Band of Brothers--Brother!

Following up on Ari's post about the Band of Brothers, those military veterans running for Congress as Democrats.

The theory is that as former soldiers they will be immunized against Republican charges that Dems are unpatriotic girly-men who are "soft on defense." (As "Mask" points out in the comments section of Ari's post, running as a vet worked so well for Max Cleland and John Kerry!)

One thing the Band of Brothers strategy will do if it succeeds is to help keep Congress white and male. Of the 56 candidates currently marching under the brotherly battle flag, only three are women. (One of the three, Mishonda Baldwin, is also the only African-American).

So I guess the Dems are giving up on that whole gender-gap equality thing. Remember when Patty Murray ran for Senate as a "mom in tennis shoes"? A mother had better wear combat boots if she hopes to attract the attention of the DNC today!

Do we really want to promote the idea that military service is some kind of necessary item on a political resume? That personal machismo is a qualification for office? The BOB strikes me as a gimmick, if not an outright pander to militarism and sexism--time for the daddies to retake the mommy party! Chaaarge! And yet more proof, ladies, that the Dems are writing you off.

Comments (10)

1. Exactly on point, Ms Pollitt...

   and the reason is clear. To "immunize" themselves from the eternal charges of "soft on defense/terrorism", the Democrats feel they need to run combat vets (especially, the theory goes, running against "chickenhawk" Republicans).

   Problem is....with little or no FEMALE combat vets, they have to abandon the "appeal to the soccer moms" by running one of them, or atleast a woman (even if she's a rich grandmother like Dianne Feinstein).

   S'why Hillary is still "Hillary the Hawk" on Iraq....and not running primarily on health care, day care, education, etc.

   Posted by Mask at 02/10/2006 @ 1:13pm

2. Saxby Chambliss.

   Posted by dharley at 02/10/2006 @ 1:35pm

3. It rings of "us, too" tactics for Democrats which, unfortunately, usually don't work. "Hey, you thought the Republicans were all about the military...well look at us too!" Not unlike our rebuttal to the State of the Union address (and I like Tim Kaine) where we may have been trying to say, "Hey, look at us too, we're Christian! Real Christian! Former missionary Christian!"

   Democrats have always been patriotic, served our country, had family values and faith...but when we try the "us, too" message it doesn't best serve us.

   Katha's comments reminded me of a Jon Stewart joke about the criticism of Alito's Princeton affiliation with an organization limited to only white men. He panned to the podium of the judiciary committee and it was, of course, only white men (Feinstein must have been getting a drink of water).

   We need a Band of Mothers. (Real mothers...not the kind we have in Washington right now.)

   Posted by kim stanley at 02/10/2006 @ 1:40pm

4. I may be looking at it a little more simply...maybe a little less cynically (sp). At a time of war wouldn't you want your representatives to at least understand what soldiers are going through. Furthermore, as a democrat and an officer in the army, I want someone that knows what I am going through and one that will stand up for me. I think the track record of current congressmen/congresswomen that have served their country is pathetic. It is easy to jump into war when you don't know the hell that it causes. I beleive had there been more ex-soldiers in congress when Bush pushed this war on us, we may not be in the quagmire that we are in.

   Posted by randy.boland at 02/10/2006 @ 1:42pm

5. MASK

   There is ONE FEMALE Soldier who was awarded the Silver Star, for actions during an ambush, she is the first one awarded the medal in quite some time.

   Posted by CPT at 02/10/2006 @ 2:32pm

6. I watched the Band of Brothers roll out on C-Span this morning. And as a full time cynic of military driven election campaigns, I was predisposed to dismiss this as an juvenile effort by the DLC. I was suprizingly enthused by the solidarity shown by all (inclusive of the woman) and the range of issues touched upon. It is time to stop portraying Dems as a one trick pony show.

   Posted by TimS at 02/10/2006 @ 3:57pm

7. Posted by CPT 02/10/2006 @ 2:32pm | ignore this person

   Wasn't putting down female combat vets, CPT....my point is...is she running for Congress as a Democrat?

   and...how many more like her are there?

