Does it bother anyone else that the IAVA PAC supports a Republican?

[ProSense]

The Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America PAC supports a Republican for Congress in Texas:

http://www.vantaylor.com/la012606.asp

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/latestnews/index.php?id=5654

Is this group a part of the Democratic strategy to take the House back?

One issue voting, what about all the other issues?


I have mixed feelings and have not ruled out supporting them, but this disturbs me. I need to know more.

[acmejack]

1. They can support whoever they wish!

But not with any of my money! I am as patriotic as the next veteran, but I live in Texas & there is no shortage of good Democrats here.

[FrenchieCat]

28. But they don't support the 1 Republican running.....

because their members (all Democrats) have to agree and sign with the PAC's tenent. The 1 Republican didn't agree, and so he can't join.

There is a reason why they are "non-partisan". It has to do with effectiveness with the media. There are many voters who will more easily listen to the message coming from a "non-partisan" group than they will if they are told that the group is Democrat or Republican only. Part of the reason for this PAC is to respond to Rove's trick regarding Dems and National Security.

As they did here....
TROOPS BACK FROM IRAQ BEING DEPLOYED ON FRONT LINES OF SPIN WAR
http://www.startribune.com/357/story/240370.html

Hope we don't do a "Hackett" on this group.....(Hackett meaning dissiminate incorrect information about the PAC, and also attempt to dry up their funding by discouraging others to contribute).

[Bandit]

38. There must be some shortage or the GOP would not have

such control in Texas..:shrug:

[acmejack]

50. Quite witty!

[OzarkDem]

2. PACs have to be non-partisan n/t

[ProSense]

3. Yes, but most

PACs align themselves with more than one issue, which often precludes support of candidates who do not espouse those ideals.

Again, this is the problem with one-issue support, one-issue voting.

[NoPasaran]

4. PACs don't have to be non-partisan

Sometimes they are set up to explicitly support one party. Or they can focus on a particular issue and and contribute to candidates without regard to party.

[1932]

7. no they don't!

[Jai4WKC08]

40. Depends how they're structured

Some are organized under sections of the IRS code that require them to be non-partisan. Some are not.

[1932]

51. i think you're confusing the tax-free status of charitable organizations

with the rules governing PACs.

I'm very confident that there are no rules limiting PACS from partisan activities. Whereas, charities are not allowed to engage in politics at all, and giving money to one political party directly or indirectly is a sure sign that the charity is engaging in politics and it's not allowed.

[Rowdyboy]

5. The man promises to "support traditional families".....

Obviously, this is a veteran's group, not a Democratic group. I would donate to individual Democratic vets but wouldn't give a nickle to this PAC.

[Totally Committed]

6. It bothers me a bit, yes... but,

maybe he's just doing the Joe Leiberman thing and running in the Party that will get him elected in the state he represents, and then vote with his true Party? The only reason I can figure that Ole Joementum stays a Democrat is because CT probably wouldn't re-elect him as a Republican. Texas is not a very Democratic Party-friendly place these days, so maybe he's doing the practical (okay, cynical) thing to get elected. Works for Leiberman, doesn't it?

But, I have to say I am bothered by the non-partisan aspect of this PAC's charter. There is plenty of GOP help for veterans who want to run (and these veterans won't have to worry about needing the extra $$$ to fend off the "Swift-Boating" we all know will be done to their Democratic counterparts by the other side, either). It's the Democratic Party that needs this presense, and those veterans who need the help to get elected. I am willing to see how this plays out, however, before I turn off to it completely.

TC

[1932]

8. How do you square your theory about Joe with fact he was VP nominee?

Sadly, there is a home within the Democratic Party for politicians like Joe Lieberman. Lieberman's pro-corporate positions fit very comfortably within the party of Al Gore, Larry Summers, and Robert Rubin.

[Totally Committed]

16. He was the DLC choice...

pure and simple. Joementum=DLC/DINO.

He is one of the MAIN reasons the DLC can never be allowed to shove another of their loser/turkey candidates down our throats. Never again.

This may feel like a first to you (I know it does to me...), but I agree with you 100% when you say this: "Sadly, there is a home within the Democratic Party for politicians like Joe Lieberman."

TC

[1932]

52. He was Gore's choice,

Gore, Rubin, Summers -- there are (or were) a lot of people on that same page in the Democratic Party. Can't scapegoat the DLC for their presence. Democratic voters need to be clued into the cues that tell us whose interests they represent.

