I am a little leery about getting so many military in the race next year.

[madfloridian]

We are up to 35 now, according to this article. Also, I am understanding that the majority are not so much anti-war...rather they don't like the way Bush handled this one.

I know what our Democrats are doing. Even Howard Dean appears to be going along with the concept that we must appear stronger on nation defense. Some of us have written him about our feelings on this. He wants to win, has to win, or he is gone. I just don't want him getting DCified in his thinking.

I don't think an Iraqi veteran is any better qualified than others who might run. Also the fact that many of them are inexperienced gives me a little hesitancy as well. We need new faces, but the thought of so many military in congress does not seem just right.

This is not a popular view, and I see some got crucified at a moderate blog for questioning. I hope I don't have that happen, but I am very afraid we are being rather naive. It seems like we think we might "fool" the Republicans, but I don't think we need to do that at all. I think we are pretty powerful on national security already. We just need to be ourselves, and not hush up our truthspeakers.

Here is the article, and I have doubts.

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_3348791

Vets get in races to fight GOP
War experience touted for Dems. Veterans for a Secure America fields candidates for Congress nationwide, including two in Colorado.
By Jim Hughes
Denver Post Staff Writer

More than 30 Iraq and Persian Gulf War veterans have entered congressional races across the country as Democrats, hoping to capitalize on their military experience to topple the incumbent Republican majority.

The article mentions that there may be as many as 37 running now. Here is more on it.

On Dec. 20, Fawcett and Winter joined 35 Democratic veterans running for Congress at a strategy session in Washington, D.C.

The veterans voted on a name for their emerging caucuslike campaign coalition: Veterans for a Secure America. They also agreed that their military backgrounds should be promoted as credentials for leadership across the full spectrum of public policy, said Fawcett, an Air Force veteran of the 1991 Gulf War who has taught at the Air Force Academy and now works as a consultant to Northern Command in Colorado Springs.

The group will reconvene in Washington in February to respond to President Bush's State of the Union address in a news conference on the steps of the Capitol, Winter said. An attorney and the former president of the grassroots liberal organizing group Be The Change, Winter spent 10 peacetime years in the Marine Corps and the Navy.

And they point out that they are looking back at how well Hackett did in Ohio. What may be a problem is that Paul Hackett was a unique individual, not something you can duplicate easily. The spokesman makes it clear they are not anti-war, just feel like they could manage it better.

Fawcett said the group is not anti-war but is concerned about what appears to be a lack of a solid plan for the war in Iraq. He said the group's military experience could be crucial in providing better leadership.

The war in Iraq, which polls show is now unpopular with most Americans, is a growing political weakness for Bush and for Republican lawmakers, Democratic strategists say. As proof, they point to the experience last summer of Paul Hackett, an Iraq war veteran who narrowly lost a congressional bid in a solidly Republican district in Ohio. Hackett now is running for Senate.

I think that some need to speak out on this. I am so tired of war being used, and I don't want us doing that as well. I know what the party is trying to do...win. I am just not sure this is a winning tactic.

I was not going to write about this, but I saw some people get skewered at so-called liberal blogs for speaking out on this. I don't like that.

[NMDemDist2]

1. i can understand your trepidation but i also understand we need to

change the "Democrats are soft on the military" talking point that's been making the rounds for the last few years

[madfloridian]

3. Is this the only way to do it?

Why don't we just speak out on what we believe? Oh, wait, someone did that...

Oh, well. I guess this is our reality now....the military.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

2. It does have the fragrance

of testosterone all over it, doesn't it?

[chat_noir]

8. Tammy Duckworth might not like that testosterone reference

With Iraqi war veteran Tammy Duckworth meeting Monday's filing deadline to run for Congress in the west suburban 6th District, the field of candidates to succeed retiring U.S. Rep. Henry Hyde has become clear.

Because Duckworth lost her legs when a rocket-propelled grenade downed the helicopter she was flying near Baghdad, her position on the war will be key. At her campaign kickoff Sunday, Duckworth said she feels that invading Iraq was a "distraction" when the nation should have been focusing on pursuing the Al Qaeda terrorist network that attacked on Sept. 11, 2001.

Duckworth, a Hoffman Estates resident who has a master's degree in international affairs from George Washington University, is talking about investing in education, stopping the outsourcing of jobs and improving medical-care coverage. When she was deployed to Iraq, she had been working as a staff supervisor at the Rotary International world headquarters in Evanston. She intends to continue serving in the Illinois National Guard, where she is a major.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/nearwest/chi-0512200169dec20,1,2496077.story?coll=chi-newslocalnearwest-hed&ctrack=1&cset=true

[madfloridian]

12. Don't use that to silence our questioning. Not fair.

Actually, she is one of the ones who is replacing a good candidate already. Don't try to use the fact that she is wounded to hush the voices of those who question their country and party.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

13. Definitely an exception! Thanks for setting me straight

[xchrom]

4. historically the democratic party was stronger on defence than repukes.

and i would say that we still are stronger on DEFENCE -- what i certainly think that having that many vets running does is help to erace forever the pasting that repukes have us for being otherwise.

