I thought so. They have told candidates not to talk about leaving Iraq.

The ones I know of here in Florida who have been getting picked and groomed are told that. I suspected others were. Here is one who did not go along with it.

In Pennsylvania, Questions About War Erode a Traditional Republican Advantage

"EDGMONT, Pa., Oct. 12 — When Joe Sestak announced he was running for Congress, national Democrats and media consultants told him not to talk about pulling troops out of Iraq, arguing it would only encourage the image of Democrats as weak on national security.

Nine months later, having ignored their advice, Mr. Sestak has put a 20-year Republican incumbent on the run for the first time, turning a bid by a political novice into a real race. Polls show that Mr. Sestak is running even or better with his opponent, Representative Curt Weldon, and that the war more than any other issue is propelling voters toward him.

Mr. Sestak’s persistence on the issue, and Mr. Weldon’s efforts to recalibrate his position, highlight some of the ways Iraq may be altering the politics of national security after decades in which the advantage has gone to the Republicans.

The most recent Keystone Poll showed about a quarter of registered Republicans saying they would cross lines to vote for Mr. Sestak. He has attracted a broad coalition; in one evening, he went from a fund-raiser with Howard Dean to a meeting of suburban Republican women."

And frankly this sounds like a veiled threat to me.

"Still, national Republicans have reserved about $8 million in television time in Pennsylvania for the last month of the campaign, the bulk of it in this district. And Mr. Madonna, the pollster, said the result would probably be influenced by international events in the next several weeks."

the ability of a candidate to show his/her passion and vision. I would vote for a person who gave straight answers over a automatronic generic "candidate x" ANYDAY.

lost all 3 branches of government.

At some point, the party is going to have to cede that ironfisted control of all its candidates if it wants to take a chance on staying in power.

...with my enthusiasm, which is not a word I use to describe my reaction to most Dems these days.

at an event with Wes Clark a couple of weeks ago. I really was impressed. He's a good guy. Do you know he wears always on his wrist this little bracelet his 5 year old daughter Alexandra made for him while she was in the hospital for brain surgery? So sweet....He would do us proud as a member of Congress. I 'm so glad he's doing so well.

This ISN'T my district. Whenever I see the name Weldon I think they're talking about Dave Weldon of FL! lol

We have a fine Dem candidate for District 15: "Dr Bob" Bowman. Here's his stance on Iraq, and it rocks too (you'll see why I got confused, and why I'll be voting enthusiastically for him):


Iraq: Saddam Hussein, as bad as he was, had nothing to do with Al Qaeda or 9/11. His secular Ba'athist state was hated by fundamentalist Muslims. By kicking him out under the pretext of his "weapons of mass destruction," we have empowered Shi'ite Muslim fanatics who want to make Iraq an Islamic state, and greatly worsened the terrorist threat to the United States and its citizens.

If we allow our military occupation to continue, we will be doomed to the same kind of defeat in Iraq that we suffered in Vietnam, where so many of my buddies died. Most Iraqis want us to leave. Al Qaeda and Iran want us to stay, because the war is depleting our military and destroying its morale. Our troops deserve better than that. They should be brought home and replaced by peacekeepers from the UN and Iraq’s neighbors.

To make that happen, our government will have to make three commitments: (1) to give up all rights to Iraqi oil, (2) to give up control of the rebuilding projects (let Halliburton bid like anybody else, and let them hire Iraqis for a change), and (3) to give up the 14 permanent military bases we are building in Iraq. President Bush isn't going to make those commitments willingly, so the Congress must force him to. Congress has the Constitutional power to do so, and must exercise it. Jack Murtha has made a very reasonable proposal. It must be taken seriously.

a stance for withdrawal as "weak on defense". What chickenshits they are! Then they wonder why no one knows what their position is. Sheesh!

There are many candidates like Sestak who've told the Democratic establishment "Screw you, I'll talk about getting out of Iraq as much as I like"

discussed?

Republicans have used Iraq to avoid all sorts of national discussions we should be having.

I want Democrats to address Iraq. But I don't want them to only address Iraq and I think Republicans would love the opportunity to only talk about Iraq.

In many places, more than 70% of the voting populace is against current US policy in Iraq.

republicans don't want to talk about Iraq. bush and minions want to talk about the war on terror to induce fear.

BTW, Sestak can easily talk about anything military he damn well pleases. He's an Admiral that planned our Blue Water security strategy. Security is one of Sestak's specialties. That district is being offered a dream representative with a Harvard PHD and a caring heart.

is being brought up by Dems, and often. Lots of things have changed in 9 months.

