Blog For Arizona

Fleming's bill gives veterans in-state tuition status

by David Safier
Rep. Pat Fleming (D, LD-25), who has long standing ties to military families and veterans, sponsored a bill that provides in-state tuition for Arizona veterans. It passed the House 48-1.

House Bill 2495 provides in-state student status for tuition purposes at any public university or community college in Arizona for a veteran who was honorably discharged while serving at a military installation in Arizona.
 
“I am incredibly honored to sponsor a bill that supports Arizona’s brave men and women and their families,” Fleming said. “As a representative of District 25, which has a large military population from nearby Fort Huachuca, I recognize that our military men and women have risked their lives for our freedom. We have a sacred duty to support our veterans in these times of sacrifice.”
 
The bill passed the House with a bipartisan vote of 48-1, with 11 not voting.
 
Fleming is the daughter of military parents, the wife of a U.S. Air Force veteran, the aunt of a U.S. Navy officer and a grandmother of an Army soldier who fought in Iraq.
 
“Apart from my immediate military family, as a United States citizen and an Arizonan, I feel privileged and proud to see this legislation succeed because I know the importance of getting a quality and affordable education for military families,” Fleming said. “I want to thank all of my colleagues for voting for this important bill and I hope to see continued support as it goes through the legislative process.”

Fleming works to pass Military Family Relief Fund

by David Safier
A week ago, Jeff Latas posted about the importance of SB1176, the Military Relief Fund legislation. Now Rep. Pat Fleming (D-Sierra Vista), a member of the House Military Affairs and Public Safety Committee, has a letter to the editor in the Sierra Vista Herald discussing the bill and asking for active support of its passage.

My fellow lawmakers and I came together last week to call attention to an important piece of legislation that supports our troops and their families.

Senate Bill 1176 addresses the red tape around Arizona’s Military Family Relief Fund that prevents troops and their families from receiving much deserved benefits.

The Arizona Military Family Relief Fund is administered by the Department of Veterans Services and was established in 2007 for the purpose of helping military families who suffer from the hardships presented when a loved one is injured or killed while serving our country. 

Many generous individuals and businesses have donated to the fund over the past two years (you can still contribute at www.azmfrf.gov). Nearly $1.1 million is available to support Arizona’s military families who have sacrificed for us, but sadly, to date, only $20,000 has been distributed. Eligibility rules for the fund remain too stringent.

For example, some Arizona families have been ruled ineligible because the rules require that a service member be deployed from an Arizona military base. While the intention was to help Arizonans who were serving, it has unfortunately excluded residents who were deployed from non-Arizona bases.

Senate Bill 1176 will remedy this problem, but no action has been taken on the bill. It is difficult to understand why this simple fix has not been passed. Despite our current budget crisis, helping these service members and their families will cost the state nothing.  A similar effort for reform failed last year. This week I was joined by veterans and my colleagues who stood together and said, “the time for waiting has ended.”

We are calling on the governor and the Legislature to deliver reform for the Military Family Relief Fund before the end of the legislative session.

Our men and women are still fighting two wars overseas, and when they return to Arizona, I would like to see our service members in need given the assistance they deserve.

Please call your legislator (find them at www.azleg.gov) and tell them to support passage of Senate Bill 1176. Our troops do not deserve to wait until next year.

Rep. Pat Fleming, D-Sierra Vista

A Matter of Honor - Taking Care of Veterans

by John Adams

The rest of the country is finally learning what Arizonans have known for 26 years: John McCain can’t be trusted.

At the September 26 Presidential Debate, McCain claimed, “The veterans know I’ll take care of them.” Americans stand together in honoring John McCain as a veteran himself, but his negligent record in the US Senate reveals that McCain doesn’t stand with veterans. In fact, McCain’s legislative record of taking care of veterans is abysmal. The non-partisan Disabled American Veterans (DAV) gives McCain a 20% rating of his performance on veterans’ issues in the Senate (Barack Obama earns a DAV score of 80%...here's the DAV website to check the details for yourself:  http://capwiz.com/dav/keyvotes.xc/?lvl=C).

What can veterans expect from would-be President McCain? His Senate record displays his lack of trustworthiness.

