Vote Vet wastes money on Harry Reid ad
If I were to name one person in the Senate who did absolutely nothing to support the troops deployed in combat, it would be Harry Reid. He declared the “surge” a failure before it began. He spent two years trying to defund the wars and leave the troops in the field without resources – two entire years. During that time, he couldn’t pass a defense budget, yet found time to bring to the floor of the Senate time and again legislation that would prematurely end our involvement in the Near East.
Here’s VoteVet’s “About” statement;
The mission of VoteVets.org Political Action Committee is to elect Veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to public office; hold public officials accountable for their words and actions that impact America’s 21st century servicemembers; and fully support our men and women in uniform.
Yet, here’s the ad that VoteVets is running in Nevada for Reid, who somehow managed to avoid military service, and has managed to to avoid support for the troops in the field.
Dicksmith writes;
Titled “Highway,” the ad shows a young man hiking along the road, just as Harry Reid did once a week as he went back and forth to school. Narrated by Anthony Funches an Air Force veteran from Las Vegas, the ad chronicles how Harry Reid has always beat the odds, including his leadership to provide care and benefits to our nation’s veterans.
Are they talking about the same Harry Reid the rest of us know? In Pennsylvania, they’re supporting Patrick Murphy – their sole survivor of the 2008 cycle after their other goofus, Eric Masa screwed himself out of the House of Representatives – with this ad;
Yeah, I’m sure Mike Fitzpatrick is a bigger threat to veterans than Reid. Dick Smith promises more ads tomorrow – wanna bet it’s for Sestak?
Jon Soltz writes about the commercials and Vote Vets;
We’ve been there to push through the new GI Bill, to push back against truly wasteful spending that could be used for the troops, and to support veterans who want to continue their service in public life, among many other things.
Yeah, since when. VoteVets and Soltz has been charging hard for the Clean Energy Bill (Cap and Trade) which has nothing to do with supporting the troops – name one thing they’ve done this year that didn’t have to do with Cap and Trade or getting Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell reversed.
He forgot to add one thing to that last sentence. It should read; “…to support veterans who want to continue their service in public life, as long as they’re Democrats“.
ADDED: TSO pointed out that last Friday dicksmith wrote;
Look, I’m not real comfortable with a Veterans organization endorsing non-Vets at all. If there is no Vet in the race or you don’t like the one in the race, just don’t endorse.
So why are they throwing money at Harry Reid. He’s not a veteran, there’s not a veteran in his race? Why doesn’t dicksmith and Soltz just come out and be honest that the only requirement for their support is membership in the Democrat Party? Are they just that treacherous and unscrupulous?
Category: Antiwar crowd, Phony soldiers
I’ve been to VetVoice a few times — it sucks. R. Smith tries to make gold out of turds and it just doesn’t work. Besides, it looks like the site is not visited often, so it may be going to hell on its own soon enough. There’s too much politics there and not enough about veterans.
VetVoice used to be a site I liked and visited often. They had a variety of different bloggers who wrote on a variety of different topics. For a while, they had guys in Afghanistan and Iraq posting from there.
Now they have one guy, Richard Smith, who writes on two topics, climate change and DADT. That is all. Visit once every other week and there are a bunch of new articles, but they all say the same thing. I swear, if cap and trade is passed and DADT is repealed, Smith will have nothing to write about anymore.
Murphy may very well loose his seat this cycle, the polls are close. Lets hope!
The reason they are throwing money and resources at Harry Reid is because George Soros wants them to. VoteVets is a front group of parrots. They say whatever Soros and co. want them to say.
But the alternative to Harry is so, so frightening……
Though I can understnd your aversion to any Christian being in a position of power, Angle is hardly frightening Joe, and a definite improvement over Reid.
I don’t agree, Jacobite. She makes Sarah Palin look like an intellectual. Between her 12th century religious beliefs, her “2nd amendment remedies”, he lunatic fringe policies, she would try and take us back to the dark ages. People like her wish for nothing less than the destruction of the U.S.
As opposed to Reid who actually HAS contributed to the downfall of this country?
Jesus, Joe–go suck on a grenade already.
I wish someone would take a 2nd amendment remedy against her…..
Joe; Why do you have such an aversion to the 2nd Amendment?
he[r] lunatic fringe policies, she would try and take us back to the dark ages.
==========
Nice vague, empty talking points there. What *exactly* is your problem with her? Name her policies which you consider “lunatic fringe”. And please explain how exactly she would “take us back to the Dark Ages”.
