31 December 2005 - 11:29am
On "fighting Dems"; or why it's not about whether you wore the uniform
Does American love a man (or woman) in uniform? I wonder.
An interesting debate has broken out over the so-called "Fighting Democrats" -- new Democratic political candidates who happen to have military experience -- starting in a Daily Kos diary a couple of days ago. Dadahead picked up on the question yesterday:
Witness the fascination, especially among bloggers, with Democratic candidates who have military experience. Why anyone would think that being a veteran is an advantage for a Democrat, after the the flame-out of Wesley Clark and the swift-boating of John Kerry, is beyond me. But the delusion that Democrats can neutralize the GOP's advantage on 'national security' by running candidates who have worn a uniform persists.
Clark wins one straw poll after another at Daily Kos, and left-of-center bloggers are practically lining up to fellate Paul Hackett. Why? For one reason, and one reason only: they've served in the military. Military service, it is thought, is the key to electability, despite all evidence to the contrary.
Liberals really need to be shaken out of this delusion.
Very intriguing. But this just scratches the surface of the analysis offered in NCHeartland's dK diary:
Wedge the other guy's base, not your own:
When Bill Clinton defeated veterans George H.W. Bush then Bob Dole, the era of required military service to serve the people was declared dead. Why is the Democratic Party trying to revive a dead era? Because there's a war on? Because they need a public relations face-lift? Stacking the House (and our party) with vets may sound like a good idea superficially, but what's the actual message? Is there any other kind of Democrat but a fighting one? Apparently not according to the "Fightin' Dems" brand. Forget education, jobs, privacy, community responsibility--our values and what we stand for; all we want now is 'boots on the ground' experience to combat Bush's war. The tactic looks cynical and reactionary--Why? Because it is. If many of us in the Democratic Party are turned off, what do you think swing voters (not to mention republicans) will think?
Swing voters:
If all we needed to take America back was an "officer and a gentleman" to sweep everyone from hippies to hawks off their feet, John Kerry would be President right now. And if the republicans didn't have a plan to undo every 'hero' someone places on a pedestal, John McCain wouldn't be a punchline.
[--snip--]
Target practice:
Does anyone really think this tactic scares republicans? One little bit? This distraction from the issues is permission to swift boat the entire party with broad brush strokes. I'm doing it right now. Look how easy we've made it. You can't swift boat someone until some moron places them on a pedestal - Not only smugly above their republican opponent, but above the typical voter. That makes knocking someone down a peg or two not only welcome, but a spectator sport. If you don't think Frank Luntz has a national campaign ready to tailor to each of these "uniformed" Dems, open a window -- The fumes from the broad brush being used to paint the "Fightin' Dems" as our savior will be turned against us faster than John Kerry can change his mind.
[--snip--]
Forget Katrina, there's a war on:
"Fightin' Dems" not only accepts the republican framing of the war as the most vital issue of our day, it endorses it. In Washington the war in Iraq may be the most important issue to "get Bush" but how does that translate to a family in NC, or AZ, or PA that can't buy food, afford healthcare or find a job? Triangulate. How do "Fightin' Dems" fighting Bush (or his war) help the average swing voter's bottom line? Politics 101: It's still the economy, Stupid.
Metaphorically speaking:
And what does "Fightin' Dems" even mean? I mean really mean? I've seen fresh from the front lines and ready to face Bush, among other things and worse. Are we serious? Do we still not get swing voters at all?
First, the supposed metaphorical appeal of a candidate in uniform (Dem or otherwise) is one of discipline, heroism and patriotism. Right? Or am I giving the DCCC too much credit here? If the idea is experience on foreign ground is what matters, we've already lost the swing voter that thinks in terms of values, not product benefits. If the message is Dems can wage republican wars more competently, then again John Kerry would be President if that even remotely worked.
So "Fightin' Dems" is a viable message to send swing voters if the goal here is to not only accept the republican framing that the war is the most important issue of 2006, but endorse the idea that only people with military backgrounds will be taken seriously in Congress.
[--snip--]
Let me tell you what swing voters actually see in this giddy "Fightin' Dems" hysteria. 'Cause it aint pretty. Order takers, not following orders. Subordinates turning on their Commander in Chief. Whiners. Every "Fightin' Dem" is an insubordinate flip-flopper. See how easy that was? Did you really not see this coming? Learn from our mistakes. Stop repeating them.
While on the most superficial of levels a "Fightin' Dem" does accurately project the chickenhawk nature of his republican opponent (which worked so well in 2004), it actually does much more damage to the "Fightin' Dem" (and our party) than it does any opponent. "Look at me! I'm a turncoat. Swiftboat at will. I was for the war (even fought in it) before I was against it. But I can wage it better than my boss. And by the way, the other Dems aren't "Fightin' Dems" like me. I'm special. Better than you even."