Barack Obama, on the other hand, has consistently and powerfully represented veterans – both as an Illinois legislator as well as United States Senator. As evidenced by his legislative record, Obama keeps faith with our veterans.

Here are just a few of the candidates’ votes on key veterans’ issues, contrasting the two candidates’ trustworthiness on veterans’ issues:

- Obama was one of 57 co-sponsors (along with Joe Biden) of the Webb GI Bill, signed into law this past June 30. In contrast, McCain not only failed to support the bill, claiming that it was too generous; he didn’t even show up in the Senate to vote on it.

- Obama introduced a bill in April 2007 to provide housing for low-income veterans (Homes for Heroes Act). Again, McCain didn’t show up for the vote. This version of the Homes for Heroes Act died, though a similar follow-up bill fortunately awaits a new vote in the Senate.

- In 2006, Obama voted for two amendments to increase funds for veterans’ medical care by $1.5 billion and expand funding for Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) outpatient treatment by $450 million. McCain voted no on both; the veterans’ medical care amendment died; the outpatient treatment amendment passed.

- In 2005, Obama voted for an amendment to increase funding for veterans medical care by $2.8 billion in 2006, and setting aside $10 million for veterans counseling services. Again, McCain voted no; this amendment died.

McCain’s claims that he’ll take care of veterans are contradicted by his record as a Senator. We need a President who will honor our veterans, not someone who glibly double-talks on the campaign trail.

Those who risk their lives to defend our country deserve Americans’ support when they come home. Barack Obama’s record shows that he is someone who consistently supports veterans’ issues, but most important, Obama has kept a bond of trust with veterans to honor their service.

And after all, isn’t trust that the most important criterion for us to consider as we select our next President?

Keeping Faith With the American People: Ending the War in Iraq

by John Adams

Critical to Democratic prospects in November, as well as to our country’s future, is keeping the commitment to the American people to end the war in Iraq. Yet there exist so-called “democratic realists” (some of whom are also Democrats, cousins of the “neoconservatives”…you know, those guys who wanted to “liberate” Iraq and “democratize” the broader Middle East) who consider Iraq their base for future mischief in the region, continue to enjoy billions of dollars in contractual profits, and want to occupy Iraq indefinitely. Although Barack Obama has always forthrightly opposed invading and occupying Iraq, we must not allow the “realists” to undercut his determination to end the war.  He will keep the promise to the American people, but we need to have Barack's back.

And we who have a voice here at home, in this critical election, need to bring our brave troops home safely and now.  We need to honor their sacrifices. 

We need to have our troops' backs.

Tacking to the center on Iraq is analogous to scuttling the ship.

Fortunately, the recently completed draft Democratic Party Platform’s plank on Iraq reflects Obama’s determination to end the war rather than the so-called realists’ – and John McCain’s -- determination to remain. In the paragraph entitiled “Ending the War in Iraq," the Platform calls for:

• “bring(ing) the Iraq war to a responsible end.”
• “re-center(ing) American foreign policy by responsibly redeploying our combat forces from Iraq and refocusing them on urgent missions.”
• “giv(ing) our military a new mission: ending this war and giving Iraq back to its people.”
• “remov(ing) our combat brigades at the pace of one to two per month and expect(ing) to complete redeployment within 16 months.”
• “keep(ing) a residual force in Iraq to perform specific missions: targeting terrorists; protecting our embassy and civil personnel; and advising and supporting Iraq’s Security Forces, provided the Iraqis make political progress.”
• "mak(ing) clear that we seek no permanent bases in Iraq."

Of course, there’s much more in the Platform…and more that we all need to focus upon, both analytically and with energetic political advocacy.  But this represents a solid plank on the war in Iraq.

And we must remember that no matter how sweet the Platform, only the ultimate policy results count.

We invaded and continue to occupy Iraq based on false pretenses. We took our eyes off Al Qaeda, and instead attacked a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 (have we forgotten the Iraq WMD sham?)

Those who wanted to invade Iraq in the first place have not lost their dream of having American troops based in Iraq -- accompainied by multi-billion dollar sweet deal contracts.

How many brave American lives must be lost in a war which makes America less safe?

How many more billions must be wasted in Iraq while our own economy suffers?

How many more young lives will be shattered fighting a war that should never have been fought?

