"Band of Brothers" a new Dem PAC for veterans running for Congress

[DinahMoeHum]

Link:
http://www.bandofbrothers2006.org/


(snip)
Band of Brothers is an organization founded to support a group of veterans who are running for Congress in 2006.

We will highlight the unpopularity of the war in Iraq while turning a populist critique of excessive corporate influence into a broader statement about the contrast between special interests and the real interest of the nation.

After World War II, John F. Kennedy and other veterans successfully distinguished themselves from the “New Deal Democrats” of the preceding era. This “New JFK Democrat” model, as discussed in Stan Greenberg’s book The Two Americas, is the winning formula for Band of Brothers 2006.

Our PAC is in a unique position to reach out to voters. Our candidates are unimpeachable in their positions and opinions on the war as compared to those of either major political party. Incumbent Republicans and Democrats are, in many ways, limited because of their votes for the war, the split over its funding, and varying degrees of opinions that seem, at times, unsettled. But our candidates have been there, seen the tremendous cost, and know we cannot wait.
(snip)
Band of Brothers will recruit, train, and elect a new generation of Progressive Veterans that will reclaim middle class suburban and rural voters lost in recent cycles.
(snip)

much more...

:kick::kick::kick:

[wicket]

1. Woo hoo!

:kick:

[incapsulated]

2. Good Idea, Bad Name

I wish they had chosen a name that did not indicate gender. Especially when we have several female vets running, including one that lost both her legs.

[incapsulated]

8. Never mind, they are changing the name:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2337476

See post #7.

[Tom Rinaldo]

9. Then "nevermind" with my post also, lol n/t

[Ian David]

3. It looks independent / non-partisan, not Democrat.

Our PAC is in a unique position to reach out to voters. Our candidates are unimpeachable in their positions and opinions on the war as compared to those of either major political party. Incumbent Republicans and Democrats are, in many ways, limited because of their votes for the war, the split over its funding, and varying degrees of opinions that seem, at times, unsettled. But our candidates have been there, seen the tremendous cost, and know we cannot wait.

<snip>



Our Values

Our values are American values.

The Band of Brothers 2006 message is based in part on Stanley Greenberg’s “New JFK Democrat” model discussed in his book The Two Americas. We propose a bold new progressive politic that stresses American values, cuts across partisan lines, and provides a real choice between a country that works for the few and one that creates opportunity for all.

Republicans are vested in a divided America that is currently tipped in their favor because of their successful development and exploitation of a “family values” brand that adheres to traditional prejudices, gun rights, abortion, and same sex marriage. They have also been able to exploit the tragedy of September 11 and parlay it to a position of strength on National Security issues which has allowed them to pursue their irresponsible approach to the war on terror.

We aim to bring middle class and lower income Americans back into the decision making process by promoting candidates that may not otherwise be heard.

Band of Brothers 2006 is premised on the basic idea that all Americans should be given the same opportunities to succeed. We support policies that promote American Values:

* Basic health care coverage for all Americans
* Expanded education opportunity
* Responsible use of our Military
* A foreign policy that promotes US leadership with NATO, the UN, and our allies in the war on terror
* Overhaul, reform, and simplify the tax system

The Band of Brothers 2006 campaign will focus on exposing neo-conservative agendas and policies that are in conflict with great American traditions.

* Values and Patriotism – Clarity on which values are to be honored and which values are under siege.
* Corporate Responsibility – Reinforce the sensibilities of the middle class while illustrating how neo-conservative agendas encourage corruption and greed in big corporations.
* Exposing Bush – Put the spotlight on policies that benefit the 1%, on Republican base strategy, payoffs, and cronyism.
* Foreign Policy – Not contesting the need to fight the war on terror, but illustrating that the Bush foreign policy makes it more difficult and costly.
* The Economy – Serious discussion on low income growth, increasing inequality, rising health care cost, cuts in public services, and a deepening middle class squeeze.


More:
http://www.bandofbrothers2006.org/our_values/

[DinahMoeHum]

7. True, but check out the line on this link. . .

Link:
Candidates
(More candidate information coming soon. If you are a veteran running for Congress as a Democrat, please contact us at [e-mail].)

http://www.bandofbrothers2006.org/candidates/

:kick::kick::kick:

[tnlefty]

4. TN-03 Terry Stulce!!!

"My name is Terry Stulce and I am seeking the Democratic nomination to represent the people of the 3rd Congressional District in the U.S. Congress. I am no politician, nor have I ever had political ambitions, but I will not sit silently as our country is being destroyed by the arrogant incompetence of Bush and his congressional cronies like Zach Wamp."

