The Democratic 'military' candidate

[Stinky The Clown]

The recent dustup between Paul Hackett and John Murtha spawned a number of recent threads here on DU, and no doubt elsewhere where people are paying attention. I don't wish to discuss either man here, and more particularly, the dustup on AAR. There are still active threads where one may go if one wishes to discuss that.

What this thread *is* about are 06/midterm Democratic candidates for office at all levels of government.

Let's start with some general understandings.

** A candidate with military experience is no more or less qualified for office than anyone else.

** A candidate who runs solely on the basis of military experience probably isn't worthy of anyone's vote.

** A voter who casts a vote for a candidate solely because of that candidate's military service is a dunce.

Now let's give some consideration to the political climate in the country *today*. Many issues are of importance to voters. But the one most common concern is the War in Iraq®, and the possibility of another war with Iran. In any given demographic, this may or may not be *the* issue, but in virtually every demographic, if it isn't numero uno, it is a close second.

The antiwar 'left' is viewed by many, and has in many cases been somewhat successfully painted, as a throwback to the anti war left of the Viet Nam era. The draft card burning, 'America-hating', troop spit-uponing, long haired, free loving, hippie wackos. Facts don't get in the way of this view. Perceptions are, indeed, reality.

Former military with an antiwar view are painted as latter day John Kerrys from the Viet Nam Veterans Against the War (VVAW) types. Or are they? I'm far less sure this label has any effective glue on the back.

Many of the former military who are candidates seem not to be taking a hard line anti-war posture, although most seem to be pretty clear as being anti-*this*-war. And that's pretty much the widely held view in the country today.

Many on the left side of the left are, seemingly, predisposed to be wary of anyone who wore a uniform and then runs as a Democrat. Personally, I find this astounding. Many of our best liberals have been in the military. And that's not at all a new phenomenon. Two of the more famous are Kennedy and McGovern. Jimmy Carter may not be a darling of the far left, but he is who he is, is beloved, and is a former nuclear sub captain. John Kerry would be seen by very few as anything other than a diehard, dyed in the wool, no shit liberal. Al Gore, the current hero to many, was in Viet Nam. Max Cleland ... 'nuff said. The list is long and proud.

Good Democrats have NEVER failed to serve. Good Republicans .... not so much.

Each of these men had to start their political career somewhere. To say their military service defined them would be just plain wrong. They are who they are by virtue of the totality of the man. They are good, honest Democrats who happened to have also worn the uniform.

Consider this. To stand before the voters and claim to be against *this* war takes on an added dimension when one can also say "I volunteered to serve there. I know war. This war is wrong." There is an added poignancy, an increase in credibility, by simple virtue of having worn the uniform. In today's political climate, there are, indeed, bonus points for having served.

All that being said, I come back to my essential point. Military service is not a reason to vote for anyone. But as true as this is, it is equally true that to *not* vote for someone for the same reason is just as wrong.

For me, I'll choose who to vote for on the basis of the totality of the candidate. But if it came down to it, military service would be a tie breaker.

I admit that my perspective may be a bit different than yours. I served way back in the dark ages of the late 60s and early 70s. One enlistment. Out as soon as possible. I never went to Viet Nam, but I was very affected by it. It was, in many ways, my war; surely it was my generation's war. From my military service I took an abiding respect for those who not only served, but also shot and got shot. I have been deprived of the friendship of a few who never made it back. My service made me a man generally predisposed to avoid war, but also a man who understands the very real fact we live in a world of megalomania, evil intent, and plots against mankind. I strongly support a strong defense. I vehemently oppose a strong offense. I am .... antiwar.

I surely expect that most who are now running for public office, and who also served, are more or less in the same place I am. They don't get my vote automatically, but I surely want to know about the totality of the person.

I'd love to see a serious discussion of this. Please hold your snarks and drive-by comments for other threads. If you disagree with me, please lay out your case so that I - and others - can appreciate your views.

Thanks!

[TAPat]

1. K&R for the import of the post - I would love to get

involved with this discussion, but am setting up the pool for the kid (and the whole neighborhood!) today and simply don't have time....

