A new low has been reached in the campaign of 2006. Totally outrageous.

Jackie Winters should immediately call off these attacks and publicly condemn this shameful campaign to use Evans' service against him. This is gutter politics at its worst.

It is interesting what a label means. Beverly Davis Says she is a democrat and is registered as a democrat but also said that she Supported George Bush in 2004 and is opposed to evans and Darlene Hooley. while she may have a D after her name She is no Democrat. and is dishonest although not a liar.

Woody Allen did say that 80% of success is just showing up...so I have to concede that.

Maybe an unfair jab, but shameful?

And please, the campaign reached a new low? This is just a single letter from someone probably unaffiliated with the Winters campaign.

Winters' comment is a low blow, and shows a lack of understanding of Guard service. On the other hand, it is highly unethical for Evans to use his uniform in his ads. His service is exemplary and adds to his stature as a candidate, but campaigning in uniform crosses the line into trading on a public office for personal gain. He needs to be more careful in his campaigning.

Marty:
you are attributing the letter written by Bette Davis to Jackie Winters. They are not the same person. It strains credulity to hold Jackie Winters responsible for every comment or letter made by one of her supporters (assuming Ms. Davis is her real name, and she is a Winters supporter).

Apologies... I meant Davis. Thanks.

Mr. Tee-

Winters should have to wear anything said against Evans. That’s the basic policy on any campaign from either side of the isle: If they punch, we turn around and smack them for it. Doesn’t matter to me who orchistrated it or not– it’s all the campaign against Paul Evans.

It is also worth noting that very few letters to the editor are sent in without solicitation, and that goes for every campaign. Even the few that are written independently, are sent in with a political bias and political motivation. Whether or not Winter's had anything to do with it doesn't change the fact that the letter was a horrible point to make that will in the will rightfully hurt Winters.

Marty-

Paul is in the military. Candidates always tout their background and former jobs. How many times do we hear-I was a former teacher, or-As a small business owner...etc. You seem to get your panties in a bunch because people love our troops and respect our troops, so you say Paul should not be able to let people know he IS a troop and that it makes up a big part of who he is.

Why not? because it is for political gain? Well that's what running for office is. Its all about political gain and that is what drives every candidate through their campaigns.

I don't have a problem with him using his history of service for political gain, but it's unethical to campaign actually in uniform, which is what he does in his ads. It implies the endorsement of a political candidate by the military, which is absolutely prohibited, and for good reasons.

Marty-

Evans does not campaign in uniform. You are simply wrong. He does have a commercial that shows a still picture of himself in uniform, but that is different. Tons of candidates every year show pictures of themselves in uniform. I am pretty sure no one thinks the military officially endorses candidates for office, but maybe its just me...

or maybe it's just you and other Winters supporters trying to drag down a good man for...thats right...his being a good man.

Paul is not currently in this country---he left several hours ago (how long it will take before he arrives in Afghanistan I don't know). I saw the ad and considered it highly effective. I went to a going away party for Paul and the room was full. Does anyone seriously think that room full of people is going to accept any criticism of Paul Evans? Or don’t they matter because someone has decided what should happen in this situation and the rest of us should just shut up?

The last mailer we got from Jackie (I actually live in the district) was about what an honor it had been to serve as a legislator. Sounded to me like she saw possible defeat ahead and wanted to go out on a grace note.

Either Jackie knew about the Davis letter, or it came as a surprise (wouldn't be the first time an underling did something which made a candidate angry). My guess is that the first is true.

There goes Jackie's going out on a grace note!

More importantly, this just proves why some of us always distrusted "support the troops" as a slogan. Jackie and B. Davis, and everyone who ever had a "support the troops" sign or car magnet or whatever should be held accountable for what that means. Does it mean "support anyone in uniform who supports Republicans"? Does it mean "rhetorically support those who are in combat but once they return home they are just partisans who can be attacked"?

Exactly what has Jackie Winters done as a legislator to support the National Guard? Does she attend deployment ceremonies (as I seem to recall Hooley does)? If anyone from the Oregon Guard has a problem of any kind, has Jackie Winters been receptive to their concerns? Or is this a case of “how dare anyone in the military be a Democrat”?

Is this all about rhetorical support because actual support (solving problems, providing resources, respecting military requirements and schedules) is too much work and besides political games are so much more fun?

As the granddaughter of a WWI combat vet, the daughter of a WWII vet, the high school friend of a Vietnam casualty (amputee), and friend of many other vets, I am really tired of the games being played here.

If someone believes that no one in the active Guard (by that I mean subject to any sort of call up / request for expertise) should ever run for office regardless of party or qualifications, they should say so. If friends of Jackie Winters will do anything to keep her in office, they should say so.

I have been a fan of Paul Evans since a co-worker told me what a great job he did in a ballot measure debate in 2000. I believe if he says he will be gone for 60 days he will be gone for 60 days. I think Jackie Winters and her friends have a lot to answer for---especially if any of them ever utter the words “support the troops” or show a sign or bumper sticker with those words on them.

There is an old SNL routine with the line “hear me now and believe me later”. That is how I feel. If I were ever in the same room with Jackie (who I have known for a couple decades) or any of her supporters, I would start asking tough questions like “What exactly does the term “support the troops” mean to you?”

Whoever is behind this attack on Paul never wants my support again for anything. Period. It sounds like a cheap political trick assuming that all good people want Republicans elected as their top priority, and actual concern about those serving in uniform is secondary.

And about the ad and “campaigning in uniform”. What exactly was the Evans campaign supposed to do, be silent after he left? When he agreed to serve the 60 day tour of duty was he supposed to concede the election? What if the situation had involved Boquist (who has also served overseas)? Would your reaction have been different if the situation involved a Republican called to active duty?