Some big ones: they don't want to change the way capital gains are taxed, they aren't critical of neoliberal foreign policy...

[NativeTexan]

9. They have served and lost buddies in Iraq AND the War on Terror....

.....they have earned the right to vote for whoever they wish or to support whoever they wish. Most have been saturated with pro-Republican propaganda, and some of those have turned that way, but that is all part of having a Ministry of Propoganda instead of a government!!

[ProSense]

10. This is from the Band of Brothers site

Snip...

Band of Brothers is a new political organization formed to assist Democratic veterans running for elected office. We’ve already identified more than 50 fighting men and women who need our help to challenge the current administration on its failed policies at home and abroad.

They are all strong, principled citizens who have had enough of the current direction of our country, and are ready to fight — as Democrats have always fought — for solutions to the problems of security, health care, and corporate and political corruption. Some have served in the current war in Iraq, some have served our country at other times. But each candidate supported by Band of Brothers must in turn support Our Values.


http://www.bandofbrothers2006.org/

Our Values
Our values are American values.

In 2006, Band of Brothers will 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.

more...

http://www.bandofbrothers2006.org/2005/12/our_values.php

[SteppingRazor]

11. This is a veteran's group, not a Democratic group...

as such, I have no problem with them supporting a Republican. They can support whomever they want. I disagree, of course -- there's no such thing as a decent politician with an (R) next to his/her name, as far as I'm concerned -- but they have every right to support whomever they wish :shrug:

[ProSense]

12. Noted. The impression was that it was a group supporting

Democrats. That I believe is the mission of the Band of Brothers. I wasn't challenging the group's right to support whomever, but trying to clarify that their support is for veterans of both parties.

[Adelante]

21. The group you mention here is ONLY supporting DEMOCRATS

IAVA PAC is a different PAC. It is for selected Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans who are running for Congress in 2006. It is non-partisan insofar as a Republican who would meet its endorsement requirements in writing COULD, not WOULD be selected. IAVAPAC is not backing every last veteran who is running. IAVA PAC certainly is not backing Van Taylor who meets none of its endorsement requirements.

[ProSense]

24. What are you talking about? The group in the OP is supporting Van Taylor

The Band of Brothers is not.

[ICantBelieve]

35. IAVAPAC IS NOT SUPPORTING VAN TAYLOR

Just to be clear. Didn't want to let that headline go without a response. Van Taylor does not in any way meet the second requirement of IAVAPAC which is policy based and can be found elsewhere on this thread.

[Jai4WKC08]

36. No, IAVA is NOT supporting Van Taylor

Period. Ain't happening.

Geez, read the IAVA website for cripes sakes. They will endorse only candidates who agree to specific positions on a set of issues. Van Taylor does not and will not receive their endorsement.

[Adelante]

41. Re your post #12 - correct

Except IAVA PAC is not supporting Van Taylor as you claim.

[Catchawave]

13. I support their mission, but

my Dem dollars only go to Dem Pacs or individual Dem campaigns.

[Fabio]

14. Yes. I know Van Taylor.

Have for many years, and I can tell you that any progressive would be very upset if they contributed, even indirectly, to his victory. As right wing a guy as you will ever meet, and a war monger.

[Adelante]

18. Ask him if IAVA PAC is supporting him

He would likely throw up at the very idea.

[ICantBelieve]

19. Exactly...

For your own safety, wear a raincoat when posing that question of Taylor!!!

[OzarkDem]

25. How do you all know so much?

about this right wing candidate and what his opinions and feelings are?

You seem to know him on a personal level, is he a friend of yours?

BTW, welcome to DU

[ICantBelieve]

27. Check the date on the linked story...

We know about Taylor because we checked out his website when the story was published several weeks ago. I think this is hitting the "news" again now because Paul Hackett just signed on. But IAVAPAC was introduced at the end of January and that's when this bullsh*t story was printed in the LA Times and a similar one was released by AP. It was harder to figure out then because the requirements had not yet been posted on the IAVAPAC site although they were clearly spelled out in the IAVAPAC press release which you'd think the press would have read and accurately reported on, but they're more into selling papers than telling the truth.

[Adelante]

44. That poster (not the OP) does a smear job in every thread

Yesterday that same poster told me I could get a job with Karl Rove :shrug:

Today it's connecting IAVA PAC with a right wing candidate. This is because Hackett joined IAVA PAC. Smear and smear is all the poster knows how to do. It's really pathetic.

