|
by BooMan
Carl Hulse of the New York Times has an article out today that looks at Evan Bayh's record on the Iraq War as a potential liability to his prospects and effectiveness as a running mate. I want to focus on just one part of the article.
“The antiwar people cannot define the Democratic Party,” said Al From, a founder of the centrist Democratic Leadership Council, of which Mr. Bayh was chairman for four years. “I think Evan’s real strength is you get someone on the ticket who has a record of being strong on national security, and that is a very important quality to have.” It's a frustrating part of our national political dialogue that people that supported the biggest foreign policy blunder since the escalation of the Vietnam War are consistently described as 'strong on national security.' If you advocate the use of force, you are strong. If you oppose the use of force, you are weak. It should be obvious that this is not an accurate or helpful dichotomy. A better measure is whether your decisions contribute to the strengthening or weakening of America's position in the world. Those that advocated war with Iraq wound up severely weakening the country militarily, economically, and morally. But no matter how many times we make this point, pundits continue to give more credit for toughness and seriousness on foreign and military affairs to the people that got this decision wrong on Iraq. Getting back to the issue of selecting a running mate, Barack Obama should not fall into the trap of responding to this false media narrative about who is strong and who is weak on national security. It is an asset if candidates have some experience in foreign affairs and military policy. For that reason, congresspeople that have served on the Foreign Relations/Affairs, Armed Services, and Intelligence Committees have something valuable on their resumes (Obama serves on the Foreign Relations and Veteran's Affairs committees, Bayh serves on the Armed Services and Intelligence committees). It's a well-established fact that senators have a difficult time getting elected president. They rack up long and easily distorted voting records and have a tendency to become long-winded and speak like policy wonks. It's even rarer for congressmen and women to get elevated to the top positions because they don't have the same stature as senators and governors and they haven't won state-wide office. Nevertheless, I thought I would take a look at the senators and congresspersons that voted against the Authorization to Use Military Force in Iraq and that have experience serving on committees related to foreign policy and/or national defense. The Senate In the Senate, 21 Democrats voted against the AUMF-Iraq, plus Republican Lincoln Chafee and Independent Jim Jeffords. Here are the ones serving on relevant committees:
Dick Durbin (IL)- Majority Whip The House of Representatives In the House, 126 Democrats (plus independent Bernie Sanders) voted against the AUMF-Iraq. Here are the members that voted against the bill that are still in Congress and serve on relevant committees:
Neil Abercrombie (HI)- Armed Services Committee, Chair Subcommittee on Air and Land Forces If Obama is going to pick a running mate that is currently a member of Congress, he'd do well to pick someone off of this list. Some names are easy to cross out. Sens. Kennedy and Byrd have health problems, and Obama doesn't need anyone from Hawaii or Illinois. He'd be ill-advised to pick an African-American, and some members have an ethical issue or two, or just generally are ill-equipped for such a high-profile race. Nevertheless, there are some very good picks on this list. Sens. Jack Reed and Ron Wyden come to mind. Sens. Carl Levin, Russ Feingold, and Sherrod Brown have good resumes. In the House, Reps. Vic Snyder, Rush Holt, and Mike Thompson all warrant consideration. The point is that this is a list of serious politicians that have experience in foreign, military, or security issues, who got the most important vote of their lives right. And that is the biggest qualification I can think of for selecting someone that is 'strong on national security'.
How to Pick a Veep | 25 comments (25 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)
How to Pick a Veep | 25 comments (25 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)
|
Login
We listened to PEN American Center's "State of Emergency" and found 1940s books by Curzio Malaparte only at Alibris
|
||||||||||
Booman Tribune Homepage admin@boomantribune.com powered by Scoop
More blogs about Blogs at Technorati.
|
||||||||||||
© 2007 Booman Tribune