By FITSNews || Last week’s decision by S.C. lieutenant gubernatorial candidate Bill Connor to suspend his campaign for a week while he was called up to active duty with the U.S. military raised an issue we’ve been itching to address around here.
Specifically – what are the advantages (and disadvantages) of running as a current, reserve or retired member of the U.S. Armed Forces?
Obviously, military service is a huge “plus” in most people’s books because it symbolizes a willingness to sacrifice on behalf of country. But candidates who”over-sell” their military service in the political arena run the risk of marginalizing that benefit, while at the same time it seems awfully difficult for military personnel – particularly active duty personnel – to fully participate in the political process.
In addition to restrictions on various types of campaign activity, the Department of Defense also has regulations seeking to curtail the use of “photographs, drawings, and other similar media formats of themselves in uniform as the primary graphic representation in any campaign media, such as a billboard, brochure, flyer, Web site, or television commercial.”
Basically, the Army doesn’t want to appear like it’s endorsing anyone – which makes sense.
We encountered this rule first hand recently when we published an interview with General Bob Livingston, who is currently running unopposed for S.C. Adjutant General. As we prepared the interview for publication, we called Livingston’s campaign and asked if we could have a picture of him in uniform to run alongside the story.
No can do, we were told. Instead, we were provided a picture of Livingston in a suit at a political event to use for the article.
Last week, Esquire published a list of military campaigns that were allegedly violating Department of Defense regulations regarding the use of military uniforms in campaign ads or photographs. One of those campaigns belongs to Katherine Jenerette, who is running with a host of other candidates for the S.C. First Congressional District.
We spoke with Jenerette Tuesday night and she assured us that all of her campaign activities have been approved by her commanding officer.
Personally, our belief is that anyone who has honorably served in the U.S. military should be allowed to wear the uniform (and use graphic depictions of themselves in uniform) however they choose. We also believe that restrictions on campaigning by members of the military are ridiculous (and possibly illegal) – provided that attending campaign events does not directly interfere with their ability to discharge their duties.
Of all people, military candidates like Connor, Livingston, Jenerette (and for that matter Democratic Rep. James Smith) have earned the right to campaign without one arm tied behind their backs …
By Rick May 5, 2010 at 12:23 pm
Concur as long as the public understands that their being in uniform does not mean that the military is endorsing their candidacy. And remember the lesson of John Murtha….may have been a good commander while in uniform, but still engenders anger and hatred from the military serving today. Only 1 of 2 people whose grave I desire to piss on.
By get the hook May 5, 2010 at 12:41 pm
Did you “Trust, but verify”? Did Jenerette provide any proof? By the way, commanding officer approval is not adequate.
4.2.2. A regular member, or a retired regular or Reserve Component member on active duty under a call or order to active duty for more than 270 days, may not be a nominee or candidate for the offices described in subparagraph 4.2.1., except when the Secretary concerned grants permission.
4.2.2.1. The Secretary concerned may NOT delegate the authority to grant or deny such permission.
By fitsnews May 5, 2010 at 1:08 pm
Rick: Good points …
“Get the hook” (a.k.a. Ken Glasson): Get over yourself.
-FITS
By get the hook May 5, 2010 at 1:15 pm
I’m not Ken or any other candidate or minion and you didn’t comprehend or respond to my post.
By looking in May 5, 2010 at 1:16 pm
This applies to Connor… and Livingston, and Jenerette,… and Mick Zais, Alan Wilson, and Gresham Barrett.
They’ve all served. Seems to me we have a new generation of leaders forged in combat that might be coming to the lead in South Carolina politics for years to come.
Thinking about how the poloticians have let us down since the 60s, I think maybe I’ll vote for the whole lot of them.
By Skidmarks May 5, 2010 at 1:29 pm
Very curious:
1. Are there rules concerning political criticism of the Commander in Chief by a candidate who is in the military?
2. Congress?
3. Cabinet?
4. If in National Guard, criticism of Governor and Adjutant General?
By T-dawg May 5, 2010 at 1:39 pm
Look at South America, – the civilian / military line is so important because everything can go to shit if it is crossed. Ergo, the further we keep from it the better!
By me May 5, 2010 at 2:01 pm
T-dawg
George Washington
By Rod tidwell May 5, 2010 at 2:11 pm
I’m fine with telling others while campaining and as long as that campaigning doesn’t take away from your obligations in uniform. I commend bill Connor for suspending his campaign to uphold his obligation. His example should be followed by all the canidates you mentioned. This includes taking non-deployable assignments so you can focus more on your political campaigns. If being in office is more important than serving in Current opeartions like Iraq or Afghanistan than you should resign your commison and focus on your priorities.
By WorkingTommyC May 5, 2010 at 2:40 pm
Got to disagree with you on this one, Sic.
