Article

2010-04-13 Home Front: Culture Wars

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Anonymoose 2010-04-13 17:37|| || Front Page|| [6 views ] Top

#1 I'm guessing someone at Talking Points Memo, being a left blog, might have needed a change of pants after hearing the news.

Posted by eLarson 2010-04-13 18:59|| 2010-04-13 18:59|| Front Page Top

#2 Interesting it was initiated by an NCO. Might say something about our officer... 'corpse.' I suspect the pentagon will be acting soon to prohibit this type of activity.

Posted by Besoeker 2010-04-13 19:03|| 2010-04-13 19:03|| Front Page Top

#3 I suspect the pentagon will be acting soon to prohibit this type of activity.

ahhh yes, the Napolitano boot of tolerance. Sounds like these gentleman and ladies are smart enough to make it less - partisan and more principles. Should stand up to scrutiny

Posted by Frank G 2010-04-13 20:39|| 2010-04-13 20:39|| Front Page Top

#4 If individuals want to support the Tea Party or even the President they should do so.

However they should leave any affiliations with the military at home.

As it is we can barely trust the US Government.

If we loose faith in the military we are lost of if the military becomes divided we are lost..

Posted by Kelly 2010-04-13 20:57|| 2010-04-13 20:57|| Front Page Top

#5 I suspect the pentagon will be acting soon to prohibit this type of activity.

It'd run up against DOD Directive 1344.10, which covers service members participation in political activities.

Then again, you've been out of the Army a long time...

Posted by Pappy 2010-04-13 21:28|| 2010-04-13 21:28|| Front Page Top

#6 I clicked on your link, Pappy.

Gawd, it's been a loooong time since I had to read DOD bureaucratese!

My head hurts. :-(

Posted by Barbara Skolaut 2010-04-13 21:32|| 2010-04-13 21:32|| Front Page Top

#7 Sorry, Barbara. Perhaps excerpts this 2008 article might help.

A revised Defense Department directive provides sharper definition of what service-members may and may not do within the political realm, particularly running for political office, a senior U.S. military officer said here yesterday. The new version of Directive 1344.10, titled, Political Activities by Members of the Armed Forces, became effective Feb. 19 and replaces the previous version issued in August 2004.

Active-duty servicemembers are strictly prohibited from campaigning for political office or actively taking part in a political campaign even behind the scenes The revised directive also specifies what active duty members may or may not do regarding political activities. In addition, military chiefs are expected to provide unvarnished advice, without political slant or motive, to senior civilian government leaders.

However, under certain circumstances, some reserve-component members can run for or hold elective political office. Yet, there is a right way and a wrong way to do that. The directive outlines specific rules pertaining to cases of regular, retired and reserve-component service-members holding elective or appointed office within the U.S. government, including elected positions with state, territorial, county or municipal governments.

In addition, the revised directive requires military members holding such positions to apply for and secure the approval of their individual service secretaries. The requirement for service secretarial approval depends on the length of the service-members call or order to active duty.

Posted by Pappy 2010-04-13 21:47|| 2010-04-13 21:47|| Front Page Top

#8 Pappy - would seem that politically coordinating for principles: small government, less debt, etc., would fit within acceptable activities if not referencing nor favoring a political party?

Posted by Frank G 2010-04-13 21:57|| 2010-04-13 21:57|| Front Page Top

#9 Basically, what it sez is that a service member on active duty may register, vote, and express a personal opinion on political candidates and issues, join a partisan or nonpartisan political club and attend its meetings when not in uniform, subject to some restrictions, sign a petition for a specific legislative action or a petition to place a candidates name on an official election ballot, if the signing does not obligate the member to engage in partisan political activity and is done as a private citizen, make monetary contributions to a political organization, display a political bumper sticker on the members private vehicle, attend partisan and nonpartisan political fundraising activities, meetings, rallies, debates, conventions, or activities as a spectator when not in uniform and when no inference or appearance of official sponsorship, approval, or endorsement can reasonably be drawn.

What they can't do is participate in politics beyond that of a 'spectator role', publish political tracts and news releases (letters to the editor excepted - as long as they state they're doing it as a private citizen), serve in any official capacity with or be listed as a sponsor of a partisan political club or political campaign, or speak before a partisan political gathering, including any gathering that promotes a partisan political party, candidate, or cause.

That means that, unless someone can prove the Tea Party is a partisan political organization, they're relatively safe, as long as they state they're not doing it in an official capacity that implies military or government approval.

Still, if I was them I'd be looking for either a non-retiree vet or a military-related civilian to head up the group.

Posted by Pappy 2010-04-13 21:59|| 2010-04-13 21:59|| Front Page Top

#10 To make it even simpler - if it looks like the military is getting dragged into partisan politics - don't do it.

Again, it has to be proven that the Tea Party is a partisan political organization.

Posted by Pappy 2010-04-13 22:09|| 2010-04-13 22:09|| Front Page Top

#11 Oh, I understood what it said, Pappy - after all, I spend part of my year reading state (and some federal) legislation, and read a lot of regs too.

I'd just forgotten how dry, pain-in-the-ass it is to read. I'm still trying to get over AR 304-15. ;-p

Posted by Barbara Skolaut 2010-04-13 22:55|| 2010-04-13 22:55|| Front Page Top

#12 Uh, make that AR 340-15.

Too bad I can't type. :-(

Posted by Barbara Skolaut 2010-04-13 22:58|| 2010-04-13 22:58|| Front Page Top

23:32 trailing wife
23:11 JosephMendiola
23:10 OldSpook
23:04 OldSpook
23:02 abu do you love
23:00 JosephMendiola
22:58 Barbara Skolaut
22:56 OldSpook
22:55 Barbara Skolaut
22:53 trailing wife
22:50 JosephMendiola
22:47 JosephMendiola
22:32 JosephMendiola
22:27 JosephMendiola
22:21 JosephMendiola
22:15 JosephMendiola
22:09 Pappy
21:59 Pappy
21:57 Frank G
21:55 Frank G
21:47 NoMoreBS
21:47 Pappy
21:41 trailing wife
21:35 Asymmetrical