Is IAVA Pac part of the Third Way Initiative? No party affiliation...

[madfloridian]

I am curious on this, not trying to start anything. When I heard Paul Hackett was joining them, and Wes Clark an advisor, I started reading there. I am all for national security, but I just like to know that the people running are for other things as well...not just the military.

Once these guys run for Congress...they need to have stands on other issues as well. Their website says they do not pay attention to party affiliation. That bothers me.

On the About page, they quote only the Third Way. They say we can not have partisanship.

http://www.iavapac.org/about.html

"Founded and supported by Veterans and seasoned campaign operatives, IAVA PAC views defense policy as an American priority, not a Democratic or Republican partisan issue. "

(What about other issues, domestic ones? They apparently do not even ask about them. I fear we might have too many in Congress with only the national security view put forth by the Third Way, which they quote.)

Third Way Releases Groundbreaking Report: The Politics of Polarization
http://www.third-way.com/news/pop.htm


And they do not care what party. Right now that bothers me. If one of the advisors might be running for president as a Democrat, yes, this bothers me.

http://www.iavapac.org/criterion.html

"IAVA PAC will not consider party affiliation in the endorsement process."

I am all for national security, but I am not all for making it the only thing. If we support people who are not asked to put forth their views on domestic issues, we just might end up with a bunch of Republican vets in congress as well.

[Adelante]

1. It is an outgrowth of "Operation Truth"

From the Kerry anti-swiftboating.

[madfloridian]

2. Well, according to Ed Schultz, I am being a bad Democrat for questioning..

veterans. I am getting a sick feeling inside.

[high density]

3. Well the Republicans are corrupt mofos...

and I'm not sure if any Republicans would be able to satisfy their criteria for nomination anyway. That said, I think Operation Truth had a much broader scope and was more accessible to non-military folks like me than this new organization is.

[madfloridian]

4. Yes, I felt more comfortable with Operation Truth.

We donated to it, and got email updates. These issues are too narrow, and the risk of getting not so good candidates, Republican lite, is too great.

[FreedomAngel82]

5. I think it depends on

how the republican views Iraq. Some are for it and some are against it I'm sure but still share republican views on other issues. This can be a common ground issue.

[madfloridian]

6. Well, my uncle and brother are retired military....

one of them a naval commander. They would agree on every issue listed by IAVA Pac...totally.

However, they also think we have a right to spread Democracy wherever we wish. They believe that the poor should not be poor, it is their own fault. They hate unions, they despise Democrats...and they believe we should turn Medicare and Social Security over to private companies...they believe it would be more efficient. They are staunch Republicans.

That is why I am having so much trouble with this. They would agree on military things...but that is all.

Military things are all that are listed at the PAC.

[ulysses]

7. seems like a one-trick pony

beyond which anything might go. I don't know if it's a third way thing, or just centered on specific military service. I'd beware.

[madfloridian]

8. A list of the required issues, what they must sign...

is a list Republicans would sign as well, a point I made in a post above. It is other things that distinguish Democrats and Republicans, liberals and extreme conservatives. Their view on social programs, womens' rights, caring for the poor and needy, healthcare as a national issues.

These seem to address none of those issues, and that truly worries me. We could be getting some very right wing people elected who love the military, want the best for them, yet brush off the poor, the needy, women, and gays.

Here are the issues their candidates must sign on to:

Candidates must sign an endorsement of the PAC’s list of policy objectives, which are:

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.

[Donna Zen]

9. And a personal interview

Anyone applying to join will be interviewed. Just as Paul Wellstone was much more than a college professor, so to, these candidates can and should know more than just how to shine boots. IIRC, DaveNYC from Kos is involved with this group, and I would hardly call him a wishy-washy third-way Dem. The third way lives in DC and doesn't need a PAC; they have big money.

The idea is two-fold: 1) we are tryin to turn around a false meme that has been cultivated for over 30 years, that Democrats are not able or interested in national security 2) we are looking for new faces who can carry the torch. All of these people will not be elected, but some will prove to be exactly the type of liberal candidate who can excite the voters. Yes, the net may be spread wide, but without a wide net how can we expect to bring in the best.

These candidates will be vetted, and encouraged. They have plenty of catching up to do if they are to be successful. I wish them well, because I wish our country well. We are way beyond small talk...we are losing our Constitution to pigs. Politics as usual, or politics of inbreeding, will not turn this tide.

If there are a few good women and men who swore to protect the Constitution and now want to prove good to their word, why would I question an organization that wants to help.

[xchrom]

10. i can stand with them for now...

one of their goals -- and certainly one of mine -- is to stop what happened to john kerry, max cleland, etc.

what happened to max cleland especially grips me -- because the people of his state sent that tapeworm slimeball saxby chambliss in his place partly as the result of an exceedingly ugly campaign.

now, for my money, every democratic party heavy SHOULD have shown up in clelands defence and punded chambliss until he gave those tactics up -- but the dems didn't do it.

so perhaps this organization will -- i guess in this case, my motto is: remember max cleland!

[Kolesar]

11. Like Planned Parenthood and the Sierra Club ... eom

[1932]

12. FDR had best foreign policy ever, and it was totally partisan:

Defeat fascism, support the working person, and do not become imperial nihilists. It was Democratic at its core.

Had Keynes's vision for World Bank prevailed at Bretton Woods, I believe we'd be living in a very different world. And I think had FDR survived WW2, Keynes's vision might have prevailed.

Democrats need a partisan foreign policy not build on fear, agression, "soft" imperialism, nihilism and market fundamentalism, but one built on New Deal principles.