Great insight once again - and good luck to a positive and thoughtful thread. :hi:

[welshTerrier2]

2. strongly agree with everything you said except this:

"Many on the left side of the left are, seemingly, predisposed to be wary of anyone who wore a uniform and then runs as a Democrat."

it's a very dangerous business to continue this stereotype ... i believe "the left side of the left" is wary of anyone who is a "party to empire" ... is the LSOTL more wary of former military types than they are of a power elite that regularly sends our military abroad to do the bidding of mega-corporations? i say "no" ...

the distrust is in the entire system of power that promotes imperialism ... if anything, i might surmise that former military types are viewed as at least valuing honor and integrity unlike the lying weasals like cheney who come out the corporate sphere ... they are seen as no less a "party to empire" but their motives, in some cases, may be more noble ...

is the LSOTL more wary of military types who run as Democrats? i'm skeptical ...

[Stinky The Clown]

6. I very carefully used the word 'seemingly' ...... I don't want to paint

with a broad brush that side of the equation. I don't count myself as part of the LSOTL, and can't claim to know how people in that sphere view things. In the end, all I'm suggesting is fair appraisal of **any** candidate by **any** voter.

I suspect that the LSOTL is more disposed to consider military service more warily than many others might, but I also very freely acknowlege that many of our most introspective, thoughtful voters are in that realm.

To be sure, here on DU, many on the LSOTL seem predisposed to be against all things military. Again, a broad brush that I may well be unfairly wielding due to my *own* predispositions.

I'm curious about what you say .... am I to infer some on the LSOTL make a connection between the military and 'party to empire'? To be sure, the military is used by the empire builders to further their end game. but does one need to equate a person with a military background - or even a complete military career - with empire? I have no illusions that all who serve are boy scouts. But I am just as sure that many (most?) who serve do so out of some more altruistic feelings.

[welshTerrier2]

10. "altruistic feelings"

that was the very point i was trying to make with this statement: "they are seen as no less a "party to empire" but their motives, in some cases, may be more noble ..."

of course, much of this is just speculation and generalization but my "support the troops" derives from my belief in the selfless sacrifice many of them are making or have made ...

so i fully agree with your statement about "altruistic feelings" ...

but this does not alter the reality that most military activity, from the promotion and procurement of profit-generating weapons systems to the colonial exploitations of weaker nations, disguised as noble cause such as promoting democracy and freeing the oppressed, is nevertheless primarily motivated by greed ... those who have known war, in my view, are less likely to wage it for such purposes ... nevertheless, their failure to either learn the truth, or to disclose it to the masses, makes them a "party to empire" ...

the point is contrary to the LSOTL being more wary of military types; i think the LSOTL may actually be less wary of them when compared to high-powered corporate types ...

[Stinky The Clown]

11. Thanks for that ......

.... I think I now understand what you're saying.

And, honestly, I'm heartened by it.

[Stinky The Clown]

13. One other thing ... a sidebar, really ...... that 'noble cause' crap

Noble causes that have to be called noble are most likely not.

WWII is arguably the last 'noble cause' and even at that, there are hints of less than nobility. But on balance, I suspect we can mostly agree it was noble.

Korea? Maybe ..... but pushing the outer limits of nobility.

Viet Nam? Maybe at the start. Maybe. Back when it was a French war that we assisted in. By the time it went from a few advisers to a real war, the nobility was long gone. I don't, however, so much see it as a war of empire, but rather one that was testosterone driven by some suits in DC. If any envelope was pushed there it would the envelope of how far one could go with the notion of simply being 'fucked up.'

Somalia? See that last line of the above.

Grenada? Hahahahahahahaha

Nicaragua? See Grenada and add some empire.

Gulf War I? Maybe.

Bosnia? Probably

Afghanistan? Probably, if we had been there for the supposed reasons we went there. In hind sight, I'm not so sure. This is an odd man out in my Stinky The Clown analysis. If we went there for the initially stated reasons, but with a different leadership - one who **actually** went there for the stated reasons - I'd put it in the 'Noble' column. Instead, we have what we have ..... warm-up for empire building.

This War? Pure, evil, greed and empire. NO Redeeming Quality at all. Not at the outset and not now.