Go Terry!!!! and take that Zach.

[FreedomAngel82]

6. Yep!

Time to kick some ass. Here's Mr. Stulce with Max Cleland from the Kefauver Dinner.

/image

[FreedomAngel82]

5. Nice!

Check out the democrat running for congress in my area. He's a Vietnam vet!
http://terry2006.com/ Hopefully we'll kick out our republican congressman. Next year is going to be the year the veterans fight back. I can't wait!

[madfloridian]

10. You need to check out their stances on the war.

I have written 3 of them. They believe Iraq can and should be won. They are being very careful on the stances, so it is hard to tell.
Two said they disagreed with Dean and Murtha, one said we needed to stay until things were stable.

I would be curious about the rest of the 37 of them. Only 22 seem to be listed there.

I get blasted when I say this is going overboard, but I still think it is too many. The GOP is already spinning this.

[incapsulated]

14. So you expect 37 individuals to all share the same view?

Of course they will all have differing opinions on Iraq. The point is they are running as Democrats and have the ability to criticize Bush and the war while being able to smack-down any chickenhawk repuke that tries to go after them over their "patriotism".

How is the GOP spinning this? I would imagine they are very nervous about it and any "spin" stems from that. They only have 2 vets running that I know of.

[madfloridian]

18. Is that what I said? Starting to think I am saying things and not aware.

Everyone keeps paraphrasing what I say, and it does not look like what I said.

Why is it so vital to have so many veterans running? What about just having good qualified candidates, vets or not?

What happened to that?

[incapsulated]

23. Let me try to explain

They are all candidates, first. If anyone finds their positions unacceptable, they are welcome to support someone else.

The importance of having Iraq vets, in particular, coming home to run as democrats and against Bush and his policies would be pretty obvious, I would think. Regardless of how they think Iraq should be solved, those that I've read about opposed the initial invasion or have come to that conclusion. We honestly couldn't ask for better advocates against Bush and his war than the very people he sent in to fight it, especially when the GOP loves to drape itself in the flag and condemn any dissenter, or democrat for that matter, as a traitor. Try that with a vet just back from the frontlines.

[tnlefty]

28. Good, qualified candidates, vets or not? I happen to agree with that.

I also know that Terry Stulce who is running in my congressional district has slammed BushCo** and his rubberstampers (Wamp) for Iraq and the lies that got us there. This seems to be a very large part of why he is willing to run against Wamp who we can't seem to ever get voted out of office.

Sorry that you needed to have a post locked.

[Adelante]

44. Good, qualified candidates, vets or not?

I think everyone agrees with that. It's never been unusual that vets run for political office after returning from war. The only remarkable thing about now is the relative positions of the two parties and that vet candidates can help the Dems contrast to the Repubs, challenging their power in the area in which we are usually viewd as weaker. I don't see anyone saying anyone has to be a vet to run for congress. That's a misinterpretation being made by some here and it shouldn't be.

[mike_c]

48. no democrat who advocates continuing or "winning" the war in Iraq...

...deserves support, IMO. That's rupublican lite, or worse.

[Clarkie1]

17. The day all Democrats agree on everything.

Will be the day I leave the Democratic Party.

I hope that day never comes.

Edit: Please read my sig line.

[madfloridian]

19. Did I say that? There I go saying bad things again.

Where did I say they all have to agree?

[Clarkie1]

20. I apologize; I thought that was the implication. n/t

[madfloridian]

21. I had to have my post locked last night..

I posted a very logical, intelligent post about the fact that many of us feel it is going a little overboard. I was surprised that it was considered anti-military to have an opinion on this.

I was too tired, and requested it be locked. People got attacked at Kos for the same thing. Sort of a fall in line thingy now.

[OKNancy]

27. I read your thread

and thought about responding. I thought it was a good thought, even though I disagree.
The reason I disagree is because of Howard Dean and the whole "50-state" thing.

I'm at a point, and I think a lot of Democrats are at the the same point, that I really REALLY want to win. Whatever it takes to win elections is where I am. If the person is a Democrat, I'm for him or her. As long as they meet a minimal standard, then they would be 100% better than any Republican.

If the vets win the primary, then more power to them. The Democrats will have spoken, and I plan to support them. I sure wish I could vote for someone like that. I'm stuck with a rabid right-wing bench sitter who does nothing, is a dimwit, and votes 100% with the rabid wing of the Republican party. A nice moderate Democrat would be a nice change.

