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
Edward Kennedy (MA)- Armed Services Committee, Chair Subcommittee on Seapower
Robert Byrd (WV)- Armed Services Committee
Jack Reed (RI)- Armed Services Committee, Chair Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities
Daniel Akaka (HI)- Chair Veteran’s Affairs Committee, Armed Services Committee, Chair Subcommittee on Readiness and Management Support
Russ Feingold (WI)- Foreign Relations Committee, Chair Subcommittee on African Affairs, Committee on Intelligence
Barbara Boxer (CA)- Foreign Relations Committee, Chair Subcommittee on East Asian and Pacific Affairs
Carl Levin (MI)- Chair Armed Services Committee, Committee on Homeland Security, Chair Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations
Ron Wyden (OR)- Committee on Intelligence
Barbara Mikulski (MD)- Committee on Intelligence
Patty Murray (WA)- Veteran’s Affairs Committee
Bernie Sanders (I-VT)- Veteran’s Affairs Committee (voted on AUMF while in the House)
Sherrod Brown (OH)- Veteran’s Affairs Committee (voted on AUMF while in the House)
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
Silvestre Reyes (TX)- Chair Intelligence Committee, Armed Services
Vic Snyder (AR)- Armed Services Committee, Chair Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs
Loretta Sanchez- Armed Services Committee, Committee on Homeland Security, Chair Subcommittee on Border Maritime and Global Counterterrorism
Bob Brady (PA)- Armed Services Committee
Susan Davis (CA)- Armed Services Committee, Chair Subcommittee on Military Personnel
Rick Larsen (WA)- Armed Services Committee
Mark Udall (CO)- Armed Services Committee
Elijah Cummings (MD)- Armed Services Committee
Kendrick Meek (FL)- Armed Services Committee
Donald Payne (NJ)- Foreign Affairs Committee, Chair Subcommittee on Africa and Global Health
Bill Delahunt (MA)- Foreign Affairs Committee, Chair Subcommittee on International Organizations, Human Rights, and Oversight
Gregory Meeks (NY)- Foreign Affairs Committee
Diane Watson (CA)- Foreign Affairs Committee
Lynn Woolsey (CA)- Foreign Affairs Committee
Sheila Jackson-Lee (TX)- Foreign Affairs Committee, Committee on Homeland Security, Chair Subcommittee on Transportation Security and Infrastructure Protection
Ruben Hinojosa (TX)- Foreign Affairs Committee
David Wu (OR)- Foreign Affairs Committee
Barbara Lee (CA)- Foreign Affairs Committee
Anna Eschoo (CA)- Committee on Intelligence, Chair Subcommittee on Intelligence Community Management
Rush Holt (NJ)- Chair House Select Intelligence Oversight Panel, Committee on Intelligence
John Tierney (MA)- Committee on Intelligence
Mike Thompson (CA)- Committee on Intelligence, Chair Subcommittee on Terrorism Human Intelligence Analysis and Counterintelligence
Janice Schakowsky (IL)- Committee on Intelligence
James Langevin (RI)- Committee on Homeland Security, Chair Subcommittee on Emerging Threats Cybersecurity and Science and Technology, Committee on Intelligence
Bennie Thompson (MS)- Chair Committee on Homeland Security
Pete DeFazio (OR)- Committee on Homeland Security
Zoe Lofgren (CA)- Committee on Homeland Security
Bob Filner (CA)- Chair Veteran’s Affairs Committee
Corrine Brown (FL)- Veteran’s Affairs Committee
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’.
And while you’re 100% right, there are plenty of Dems who fit the bill (I like Russ Feingold personally) as long as the Village allows McSame to get away with his idiotic foreign policy mistakes and keeps pushing the “Surge worked!” meme, Obama will be under intense pressure to pick a hawk in a couple weeks, especially with the whole Russian situation exploding from the “serious foreign policy” types.
I agree with you that Obama has to mouth the words to keep the foreign policy establishment behind him as you said yesterday, but his choice of a VP is not something he can sandbag on.
That choice will reveal if Obama is serious about change, or just a DNC Trojan horse.
Fuck you From.