[welshTerrier2]

14. "noble cause"

my intent was to use this phrase to describe the perception of the troops themselves rather than the reality of what their mission actually was ...

it is essentially parallel to your statement about "altruistic feelings" ... the troops may believe the mission is noble (as it is always advertised) even though most wars waged by the US are all about empire ...

as for Afghanistan, i somewhat reluctantly supported going in there ... it's fairly clear now it was a huge mistake ... can you say Unical pipeline? the poppy crops are back in full force; warlords are gaining more and more power; and the people have long since been forgotten ... what else is new?

[NativeTexan]

29. I am a moderate.....but I have to agree with..........

........everything you just said there terrier! Stereotypes, especially when it comes to anything military, can be very dangerous. To me its like saying if you are on the left, or the left of the left, you OBVIOUSLY are not a Christian!! Well some of the most Christian folks I have ever known in my life.....and I am talking REAL Christians, not POLITICAL Christians.....are from the far left! I might, occasionally, disagree with their politics....but NEVER their faith!

You can definitely be against war without being against those who fight them! Especially when you consider that the ones SENDING them to war are the "CHICKEN HAWKS" that not only never served, but who aren't just willing to send troops into harms way, but are freakin' GIDDY about it!!

[zbdent]

3. A candidate with military experience - remember the stink

that the Republicans made about how the Dems hate the military . . . and now there's about as many Republican Iraq War (I & II) vets as there are office holding Democrats under investigation for corruption . . .

[Stinky The Clown]

9. I'm not sure what you're saying

I read your post several times and am still not sure what you're saying.

[zbdent]

16. I mean that

there are few Iraq war vets in office (first or current) (or running for office these days) that are Registered Republicans, despite their screams all through the 90s about how Clinton/Dems hate the military. You would think that Repubs would be scurrying (like the "Greatest Generation") to avenge the USA because of the "Pearl Harbor" attack that occured on September "the" 11th. But they're hiding . . .

There are few Democratic congressmen (1, right now that we're aware of) being investigated for corruption/bribery. They're trying with Reid . . . unless they want to pull Jim Traficant out of their collective asses . . .

and the notion that "a candidate with military experience" being more or less qualified to run the show . . . the Repukes spent the 90s claiming that Clinton, with no military experience, should not be leading the armed forces. Yet Bush has no record of it, either. Well, one piece of evidence, but the Repugniconvicts shot that down as a forgery . . . :silly:

Do I believe that a candidate must have military experience? No. But it is funny to watch the "gung-ho" "We Love The Military" Repuknicons trying to rewrite their past to try to discount military experience. And it does make it interesting to see chickenhawk Repukes (see Jean Schmidt's statement about Marines) blowing smoke, trying to tell a person who was there how they don't understand how it is in a war zone . . .

[zbdent]

18. Oh, and your misunderstanding is due to me trying to boil things to

a "witty soundbyte" for the bumper-sticker reading comprehension level freeptards . . . no offense to you intended.

[Stinky The Clown]

19. Thanks for expanding your comments

It is all *very* clear now.

Oh yes, the Repubs have a history of playing against truth. The cartoon version is Bill O'Reilley lecturing generals on how wars are done and saying he served when all he did was wear a 'PRESS' card in his hatband while sitting on some ship in the Faulklands.

If for no other reason, I'd like our military candidates to just call these liars 'LIAR' .... loud and clear.

There is no reason on this earth why we should be seen as anything less than the party that supports the troops and the military in general (as a force for **defense**). If one stops to think about it, most of the people in the military in fact fit the demographic of the Democrats. There are surely far fewer sons and daughters of privelege in the military than there are daughters and sons of the middle and lower socioeconomic strata. And apart from the top down (and very necessary) nature of the military's command structure, it is nearly a pure meritocracy. It is nearly color blind, and nearly socialistic, too.

I see NO reason whatever for the military to be other than democrats and no reason whatever not to consider a former military person for elective office.

[Montauk6]

4. This is the problem I have with some of the Clark and Kerry fans

(let the shoe fit, btw)

I couldn't give a rat's behind what Clark or Kerry did on the battlefield; I look at where they stand on ALL issues. And, for what it's worth, with some exceptions, I like where they stood pretty much.

