You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Home Front: Politix
Dems Find Vets to Help Retake House
2006-02-24

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."
Posted by:Bobby

#21  ....and a very large percentage of those IRS "workers" vote democratic for some unknown reason.
Posted by: Visitor   2006-02-24 17:45  

#20  Interesting! While I would like a much simpler tax, you can't just shut down the IRS.

No, really.

Whaddabout all the unemployment? The accountants and tax attorneys - they'd all get laid off. Somehow it'd hafta be phased in , with early retirements, reassignments and absolutely horrendous whining and crying. It'd make Ahrnold's proposed changes last year look like a cakewalk.

Remember all the folks who you're going to lay off have votes, too.

Sigh. It IS a swell idea!
Posted by: Bobby   2006-02-24 16:56  

#19  At the local level, it isn't party so much as affiliations -- that is, how many groups of acquaintances can you get to vote for you? eg. fellow church members, scouts, soccer parents, PTA, Lions/Elks/VA, etc. You and your wife will want to get involved in lots of local organizations, and get yourselves known to the members, who will suggest to their spouses and friends that they all vote for you because you're a good guy. I imagine you're right that in a community near a base being a vet would be a big draw, as long as you have those other connections to the outside community as well. And if you are successful as a group of independent candidates campaigning together (that part is important, too; people like to choose packages, not a one-off individual), then with time the Dems/Repubs will court you for their line-up -- easier to sell a proven quantity to a county or state electorate than a newcomer. I suspect that's a good piece of why Hackett failed the first time, in addition to it being noticed that he was talking out of both sides of his mouth, and why he was asked to give way to an old pol this time.

Good luck to you and your comrades, Broadhead 6. What you propose will do our country good.
Posted by: trailing wife   2006-02-24 16:13  

#18  Si if you buy a house from someone else, is it used or would you pay sales tax on that? If the sales tax were only on new construction, that market would either die or the price of "used" homes would go up 28% to compensate.
Posted by: remoteman   2006-02-24 15:37  

#17  Good luck to ya, BH6! Actually, I think you're right in that it would be easier to run independent in local elections. However, local elections tend to not really (unfortunately, the should) affect national-type issues. Mostly getting into zoning, local (police) law enforcement issues, and for larger cities/counties, things like traffic, water/sewer, development, etc. It IS a good way to cut your teeth though, as a stepping stool to the next level (State). The one area where locals COULD have a say in national issues is potentially illegal immigration.

Good on your wife for the book. I haven't read it yet either, but my Congressman (John Linder, R-GA) is the guy who wrote it and the main thrust behind it. I love Boortz philosophically, but I also believe that he's done his research and he can find nothing wrong with it. The way Rep. Linder explains it (I've been to 2 Town Hall meetings when he's back in town where he explains the Fair Tax), it sounds like a win-win for all! Here's my explanation of it in a nutshell:

(1) Disbands the IRS, all of their regulations, etc. and sets up the Federal Govt's income (taxes) basically as a nationwide sales tax. This actually cuts withholdings from your paycheck for ALL Fed. Gov't income (not just withholdings for Income Tax, but also, Social Security, Medicare, etc.)
(2) Gives a "Pre-bate" every month up to the poverty level for real necessities to EVERYONE (e.g. you get a check to cover housing, food, clothing for the month based on the poverty level, which is something around $20,000/year income for a 4-person family). THIS is important in that it shuts up the arguments about cutting back welfare/food stamps/etc.
(3) Sets the Federal sales tax at around 28%. Most people gasp at this number, but if you tell them to go and look at their paystub, and total up how much they DON'T receive that's withheld for Federal Income Tax, Social Security, Medicare, etc., they'll realize it's a win-win for most people (middle class). You would receive your ENTIRE paycheck (no Federal Withholdings).
(4) It captures taxes from illegal immigrants. Currently, we all know, a lot of illegals get paid "off the books", in cash, etc. Because the employer does this, they DON'T pay Federal Income Taxes (basically). By switching this to a sales tax system, the Feds start collecting money from every Jose, Pepe and Jesus out there that buys a cup of coffee at the gas station every morning.
(5) The tax would ONLY apply on NEW items. That is, if you buy something used (home, car, something off Ebay, etc.), you wouldn't pay ANY Federal sales tax on that item!
(6) It's a way for the power of the purse strings to fall back to the people, where it belongs. You don't want to give the Feds ANY money? Buy used products all year long...or don't buy anything at all. I know, that's realistically impossible, but in theory, it should give us more power in how much money Washington gets every year.