[madfloridian]

32. I never said I would not vote for them.

I am confused where people are getting that. I am pretty moderate myself. I just like to call attention to the fact that it might be too much of a good thing because of Hackett, who was unique.

Whatever wins.

[Tom Rinaldo]

41. People should be careful on their stances because

It is so easy to be misrepresented. For example your phrase: "They believe Iraq can and should be won" could mean several different things. Granted, assuming there was no misunderstanding, it does NOT mean that they favor immediate withdrawal or something very close to that. However there are different possible definitions of "won". One is Bush's wet dream, a stable Democratic Iraq as an American ally, welcoming our permanent military bases and spreading Republican approved western ideals throughout the Middle East. Another concept is an attempt to leave enough of a balance of power inside Iraq that it doesn't become what Afghanistan became after America lost interest in it after the Russians pulled out. Very different visions.

As to the words "can and should be (won)", under what circumstances and at what cost? On one extreme there are those who think no price is too high to pay for "victory", but there are also some who think a certain calculated risk is worth the effort. People like Kerry and Feingold are in that camp. They are willing to try to complete the end game in a manner that hopefully will prevent total chaos in Iraq rather than just say, "we're out of here in four months" for example.

Some think there is a chance that some of the worst case scenarios for Iraq can still be avoided and that making some effort to do so is worth it. I understand that many Democratic activists simply disagree with that, but it still is important to recognize that just because a Democrat doesn't believe in "Out Now", that doesn't have to mean that they are in agreement with George Bush either. Some call for differing withdrawal time lines, some think that there is a window of opportunity around the formation of the new Iraq government that should be "worked" now and then reappraise the situation after that, and so on.

So until I hear more individual details I would have to assume that some of the people who you describe as "believing Iraq can and should be won" are no more hawkish on Iraq than Feingold, though not as committed to leaving as Murtha. Whether or not each of them makes a good or the best possible candidate is a whole other matter.

[madfloridian]

45. If they want to "win" we have to stay there. We can't "win" if we leave.

There is no other way to interpret that Iraq must be won other than that we stay.

Let's not mince words here, Tom. There are many views on how to get out. A lot of our Democrats have presented plans.

Let's be honest. They are hushing the ones even with moderate plans to get out. Have you heard from Murtha lately? I haven't heard any of the Democrats lately. Dean was totally silenced by his own party for suggesting a plan that took two years. They called it cut and run. He had a week of speaking out the first week in Dec, but silence since then. Wonder why.

If a candidates says now that we have to win, they mean we have to stay. We can not win because we have lost.

[Tom Rinaldo]

47. I agree that if someone thinks there is something more potentially to lose

by pulling out of Iraq now, that they probably are against pulling out now, either to salvage something or to "win" something. Beyond that it gets into many possible stances. Actually I misread your post that I was replying to. I mistakenly thought you were saying that all of them felt we needed to "win" in Iraq, but on reading it again I think you were only summarizing the position of three of them who's office you spoke with.

My other point was that the underlying difference between Feingold's and Murtha's positions regarding Iraq is that Feingold, unlike Murtha it seems, thinks that some purpose worth trying for possibly can still be achieved in Iraq to justify not withdrawing all of our troops within 6 months. By taking a position that anticipates keeping any troops inside of Iraq for longer than six months, it implies a belief that perhaps some American troops can serve some useful function by staying in Iraq past 6 months while the U.S. is overall phasing out our military involvement in Iraq, either training Iraqi's or some other time limited function. Which concedes that there might be something to gain by not pulling all our troops out immediately, or looked at the other way, something possibly to lose by pulling all of them out immediately. If Feingold or Dean or Kerry didn't think that was true, then they should be supporting Murtha's plan or another calling for an even quicker withdrawal than six months. Either one sees some potential value in the United States staying longer than 6 months in Iraq or one doesn't.

[citizen snips]

11. Tim Dunn from NC is on that list.

I recently saw him on CNN and he sounds conservative but he is running as a Democrat.

[madfloridian]

22. Dunn's stance on Iraq....we need to win. Quote...

From his website:

"War in Iraq
"We need a new direction in Iraq. As an Iraqi war veteran, I support our troops on the ground 100% and I support a strategy to win. The men and women on the ground in Iraq want to win and Congress and the Administration owe it to them to openly and honestly explain how that is going to happen."

Withdrawal or redeployment appears not to be acceptable to most of them.

[Oceansaway]

12. K & R...n/t

[MaineDem]

13. But...they're not all men

Brothers? Not a bright idea. :(

Whoever thought that one up? But I see the name is being changed to Veterans for a Secure America. That's at least gender-neutral.