We're all working for Karl Rove, see? :crazy:

[ICantBelieve]

15. ATTENTION: THIS IS AN URBAN MYTH

PLEASE take a look at Van Taylor's site. Van Taylor does NOT meet the requirements for IAVAPAC, which clearly state that one must be for changes in the way the Iraq War is being handled. Read the IAVAPAC requirements for support. There is no way that Van Taylor meets them.

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE look at the facts. IAVAPAC will not be supporting Van Taylor unless the man has a brain transplant. It's true that IAVAPAC does not discriminate based on party affiliation. However, they do require a very specific stance on Iraq.

Both articles that came out the day that IAVAPAC was announced were misleading and demonstrated terrible reporting. Please go to the IAVAPAC website and learn the truth.

Also, we should probably write to Michael Moore and ask him to take that particular article off of his website in favor of the press release made by IAVAPAC which contains the true requirements, (including that it's non partisan), without the bullsh*t spin made by certain reporters to attempt to create infighting amongst the Democrats.

[Adelante]

17. Both links lead to an LA Times article

Who is saying IAVA PAC is supporting Van Taylor? Not the LA Times article linked. Not even Van Taylor.

The OP is presenting an interpretation that is outright false.

ProSense, do you have any evidence that IAVA PAC is supporting Chet Edwards's opponent in Texas?

Let's have it.

[sybil]

20. .IAVAPAC endorsement criteria

How is there room for a Rep. candidate here? I don't see it.

IAVAPAC endorsement criteria http://iavapac.org/criterion.html :

IAVA PAC will establish an evaluation and endorsement protocol to determine which candidates are viable. This will include interviews with the candidates to determine their level of preparedness in terms of personal character, media, finance, and organizational capacities. The candidate’s military and professional achievements will be vetted and verified.

Not all candidates will desire, or qualify for, our endorsement. Candidates will be selected after a formal process, with the following criteria being the key qualifications for endorsement:

-- Candidates must be Veterans of the wars in Iraq and/or Afghanistan, having qualified for the Iraq or Afghanistan campaign medal or qualified for the Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal

-- Candidates must openly submit their DD-214(discharge papers) for review in order to ensure
their authenticity

-- Candidates will undergo a formal review process by the PAC and the Advisory Board to include personal interviews

-- 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.

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

[Donna Zen]

22. From Taylor's website:

Van Taylor, a Texas businessman vying to unseat Rep. Chet Edwards (D-Texas), is the sole Republican Iraq war veteran running in 2006, but he will not seek the IAVA PAC endorsement, according to a campaign aide.

Note: to get the support of IAVA PAC requires vetting that includes a personal interview. What you are all worried about is never in a million years going to happen. Never.

[ArkySue]

23. Learn about IAVAPAC here:

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

Here is the Endorsement criteria:
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.

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

And lastly: IAVA PAC will not consider party affiliation in the endorsement process.

It should be country before party, always, always, always!

[ProSense]

26. Link on their site to news stories

Read them here:

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


"Iraq Vets Storm the Campaign Trail" - Newhouse Newspapers

"They Need To Fear Us" - Pasadena Weekly

IAVA PAC Launch - United Press International

IAVA PAC Launch - Associated Press

IAVA PAC Launch - Los Angeles Times


Add: I could be wrong, but I'm going by the above.

[ICantBelieve]

29. IAVAPAC Not Supporting Taylor...

Most of the Brownstein story is factually correct. But he threw in some things about the Chet Edwards district that just aren't true. IAVAPAC will not be supporting Van Taylor. Van Taylor's own site says so.

methinks if you're still refusing to admit that you've made a mistake (the same one I made when IAVAPAC was first introduced several weeks ago), then you're really not interested in the truth.

I will write to IAVAPAC and suggest they get the link to the LA Times and AP stories off their site.

[ProSense]

30. Thank you.

It's very misleading to have these links on their site if they don't support a candidate. And please don't question my interest in the truth.

[ICantBelieve]

34. I've fired off an email...

I think they should pull those links. The articles are misleading. The AP article, in fact, contains some outright untruths about IAVAPAC requirements. I'm assuming that they're posted there because OVERALL they give a decent impression of IAVAPAC. I agree, however, that the damage they do is devastating.

