The_Shipbuilder
Stay the corpse
+261|6744|Los Angeles
Looks like the Mehlman talking point machine will have to come up with something other than "cut and run liberals" to denounce the recent war vets running for Congress. Because according to this Feb 06 article, the majority of them are running as democrats.

And of eleven war vets running for House seats, only one is running as a Republican.

Why on earth could that be?

Would be interested to hear the conservative BF2Sers take on this.

Full text of the Christian Science Monitor article follows.





Now running for office: an army of Iraq veterans
All but one of these 11 House hopefuls are in the Democratic Party.*

By Linda Feldmann | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

WASHINGTON - They call themselves the Band of Brothers, about 50 men - and a few women - all Democrats, all opposed to the Bush administration's handling of Iraq, and all military veterans.

One more thing: They're all running for Congress this year.

Not since 1946 have so many vets from one party come together in a political campaign, they claim. Their wildest dream is to give the Democratic Party the extra edge it needs - by boosting its weak image on defense and patriotism - to end Republican control of the House.

They also know it's a long shot: Many are running against incumbents in safe Republican districts. Many also face competitive primaries against Democratic opponents with more political experience and access to money.

Among the Democratic vet candidates, 10 have served in either Afghanistan or the current Iraq war, or both. Only one - Maj. Tammy Duckworth of Illinois, who is competing for the seat of retiring Republican Henry Hyde - was recruited by the national Democratic Party. Political handicappers give her the best shot at making it to Washington of all the Democratic vets running. Handicappers also mention Patrick Murphy of Pennsylvania - an Iraq vet trying to unseat a first-term Republican, Mike Fitzpatrick, in a Democratic-leaning district - as having potential, though fundraising has been slow.

The only other Democratic Iraq war vet with a national political profile, Paul Hackett of Ohio, dropped out of his US Senate race Feb. 14 under pressure from party leaders. They wanted to avoid a costly primary and instead steered Mr. Hackett back to a second try at the House seat he almost won last year. His surprise near-victory in a special election for a presumed safe Republican seat earned him national notice - and may have inspired other Democratic war vets to jump into politics.

Mike Lyon, who launched the Band of Brothers political action committee in December, has found the going tough. He's raised only $40,000 so far.

"If resources continue to flow the same way, not many [will win] - I'm being frank," says Mr. Lyon, who is based in Richmond, Va. "But if we can go out and build awareness about their campaigns and provide resources to level the playing field for the November general [election], then I think a lot of these guys will be competitive. We're still getting the lay of the land."

Analysts agree that the novice candidates have their work cut out for them. They have to develop a full congressional agenda, campaigning ability, and networking skills that show they're ready for prime time. Being a Johnny-one-note against the war isn't enough, say political observers.

"They're running for Congress, not commander in chief," says Amy Walter, a specialist in House races for the nonpartisan Cook Political Report. "Obviously, Iraq's an important issue, but at the same time, they need be able to talk about healthcare, the economy, gas prices."

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, which recruits and helps candidates the party believes can win, has not made a special effort to recruit Iraq war vets, says spokeswoman Sarah Feinberg. "What we have done is to recruit the best possible candidate in every district," she says.

But as the election year unfolds - including Republican-dominated scandals and low presidential popularity - analysts don't rule out the potential for a national wave that could make some usually safe seats competitive. GOP control of the House remains slim, with 230 Republicans, 202 Democrats, 1 independent, and two vacancies.

"The Democrats' best chance of winning a majority is to expand the playing field beyond the three dozen or so [seats] that have been in play in recent years," says Rhodes Cook, an independent political analyst. Candidates with the Iraq credential could end up being "a twofer for the Democrats. Not only do they have the goodwill of the recent Iraq war vet, but [they] also help offset a party weakness, which is being kind of light on defense."