[Atman]

5. I think it's a scam by the neocons to make sure they stay "in."

This is NOT the year to be voting military men into anything. They are, by nature, too sympathetic to the needs of, obviously, the military. It would be nice to have a CIC who understands how the military works, but that is not the same as having 34 grunts in Congress. REMEMBER: The GOP is evil. They will do/say anything to stay in power and keep the contracts flowing. Even running as Stealth Democrats, flying in under the radar to fuck up Congressional votes. Don't trust ANY of them. Ask LOTS of questions. I am not saying military vets are automatically wrong for public office, but at this juncture in our history, knowing what we know about the tactics of this administration and the stakes they must protect, such a large number of vets running for office has me suspicious.

[Schema Thing]

6. Yeah, having people who never served in the military

...in the majority of leadership roles has really turned the Republicans into a party o' peace, had'nit?

[BOSSHOG]

7. And I fear an influx of plumbers in our primarys

Military personnel who would rather our military not be used as a tool of a political party? Any objections? A whiff of testosterone? I think that is natural in a democratic setting. Such an aroma is virtually non-existent in a republican gaggle; what with deserters, and those who seek multiple deferments, where's the manhood there?

Those who know nought of war, no nought how to use it? I offer as my one and only exhibit - dick cheney!

I would not concern myself with Soldiers, Sailors and Airmen returning from War and deciding to do something about it by seeking office as Democrats.

[madfloridian]

9. Ok,...

Just saying what I thought.

[BOSSHOG]

14. And I thoroughly appreciate your thoughts

and you may be right, but I'm a vet and I'm a flaming liberal and I know many others of the same stripe. Being a veteran does not mean one seeks war, quite the contrary. However, you bring up an excellent point that we should take a very close look at any and all candidates. Thanks very much for the outstanding advice.

[madfloridian]

29. And I did not say any of that in my post.

I did not say any of that. I did not attack vets, I did nothing but question the wisdom of running so many.

Very easy to jump on someone the same way the Republicans have doing to us. Not fair.

[JuniperLea]

32. Heh!

I have that person on "ignore", but based on your reaction to his comments on your post, I know exactly who it is:) Hence the ignore. You can't argue with Neanderthal thinking. And you certainly can't argue with someone who doesn't read what you wrote.

[BOSSHOG]

37. So please share with me the wisdom

of not running "so many" veterans. I apologize for attacking your for thinking you attacked vets. Being a veteran should be an honor. And the more, the merrier for us. Please tell me why I'm wrong in thinking such a thought!

[WildEyedLiberal]

17. No kidding, crap like this is why we are accused of being anti-military

I'd like to know when the Democratic party has ever served an anti-military, pacifist agenda. Franklin Roosevelt had to fight the isolationist Republicans to get us involved in WWII and save the free world from Nazi totalitarianism. Harry Truman and John F. Kennedy were no weak-minded pacifists. This anti-military sentiment among some leftists is pretty disgusting and fuels the meme that we are weak on defense. Who would you rather have: a soldier who has been to war and knows enough about it to never enter it lightly, or someone who has never been to war and has no concept of the sacrifice and gravity of it? If you chose the latter, I hope you followed through with your convictions and voted for George Bush the draft dodging chickenhawk over John Kerry the heroic veteran.

[JuniperLea]

24. You can't really blame people for being leary of the military

There was no justification for the current war; therefore, there is no "good" argument for war.

I agree that under the current circumstances, it would be best to have some folks on board who know the ropes and have some compassion.

On the other hand, war is bad and it's bothersome to hear so many who are ready to take up arms. It's the 21st century. You'd think we would have progressed by now.

[madfloridian]

26. I am NOT a leftist.... I am NOT anti-military....see how easy it is?

The same thing happened on other blogs to other people today, who actually said what they thought on something.

See how easy it was for you to characterize me as anti-military? My post is not that way at all.

You characterized me because I had an opinion.

[bowens43]

10. It bothers me too.

We have a civilian government and I would like it to stay that way. Being in the military does NOT qualify one to be a politician.

[CRK7376]

20. So what does

qualify one to be a politician? Current politicians seem to be of all make and blends. As an active duty soldier who is a life long Democrat, never voted once for a Repub, I believe there is a desperate need in Congress for men and women who have served to hold a seat. Too many politicians make decisions without really knowing or experiencing what we in the military have had to put up with Dems and Repubs that have never served. That's why my hat's off to the Kerry's, Murtha's Inoya's, even Tommy Thompson and the Repubs that have served. They know, have been in the military. Bottom line, I think it's great that a whole slew of men and women vets are planning on running for office. I wish them the best of luck!

[dogman]

23. Get out your history books.

We have had a tradition of service by former military men in government. They have a number of positive attributes. An understanding of the world outside of the US, a prior commitment of service to country, some of the best leadership training available, an understanding of what war is, from a personal perspective. They know what teamwork entails. Look at many of our best Democratic leaders in the past and you will see a service record. Getting elected is what qualifies one to be a politician. Military service is an indication of a persons abilities that many voters understand. Most are ex-military and are therefore civilians.