Why we don't remember the lesson of Clinton/Carville is beyond me; remember when The Machine tried unsuccessfully to pin the draft dodger tag on Big Dog back in the day? He ran against two WWII vets with commendable war records (Bush Sr, in 92, Dole in 96) and came out ahead? Why? He had no military experience but he focused on issues that really mattered. "It's the economy, stupid" etc.

For a Hackett or Murtha to get my vote, I'd need to know where they stand on domestic issues, corporate welfare, etc. When you start saying, "he was a decorated--" talk to the hand!

And, while we're at it, is putting on a uniform and picking up a weapon really the only way to "serve your country"? I'm just sayin'...

[Stinky The Clown]

7. I'm not arguing any of those positions

And from your post, I suspect you and I are pretty much in agreement.

To paraphrase even further your Carville quote: "Its the issues, stupid."

All I'm suggesting is that we not be predisposed one way *or* the other to weigh a candidate's military service as the sole reason to vote for or against them.

[JeffR]

5. You've put this issue into its real context

Military service as part of the total character.

The many lists floating around the web for years contrasting the service history of Democrats with the (non-)service of Republicans argued powerfully against the cant and hypocrisy of the Right.

What saddens me is the repeated failure to capitalize on this reality in terms of campaign strategy. Mary Beth Cahill or whoever was responsible for Kerry's Convention salute seemed not to think farther than coming up with a sort of Democratic version of the Mission Accomplished photo-op. Roveco countered with the Swift-liars and suddenly miitary heroism - and the equal heroism of Kerry coming come home and enlisting in the antiwar movement - was conceded by the campaign strategists. All the while, Bush's ass was hanging out on the issue of military service, waiting to be donkey-kicked.

We don't necessarily need veterans as candidates, but we all know the lopsided odds of which party affiliation a veteran running for office is likely to hold. And all Democratic candidates this year need to discuss Iraq in terms of what it really means to support the troops.

There's a terrible cartoonish superficiality involved in the standard dogma of "honoring" military service, in the standard media narratives of "heroism", in the overt ridicule leveled at principled people who have shouldered arms on behalf of the nation and who speak out against the folly of Bush's reckless and criminal misuse of our armed forces. It is long past time for a reality-based public discussion of these things, and for the sake of 130,000 troops unnecessarily positioned in harm's way in the Fertile Crescent, the Democrats need to initiate this discourse now and keep talking about it right through November 2006, right through November 2008, and beyond.

Thank you for a thought-provoking and important post.

[Stinky The Clown]

8. I think you added an important layer over what I said

Thank you.

[JeffR]

12. Not at all. Just a thin veneer of murky varnish...

[many a good man]

15. Americans love war -- when we win

Polls say that about 2/3 of Americans believe we never should have gotten involved in Viet Nam. Its now about the same for Iraq. Yet majorities don't like anti-war protestors and see Democrats as the anti-war party by association.

They know that if troops are putting their butts on the line in a war zone and there are people back home saying they're doing this for nothing, it can't help but hurt morale. Period. Of course, the solution is not to start selfish or meaningless wars in the first place, but that doesn't soften the impact much.

Americans don't want leaders who are afraid to use our military to defend our interests. They are afraid that a Democrat will appease instead of starting a theoretical war that theoretically may be necessary. That's why we'll be the last democracy to elect a woman, unless an American Maggie Thatcher comes along I'm afraid.

Personally, I think we need a president who can restore our military and kick out the bums who have helped the bush-cheney junta nearly destroy it. That means purging the upper ranks of the cowards and traitors. The military walked all over Clinton because of draft-dodging and we can't afford that again.

[welshTerrier2]

17. "Yet majorities don't like anti-war protestors"

the anti-war (i.e. anti-Iraq war) protestors were right ... while a majority of elected Dems voted against the war, many, too many, did not ...

did elected Democrats join the protests against the war? most did not ... did they speak out to support those who said the war would end tragically for the US and the Iraqis? no, most did not ...

it's time to support the "anti-war protestors" ... they were dead right about Iraq; they are dead right about Iran ...

if majorities don't like these protestors, it's because elected Democrats are not supporting them ... Dems remain silent and republicans criticize - not much of a PR campaign ...

the bottom line is that we'll end up spending a trillion dollars or more for this insanity; 2500 US troops are dead and almost 20000 critically injured; oil companies will own the Iraqi oil fields; Iraq's infrastructure is destroyed and will NOT be repaired by the US; tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis have died and US prestige, whatever was left of it, is totally gone ... but no one wants to say "thank you" to the anti-war protestors who tried to stop the madness ...

maybe instead of running away from the anti-war left, the Democratic Party would be well served by joining them ... that's what the country needs but the Party seems to prefer political game-playing to having some integrity and telling the truth ...