I had heartburn mostly over the RATE of sales tax that would be needed (28% or so) to cover the current Federal budget. However, as Rep. Linder explains it, it makes sense. Economists have studied it, and say that the AVERAGE item on sale has a built-in 28% tax in it for all the firms involved in making that item to comply with current IRS regulations/paperwork/filings. For example (one from Rep. Linder)...take a loaf of bread...the farmer builds in to the cost of selling his wheat the costs for complying with IRS regulations (including, paying for any employees Social Sec., Medicare withholdings). That wheat goes to a manufacturer to process, who themselves have built-in costs (probably more than the farmer, as they have more employees), to the trucker who ships it to the grocery store and on and on. You see how those built-in costs (are passed on to the consumer ultimately) could add up to 28%. If you do away with all those IRS regulations and payments, theoretically, the price of that loaf of bread should drop by ~28%, which means that (again, in theory), the price (after the 28% sales tax proposed by the Fair Tax) should be what it is today. Obviously, there'd be some companies who keep the price as is and reap the benefits, and there'd probably be "growing pains" the first year or two in switching systems, but go look at your paystub and see how much is withheld for Federal Income tax, Social Security and Medicare combined (including your employer's portions). You'd be amazed!
Posted by: BA   2006-02-24 14:51  

#16  I wish the Donks many "Near Victories" come this November.
Posted by: Cyber Sarge   2006-02-24 14:51  

#15  No, thanks to you for this insight in Us politics!
Posted by: anonymous5089   2006-02-24 14:46  

#14  TW/BA - Duly noted points, thanks. For the record, I was a member of the College Republicans many moons ago. I'm independent as far as voting is concerned now, but like I said I tend to vote Repub because so many of the Dems just seem to be such wimps.

Anyways, I wanted to postulate a theory to you all I've been stewing on the past six months here in Iraq wrt the major parties vs. running independent. I'd love to get your input.

-If, a group of veterans or like minded citizens were to start a third party, say near a military base or in that county/district. As a by product, not only do you have the military credibility but you also could be exposing every 18-23 year old service person that does a hitch through that area a different political philosophy. Maybe the information of this third party started by no non-sense service oriented folks works its way back to the home towns of the above mentioned demographic in maybe a grass roots fashion. Or say, more to the point, in your home town, you good Rantburg citizens noticed such an endeavor by an independent party w/noted military and some combat background. This group targets getting seats at the local level (which I believe is possible in comparison to state level politics where the "R" or "D" are more imperative). Do you think it is plausible that at that local level what I call a "beach head" or a foot hold for future follow on through put could be created? Would you consider voting for something like this at the local level? Obviously proper marketing and the foundation of the platform are extremely important. I could go on all day about it but let's just stream line it to what I mentioned in the prior posts along w/even some stereotypical democratic platforms like sound environmental stewardship so that future Americans can enjoy our natural resources, etc. (I'm an advid outdoorsman and hunter so I've secretly hugged more than a few oak trees in my day.) I didn't articulate my theory as well as I would have liked but for the sake of brevity I think you get the drift and I don't want to run the bandwidth to death.

BA - My wife actually mailed me the Fair Tax Book Boortz promoted. I've yet to digest his book though. I concur w/you on the WoT vs. domestic issues angle wrt the Prez. The man's got an unbelievabley tough job but the immigration reforms are too long in coming. One of the military's mandates is to protect the borders and sovereingty of the nation. I'd love to see us start going down there in deployment rotations to augment are border patrol brothers. Okay, enough of my literary diarhea and delusions of grandeur, thanks for giving it a look.

Posted by: Broadhead6   2006-02-24 14:19  

#13  I'm with TW on that one, BH6. While I fall more along the lines of your belief (split somewhat between the Libertarian Party and the Constitution Party), the only REALISTIC way to get elected is by having an "R" after your name. Then, affect change from within. It's time to get that party back to the basics, and call me an optimist, I believe it can be done. In this fight, I'm 100%+ behind our Prez, but domestic issues (like you) I have a lot of beef with him. Starting with Illegal Immigration, but also including, Spending total (not just pork barrel), taxation (I'd like to see the Fair Tax or some flat tax implemented), bring back the line-item veto, doing away with Fed. Depts/agencies that aren't Constitutional (like Reagan tried to do w/ Dept. of Education), etc.
Posted by: BA   2006-02-24 13:06  

#12  Broadhead6, if I might suggest... Please consider running -- the first time, at least -- on the Republican ticket. While the Libertarians sound like a better fit, philosophically, you cannot effect change if you don't get elected. Unfortunately, Libertarians don't get elected; the party isn't big enough to provide enough votes. And the Republic needs what you and your comrades have to offer.
Posted by: trailing wife   2006-02-24 12:54  

#11  Â“The Democratic Party is like an addict,” he says. “TheyÂ’re addicted to failure. I want to help the party. The question is, how do you help someone that doesnÂ’t want help?”

It's simple, really. You hold an intervention, and when the addict protests, tell 'em it's 'for your own good'.
Posted by: Seafarious   2006-02-24 11:40  

#10  Well, guys and gals, just make sure you're not going up against one of the boys. This from their former Golden Boy...