Her views on abortion, even in the case of rape. She would set back women’s rights decades (? centuries?). Anytime someone claims her campaign is in the hands of her imaginary omniscient friend it’s time to call the men in white coats. Dismantling every kind of safety net, trashing and destroying public education. It’s ironic, and disgusting to see someone who is part of a generation that had more advantages than any other in history of the world, someone who is part of the most coddled, protected, well cared for group of people ever, try to pull the ladder up behind her and tell the rest of us, “tough luck, you’re on your own…”. Disgusting, selfish, self centered, messianic nut job.
Her views on abortion, even in the case of rape. She would set back women’s rights decades (?centuries?). Well, what is her view on abortion, even in the case of rape? Got a quote? Got a source? I asked you for details, not talking points. And, interesting how you equate abortion to “women’s rights”. It is not a “lunatic fringe” stance to believe that Roe should be overturned and the question of abortion restrictions be left up to votes of the States. That has become a mainstream view now in America. And, even in the case of rape, believing that a woman should bring the baby conceived during rape to term is not a “lunatic” opinion. It may be “fringe” in that not too many people share that opinion. But reasonable people can believe that there is no need for a woman to go through both the horrors of rape and the horror of an abortion on top of that. Anytime someone claims her campaign is in the hands of her imaginary omniscient friend it’s time to call the men in white coats. Again, where is the exact quote? Where’s the source? But, granting your premise… really? That’s your gripe? Christians believe that their lives are in the hands of God. There’s nothing “lunatic” about that. Many Christians believe in trusting God with their lives. If I had to guess, I’d say that Angle believes that whether she gets elected or not is “God’s Will”. She probably believes that if she is meant to win, she will and if she is not meant to win, she won’t. Again, there’s nothing “lunatic” about that, unless you’re going to call a large majority of the country “lunatics” who believe in the idea that “if it’s meant to be, it will be”. Dismantling every kind of safety net, trashing and destroying public education. Again, I asked for DETAILS. What *exactly* are you talking about. HOW is she “dismantling every kind of safety net”. HOW is she “trashing and destroying public education”. DETAILS, Joe. DETAILS. Got any? Or just vague, empty talking points? It’s… Read more »
I assume your belief that she would set back women’s rights is based on her stance on abortion? I’d argue strongly against that and also point out that it’s neither a ‘fringe’ position, nor ’12th century’. Dismantling a system of social ‘safety nets’ that shouldn’t exist to begin with is something I can support, and so is the dismantling of the NEA and its failed and dangerous politics and policies. The Federal Govt DOESN’T BELONG IN ANYONE’S WOMB, CLASSROOM, OR HOME Joe. The Federal Government generally ruins most things it touches, anyone for lessening its grip on the Nation and returning States Rights back to their place of preeminence is headed in the right direction.
Since when has it ever been an act of kindness to foster an atmosphere of dependence within any population?
Mike
“Sharron Angle Reveals Controversial Abortion Views”
http://www.newsweek.com/2010/07/08/sharron-angle-reveals-controversial-abortion-views.html
I don’t have a problem with counseling a victim to keep the baby, but I would have a problem with a victim not having the opportunity to terminate the pregnancy if they decided to. Our social taboos are such that the rape/incest scenario still has the potential to be a more crushing lifelong burden than the decision to kill the unborn baby, making it a case of self defense on the part of the potential mother. Aside from that I do believe it is something that should be decided at the state level.
Joe’s Christian phobias? I sympathize with his belief that believing in pre-ordainment and omniscient beings is a bit off putting, and I generally avoid discussions concerning religion when in polite company because from my point of view belief and faith in ‘God’ really is incomprehensible, but I don’t believe those beliefs disqualify someone from holding office and doing a good job. A candidate could worship the Spaghetti Monster for all I care, but Joe truely feels threatened.
She vowed to end Social Security, and also stated she would end it for veterans – it’s captured on video. Wants to phase out Medicare. Now she states she never said that. It’s dumb to lie if your lie has been videotaped, duh! Said unemployment benefits have spoiled our citizenry (easy to say during a depression if you still have a job). Called for an end to the Veterans Administration. Called for 2nd amendment remedies if she didn’t get her way. In other words, shooting government officials. I call that treason. Talks about bringing biblical principles to government. She’s contradicted herself so many times that her current strategy is to avoid all reporters. Stated the media should only ask “friendly” questions and “report the news the way we want it to be reported” (excuse me while I try to stop laughing). Stated that government has become our god, and that violates the first commandment (commandment, not amendment. Any time someone refers to the bible as an instrument of public policy, they’ve lost my vote). Says, “Lord shows me daily where He wants me to walk”. The imaginary friend again. That’s just crazy talk. Wants to eliminate the Depts. of Education, Energy and the EPA. Yeah, that’s it. We don’t breath enough smog as it is. Some more: Bring more nuclear waste to Nevada. Deregulate Big Oil; BP spill was only “an accident.” Abolish United Nations and most of the IRS. Outlaw alcohol (now that’s sick). Abortion causes breast cancer. Prisoners should have massages and saunas (program created by Scientology). Drug sales supported the attack on 9/11. Angle was named “Nevada’s worst legislator” several times by the Las Vegas Review-Journal.