[Stinky The Clown]

21. In reply to this comment of yours ... and your earlier ones, upthread ....

..... what I see is a real meeting of minds taking place. TorchesAndPitchforks is quite correct in saying the antiwar left is seen in a very schizophrenic way. I truly believe this goes back to the antiwar left of the 60s. I wrote something about it here: http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Husb2Sparkly/9

In many ways, this is why I'd see military service as a tiebreaker when comparing candidates for a given office. We need to get back the creds we Democrats had as being honest in considering the use of military force when necessary and when justified. That 'noble cause' thing we discussed above.

All this crap started, in many ways, back in McGovern's day when he was seen as wussy. We all know nothing could be futher from the truth, but that's what happened when he was seen as part and parcel of the 'antiwar left'. That needs to stop. Not by the anti war left going away ... not at all ..... but by the party standing up candidates and electing leaders who are righteously antiwar (not anti military) and in so doing building serious, honest, mutually respectful alliances with the antiwar left.

And that gets back to the situation in the country **today**. A non-military antiwar candidate is going to be seen (broadly) as less credible a leader (on matters of security, defense, etc ... not across the board) than one who is equally antiwar, but has some military service in his or her background. Not by you or me, probably, but in very broad electorate terms. It need not always be this way .... I hope sincerely it will soon NOT be this way ..... but right now, in this day and in this time in this country, after 40 long years of the right claiming they support the military, and in the face of their having done anything BUT support the military, this may well be the best path to get back our creds. They have the long and shadowy veil of illusions they've built. We need to pierce that veil and then tear it down.

I hope you can see that I'm trying find a smart balance between ideology and reality.

We really *are* all on the same side.

[coalition_unwilling]

20. Spare me the cant about "hurting morale" -- what's going on in

Iraq (among other crimes and misdemeanors) is that members of the U.S. working class are killing and wounding members of the Iraqi working class, in the interests of the global corporate elite. In other words, the war is injurious to the class with which I identify and whose interests I support.

If opposing the war hurts the enlisted soldiers' morale, I say "Tough shit" because their morale is based on ignorance, illusions and possibly self-delusions and IS NOT BASED ON THEIR REAL SITUATION. If my anti-war agitating brings the war to a close one day sooner than it otherwise would have without my agitating, then I am advancing the interests of the working class.

[Stinky The Clown]

22. I think maybe you're barking up the wrong tree

I'm not for a moment going to ask you to stop your 'anti war agitating'. Don't ever stop doing that until you're successful.

But to decry what Torches said is short sighted on your part. I am certain we all agree with most of what you said. I know I do.

I also know that while I agree with it, I also feel a healthy, robust, best-in-the world military **is** necessary and **is** in our country's best interest .... right now. In generations hence? I have no idea. But right now, yes.

And the military, by the very nature of what they do - forget the reasons for war for just a moment ... needs to be capable of near blindly following orders. I knw that's counter to what you and I feel is proper behavior, but if you've ever served, or consider the nature of combat honestly, you'll no doubt agree its right.

All that said, the issue is not with 'the troops' ... or even the military. It is with the civilian leadership. Democrats and Republicans both have abused (at worst) or misused (at best) the military. And **that** is where we need to take a strong stand.

You very correctly point out that 'the troops' are of the same 'class' as you. I would only add that that notion should go up to also include the officer corps. We no longer have an officer corps made up of the sons of privlege. They are, virtually to the same extent as the enlisted ranks, from the same broad background ... middle (maybe upper middle) class and lower.