And there's the real rub. In this cynical effort to reframe the elitist stereotypes of the Democratic Party, "Fightin' Dems" effectively enforces it. It also demonstrates a common criticism of the Democratic Party that it doesn't know what it stands for, and reinvents itself on whims. We are the war party now? We wage war better than anyone? What happened to the people's party? The party of regular working people, labor, education, healthcare, our environment, equality? CHOICE? Not to mention diplomacy and cooperation.
The last part, especially, is what concerns me. Whatever happened to progressive values? Liberal values? Democratic values? Many "fighting Dem" supporters call themselves "progressive," but it seems almost as a form of cover, or simply to differentiate themselves from wingnuts. Meanwhile they crash down on anyone who calls for candidates who support progressive values as "single-issue voters" who are only interested in "ideological purity" or just their "pet cause" -- often couched to portray progressive values (of tolerance and inclusion when it comes to effective government for government, healthcare policy and equal rights for all) as being "intolerant" of other views --- never mind many of those other views are defined by intolerance. Can we just 86 progressive values as just too inconvenient for politics?
There's a battle for the soul of the Democratic Party, and the "fighting Dems" approach is emblematic of the theory that the greatest vulnerability Democrats have is the politically inconvenient amalgam of traditional Democratic values.
The whole "Fighting Dems" concept troubles me for many reasons, but the one thing that really gets me is that we're willing to sacrifice qualified, popular, and progressive candidates for moderate and conservative Democrats. The most ridiculous example of this is the primary race between Sherrod Brown and Paul Hackett in Ohio. It's refreshing to see that someone else thinks that throwing good Democrats under the bus in the name of electability (didn't we try this before....) is a really stupid idea.
The Counterargument: Image
For rebuttal, Ezra Klein Ezra Klein's guest-blogger, Neil the Ethical Werewolf, talks up the appeal of the military [attribution corrected. -mg]
There’s a world of difference between a presidential candidate who has the mannerisms of a Senator invoking his Vietnam service, and a congressional candidate who actually sounds like a soldier invoking his Iraq service. Kerry had a long public record, and there were more things that could interfere with his attempt to cultivate a military image. One of these things was his own speaking style, which sounded nothing like the stereotype of a military man. The war he fought over 30 years ago was against a different enemy. By contrast, congressional candidates who served in Iraq – especially if their bearing, like that of Paul Hackett, fits some military stereotype – will get instant credibility on a huge issue in contemporary American politics.
I think this oversimplifies the perception of our fighting forces. What the uniform represents is not automatic leadership. In fact, American military leadership is looking pretty poor right now. While sympathy is with those who are paying the dearest price for the war, it seems pretty transparent to me that anyone who tries to appeal to voters simply on that basis is going to come off as smelling a bit false. The uniform is not political armor -- Gore, McCain and Kerry are proof of that. The candidate has to step up with character, and nobody needs a uniform for that.
The vast majority of the Iraq veterans in the primary won’t face anything close to the Swift Boating that Kerry faced. Remember that Kerry had a Nixon-appointed stalker, John O’Neill, connected to a pool of 527 money and a network of veterans who hated him for his part in the Winter Soldier investigation. Most congressional candidates won’t have anything like that against them. And if they do, they can still respond as Kerry should have – by thrusting out their chests on TV and using the allegations as a platform to boast about what they actually did. Furthermore, as Jean Schmidt has recently learned, actual politicians slander ex-soldiers at their peril.
I don't think it takes 30 years for the flush and well-oiled Republican smear machine to develop a hate for any candidate that steps up against them. And as history shows us, they don't even need facts: they'll just make things up, as they did with Kerry, as they did with McCain, as they did with Iraq.
As for veterans' simply puffing up their chests and boasting about their war exploits, I'm not sure how that would appeal to many voters. I don't care how many sorties they flew or insurgents they killed. I want to know what they would do in office. I want to know their plans, their beliefs, their philosophy. And that puts them on the same footing as any other candidate.
And holding up Schmidt's blunder against Murtha as some sort of proof that veterans are now slander-proof doesn't wash with me. Murtha may have emerged from obscurity due to his speaking out, but he didn't emerge unscathed, and in the end he seemed to simply declare victory and retreat.
The Bottom Line
When I look at a candidate, I look at who they are as people. Let's face it -- lots of chuckleheads go enlist in the military because nobody else would have them, or because the violent life actually appeals to them. I don't think these sorts actually define our military, but just because someone wore the uniform doesn't automatically mean that that person has character or integrity or a clear vision of where the country should be going. Richard Nixon was a veteran. Lee Harvey Oswald wore the uniform. And if we've learned anything in the past year, the uniform doesn't automatically make the man or woman worthy of wearing it.
I don't know much about Paul Hackett or Sherrod Brown, the primary Democratic candidates for Ohio's senate seat who seem to be at the center of this debate. It seems to me that the Democratic Party will only be helped by a robustly competed primary. And not just in Ohio.
Of all the "fighting Dems," I've seen only Major Tammy Duckworth (on C-SPAN, mostly), and she really has impressed me. But it's not because she wore the uniform. It's not even how she's met her injuries with such an incredibly positive attitude. It's because of how she talks about life, how she talks about working with other people, how she seems to understand how to get things done, and that's not military -- though she's the first to credit her military background for discovering that talent within her.