This could take hours – I better leave now.
Jacobite,
You know about the almighty spaghetti monster? There is hope…..
I don’t have a problem with counseling a victim to keep the baby, but I would have a problem with a victim not having the opportunity to terminate the pregnancy if they decided to. Our social taboos are such that the rape/incest scenario still has the potential to be a more crushing lifelong burden than the decision to kill the unborn baby, making it a case of self defense on the part of the potential mother. Aside from that I do believe it is something that should be decided at the state level. ========== Agreed. If we got this issue back to where it should be — determined by the people of each State — I would vote for abortion to be banned except in the cases of rape, incest and where the mother felt her life was in danger. But, I’d also be in favor of making sure in each case where a girl/woman came seeking an abortion, the woman was provided with all options, information and counseling with regards to the operation. She should * be shown an ultrasound * provided info on the options of adoption * info on the government support and private support and charity support for single mothers * told all the risks of going foward with the pregnancy * told all the risks of the surgical procedure of abortion to her physically, emotionally and post-surgery (ie, risks on maybe not being able to conceive after abortions, risks of depression, excessive bleeding, etc) I’m also in favor of parental consent for minors (17 and under). There needs to be parental consent to take an aspirin in school, there sure as sh!t better be parental consent before a life-threatening surgical procedure. All that said, the “lunatic fringe” with regards to abortion policy is not on the conservative side, but on the liberal, pro-abortion side. They will never support the repeal of Roe to allow the States to decide this issue. They truly believe that a women are “gods” and should have sole power to determine whether or not a human life is allowed to be… Read more »
Naw, many of the founding fathers were deists, about as close as you could come to being an atheist in those days without being burned at the stake. Please stop trying to rewrite history to mirror your own archaic views. Thomas Jefferson: “Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.” “In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.” “Priests…dread the advance of science as witches do the approach of daylight and scowl on the fatal harbinger announcing the subversions of the duperies on which they live.” “Believing that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God……I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their Legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.”
She vowed to end Social Security, and also stated she would end it for veterans – it’s captured on video. So, where is the video? You seem to have a very difficult time with simple requests for details, quotes and links. But, granting your premise… Social Security is going to end on its own if nothing is done about it. It’s going broke and the young people of today are never going to see a penny of all they have put into the Social Security trough. So, anyone who campaigns on doing something to fix Social Security has my ear and my support, depending on what they want to do to fix it. If you look into the history of Social Security, it was never supposed to last this long. Even the creators of it said that it would need to be tweaked in a couple decades in order to keep it working, supplement it with private accounts. But that was never done. In addition to not doing the proper tweaks, the government raided Social Security for their own spending. So I don’t see anything wrong with bringing up fixing Social Security. And vowing to end it is really a moot point, since it’s going to end itself if nothing is done. But if she has an idea to end the current failed Social Security system and implement something new, I am all ears. It’s better than what any liberal or Democrat has to say about it which is “move along, nothing to see here, SS is just fine!” Wants to phase out Medicare. Now she states she never said that. It’s dumb to lie if your lie has been videotaped, duh! Again, same with SS, Medicare is going broke. So if she wants to phase it out and get something better and new going, I’m all ears. And I’d be able to judge whether or not she lied if you provided her quotes and the videotape as I asked already. Since you haven’t, I have to assume you’re making stuff up. So, provide the info to back up your… Read more »
. . . thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.
Oh for crying out loud, talk about believing in fairy tales. The “wall of separation” was Jefferson assuring the Baptists that there was a wall stopping the government from preventing them from worshiping as they pleased. It was never about preventing the government from having religion be any part of government.
Hell, every part of our government has an allusion to God. Oaths for office and the military taken ending with “so help me God”, each court session begun with “God save the United States and this honorable court”, etc. Liberals like to quote the establishment clause (which applies only to Congress passing laws establishing Religion) and leave out the free exercise clause. The ‘free exercise’ also applies to those in the government. Just go back to any Thanksgiving Proclamation from Washington or Lincoln, etc.
I love it when moronic assholes take Jefferson quotes out of context in order to “prove” a point.
Actually the fact is many of the Founders were not Christians or fans of ‘revealed religion’. One can be a deist and still be religious however. Deism in most cases still accepts the existence of a ‘higher power’ or supreme being.
