The Tweets the Pantano Campaign Doesn't Want You To See

So interestingly, and much to my surprise, I got into a twitter war with a member of Illario Pantano's campaign this weekend.

I don't comment on local politics all that often.  However, when I was standing in line to vote, I got a few tweets which made me feel compelled to write the following:

"#ilmRead this story abt Pantano. Charges were dropped, but investigator called his actions morally & ethically wrong http://goo.gl/WYKV"

Later on that evening, I responded to a question about my last blog post regarding Blue Dogs in the House of Representatives. I responded to the question as follows:

"Agreed! Although i do know one safe blue dog: Mike McIntyre, from my district. Pantano, his challenger, is a war criminal."

I really didn't think much of it.  I would have explained that he was only an alleged war criminal, but unfortunately twitter only gives me 140 characters.  I'm a bit more blunt on Twitter than I am in person, but even so, I never in my wildest dreams thought that a candidate's campaign would actually RESPOND!  But, lo and behold, this is what greets me early the next morning:

I was surprised, yes.  But not incredibly so.  Yes, I did get an actual response from a real candidate's campaign, but it was a relatively standard response.  So I decided to respond with these two tweets:

"@Ilario_Pantano I'm sorry: accused war criminal 4whom the charges were dropped, but whose actions were deemed morally wrong by investigators"

 "@Ilario_Pantano I lost lifelong friends in Iraq. I have loved ones whose lives were in danger bc of actions like Pantano's."

Even George W. Bush realized that winning "hearts & minds" was integral to reducing terrorist/insurgent activity.  Research has proven, time and again, that activities like these actually serve as recruitment tools for insurgent groups.  It was ON!

While I was responding to "Wendy," I was also getting ready for my little one's soccer game.  So I was very distracted.  I made the mistake, several times, of saying I didn't want Pantano as my "Senator."  Since I used to work in the Senate, I guess I just defaulted to that term without thinking.  However, I do want to point out that this mess all started because I was responding to a query about my blog post about Blue Dog troubles in the House...so it's clear I just brainfarted it.  Without further ado, here's the rest of the conversation:

"@Ilario_Pantano I want a senator [representative!] who's cool under pressure & won't lose his composure/make immoral decisions on my account.That's his record"

"Is @Ilario_Pantano a war criminal? Technically no.But 2call his service honorable is an insult 2 thousands of veterans who fought valiantly"

"At the very least, @Ilario_Pantano is a man who lost his composure under pressure. What would he do if he was elected? #ilm"

Responding to the earlier tweet I missed (Since I was getting ready for soccer, and I wasn't really paying attention:

"@Ilario_Pantano No, mothers had to bury their sons/daughters b/c IP's actions led them to retaliate."

"@Ilario_Pantano His actions led to higher recruitment of insurgents, b/c he fed into their belief that US military killed indiscriminately."

Yeah...I NEVER said "Don't shoot!"  I just said that I thought Pantano's choice to kill two unarmed men was an example of his poor character.

"@Ilario_Pantano Truthfully, I'm no McIntyre fan. I didn't vote FOR McIntyre, I voted AGAINST Pantano. #ilm"

"@Ilario_Pantano Many people were in the heat of battle but didn't act in "morally and ethically wrong" ways.(investigator's words, not mine)"

"@Ilario_Pantano Abu Ghraib & Pantano's "morally & ethically wrong" actions played right into terrorist's hands to increase their legitimacy"

"@Ilario_Pantano How is Pantano going to react when he gets attacked in the Senate? [ugh...HOUSE!  I STILL hate that I made this mistake!] Will he shoot first and make poor decisions? #ilm"

Now that one REALLY bothered me.  Just because I think two unarmed men who weren't even proven to be insurgents shouldn't have been murdered, that makes me an insurgent sympathizer?  Just another example of many conservative's tendency to draw faulty conclusions based not on what I've SAID but on what Sean Hannity/Rush Limbaugh/Dick Cheney has TOLD them.  I responded:  

@Ilario_Pantano Never said they were peaceful. Never said they were good. They are bad. And Panatano's actions helped their cause.

Notice here that she used "shoot first" in quotations, as though I had actually said those words.  I never did.  However, I was running late and I wanted to shut the conversation down, so I let that one go and responded:

"@Ilario_Pantano But thanks for spending so much time talking about this on your official twitter feed. More people will now hear about it."

I added this little gem so at least some people would have a chance to check out the article.  At this point, I didn't even realize that the whole investigation was online, so I just sent everyone to a link from "The Guardian," a respected paper in the UK.

"#ILM Read about @Ilario_Pantano here:http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oct/26/us-veteran-killed-iraqis-tea-party"

Wait...did she just say "Your Team"???  What does she mean my team?

 HA!  It's at this point that I realize she thinks I work for McIntyre!  I enjoyed this immensely.  But I wanted to clear that up.  I felt strongly about Pantano because of the facts, not because I was paid to influence people.  So I wrote this: 

"@Ilario_Pantano If you'd like to email me to get information about me, one of my email addresses is terrorismforum@gmail.com" 

"@Ilario_Pantano Killing unarmed men...No weapons in the car, whatsoever. How were they a threat? http://bit.ly/d0mnvx"

"@Ilario_Pantano Good luck in the campaign. I cast my vote yesterday."