If we want to make our country more prosperous and the world safer, we must:

• Bolster our Party’s stated determination to end the war in Iraq.
• Elect Barack Obama in November, giving him a clear mandate to end the war.
• Following the election, guard against the machinations of the so-called foreign policy and national security realists as they do whatever they can to maintain our occupation of Iraq indefinitely.

Nothing is more important to American security and prosperity than ending the nightmarish misadventure in Iraq.

A Meeting with our Future Commander-in-Chief

by John Adams

Last Wednesday, June 18, in Washington, I had the privilege of joining a group of thirty-seven retired generals and admirals in a meeting with Senator Barack Obama, to discuss national security issues. 

I entered the meeting with Hope, believing with all my heart that Barack Obama can bring the change our country needs, to restore our safety and prosperity.  I left the meeting with Fulfillment, knowing that this is a leader who is ready to be our Commander-in-Chief today.

A small but revealing digression...as our group waited for our meeting to start, greeting each other, including (for me) some whom I hadn't seen for years (previous assignments in the Middle East, the Balkans, the Pentagon), speaking of why we were together, suddenly we recognized -- literally in our midst -- the voice we've all come to know, that of Barack Obama.  The room hushed immediately.  Barack told us he was running about fifteen minutes late, and he wanted to let us know that he regretted the delay, but we'd get down to business soon.  He could have sent someone to tell us, of course, but that's not his style.  Instead, he told us himself. 

The mark of a leader who respects others...

As the outlines of the meeting have been reported in the press, I'll take the liberty of commenting on the atmospherics within the bounds of discretion, as the points of our discussion must remain "closed-door."

Senator Obama opened the meeting with a heartfelt thanks to all of us -- and to those who wear the uniform of the United States of America -- for our service.  He asked us not to hold back in the discussion on national security issues -- encouraging us always to do the right thing, to speak our minds with absolute candor.  His demeanor was calm, relaxed, purposeful, and completely businesslike. 

Throughout the meeting, he genuinely listened -- and responded appropriately to -- our concerns.  His tone of urgency and determination to address the serious issues facing our country inspired all of us to voice our concerns in the same spirit.  And Barack's encouragement -- to speak our minds honestly and directly -- found success.  No one held back. 

And though Senator Obama was clearly in charge of the meeting (setting the broad topics, responding thoughtfully and knowledgably to our observations), he listened to our group far longer than he spoke to us. 

The mark of a leader who values counsel...

Senator Barack Obama is both brilliant and wise.  Vitally important for a Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States of America, he knows how to lead, and how to call professionals to duty in service to our Constitution.  He knows the national security issues facing our country internationally -- and domestically.  He understands the process by which our national security strategy should be derived -- and he also understands how the process can go off the rails. 

Most important for Americans who trust in his leadership and wisdom, he is already tackling national security issues with both urgency and determination...as a Senator and as our Party's standard bearer now, but looking forward to the challenges he'll face in office.  Barack Obama leans forward.

The mark of a leader with his priorities straight...

We've all seen how masterfully Barack has run the most successful primary campaign in recent memory, harnessing the energy of tens of millions of Americans, a host of committted volunteers, as well as a skilled professional staff, to build a movement that overcame all the odds to win.  Now we can see he has hit the ground running in the general election campaign. 

Among other things, I took away from our meeting last Wednesday that Barack Obama feels a solemn duty to Americans to restore our national security after eight years of the Bush Administration's disregard for our safety and prosperity.  As Barack quotes Martin Luther King, this movement is about "the fierce urgency of now"...

The mark of a leader who serves the American people...

And you can believe -- on national security as on all the other urgent issues crying out for leadership and competence -- President Barack Obama will hit the ground running in January.

The Cost of a Stealth Bomber

by David Safier

(TASL) A short item in Friday's Star:

"The Air Force on Thursday said the first crash of a B-2 stealth bomber was caused by moisture in sensors and estimated the loss of the aircraft at $1.4 billion."

Sure, airplanes crash. Sure, we need our high tech bombers. But this little item took my breath away.

Moisture in the sensors? One of the most sophisticated aircrafts in the world went down because of moisture in its sensors? A plane that has to fly in all kinds of weather conditions just shouldn't be that sensitive to moisture. And it turns out, it's not.