Mike is right, he didn’t say we were a Christian Nation, rather that the Nation was founded on the concept that men have certain rights bestowed by their “Creator”. As someone who believes in ‘natural law’ I tend to disagree with Mike about whether or not a ‘god’ is actually necessary for stability though.
Mike is also correct with his comments concerning establishment clause and the free exercise clause. Pointing out that Jefferson wasn’t a Christian doesn’t really serve your argument Joe. And as for Jefferson, yes, let’s put Jefferson into a bit more context. Mr. Jefferson wrote to William Short in a letter dated October 31, 1819 “The establishment of the innocent and genuine character of this benevolent moralist (Jesus), and the rescuing it from the imputation of imposture, which has resulted from artificial systems [E.g., The immaculate conception of Jesus, his deification, the creation of the world by him, his miraculous powers, his resurrection and visible ascension, his corporeal presence in the Eucharist, the Trinity, original sin, atonement, regeneration, election, orders of Hierarchy, etc.] invented by ultra-Christian sects, unauthorized by a single word ever uttered by him, . . .” and Jefferson’s comments concerning the Book of Revelations to General Alexander Smyth in January 1825 “merely the ravings of a maniac, no more worthy nor capable of explanation than the incoherences of our own nightly dreams. I was, therefore, well pleased to see, in your first proof sheet, that it was said to be not the production of St. John, but of Cerinthus, a century after the death of that apostle. Yet the change of the author’s name does not lessen the extravagances of the composition; and come they from whomsoever they may, I cannot so far respect them as to consider them as an allegorical narrative of events, past or subsequent. There is not coherence enough in them to countenance any suite of rational ideas. You will judge, therefore, from this how impossible I think it that either your explanation or that of any man in ‘the heavens above, or on the earth beneath,’ can be a correct one. What has no meaning admits no explanation; and pardon me if I say, with the candor of friendship, that I think your time too valuable, and your understanding of too high an order, to be wasted on these paralogisms. You will perceive, I hope, also, that I do not consider them as… Read more »
The verdict is in on whether or not a “god” is necessary. The answer is a resounding “No!”. Go to one of the least religious, most atheistic countries on the planet – Denmark. It is also, in the words of one author, an amazingly “rational, humane, civil, safe, and calm” place – I emphasize the word “rational”.
It is also, in the words of one author, an amazingly “rational, humane, civil, safe, and calm” place – I emphasize the word “rational”.
==========
Wasn’t Denmark the place where the Mohammad Cartoons were published? Which pissed off Muslims, after which Denmark submitted to the Muslim demands to not offend them?
Yeah, let’s hold Denmark up as a place to admire!
Michael,
“after which Denmark submitted to the Muslim demands to not offend them”. How exactly did they submit? Their foreign minister just stated that she never apologized for the cartoons, a book has just been released there with more muslin cartoons including the famous mohammed/bomb cartoon, and numerous artists and authors have refused to relent in their criticisms of islamic censorship at peril to their lives. The Danes value free speech and they put their money where their mouth is. I highly admire them. I think you have it wrong.
Michael,
Hats off to them for printing the cartoons in the first place. Their foreign minister just stated she has never apologized for the cartoons. Also, a book was just released about the whole incident including more islamic cartoons, including the infamous mohammed-as-bomber cartoon. In addition, a number of artists and authors have not relented in their criticism of islamic censorship, at peril to their lives. The Danes appreciate the value of free speech, and they put their money where their mouth is. I think you have it exactly wrong. Here, here to Denmark!
Man, I posted once, it didn’t show up, so I posted again, and now both show up! What’s up with that Jonn?
Gee, you commented twice and they’re both published. Good complaint, Joe.
lol
“The Danes appreciate the value of free speech, and they put their money where their mouth is. I think you have it exactly wrong. Here, here to Denmark!”
==========
You’re right. They did not back down. I stand corrected on that point. If only American atheists (who 99% of the time are simply just anti-Christian) were as principled as Denmark atheists, that would be an atheism I could support.
[…] if they’re so concerned about electing veterans, did VoteVets toss a million bucks at Harry Reid’s last Senate campaign, who, using their definition of the term, was a draft dodger. That money couldn’t have gone […]
[…] office, until they backed draft dodger (using their own definition when talking about Republicans) Harry Reid and used money donated for the suport of veterans running for office? Well they’ve decided […]
[…] the impression that VoteVets didn’t have a problem with deferments from the draft because they helped Harry Reid’s campaign in the last election and Reid had successfully avoided the draft while he enjoyed deferments. But suddenly, when someone […]
[…] VoteVets which is supposed to advance the political careers of veterans, but in the last election, they funded Harry Reid’s campaign. Harry Reid who fit their own definition of a draft dodger as they apply the definition to […]