I also would hasten to add that the whole idea that protesting here hurts the morale over there is tripe. Morale over there is based on the mission and the support they get from the civilian leadership. When morale goes south, one need look no further than the current powers that be. In fact, I would go one step further and say that the emphasis on that notion comes mostly from those who support the war for whatever golas they have ..... not those who truly 'support the troops'. Lastly, any serious lack of support from the country should be reason in and of itself to end a war or to never have engaged in it in the first place. WWII was seen by ... what? ... 99% of the country? .... as righteous and noble and justified. Then the troops were supported by those who remained at home. Those who remained at home did everything possibel to support the troops and the larger war effort. Sacrifice was made gladly and even beyond that we have such noble gestures as houswwives rolling banadages for the troops or Rosie going to drive rivets - as much for the money as the cause.

What Torches said - and with which you seem to have taken issue - was simply a statement of the reality we MUST work to change.

Democrats need to get back on the high road on ths score .... and seen by the general public as taking back their rightful place.

*That* in many ways is the whole point of this thread.

[coalition_unwilling]

25. Thanks for your considered reply -- I think that bit about anti-war\

anti-Bush protesting hurting the morale of the troops struck a nerve with me, if only because I've gotten so sick of the epithets hurled my\our way by passing motorists, such as "Traitors" "Go Back to Iraq" and (my fav by far) "Commies."

I'm not sure I agree with you that we need a "best-in-class" military right now, since the challenge it seems to me is not nation vs. nation disputes over land (Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran notwithstanding). Right now, the principal challengeI think, is working toward a globalism that places people over profits and that strives for a new vision of justice based upon a fairer allocation of resources among all citizens of the globe.

[Stinky The Clown]

26. We surely agree on the end goal ... a humane globalism ... but differ ....

.... on tactics. And that's fine. Tactices are debatable.

I would just point toward Iran and North Korea. I do not for one second by hte bush line on these two bad actors. But neither do I wish to allow them to go down the paths they say they've chosen to follow. No sane person can do anything but agree that the current Iranian president has anything but contempt for the US. Not for 'bush's' US ..... but for *our* US. They may not be an imminent threat right now, but left unchecked, they certainly could be. I see a strong military as a proper deterrent o that. North Korea is saddled with an even crazier son of a bitch for a leader than we have! He's already demonstarted two things .... he has a nuke and he has a missle that can deliver it *at least* to Japan. That makes it our concern. Again ... not go in guns ablazing ... but to maintain a credible defense and a willingness to use necessary force as a last resort.

Teddy Rosevelt was right then and he continues to be right today. Speak softly and carry a big stick. It is in our best interest as the only remaining superpower to carry the biggest stick. The issue is with whom to trust the carrying of the stick. For me, it is a Democrat.

[coalition_unwilling]

27. Hmm, well I actually tend more towards A. Lincoln than T. Roosevelt.

Lincoln at one point said (don't remember the source for this):

"The best way to get rid of an enemy is to make him a friend."

For some reason those words have stuck with me and illustrate why Lincoln, imho, was greater than his party. Incredible that he was a Republican, given what they have become in just my lifetime.

North Korea is such an anomaly in the panoply of nation states that I don't know where to begin. It's certainly not Marxist-Leninist, nor is it Maoist. But what is it? It certainly doesn't seem to harbor any expansionist ambitions vis-a-vis South Korea (or anyone else in Asia). I don't really see it as a threat to the U.S. in any meaningful sense of the word (altho I have read stories that say its ICMBs could possibly reach California, where I live).

The same could pretty much be said for Iran also -- not a threat to the U.S. nor does it harbor explicit expansionist aims. Obviously it seeks to expand its sphere of influence in southern Iraq but that seems a fairly rational strategy, given that U.S. client state exists on its eastern border (Afghnistan) and that another U.S. client state in the region (Israel) possesses nuclear weapons.

If we cut our defense budget by 50% (from roughly $500 billion to $250 billion annually), I'd imagine we could "buy" more security\safety in the form of global aid programs than we'll ever get by funding military expeneditures. In other words, there's more than one way to achieve security, depending on how one defines that term.

[Stinky The Clown]

28. No just you wait a damn second .......

How DARE you agree with me.

How DARE you agree with me that the defense budget is ripe for cutting?

How DARE you agree with me that Lincoln's notion of making friends makes sense?

How DARE you agree with me that North Korea fits no pattern other than the non-pattern of a country run by a nut?