[JuniperLea]

34. My American dream

And my dream for the world is to have all that knowledge become obsolete because we as a society finally grew up and quit kicking sand in the faces of others. War is so outdated. It needs to end.

[fujiyama]

11. You have a good point about the inexperience

Being a veteran certainly doesn't hurt, but it doesn't necessarily make one automatically a qualified candidate.

Most people aren't interested in debating whether Iraq was right or wrong in the first place at this point, because many people were wrong at an earlier time in supporting it when things were 'going well' (ie when Saddam was captured).

The real debate should be over what should be done. Many people are confused as to what to feel now and don't really care if a candidate had the wisdom in opposing this in the first place. Many have a short attention span and easilly buy into phrases like "cut and run".

[hughee99]

15. It seems to me

like a fairly large number of Dems in congress are vets already, especially the older ones, though much of that comes from the days of the draft. I don't necessarily have an issue with this, since there is a large number of true democrats who have served in the military in the past 15 years. I will be watching out for stealth candidates, but electing younger progressives who also have military experience would be nothing but positive for the party, IMHO.

[mike_c]

16. I agree with you 100 percent-- I have ZERO respect...

...for anyone who particpated in a crime against humanity, and even less for anyone whose primary complaint about it is that the ongoing crime isn't being managed properly. Killing Iraqis and destroying their country seems like a poor qualification for election to public office.

on edit-- this tradition of lionizing military service as a "qualification" for public office dates back to world war two, when a significant proportion of the combat aged population fought, and later returned to the U.S. They really were fighting for something noble, and that shared experience really was something worth respecting when it came time to choose future leaders. But killing Iraqis is hardly the same noble objective.

[WildEyedLiberal]

19. Please

:eyes:

[hughee99]

21. Certainly anyone who participated

in crimes against humanity should be excluded, but does the fact that one was in the military at the time crimes occured make them responsible for the actions of others, or the decisions of their leadership?

[mike_c]

25. well, the war against Iraq is BY DEFINITION a crime against humanity...

..because it's a war of aggression, and the U.N. Charter, to which we are signatories, specifically defines wars of aggression as "crimes against humanity," so I'll let you decide for yourself where the limits of participation lie. Certainly, as you've described it, simply "being in the military" at the time of the crime would seem insufficient, e.g. being in the military somewhere else. But this thread (as I understand it) is about Iraq war veterans, not about about people caught in a coincidence who just happened to be in the military during the war against Iraq.

[dogman]

27. Do you pay taxes?

Think about what you are saying. They are not running on the fact they have killed Iraqis.

[mike_c]

35. straw man....

Of course I pay taxes. I fully support the need for members of civilized societies to help meet one another's needs, so I pay my taxes and I'm happy to do it. I pay my taxes for welfare mothers, and illegal immigrants, and to fund entitlement programs for the poor and elderly. I pay them because I believe that those of us who are well off enough to make ends meet have a responsibility to support our brothers and sisters who are not, even those whose misfortune is the result of their own bad judgement. "There but for the grace of god go I...."

Unfortunately, I do not have any control over the uses the government puts my taxes to, and I wish to hell they wouldn't use them to kill innocents in foreign land, or for military support for imperialist expansion, or for an arms race, or to torture people in secret prisons. If it were in my power to stop my taxes from being used for those sorts of things I would do so, immediately. But in the meantime, my brothers and sisters are still hungry, cold, and in need of help-- so I'll continue to pay my taxes, and to vote against the warmongerers and their toadies.

[madfloridian]

30. I did NOT say I lacked respect. I questioned running so many.

You misinterpreted my post the opposite way than the others did.

[mike_c]

38. OK, then perhaps we don't agree after all....

I still don't find being an Iraq war veteran a very compelling qualification for elected office.

[JuniperLea]

36. We need to put down the guns once and for all

And grow up fcol! War is so Neanderthal.

[crispini]

18. Candidates mostly select themselves.

It's not like "the party" thought "let's go out and get some vets to run." It's mostly that some vets decided to run and others saw that and thought it was a good idea.

I don't see any problem with it myself. The military is a big organization, with people of all stripes in it.

BTW, we have a vet running in my local statehouse district, for the state lege. So there's another one to add for the list. :)

[mike_c]

33. self delete-- replied to the wrong msg....

eom

[Warpy]

22. As long as they dislodge bidnessmen

not to mention actors. Let's face it, not all these guys will win. However, we haven't done well with chickenhawks, have we? It's not like non military have had the brains and guts to rein in the Pentagon. It's hard to see how the military will do worse. In fact, they may insist on amazing things like not laundering DOD contract money into RNC campaign contributions. Who knows?

[madfloridian]

28. Alrighty then....did I say I was against the military? Show me.

See what we have become? This happened a lot lately to people who sincerely believe we are making a mistake drafting so many military to run...and yes, it is true that most are drafted.

See how it is done in America now?

[madfloridian]

31. I have requested that this be locked.

I thought I was fair in the OP, and I was not prepared to be called anti-military....that caught me off guard.

I am too tired, and it doesn't matter anyway. The DSCC and DCCC will do what they want anyway.

[EstimatedProphet]

39. Locking

OP's request