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!)

I HATE Being Right: Why DADT Failed.

Photo: Katherine Cho, used w/out
permission. (Check out her photography
http://www.flickr.com/katherineC)

When I heard that DADT was going to be scheduled for a vote prior to the November 2010 elections, I knew better.  I said, publicly, that DADT had a snowball's chance in hell of passing, and I caught a LOT of flack from my liberal friends for saying so.

When DADT failed, I was proven right.  But that brought me no joy.  In fact, I hate being right, especially when I'm conceding that the side I agree with most will lose.

I'd love to be a water carrier for the Democrats, but the truth of the matter is, I'm an independent.  I'm a hardcore, bona fide, bleeding heart liberal, but I have about as much respect for Democrats as I do for Republicans.  And I don't have faith that either of them will do what's best for the country unless it's politically expedient for them.

This view isn't unwarranted cynicism.  Rather, it's based on years of keen (even obsessive) observation and academic study.  It's not cynical to say that most Democrats and Republicans will do whatever it takes to get elected, even if it hurts the country.  That's a demonstrable fact, and I'll explain why.

A Brief History Lesson

Honest Abe, proof that
"Republican Liberal" hasn't
always been an oxymoron.

Most people don't realize that political parties don't exist to promote ideals or platforms.  If that was true, then political platforms would change very little over time.  They don't.  Political platforms are very fluid; all it takes is one charismatic leader or one history changing event to remake a political party.  For example, Republicans used to be liberals.  When it was founded in the late 1800s, the Republican party was the party in support of women's suffrage, equal rights for blacks, and labor rights for workers.  As a result, the Democratic party took hold in the South.  Since the Republican party was more popular in the industrialized North, it slowly became more pro-business.

Franklin D. Roosevelt,
savior of the poor

After Republican policies favoring business led to Black Tuesday and the Great Depression, a Democratic president won and began to change the ideological makeup of the two dominant parties.  F. D. R., through his policies providing support for poor families in need of jobs, food, and a way to retire, began attracting African American support en masse.  Southern Democrats, many of whom were conservative, moneyed white males, began to oppose the Democratic agenda of giving to the poor and regulating business.

Truman was one cheeky
bastard, and I LOVE him!

In 1948, Truman effectively realigned Democratic ideology by helping usher in significant civil rights reform, starting with a strong civil rights agenda in the Democratic platform and actions like desegregating the military.  Truman said of his push for equality in America:

"I believe in brotherhood….of all men before the law….if any [one] class or race can be permanently set apart from, or pushed down below the rest in politics and civil rights, so may any other class or race……and we say farewell to the principles on which we count our safety…….The majority of our Negro people find but cold comfort in our shanties and tenements. Surely, as free men, they are entitled to something better than this."  

Many southerners weren't impressed.  They formed a conservative coalition, then finally switched to the Republican party.   (side note: I'm proud to be Southern, and I'm proud to be a Southern Liberal. Please don't lump all us Southerners in the category of racist, sexist, hyper religious and undereducated bigots!!!  I swear we're not all like that!)

KKK members campaigning for Barry Goldwater at the
1964 Republican National Convention in California.

In the 1960s, the very conservative Barry Goldwater completed the re-alignment of political ideology.  He soundly defeated liberal and moderate Republicans and attracted hoards of anti-government, anti-regulation, pro-business, and anti-civil rights folks to their cause.  At the same time, Democrats made huge gains with the liberal North, the poor, and minorities.  THEN came JFK, and more specifically, Lyndon Johnson's "Great Society" legislation, which solidified the Democratic Party as the party of Civil Rights.  With all the security net programs for the poor, the transformation was complete.


So the Parties switched ideology.  This is significant WHY?

Sen. Ben Nelson, Republican
from Nebraska.  Wait...he's a
Democrat?  You've gotta
be freaking kidding me!

Some people believe that political parties exist to promote an ideology.  If that were true, then it wouldn't be possible for a party to change so dramatically in the space of only 20-30 years.  The dirty little secret that most people don't know is political parties exist for one reason, and one reason ONLY:  To help their members get elected.

