North Carolina Democratic Candidate Nancy Shakir Makes The Case For Opposing The Afghan Occupation And Escalation

When many of us contributed to electing Larry Kissell to the house from North Carolina's 8th CD, we were convinced we were voting for someone who opposed wars of aggression, foreign occupations and the dishonest budgetary procedures, "supplementals," the Bush used to pursue wars without paying for them. But last June when the House voted on Obama's war supplemental, Kissell was not among the 32 Democrats who has the guts to stand up and say no. He went along with the crowd-- and didn't stand up and say "no" until it came to helping ordinary American families with protections against predatory banksters and with healthcare reform.

Over the last few days we've looked at why North Carolina Democrats have grown disenchanted enough with Kissell to start flocking to the primary campaign of an outspoken Democratic activist, Nancy Shakir, who's offering a far more family-friendly vision of what America should look like. Last December, writing in the Fayetteville Observer, Nancy explained why she opposes Obama's troop escalation agenda and continued occupation of Afghanistan. She shows a great deal more insight into it than Kissell:

Like most Americans, I have close relatives who have served, were casualties or retired from the military. I support our troops, their families and my family. My mantra is "Love the warrior; hate the war." But I am opposed to President Obama's proposal for troop escalation in Afghanistan for some of the following reasons.

...In Gen. David Petraeus's counterinsurgency doctrine, the accepted ratio of soldiers to natives is 20 to 25 per thousand. The current ratio is 1 to 430. Afghanistan today is a country of about 33 million. Even if we discount the population to the target group of Pashtuns, we must deal with 15 or so million people. So, when he and Gen. Stanley McChrystal ask for 40,000 more troops, it must be viewed as a first step only.

As the generals did in Vietnam, they will have to ask for another increment and then another, moving toward the supposedly winning number of between 600,000 and 1.3 million. Thus, over 10 years, a figure often cited, pretty soon we'll be talking real money. The overall cost to our economy has not yet been summed up, but by comparing it to the Iraq war, it will probably amount to upwards of $6 trillion over a 10-year period.

Then there are the casualties: So far we have lost about a thousand in Afghanistan - or about 20 percent as many as in Iraq. Although casualties can be counted, the number of seriously wounded keeps growing because many of the effects of exposure to modern weapons do not show up until later.

About one in four soldiers have reported "acute stress, depression or anxiety." In Iraq, at least 100,000 of the 1.5 million soldiers who served there suffered severe psychological damage and about 300,000 have reported post-traumatic stress disorder and a similar number have suffered brain injuries. These veterans, sometimes referred to as the "walking wounded," will be unable to fully contribute to American society, and also will require care for many years to come.

It has been estimated that dealing with a brain-injured soldier over his remaining life will cost about $5 million. Cancer from exposure to depleted uranium is only now coming into full effect. Exposure is then passed on to the offspring of those who served, resulting in birth defects.

About 40 percent of the soldiers who served in the 1991 Gulf war-- which lasted only 100 hours-- are receiving disability payments. Inevitably, more "boots on the ground" will lead to more beds in hospitals.

What of our own casualties at home: unemployment, foreclosure, growing "food insecurity," homelessness, despair resulting in suicide and homicide?

The initial Soviet war in Afghanistan began in 1979. The final troop withdrawal ended on Feb. 15, 1989. The Russian army fought a bloody, brutal campaign, using every trick or tool of counterinsurgency, killing a million Afghanis and turning about 5 million into refugees. But after a decade during which they lost 15,000 soldiers and almost bankrupted the Soviet Union, they gave up and left. Gen. McChrystal says it may take him a decade or more to "win." But what is winning? Even Gen. Petraeus has said, "You cannot kill your way out of an insurgency."

Removing Afghanistan as a threat requires rebuilding that whole country. Unfortunately, that is a 20-year project at best, and we can't afford it. So our political leadership needs to insist on a strategy that will get the most security for less money and less presence.