I thought, for SURE, that I was done at this point.  Before I left, I posted a couple of tweets specifically for my followers:

"Guess what everybody! @Ilario_Pantano 's campaign actually thinks I'm working 4 Mike McIntyre! Their whole twit feed is responses to me!"

"Can't believe that they're letting her respond 2 me. Ppl who don't know abt @Ilario_Pantano 's past can read abt it! http://bit.ly/d0mnvx"

When I realized, after the game, that there was still drama going on (and after they pointed out to me that I misspoke and said "Senator" instead of "Representative...UGH!) I added the following tweets:

"@Ilario_Pantano i want a rep. to b cool under pressure, he's been proven not to b."

"@Ilario_Pantano i don't want 1 who makes poor decisions under pressure 4 dogcatcher, much less my Rep. My mistake doesn't change his record."

Then I was done.  Several hours later, a friend on twitter let me know that all Pantano's replies to me (and others) had been deleted, and we had all been blocked:

VERY interesting!  I'm guessing SOMEBODY at the campaign was smart enough to realize that's a poor move.  Just arguing with me lent credibility to my claims, and there were definitely people who had NO CLUE about his past who caught on thanks to the ridiculous conversation.  All in all, it was an interesting experience.  Not sure if it won Pantano any votes, but judging from the DM's I got, it certainly lost him a few!

(Now you can do your own research and make your own decision about Pantano.  I relied on various news sources, but thanks to my lengthy twitter conversation, I decided to get more info.  I found a blog that's part of McIntyre's campaign that had the actual Article 32 Investigation pdf.  I'd link it here, but perhaps you should just go to http://www.thefactsaboutpantano.com)

Think We're Divided Now? Wait 'till After November!

As we close in on the final days before the election, everyone's been eyeing the polls.  There's been an awful lot of liberal hand-wringing over GOP gains in the past week, especially by extreme Tea Party candidates.

Remember kids, brown people are SCARY!
But don't worry! Yellow people are okay.
So long as they don't take our jobs.

In spite of the civil rights gaffes and head stomping, Rand Paul appears to be a shoe in (no pun intended).  Thanks to the Kendrick Meek/Bill Clinton debacle in Florida, Tea Party darling Marco Rubio grows closer to that Senate seat every day.  In perhaps the most high-profile Senate race that doesn't involve anti-masturbation campaigns, one night stands, and TOO much information about a candidate's grooming habits,  Mason-Dixon Polling shows Sharron Angle is leading Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid by four points.  According to an article from the Christian Science Monitor, there are at least 9 Tea Party candidates who have a real shot at winning.  In the House, candidates like Tim Griffin, Justin Amash, Jesse Kelly and Steve Chabot are all within reach of victory.  In addition to the expected influx of extreme-right new blood, a lot of incumbents, like Sen. John McCain, have abandoned their moderate views and embraced their inner Tea Partier.

A House Divided...
There's no doubt that after the elections, the GOP Caucus in both houses of Congress will lean much more toward the conservative fringe.  However, most media outlets have spent so much time talking about Rep. John Boehner "picking out the curtains" that they're missing the other side of the story:  How are the elections of 2010 going to change the makeup of the Democratic party?

Until today.  The Daily Caller ran an interesting story about how the election is going to leave House Blue Dogs out in the cold.  According to Daily Caller blogger Alex Pappas, the Progressive Caucus has 76 members, 62 of which are not in danger of losing their seats.  This is a stark contrast to the Blue Dog's Caucus, which has 54 members with only 6 safe seats.

Assuming the most extreme scenario, where conservative Tea Party candidates win and the Blue Dogs lose in both houses of Congress, things are going to look mighty different.  Because there will be fewer opportunities for members of opposing parties to find common ground, expect an increase in the polarization of our political culture.  Think things are dirty and divided now?  Just you wait.

Liberals, Don't Despair!

This woman has $10 million
in her campaign coffers.
God Help Us All.

However, I have a crazy theory that might, as Sharon Angle is fond of saying, "take these lemons and make lemonaid" for progressives.  In spite of Pappas' fearful tone regarding the increased liberalization of House Democrats, the lefties that are in office now are not all that extreme.  They certainly hold more moderate, mainstream views than the Tea Party folks.

On the other hand, the Tea Party candidates are further right than right, and are pulling the Republican Party right along with them.  Crazy policy ideas like privatizing Social Security and other popular government programs with bipartisan support will not endear them to the American public.  Combine that with polarizing figures like Sarah Palin and Christine O'Donnell alienating Democrats, Republicans, and Independents alike, the Liberals will be in a position to prove that they don't really have a "scary socialist agenda" and that their policies are much more reasonable for the welfare of the American people.

Is there a good chance that our Nation will have to suffer through the failure of extreme far-right policies?  Yes.  But perhaps this influx of far-right candidates will actually lead to the invalidation of their crazy policies, and the public will finally grow weary of the divisiveness of our political system and stop voting for certifiably insane politicians like Michele Bachmann.

Well, I can hope at least.

Remember folks:  DO YOUR CIVIC DUTY AND VOTE!  

(Just don't be too depressed if the crazies win...this time!)