCain (11)
- Keith Ellison (1)
- Main (1184)
- Michele Bachmann (22)
- Mike Ciresi (10)
- Mike Huckabee (1)
- Mitt Romney (3)
- Norm Coleman (33)
- Presidential (26)
- Presidential Democratic (16)
- Presidential Republican (19)
- Ron Paul (4)
- Rudy Giuliani (2)
- San Brownback (1)
- Senate (17)
- State (11)
- Tim Pawlenty (13)
- Tim Walz (1)
- Tom Tancredo (1)