   Ms Pollitt's a bit down about the "abandonment" of female candidates by the Dems, but, without playing RIGHT into Rove's image of them as "pre 9/11 thinkers", they can't run a spate of female candidates in a country that is looking for "war leaders".

   Posted by Mask at 02/10/2006 @ 4:10pm

8. Katha touches not only on the problem of a drowning national Democratic leadership, but on the continuing persistence of too many in this culture (who should and sometimes do know better) to value men in a macho role and regard women still as the Other sex (Sorry, Betty, we should have come further by now). Those considerations make it especially sad when we do find a new woman candidate, but one who makes it impossible for us to support her. That's the dilemma of progressive voters in New York's 20th CD, where newcomer Kirsten Gillibrand is challenging John Sweeney, best (or worst) known for his role in the Brooks Brothers gang that stormed the offices of the Florida recount. I have worked for the past eight months trying to influence her campaign to relinquish its "Hillary-lite" position on the war in Iraq. Ms. Gillibrand has been accessible (I have spoken to her personally three times, heard her speak twice, and exchanged emails), but immovable: "We must call for a renewed strategic plan with defined milestones, including a resolution that we will have no permanent bases in Iraq and substantial renewed participation by our allies in training Iraqi security forces, so our forces can successfully do their job, empower the Iraqis to defend their nation and be redeployed as soon as possible...To combat the war on terror most effectively, we should double the size of our Special Operations Forces to take the war on terror to the roots of terror"(from her website). This is a pathetic formulation of failed war policies, nonsense (even Rumsfeld is only calling for a fraction of the increase in Special Ops she proposes), a deceptive sop for liberals, and a disclosure that she doesn't have a clue as to what promotes terrorism. The question is, Does Gillibrand, following Hillary's lead, think she has to look tough for upstate voters? It is a shame that she seems to ignore the examples of Cindy Sheehan, Molly Ivins, and Maureen Dowd. As a newcomer, she doesn't carry the baggage of having voted for the war resolution, or appropriated funds in support of it; she could be a beacon in the cause to end the war. Instead, she appears just another political hack; to the soldiers pouring their blood into the sands of that wretched country, or to the Iraqi mother burying her child, there is precious little difference among the positions of Bush, Sweeney, or Gillibrand. Someone tell me why this has to be.

   Posted by Nick Albaugh at 02/10/2006 @ 4:16pm

9. First time I've posted, a couple thoughts.

   A lot of good points have been made, Nick Albaugh>about candidates needing to take clear (brave) positions instead of re-hashing the same old lines that do little to achieve stability and peace and or get our troops home faster.

   Ms. Pollitt is right, Military Service shoudn't be a prerequisite for office and our country's consumed by violence (beyond Iraq...Kansas City, my city had 126 murders, 101 by guns in 2005), but I think her take on the Band of Brothers is overly cynical?>I tend to agree with Randy.Boland. I think most of these candidates are running because they're fed up like the rest of us and in many cases BECAUSE they're Vets and they've seen the worst upclose (It's no surprise, much of the best and most passionate criticism of Bush's warmongering and torture has come from Vets and former military leaders...look at the Charlie Rangels. Not to mention, I've checked out some of these candidates. Burgard's running in Missouri and some of his biggest priorities are the hydrogen economy and embracing science (a big deal if you're originally from Kansas like me) My point is that these candidates need to be judged on their individual merits, not just what might be construed as an attention getting gimick (it is politics) Dems. shouldn't play the faux "Patriot Games" with Rover and the Chickenhawks, but we also can't, in one of my guy Howard Dean's favorite sayings, "let the perfect be the enemy of the good"...and condemn strategies/tactics like "Band of Brothers" on their face.

   Posted by KCMORyan at 02/10/2006 @ 4:39pm

10. Posted by RANDY.BOLAND 02/10/2006 @ 1:42pm

    Good point!

    There are 435 seats in the House. Why can't more of them be vets AND more of them be women (and some women vets too, of course, when possible)? There's plenty of room when we sweep aside the fawning Repubs who worship Bush's silly ass.

    Posted by adr at 02/10/2006 @ 4:57pm