Vets as politicians
In Washington Irving’s book “The Life of George Washington”, the president was quoted as saying “When we assumed the Soldier, we did not lay aside the Citizen.”
The Washington Times reports this morning that, in the spirit of that quote, more veterans are choosing to run for political office this season than they have in the past. The Times highlights the campaign of Bill Russell’s run at the seat vacated by the late John Murtha’s ample ass;
Mr. Russell’s battle with the party establishment is one that many veterans face when looking to make the jump into politics, said D. Patrick Mahoney, an Iraq veteran and president of the Veterans for Congress political action committee.
Mr. Mahoney has been sharply critical of the Pennsylvania Republican leadership’s decision to pass over Mr. Russell, saying the move had less to do with qualifications than with the Republican establishment’s obsession with Mr. Burns’ wealth.
“That’s why you don’t see more veterans running for Congress. It’s so expensive,” he said. “It’s tough for veterans who have been fighting a war, stationed around the world. Veterans who come back and want to seek office — especially the recent vets — generally are not going to be the rich guys.”
Some organizations have tried to overcome that cash shortfall. VoteVets, for an example, has run such stellar candidates as party perv, Eric Massa and the unbalanced Joe Sestak. Of course, with VoteVets, they require their candidates to adhere to the agenda of MoveOn.org and embrace issues that have nothing to do with veterans.
Other organizations that focus strictly on electing veterans are emerging like Iraq Veterans for Congress and Combat Veterans for Congress. I’ve linked their endorsed candidates for your perusal.
Our buddy, Pete Hegseth, executive director of Vets For Freedom, tells the Times why so many veterans are stepping up;
Mr. Hegseth said veterans are getting into the 2010 races for many of the same reasons as other reform-minded candidates.
“Veterans are driven by the same frustrations that the public has with what is happening in Washington … the fiscal irresponsibility and the financial crisis that our country is facing,” the 29-year-old Iraq veteran told The Washington Times.
I’ve been asked why so many in the military are conservative, and it’s really quite simple; No one knows how incompetent the government is than the military – we’ve seen how absolutely worthless politicians and bureaucrats are at completing simple tasks. Veterans have a history of being competent despite the government that works against them at every turn. If you want your government reformed, veterans are the folks who can do it.
Category: Military issues, Vets For Freedom
I have a lunch discussion coming up today with a retired Marine LTC on something I have been working on for a few months. I will send the details to Jonn and if he wants to post what my thoughts are, that’s fine, but suffice it to say that it hasn’t gone unnoticed by Vets at the way many of the party establishment, on both sides, view Vets and I don’t think we should have to take the shit anymore.
It is important to remind folks that a person’s veteran status is not a be all and end all to someones resume. It should neither be used as a shield to prevent criticism or as the business end of an argument to demean or silence the opposition. It is a delicate line that a veteran must walk and I wish people could see it more as simply a professional expertise that one as achieved. There is a unique set of job skills that those who serve acquire, but as with everything else results vary from person to person.
With that being said I find it illogical that one side will attempt to cast suspicion upon a veteran with some of the comments meant to infer that we all know what happens to veterans under stress (hint: PTSD) and the fact that it only affects those of the opposite party.
I have taken issue with some veterans running for office, mostly over their stances on the issues and that is what we should focus on, however I will be relentless in the pursuit of those who neither respect their service to their country and/or demean those who do choose the military.
My old maxim holds mostly true also. Army and Marines tend to be conservative while the Navy and Air Force tend to be liberal. My personal opinion is that it is one’s political beliefs are in direct proportion to one’s distance from the enemy. Easy to be a liberal when you can’t see the enemy or in most cases even identify or label the enemy.
Navy? “Tends to be liberal?” Surely you jest.
Well, I’d agree the Navy is probably the most liberal of the bunch. Their big dog was first to jump in and support gay marriage AND they fight tooth and nail to keep women off their boats. I wouldn’t say they lean left, more like they’re bending over left at this point.
The problem for the Vets is the same for any person wanting to run against the establishment. Its so expensive and the polls holding the seat have such a built in advantage that its very hard to break through. Take a look a Ms. Fiorina in Cali. I’m not a real fan of hers considering her a rino but take a gander at the massive amount of money she has had to lay down so far. We have a real problem with the establishment politicians on both sides of the aisle. They seem more intent on rigging the rules to keep their jobs than doing a good job.
Fiscally conservative, maybe. Socially, not so much. I think you see a lot more libertarians in the military-people who know the government is a poor administrator but who also know that people’s personal lives and beliefs don’t affect their competence.
Regarding the funding I sometimes wonder if that isn’t a product of the media following the old mantra of follow the money. It seems we always get reports of how much a candidate has raised before we get poll numbers of how the candidates in a race are doing.