We don't have the surplus we had when we started the war on terrorism after 9/11-- and we desperately need nation-building at home... We need to reduce our footprint in Afghanistan and not dig in deeper. We do not have the Afghan partners, the domestic support, the financial resources or the national interests to justify an enlarged and prolonged nation-building effort in Afghanistan. We cannot afford intercontinental warfare to rebuild Afghanistan. It doesn't take much thought to realize, as most Americans do, that if any rebuilding should go on, it needs to be here at home-- rebuilding America's economy, its infrastructure, its educational system and its healthcare system.

If you'd like to help Nancy replace the faithless Kissell, please click over to the Blue America Sending A Message page and contribute what you can afford. Her grassroots campaign can really use some help.

What Happened To Larry Kissell?

-by Diane Frederick, North Carolina Democratic activist

The night John Kerry lost the election in 2004; I was one of the progressives who woke up stunned and deeply dejected. Soon after I vowed to do everything in my power to help elect a Democratic majority, with an eye towards progressive Democrats I could support in North Carolina. My progressive friends shared a desire to work for Democratic majorities that would support our goals and objectives including ending the Iraq occupation and shifting the focus to problems at home. We needed to provide healthcare for all; address climate change; and level the playing field for working and middle class families who were losing ground at alarming rates under Bush policies. Enter Larry Kissell.

In late 2005, progressive activists in Charlotte were making the rounds at candidate forums; there were several Democrats running in the primary. Robin Hayes was a “moderate” Republican, who had held this seat for several terms in North Carolina’s 8th congressional district. The 8th district has a majority of Democratic voters, and Democrats were confident that they could take back the 8th. The DCCC was promoting a “conservative” Democrat as the frontrunner; someone in the group discovered Larry, and invited him to come out and speak to local progressives. Larry told us what we wanted to hear. He was for bringing troops home from Iraq, healthcare for all, support for working people, immigrant rights, etc. That was what we needed to get on board Larry’s campaign and volunteer to help. Progressives began helping Kissell, and others took notice. We knocked doors, made calls, and worked polls for Larry… and he won the primary! Democratic activists in the district mobilized and volunteered in large numbers to fuel Kissell’s grassroots campaign. Kissell’s campaign lost to Hayes in 2006 by 327 votes; a disappointment that was somewhat tempered by the Democratic majorities we won in 2006.

In 2008, Democratic activists and progressives were more fired up then ever! Volunteers spent countless hours calling, knocking doors, and donating to Kissell’s campaign in the 8th district. Larry campaigned as a populist who would go to Washington to represent working people. With the help of President Obama’s win in NC, Kissell was propelled into office and progressive rejoiced! We had finally taken back the 8th District; Kissell would be there to help the President implement the change we voted for! Healthcare for all! Action on climate change! Representation for the working class! Hooray! ...Or not.

When Kissell got to Congress, he surprised us by voting against the cram down bill which would have helped judges restructure mortgages and keep people in their homes. Larry’s responded by saying it was “unfair” to help people who took out loans they couldn’t afford when other were “doing the right thing” and paying their mortgages. Kissell’s vote against Cap and Trade was even more worrisome; he responded that it would cost jobs in the district; ignoring the potential for green manufacturing in a district devastated by the loss of manufacturing jobs.

