First off I have to include this disclaimer to fend off trolls: I respect our fighting men (and women) and the work they do. I appreciate their sacrifice and service and believe protecting your country is one of the most important and thankless jobs out there.
That said, I have to call bull on the so-called “Fighting Dems” the moveon/koskids toutconstantly to counter the “Democrats weak on defense and security”charge. One of the premier sites for the Fighting Dems (hereafter referred to as the FD’s is Band of Brothers
Its headline mission statement reads:
We have five core things in common: we are veterans, we are Democrats, we are strong on national security, we believe our nation is headed in the wrong direction – and we are running for Congress to put America back on course.
Well the five core things are missing a core, clutch cargo classic requisite for wanting to jump right in at the national level (House or Senate) of politics: some kind of high-level administrative experience (business or military is probably as good as politics, if not better), education in poli-sci, business or administration, or law, or some kind of public office experience, like say dog-catcher or county alderman before leaping right into the Senate.
If you take a quick perusal of the resumes of candidates on the front page, you’ll find another ‘core’ constant: hatred of President Bush and Republicans (sometimes stridently so) and opposition to the war. What you won’t find are any credentials, education, public office resumes or administrative or legislative experience.
The Dems seem to think that waving military service around like a totem that gives you special insight into running for office and serving in Congress will be an unassailable stance. No one will dare criticize a vet, because if they do the Dems pull out the “chicken-hawk” defense, which states you can’t criticize any vet for anything unless you were a vet yourself. You cannot criticize any stand that vet takes on any issue because if you do you are criticizing their patriotism and anyway being a vet puts them beyond your tiny level to critique in any way.
Well, it ain’t so. Just being a vet does not automatically make you a qualified candidate. None of the vets listed has a single serious qualification listed as to why they deserve a vote other than the fact they were in the military. Never mind that the Dems totally disdained both George H. W. Bush and Bob Dole vs. Bill “student deferment” Clinton as to capability and qualifications. Now all the sudden a 4 month tour of duty overseas is all you need to run for even the highest office.
Anyone who wants to jump into a national legislative or executive office needs to have some real education, experience or job qualifications to merit leap-frogging statehouse members, mayors, governors and other politicians who have a basic knowledge of administrative and legislative duties and how the system works and can be best utilized for their constituents. Just being a vet who is against the war does not equal a college degree, real legislative or administrative experience, or even executive experience in business or in a bureaucratic function at minimum. Even though lawyers are much disdained and reviled in our culture, it’s actually a good thing to know something about the law if you are going to draft new ones.
Republicans should not hesitate to call the “Fighting Dems” on these facts. If anything, someone who served in Iraq and comes back saying idiotic things like this deserves less credibility because you’d think they’d be more responsible and level-headed:
“The Republican Party has been hijacked by the religious fanatics that, in my opinion, aren’t a whole lot different than Osama bin Laden and a lot of the other religious nuts around the world.”