Friday, March 24th, 2006...7:23 am
IAVA PAC
I am still on Wesley Clark’s various e-mail lists, and I got a notice a couple of weeks ago about Iraqi/Afghanistan Veterans of America PAC. The group is an outgrowth of Operation Truth, and its board includes Clark, Sen. Bob Kerrey and Paul Hackett.
I first heard of Operation Truth at the Democratic Convention, when I was approached by one of their members. He handed me a card and told me what the group was about. He said that he actually was a Republican but wanted to make sure that Democrats knew what was really going on in Iraq. He talked about the lack of equipment, but also about plans that the White House had to close Veterans hospitals and also about the difficulty of recieving mental health care after separation. My father is a veteran, so I try to keep up with these issues and I knew about a lot of it. But, it still makes me sad, and I was impressed that a vet, so soon after coming back from the war, was willing to travel the country to tell folks about what was happening to his brothers and sisters.
The group has some rather strict requirements for being endorsed. Our own Jeff Latas doesn’t qualify because he didn’t serve in the current Iraq campaign; they require a Iraq Campaign medal, and the veterans of the 1991 conflict have a Kuwait Liberation medal. They take pains to say that they will not consider party affiliation, but they want their candidates to support a specific agenda:
- Demand from the administration a victory strategy for Iraq that includes hard success metrics which trigger American troop drawdowns so our forces can safely re-deploy from theater.
- Mandatory full funding for the Department of Veterans Affairs.
- Thorough investigation of the failure to provide adequate armor for our soldiers, and that those responsible are held accountable.
- An increase in the size of the active component army by eight units of action (brigades) and doubling the size of our Special Forces units in order to help relieve our over-extended army.
(NOTE: This is not an increase in the number of troops currently deployed in Iraq) . - Guaranteeing the exhaustion of diplomacy options by the President prior to approval for military conflict.
- TRICARE (health care) for all members of the National Guard and Reserve and their families. As of July 2004, 20% of National Guardsmen lacked healthcare. Currently, Guardsmen and Reservists can buy into TRICARE if they are unemployed or are not covered by their employer. IAVA PAC supports extending TRICARE coverage to all Guardsmen and Reservists.
- Lowering the retirement age for members of the National Guard and Reserve from 60 to 55.
- An immediate 5% pay increase for our Armed Forces.
Doesn’t exactly sound like the sort of thing a lot of Republican candidates are too excited about signing on for.
Their candidates include recent primary victor Tammy Duckworth, Joe Sestak, who is running against administration apologist Curt Weldon and Andrew Horne, running against the always-vulnerable-but-wins-anyway Ann Northrop. The site still lists North Carolina’s Tim Dunn, who recently dropped out of his race.
I wonder how a Republican candidate continues to justify the current war plan in Iraq (let alone the war itself) when confronted with someone that was actually there and can speak the truth about what a disaster it is. Of course, actually serving in the war is apparently not a qualification to speak about it. Heck, they will actually argue that staying at home and impugning the rest of our patriotism is just like being there. I’d like to see them pull that one against double amputee Duckworth, or even someone whose family has suffered like Latas.
14 Comments
March 24th, 2006 at 1:21 pm
Thanks, Tedski. The long-term progressive strategy that IMHO works best is to “Speak Truth to Power”. The advantage of a relevent military background is in being closer to the truth about the war and its consequences. Thanks for pointing out Jeff Latas’ uniquely relevent experience to represent AZ CD8 on this most crucial issue.
March 24th, 2006 at 6:53 pm
Jeff Latas may not be considered by some PACs to be a veteran of the Iraq war, but…
He did serve FIVE tours of duty in 10 years in Oman, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Kuwait, flying many missions over Iraq each time. He was fired upon during every tour, and every missile and bullet originated in Iraq.
And his son, who was only four or five when he left for Desert Storm, served on the ground in Iraq. Only a couple of current members of Congress can say the same. They are so ready to send other people’s children, but not their own.