[incapsulated]

15. They are changing the name

To Veterans for a Secure America. Which is good, I didn't like it either.

[MaineDem]

16. Thanks I caught that in the other thread

Much better.

[Adelante]

31. Very much not a bright idea nt

[leftstreet]

24. Another group of white guys who wanna run the country? No thanks

We already have a Defense Department. The Oval Office has military cabinet positions acting in an advisory capacity. Congress can access military experts. We don't need a further muddying of the waters between elected officials and the military by electing pro-military candidates.

I'm sure these guys individually mean well, but I'm fucking sick and tired of being a "military" country.

[incapsulated]

25. Tammy Duckworth is neither white or a guy

She did lose two legs in Iraq and has every fucking right to run as anyone else.

I do believe that veterans are still citizens, last time I checked.

[leftstreet]

30. There's no "Tammy Duckworth" on their candidates link

http://www.bandofbrothers2006.org/candidates/

:shrug:

[incapsulated]

33. She is a vet that is running

I didn't check out all the members of this particular group, there are more than this.

I would just remind you that some of the worst "militarists" this country have elected have been Republicans that never served a day in uniform. Chickenhawks like Bush and Cheney (showing up drunk for a little while in the ANG doesn't count). I'll take Max Cleland or any Democratic veteran over them any day, wouldn't you? And since when does serving in the military make one automatically "militarist"? Especially on the Dem side of the isle?

[leftstreet]

34. Oh. But she's not part of this Band of White Military Guys

It's that group I was specifically talking about.

If she's pro-healthcare, pro-labor, and anti-US Imperialism, she'll be a great candidate.

[Schema Thing]

36. Even if she's military?

where are your principles?

[leftstreet]

39. Uh, if she's pro-labor and anti-US Imperialism her military background

wouldn't matter.

Read up on those Band of Brothers candidates. Most of them want to "win" in Iraq. No thanks.

[OKNancy]

29. If they win their Democratic primary

then they deserve all our support. Maybe you live in a place where Democrats are strong.
Many people can't be so disdainful of Democrats who might actual win an election.

[wyldwolf]

37. so, when a bunch of non-white guys who want to run the country organize...

...clue us in, ok?

I'd like to see if they are better qualified based on being non white and non male.

[leftstreet]

40. LOL I'll email you when we get a diverse representational form of govt

(If we're all still communicating with email by then.)

[madfloridian]

26. Here is one who supports getting out of Iraq.....I am checking.

CA-04: Charles Brown

"War in Iraq was unjustified. First we were told it was due to the imminent danger of weapons of mass destruction and links to Al Qaeda. With each passing day, new information emerges from Britain, France, Germany and even our own intelligence agencies, that these reasons were wrong, and that the current administration was told they were wrong before the invasion.

I spoke out against invading Iraq from the first day, based on my time in Saudi Arabia in the mid 90's working with intelligence programs monitoring Iraq. Now we are told the war is necessary for democracy and stability in the region, yet the people of Iraq and other countries in the region overwhelmingly say we should leave. This war is killing and maiming the men and women of our military, dividing us as a nation, running up a huge deficit, and harming our reputation as a nation of truth, justice and peace in the world. Our troops should be redeployed in a quick and orderly process, now."

[madfloridian]

35. Duck says we can not cut and run...we need to win.

I think like any other candidates for congress, we need to examine their stances.

http://duckforcongress.org/Iraq

"We cannot “cut and run”. We cannot set a timetable for withdraw. But all we have now is “we will leave when we are done.” We need more than that. We need a Roadmap to Victory for Iraq. We need a plan with steps showing how we will progress."

And this might have worked at the beginning, but not when everything is falling apart.

"We must engage the entire Muslim World with the following long term goals:
Promote literacy throughout the Middle East.
Promote Democracy, in whatever form is acceptable to them.
Achieve U.S. energy independence within 10 years.
Promote increased Fair Trade and economic development.
Promote public engagement between the U.S. leadership and the Muslim world."

And I disagree with this part.

"Increase troop strength in Iraq, with Allied cooperation, to a level which provide security for daily living."

[BrotherBuzz]

38. Good Grief! CA-04: Charles (Charlie) Brown is taking on Doolittle

Woohoo!

[tishaLA]

42. Good for them!

Go Dems with strong, proud voices!

[roguevalley]

43. lovely, great, wonderful. this makes me very happy and proud. what

will they call their 'veteren' group? SNICKER! That's right. They don't have any. :)

[Adelante]

46. They have one

In Texas - TX-17 - running against Chet Edwards.