The Republicans have one Iraq war vet running for Congress, Van Taylor of Texas, who is trying to knock off Rep. Chet Edwards (D). Carl Forti, spokesman for the National Republican Campaign Committee, says 38 Republicans with military experience are running for Congress. When asked if any of the Democratic vets pose a threat to any Republicans, his answer is simple: "Zero."

Still, "being a vet is a good résumé item to have," says Mr. Forti. "It brings a certain level of approval."

www.csmonitor.com | Copyright © 2006 The Christian Science Monitor. All rights reserved.
JimmyBotswana
Member
+82|6829|Montreal
It doesn't matter George Washington could run as a Democrat and he would still lose. The Republicans are going to steal the election, again.

Electronic voting machines ftw!
Deaths_Sandman
WOoKie
+6|6747|Florida, USA

The_Shipbuilder wrote:

Why on earth could that be?
Probably because they were Democrats all along and now they have decided to run for office. But thats just my guess.
The_Shipbuilder
Stay the corpse
+261|6744|Los Angeles

Deaths_Sandman wrote:

The_Shipbuilder wrote:

Why on earth could that be?
Probably because they were Democrats all along and now they have decided to run for office. But thats just my guess.
Actually, that sounds about right. America has a history of Democrat vets.

Who served in Viet Nam? John Kerry, Al Gore and Jack Murtha.


Who didn't serve in Viet Nam? George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.

Neither did Karl Rove.

Nor John Bolton and Tom Delay. 

Oh yes and neither did Dennis Hastert. Nor Bill Frist. Nor Newt Gingrich.
=LZR= David_Leonard
Member
+5|6710
Manchurian...is that even how you spell it?
GunSlinger OIF II
Banned.
+1,860|6887
thats something Ive witness in my experiences.  most soldiers i knew were democrats.  not to say that there aint a lot of conservative folks either.  I voted for bush in 2000, barely turned 18,when i was in basic but I sure as fuck didnt vote for him in 2004 when i was in iraq.
The_Shipbuilder
Stay the corpse
+261|6744|Los Angeles

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

thats something Ive witness in my experiences.  most soldiers i knew were democrats.  not to say that there aint a lot of conservative folks either.  I voted for bush in 2000, barely turned 18,when i was in basic but I sure as fuck didnt vote for him in 2004 when i was in iraq.
Interesting. Do you think it comes from resenting being in battle, and that military men tend to align themselves with the political party opposite to the guy that put them there? Or is it specifically against the Republican party?
Navyholdi99
Member
+4|6728|Virginia Beach, VA

The_Shipbuilder wrote:

Deaths_Sandman wrote:

The_Shipbuilder wrote:

Why on earth could that be?
Probably because they were Democrats all along and now they have decided to run for office. But thats just my guess.
Actually, that sounds about right. America has a history of Democrat vets.

Who served in Viet Nam? John Kerry, Al Gore and Jack Murtha.


Who didn't serve in Viet Nam? George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.

Neither did Karl Rove.

Nor John Bolton and Tom Delay. 

Oh yes and neither did Dennis Hastert. Nor Bill Frist. Nor Newt Gingrich.
You forget Clinton...last time I checked he didn't serve in Vietnam either.

I'm in the military and truthfully my experience has been that most of my peers in my community are Republicans.
Alot of this crap comes from the labels mostly by Republicans. I voted Democrat the last 2 elections and I'm not a Democrat or have any political affiliation for that matter. I'm also not a pinko commie, a hippie, have a long beard, went to woodstock, or have/support gay mariage.. an I'm not a "bleeding heart" pacifist. Things arent quite black and white. One of the things that pisses me off is that people have some preconcieved soccer mom notion that Republicans with thier armchair hoorah' somehow make them more secure. I also cant believe how the low brow bullshit Bush uses in questioning peoples patriotism doesnt come off as obviously scumbag tactics.
p1.topher
Member
+16|6731|USA
I saw something about this a few months ago on some news show, some woman who was badly injured, I think she lost one or both of her legs, was talking about running. The Democrats were literally recruiting Iraq war vets to run. It's good strategy. People are always appreciate war vets, thus getting a lot of the "swayable" vote.
The_Shipbuilder
Stay the corpse
+261|6744|Los Angeles

p1.topher wrote:

