Posted on 04/08/2006 7:47:52 AM PDT by new yorker 77
"The 'Iraq veteran' political strategy that Democrats hope will sweep them into Congress could be coming up short — much-touted vet Tammy Duckworth, a helicopter pilot who lost both legs in combat, barely won her Illinois Democratic primary," the New York Post's Deborah Orin writes.
"Duckworth scraped by in a squeaker, winning by just over 1,000 votes and 44 percent of the vote in a three-way race — despite the backing of stars like Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, the only TV ads, and outspending her chief rival 7-1," Miss Orin said.
"More worrisome, the primary drew low turnout, suggesting Duckworth doesn't attract new voters. In Illinois, you don't have to be pre-registered as a Democrat — so voters drawn by Duckworth's story could have voted for her.
"And fans of defeated rival Christine Cegelis, who was also anti-war, were livid. They burned up liberal blogs with threats to sit on their hands in November and attacks on Duckworth backers like Sen. John Kerry.
"The problem for Dems is that enlisting anti-war Iraq veterans may be a little too cute — trying to have it both ways by being both for and against the Iraq war.
"The same kind of take-both-sides strategy did nothing for 2004 loser Kerry, who thought being a Vietnam vet would give him special credibility on Iraq. Not!"
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Did you know John F. Kerry was a Vietnam War hero....
I wonder why he didn't tell anyone.
Unless you have been permanently injured to the point where you can not return to combat, why would you run for office here at home now?
The last time I checked, we're still fighting a war.
Don't expect many potential Iraq veteran GOP candidates who are currently serving to abandon their post to run for office when there is still work to do.
But you are right that the majority of them have not been
This is alleged to be the handiwork of one Rahm Emanuel.
I think he leaves a slime trail in his wake.
If I am correct, there have been 14 veterans who are running, have attempted to run, or have openly considered a run for office but declined to run in 2006.
2 Democrats declined to run. Both for House.
2 Democrats have dropped out. One for Senate. One for House.
8 Democrats are left running for House seats. 7 Still face a Primary. 1 has won.
2 Republicans are running. One for Senate. One for House. The 1 for House has won.
GOP vets are still fighting the war.
The Green Papers: Virginia 2006 Midterm Election
On Tuesday 13 June 2006, primaries will be held for parties having offices with multiple nominees.
http://www.thegreenpapers.com/G06/VA.phtml
The Candidate you speak of is Jim Webb who was recently on Daily Kos: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/3/30/173556/216
Rasmussen Poll: March 15, 2006
Allen 54% - Webb 30%
http://rasmussenreports.com/2006/State%20Polls/March%202006/Virginia%20Senate%20March.htm
Was it Viet Nam or Cambodia? I get so confused.
Always has...always will
Remember those rumors he was a Mossad agent back when he was in the Bent One's admin?
"This is alleged to be the handiwork of one Rahm Emanuel."
A Clinton Administration veteran. The Clinton Administration is going to continue to plague this country for years to come.
I'm surprised Tammy Duckworth has turned out to be an 'anti-war' Dim. Saw her on C-Span a few months ago while she was still in re-hab, and she (along with another very inspiring wounded vet) seemed to have her head screwed on straight. Anybody know what the story is here?
http://www.investors.com/editorial/IBDArticles.asp?artsec=20&artnum=2&issue=20060330
Weak Defense
Posted 3/30/2006
National Security: Democrats are offering a strategy for keeping Americans safe. Don't laugh. Well, go ahead and laugh, but sober up quickly. If they take over Congress, it will increase our vulnerability to attack.
Democrats, desperate for attention and votes in the fall mid-term elections, are trying to convince America that they can be trusted with security and defense, issues that have long been Republican strengths.
So, after much reflection, they came up this week with their "Real Security" plan that can be distilled into three words: get bin Laden.
Now why didn't the Bush administration think of that?
The Democrats are late to the game. They had their chance to get Osama bin Laden during Bill Clinton's second term in the White House. And they could have done so with little or no bloodshed.
But Clinton — as president, the titular head of the Democratic Party — passed on an opportunity to take custody of bin Laden in 1996, as well as, according to Mansoor Ijaz, a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, "detailed intelligence data about the global networks constructed by Egypt's Islamic Jihad, Iran's Hezbollah and the Palestinian Hamas."
Writing in the Los Angeles Times in December 2001, Ijaz said the Clinton administration was simply silent on Sudan's offer to hand over bin Laden and intelligence that might have prevented the 9-11 terrorist strike. Twice. The second time came three months before 17 American sailors were killed in the 2000 USS Cole bombing in Yemen and after bin Laden had been implicated in the 1998 U.S. Embassy bombings in Tanzania and Kenya.
Save for a few exceptions, Democrats haven't been serious about security and defense since John Kennedy was president. Of course, Lyndon Johnson orchestrated the war in Vietnam like he was playing checkers on his back porch; his focus turned more to politics than national defense and security as the conflict grew.
Then there were the four years of Jimmy Carter, who was far too chummy with dictators and indulgent of Soviet belligerence — that Olympic boycott really showed 'em — plus Sandinista nastiness and crazed Iranians who had the nerve to actually attack U.S. soil.
Congressional Democrats haven't been any better. Aside from Sen. Joe Lieberman, can anyone name one current or recent member of Congress who has been believable on defense and security?
Yet here they are, telling the voters they have a plan that, in the words of Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, is "tough and smart" and "will provide the real security President Bush has promised but failed to deliver."
The failed delivery, though, is on the part of the Democrats.
The word from the mainstream media, usually reliable Democratic allies, is that this plan lacks details. We agree. It's really nothing more than promising in general terms to do what's already being done by the Bush White House.
And if Democrats find themselves with a congressional majority in 2007 and the White House in 2009, they will actually do less than that.
I hope Allen kicks his ass.
You know how war heros are, they just really don't want to talk about it.
Pray for W and Our Freedom Fighters
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.