At least you and I can disagree on Iran. I honestly *do* think they'll do to us anything they possibly can. But I also think by having a sufficiently strong military ($250 to $300 billion ougtta be about right .... there's that damned agreement again) we can get them to sit and listen ... so long as we're equally willing to do the same ... respectfully and consideredly.

Anyway, how DARE you agree with me and not allow me to argue with you?

[coalition_unwilling]

30. If just one more poster agrees with us two about cutting

the defense budget, we may be the knife edge of a revolution (something Arlo Guthrie talked about in "Alice's Restaurant," if I remember correctly :)

I like your point about talking and listening respectfully and consideredly. The other night, when I saw KindaLiar Rice on the Lehrer Newshour talking about the grand gesture we were making to negotiate with the Iranians provided they first complied with our non-neogtiable condition (suspension of uranium enrichment, which the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty allows them, btw), I thought to myself, "She sounds halfway reasonable."

But then I remembered that they pulled that same old sad dog-n-pony show with Iraq before invading Iraq, to wit, you must let the inspectors in to forestall invasion. Iraq let the inspectors in and still was invaded. So why should Iran believe any word that escapes KindaLiar's mouth?

[ulysses]

31. make it three in agreement, then.

Are we a quorum?

[coalition_unwilling]

32. Three's a revolution :)

[Stinky The Clown]

36. If we get a fourth .....

.... we could play Canasta. :)

[DinahMoeHum]

23. Are you familiar with the Band of Brothers 2006 website?

www.bandofbrothers2006.org

Also, every Tuesday evening on Air America, The Majority Report and DailyKos feature a "Fighting Dem"
www.majorityreportradio.com
www.dailykos.com

:patriot:

[Stinky The Clown]

24. Yes I am ... but thanks for that link ......

.... others may also find it interesting.

[ulysses]

33. fair enough.

I have had kneejerk negative reactions in the past to military candidates, for a variety of reasons, not least of which is that it's not a cure-all for electoral woes - Max will tell you that. Still, I'm evolving in that view. It's worth looking at the whole candidate, yes.

[Stinky The Clown]

34. And in the end, that could be a whole campaign theme

'Fair'

Its a good word.

[KoKo]

35. Murtha is CORRECT ....and Hackett is a GOOD GUY...but wrong on this...

However, Hackett has a great future as a "correspondent/media person" on CNN or other Cables..

I like Hackett. I think he's wrong on this, though. :shrug:

[LWolf]

37. I concur.

Military service does not make one any more, or less qualified as a candidate. I don't cast my support or vote based on military experience.

I also agree that military service should not be a reason to withhold support. I'm a peacenik. I don't reject candidates because they served in the military. I have observed this, though:

When campaigners keep pushing someone's military record as a reason to vote for them, it turns me off. I tend to put that candidate on my "will not vote for" list. Not because of the service, but because of the campaigners' use of that service. I think it's foolish and misleading to suggest that military experience is the brand of leadership necessary to lead a peaceful nation, or to achieve peace, and I won't support that sort of propaganda with my vote.

I don't think that combat training or experience makes one smarter, stronger in character, or a better leader than others. I don't feel "safer" with someone because they are a trained fighter. I feel "safer" with leaders who are smart enough to know that there are better ways to resolve conflict, and that fighting is a last resort in self-defense. Many trained fighters know this, having seen the results of combat first hand. That's why I don't rule them out. As long as they don't pander to people's fear by campaigning on that experience as a way to keep people "safe," I'm happy to look at the rest of their resume.

[Stinky The Clown]

38. You raise an interesting point ......

.... I agree with what you said, by the way ......

Your final sentence has the kernal I'm addressing. "As long as they don't pander to people's fear by campaigning on that experience as a way to keep people "safe," I'm happy to look at the rest of their resume."

It seems to me, in my observing the political landscape for many years, that the ones who most often define 'keeping you safe' (spoken in whatever idiom was appropriate to the time) as miltary power are the very ones who never served but have this huge need to compensate their own lack of righteous machismo with a swagger bought with bankrupt internal funds. They never walked the walk but they just love to talk the talk.

Our own dear leader, President Fuquad, is the biggest example of this.