Larry LaRocco’s Starship Troopers
Posted by Adam Graham in : Idaho Conservative, The
photo credit: Ben Cooper
Over at her place, in the comments of the election day post, Julie Fanselow previewed the Democrats fall campaign:
As for Risch, I’m figuring Scott Syme gets the lion’s share of the anyone-but-Risch vote, but I think he’ll also get a sizable tally of people who are voting FOR him because of his military service.
I predict now that Risch’s lack of service will be a real liability in his race against Larry LaRocco this fall. It hasn’t been an issue in their previous state-level match-ups, but it will be on the federal level, especially with war dragging on in Iraq. The simple fact is that very few Idahoans know that while LaRocco served his country as an Army captain, Risch somehow avoided service during the Vietnam era. Of course, that also speaks to the air of privilege that Risch has carried throughout his career and that he’s continuing now with his refusal to directly debate his GOP opponents.
Whatever he gets tonight, this is Jim Risch’s high-water moment for 2008, so I hope he enjoys it. Between his lack of military cred and the fact that LaRocco would enter the Senate with seniority (due to his two House terms) AND in the majority party, Idahoans will soon realize that LaRocco is a far better choice.
I love the “influence” argument Democrats love to make for their candidates since they captured the majority. The benefit of influence depends on whether you like what the candidate will do. I for one wouldn’t vote for LaRocco so he’d have greater influence to mess up the country while Risch would have less to make things better. In fact, the whole influence argument screams, “Larry LaRocco will bring home more pork.” No, thanks.
As to the military argument, sure. That’s right, military service trumps everything, because after all, we live in the world of Robert Heinlein’s “Starship Troopers“:
Suffrage belongs only to those willing to serve their society by two years of volunteer Federal Service — “the franchise is today limited to discharged veterans”, (ch. XII), instead of anyone “…who is 18 years old and has a body temperature near 37°C”
Oh wait, we don’t live in the world of Starship Troopers and military service isn’t a requirement for any office or to vote. Nor is that a benefit promised to enlisting troops. Nowhere in any paperwork LaRocco signed does it say, “You are hereby guaranteed a U.S. Senate seat when running against a non-veteran.”
I appreciate greatly the sacrifice of our nation’s veterans. Without them, we would not have our freedoms. Most humbly serve our country and return home. Military service is a legitimate point to raise in favor of your campaign. So is a strong legislative record or business experience.
However, I’ve noted a growing trend by supporters of some candidates, and even the candidates themselves, to begin to suggest that a candidate who has served is superior to one who has not. I would remind such people who run Starship Troopers campaigns that our Constitution (which every soldier swears to protect) lays out the requirements for service in public office. To use your service to the country to bash your opponent is to me a sign of ultimate weakness and dishonors the service you’ve rendered.
It also seems somewhat bizarre for Democrats to make this argument. The Democratic nominee for President this year is Barack Obama, who is widely supported by Idaho Democrats, and he is running against a Navy Veteran and POW John McCain. The argument of Idaho Democrats seems to be, “Military service is relevant if you want to be U.S. Senator, but totally inconsequential if you want to be President.”
Thus, is the case with Idaho’s inconsistent starship troopers.
Comment by Bubblehead
While I mostly agree with your points here, I think it’s perfectly OK for a candidate with military service to bash his opponent with it without “dishonoring” himself — it’ll be up to the voters to decide whether or not to reward that behavior.
On another election matter, early returns show both Rep. Bowers and Thayn losing, and I’m sure Sen. McKague will lose too. Is there any chance at all that you’ll admit that even most Republicans don’t like extremists, or will you just blame cross-over Democrats and refuse to consider the alternative?
Comment by Adam Graham
I really think you’re playing with dangerous territory particularly LaRocco with Risch or McCain with Obama.
I don’t know what early returns you’re talking about, I don’t see anything on the Secretary of State’s website. I don’t think that any race is determinant of ideology. The one thing I’ve come to conclude about elections is that they’re about likability and I think losses in these races will be out how the media painted the candidates, not their ideology. Conservatives will lose, conservatives will win and a couple primary tells us nothing about the future of the state.
Comment by Julie in Boise
Adam,
I knew you’d bring up Obama. Let’s just say there’s a big difference between LaRocco and Risch, who came of age during Vietnam and the draft, and Obama, whose generation had … um, Grenada. Whether or not someone from the Baby Boom generation served in the military is much more germane than whether a Gen Xer signed up.
As for influence, no, I wasn’t referring to pork, but simply the ability to get things done. As a member of the Democratic majority, LaRocco would automatically be as powerful as Mike Crapo (if not more so), and with credit awarded for his two House terms, he’d be one of the most powerful freshmen senators, period. Moreover, LaRocco pledged tonight to work across the aisle, just as Barack Obama says he will do.
It’s time for Idaho to end its unthinking fealty to the Republican Party.
Comment by Adam Graham
Question: Julie, did you vote for CFlinton over WW2 heroes George H.W. Bush and Bob Dole?
Second point, do you think there’s no legitimate reason not to have served? That’s the stand you’re taking. So if Jim Risch had a physical injury that made him incapable of serving that should disqualify him from Public Office? If he took a completely legitimate deferrment that should disqualify him from public office? That’s the position you seeem to be arguing.
Comment by Julie in Boise
Adam,
I grudgingly voted for Clinton. (My preferred candidate in ’92 was Paul Tsongas.) But that’s another argument: WWII was a “good” war, as we all know.
If Jim Risch had a valid physical disqualification that kept him from serving during a time of national draft, I will lay this argument to rest. But he has yet to say why he did not serve, so until he does, I think this remains a valid point of difference between LaRocco and Risch – though hardly not the only difference between them.
Let’s be fair: Isn’t it ironic that Idaho Democrats are fielding candidates (Minnick and LaRocco) who served in the Army during the Vietnam era, while the Idaho GOP has two candidates of the same generation (Sali and Risch) who did not? And that Risch and Sali would continue the disastrous policies of chickenhawks Bush and Cheney, who also skipped Vietnam, but that Minnick and LaRocco know better?
If Idahoans are fine with four more years of Bush-Cheney policies, they’ll be fine with Sali and Risch. Otherwise, they’ll want to give LaRocco and Minnick a chance.
Comment by PF Trojan
Jim actually tried to sign up for the Army during Vietnam, but was rejected for a medical disqualification. He rarely mentions it.