I saw something about this a few months ago on some news show, some woman who was badly injured, I think she lost one or both of her legs, was talking about running. The Democrats were literally recruiting Iraq war vets to run. It's good strategy. People are always appreciate war vets, thus getting a lot of the "swayable" vote.
Interesting. According to the article, of all the vets running for office only one had been recruited by the Democratic party. And supposedly "The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, which recruits and helps candidates the party believes can win, has not made a special effort to recruit Iraq war vets" according to the org's spokeswoman.

Last edited by The_Shipbuilder (2006-08-22 22:05:35)

Spearhead
Gulf coast redneck hippy
+731|6933|Tampa Bay Florida
Cause their anti-American traitors who hate their country
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6844|132 and Bush

JimmyBotswana wrote:

The Republicans are going to steal the election, again.

Electronic voting machines ftw!
[sarcasm]Yea they stole the last one, was pretty close [/sarcasm]
By county red = Republican
https://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/countymapredbluelarge.png

By state red = Republican
https://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/statemapredbluelarge.png

Last edited by Kmarion (2006-08-23 05:13:57)

Xbone Stormsurgezz
jonsimon
Member
+224|6738
And yet it came down to one state Kmarion. You know why? Because land means squat, its about the head count.
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6799

Kmarion wrote:

JimmyBotswana wrote:

The Republicans are going to steal the election, again.

Electronic voting machines ftw!
[sarcasm]Yea they stole the last one, was pretty close [/sarcasm]
By county red = Republican
https://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/countymapredbluelarge.png

By state red = Republican
https://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/statemapredbluelarge.png
THat looks to me like Redneck Hicks (Mid West/Deep South) v Enlightened City Folk (California/Chicago/New York/Philly/Boston/DC). You also seem to skim over the fact that the red zone is very lightly populated in comparison with the blue zone. LOL. Republicans still won but don't think it was a landslide because of those deceptive maps.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2006-08-23 06:20:33)

cl4u53w1t2
Salon-Bolschewist
+269|6716|Kakanien
the american election system is pretty unfair. just 1 vote more in 1 state and u get all the electoral delegates. therefore it is possible that a president-candidate gets actually more votes all over the usa but loses the election because his opponent won some important states. the usa should switch from their majority voting system to a relative voting system.
.:XDR:.PureFodder
Member
+105|7073
It's similar in the UK. 1 man 1 vote, it's just that your vote might not count as much as another mans.
GunSlinger OIF II
Banned.
+1,860|6887
why is New Mexico a red state, looks like the majority of counties voted democrat
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6844|132 and Bush

jonsimon wrote:

And yet it came down to one state Kmarion. You know why? Because land means squat, its about the head count.
You just demonstrated you have understanding of the electoral college. If it was truely based on head count as you say (Correct term "popular vote") then it would have been close.

Go debate if our voting system is unfair if you wan't. But clearly if you understand the way it works you see it is indeed extremely one sided. Research electoral college and then come back and post. http://www.archives.gov/federal-registe … about.html
Each State contributes a certain amount of point's to a candidate.

Oh and Cameron the population is determined by our census which determines how many votes each state gets.

Last edited by Kmarion (2006-08-23 07:25:36)

Xbone Stormsurgezz
jonsimon
Member
+224|6738

Kmarion wrote:

jonsimon wrote:

And yet it came down to one state Kmarion. You know why? Because land means squat, its about the head count.
You just demonstrated you have understanding of the electoral college. If it was truely based on head count as you say (Correct term "popular vote") then it would have been close.

Go debate if our voting system is unfair if you wan't. But clearly if you understand the way it works you see it is indeed extremely one sided. Research electoral college and then come back and post. http://www.archives.gov/federal-registe … about.html
Each State contributes a certain amount of point's to a candidate.

