Just because someone goes into the armed forces does not make them pro-American. There are many liberals with agendas of reducing our Constitution in favor of globalization and control by the United Nations.

Also, some enter the military as a way to make a living and not have to face the private sector. The armed forces has a generous retirement policy and if one enters when they are 18 or 19 they can retire, draw a huge percentage of their wages (depending on how long they served), and still be plenty young to attempt a private sector job.

Just having worn a uniform does not define the person.

She's attacking him? Holy shit, how bad is their internal polling?

WHEN Paul comes to do a (low dollar?) fundraiser, I look forward to cohosting and hope you'll all join us!

Paul, don't let them get away with this attack!

I'm sorry - I was wrong. Paul Evans is a TRUE PATRIOT and his opponent is pathetic.

He has blood on his hands and should spend the rest of his life rebuilding the countries he bombed and begging the collateral damage survivors for their forgiveness.

There is no such thing as a just war. All war is unjust. All who served the killing machine known as the U.S. Armed Forces should hang their heads in shame.

Peace. Organic hemp. Crunchy granola, and Liberty & Justice for all.

True blue is sarcastic, and just when I was going to ask JustaDog what branch of the military he/she served in, I read the correction.

This is just plain "when they act like that, you know they know they are losing" stupid.

Guess the suspicions were correct: "Support the troops" meant "support the concept of troops in the field but feel free to question any vet who doesn't come home and get active in the Republican Party".

Jackie Winters has a long and distinguished record. But if this is how she intends to leave politics, that is her problem. I live in the district and will tell everyone I know how unacceptable this is--esp. if this isn't the end of the story.

One of my friends lost a leg in Vietnam, and I'm the daughter of a WWII Army Air Corps vet and granddaughter of someone who fought in WWI.

Maybe the Republicans really have become the party of "out of ideas, time to just attack opponents". Like the Oregonian editorial said today about Minnis/Brading, "Mud is hard to throw, you can never be sure where it will stick".

Here are two useful ways for people to respond to Jackie Winters smear operation:

1.) Send Paul's campaign a check.

2.) Join me on a Bus Trip to Salem to canvass for Paul Evans (and Brian Clem). Bus trips are fun (games/food/speakers), productive (belly-to-belly is still the most effective form of political persuasion), and where else will you be able to eat some of Paul Evan's amazing BBQ while talking with Jim Hill.

Paul has a really tough race, but he's a great guy and a great candidate. We can help him win this seat.

Oops. I should have mentioned that the Paul Evans Bus Trip is on Saturday, September 9.

Jenni, I question your friend's claim that active duty personnel are only making "$500/2 weeks." My son just graduated from Navy bootcamp and he makes more than that. At 19, he thinks he's rich. But he believes enough in what he's doing that he'd probably be satisfied with half that amount, and I believe that is the point of you post. Sen. Winters should be ashamed of any attempt to cast a shadow on Paul Evans' military record.

Hey Kari,

Have you ever seen the make up of Paul Evan's District?

I don't think "just another lesbian trying to save the world, marriage and babies" plays that well in Turner, Oregon.

Just a hunch.

What org do you work for that is saving babies?

Kristin Flickinger,

Wow, honest criticism gets called homophobia.

Listen, my comment wasn't about you...it was about respecting perceptions of people that live in rural districts.

Just because you know two crackpot tree-hugging liberal hippies in Turner Oregon does not mean that everyone else in Turner thinks that way (as a matter of fact those tree-hugging liberal hippies walking for Evans more than likely loses him votes).

Just because people disagree with you doesn't mean they hate gay people. Most human beings operate in this gray area where they think "abortion is wrong...but so is the government telling people what can do with their bodies. Gay sex disgusts me but I don't believe in discrimination." Most people are in the middle and they want to make up their own mind at their speed without some who sees the world in "black and white" telling them what to think. And, in the end, every time some democrat calls someone "homophobic" we fall into the wedge issue trap that the Republican's set for us. It’s your myopic thinking that loses Democrats elections.

Everything you said in your article was smart and to the point…but every conservative (which Paul’s district is largely made up of) that read your post stopped reading after they read "just another lesbian trying to save the world, marriage and babies.” While we all might find that cute...most conseravtives would find that insulting and rude. Words are powerful and have consequences...chose them carefully especially when you are talking to people who don't necessarily share your values.

So Kristin, lets get something straight. I don't hate gay people, in fact I have fought against discrimination in all its forums for years. What I do hate are self-righteous, myopic, elitist, jackasses that speak before they think.