That means that it doesn't matter what the individual believes, all that matters is they are electable.  That's why Ben Nelson and Blanche Lincoln have a job!  Their ideology is more consistent with a moderate Republican, but because they're electable in their districts, the Democratic party doesn't care.  The parties don't care what you stand for, only that you can keep bringing money into their coffers and increase the party's national profile.

The "elect our member at all costs" motive isn't a secret.  It's a well known tenant of political science.  It's the actual, literal definition of a political party.

So what does this have to do with DADT?
No Speaker of the House or Senate Majority Leader brings a bill to the floor without knowing the outcome beforehand.  Period.  Harry Reid knew that DADT was dead in the water.  Senate Democrats knew, before the vote, that the measure would fail.

So why would Reid bring DADT to the Senate floor knowing it was doomed?  Simple.  He wants his folks to get elected.

Sen. Harry Reid talking to President
Obama.  No doubt, they're going over
their strategy for LGBT Rights
and being "Fierce Advocates!"
HA!  Just kidding.

Democrats have alienated their liberal base.  Liberals are sick of seeing progressive policies gutted in the name of "compromise," and then watching the Party of NO thumb their nose.  Even issues which have bipartisan support, like DADT, seem to just be twisting in the wind.

In addition, the failure of the vote has a twofold benefit for Democrats.  Firstly, it allows them to capitalize on the "Party of NO" attitude of Republicans.  I can see the campaign commercials now:  "The Republican Tea Party wouldn't even let the bill come up for a vote!  They let misguided ideology outweigh the need to support our troops.  First the unemployed, now the troops!  Who else will the Republican Tea Party make suffer in the name of obstruction?"

Secondly, scheduling this vote they knew would fail will lead to more public polling on the DADT issue.  It will also increase the dissatisfaction of average folks on both sides of the aisle with the fact that ultra-conservative misguided morality outweighed national security...again.  With supportive polling, it gives Democratic candidates confidence in tough elections, and might make people consider voting Democrat just because of their dislike of the Republican moral obstructionism.


Why getting rid of DADT doesn't make political sense for Democrats until AFTER the election
Democrats, who above all else want to win re-election, know they have an uphill battle in the upcoming election...but it's only recently become clear HOW far uphill they'll have to go.  Elections which don't feature a Presidential ticket have notoriously poor turnout.

These are the voters showing up to the polls.
This is what Democrats are so afraid of.
(Used without permission: Huffington Post
http://huff.to/cIyF2w)

In addition, American University compiled data from the primary elections, and noticed something interesting:  For the first time in AGES, Republican turnout was MUCH larger than Democratic turnout.  By a 4 million votes.  This is a clear indicator that the folks who will be voting in November will, by a relatively large majority, lean conservative.  So the Democratic party knows that they will need to move to the right slightly in their districts if they want to have a chance.

Allowing Democrats to vote on a bill they knew would fail allows them to say quietly to their liberal base, "Psst!  Hey guys!  See what we tried to do?  Lame that they blocked us, huh?  Vote for us, we've secretly got your back.  Just don't tell your moderate, independent, or conservative friends!"

At the same time, the fact that the only vote cast was a vote SIMPLY to open the bill up for debate allows Democrats in more conservative districts (or with strong conservative challengers) to go "I voted to bring the bill up for debate, but I still believe that the Military should have a final decision.  So, if you're conservative, you don't have to be afraid of me having a far left liberal agenda!  Vote for me, I'm sufficiently spineless!"

It's a win-win.  Liberals see the vote FOR the bill as a vote for the policy, and they know that the bad guys aren't the Democrats but the Republicans.  So they can't continue to blame Dems for their inaction.  WIN.  On the other hand, since it didn't pass, they can't be blamed by conservatives or Republicans for voting such a "morally bankrupt" policy into effect.  WIN.

For both parties, Politics is more important than Public Welfare.  Period.

Republicans are so proud of this troop
here.  So long as he's not gay and making
the homophobes uncomfortable!

This is yet another example of politics getting in the way of the good of the American people.  Don't think, even for a second, that the Democratic or Republican parties are more concerned with your welfare and our national security than their jobs.  If  a candidate from either party sufficiently pisses off the political parties that spend money to help them get elected, they write their own political suicide notes.