"The crash probably could have been avoided if knowledge of a technique to evaporate the moisture had been disseminated throughout the B-2 program."

An avoidable crash, if only people were more diligent about getting information out to those who need it.

The B-2 costs $1.4 billion. Billion, with a "B." If a single aircraft costs that kind of money, and we can afford to build a whole bunch of them and fly them and have them crash and burn on occasion, that tells me we're a nation that can come up with the cash if we think something is important enough.

I think education is important enough. And health care. And Social Security. Somehow, no one talks about the cost of B-2 bombers bankrupting our nation, but when it comes to social programs . . .

Conservatives get a thrill out of screaming, "Don't throw money at education!" Yet that stealth bomber was $1.4 billion hurtling to the ground, with nothing to show for it but twisted metal, and no one said a word.

This kind of stuff makes me crazy.

Politics, Profit, and Personal Loss

by Jeff Latas

My life has changed over that last ten months and the meaning of Memorial Day changed with it. There have been some comments on one of the later post here on BFA about politicizing Memorial Day, what is fair and what is objectionable when a political point of view references our troops, our fallen warriors, and our veterans. You might be interested in an essay on the Huffington Post, by a fellow member of Gold Star Families Speak Out. 

As it is for other Gold Star family members, today is now very sacred for me.

I was brought up in a family of patriots. My grandmother was widowed at the age of 36, and left to raise seven children. During World War II, my father, all four of his brothers, and one of his sisters served in the Navy. My grandmother and my remaining aunt went to work as riveters at Boeing. My Uncle Glenn was severely wounded at Pearl Harbor and was later killed at the Boeing factory by a piece of metal that pierced his heart. He left a widow and six small children. My mother’s only brother was a Marine in the Pacific. I remember him tell me about storming a beach and saving one of his wounded comrades. All my uncles and aunts have now passed and will be remembered. I spent nearly 21 years in the USAF, serving five tours in the Middle East. Dozens of my friends died in aircraft accidents and in combat. And still, the meaning of Memorial Day did not become clear until this year.

Today, I now think about those I knew, personal friends and family, who gave everything for their country. The first person I knew that died was Bill Wilhelm. He and I were both student pilots, both flying solo fights that day when he crashed in the final turn before landing his T-38. The T-38 was a pleasure to fly, but is notorious in this final phase of flight for unnoticed high sink rates. This situation becomes unrecoverable because once it’s noticed, it’s impossible to eject safely. On my solo flight that day, I flew directly over the fresh flaming crash site where my friend was killed.

Today I will also think about two friends who hit the side of a mountain doing Terrain Following Radar (TFR) training at night in the F-111. I knew another two, Will Morel and Jeff "Flounder" Fahnlander, died nearly twenty years later in the F-15E doing the same in Idaho.  One of my initial classmates in the F-111 died on the eve of Desert Storm flying an EF-111, at night. One of my crewmates during Operation Southern Watch and a very special friend, Dennis White, was killed when his pilot got disoriented during a night air-to-air training mission in 1994. Their aircraft, pointing nearly straight down with their instruments frozen and unable to correctly figure out which way was up and down on that very dark night, punched out of their F-15E at supersonic speed. The pilot lived with two broken legs, two dislocated shoulders and blinded by the terrific wind blast. Dennis was nearly cut in two by his parachute straps during the deployment of his chute at this speed. He was found four days later floating in the Atlantic. At the time I was newly assigned to the Pentagon, and Salette and I were able to attend his funeral at Arlington and weep with his wife and two young daughters.

  On 30 September 1990, I remember showing up to the deployed squadron location in Thumrait, Oman, and finding that two of my friends had crashed. Peter Hook was a good and natural leader and his crewmate, Weapon System Operator (WSO) James 'Boo Boo' Poulet were killed on a low-level training mission in the Omani desert. Just a few months before their deaths, Boo Boo and I had a massive fuel leak while air-to-air fueling over the coast of North Carolina. The pressure build-up blew the seal of our newly built F-15E and we were losing nearly 5000 gallons an hour. We landed with only drops of fuel in our tanks. He was good person. Salette and I attended separate memorial services for these two; she in North Carolina with Pete Hook’s widow and children, and I in Oman.

  Maj. Tom "Teek" Koritz was a pilot turned flight surgeon who I met while in-processing to our base in North Carolina. Tom wanted to be one of the rare flight surgeons that actually got to pilot an aircraft, too. After nearly a year of medical work, he was allowed to go through the F-15E school to become a pilot/flight surgeon. He made a deal with the DoD to wave his doctor duties for two years, while becoming proficient in the airplane. The second night of Desert Strom, while dodging anti-aircraft fire, he collided with the ground just north of Kuwait/Iraq boarder, killing both himself and his WSO, Don Holland. The hospital at Seymour Johnson AFB is named after Teak. I can go on for a long time about those I knew who gave their lives. Even in the nearly six years since my retirement, I know two JetBlue pilots who died in Guard and Reserve flying.

To date, 4,082 American service members have died in Iraq. This does not include those like Sgt. Merlin German who died a year after being wounded, because you’re not counted as a casualty of this occupation if you die after the MedEvac flight takes off out of Iraq. Only recently have we been able to legally view photos of the caskets of our returning heroes. You see, the currently administration took the political opportunity to ban photographs detrimental to their cause and journalists lost their jobs for publishing any such photos. The politics of this administration, which sent these brave Americans to their deaths for reasons that have be proven untrue, are dishonorable. They deserve their due criticism, even on this most sacred day and maybe even more so.

In 1999 a barrel of oil was $18. In 2002, Halliburton stock was selling at $6 per share. Now oil is $132 a barrel and HAL is $47 per share, and I didn’t even mention the thousands of percent increase in no-bid contracts they now have. So some of you worry about politicization of Memorial Day, but every day our sons and daughters die to keep the profits flowing into the pockets of the rich. And some of that money we spend to fill our tanks is going into the hands of Saudis who are funding Al Qaeda. It’s the perfect perpetual war.   

George W. Bush likes to stand in front of our soldiers, but he refuses to stand behind them. He has vowed to veto the new GI Bill, even though 75 senators voted for it. While serving in the Texas Air National Guard as a non-volunteer for combat duty, Bush went AWOL and was sent to a USAF base in Denver for punishment. This combat volunteer found it revolting to watch him land on a US Navy carrier more than five years ago and declare victory and “Mission Accomplished.”

Perhaps even more revolting is the commercialization of this very sacred day.

Go ask Jim Click what’s important on Memorial Day, if he doesn’t say selling cars, he’s a liar. Just look at the ads in the Star or you can see his priorities on his web site.

I dare say what is important about this day is what is important to big business. The oil executive’s motto every Memorial Day seems to be “Fill up and drive and happy driving all summer long.” Don’t worry about our oil situation, we’ll keep our brave fighting for our oil as long as we can afford, and remember, they are dying for you to have those long car trips so don’t forget them this day. Wal-Mart can hardly wait to sell you cheap imported grills and hot dogs this day. Circuit City and Best Buy compete to give you a great: no interest until 2011 if you buy on this sacred day.

 

When most folks are in the pool or cooking up a great barbeque, buying cars or wide screen TVs, celebrating their day off and wishing to have more days off, I’ll be at my son’s grave remembering his birth, his life, and his death.

For those who think this is political, it’s not. It’s personal.

Heads Should Roll

By Jeff Latas

One of the units of the 82nd Airborne returned back to Fort Bragg earlier this month. Most of us would expect them to receive a hero’s welcome back to their base in North Carolina after a 15 month deployment. Of the 31 soldiers, 20 had been involved in Improvised Explosive Devise (IED) detonations near or on their vehicles as they convoyed to and from their very remote outpost. they endured months with out bathing on several occasions and lived on rations while under constant attack only a few miles from the Pakistan border. What they returned to was disgraceful.

Before I continue on the plight of this unit, I have to share my own experience as a father of a soldier who experienced unacceptable conditions, both in theater and when he returned home to Walter Reed.

Jesse, my son, deployed to Iraq in August 2005. He arrived at Camp Anaconda, an airbase just north of Baghdad known as Balad. After being there for about a month, we started to hear of the conditions he was experiencing.

Jesse was a truck driver, although he spent most of his time on the convoys as a guard. The infamous Kellogg Brown and Root (KBR) contracted most of the driving duties. These civilian drivers make six-figure incomes, compared to the trained soldier drivers like my son who made less than $19,000 per year.

Since Jesse was assigned out of his reserve unit to supplement another unit, he needed to have new patches sewn on his uniform. The civilian contractors charged him $52 to sew on two patches.

Jesse lived in a converted shipping container. Internet access was available from--you guessed it--civilian contractors, and it cost $1,200 per shipping container for hookup, and $300 per month for service.

I was pushed into action when I heard he had no water to shower on many occasions even though the contracted Burger King and Pizza Hut had plenty of buns and pizza crust, for which my son risked his life hauling across the hostile sands of Iraq.

I contacted Senators McCain and Kyl and Congressman Kolbe. One month later, I actually received a call from a McCain staffer who was a reserve officer. He told me he would look into this problem. Unfortunately, my son relapsed with childhood leukemia shortly after this.

After being medically evacuated through Germany with 52 severely wounded fellow soldiers who came under attack the day he was diagnosed with his relapse, he returned to Walter Reed. This was about 17 months before the Washington Post broke the story of the appalling conditions our returning wounded veterans had to put up with in this once prestigious facility.

I arrived one day after Jesse had been admitted to Walter Reed. I entered an incredibly overcrowded facility, full of soldiers not much older than high school students who were missing arms and legs, were blind, or had head injures. It was a mass of recovering wounded, and it was blatantly obvious there was something wrong.

Katrina had just destroyed New Orleans and the lack of competent government management was showing up in our military medical operations just like it was in FEMA.

I went directly to my son’s room in the cancer ward. My son had no white blood cells, so he required a sterile environment; however, the conditions in his room were anything but clean. Bloody bandages were on the floor of his room, a greasy dust similar to that you would see in an old diner exhaust fan covered the top of shelves and moldings. The room was so hot from a broken thermostat that the window had to remain open, allowing dust and mold from the outside to contaminate my son’s compromised immune system.

This was nearly three years ago and now I hear another father’s story, which is only two weeks old.

I ask you all to watch the YouTube video and remind you this is not an isolated situation:

Three years ago, I contacted our Congressional delegation with only one reply from Sen. John McCain’s staff. Obviously he chose to stick with the incompetence of the Bush administration and avoid correcting any discrepancies in living conditions of returning military members.

Now, I will contact our new Congress member, Rep. Gabby Giffords, to see if she can influence and rectify the appalling conditions recorded on this video. She sits on the House Armed Services Committee (HASC), a powerful and appropriate committee to address why this is allowed to continue.

Questions I want to know is when Major General David Rodriguez, Commanding Officer of the 82nd Airborne, will face the HASC to explain why he should keep his job.

Why did the commanding officers of this unit allow those men into a facility in such conditions and why are they not being replaced? Where does the allocated money for maintaining and replacing these facilities go? Here is the chain of command that is responsible for this disgusting treatment of our returning warriors. Why should any of them keep their jobs?

If you are in Arizona CD-8, join me with your own question to Rep Giffords.

Harry Mitchell sits on the Veterans Affairs committee and is our representative from Arizona CD-05. He should also be questioned on why these conditions exist. He was the freshman Congressional member who led the Congressional inquiry into the Walter Reed investigation, and Fort Bragg should be next.

Sen McCain and Kyl both have been asleep the wheel for the last seven years and have shown their incompetence to correct the blunders on how we treat our returning veterans. Why should they keep their jobs or be promoted to a higher elected position?

Giffords and Mitchell: The New Center? Let's Hope Not... UPDATED!

NATIONAL JOURNAL: "The New Center"

National Journal is getting a lot of ink locally (e.g., here and here) due to their ranking the ideology of many of 2006's frosh congresscritters, including Arizona's Gabby Giffords and Harry Mitchell, smack dab near the center of the political spectrum.

When you take a closer look at the actual votes on which National Journal based their ratings, however, what they actually seem to be measuring is mostly how two key issues - Iraq and immigration - are causing some Democrats to throw out their principles in the name of expediency and poorly-judged pragmatism.

Note: The headings stand for Economy, Social,  and Foreign policy.

A closer analysis of the fairly small sample of bills upon which the rankings are based indicates that in most respects Giffords and Mitchell both generally hew closely to the party line on most issues other than immigration and Iraq. The moderate nature of both candidates is largely a feature of their shared (and mistaken, in my view) hands-off approach to the war in Iraq, and their perceived need to armor themselves against the immigration fire-fight in Arizona.

Giffords is not ranked as notably more "economically moderate" than, say, Rep. Ed Pastor - at least in terms of her actual votes. She has not been nearly as much of an economic conservative in her votes to date as her overall centrist ranking, and her membership in the Blue Dogs, might suggest.

What Mitchell champions, however, is clearly out of step with most of his caucus - not surprising considering he too made a bid to join the Blue Dogs. What is surprising is that his rhetoric, and to a lesser extent his votes, actually indicates that he is much more in tune with conservative tax philosophy (coddle the rich and soak the middle class), yet it was Giffords who got the nod from the Blue Dogs. Maybe Mitchell's tax rhetoric put him too far to the right even for the Blue Dog's comfort. In the end, I think that Mitchell's ranking as a 'moderate' on economic matters, is rather too generous. He actually deserves to be in amongst the Republicans proper when you take into account his advocacy, as well as his votes.

UPDATE 3/14/08: Mitchell has made it two years in a row now that he has voted against his own party's budget. If he's trying to establish his fiscal conservative credentials, I think he's more than done the job.

Despite their fairly middle-of-the-road rankings in social policy, neither member is sending many overt signals to the 'values voters'. They do score considerably more conservative than other Dems in the Arizona delegation and the Caucus overall, but that is almost entirely down to votes having to do with immigration and immigrant rights.

The big difference between 'social centrists' like Gabby and Harry and the rest of the caucus is how terrified they are of creating a record that can be characterized as 'pro-immigrant.' The callousness and pettiness that these 'centrists' will stoop to in order to avoid giving racists and xenophobes any ammunition is often farcical.

On foreign policy, both members score more conservatively than their Arizona Democratic delegation-mates, but that is predominantly down to their votes on Iraq. Their score also includes a few instances when their urge to throw money at a military system outstripped any fiscal restraint or desire to look deeper at our actual strategic needs - a common and unfortunate Democratic habit that our members default to in order to forestall being labeled as anti-military, but that results in massive pork and a flabby, wasteful military.

I will take a closer look at the particular votes that earned Giffords and Mitchell their milquetoasty middle-of-the-herd street cred after the flip, and consider how well-deserved are their carefully-crafted, centrist images...

 

Ron Paul Points the Way For Democrats in Congress

Rs and Ds at all levels, but especially among those competing to be the next Commander in Chief, constantly fight over which party is the champion of our armed forces.

The Rs claim that title by dint of massive and reckless appropriations and a belligerant, wooden-headed foreign policy that gives the armed forces plenty of opportunity to ply their craft.

The Ds claim the honor by lavishing as much attention and money as possible on veterans benefits, trying to improve the conditions and equipment the soldiers must endure during active duty, and, of late, madly shoveling money in the maw of the Iraq occupation in the vain hope that no Republican will be mean to them.

It is deeply ironic, therefore, that the odd man out in the Presidential race, the Republican who advocates for a much more limited and humble foreign policy than any Democrat dares, and who demands an immediate withdrawal from Iraq, and who levels an even harsher criticism of the policies that led us there than most Democrats can (because he actually voted against the invasion), leads by a very wide margin in fund-raising among armed forces personnel.

In fact, one can clearly see that the more of a "surrender-monkey" the candidate is on Iraq and foreign policy in general, the better our men and women in arms likes him (or her).

Military donations in the 4th quarter of 2008:

Paul: $286,764 (1349 donors)

Obama: $81,037 (466 donors)

McCain: $79,597 (413 donors)

Clinton: $49,523 (181 donors)

Romney: $29,250 (140 donors)

Huckabee: $24,562 (94 donors)

Nor is this a one-time anomaly, it is an established pattern. Ron Paul is the bottom-line choice of the active duty military.

The one exception to the trend is McCain, who obviously gets points and well-deserved respect from the troops for his biography. Were it his position on the Iraq occupation that soldiers were rewarding, he would be bracketed by Romney and Huckabee, who also support the continuation of the failed Iraq occupation, rather than Obama and Clinton.

If McCain would have reversed himself on Iraq earlier, he wouldn't have wandered in the political wilderness until GOP primary voters got panicked enough to turn to him, and he would be a much stronger Presidential candidate for it -- and likely the top pick of the military instead of Paul.

As Democrats running for Congress carefully triangulate to ensure that they "don't abandon the troops" by cutting off funding for Iraq to bring Bush to the bargaining table, they might keep Ron Paul's overwhelming military support firmly in mind.

That means you, Gabby Giffords and Harry Mitchell -- as well as you hopefuls, Bob Lord and Ann Kirkpatrick. The troops want brave leadership willing to bring a misbegotten war to close every bit as much as most other Americans.

Our troops have tremendous esprit de corps and a steely determination to accomplish the mission - even if it is an impossible one. It's their job to lock their jaws and squeeze the life out of our enemies.

The job of the political leadership is to have the wisdom to know when and where it is prudent to unleash the dogs of war -- and when to put them back in the kennel. Our troops clearly recognize and value the kind of political leadership needed to end this mission-less war, even as they say they are determined to stay the course when the pols come wandering through like baby ducklings on yet another fact finding tour through the international zone.

Dan Spahr is a Jingo

Many of you probably don't even know who Dan Spahr is. That's a symptom of his less-than-memorable campaign for Ward 4 City Council against Shirley Scott.

Once he was quite-predictably crushed at the polls, I never expected to give him another thought, unless he got it into his head to take on another kamikaze political mission in the future.

But then, driving down 1^st Avenue on my way home from work, I spotted a not-yet-removed Dan Spahr bumper sticker. I hadn't seen any of these during the campaign, so for all I know, I just got lucky and had stumbled across Dan's own car.

But what stuck me was the slogan:

Support Our Troops
www.DanSpahr2007.com

Yes, the font sizes are a reasonably accurate reflection of the ratio of the font sizes on the sticker. And on his web-site you'll note the prominence of the American flag - not the Arizona flag, nor the Tucson city flag.

Just what office did Dan think he was running for? The City Council has no power to support or undermine our troops, except in a purely symbolic way. The issue is completely irrelevant to the a race for City Council.

Then I realized it: in Dan Spahr's mind, a City Council race has everything to do with supporting the troops, because Dan Spahr is a jingoistic idiot. And his campaign was focused on appealing to jingoistic idiots, which might have something to do with why he lost.

Now, I will allow that perhaps some misguided jingoistic idiot supporter of Dan Spahr maybe went off the reservation and created his own asinine jingoistic bumper sticker that really had nothing to do with Dan Spahr's doomed campaign. But that doesn't seem likely.

What seems much more likely is that Dan Spahr, at a loss for anything actually relevant to politics or policy in the city of Tucson with which to define his campaign, reached immediately for the last refuge of scoundrels. Thus was born the "Support Our Troops" city council race bumper sticker.

So if you remember nothing else about Dan Spahr -- and it seems very unlikely that you would -- remember this: he's a jingoistic idiot. And that's really all you need to know.

Korb on Withdrawal From Iraq

Lawrence Korb is one of America's foremost military logistical thinkers. He authored a top to bottom force review emphasizing progressive defense goals and significant cost savings, which is itself a great tutorial on the American force structure and capabilities. He has also been a consistent and credible critic of the Bush Adminsitration's National Security Strategy (pdf). I heartily recommend delving into Korb's publication list to anyone who seeks to truly understand the American military, as opposed to simply having another opinion on the subject.

He has created a wholly realistic plan (pdf) for rapid (10-12 month) and complete withdrawal of American troops from Iraq. Korb discusses the plan in this audio interview (mp3), and hits the highlights in the following promotional video:

The plan specifically addresses security issues between Turkey and the PKK that demonstrates the clarity with which Korb and his associates see the strategic environment in Iraq and the region. The plan was drawn before recent events with the Turkish parliament authorizing invasion of Iraqi Kurdistan.

The plan also addresses resettlement of Iraqi civilian collaborators whose lives would be in great danger upon a general American withdrawal, which is a topic that even politicians who are in support of withdrawal are not addressing, yet constitutes one of the most challenging moral dilemmas of the Iraqi debacle.