U.S. Senate
See Full Big Line
(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(R) Somebody
80%
20%
Governor
See Full Big Line
(D) Phil Weiser
(D) Joe Neguse
(D) Jena Griswold
60%
60%
40%↓
Att. General
See Full Big Line
(D) M. Dougherty
(D) Alexis King
(D) Brian Mason
40%
40%
30%
Sec. of State
See Full Big Line
(D) A. Gonzalez
(D) George Stern
(R) Sheri Davis
50%↑
40%
30%
State Treasurer
See Full Big Line
(D) Brianna Titone
(R) Kevin Grantham
(D) Jerry DiTullio
60%
30%
20%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Hurd*
(D) Somebody
80%
40%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert*
(D) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank*
(D) Somebody
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(R) Gabe Evans*
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(D) Joe Salazar
50%
40%
40%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
May 17, 2008 07:04 PM UTC
24 Comments
Loading ...
Sorry about that. Thanks for the correction.
turning a memorial to Paul Wellstone into a political rally with rousing rhetoric worthy of 1930’s German propaganda ministry.
Throwing such hateful statements like “so many in that party truly hate our military and those who serve, so maybe this was just meat for the base” is beneath you. I expect the hyperbole to come from Newsie and his radical brethren, but not you.
But this kind of B.S. gets me angry, and why else say it if you don’t think it will resonate with a substantial part of the base?
Harkin isn’t some minor party functionary, he is in the front tier of the Democratic Party, one of the top hierarchy in the Senate. What he says carries weight, and has to be viewed, until repudiated, as an official sentiment of the Party.
When a veteran reads, or hears statements like this, it solidifies the idea that the Democratic Party has no use for those of us who wore the nations uniform.
since no Democrat has ever served in the Military.
Crap spin like yours is what misinforms voters into thinking Democrats do not support troops. That’s complete bullshit.
If you truly believe in supporting the military, call McCain and tell him to support the GI Bill.
Ok, just how do you positively interpret the idea that if you and your family have served in the uniform of your nation for four generations, it should disqualify you for the White House? How could someone possibly put that into anything but an anti-military service context?
You don’t defend Harkin’s words, you attack mine. Is that because you can’t defend what he says? Please give me your “spin” on how what he said isn’t an attack on the suitability of current and former servicemen to stand for elected offfice?
I know that Harkin served in the Navy, but that doesn’t give him carte blanch to turn on its head the honorable service of an entire family. He has disgraced himself, at least in the eyes of this veteran.
was alluding to the obvious about John McCain, who has a one track mind, unlike so many others who serve in the military. It’s pretty easy to understand if you’re realist about it.
So, now indulge me. Why does McCain, who’s more than willing to keep OUR troops in combat for the next 100 years, not support giving them an education?
I’d take your outrage more seriously if you were equally critical when Republicans treated active-duty and veterans with contempt.
But you are silent about disgraceful conditions at Walter Reed and Fort Bragg, the Bush Administration’s contention veterans have no right to VA mental health care, and deplorable system-wide difficulties and obstacles for active-duty, Reserve, National Guard and veterans getting the care this Administration promised.
Or are you only roused to outrage when it’s disrespect toward a fourth-generation member of the Armed Forces?
This garbage from the party that invented and embraced Swift Boating.
Alright… I’ll take your comment as a heat-of-the-moment thing. I have a lot more respect for you than some of your peers on the right.
PR’s comment below suffices as my response here.
I’ve never said such a thing.
I have many Democrat friends who are also vets. I served with Democrats, Independents, and (as a majority of servicemen are Republicans,) Republicans.
But, YES, the Daily KOS left wing kook blogisphere does get pretty hateful towards the military.
Ask the Marine recruiters in Berkley.
Was I talking to you?
From the Des Moines Register article
I still agree with Cologeek on this one. Harkin’s comments were out of hand. After all, Eisenhower was one of the best presidents we had.
That said, McCain is no Eisenhower.
I’m not going to pile on one side or the other here. I think Harkin could make a point about McCain’s long history in a military family and the limited viewpoint that provides, but what he said – or at least the extract you provided – doesn’t do the argument any justice.
Washington, Eisenhower… Having extensive military service isn’t required, but it’s not a disqualifier, either.
But you must admit, a very vocal (hopefully small) slice of Democrats who identify with the anti-war left, are also vocally anti-military.
Most of the “anti-war left” are not anti-military. Many are ex-military. The anti-military faction is vanishingly small; even the “wouldn’t it be a great day when the Air Force has to hold a bake sale…” crowd isn’t generally anti-military, but rather is against the seeming extravagances of military spending, especially when compared to domestic priorities that we are ignoring.
It’s true, as Phoenix points out above, there’s an anti-military contingent, and, for those who aren’t Greens or Naderites or thoroughly disillusioned with politics, they’re Democrats. But Tom Harkin isn’t one of them. To conflate the two and say, as cologeek did,
is absurd and willfully ignorant.
Harkin was making a point about a man so steeped in military culture, going back generations, that his range of solutions may be skewed because it’s all he’s ever known. It’s a fair question to raise as we’re mired in a war that can’t be won in any conventional sense. It’s a fair question to raise when “bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran” slams Obama for daring to suggest we talk to our adversaries, rather than simply threaten or obliterate them (since that’s worked so well).
Did Harkin garble his point and make himself an easy target for self-righteous indignation? Yes.
Disagree with his point if you want, but to attempt to smear all Democrats with it — that’s intellectually dishonest and sidesteps an argument we should be having, whether and when to use the military in a dangerous and uncertain world.
The only line you quoted from the article is the only line that Harkin “screwed up”. The article spends significant time detailing Harkin’s remarks on exactly the issue that I suggested would be appropriate.
If Republicans are limited to cherry-picking words from a speech, they’re lost for 2008.
…budget.
The USA spends almost as much on its military as the rest of the world combined.
Most nations spend about 1 1/2 percent of their GDP on the military. We spend almost 4%.
Thoughtful analysis shows that the military consumes something like 55-65% of our discretionary budget when you factor in things like pensions, costs of wars past still being paid for, interest being paid for Iraq, etc.
We are addicted to war and we don’t even know we have a habit. You want to know how we could pay for good health care, education, infrastructure? There you have it.
As to individual soldiers, I am greatly appreciative of their sacrifices. I get extremely upset when our (mis)administration treats them like dirt while patting them on the back. Regardless of the Iraq War or the appropriatenes of the military’s antics, we made promises to those men and women. We must keep them.
McCain’s refusal to support a generous GI educational bill shows what he really thinks of vets.
In part that’s because in most of the developed world, for all intents and purposes, we are the military. It’s an open secret that most of the NATO powers spend very little on defense because it is assumed that in case of trouble, the U.S. will do all the heavy lifting, just like in Bosnia. When there is a disaster in the world, the Pentagon is often the first place people call to arrange the airlifting of supplies, and the support (if possible) of U.S. Navy assets. Whether you like it or not, we are expected to be among the first responders for emergencies around much of the globe, and our military is in the forefront.
I don’t doubt that there is some truth in what you say.
But it doesn’t justify our tax dollars, either in the absolute or the degree.
That’s like the (conservative)argument that we pay more for pharms because we support the research for them. Not only baloney, but still unethical.
Regardless, your scenario might justify somewhat more spending, but not almost 3:1.