And since Political Parties exist for ONE reason and ONE reason only (to elect their members at all costs), they are willing to put on these big dog-and-pony shows which solidify their base without risking alienating the conservative voters they hope to persuade.  It's all part of the game.  And the truth of the matter is, it doesn't matter how many of them we vote out and how much new blood we bring in.  Unless we get rid of the whole Political Party system, things will always be the same.  And if you want to try and get rid of that system, good luck.  That'll be the one thing that both parties are willing to reach across the aisle to defeat.  Yay unity.

As for DADT, don't lose hope.  I expect to see DADT repealed, by the MILITARY, not Congress, in December of 2010 or January of 2011.  Keep your eyes peeled.

Remember folks:  Check your sources, Backup your words with FACTS, and NEVER accept that things are always as they seem.

~thechickabides

Quick Shot: Gays in the Military threaten Religious Civil Rights? PUH-LEASE!

Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council claims that allowing gays to serve openly in the military will violate an individual's right to religious freedom.  He makes the case that people who are against homosexuality on the basis of their religious views will be cast out, and that chaplains will no longer be able to council homosexuals to leave the "lifestyle."

My first thought was about all the other morality issues perpetuated in the military.  I grew up in a military town, so I know first hand what the military men and women do in their free time.  Two girls I went to high school with were impregnated by Marines, one of them when she was in middle school.  Three girls I graduated with (out of a class of 100) became strippers.  There are more strip clubs in Jacksonville than the law should allow.

Pre-marital sex is the rule rather than the exception.  Alcoholism is almost encouraged by the military culture.  Marines (God Bless 'em) are often hyper-sexed, ultra-violent, and drunk.  Again, I'm not saying every member of our military is guilty of this behavior, but as someone who still lives close to a military town, I can tell you that this is pretty average behavior for most of our boys and girls in uniform.

On the darker side of military culture is the prevalence of sexual assault.  A disproportionately high number of female members have been the victims of rape or molestation by their male counterparts.  Surely this isn't condoned by the Bible.  Furthermore, the incidence of domestic violence is much higher in military towns than elsewhere.  The stresses of the job, coupled with long deployments and a high incidence of adultery lead to violent conflict.  And you know what else it leads to?  Divorce.  Yet another thing that isn't condoned by the Bible.

Of course, you don't hear the Family Research Council bitching about that.  No, they're bitching about how allowing gays to serve openly will suddenly infringe on the rights of homophobes, no matter what "rights" they hide behind to justify their homophobic behavior.

And you know what else they're warning us about?  Homosexual rape.  That's right, they believe that allowing gays to serve openly will lead to a significant rise in man on man rape.  Once again, it's the case of a bunch of straight men assuming that gay men are clamoring to violate their buttholes.  Every homophobe I've ever met is convinced that every gay man they come into contact with wants to rape them.  In their dreams maybe!  I'm reminded of a study from 1996 published in the Journal of Abnormal Psychology which found that the more homophobic a man was, the more likely he was to be aroused by explicit images of gay sex.  Of course, the gay bashers didn't admit to it...but their bodies did.  See the full pdf of the peer reviewed journal article here:  "Is Homophobia Associated with Homosexual Arousal?"

Apparently, they tested homophobic men and non-homophobic men by attaching a measuring apparatus to their genitals and then exposed them to heterosexual pornography, lesbian pornography, and gay male pornography.  Both groups showed arousal for the heterosexual and lesbian pornography.  However, only one group showed signs of arousal for the homosexual male pornography...the homophobes.

So there's one only question left to ponder: When is Tony Perkins coming out of the closet?  Tony, if you can read this, just know that gays and their allies would be thrilled that you were finally living your life how you wish.  I promise, we'll be gentle.

New Name, New Blog, PLENTY of Punditry to Come!

I just got hitched, I've got a new house and a new job, so I figured it was high time I started a new blog.  Since democrats are in power, I'm not exactly a "liberal martyr" anymore.


So what's coming up?  I'm working on a blog post about Rand Paul's interesting view of civil rights.  I'm keeping my eye on the impact that the Deep Horizon oil disaster is having on President Obama's poor choice to support offshore drilling.  Oh, and I'm keeping a lookout for interesting leaked documents and FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) documents!


Until then, don't let the stupid get the best of you!


Chardon Murray