When the debate shifted to healthcare, local activists expected Kissell to support healthcare reform. Sure he had voted against cram down and cap and trade, and was promoting the repeal of the estate tax, but surely he would stick with the Democrats on this key initiative. We began mobilizing through MoveOn, OFA, and HCAN, calling Democrats and urging them to contact their congressman and support healthcare reform. Alarms began going off when callers to his office were told that he had not taken a position on healthcare reform. More calls were mobilized, and protesters showed up at Kissell offices to encourage his support of the bill. Letters were written to Kissell’s office and local newspapers, petition signatures were collected and sent to Kissell. While other Democrats were holding town hall meetings to promote healthcare reform, Larry avoided the issue and refused to take a position. As the first vote neared in the house, progressive and Democratic activists were pressing Larry for to support healthcare. A few weeks prior to the vote, Kissell and staffers told several groups of Democrats that he would be supporting the President on healthcare; activists breathed a sigh of relief. Then, on the Thursday before the vote Larry put out a statement saying he would be voting "no" on the healthcare reform bill. We mobilized once more; calling his office, reaching out to everyone who had been influential in his election. We called, emailed, lobbied; Kissell wouldn’t take anyone’s direct calls. Staffers announced that Kissell was voting "no" to protect seniors, embracing false Republican talking points to justify his no vote. Despite Kissell’s no vote, the House passed the healthcare bill by an extremely close margin. After the Senate passed their version, and the Democrats lost the Senate seat to Scott Brown, the House was poised to vote once again on the final healthcare bill. Activists in the district once gain targeted Kissell; calling, pleading, and visiting his office. Thousands of pro-healthcare calls were placed to Kissell’s office and promptly ignored. Pro-reform letters and calls were discarded; Larry Kissell was a no show at local events. Constituents around the district watched with frustration as Larry cast his final no vote against the healthcare bill even as we celebrated the historic passage of healthcare reform.

Progressives and rank and file Democrats are outraged and angry. Kissell’s no vote on healthcare left many people feeling let down and deceived. Democratic and progressive voters, key grassroots supporters and donors are being ignored, their concerns left unanswered and their wished ignored.  Voting against the best interest of voters is not what we elected Larry Kissell to do. We don’t need just any Democrat in that seat; we need a proud Democratic progressive who will support our agenda. Nancy Shakir is that progressive, and that is why we are working to elect Nancy Shakir as the Democratic candidate in the 8th district in 2010 and send Kissell home.

As a progressive in North Carolina reflecting on the last year’s fight over healthcare, there is one more point I’d like to note. Activists like me pushed long and hard for a more progressive healthcare bill; we strongly supported single payer, and then the public option. Although Republicans stayed in lock step opposition to even the moderate healthcare bill that finally passed, it was Blue Dog and conservative Democrats like Larry Kissell who really prevented a more progressive healthcare bill from being considered. Blue Dogs undermined our efforts at every turn. As one fellow activist said to me last summer; it’s not supposed to be this hard! Having to fight our own at every step was almost more discouraging than fighting the Republican party of no. We need proud Democrats who will fight hard for our issues, and explain how progressive policies will positively impact the lives of their constituents. Please contribute to Nancy Shakir's primary campaign here.

Some Conservative Democrats Don't Join The Blue Dog Caucus-- They Just Vote With It... Like Larry Kissell

Like progressive activists and bloggers in North Carolina Blue America has felt very let down and very disappointed in freshman Congressman Larry Kissell. Our PAC worked hard for four years to help elect him, raising money for him, sharing ideas, even buying $50,000 worth of last minute TV spots in 2008 to help put him over the finish line. We neither require, request nor expect ideological purity from any candidate. We do expect honesty and respect though. Before the last ad even ran, the once very forthcoming Kissell stopped communicating entirely. I was somewhat shocked but as I watched him slowly slipping into a morass of reflexive conservatism I understood that he couldn't even look at himself let alone at any of his old supporters.

And, like John Barrow, Larry Kissell knows better and made a stupid political calculation that is going to destroy his political career. Last week Kissell was on the wrong side of history as he defied his own constituents to vote with the Republicans against healthcare reform. Over the last few months, progressives in North Carolina have encouraged and recruited Nancy Shakir, founder of Cumberland County Progressives, to primary Kissell. His votes against healthcare has been a huge boost to her campaign.

Here are some typical comments after an insincere, self-serving and misleading OpEd Kissell wrote after he betrayed his own constituents by voting with the GOP against the bill.

One Time Only

I am ashamed to actually say I even worked for your campaign. I took the time to call people and tell them that you were a teacher from the small town of Biscoe. I believed that you cared about people. What I found is that you cared more about what you felt would get you re-elected. I will tell you in advance, I am telling every single person I know to vote against you. You do not represent me, nor do you have the values that you were voted into office on. Enjoy your one term, because as I write this I can promise you this will be your last term in office. You do not deserve a second term!

