Crossing the line from Soldiering to campaigning
Back in my home state, there is a guy running for elected office who is a member of the Reserves, who recently deployed to Iraq, and, in my opinion, is milking that deployment for every political point that he can score with it. (I am omitting his name, party affiliation, and office sought so that this won’t look like a politically motivated thread.)
I heard one of his commercials which said (paraphrasing) that as an Iraq war vet, he thinks that we need to drill for oil off our shores in order to protect our national security interests. As an Iraq war vet? What does that have to do with it?
This guy’s wife was campaigning for him in his stead while he was deployed recently and made sure to make it clear at every event and on every commercial that she was speaking for him because he was in Iraq. One could make a good case that his deployment was basically a taxpayer-funded campaign stunt. That seems to be 80% of this guy’s campaign: vote for me because I served in Iraq.
This really rubs me the wrong way because it seems, in my view, to be very bad for civil-military relations, bad for the state of the military profession in general, and encouraging political opportunists to use their political connections to score low-risk deployments just to pad their resumes (which this guy may have done).
Any thoughts?
For Better or Worse, No Real Laws Against It....
Originally posted by Schmedlap:
Quote:
One could make a good case that his deployment was basically a taxpayer-funded campaign stunt.
Been a whole lot of that going on, by both parties. It's nothing new - go back to right after WWII, and you will see that almost every new candidate being slated back then had to have some type of military service.
The difference is these days, the parties are pretty shameless about it - and honestly, if you talk to the candidates afterwards (privately), many of them feel they got used, and used badly.
Personally, I think both parties are doing a terrible disservice by slating many of these candidates, not because they aren't capable of doing the job if elected, but most of the time these men and women are being slated (used) as nothing more than election "cannon fodder"/"stalking horses" in races that would be extremely difficult for them to win in almost any circumstances. Basically, most of the time, the parties are trying to use these returning veterans to 'steal' a seat.
Funny thing is that in a party's 'safe' districts, both parties are slating the "old reliables" instead of these returning vets, because the returning vets aren't 'owned' by the different special interest groups.
If you've been deployed, one tends to end up placing a higher value on practicality than on ideology, and that's not something our current political environment seems to value.:(
Not a good thing.
I would love to know what this Soldiers duty position was?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Schmedlap
This really rubs me the wrong way because it seems, in my view, to be very bad for civil-military relations, bad for the state of the military profession in general, and encouraging political opportunists to use their political connections to score low-risk deployments just to pad their resumes (which this guy may have done).
Any thoughts?
My guess, Mess Kit Repair Company, Spoon Platoon, Polishing Squad. Buffer "Fire" team leader.
Somebody can wiki the details
but as I recall, Lyndon Johnson went to the Pacific for a short visit during WWII. MacArthur sent him on a single bombing mission and awarded him the Silver Star for his bravery (There was apparently no contact, and no one else on the crew rec'd squat).
Backgrounder and an Example to Ponder
The following gives us some perspective on numbers and the "pol-vet" process. Seems a balanced article.
Quote:
Government Executive
Both parties court military veteran candidates as wars continue
By Otto Kreisher
CongressDaily
October 3, 2008
With the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan hot issues in the national elections, both parties have tried to recruit military veterans to run in congressional races.
.....
At least 52 veterans -- about half of whom have served in the current conflicts and some who still are active in the National Guard or reserves -- ran as non-incumbents in House and Senate primaries across the nation. At least 33 of those veterans have survived into the general elections, where they will join about 100 incumbents with military service who are seeking re-election.
....
At the beginning of this session, 30 senators and 100 House members claimed military service, including time in the reserves or Guard. One of those died and 17 are retiring, are seeking other offices or were defeated in primaries. ...
http://www.govexec.com/story_page.cf...d=41126&sid=60
Here is how one "pol-vet" candidate approaches the political process - his webpage is here.
http://www.summersforcongress.org/
Here are comments by three major newspapers, when he entered the race in 2007.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/mai...eyes_congress/
http://www.nytimes.com/cq/2007/07/06/cq_3024.html
http://kennebecjournal.mainetoday.co...s/4163525.html
Up to you guys to judge whether he flunks or passes the military officer ethics test - it's not my department.