Using a current military affiliation (as opposed to a history of involvement in the military) and campaigning in uniform violate the Hatch Act and AF regulations. I think he's a great candidate and his service is definitely a plus. However, I can't approve of violating the rules, even for a good cause. He needs to be more careful about where the line is. It's dangerous to politicize the military.

Marty:

I don't think you understand the Hatch Act very well. But you'll be thrilled to learn that Paul didn't violate the Hatch Act or Air Force regulations. That means he didn't break any rules so you can go back to supporting him 100%, whole hog with no reservations.

Send his campaign some money. It's the least you can do for "accidentally" smearing him through your ignorance of the law. Also, try this to help you sleep at night.

Bert:

Look, as much as I'd like to, I can't ignore him trading on his present, non-elected public office, as opposed to his past service, in an attempt to obtain a new elected office. While it hasn't resulted in disciplinary issues b/c the Gov is of the same party, how would it look if Saxton were Gov now and Paul was appearing in campaign ads in uniform? The Commander in Chief publicly criticized by a commissioned officer? That's clearly not beyond the scope of free speech. Also, Paul is in Title 10 service now, so the federal rules apply - see the attached link, paragraph 3.

http://www.e-publishing.af.mil/pubfiles/af/51/afi51-902/afi51-902.pdf

Sorry, that should have been "clearly beyond the scope of free speech".

"much as I would like to"

Marty -

Given how quickly you switched grounds when your first complaint was knocked down it doesn't really sound like you are giving him the benefit of the doubt. It sounds like you are trying to find excuses for why attacking his military service is a legitimate campaign tactic.

So, is Marty correct, or is Bert correct?

I read the pdf linked to, and I think Marty is.

But Bert has better jokes... I loved the lunestra jab!!

I don't see many veterans of the Afghan or Iraq theaters running for office as Republicans, at least not combat troops. This is despite the bizarre presumption in some quarters that the military is an extension of the RNC, which of course it isn't.

Aside from the political sniping, anyone who's worked with Paul knows he's a natural leader and a consensus builder--exactly what Salem could use.

Maybe Ms. Davis should be upset that three and a half years after the US invaded Iraq, thus diluting out ability to fight the terrorists in Afghanistan, we are still activating National Gaurd and shipping them overseas away from their families, their homes and (apparently most important to Ms. Davis) their jobs.

Perhaps the problem here isn't that Paul Evans serves his country, but that our President has not only screwed up the battle against extremists, but has asked the Paul Evans' of the world, and their families, to sacrifice, while not asking any sacrifice from the wealthy.

Tonite on NewsHour, Daschle and Armey (former party leaders in Congress) were talking about the Iraq War influencing public opinion. It was ARMEY who said "the war has become personal, it has gone on longer than anyone expected, and all those people serving in Iraq are someone's baby, so the war is not theoretical, it hits home".

Now if Dick Armey is saying that, then telling the mother of a teenager not to ask how many years before the troops come home and if her child will be recruited to serve in Iraq upon turning 18 because "failure would be catastrophic, we must finish the job" ain't gonna cut it! Bush, Cheney, et. al can say every hour on the hour that their policy is working in Iraq and patriotic Americans never question it, but when did we lose our right to think for ourselves?

Iraq is a mess. Even if Jackie Winters and every other Republican running is re-elected, Iraq will still be a mess. If someone thinks Paul should have recorded the ad with the picture of himself from the website, then state that affirmative. But I think the point is to smear a good man, not to talk about military regulations. And I think Torrid has a point--unless you know that Evans is a federalized National Guard person (can that be done to one person?)and was at the time the ad was produced, where is the evidence of wrong doing?

I noticed no one responded to my question: suppose it had been Boquist (who has done service overseas and used that as a campaign issue both for state rep. and Congress as I recall). If Boquist had been called up as Evans was, should he have conceded the election to Jason Brown? Or is this not a general principal but a partisan political point?

Those complaining about the ad haven't made the case that Paul Evans should have been attacked over the ad. But maybe they wanted him to concede the election when he was called to service. If so, they should say so.

And if Jackie Winters does win re-election, what happens to the resevoir of good will she's built over all these years? Is it intact because she never had any part in the attacks on Paul Evans? Or are there all sorts of people who wouldn't believe her today if she said it was raining outside?

These sorts of tactics are not forgotten by the end of November of the election year. To use a famous phrase, if Jackie wins the election, those attacking Evans may just have "awakened a sleeping giant and filled it with a terrible resolve". She should expect constitutents unhappy with all the attacks to ask exactly what role she played, if she thinks any tactic that wins is an acceptable tactic, what she has done for the National Guard, if she has ever attended any deployment or welcome home ceremonies. And anyone who uses such tactics has lost the right to use phrases like "support the troops".

<h2>Those that have trumpeted Paul's present involvement in the military and politics might wish to recall the sentiments of Nobel Peace Prize winner General George Marshall (of the Marshall Plan). He very strongly felt that the military should be so divorced from politics that people in the military should not even vote, to preserve the perception that the military will serve whatever civilian authorities command them. I wouldn't go that far, of course. I wholeheartedly agree that Paul's history of service makes him an excellent candidate and, indeed, I would vote for him if I lived in his district. However, he's setting a very dangerous precendent by appearing in campaign ads in his current uniform. While we like him in this forum, how would we feel about Gen. Abizaid campaigning for President Bush? How do we feel about the recent allegations that military commanders have withheld their best advice to the administration because it contradicts the President's political aims? The wall between the military and politics should stay at least as high as the one between church and state.</h2>