She's a leader. She's a manager. I could see her being effective. And that, more than anything else, is why I find her appealing and why, were I in her district, I would consider voting for her.
But it would come down to her values. What does she stand for? What does she want to accomplish? What role does she see government playing in our nation? What solutions does she see to problems we face?
I don't think I'm alone when I say that's the kind of thing that motivates me to vote for someone. The largest voting bloc in this nation is the non-voting bloc -- those who don't find anyone to vote for and feel that deciding whether Beavis or Butthead would be less worse is hardly a reason to take off work or find a sitter for the kids and go wait in line at the polls.
So for me, when it comes to the so-called "fighting Dems," I shrug and yawn. Tell me what you're going to do. That's what matters to me.
media girl also blogs at other places.
Similar entries
store
Buy stuff here.
Comments
A note: the post at Ezra's was actually written by Ezra's guest-blogger, Neil.
I'll post a correction immediately.
My parent's generation fought in World War Two.
Some of their children fought in Vietnam. Others dodged the draft, but sublimated.
Bush is emblematic of a generation who let others (read: poor, black) die. Like the the Taliban, Bush plays his pawns against the opposing side. Red necks laugh that Osama Bin Laden sends fools to die in suicide bombings. Meanwhile, Bunker-Bush hides in his palace, "safe from every shock."
Which President actually saw battle? Some commanded troops, but if memory serves, only Truman, Kennedy, Nixon, and Bush Sr., served as grunts in a war zone - maybe Grant. Most of the others who served in time of war at a rank of General or above.
.Your comment suggesting that the burden of battle in Vietnam (or any other war the US has been involved in for that matter) was born by the "poor and Black" members of our society, demonstrates a staggering ignorance of the facts. Your assertion is nothing more than Vietnam urban legend which has been completely debunked by the statistical evidence of record.
It is a testament to the effectiveness of the so-called "antiwar" movement, that such propaganda continues to persist, despite all evidence to the contrary.
I was in Middle School when Vietnam started in earnest and had graduated from college by the time it was over, so I have some idea of who ended up going and who did not.
Some kids went on to college - those of means - and those who were poor and black got drafted. None of the rich kids whose parents lived on the lake came back in body bags.
You don't see the President's kids signing up for the military. No way!
We did see FDR's kids join up in World War Two. The rich Kennedys sent some of their kids to fight in that war, and one died.
What was your experience of Vietnam? Did you serve? If you did, was it mainly wealthy white college kids in your unit? I suppose we rely on our experiences, but from what I saw that at graduation, the people who were not as well off ended up serving. The rich kids had alternatives.
For your information, I served two combat tours in Vietnam from 1967-69.
As a matter of fact, I dropped out of my second year in college in order to join the Marine Corps and to serve in Vietnam as a grunt. While most of my fellow Marines did not have a college education, the vast majority of those who served in Vietnam did have a high school diploma. Which is more than can be said of the majority of those who fought in the Second World War.
The statistical facts establish, beyond question, that those who served were from every socioeconomic group in America.
As for the Afro-American serviceman, he made up about 12.5% of the men who served in Vietnam. While their contribution was clearly significant and honorable, it is pure nonsense to claim that they bore a disproportionate burden. This long standing myth was first put forth as part of a communist disinformation campaign but, continues to be believed to this very day despite the facts which prove it to be wholly incorrect.
Before you rely on your own, very limited observations, perhaps you would be well served to read Burke's STOLEN VALOR. I have no doubt that you will be very surprised to learn of how wrong you really are.
I think another possible reason for the deceptive appeal of the "fighting Dems" is that it's another excuse for Democratic "leaders" to say anything and everything but the plain and simple truth:
The President of the United States is a liar and a coward.
I believe, almost as an article of faith, that if John Kerry had stood up and said that, over and over and over again, people would have lined up to vote for him. I believe there were people who knew that to be true, knew it in their bones, even before the gradual unraveling of Bush's garments this year. And all they were waiting for was for someone to SAY IT.
But Kerry didn't. Why? I dunno. I only know his failure to do so led to the frustration that Jon Stewart expressed for me after an all-too typical clip of Kerry from the campaign.
"You're *trying* to lose!"
ANYONE who believes that John O'Neil and the veterans of the SBVFT were a concoction of the Republican reelection committee, Carl Rove or any other "White House attack group" is simply being willfully ignorant. The unavoidable truth of the matter (regarding Vietnam "war hero" Kerry) is that John Kerry is a pathological liar, widely held in contempt by combat veterans of that war. The suggestion that John O'Neil was "appointed" by Nixon is a laughable assertion, with absolutely no basis in fact.
The "Fightin' Dems" bring the roof down upon themselves. Wes Clark ended up becoming a whore just to try and stay in the limelight. His
so-called "military analysis" during the campaign, was nothing less than political posturing intended to serve the Democratic Party. His "expert opinions" were little more than personal attacks on George Bush.