As someone who lives in S. Salem and will be voting for Paul Evans, please don't confuse District 20 with a "rural" district. There is both a rural component and an urban component to this district. And I think there are some who have gotten off the track of the original post.

There are a number of us who are supporting Paul because he is Paul--wonderful human being of the sort the legislature could use about now. And if Jackie Winters is threatened by the idea that the best person for District 10 might be someone other than herself, tough luck.

The concept of democratically run elections is that ordinary folk have the right to decide who will best represent them. And if the local voters like a particular person, they have the right to support that person no matter what is tried by the other side. Radical notion?

Fix

Kristin Flickinger,

Sorry for going off half cocked. I'm having a bad day, I didn't mean to take it out on you. I agree paul is a great candidate and thanks for helping him out.

Someone's going to have to explain to me why military service makes a good legislator. The old argument "Well the other side does it" doesn't wash.

Boikin, Those of us who live in the district and support Paul are in many cases doing so because we knew him (or knew of him) outside of his military experience, in some cases long before this year. He was Mayor of Monmouth, and much admired for standing up for his beliefs in a variety of settings. Also a nice person who many count as a friend.

But the question of this topic is whether it is OK for an opponent to go after someone's military record, hence the use of "swiftboat" as a verb.

If you don't like the discussion of military record, contact Jackie Winters (St.Sen. District 10) and ask where she stands on the kicker. How would she suggest paying for state police or human services spending? Or ask about any other topic. Including why she isn't talking about her distinguished career in public service, but rather attacking her opponent. As my friend Julie says, "when they act like that, you know they know they are losing".

ANY SO-CALLED PROGRESSIVES who volunteer to serve in KING GEORGE'S LUFTWAFFE are just war mongers padding their resumes on the backs of dead Iraqi civilians.

Under the guise of protecting us from WMD's, George Bush used the armed forces of the U.S. to bomb a sovereign country into submission and depose their head of state. Sure Saddam was an SOB, but that was the kind of goverment they needed to keep that country together. As soon as we leave Iraq, there will either be another dictator (perhaps worse than Saddam) or all out civil war.

How is bombing women and children relevant experience to serving in the Oregon Legislature. Any progressive with a conscience would have gone AWOL or sought C.O. status.

Sheeesh. Anybody know where there's an anti-war protest this weekend? I think anti-war chicks are soooo hot. I mean, this is just too important to sit in front of the television and smoke dope. We should go outside and smoke dope.

MOM: HAVE YOU SEEN MY CHE GUEVARA T-SHIRT?

Yo! Kari. Whassup, holmes?

You don't like Che Guevara? Or maybe you don't inhale?

YOU CAN SEE MY TRUE COLORS, SHINING THROUGH!

Actually I'm just regurgitating the same ol' (tired) pacificist dogma that lefties start spewing all over the floor anytime the U.S. takes action without France's (and/or the United Nations')permission.

The fact that Paul served in the U.S. Armed Forces (in any capacity) is reason enough to give him the advantage over a similarly qualified candidate. The fact he's smart and (based on third party testimony) a nice guy is just gravy. I hope he wins this election. I also hope that his service in the mighty killing machine known as the U.S. Air Force will make some of his constituents think twice before criticizing those who serve.

A soldier's oath is to uphold and protect the U.S. Constitution, and to follow any legal order passed down the chain of command. They have a voice at the ballot box, but that's where the democratic niceties end.

A soldier does not get to choose which wars she/he will fight in: that is the responsibility of the elected officials (POTUS, and the U.S. Congress).

True Blue, also hope that his service in the mighty killing machine known as the U.S. Air Force will make some of his constituents think twice before criticizing those who serve.

As someone who has 2 Air Force friends (Paul and a friend my age who retired at the rank of Lt. Col.), just wanted you to know your sarcasm was not amusing.

The people who really disrespect our men and women in uniform turn out (at least to a person like myself who got involved in veterans issues decades ago)not to be those in the 1960s who made life difficult for returning servicemen. That was an event not in the memory of people under 30. The people I have no respect for are those who wear the yellow ribbons, and proudly display the "support the troops" signs, car magnets, etc. Great symbolism--but what are they as individuals actually willing to do beyond the symbolism?

Gosh (dripping sarcasm), when it comes to veterans benefits, to vets ensnared in some sort of red tape (incl. that wounded vet who got a bill for his hospital food and his Congressman ended up paying the bill himself and then writing that legislation to make sure no one else ever wounded in combat would be billed for their hospital food), to (gasp) someone re-entering civilian life after coming back from combat and saying "this is what I saw with my own eyes, and that is why I'm going to get involved in politics", gee, that isn't the "support the troops" abstraction any more. It costs money to pay for all that health care. There was an instance (forget the details) this year when research into brain injuries was cut from the federal budget even though there are lots of brain injured vets returning home.

