The Coalition of the Very Small

Parent Cafe
21

<p>DMD, it’s not 12…it’s 50+. See: <a href=“http://www.bandofbrothers2006.org/candidates/[/url]”>http://www.bandofbrothers2006.org/candidates/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>Forty of them gathered with Max Cleland in D.C. earlier this month.
<a href=“http://www.bandofbrothers2006.org/[/url]”>http://www.bandofbrothers2006.org/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>and the “official” Democratic Party write-up with photos: <a href=“http://www.democrats.org/a/2006/02/taking_the_hill.php[/url]”>http://www.democrats.org/a/2006/02/taking_the_hill.php&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>Brownie, I conveniently addressed that article elsewhere just yesterday. I’ll take the liberty of quoting myself, with suitable editing in addressing the response to you:

</p>

22

<p>The reality is that neither wing of the Republocrats has a clue as to what they really want to achieve:</p>

<p><a href=“http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060220/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_060220165762[/url]”>http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060220/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_060220165762&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>The only ones who are really clear are the oil-hawks. Certainly not the Band of White Brothers. Whatsamatta? Aren’t any Democratic African-American male vets want to run against Republicans? ;)</p>

23

<p>Why do you keep referring to your candidate as “brownie” rather than Mr. Brown?</p>

24

<p>Brownie, <em>you’re</em> Brownie…based on the heckuva job you’re doing carrying the GOP talking points.</p>

25

<p>I thought citygirlsmom said that only the right responds to the person rather than the argument. Lot she knows.</p>

<p>Mostly both sides talk right past each other.</p>

26

<p>There actually the “talking points” of the lefty moonbats on Democratic Underground. I visit there once in a while when I need a good laugh.</p>

27

<p>“Republocrats” sounds like Nader talk. Mini, did you vote for Nader or do you just not take part in Federal electoral politics?</p>

<p>I detest Hiliary and the rest of the pro-war Dems. Would you vote for Kucinich as an example , if you lived in his district? I think it is wise to be tactically flexible on these matters even if one considers oneself a leftist.</p>

28

<p>I have voted for Nader (where I live, in Washington State, voting for the Democrat is throwing away your vote). I did vote for Kucinich in the caucuses.</p>

<p>But, from where I sit, the differences among the Republocrats, when it comes to the future of Iraq and the War, are mostly cosmetic. They all favor a “stable” government in Iraq, they all favor “democracy” in Iraq, but they don’t like the democratic outcome (rule by Ayatollah Sistani). They all want to maintain control of Middle Eastern oil supplies. They all want to withdraw troops when there is “stability”, but they don’t want a “stability” under the iron fist of the democratic majority - the Ayatollah. </p>

<p>I see Bush’s policies in Iraq to be a natural outgrowth of Clinton’s, which were, in turn, a natural outgrowth of Bush’s, which were… They are all reeling - for 3 decades now - from the overthrow of the Shah of Iran - that “island of stability”, toasted on national Iranian tv by Jimmy Carter, on December 31, 1977, for his “commitment to human rights”, the proverbial straw that broke the camel’s back. Nothing has been the same since. The Iranians proved once and for all that the U.S. could be thwarted in its bipartisan foreign policy aims without firing a shot, and the world hasn’t been the same since, and likely never will.</p>

<p>I understand realpolitik as well as the next guy - I worked for the U.S. government in Iran.</p>

29

<p>Here’s a little quiz for all of you political junkies:</p>

<p>Who said “some skulduggery in Washington” improperly led to Hackett’s decision to end his bid?</p>

<p>Hint: He grew up with a silver spoon in his mouth and went to Yale after attending an elite New England boarding school.</p>

30

<p>There are so many to choose from! Will it help me narrow it down if I knew he is white? ;)</p>

31

<p>Strick, when someone studiously avoids Paul Hackett for months until they think they can score some points, I’m courteous enough to give them recognition by name for doing so.</p>

32

<p>Maybe I’m mistaken, but I think that it only became public that he was swiftboated by Reid, Shumer and the gang just last week. Now maybe some of you on cc knew that he was being swiftboated last fall - which apparently he was - but most of us didn’t. Apparently there are some Dem insiders who post regularly here who knew about it, but most of us didn’t. It’s kind of hard to comment on it when only the Dem insiders know about it.</p>

<p>Isn’t it ironic that cgm started a thread to comment on how the “Band of Brothers” couldn’t be swiftboated, and one of them ends up getting swiftboated by the Dems themselves! As that lovable vet Gomer Pyle used to say, “Surprise…Surprise”!!</p>