I think you hit the nail on the head. Nobody can call Latas cut-and-run. He went back five times, and then reluctantly sent his son. He’s done more than most Americans to fight this war, and he holds the moral high ground when he says it’s time to leave.
Thanks for your thoughtful post.
March 24th, 2006 at 7:58 pm
Yes, clearly Latas is the only candidate who can win the general election in this “leans republican” district. He has appeal due to his military service to the center and right and he will take on anyone who calls him unpatriotic or soft on defense. This would be so rediculous it would be laughable, but they’ll try it. The question I have is why people think other Dem candidates are can win this when Karl Rove himself has said that the Reps will run on national security…again.
March 25th, 2006 at 10:51 am
I’ve heard him say it, “there are only a handful of Congressional members in federally elected office (5) that have children that serve in the service” no one in this race can say that with dignity. He not only has a son who had a relapse in Iraq and is considered by his father a “Hero” and will join that few in congresses with children in the service, but he served too!
It’s time we start flushing out those that lack the conviction of Jeff Latas. He will make things happen and that is what we want. I’m mad as hell, are YOU!
Jeff Latas is the only one we should even consider now. No one has better chances to win this election than Jeff. Rove can try, and will succeed with the rest of our candidates, but they fear the worst, LATAS!
Jeff Latas brings the progressives into this race. Unlike Duckworth, who was placed in IL-06 by the DCCC/DLC, the Latas’ did this by with no help from the party, the rich, or DC players. I respected that and so did others who are volunteering because they know the truth. No one in this region has gained so much in so little time on the political playing field. Just think what he will do for us if he gets in. Think about it. He has only been doing the politic thing for ONLY 6 MONTHS! The other candidates can only dream of such success.
He had no name recognition, no money, no connections. And now look at the power this campaign has exercised. Just think what will come when he gets the name out and the money in. I like Jeff, he is real and the meaning behind the man is genuine.
Everyone think about this, he still runs with his only son now getting a bone marrow transplant and he’s doing it for YOU!
March 25th, 2006 at 11:03 am
Azpoljunkie:
“Yes, clearly Latas is the only candidate who can win the general election in this “leans republican” district.”
I would like to point out that this is a pretty bold statement. Latas is not the ONLY candidate who can win the general election. I think any of our candidates can win this race in the fall because the Republicans have so thoroughly botched the war and a host of other issues. Any candidate who looks reasonable on this war and thoughtful about it could beat any Republican on this issue. It is their mess, but remember, we will have to clean it up with excellent public policy.
In addition to the advantages that Jeff Latas has, it is going to take broad support, political experience, name recognition, and money to win…others have some pretty important advantages in these categories.
“He has appeal due to his military service to the center and right and he will take on anyone who calls him unpatriotic or soft on defense. This would be so rediculous it would be laughable, but they’ll try it.”
It certainly would be ridiculous to attack him on his service, his record, on his knowledge of what war is like. It WON’T be ridiculous for them to attack ideas though. You can attack the message without attacking the messenger.
But this is a very different claim that I must must answer:
“The question I have is why people think other Dem candidates can win this when Karl Rove himself has said that the Reps will run on national security…again.”
Any of our candidates can EASILY refute the mess that the White House and Republicans got us into have an implemented. I could, Ted could, any of us here could. Any of our candidates can…and will be preferable to voters over republicans who created this mess.
Last, be aware that the Rove and the Republican machine will be…AND ARE…running on local issues. National issues just don’t work for them. In incumbent races they will focus on “loving my congressman not congress”…like Kyl is. Any of our candidates can attack on the war, but they will also be forced to deal with immigration and a host of other issues in a district that still leans Republican and independent.
Cheers to you!
Roger
March 25th, 2006 at 1:47 pm
Is this your attempt to paint Latas as one issue?
I suggest before you do go to www.jefflatas.com.