My heroes as people who truly support the troops are the "milkshake men". There on the news some time ago was a profile of these men. It is a group of middle aged ( prob. Vietnam vets) combat amputees who go to Walter Reed and take milkshakes to the vets in the amputee ward. They just bring a treat from the outside and companionship from someone who truly does know what they are going through.

That's action. I respect that.

What I don't respect is sarcastic remarks. And what really galls me is the people who have never been in the military but by golly everyone who disagrees with them couldn't possibly be a patriotic American. Or they have been in the military, but by golly any other military person who disagrees with them is scum because they have the revealed truth.

True Blue strikes me as someone with the misconception that anyone who questions Bush policy in Iraq or elsewhere (incl. the authors of books like Cobra II and Fiasco is disrespecting the troops. More like questioning the top leadership and how they treat the troops.

What those of us who are now near or over the age of 60 discovered was that when it came to actually helping the individuals who were permanently affected by Vietnam combat (shrapnel in their bodies for life, or amputees, or otherwise permanently scarred by the experience), the "gung ho on the war" types were not to be found. But contrary to myth, people who had questioned the Vietnam War (incl. those like me who corresponded with friends serving over there while we questioned what in Vietnam was worth the lives and limbs of people who had friends and family worried about them) were more likely to get involved in better treatment for vets than the "Give Em Hell In Vietnam" crowd.

So, TB, does that make me a "lefty pacifist"?

"Just having worn a uniform does not define the person."

This is obviously true, but there are some broader issues that are not being addressed. I have never understood why some folks (commonly but not always on the right politically) uncritically assume that:

1) military service is intrinsically "honorable" (whatever that means--shall return to that point), and that 2) the fact of having served in the military makes one's views someone more credible or more worthy or notice.

First, the "honorable" bit. What exactly does it even mean? Is a US soldier doing his best to follow orders behaving "honorably"? If so, then what about a Nazi soldier? Or a Soviet soldier? Or a Chinese soldier? Can a particular action be deemed "honorable" if taken in the service of a democratic state but "dishonorable" if taken in the service of an undemocratic state?

Next, the (IMHO) wacky and offensive idea that a veteran's opinion has some intrinsically superior value to that of a non-veteran. The most obvious observation to make about this idea is that it is not merited and certainly undemocratic.

John McCain undoubtedly suffered in a POW camp. His suffering undoubtedly illuminated many things for him and affected his outlook on life. But neither his abilities as a combat pilot nor his suffering in a POW camp makes his perspective on US foreign policy one bit more worthy of notice than the perspective offeed by your neighbor. Wearing the uniform does not give McCain (or anyone else) a free pass from the need to be logical, coherent, and true to reality.

LT: what makes you think the folks with the "support our troops" magnets don't support more generous veteran's benefits? It's hard enough to know if they're Dems or Reps, but you pretend to know they're hypocrites, too? And yes, you epitomize the pacifist left: Support the Warriors; never send them to War! It's the reverse of the Albright Doctrine: what good is it to use the world's most powerful military if somebody might get hurt?

LQ: we live in a free society. Nevertheless, there are a few basic requirements that society REQUIRES of us all:

1. Feed/clothe your children
2. Wear clothing in public
3. Eliminate waste in private
4. Don't hit (or cause physical harm) to others 5 Stop at stop signs (green means go; red means stop)
5. Don't steal
6. Pay your taxes

Many additional societal expectations may be added to this list; but I can think of no other societal requirements.

We can all agree that "service in the military" is neither a requirement nor an expectation for all citizens.

Instead, we have an all-volunteer military: citizens must choose to compromise their personal safety in service to their country. They do so with the full knowledge they may be asked to serve in a war they do not endorse under the command of political and military leadership they may disagree with it. The military bureaucracy has been legendary for at least 145 years: why would anybody willingly put their lives in the hands of an institution so consistently willing to subject individuals to injury or loss of life due to inferior training, equipment, or planning (for example, the locked ammo boxes and anti-aircraft guns at Pearl Harbor, despite a near wartime footing.