Oh and Cameron the population is determined by our census which determines how many votes each state gets.
Um, your post is rather confusing. I think you forgot a 'not' or something? You said I understand the electoral college, then proceeded to lecture me on it.

I know how our voting system works, and its still indirectly based on headcount. Your maps appear favorable to the Red, but as Cameron took care to point out, as did I, it doesn't matter how many square miles are red. I never mentioned anything about the fairness of our voting system, I was just putting your argument in context.

The fact stands that you used the maps to try and demonstrate the immense majority the Red had over the Blue, but the reality is that the election came to one state making the difference.
WilhelmSissener
Banned
+557|6976|Oslo, Norway

Kmarion wrote:

JimmyBotswana wrote:

The Republicans are going to steal the election, again.

Electronic voting machines ftw!
[sarcasm]Yea they stole the last one, was pretty close [/sarcasm]
By county red = Republican
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/ele … elarge.png

By state red = Republican
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/ele … elarge.png
Only difference is that people actually live int the blu zones
USAFDude_1988
Will fly for food.
+120|6752|Daytona Beach, FL

CameronPoe wrote:

THat looks to me like Redneck Hicks (Mid West/Deep South) v Enlightened City Folk (California/Chicago/New York/Philly/Boston/DC). You also seem to skim over the fact that the red zone is very lightly populated in comparison with the blue zone. LOL. Republicans still won but don't think it was a landslide because of those deceptive maps.
No.. that's looks more like middle-class suburbia vs. unenlightened city folk. For example.. Chicago's suburbs are RED. D.C.'s suburbs are RED. San Diego is RED. Jacksonville, FL is RED.

Find something better to do than stereotyping conservatives.

Personally, I can see why the vets would be runnin as D's. The Bush administration really screwed up when it came to planning post-war Iraq. I support those guys.. it's good that honor is returning to the Democratic party.

Last edited by USAFDude_1988 (2006-08-23 08:21:49)

JimmyBotswana
Member
+82|6829|Montreal

Kmarion wrote:

JimmyBotswana wrote:

The Republicans are going to steal the election, again.

Electronic voting machines ftw!
[sarcasm]Yea they stole the last one, was pretty close [/sarcasm]
By county red = Republican
Actually do some research. Yes I know the results I am saying the election was stolen with the electronic voting machines. Here read this:

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/ … ion_stolen

and get back to me
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,053|7015|PNW

The_Shipbuilder wrote:

Actually, that sounds about right. America has a history of Democrat vets.

Who served in Viet Nam? John Kerry, Al Gore and Jack Murtha.


Who didn't serve in Viet Nam? George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.

Neither did Karl Rove.

Nor John Bolton and Tom Delay. 

Oh yes and neither did Dennis Hastert. Nor Bill Frist. Nor Newt Gingrich.
As I recall, Kerry was hounded by his 'war buddies' during his campaign. Rice-injury purple heart indeed.
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6844|132 and Bush

JimmyBotswana wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

JimmyBotswana wrote:

The Republicans are going to steal the election, again.

Electronic voting machines ftw!
[sarcasm]Yea they stole the last one, was pretty close [/sarcasm]
By county red = Republican
Actually do some research. Yes I know the results I am saying the election was stolen with the electronic voting machines. Here read this:

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/ … ion_stolen

and get back to me
And why would the Democratic Party not pursue that if it had some degree of credibilty? Take a look at the author.
Get back to me.

WilhelmSissener wrote:

Only difference is that people actually live int the blu zones
Once again someone posting about something they have no idea about. The more populated states get more votes than the less populated ones. So it takes more of the "less populated" states to turn the tide. Please FFS do some research before you go posting about a system you are clueless to. Hell, if you were looking just at the popular vote Bush nearly won by almost as much as the population of your whole country.

Last edited by Kmarion (2006-08-25 01:16:42)

Xbone Stormsurgezz

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard