Saturday, August 18, 2018

Democratic Women Who Served In The Military And Now Want To Serve In Congress

>




Unless this is the first time you've landed at DWT, you probably know I hate identity group politics. Women belong in electoral office! OK, we need more women in Congress-- excellent ones, like the House's single best member, Pramila Jayapal (D-WA)-- but not crap ones-- like the House's single worst Democratic member, Kyrsten Sinema (Blue Dog-AZ). Congress needs more Hispanics, right? Absolutely-- great Hispanics like Adriano Espaillat (D-NY), but not right-wing shitheads like Henry Cuellar. (Blue Dog-TX) How about some more LGBTQ congressmembers? Yeah! But solid progressives like Mark Pocan (D-WI), not nightmares like Sinema and Sean Patrick Maloney (New Dem-NY). You name an identity group and I'll tell you an outstanding member of Congress from that group... and a POS from that group. Identity group politics is no way to pick candidates, but people use it all the time.

And the newest subgroup is... women from the military. The DCCC invented the category is strategy sessions before the cycle began. They thought recruiting a bunch of centrist female corporate lawyers who had once served in the military would be a good idea. They went out and looked for them and came back with some absolutely mediocre candidates to reinvent as heroines of the Republic, like Mikie Sherrill from New Jersey and Chrissy Houlahan from Pennsylvania.

But the idea took on a life of it's own, and women who had served in the military were encouraged by that idea and decided they could run too. Two campaign intro ads this cycle were from that identity group. First we had the electrifying ad from Amy McGrath of Kentucky (up top), an ad, made by a skilled ad-maker, that was better than the novice candidate. The DCCC may have been committed to centrist women who had serviced in the military but they already were committed to recruiting another candidate from KY-06 from their very favorite identity group: multimillionaires and they through their weight behind very rich Lexington mayor (who is also an extremely conservative Blue Dog-- always a plus for the DCCC-- and they endorsed him during the primary and urged donors to not fund McGrath). Over the course of the primary, McGrath, the novice candidate, got better and better and in the end, she shoved the DCCC's Blue Dog multimillionaire up their ass. In a 6-person race, she made the DCCC sad:
Amy McGrath- 48,860 (48.7%)
Jim Gray- 40,684 (40.5%)
Reggie Thomas- 7,226 (7.2%)
Mayor Gray spent $1,437,206 on the primary (including $250,000 out of his own bank account) but it is Amy McGrath who is now duking it out-- a much better candidate than she was when she started-- with Republican Andy Barr, in Kentucky's only swing district. After the primary, the DCCC took another look at her and seeing she isn't too progressive for them, endorsed her and added her to their Red-to-Blue page. Though the district went to Trump 54.7% to 39.4% and has a PVI of R+9, the race is neck-and-neck and if the anti-red wave holds, McGrath has an good chance to win.

The second wildly inspiring video (below)-- that seemingly came out of nowhere-- was from MJ (Mary Jennings) Hegar in a Texas backwater that no one was considering flippable, TX-31. She's running against right-wing Trump-enabler John Carter in a district north of Austin that stretches through Williamson and Bell counties, from Round Rock to Killeen and Temple. Bell County includes Fort Hood, the largest military base in the world. The district PVI is R+10 and Trump beat Hillary there 53.5% to 40.8%. Her policy platform looks decent. As of the June 30 filing deadline she had outraised Carter significantly-- $1,612,439 to $996,707 and had about $300,000 more than he did on hand. If the wave is big enough...



Yesterday, AP ran a story by Laurie Kellman and Bill Barrow, Next mission for women with military service: Run for office, as though the election cycle had just started and someone just came up with the idea. "Hegar," they wrote, "is part of a crop of female veterans running for Congress in this year’s midterm elections. Almost all Democrats and many of them mothers, they are shaped by the Sept. 11 attacks and overseas wars, including the longest war in American history. Many are retiring from the military and looking for another way to serve the country. They’re part of a record number of women running for seats in Congress, but in certain ways, they are a class apart. The female veterans claim expertise in national security and veterans issues, with a track record of thriving in institutions dominated by men. Regardless of party, they cast themselves as the antidote to bitterly partisan politics-- describing themselves as 'mission-driven' and trained by the military to work toward a common goal." Most are right of center within the Democratic Party and are being pushed by right-of-center Democrats with ambitious personal agendas for higher office, like Seth Moulton (D-MA), Tammy Duckworth (D-IL), Joe Biden and Cheri Bustos (Blue Dog-IL).
The increase in candidates with military experience is no accident, and the hopefuls are expected to be propelled by Democratic luminaries. Former Vice President Joe Biden, for example, is expected to campaign for McGrath, among others, according to officials close to them who spoke on condition of anonymity because the schedule is not set.

Two Democrats-- Massachusetts Rep. Seth Moulton, a retired Marine Corps captain and Bronze Star recipient, and Illinois Sen. Tammy Duckworth, who lost her legs and partial use of an arm when her helicopter was shot down by a rocket-propelled grenade in Iraq-- have been instrumental in recruiting veterans to run for office.

Moulton said female veterans in his party carry a particular authority when talking to voters concerned about President Donald Trump’s leadership.

“It’s the year of the woman, but it’s also the year of yearning for bringing integrity and honor back to politics,” Moulton said. “We need Democrats with the credibility to tell people what’s really going on.”

The women are hardly the first to use their military service to their political advantage-- men have been doing it for decades.

One of the traditional knocks against female candidates is “they aren’t tough enough, they aren’t strong enough, and they might not have the leadership skills,” said Debbie Walsh, director of the Center for American Women and Politics at Rutgers University.

Not female candidates who are veterans, particularly of combat.

“They kind of automatically get that kind of respect as leaders; it’s well-earned,” Walsh said. “It’s such a logical next step for people who are committed to this country and are committed to service.”

But their campaigns highlight a set of political concerns specific to female veterans.

The candidates acknowledge that their extraordinary stories of trailblazing military careers could make it difficult for some voters to relate to them. Will they come off as too tough or hawkish? Is it possible for any candidate, male or female, to overemphasize his or her military background in the post-9/11 era?

McGrath, who retired as a lieutenant colonel, opened her campaign with an online video in which she wears a bomber jacket, a fighter jet in the background.

McGrath sees herself as a bridge to male voters who “sort of see women as being weaker,” she said in a telephone interview. “But yeah, I have to make an effort to reach out to women and make sure that they’re not scared, or think that I’m too militant.”

Out came a 30-second spot that mentioned the 89 combat missions-- but focused on McGrath taking her three children to the pediatrician.

“I’m Amy McGrath and I approved this ad,” she says, as her young son takes off down a hallway with his pants down. “Because I’d like to see the other guys running deal with this.”

She upset popular Lexington Mayor Jim Gray in the Democratic primary and will take on Republican Rep. Andy Barr in November, a closely watched race considered competitive in a district Barr won by 22 points in 2016. Poised for the different calculus of the general election, Barr last week released an ad quoting McGrath saying of herself, “Hell yeah, I’m a feminist” and calling herself “a progressive.”

“Seriously? Is that all you got?” McGrath retorted in a video response, sharing the screen once again with a fighter jet. But this time, she traded her bomber jacket for a denim one.

Much of Hegar’s story was already public by the time she decided to challenge Republican Rep. John Carter in the Austin-area district, so she went for the full reveal-- tattoos and all.

Her video, “Doors,” features the door of the helicopter in which she was shot down on her third tour of Afghanistan as a combat search and rescue pilot. Her medals, including a Purple Heart, play a role, as does Hegar’s 2012 lawsuit against the federal government that forced it to repeal the ban on women in combat.

The spot also features an intimate detail: One of Hegar’s first memories was of her father throwing her mother through a glass door.

“That’s been one of the most difficult transitions for me, is talking about myself more,” Hegar said. “I hope that they take away that we have to start putting our faith in people who have a history of putting other people first, fighting against intimidation and bullying, and trying to do the right thing.”

Air Force veteran Gina Ortiz Jones, the Democratic nominee for a House seat in West Texas, hopes her active military duty and intelligence work will “neutralize this perceived strength” of Republicans as strong on security issues.

That could be important in the race for the San Antonio-area seat, currently held by Republican Rep. Will Hurd, a former CIA operative. Ortiz Jones supports single-payer health insurance, a position that could be considered too liberal for the district.