There is enough information posted on this thread and on IAVAPAC's site to dispell any concerns people have with IAVAPAC's potentially supporting a right wing nutcase. Might IAVAPAC support a Republican who met their requirements? Sure, if there ever was one. Just like I'd actually vote for a Republican if I ever found one I agreed with. I'm not holding my breath for either to occur.

[FrenchieCat]

33. What we don't want to is to "Hackett" this PAC

by disseminating false information and/or discouraging folks from donating. That would hurt the cause to win back the house in 2006....in a long run!

I hope all of those military families in Red States who vote will contribute to this PAC which is really only supporting Democrats although they are "open" (if those who want to join agree with something that Repugs wouldn't agree with anyway) for any Iraqi/Afghanistan Veteran to join...making them non partisan and therefore much more potent to deal with Rove 2006 election dirty tricks and the Media's song that Dems are soft on National Defense and have no plan.

They are here for us.....and General Wes Clark is leading the charge!

The PAC is Strategically set up to fight for a Democratic win in 2006!

TROOPS BACK FROM IRAQ BEING DEPLOYED ON FRONT LINES OF SPIN WAR
http://www.startribune.com/357/story/240370.html

[Donna Zen]

31. Back to the original OP

You stated that they are supporting a republican just because the article mentions that there is a republican Iraqi vet running. But...BUT...they are not supporting that republican or any republican. snip...

The new PAC's policy agenda — which Soltz said candidates must endorse to obtain its support — makes it unlikely it would support many, if any, Republicans.

This PAC is run by anti-war vets from Iraq and Afghanistan. To gain support one must not only met the criteria...which are anti-bush, but also pass through a personal interview. Soltz is absolutely correct: they will not be supporting republicans. What they will be doing is exactly what I'd hoped someone would do: get these folks (all Democrats) some help in navigating the Democratic machine. Bout time!

[ProSense]

32. Back to their web site: Remove the misleading links. n/t

[Tom Rinaldo]

37. How can you in good conscience call for removing misleading links?

When you refused to remove a misleading OP title? All you would have had to do is rephrase your concern accurately, but you obviously wanted the title to claim something that the facts refute. If you have a valid point to make, fine make it. But don't justify being misleading yourself because you think someone else is.

Is this all really about about Hackett joining this PAC?

[ProSense]

42. The OP isn't misleading, it's based on the information currently

posted on their web site. Posters here said the article are misleading.

[Jai4WKC08]

39. But the article isn't misleading

It merely mentions that Taylor is an Iraqi vet running for Congress. True statement.
It also specifically states that IAVA's "pedigree and agenda lean strongly toward Democrats." Also true.

In the greater scheme of things, there are a whole lot of reasons it's advantageous for IAVA to advertise itself as non-partisan. If that turns off a certain segment of DU, do you really think that means anything to the average voter and potential contributer?

For once, can't Democrats be a little bit smart about how we market our message?

[ProSense]

43. OK. I will request that this thread be deleted. n/t

[Adelante]

45. Thank you, ProSense

Very decent of you. :hi:

[CarolNYC]

46. Yeah, I don't see where in the article....

it says that the PAC is supporting this guy....

[ICantBelieve]

48. That article doesn't

but the AP article essentially does. IAVAPAC should pull it off their site IMO. The AP article also incorrectly states the Iraq position required.

[FrenchieCat]

47. Nope.....

When it comes to Election Strategy....Democrats stink like doo-doo.

We hear what Rove is announcing (cause it's been advertised) but Democrats like to act like he didn't say he and his Hack/Operatives/Media Minions said they would do...which is to attempt to call Dems "soft on defense" and make Iraq become "it's a wonderful world".

We've already got the Republican Noise Machine out there attempting to destroy our Democratic Vets by calling them One-Issue candidates. Democrats, as usual, are helping out big time....by repeating this mantra right here, as though the 9 Democratic Vets (Iraq/Afghanistan only - There's 60 Vets from all wars running) running are going to hurt the Democratic party...when the opposite is true.

We never learn shit, no matter how much the last defeat hurts, it appears! :shrug:

[sybil]

49. Yep Z!

I laughed out loud when I read the IAVAPAC site the first time becuz clearly with that criteria for endorsement even a moderate Republican would not forfeit the advantages of any funding/support he might get from Republican power players by signing on with IAVA.

And by restricting it to vets of Iraq/Afghanistan it pretty much serves current FP issues.

Brilliant! And yes, it's about time.