The great "hero" Max Cleland allowed other people to misrepresent the circumstances surrounding the injuries he incurred in Vietnam. By claiming, as one journalist did, that Max had, "Sacrificed his body on the killing fields of Khe Sahn", the Democrats tried to portray Cleland's injuries as having been sustained in combat. They weren't!
Tom Daschle bragged about having "put his ass on the line" while flying combat missions over North Vietnam. Of course it was established, beyond question, that he NEVER did any such thing. He spent his time in JAPAN and never was involved in Vietnam...at any time.
So, for all the charges of "chicken hawk" the Dems want to hurl at the Republicans, clearly, they can't brag about their own memberships contributions to any particular war effort.
Besides, simply having served in a war, in combat, is clearly no guarantee of expertise in military or political matters.
Grow up!
I assume you know who LaCivita is.
I understand that Allen hired LaCivita within 2 months of the Bush win. LOL Well they are known commodities, one to the other. It is also my understanding that LaCivita, post SBV campaign is the hightest paid political consultant in the nation. And the R run their consultant game $$ a lot smarter than the Dems do.
I could not stand Kerry and did not vote for him, but let's get real. And face hard political reality. SBVfT was most certainly tied tightly to the RNC/Bush-Cheney campaign. And frankly who cares? Dems never saw it coming despite very clear public statements (Dec 19, 2003 FT) that the R would work on the Kerry resume til no one would be clear on what side of the Vietnam war he had fought..., Kerry persisted in not fighting back. the campaign utterly failed at strategy.
It was entertaining to watch in a twisted sort of way.
Washington Times
The Hill
As for O'Neil and Nixon.. taped conversation between Nixon and Haldeman is the proof. A long time operative. And again, who cares? Kerry did nto fight back. The battle to take to O'Neil and the SBV (and thsu Bush and tie his cabal to Nixon) would be to run an ad using the Nixon Haldeman tapes where they discuss O'Neil, run it relentlessly, tie O"neil to Nixon in the public mind. Nixon, who is still radioactive. LOL, he glows from the grave.
Get real.
To continually insist that John O'Neil was a Nixon "operative" blatantly ignores the known facts. John O'Neil had been attempting to arrange a debate with Kerry long before the White House became aware of him. The Nixon/Haldeman tapes clearly indicate that the White House saw O'Neil as a foil to use against Kerry. It is clear that
both men were hoping that the clean cut O'Neil would expose Kerry for the liar he was. However, despite the White House's efforts to help O'Neil to get media exposure, it is an absolute misrepresentation to state that O'Neil was working on their behalf. It is patently absurd to deny O'Neil's personal stake in rebutting Kerry's "antiwar" statements, particularly since Kerry was branding veterans of Vietnam as war criminals and murderers. As a real, two tour combat veteran of that conflict (unlike Kerry's fabricated "two tours") I was outraged by Kerry's accusations of wide spread war crimes and atrocities. To suggest that O'Neil had to be encouraged by the White House,
to attack Kerry, can only be seen as willful ignorance.
And let's me make one last point clear, there has NEVER, EVER been ANY evidence to support the charge, made by Kerry and other "antiwar" supporters, that war crimes and atrocities were wide spread. In fact, the historical record is absolutely clear on the subject. Kerry was wrong then and he continues to be wrong today. Those who continue to insist that Kerry's accusations were essentially accurate are guilty of propagating a Vietnam urban legend that has been thoroughly debunked and for which there is no credible evidence in support.
Or is this just all ad hominem
anger pointstalking points?But really, what is the point of your comment? If you hate all Democrats, then it seems you have nothing to contribute to this discussion. Of course, if you find it therapeutic, ramble on.
The proof of my assertions lie in the historical record.
I do NOT hate Democrats.
I DO, however, have little patience for people, such as yourself, who make demonstrably false statements to push their own political agenda.
If you want me to offer proof of my assertions, please be a bit more specific as to which assertions you are questioning.
In closing, I'd like to point out that I did not say anything which could be characterized as being "inappropriate," "vulgar" or, "personal." Therefor, I am puzzled as to why you felt it was necessary to respond in such an impolite manner.
As for having something to contribute to this "discussion," I would suggest that a "discussion" REQUIRES differing perspectives. Or, as I am beginning to suspect, is this site
only for those who blindly agree with everything you have to say, regardless of weather you are right or wrong?
...and then claim being ill-used when you get a skeptical response. Please don't pretend you actually want a discussion. Just look at your offering:
These are hardly commonly accepted facts, except perhaps in right-wing political circles. You talk about "false statements to push their own political agenda" -- pot, meet kettle.
If you want to make ad hominem attacks on people, the least you can do is offer some proof. I'm no Kerry fan, but I'm not likely to believe a bunch of predigested Swift Boated crap just on your say so. You're offering no "differing perspectives," just personal disparagements, and that's not going to convince anybody of anything except that your mind is closed.