Disappointed Voter

I'm so disappointed in you Larry! You rode Obama's coat tail during your campaign and you turn around and stab him in the back.

I'm not sure where you're getting your advice from, but I’m ashamed I voted for you believing in your message.

The few people that call you or email you do not add up to the voters in your district. There are way more voters out there working hard who do not have the time to call or email, we just believed in you which is sad to say, we were wrong.

Sorry Larry, this will be remembered come reelection.

You're A Phony

Larry Larry!!!!

OMG, you're such a Hypocrite! Spare the psychobabble for your non educated constituents. I know a phony when I see one.

Voting "Yes" was the right thing to do. It's not about the popular thing to do; it’s about the right thing to do.

You voted "No"? Are you serious? I was there in the Crown Coliseum when Obama supported you're campaign in front of thousands. How could you vote "No" for someone who supported you and is doing ground breaking work trying to give YOUR voters health coverage that they didn't have?

Please Larry, you make me nauseous with this reply to your voters, we can see right through you.

Newton Smith

One-timer Kissell :
From the comments I`ve read so far it don't look good for you in the up-coming primary. As stated by others I too supported you, voted for you, believed you were really for change [ riding Obama`s coattail into office]. How disappointed I have become since your election! As I have personally relayed to you over your "NO" vote on health care reform [via many unanswered emails] I will now do all possible to see that you are not re-elected. You went over to the DARK SIDE when you arrived in Washington. You need to go back to the mill!

On the health care bill you told me [and as stated in your pre-election campaign article] the reason you vote "NO" was because of your "campaign pledge" not to vote on ANY bill that reduced funding to Medicare. To protect the seniors. Hello! What percentage of the voters in your district are beneficiaries of Social Security and Medicare? How about the number or percentage of those under 65 who have not reached that age and are still struggling to keep their job or looking for a job or the children of this percentage ??? I would think that that percentage is considerably higher than those presently using Medicare. According to a recent ELON poll over 78% of ALL North Carolians FAVORED passing of the bill that was passed EVEN WITHOUT YOUR HELP! I think the voters have spoken! GOOD-BYE !!!!

Nancy also penned an OpEd for the Fayetteville Observer introducing herself to voters two weeks ago and explaining why she decided to take on the burdensome and thankless task of running against an incumbent:

He voted "no" on legislation that would have allowed people to reorganize their finances and avoid foreclosure. He voted "no" when North Carolinians and Americans were facing the worst recession this country has seen since the Great Depression. His "no" vote was a "yes" vote for family despair and homelessness.

He voted "no" on cap-and-trade, a bill that could open doors for high-paying and living-wage "green collar" jobs-- a bill that could open the doors for entrepreneurs and small businesses to grow.

He voted "no" for health care, claiming he was committed to helping seniors. The AARP, which represents 40 million seniors, supports health care reform as presented by the House and the Senate. The estimated cost to seniors to get the private Medicare Advantage out of the government Medicare program while saving billions over a 10-year period is about $1.67 a month over a 10-year period.

Under pressure, our representative may change his vote this time, but I ask you, do you want someone who has to be forced to represent your best interests?

I am not merely running against the incumbent because of his "no" votes.

I am running for the people. I am running to help create job growth-- jobs that provide decent, living wages. We must support small-business owners, the backbone of our nation, so they are able to stay in business and be able to pay their employees wages that allow people to take care of their families and to live in dignity.

I am running to help create and support affordable, accessible and rigorous avenues of education from pre-school through technical and college education. North Carolina produces about 6,000 fewer teachers than it needs each year. Our country has fallen to No. 10 in the world for young people holding college degrees. We have got to do better.

I am running to assure that we have access to health care for all Americans.

I am running as a true Democrat and an independent thinker. I will not tell you I stand for one set of principles, then go to Washington and vote against my commitment to you. We need to make change now-- before we spend years living with uncertainty.

Kissell has betrayed everyone who supported him in the past. Blue America has added Nancy Shakir to our Sending The Democrats A Message page and will help her raise money to defeat Kissell.