Yet, they still volunteer. Paul Evans (and all the volunteer members of the Armed Services like him) willingly agreed to serve his country in a manner that 98.5% of us never will: his self-selection as a member of that 1.5% minority entitles him to your respect and your thoughtful consideration of his qualifications on election day. Even more so if they were deployed in a combat zone, far from many friends and family members, in service to our country. That is what is meant by "honorable": to have served in a manner and place that many of us were unwilling/unable to serve, and to have done so without complaint and at great personal discomfort, jeoparady, or sacrifice.

True Blue,

Your last paragraph is intelligent. Only your last paragraph. You know too little about me to be able to say "yes, you epitomize the pacifist left: Support the Warriors; never send them to War! ".

I never said that. I think any combat vet has the right to express their opinion (as a friend of Paul Evans, I debate anyone who says he has no right to express an opinion they disagree with). That includes vets I disagree with.

I think WWII was justified, as was the invasion of Afghanistan. And the Gulf War under GHW Bush turned out better than some expected--an invasion of another country repulsed. But I don't buy the idea that any war is beyond criticism, and that no friend or family member of a combat casualty has the right to grieve in public ( as those who say "the war will be won with public opinion here, not on the battlefield" would have us believe). The preamble to the Constitution says "provide for the common defense". If in a couple years the level of miltary readiness is lower than necessary to " provide for the common defense" due to all the men and equipment lost or destroyed in Iraq, will people saying that publicly risk being called "pacifist lefties"? Or haven't you thought that far?

Are you saying I said that we should never send troops into any war? Or are you saying that no citizen has the right to question the wisdom of any war because all wars throughout history have only been started for the noblest of causes and no mistakes were ever made? Do you think Harry Truman was wrong in holding oversight hearings into military spending in WWII because only a pacifist would ask such questions?

And here's one more question for you, TB: Where did you do your military service? Or are you one of those who throws around terms like "pacifist left" without having served in the military? Check out Russell Sadler's column today on why labels are just shorthand and sometimes oversimplify.

It is nice to see so many people with their heads screwed on properly. Truly intellectual people can reason and change their opinion as more facts come to light. Thank you all for being so awesome!

So, for those of us who want to help Paul, he has a great event coming up. Senator Max Cleland is coming to town on September 14 for a fundraising event to benefit Paul's campaign.

It's a 2-part, choose-your-own-adventure fundraiser happening in both Portland and Salem. Pick the one that suits you best:

Thursday, September 14th

Portland Luncheon Noon, The Benson Hotel. 309 Broadway, Portland. $100 per person.

Salem Dessert Reception 7:30pm, The Grand Ballroom. 187 High Street, NE, Salem. $35 per person.

RSVP to Paul's office: 503.365.0695

LARRY BAILEY (BOOTMURTHA.COM) OCTOBER 1ST RALLY IN JOHNSTOWN, PA.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: Cliff Hancuff September 29, 2006 [email protected]

"American troops could be home now, except for critical mistakes by our current Commander in Chief," charges Cliff Hancuff, Director of The World of Journalism Is Flat, Too.

"Media and right-wing bloggers are ignoring this fact. For weeks I have been challenging political activists and journalists to act with a minimum of ethical standards," continued Hancuff.

"I became involved when the Sun-Sentinel in Florida reported that Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.) said the U.S. poses the top threat to world peace. I watched in dismay as the media and bloggers worldwide reported on this misquote."

"My involvement continued when I discovered Diana Irey, John Murtha's political opponent, had attacked Murtha using a fictional quote attributed to Abraham Lincoln."

"Larry Bailey of bootmurtha.com is continuing his three year blind support of our current Commander in Chief's incompetence in war. President Bush declared war in Iraq without the 4th Infantry, our most lethal, modern, and deployable heavy division in the world," added Hancuff.

This mistake lead to the atrocity of Al Qaqaa. Iraqi insurgents stole hundreds of tons of high explosives to be used as weaponry.

"These are the explosives being used by Iraqi insurgents and al Qaeda to perpetuate the war in Iraq."

"I am distressed that the same issues ignored by Swift Boat Veterans for Truth in 2004 are being ignored again in 2006," said Hancuff adding, "Americans, American soldiers and their families deserve better."

"Without these critical mistakes made by our current Commander in Chief, our American troops would be home with their loved ones, with honor, right now."

On October 1, 2006 Hancuff be at the Cambria County War Memorial Arena located in Johnstown Pennsylvania for Larry Bailey's Swiftboating of John Murtha rally. It is there Hancuff will continue his wait for Mr. Bailey to recall the values of honor and integrity taught him by our US Navy.

There is a youtube.com video online at:

YouTube - Rovian Architecture Unplugged

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5jcyHokFyE

The World of Journalism Is Flat, Too

<h2>-30-</h2>