And unfortunately Obama and his team have already shown a propensity for reacting to false memes, so if they choose a Senator/Congressperson, it won’t be from the antiwar list. Our only VP hope on foreign policy is one of the governors, KS or TK.
There are a lot of good choices on the list, but I agree: it would be a mistake to pick a fellow legislator for VP. Any choice would make the ticket too legislator-heavy, and he wouldn’t pick a known “liberal” on military matters. It’s looking more and more to me like the rational choice is coming down to Sebelius.
Don’t forget legislators who voted against AUMF who are no longer serving. Bob Graham of Florida was on the Select Committee on Intelligence, not only voted against AUMF, but encouraged others to vote against it based on the intelligence he knew about. Not only does have experience as a senator, but as a governor. He’s not on the short list and he’s neither youthful nor sexy — but considering Edwards’ recent problems, that could be an asset for an Obama ticket.
He voted against because he wanted to attack Syria instead. Not the greatest track record to be touting.
sure bet the Obama camp read that NYT piece.
I place you in nomination. And if you really, really decline, then moi.
Obama may as well reach into his base of supporters.
No kidding.
His wife is Lebanese-American, so he may have a blind spot there. That doesn’t diminish his record elsewhere:
He is respected in Florida. He is known nationally. He could bring experience as governor to a Senator’s ticket. His “work” days show a commitment to working people. He has a reputation as strong on defense. And he opposed the Iraq authorization.
How’s his health, and what’s he been doing?
I don’t know about his health. His pursuits in the past few years have been mostly academic.
Thanks for the information. I guess I could have looked that up myself if I weren’t so overworked (aka lazy). He looks fine in the recent picture.
I do see his name mentioned here and there, so I have hopes.
Gore, IF he’s the ultimate patriot and secure enough to take the #2 spot.
The moment is perfect for him: the energy future has finally become a major campaign issue. Two smart leaders at the top to solve some of the most daunting problems the nation has ever faced, not to mention global warming. Gore turned 60 at the end of March; in 8 years he’ll still be young enough to run again.
He would help bury McCain and wash the taste of Bush from our mouths instantly. As a bonus, he would instantly push the Clintons aside for good by joining the ticket.
Why wouldn’t he want to spend the next 16 years helping to save his country?
.
From German media –
WASHINGTON (CBS News) – Barack Obama’s campaign is jumping the fence lately, trying to attract voters that don’t traditionally vote Democratic.
This morning, the campaign rolled out a “Republicans for Obama” effort as former U.S. Rep. Jim Leach, R-Iowa, and Former Bush Foreign Policy Advisor Rita Hauser announced their support for Obama on a conference call. Also on the call was former GOP Sen. Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, who switched to the Democratic Party earlier this year to vote for Obama in his state’s primary. Chafee said there are “thousands” of Republicans, “big shots and little shots,” who will “weigh the choice” in candidates and “come around to vote for Obama in the election.”
Leach added that Obama’s policies are “rooted in very old American values, as much as part of the Republican, as the Democratic traditions” and this will encourage previously Republican supporters to “pick country over party in this election.”
Dem Convention to focus on unity, security, changeLeach also said that he hoped Obama would consider Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., as his running mate. Hagel recently traveled with Obama to Afghanistan and Iraq. “I think Chuck would be the type of Republican who will represent well this country,” Leach said.
The group will launch an “interactive” and “innovative” website in the next several days to attract Republicans to Obama. The site will feature a chat room and list the candidates’ policies on various issues.
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."Still holding out for Wes Clark. He fits Obama’s attraction for smart & disciplined and with the Georgia conflict this week re-peaked my interest.
.
“Wes Clark was something of a loner, a driven, intensely ambitious man with a piercing stare. Often described as “tightly wound”, he seemed to bring a disturbing zeal to his work. He had a reputation as a very political sort of general, antagonising his military superiors by going over their heads when they did not give him what he wanted. He was not popular among many of his colleagues, who knew him as the ‘Perfumed Prince’.”
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."That’s a really interesting piece. I like at the end where Shelton says he won’t vote for him…but the 3 star ended up somewhat supporting Clark. Thanks
What is it with From and the DLC? Just plain idiocy, treachery, corruption, or insanity? The 8 out of 10 Democrats who think the war was a mistake cannot define the Democratic Party but the 2 out of 10 who are either undecided or in favor of the war should define it?