Paul Hackett has been a popular guy this fall. The tough-talking Iraq combat veteran turned a special-election fight in Ohio’s Second District into this summer’s political sleeper hit, energizing Democrats and converting Republicans in the deep-red counties outside Cincinnati and pulling 48 percent of the vote in a district where John Kerry got a mere 36 percent. Soon the national party came courting: Hackett met several times with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Sen. Chuck Schumer, chair of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC), both of whom encouraged him to run for the seat of Ohio’s senior senator, Republican Mike DeWine, in ’06. Hackett said he would—after been told by Ohio Congressman Sherrod Brown that he wasn’t planning to run—and on October 3 he publicly threw his hat in the ring.
Then, last week, his phone rang again. It was Sherrod Brown calling to tell Hackett he’d changed his mind: he was running after all. Then Schumer called, and this time he wasn’t delivering a pep talk. Hackett got the distinct sense that he was being asked to make way for the party insider. “Schumer didn’t tell me anything definitive,” he says. “But I’m not a dumb ass, and I know what he wanted me to do.”
DSCC spokesman Phil Singer insists that “We didn’t play any role in bringing Brown in. We were as surprised as anyone else when he decided to reconsider.” Putting a positive spin on the contest, Singer notes that “six months ago, reporters were writing off the state” for Democrats. “Now we’ve got two excellent candidates who would be good senators and can beat Mike DeWine in 2006.”
Hackett, who says he’s still considering his options, is less sanguine—and less diplomatic. “The Democratic Party is like an addict,” he says. “They’re addicted to failure. I want to help the party. The question is, how do you help someone that doesn’t want help?”

http://www.motherjones.com/news/update/2005/10/hackett.html
Posted by: tu3031   2006-02-24 11:36  

#9  BA: Thanks for the info, I'd imagine that is a definite possibility though I must admit I am not too familiar w/the Free State/Libertarian movements. I will google them and find out more. The platforms I've discussed w/my peers are based on some libertarian principles like being pro-gun, minimizing governmental intrusions, pork barrel reform, de-regulating "junk laws", term limits (though I'm not sure if the libertarian party takes a stance on that either way) & maintaining the original intent of the the U.S. Constitution. I think where we differ w/a lot of tradtional libertarians on the national level is that we want a wall on the U.S./Mexico border a long w/serious law enforcement of such. I could go all day as I have strong opinions as to which direction I think the country needs to go to improve but in the interest of not coming off like an ass or boring anyone I'll digress. I think you get the drift anyhow. The bottom line is that though most of us tend to lean right we're not satisfied w/some of the things we've seen w/the replublican party. Everything ranging from the aforementioned border fiasco to members of the party getting caught up in illegal schemes is criminal (no pun intended). We take integrity, U.S. sovereignty and not fleecing the hard working American tax payer extremely serious.
Posted by: Broadhead6   2006-02-24 11:34  

#8  These poor fools are donks ? In order to be a donk in the House of Reps, you MUST vote straight donk on all issues. It doesn't matter what you think or what you stand for, the party comes first, and that's it.
Repeat after me: Hillary is the queen, the light, and the source. Bless Queen Hillary, bless Queen Hillary.
Posted by: wxjames   2006-02-24 11:22  

#7  I keep reminding myself that *every* unit has one guy in it who is a luser. He is always whining and bitching, he says his last unit was really great but this new unit sucks. He doesn't do his job and has mastered malingering. He spends half his week in the dispensary, and the other half bumming smokes and drinks. He also brags a lot and "one-ups" the other guys about what a hot shit he is. He knows the CO and the first shirt have a down on him, 'cause they're always f'in with him.

If he is a "luser plus", he is also a racist who probably also hates women, a barracks thief and a drug dealer. In this case, invariably the luser has one amazing talent: avoiding the CID.
Posted by: Anonymoose   2006-02-24 09:33  

#6  BH6: Is there a way you guys can tag up with the Free State/Libertarian movements? I see this as a serious (if still, small) movement in this country. I, for one, have begun to get fed up with both parties too, although the Republicans down in my neck of the woods tend to be a LOT more conservative (Constitutional) than others.
Posted by: BA   2006-02-24 09:03  

#5  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.

No mention that this "pressure" included rumors about Hackett abusing Iraqi corpses.
Posted by: Robert Crawford   2006-02-24 08:52  

#4  This is interesting, I've talked to a lot of my peers about the prospect of running for local offices after we get out. The thing is most of us lean conservative tend to vote republican but actually don't care for either major party. We've discussed setting up a third party that's more libertarian in nature and just flooding a region with candidates accross the spectrum of seats and then expanding via grassroots means. Being a vet does bring some credibility but you'll always have someone questioning your service which is hard to take.
Posted by: Broadhead6   2006-02-24 03:31  

#3  It's unfortunate that I no longer live in Virigina. I'd be happy to vote for James Webb.
Posted by: Steve White   2006-02-24 01:46  

#2  The problem with putting a vet in power, regardless of party, is they will only get burned by the Dems once. Then they will do whats "right" instead of the blind followership the Dems are expecting. This is FID 101, take them down from the inside, I just might vote Democrat!
Posted by: 49 Pan   2006-02-24 01:25  

#1  "It brings a certain level of approval."

There would more approval if their 2004 standard bearer would release all his military recrods.
Posted by: badanov   2006-02-24 00:37  

00:00