That a fact is not commonly accepted does not necessarily mean it is not a FACT. Consider:
Kerry in Cambodia? Please! Kerry's own journal proves beyond doubt, that the sojourn was little more than a total fabrication. The FACT is that he LIED about conducting covert operations in Cambodia.
The, now infamous, "CIA bush hat" was nothing more than a prop the Senator used to support a complete falsehood. A graphic example of someone who's pathological.
Two tours in Vietnam? Not on your life! The Senator served one, extremely abbreviated tour in Vietnam. His first, so-called "tour" was actually a Far East cruise, during which his ship sailed through the South China Sea (in international waters), off the coast of Vietnam for approximately 3 weeks.
The Senator continues to claim that he served "two tours" in Vietnam, despite knowing full well, that the cruise does not qualify as a "tour" in country. Clearly, it is Kerry's intention to mislead and to misrepresent his service. This is called lying.
For someone so quick to accuse another of having a close mind, you do not appear to be very well versed in the subject matter you choose to dispute.
Regarding John O'Neil. It is a FACT that John O'Neil had already debated Kerry on television PRIOR to going to the White House. If you listen to the Nixon/Halderman tapes, it is obvious that it was O'Neil's earlier, televised rebuttal of Kerry's antiwar diatribes that brought him to Nixon's attention. NOT the other way around. It is incorrect to suggest that the White House, somehow, "created" O'Neil. It is also foolish to ignore the obvious, personal stake that was an inherent component which drove O'Neil to face Kerry down.
My mind is certainly NOT closed. But, I refuse to allow blatant misrepresentations, such as the ones you are so casual about tossing around.
"Vomit?" Is that how you attack those who do not feel compelled to listen to
your flaming anal orifice?
How about offering something in the way of PROOF to support your own statements? How about it, Big Time?? How about YOU put up?
We all must bow to your superior foul-mouthed condescension.
Maybe you didn't notice, but I made no assertion about John Kerry. What am I supposed to prove? You're the one coming here making all sorts of grand claims as to Swift Boating accuracy. If you don't find the reception suitably sycophantic, may I recommend Capt'ns Quarters or Little Snotty Footballs. They've proven to be very good at gullibility.
If you will recall, my initial comment was aimed, primarily, at questioning YOUR assertion that John O'Neil was a Nixon White House creation.
How about some proof to back up YOUR point about O'Neil? Your Nixon/Halderman claim is totally bogus.
So, how about it Media GIRL?? How about YOU put YOUR facts where your mouth is??
And, just to set the record straight, my comments regarding Kerry are NOT based solely on SBVFT claims. If one takes the actual time to read the Senator's citations, TOUR OF DUTY (based on the Senator's journals) and applies a little logic and rational deduction, it is evident that the Senator has been lying for quite some time.
Is "flaming anal orifice" foul-mouthed??? OOoww, Touchy, touchy!!
Oh please oh please show me where I made any assertion about O'Neil. You can't because I didn't. But don't let me get in the way of your masturbation here. Stroke away, big boy. But be sure to clean off your computer screen before making more wild assertions. Fool.
Kerry fought and Bush did not. Neither did Clinton.
I don't blame Bush for not wanting to fight in Vietnam.
I think it was more important to the World War Two generation that someone served, than to those of us of the Vietnam generation.
Eisenhower did run as an all-but war hero who was going to get us out of Korea. Kennedy had a war record, as did Nixon, but neither ran on it and people went so far as to say Kennedy was soft on Communism and there were the wing-nuts of the day who were disappointed the Kennedy did NOT push the button during the Cuban Crisis.
Johnson wormed his way on a cargo run and was "tail gunner for a day" and made sure lots of photographs were taken.
Carter was trained as a nuclear submarine office and did not serve in war.
Ford served in World War Two. Reagan acted in films for the Army.
Bush Sr., like JFK, served with valor in the Pacific.
But Vietnam was the first true American defeat and I don't think it adds to any glory to be part of a defeated fighting force, so I think the war issue is pretty much a non-issue.
It also paves the way for women of both parties to have a shot at leading the ticket since war experience is less important.
Man, you certainly demonstrate an astoundingly callous attitude towards those who served in Vietnam. Your assertion that Vietnam represented America's "first true defeat" betrays a critical misunderstanding of how and why our participation in that conflict came to an end. Particularly when you refer to the "defeated fighting force." Your suggestion that those who fought there don't deserve any "glory" is the most moronic thing I've ever read.
Or maybe you need to get over your hatred of the military.
Bias is as bias does.
And tolerance must be from both sides of the street.
I don't see where this comment is coming from. Maybe you need to get some glasses.
A clarification, first: I didn't claim that military service makes Democrats slander-proof. You can still hurt them, somewhat, by slandering them about their military service. My claim was that the slanderer gets hurt even more -- I think Schmidt is a perfect example of this. Murtha actually came off looking reasonably good, I thought, especially considering the Republican attempt to confuse people with a straw man resolution. And it's not like his resolution could've passed. Defeat of some kind was inevitable.
While Gore and Kerry didn't get much of a boost from their past service, my point is that their service was long ago and not in Iraq. This, and their non-military personas, explains why they didn't benefit from it. It seems to me that McCain benefits a fair amount from his past, especially on the issue of torture, where he recently managed to impose his will on the Bush White House.
The best test case we've had for all our theorizing on this is OH-2 with Paul Hackett last year, and I think it demonstrates that you can get lots of points from having served in Iraq. Changing the margin of defeat from over 40 to under 4 is a sign that you've done something right. This case is discussed in my post.
Dadahead has continued the discussion. One point that I make there, and I want to make here, is that there's a stereotype of Democrats as effete elitists/hippies, and this plays a big role in grounding our party's weakness on national security. Recent Iraq service completely disrupts this stereotype, and Republicans have to either blow gigantic quantities of money on putting it back together, or abandon the whole project.
I still maintain that while compelling candidate may attribute his/her character to training and experience in the military, I don't think that a candidate is ever compelling because they served in the military. Yet that is precisely what's been argued by the more vocal and prominent supporters of the "fighting Dems."
If Hackett did well, it's because of Hackett the candidate. His military service may have afforded him the microphone in the early going, but only his candidacy can be credited to its success. I find it hard to attribute it all -- or even largely -- to the simple fact that he fought in Iraq.
When you dismiss Gore and Kerry for their "non-military personas," this in part gets at what I was talking about -- the strength or weakness of the indiviedual candidate -- but also some of what I fear: a desire for a stereotypical "military man" to be the Democrats' version of the "strict father" leader. To me, that goes against what we need and plays right into the skewed frame the Republicans have set up.
Excuse me, but Dwight D. Eisenhower would qualify for your "non-military persona" characterization.
I find the entire exercise frightening and much too much in step with the war drums that have dominated our politics for all too long.
I don't believe that Democrats are looking for veterans to assume the role of a Lakoff-esque "strict father." Instead, I think that Democrats are attracted to veterans because we believe that, having experienced the horrors of war, veterans would be less likely to commit American troops to combat before exhausting diplomacy, and would not embark on military adventurism based on questionable rationale.
I also disagree with the contention that Wes Clark "flamed out." There is no question that Clark made a rookie mistake by listening to bad advice and failing to contest the Iowa caucus. Being an Iowa farm boy myself, I know that Clark would have had a broad appeal among Iowans, and would have been a formidable challenger to Kerry and Edwards.
I am not attracted or put off by veterans. To me, it's irrelevant when it comes to someone running for office. What counts is what they're about. I don't think it takes war experience to have the sense to put America in a leadership role using all its powers, including diplomatic, economic and political. It's just all the more grating when an administration of chickenhawks does the opposite.
I think more important than whether they'll avoid recklessly declaring wars -- a minimum requirement for any candidate, in my book -- is what they'll do to fix the problems within this country. Education, health, poverty and the economy.
And no uniform is going to shed any light in those areas.
It isn't about "fightin'" or "uniforms." It's about Republican "let's you guys make patriotic sacrifices while I get on with stealing money,hypocrisy. Actually, at the end of the day (or campaign), it comes down to whether the Democratic candidate is more or less attractive than the Republican one. Conservatives since Disraeli and before have often tried to nominate amateurs with "star" quality attractiveness to distract and delude the mindless mob.When they do what Democrats usually do: nominate the next competent pro in line, they lose. Clinton beats Bob Dole. JFK beats Nixon. Nixon beats Humphrey. Nixon beats (true war hero McGovern), Reagan beats Navy Commander Carter. Clinton beats WW 2 fighter pilot Bush,then disabled vet Dole, etc. We need to find a solid attractive Democratic like FDR, JFK, or Clinton who can beat the suicidal special interest Dems in the primaries, nominate him (or her if she really can win) and send them lots of money.
I don't think it's about Republican anything. As long as the Democrats try to out-do Republicans at what Republicans do, or try to fight a Republican frame of what Democrats are, the Democrats are playing right into GOP hands.
The people who win are the ones who get people to vote for them, and not simply against the other guy. I don't think it's just a matter of being "more attractive" but rather by a combination of presenting ideas and projecting a persona people can sign up for and identify with. And that comes from within, it comes from what kind of person that is -- or it comes from a Karl Rove-like political machine -- and it doesn't really matter whether that person is wearing a uniform or a dress.
Media girl is correct. People vote for a persona that they feel will best satisfy their needs. The problem the Democrats are having is they are misinterpreting voters desire for a military leader. In times of stress, voters feel more secure with a military leader. A military leader is not somoeone who was in the military, it is someone who has a military mindset. A military leader is comfortable using military power and recognizes that it is a useful tool for resolving issues. They do not think that violence and casualties are situations to be avoided at all costs. They view them as a cost of doing business. They also tend to circle the wagons adn avoid excessive internal criticism of their own side.
The problem the Democrats are having is that they are nominating veterans as military leaders when they do not have the military mindset. This is creating a great deal of cognitive dissonance in the voters minds and is hurting them. For instance, Kerry is a decorated veteran. However, he is also extremely anti-miliatry and definitely feels that the use of US military power is almost always a bad idea. This actually hurt Democrats more than running a nonveteran would have. Many voters came to the conclusion that if decorated veteran Democrats were so antimilitary, then the Democratic party was unable to provide adequate national security.
It is important for the Democratic party to recognize that people do not vote for miliatry leaders because of the uniform, they vote for them because of their mindset. The uniform is just a common way to recognize that mindset.
Hey! VEEERY GOOD!!!
Excellent comment!
The pose is more important than the character. And with a bunch of draft-dodging chickenhawks cooking up a fool's war of choice in Iraq, we see the results of buying into image over substance.
I remember Wolfowitz claiming that the war would cost $1.7 billion.
I remember Cheney claiming that US forces would be greeted as liberators.
I remember Bush whining about how Saddam was thumbing his nose at us.
All weak men too eager to prove how tough they are. But hey, they talked tough! Good for them!
"A bunch of draft dodging chickenhawks" My, my, my!! I'm always astonished to read such abusive comments from those who never served a day of their lives in combat themselves. How high and mighty and eager to denigrate!
Media Girl(?), is so typical! Never in harms way herself but, so ready to judge! So vicious in her assesment of those who bare a burden far in excess of anything she has ever experienced in her own puny existence.
Tough? You bet they are. Tougher than Media Girl by any measurement!
I'd be honored to know exactly what qualifies Media GIRL to sit in judgement. Please enlighten me!!
If you want to get worked up, why not over people who have power? Last I checked, I'm not running any branch of government. And I'm not sitting on my ass eating Twinkies while I send people to their deaths.
No, the Republican chickenhawks have a corner on that business these days.
Which means that, unlike public servants, I don't have to answer to you. That's what probably upsets you the most, doesn't it? To have a "GIRL" not back down to your chest-thumping bloviating? Poor baby.
If sending kids into combat is that bad, have you ever wondered why those same kids in combat are reenlisting at record levels? It appears they don't think its that much of an issue.
hahahaha....
you are so funny. record levels?
shortfalls so bad they're going to quit reporting. my my my. oh by the way, my cite is from the army times.
hey you better hope they quintriple their reinlistments. why?
thats in April this past year. hey i'd give you the january figures. but they're not to be found!!!!!!!
i'm beginning to think you're a dip shit. keep making comments like this i won't be the only one thinking so. you really need to quit believing the shit you read at little green footballs, dude.
Wow, what amazing vitriol. Uninformed vitriol. Yes combat troops are reenlisting at well above anticipated levels. The shortfalls in reenlistment are occurring in support troops and some guard units who never anticipated actually having to fight. The ones that are in combat are reenlisting. I'd suggest you go read some of the army and milblog sites before uninformed insulting. You only cheapen your good arguments when you flame this way.
so what about dip shit dont you understand?
Southern Man clearly has an honest perspective on what is actually going on. You, on the other hand, are simply blowing smoke and flame.
Give it up, you're out of your league!
You are looking st recruiting and accession figures. Recruiting is the act of getting a new recruit. It has nothing to do with reenlistment. Reenlistment is the act of existing army personnel signing back up after they have been shot at. Regular army troops in combat are reenlisting at a high rate.
Oddly enough, they Army is above the number of infantrymen they think they need, their shortfall is in some high skill positions. Most of that shortfall appears to be driven by recruit quality and is not something a draft would solve.
Army Chief of Staff, Schoomaker said recruiting problems are offset by high retention among active divisions, especially in units that have served or are serving in Iraq. He said the Army has exceeded its personnel retention goal by 9 percent, with soldiers in the Third Infantry Division -- now on its second tour in Iraq -- reenlisting at 112 percent of the goal. The First Cavalry Division has the highest reenlistment rate, at 138 percent of the goal, according to the Army. All 10 of the Army's divisions are surpassing retention estimates.
When you're right, you're right! You're NOT a pulic servant and you can spout any kind of nonsense you want without having to be responsible for anything you say!! Isn't that great??
Kids into combat! Wow, I mean, I simply can't believe America, of ALL the countries on this earth, would send KIDS into combat! This is absolutely staggering news! I am totally shocked at the very idea..
WHERE THE HECK HAVE YOU BEEN SINCE THE BEGINNING OF TIME????????
War has always been a young man's game. The average age during the WWII was 26. During the Vietnam War, 20. Call these young men and women kids to their face and see how they like it. You can bet your GIRLY butt that they don't see themselves as children or kids.
Girly, you don't know a damn thing about the military. Not a damn thing.
...typing one-handed. But maybe you should wait until some blood works its way to your other head before replying.
No, the pose is not worth more than character. If you really do not have a military leader mindset, it will become obvious and people will notice. This is a major problem the Democrats are having.
A key criteria of the military mindset is the belief that casualties are to be expected and are not really that much of a bad thing. Most of your dislike of the 'chickenhawks' is based on the casualties we are taking. From a military standpoint we aren't taking significant casualties. So the folks with a military mindset just don't listen when you complain about casualties. It also means that when you do complain about casualties, military mindset adherents label you as a whiner and conclude you are weak on defense.
Whether or not you agree with this mindset is irrelevant. Obviously you don't. What is relevant is the fact that the Democratic party is getting it's ass handed to it on national security issues. Until they recognize the strenths and weaknesses of the military mindset, they will continue to make impotent attacks on Republican strategies and lose.
Almost all of your counterarguments will only convince people that already agree with you. These are nice arguments to make if you want to feel good, but they will have no beneficial effect on changing US policy. To change policy you have to understand the large number of voters who don't really care about the technical details of how the war started. All they really care abou is are we winning, are our opponents dying and do we viscerally feel safer/satisfied because of our military leaders actions. These people listen to our miltary and our soldiers think they are winning. The same soldiers who are overwhelmingly voting against the Democrats. Don't think that anybody who agrees with the use of military force doesn't notice that.
Where do you get the idea that most people think Iraq is going well? Where do you get the idea that people think our chickenhawk leaders are doing things right? Maybe you haven't looked at the approval numbers in the past year.
I think the only people who are surprised at how horribly it's going in Iraq are the chickenhawks who had pollyanna fantasies about how an invasion would go.
But to you, I suppose that's a military mindset. Talk tough and react dumb. Respond with the lizard brain. Appeal to male insecurity.
Tell me more about what I think about chickenhawks. Please. Is this part of your magic act? You read minds? Why don't you take your act elsewhere?
I never said the Iraq war was going well. I said that the military thinks it is going well and they do. I also know that the polls show that people who have a strong predilection for military leaders think things are going fine. The whole point of the earlier posts was that it is a waste of time to dress up a nonmilitary mindset politician in a uniform and claim you are a military leader. Your reactions are proving my point. If you personally were a politician and a veteran, no one who is looking for a military leader would accept you as one because you do not think the way they think a military leader should think. The net result is the Dems should stop trying to be what they are not.
On a side point it is a mistake to think all of your opponents responses can be characterized by talk tough and act dumb. They beat the Democrats and currently are the most powerful people in the world. They didn't get there by being stupid and you won't get them out of power by assuming they are. They are smart. Our current situation is the culmination of a 30 year plan that they have patiently implemented. They just have different values than you do. Continue to underestimate them at your own peril.
...so it's rather obvious that, if I ever ran for office (which is a laughable idea as I have no desire to wade into that muck), martinets would not support my candidacy.
But you're wrong about the military thinking Iraq is going well. Sure, some leaders say so. But the leaders to disagreed -- and those who warned of the quagmire an invasion would bring in the first place -- were summarily dismissed or encouraged to retire.
And the fact of the matter is that all of the Iraq veterans now seeking public office are Democrats. At least that was the case in a recent review. That doesn't seem to indicate unified military endorsement of Bush's war.
As for who wins elections, things change. People change. Public moods change. Just because Bush fooled millions of people in 2004 doesn't mean that kind of fool is what people want now. And Democrats stand to gain little or nothing by simply pretending to be Republicans. Republican success came from appealing to their base. Democrats should take that lesson to heart, rather than chasing the GOP dream.
Republican success came from slowly expanding their base. The key difference is that they expanded their base by slowly convincing voters they were right and not by running as 'Lite Democrats'. They spent a great deal of time and created many think tanks to forge a message that would move the median voter away from the Democratic party. If the Democrats want to expand their base and capture the median voter, then they have to convince people that don't agree with them that their viewpoints are correct and not try to gather voters by pretending to be 'Lite Republicans'. This also means that they have to target their message for people other than their base. The Democratic base is no longer large enough to guarantee a win. For years, the number of self identified Democrats hung around 42% and Republicans was about 33%. The last 30 years have slowly seen those two numbers move to parity. (I think those numbers are correct, but its been awhile since I taught that class. I will look them up when I have some time.) The Democratic base has shrunk and the Republican base has grown. Neither side can win without gathering the median voter. The base is not enough.
Not a Militarist?? Does that mean you're something else??
Give us a clue. I'm interested to know what it is that you think you are. I certainly can't figure it out.
You don't seem to know what the heck it is that you're talking about,
certainly as far as the military is concerned!
You're actually kind of amusing though. Just not very well informed.
Are you going to be surprised when you see the next election results and discover that CNN, NY/LA Times, Chris Mathews and the rest, are wrong again! You guys (and GIRLIES) just don't get it.
Is wading in the muck what's really keeping you from running for office?? Hey, I was wrong, you're not amusing...you're REALLY FUNNY!!
Your trolling has lost its freshness. I hear there are Ann Coulter pin-ups now. 2D women are much more impressed with such posing. Watch out for paper cuts now!
Unsettling as it is to have a couple Republican war hawks descend with their vile on a thoughtful analysis about Dem Marketing mistakes (they seemingly agree with), it does validate your points MediaGirl.
I'm not seeing any converts from the "Fighting Dems" framing.