We really need to dump people who can say something like that without dying of shame. No matter what the cost might be in money, which is all the likes of From is good for.
It would be nice to start a little boomlet for Rush Holt. Isn’t he Booman’s hometown Congressman?
Holt is one of the smartest people in Congress, and among the most progressive as well (there’s probably a strong correlation there). He has a Ph.D. in Physics and had a whole career as a physicist before running for Congress.
I think another good choice would be Lloyd Doggett of Texas, who also opposed the Iraq War, though he is not on one of the foreign policy or military committees.
At this point, I don’t think it’s going to matter a whole lot who Obama picks. Every choice will be wrong and be endlessly nit-picked to the nth degree by the media.
I don’t think he will pick her, but I’ve been impressed with Barbara Boxer. I wish in some ways she was a congresswoman from the San Francisco area if you get my drift. I think she would be a great pick.
as Bartcop teaches us, when a person’s mistake puts millions of dollars in his pocket, expect that person to make that mistake again and again. Too many Versailles Villagers have gotten very rich from bad behavior.
I gotta be honest, there aren’t a lot of good options on the list. In the house I love Robert Wexler, but I guess he’s not on the right committees.
In the Senate, I’ve really warmed up to Joe Biden despite his vote for the war. I think he’s been a much harsher critic than McCain of the whole fiasco and would be a great attack dog. I’m worried that Bayh, Sebelius, Reed, and now even Feingold would be far too soft on McCain.
We need a fighter. Go Biden.
“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.”
Looks like Al made a little slip of the tongue there. He obviously meant to say that it’s important to be WRONG on national security. We all know how important it is to the DLC to be wrong — especially when it comes to voting America into unnecessary wars.
I don’t always agree with her, but
I loathe Feinstein (the best thing for California is to have her given an ambassadorship to a tiny cultural enclave in Europe where she can do no more harm), so losing Boxer would be tough. Feinstein is also getting old enough that Boxer could be looking at senior senator status, and might not want to be veep.
My chief gripe against Boxer is that she supported Lieberman. Understanding isn’t the same as forgiving. For the good of the country (Homeland Security is a vital chair), one has to put friendship aside. Governing is a job.
However, her vote against the war and other points shows a long view. Anybody can be swept up by emotions such as fear: it take real character to stand up in Congress and refuse to follow the propaganda.
Barbara Lee is my representative. You can’t have her. She’s done a damned fine job of representing Oakland. Her speech introducing Gore when he was out here for Prop87 showed a fine concern for restoring the environmental quality to livable levels. She knows what poverty is like (she did the food stamp challenge) and Oakland is probably better known for its depressed areas than for its tech centers. She holds regular Town Halls and talks with real people, not just beltway flatterers and lobbyists. She favors impeachment for criminal war-mongerers. She understands the need for real security (why is the cargo in all those stacks of containers at the dock unscreened, yet humans suffer invasive screenings at the airports?) She isn’t afraid to stand alone if that is what is right. We need her too much.
I’d hate to lose Boxer, but she would be good for the country and is ready to move up.
Good analysis Boo.
The “strong of national security” thing tracks to the “Hawk and Dove” comparisons made during the Vietnam era.
In the voters’ eyes it is always better to be strong than smart or right.
Obama has done well with his unifying theme and I doubt he will depart from that in his VP pick. That will probably mean some folks here will be disappointed.
He also has done well by surrounding himself with pretty smart people and using them well as a resource. I’m hold out hope that quality will translate into pretty acceptable Veep, even if he/she isn’t exactly what I want.
Interesting you focus so much on candidates from Congress. I’m thinking he will look to governors because Americans pretty much dislike Congress even more than Bush and governors bring administrative experience congressmen and Obama lack.
Well, I basically agree and said so in this piece.
I noted that senators and congresspeople have difficulty getting elected on the big ticket. And I ended it by saying ‘if you are going to pick a member of congress’…
The reason I didn’t include governors is that none of them that I am aware of had a vote on the AUMF.
Therefore, unless they made unfortunate statements at the time, they are all viable by this standard.