Vets get in races to fight GOP

Article Launched: 12/28/2005 01:00:00 AM

Vets get in races to fight GOP
War experience touted for Dems. Veterans for a Secure America fields candidates for Congress nationwide, including two in Colorado.
By Jim Hughes
Denver Post Staff Writer

More than 30 Iraq and Persian Gulf War veterans have entered congressional races across the country as Democrats, hoping to capitalize on their military experience to topple the incumbent Republican majority.

In Colorado, two former military men, Jay Fawcett and Bill Winter, are vying for the House seats of two strong, entrenched Republicans: Rep. Joel Hefley of the 5th Congressional District and Rep. Tom Tancredo of the 6th Congressional District, respectively.

"Do we understand military and foreign affairs? You bet," Fawcett said. "Most of us have been to the point where you get a direct dose of military and foreign affairs, mostly in the category of small-caliber weapons. But we understand that that is just one aspect of national policy."

On Dec. 20, Fawcett and Winter joined 35 Democratic veterans running for Congress at a strategy session in Washington, D.C.
(snip/...)

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_3348791

We must be on the final reel, then.

on a rail..tarred and feathered to boot.

around the campfire in the twilight. The hero finally gets to kiss his rodeo sweetheart.

""Most of us have been to the point where you get a direct dose of military and foreign affairs, mostly in the category of small-caliber weapons.'

I love that line. :evilgrin:

It's that they hate Jesus and they want to turn your daughter into a LESBIAN!!!!

:evilgrin:

:evilgrin:

:-)

Where are the Repuke veterans in support of the fiasco going on?

Student tied to protest violence in video footage
Wharton junior IDed as aggressor at NYC Young Republican event
By garrett young
September 20, 2004


A New York ABC television affiliate captured footage of a Republican Youth Convention attendee dragging to the ground and kicking an AIDS activist who had entered the event undercover as part of a larger protest against the George W. Bush administration.
The student in the video, whose name was unknown at the time the footage was taken, has been identified by several Penn students as Wharton junior Scott Robinson, a member of the Penn College Republicans.

In video clips on the Internet, the student is seen grabbing for a female protester and helping to drag her to the ground. He is later shown making a kicking motion toward the girl on the ground, while the television reporter commented that he was kicking her.

When asked on camera after the incident if he kicked a protester, the student replied, "I don't believe so." He had no response when he was told that the image was captured on tape.
(snip/...)

http://www.dailypennsylvanian.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2004/09/20/414e80e9ee4dd



Republican soldier (of sorts)
lady-kicker, Scott Robinson

When confronted with the video or audio evidence of what he had done, he should have immediately launched into an attack of the woman he kicked, the police for not breaking up the violent protest sooner and the media for filming it. It goes without saying that he should have denied it, even if he was watching the videotape...

"do shit" . . .

against the incumbent who is a Republican. Never mind the already declared Dem candidate, DCCC is supporting the "Fighting Dem"

I heard there was at least one other that did that.

Be careful what you wish for, with DCCC.

Or better yet, just look that "gift horse" in the mouth. Real close.


Just sayin'.


(edit for typo)

All I got when I Googled was a bunch of hits for Dkos DD entries.

What a kick in the pants for the GOP! :kick:

Hekate

When it makes it's way to the networks, expect the GOP to start scrambling for their own veteran candidates.

This story makes them look Bad and is pure gold for us in 2006.

I've been wondering about this. I've also been wondering if maybe they've already been scrambling for veteran candidates, but not getting any takers.

Van Taylor. He's running against Chet Edwards in TX-17.

on The Majority Report.

http://shows.airamericaradio.com/majorityreport/

:kick::kick::kick:

Let's STOP using it. This isn't the "grand old party" dating back to Lincoln. It stands for things completely different than the traditional republican platform. When I think of the GOP..errr Republicans, I think of governmental omnipresence befitting of Stalinist Russia.

Lincoln may have been a republican...but he was far from a conservative. Lincoln actually held liberal beliefs. You can bet your ass that it wasn't very conservative to essentially have to start paying your free work force (minimum wage), let alone grant them their freedom (beginning of the civil rights movement?).