33

<p>

</p>

<p>Ignoring? I guess I ignored him, too, since I don’t think military service automatically qualifies you for high office. </p>

<p>I’m not sure how that’s a factor here. One could make a pretty reasonable argument that Hackett’s situtation is remarkable (in the literal sense) and completely relevant to any discussion of the “Band of Brothers”. </p>

<p>As someone said, I suspect that mainline Democrats don’t want them around criticizing them, either. If that’s the case, this “Band of Brothers” has very little hope of being as successful as the original one. Either way, as I said, just being in the military doesn’t qualify anyone and putting up some token military exs won’t change what the Democratic Party is at its heart.</p>

34

<p>“Would you be more likely or less likely to vote for John McCain for president if you knew he had fathered an illegitimate black child?”</p>

<p>I think that would actually be a proper use of the term swiftboating, IMO.</p>

35

<p>Browninfall, you have a very selective way of filtering information. I read the Mother Jones article - and googled “Hackett swiftboat”

That came from the special election which pitted Republican Jean Schmidt against Hackett last summer - and there was worse. Check out “Eric Minamyer” while you’re at it. I’m not sure what you think you’re gloating over, but I will say that I don’t take anything I hear from Mother Jones as any closer to gospel than the usual right wing propaganda echos served up by CC’s resident righties. The Republicans have been swiftboating Hackett for months.</p>

36

<p>Brownie, Hackett wasn’t “swiftboated.” He waffled about getting into the race last fall. His then-key staff in his Congressional race were on loan from his now-opponent’s staff. Heading into February, Hackett was waaaay behind in fundraising and his campaign was disorganized. In their wisdom, correct or not, the party machinery asked Hackett to drop out to avoid a bruising primary fight. In so doing, the invited him to run again, with full party support, for the OH-02 Congressional district. Cf., the PA-07, where Major Bryan Lenz dropped out to run for a state legislative seat when a recently retired three-star admiral got into the race instead. </p>

<p>Strick, Hackett was a candidate of some note because <em>as an Iraq veteran</em>, he called Bush a liar, a chickenhawk, and full of excrement. As a Marine major and Iraq vet, this has a way of sticking in a way that the same statement coming from Barbara Boxer would incite a yawn. </p>

<p>No, military service is not automatic qualifier to serve in office. But a mass of Democrats with military service can’t be repudiated with the GOP’s favorite tactic of calling critics drooling Lefties. And the mass of these candidates, given their collective record, campaigning as anti-Bush anti-Iraq war Democrats may have the effect of hitting the collective GOP in the face with a baseball bat.</p>

37

<p>

</p>

<p>Big, outrageous talk doesn’t really get me that excited.</p>

<p>As for these guys, as I said, are you so sure they’re going to be campaigning after what happened to Hackett? That’s the problem. They’re also running against the Democratic Party, too.</p>

38

<p>Dandy (since we all seem to have lovably cute fuzzball names for each other here)</p>

<p>I know you’re on top of things politically and I also know that the party line is important to you, but…please…we’re not that stupid here…Hackett was the victim of a scurrilous campaign to discredit the time that he spent in Iraq…and it was orchestrated by the traditional Dems in D.C. The base of the Dem party is being marginalized by folks like yourself. They put in the time and give the money and then get the shaft because Chuckie and Teddy don’t want to give up face time. </p>

<p>Once again you guys are toast.</p>

39

<p>Strick, yes, they’re campaigning. They are <em>not</em> campaigning against the Democratic party. Read their websites. They are campaigning against the kind of crap that suggests they’re campaigning against the Democratic party, the kind of crap that gets some of us angry. You reap what you sow.</p>

<p>Brownie, I’m a Hackett <em>donor</em>, all the way from SoCal. You can’t spin that “marginalized by folks like yourself” crap on me. Don’t get me wrong, I’d prefer Hackett as a candidate over Brown for at least a couple of reasons. But there’s not a sinister anti-military plot against Hackett by drooling anti-military Libruhls.</p>

<p>“Dandy” works only when Bush says, “You’re doing a heck of a job, Dandy.” The notion of me as a “dandy” is hysterically funny.</p>

40

<p>

</p>

<p>It’s certainly more accurate to say that they represent much of what the Democrats have been against for decades now. And it’s the Democrats who are campaigning against them if what Hackett says is accurate.</p>