Here in Georgia, whether intentional or not, and yes I am giving the local news a lot of latitude here, it seems that certain candidates are given more air time then others. Quite often third party candidates are mentioned only in passing at the end of piece. Granted often times some candidates already hold a high profile position which allows them to have their face in the public venue more which allows people to be more acquainted with them but I think a real disservice is done to those just starting out in the political arena.
Money buys ads for the newcomer, but an established politician can buy votes. I can’t really blame the media for covering an incumbent when he is doing his job, after all part of their job is to report on what our current elected officials are doing, but that sort of free publicity is something a newcomer just can’t get.
I wish I could convince Americans to get out of their comfort zone and take a chance on the newcomer. At least in the case of House of Representatives if the the person is a total screw up there is another election in 2 years. Sending this sort of message just might make politicians take notice and be more responsive to the folks back home instead of their party. I do not advocate this approach for the highest office or for the Senate which is locked in for 6 years at a shot. Local officials who can not retreat to the safety of Washington are far easier to hold accountable also.
Americans just need to send the message that their vote is not for sale to the highest bidder.
My district is represented by a vet, Tim Walz, and he sure uses his service to the best of his advantage. Last month after the healthcare vote, a prominent conservative called Walz a radical, and the libs jumped up to angrily defend him, saying it was insulting to call a military vet a radical.
I agree that being a veteran is not the end all be all, but it does do wonders for public respect and trust. There is an annual survey of the least and most respected occupations, and to no one’s great surprise the military is most respected and politicians are near the bottom.
“No one knows how incompetent the government is than the military – we’ve seen how absolutely worthless politicians and bureaucrats are at completing simple tasks”
Two things come to mind. Gamma Goat and GOER.
Mike–don’t confuse what the CNO does with the troops at deckplate level. Liberal in what sense? That one service only voted 3-1 GOP in 2008 as opposed to 4-1? Trust me, the women on submarines issue has fuck-all to do with homosexuality, and the guys on both my boats were some of the most politically conservative people I’ve met.
“Liberal in what sense?”
In the Joe Sestak and Eric Massa sense. Scroll through the membership of IVAW and there’s a disproportionate number of squids (who never set foot in Iraq or Afghanistan).
Jonn–I could also point to a number of Dems from the Army and Marines, among them General Clark, John Murtha, and Rep. Patrick Murphy, who, IIRC, is the person who penned the repeal to DADT.
When my cousin returned from Iraq about a year and a half ago, she got to meet the mayor of Columbus, GA. As she was looking around the mayor’s office, she was thinking to herself…”Don’t get too used to that seat, Mr. Mayor- it’s gonna be MINE someday real soon.”
There are many veterans who would LOVE to run for office, but few who actually get the chance because political offices are bought, not earned, these days. It’s sad.
But to clarify my earlier point, Jonn–regardless of branch of service, it seems strange that while officers AND enlisted in all branches of the active military tend to vote Republican anywhere from 3-1 to 4-1 in favor of the GOP, yet it’s nearly even (or even favoring the Dems) for veterans in Congress. We have to ask ourselves why that disproportionate representation exists.
I’d hoped that you realized that I was being facetious, Sparky.
Somewhat. You do realize how much shit we take, being on something long, hard, black, and full of seamen. But my point on the seeming over-representation of Dem vets is a legit one. Is it out older vet population still thinking that the Dems of today give a shit about the security of this nation, which IMO hasn’t happened at the presidential level since JFK, and in Congress since Sen. Nunn or Sen. Lieberman–and the latter got shitcanned as a Democrat for actually having halfway decent views on national security?
Jimmy Carter was Navy……just sayin’….
One of the reasons you so many dem/vets is that dems are looking for vets to protect their flank from the weak on national security argument. Thus, these candidates are better funded.
I think/hope we are seeing some changes in that. I have a politician crush on Lt. Col. West down in FL. I don’t know too much about him, but every speach I have seen on You Tube has been well reasoned, informed, and inspiring.
Just A Grunt said,
“My old maxim holds mostly true also. Army and Marines tend to be conservative while the Navy and Air Force tend to be liberal. My personal opinion is that it is one’s political beliefs are in direct proportion to one’s distance from the enemy. Easy to be a liberal when you can’t see the enemy or in most cases even identify or label the enemy.”
That’s because the Marines and Army haven’t figured out that you send the Officers to the “Front Line” and fix them when they return.
That being said, it is my opinion that how you vote is based on your life experiences. I’m retired USAF enlisted, 81-01. Never voted for a Dem POTUS. Why not? Carter decimated the military. They have absolutely NO respect for the troops. Nor do they respect the Secret Service personnel charged to keep them safe. Every Dem POTUS since, has done the same thing. I extended long enough NOT to have Clinton sign my discharge.
In my particular career field (Communications), I can tell you that the majority, of enlisted, are independent / libertarian registered. Why am I a registered REP? Because my state doesn’t have “Open Primaries”. You have to be registered “R” or “D” or you get ignored.
YMMV,
Brian
[…] Vets as politicians […]