The repubs like to say how they are the party of Lincoln. Which, yes, is true, Lincoln was a republican. However, I strongly believe his beliefs vastly contradict the beliefs of the neo-con religious right of today.

In its pure political definition, "liberalism" as such is neither Left nor Right.

Liberalism
Wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal
"Liberalism is an ideology, or current of political thought, which strives to maximize liberty. Liberalism seeks a society characterized by freedom of thought for individuals, limitations on the power of government and religion, the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a free market economy that supports private enterprise, and a system of government that is transparent, a liberal democracy with open and fair elections, where all citizens have by law equal rights and an equal opportunity. Liberalism rejected many foundational assumptions which dominated most earlier theories of government, such as the divine right of kings, hereditary status, and established religion. Fundamental human rights that all liberals support include the right to life, liberty, and property."

===

That's how it can be that in the US "liberal" has popularly become synonymous to democratic/Left Wing, while in Europe "liberal" is synonymous to conservative/RW.

:applause::bounce::applause:

When I saw this thread, I thought to myself 'I would have thought vetenarians would be repug leaning.' My bad.
:blush:

However, I think it's great that vets, of any kind, are signing onto the good side and I wish them the best of luck.:hi:

like, for example, the Congressional Black Caucus, because it will multiply their voice and their visibility, as well as the fact that most of them are Democrats. That will make the Chickenhawk label even more detrimental to Republicans.

"Do we understand military and foreign affairs? You bet," Fawcett said. "Most of us have been to the point where you get a direct dose of military and foreign affairs, mostly in the category of small-caliber weapons. But we understand that that is just one aspect of national policy."

C'mon ... those are words of a political neophyte, a future police officer. And there are 34 more like him? Ooooo-kaaaaaaay. So they served in the military. Not exactly guaranteeing a qualified resume. In fact, I'm more apt NOT to vote for ex-military, but that's just me.

This is a pathetic recruiting strategy. We've got one of these guys running in my district and the guy is clueless. He couldn't care less about domestic issues and has no interest in learning. The party loyalists around here see right through him and have no interest in investing time or money in that race.

But be fair. There's more to the guy than that statement and more to the guy than the subject of the article, which is about ex-military personnel running for Congress.

How do you feel about his platform on other issues?

http://www.fawcettforcongress.com/new_freedoms.itml

Oh wait, they mean MILITARY vets. My bad.

an "idiot".

I am not in his congression district (my parents are and they did vote for him and will vote again in 2006).

I gave him money because he has the courage and conviction to tell it like is.

That's what the Vets bring to the Democratic Party and America:
"Courage" and "honesty".

The WH pressured Wesley Clarke to lie about Iraq and 9-11 but he refused: courage and honesty.

And that's the main reason why the Vets candidates are mostly running as Dems: Courage and Honesty are incompatible with the Republican Party's principles of greed, corruptions and lies.

"Democratic wars" to castigate Clinton's reckless foreign policy.
Sad, funny, tragic and nuts all at once.

It's about time Democrats got behind Veterans as candidates.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

You self-deleted from the human race when you voted Repukelican! Come out of the closet and smell the roses....

others before you have at least brought some humor to the table. :shrug:

May God have mercy on your soul.

I've heard that a number of these vets actually support the war. They're basically Lieberman type Dems. If they're running in a primary against a real Democrat I hope they lose!

and fully intends to take Doolittle to the woodshed!

http://www.brown4congress.org/
http://www.actblue.com/list/CharlieBrown4Congress
http://yubanet.com/artman/publish/article_26391.shtml
http://www.dailykos.com/tag/Charles%20Brown

Is Lieberman still a Democrat? :rofl:

i guess i should mention my father is one of the Fightin Dem's running in '06. once im able to post my own topics i plan to remind everyone that they will need your support in 06. money and volenteer time are needed by all of them!!!! and while i dont want to show bias toward anyone inpictular...anyone living in maryland needs to get off your duff and help andrew duck who is running in marylands 6th district!!! he's a 20 year army intel vet with tours in west germany,bosina,korea and iraq. he knows what the hell he is talking about and knows what needs to be done. electing him and all the other Fightin Dems will be the first step to reclaiming our country!!