March 25th, 2006 at 11:09 pm
Since you put down the web address I went to the Latas web site. You were correct he has more than one issue. He is upset about 90,000 horses being slaughtered per year. He also says, “abortion should be rare” but support Roe v. Wade which gave us 1.29 million dead unborn babies in 2002 (see www.guttmacher.org)
Save the horses, kill the humans. Great wide-ranging platform.
March 26th, 2006 at 1:07 am
PHX KID–It seems to me that you didn’t read much of Jeff Latas’ issues section. It seems to me that it is YOU who is the one-issue person.
Why not have a multi-prong approach and support measures that will reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies [and, thus, abortion]?
March 26th, 2006 at 8:54 am
I did read his whole issue section and there was a lot there. But the contrast between the concern for horses’ lives but not unborn humans is amazing.
You cannot be for reducing abortions and still support Roe (and I am assuming also Doe v. Bolton.) Those two decisions have resulted in about 1,000,000 abortions per year since 1973. That is a large number of lives and blows a hole a mile wide in the notion that the Democrats are the party of compassion. Compassion for whom? Certainly not the unborn.
What if I am a one-issue person? I have every right to speak to one issue. I am not the one who attacked Jeff for being one issue anyway.
March 26th, 2006 at 10:17 am
Dear Cojo:
No it is not my attempt to paint Jeff as a one issue candidate. This entire post and stream is about national security and is what Jeff was being touted for to the exclusion of the other candidates by commenters here.
I am not trying to paint him in anyway. His issues stands are up on his website and that is what Jeff believes.
March 26th, 2006 at 11:54 am
PHX KID–Irony. The Republican party is the party that cuts food, medical care, housing, energy assistance aid for the poor [which includes a LOT of kids]. Re abortion–My speculation is that the concern of abortion rights supporters is compassion/concern for the mother-to-be. Better yet to support responsible sex education, access to contraceptives, and research on safer contraception. Obviously the best contraceptive is abstinence, but it is totally unrealistic to depend on that as the only method available for not getting pregnant.
March 26th, 2006 at 1:25 pm
You are correct, Republicans are not perfect and do not always support consistant positions or perfect solutions. I am not speaking as a Republican on this issue, many in my party even get this one wrong, but as a human being. But the position of the Democratic Party on human life is really sad.
There has been pretty easy access to contraception for a few decades now and the abortion rate is still over a million a year. Do you really seriously think someone is being kept from using contraception? Just as an example; Wal-Mart has a open display of several types of condoms in their personal care section. Out in the open for everyone to see and purchase. No reasonable person could say that the citizens of the U.S. are being deprived of access to contraception but did not want.
The flaw of contraception is the illusion that the sex act is for a purpose other than reproduction. We humans can do a lot to keep pregnancies from happening but sometimes the little guy gets through to the egg. If the couple had not intended to create a child but did it is sadly too easy a step for many to decide to terminate what they themselves have created.
If Democrats cared a whit about life and mothers they would propose a more socially compassionate approach to unwanted pregnancies at the same time as pushing for a modification of the extremely permisive regimes of Roe and Doe that place an almost zero value on the life of an unborn child. Instead many Democrats want more social spending but no change to Roe or Doe.
March 27th, 2006 at 9:00 am
As Political Director for IAVA PAC, and a native of Arizona’s 8th District, I want to express my admiration and excitement over Latas’ candidacy. I certainly wish he fell within our endorsement requirements, but it is important for us as an organization to adhere to our founding principles and maintain our focus on Vets returning from the conflicts spawned by the Bush administration. We respect and admire all Vets who have served the U.S., but our founders (who served in OIF) felt the need to give voice to this particular segment of Vets. Thanks for covering our efforts.
-Evan Hutchison
April 2nd, 2006 at 1:25 pm
There’s no conflict there. I’m sure every single IAVA supporter in the 8th congressional district will also be a Latas supporter. I was completely unaware of IAVA when Down With Tyranny endorsed Joe Sestak and we’re thinking about doing the same thing for Latas.
Leave a Reply