“‘Liberal’ isn’t a word that is normally used to describe my work in national security,” she said.
Trump is an existential danger to America-- if not the world. I'd vote for any of these candidates if I lived in their districts, but we might as well do it with our eyes open and our expectations realistic. And I can say with confidence that none of them are going to be on par with women like Ilhan Omar of Minneapolis, Alexandria Cortez of NYC, Pramila Jayapal of Seattle, Judy Chu of Los Angeles, Katherine Clark of suburban Boston, Jan Schakowsky of Chicagoland, Kara Eastman of Omaha or Rashida Tlaib of Detroit, the women I expect to be the tip of the spear when it comes to pushing a strong progressive policy agenda in 2019. I hope some of these miltary women get on board. We'll see.

Not military-- but a fighter and a leader for working families

Labels: , , , ,

8 Comments:

At 11:02 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"You name an identity group and I'll tell you an outstanding member of Congress from that group... and a POS from that group. Identity group politics is no way to pick candidates, but people use it all the time."

I DISagree. Like, for instance... Republicans... there are no good ones. There aren't even any that rise to the level of POS. They're all Nazis, even if they don't yet wear the swastika.

But also, there's democraps. The oldest ID group in politics. There ARE some decent ones. But there's also many, many more who are only a bit less evil than the Nazis. But not by much.

And then there are the tyrants of the party who are the only ones who matter: Pelosi and scummer (and each ones' line of succession).

But, bottom line, there's the money. There's those who the money owns, those who would like to be owned by the money and there's the others. The others are a tiny minority and don't matter as long as there are Pelosi, scummer, their hand-picked and money-vetted lines ... and those behind who WANT to be in line.

Identity politics... so simple as to be trivial. Zero Nazis and nearly zero democraps... zero when you consider that they'd just be subjects of the tyrannical money anyway.

so... zero of both.

What could be easier than that? And I know, believe me, how y'all need things to be easy.


 
At 11:15 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

We might be as close as several weeks away from losing what rights we still have, because the GOP is mobilized to defend their hold on the national and most local state governments, most national and state judgeships, and the bulk of voting systems. The "blue wave" has them concerned despite the history of "democrats" throwing victories away. They are going to take every possible step to prevent any change, and the law isn't going to make a bit of difference.

It was a nice enough nation while it lasted.

 
At 11:33 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

It stopped being 'nice enough' in 1980. It started falling into the sinkhole full of shit when we elected Reagan. Actually, maybe as far back as '68 with Nixon. But in '80, we quaffed the Kool-Aid with gusto.

We dug the hole. We jumped in. We were told that the shit was really champagne... and we believed it. still do.

 
At 5:02 PM, Blogger edmondo said...

Yeah, that should stop the endless wars, electing more members of the military-industrial complex - only this time they have vaginas. Jesus, I am beginning to think this website needs to take some time off.

 
At 7:17 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Even I disagree. This whole feminism thing has gotten out of hand, and it mostly benefits only the elite women. And, unfortunately, women who really need help never benefit from this feminism thing.

Leaders and potential leaders should be picked on the merits of their ideas and on their ability to not get aligned with big money, and their focus on the interests of the people of this country and humanity. If any of such candidates are women, well and good.

 
At 11:56 PM, Anonymous zeeman said...

edmondo hit the proverbial target right on the head. This is a 'glorification' of the M.I.C..
How many of you, when in audience hear the words: And now our 'Nat'l Anthem', or 'I Pledge', understand the intent of the propaganda behind this? It has made strong men weak rather than the other way around. As a teen, I remember how L.B.J. caved into the complex by not withdrawing troops from 'Nam. He could have went down as one the greatest by implementing
'The Great Society' which never happened because of that 'F'ing unnecessary war. Just think of the 'bone spur' Moron we have as 'Commander in Shame', he wants to go down in history as being successful in a military conflict!! HELP U.S. ALL!

 
At 6:58 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

zee, great comment. don't forget kkkarl rove making bush (and cheney) a 'war prezdint' to get re-elected.

 
At 1:42 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

7:17 do you get the feeling that feminism in 2018 is women demanding the right and privilege to be just as evil, stupid and filled with hate as their cracker counterparts? "me too" isn't so much about feminism as it is about assaults and power. But aside from that, feminism from the '70s just doesn't exist any more.

If we hadn't flipped from using 'military' and 'veteran' as epithets in the '70s to using them as exaltations in the '90s, women wouldn't be going near the military nor combat. Maybe they'd have taken over tech and politics a generation sooner.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home