At least the ones in Florida being trained by SecureUS and Third Way.
They don't really talk about leaving, just redeploying.

I wonder sometimes how we can afford to even do that anymore.

The Times UK has a article tonight about our debt keeping us from standing up to NK.

He wants to begin a phased withdrawal over the next year (provided Dems win and we start soon). He also thinks its best to let the military make the decisions about when and how to withdraw, as they know best how to do it without sacricing lives.

We beat the SecurePac, DCCC, FDP guy by 10 points in the primary, and we keep talking about getting out of Iraq, and our latest internal polling (done in the district by Rasmussen) shows a dead heat with the incumbent repub. And those numbers came out the day before Foley broke.

If we would only advocate invading Iran and Korea, maybe Rahm would send us some money. Or at least return our phone calls.

www.johnrussellforcongress.com

being soft on national security? That's astounding to me. Clearly having gone into Iraq lessened our safety and now we even have reports to back it up. What is wrong with those at the top? We should be saying pull out and we should be saying it LOUDLY. And we should be citing the NIE report that says we've only increased terrorism. And we should be stating how theh Iraq war has lessened our reputation throughout the world. I mean come on people! Stop acting so afraid and speak the truth, and with passion, ffs.

Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.

otherwise known as: national Democrats and media consultants

They are not doing this to get votes, but rather because they support the basic premises of the Bush regime, though they think the Bush regime has mismanaged its control of Iraq, they have no problem with the premise that the US should install a regime in Iraq, by force, friendly to US interests. They want to limit the debate.
to hell with them.
An applause to every candidate who rejects this "advice".

It was a smear piece that would have made the Swifties proud. They ridiculed him, and quoted numerous "Democratic Senate staffers" too cowardly to give their names about how Kerry's withdrawal resolution "embarassed" the caucus, and hurt our chances in 2006, was stupid strategy, Kerry was just trying to steal the spotlight but didn't realize how obsolete he was, etc etc. It was horrible, and in every way tried to make him look like a crazy fringe wacko for proposing his bill. I have no doubt which senator(s) fingerprints were all over THAT smearjob.

The courage of anti-war Dems like Kerry, Sestak, and Dean angers and frightens them because it forces them to take a STAND instead of sitting on the fence, and they are retaliating in increasingly nasty ways. It's only going to get worse, I fear.

I dont think its too hard to figure it out. However, Americans deserve to know which Democrats are enabling the senseless deaths of Iraqis and our children.

I fault those who claim to be against this war and yet are somehow profiting and/or following orders, than those who truly believe we should stay the course.

The Corporate war mongering Dems are the top Dems - the Hillary Clintons, John Kerry's, John Edwards, Steny Hoyers, etc.

They in my opinions are not Democrats by perpetuating this holocaust in Iraq.

And we shouldn't count the DNC in there, mostly the DSCC and the DCCC. Rahm and Chuck have strict standards to follow if the money is to continue.

But right now I think all of them are just being careful until later.

I know Dean will be on CNN tomorrow, but lately he is so scripted. Maybe he is being careful not to say anything controversial, but I hope that changes after the election.

the crappy advice being doled out by Dem "consultants".

Those arrogant pricks couldn't care less about what American citizens think or want.

And this happened HOW long ago? At least 9 months, maybe more.

I have no problem with a partisan entity advising candidates in this manner. If they're wrong, candidates rebel and that's fantastic. It focuses energy and though, whichever way it goes.

.

And I quoted union thug.

You just proved my point that no matter what I post I will be considered defensively posting.

I wasn't. Amazing.

Sorry, that's just the reality.

And I wasn't aware you'd made the point that no matter what you post you will be considered defensively posting.

Not worth it to explain. I was not being defensive, in fact I am not sure how I feel. I understand why they tell them that, but I internally have a conflict.

The war is so wrong and so tragic, that not talking about it is not helping.

And Mr. Madonna, the pollster, said the result would probably be influenced by international events in the next several weeks."
Huh? Does this pollster know that international events are coming in the next couple weeks that will probably influence the result? That sounds mighty fishy to me.

How can anybody think discussing pulling out of Iraq would be a losing idea? :shrug:

and should look into purchasing a clue since, as you point out, Ms. Slayer, the polls are screaming the obvious strategy.

and neighbors and associates are also fed up with the war, because they talk to them every day . . .

opposing the war has not only become acceptable, it's pretty much the only rational position one can take given what we know about the BushCo lies that got us into it . . . and the lies they use to keep us there . . .

anti-war candidates will win all over the country in November . . . in a landslide . . .

all we have to worry about is whether the official vote counts will reflect the votes cast . . .