I’m a veteran and don’t like even the idea of abusing the military association in a country where the civilian government is supposed to rule absolutely over the military. If, as Geo. Washington said, government is like fire, then the military is radioactive material. The potential for abuse may seem remote in terms of militarization and undue influence over civilian government but then so seemed very many of the present abuses we suffer today that were d—d remote back in the Founders’ days.
We’ve already gone from having a citizen militia and small standing army and navy to having a freakin’ HUGE military spread out all over the d—d globe. Want to save a trillion dollars a year during these bad times? Bring the troops home and see how much we save vs. being the policemen of the world.
In fact, if anything, I’d rather see laws explicitly prohibiting service in the military while holding elected office. There is an inherent conflict of interest as well as frequent and profound incompatibilities of serving either master adequately and without partiality given or being recieved.
The legislator will either go when he’s ordered to go or he will be given special privilege due to his office which is not anything approaching “equality under the law.” If the former, then he will eventually miss what may be critical votes that his constituents put him in office to make.
In terms of the military having to deal with someone like Lindsey Graham infesting their officer ranks–what the hell do you do with him when there is any question of his violating rules or being exposed to actual danger, etc.? He’s got a huge amount of power relative to others in the military in terms of what the military members get and how the army is equipped and even on the question of whether troops are DEPLOYED (since war hasn’t been properly DECLARED since 1941).
Lindsey gets treated like a holy cow in India. He does pretty much as he pleases when it gets right down to it. Who’s going to say anything? Talk about “don’t ask, don’t tell!”
In the meantime, he gets pictures taken of him in uniform during government time on government property while he’s being interviewed by a reporter and promoting his partisan political agenda (which, when you get right down to it, is essentially discussing ANY use of our tax money no matter how justified such expenses may or may not be since he uses those issues to get re-elected on). http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/14/lindsey-graham-serves-mil_n_150865.html is one example of his pushing his issues on our military dime.
If a candidate is going to use his military photo or fact of military service, it needs to be in the past tense of having served vs. currently serving. A record of service is great and perfectly legitimate to use for campaign purposes.
A candidate in current reserve or guard service is so problematic that it makes sense as a reasoning adult that one either chooses to serve in office or in the military. If officials in public office are subject to being called up, they are placing an undue burden on their constituents. If public officials are not subject to being called up due to their holding office (and to be perfectly honest, I’m not sure of the rules regarding elected officials in the guard or reserves) then they are not being treated equally and potentially place an undue burden on at least the people who have to be called up to replace them.
All that being said, I’m a supporter of Bill Connor and recognize that he will probably remain in the reserves and serve his two weeks a year and some weekends while in office. It can be balanced, I suppose, if one is LUCKY in terms of what the military will require but, ideally, I would RATHER that he resign his commission or go on inactive status while serving as Lt. Governor. Otherwise, what happens if he’s not available for a critical vote? It could make a huge difference if we are teetering on the edge of economic ruin. We REALLY need focus and fighters in government nowadays. They also serve who fight for the citizens of this state.
By Michael May 5, 2010 at 3:12 pm
Many of our country’s finest leaders have also been not just military, but combat leaders as well. The sacrifices those individuals have made for their state and country are immeasurable.
I also thought Connors suspending his campaign was the mark of a true leader and one whose priorities are in order.
I wish others would follow Bill Connors example.
He certainly has my vote.
By The Colonel May 5, 2010 at 3:55 pm
At the risk of repeating myself:
DoD Directive 1344.10
4.3. Additional Limitations on Nomination or Candidacy and Campaigning
4.3.1.2. Include or permit the inclusion of their current or former specific military duty, title, or position, or photographs in military uniform, when displayed with other non-military biographical details. Any such military information MUST BE ACCOMPANIED by a prominent and clearly displayed disclaimer that neither the military information nor photographs imply endorsement by the Department of Defense or their particular Military Department (or the Department of Homeland Security for members of the Coast Guard); e.g., “John Doe is a member of the Army National Guard. Use of his military rank, job titles, and photographs in uniform does not imply endorsement by the Department of the Army or the Department of Defense.”
All three campaigns have the compliant language on their sites (some of them added it fairly recently)
Working Tommy, I’m in SWA now, and I take the opposite tack. I see no problem with acknowledging one’s service prior or current. Washington himself wore a Gorget for much of his life as a gentle reminder that he was a officer in the militia. Everyone knew Ike and they loved him for his success as the Allied Commander. Mick Zais’ service is germane to his campaign for Supt. of Education since it includes his time as an instructor at USMA. Jeanrette’s service is also germane as she is seeking an office that has control over the military. Connor’s service may or may not be depending on how you look at his record in relation to the largely ceremonial role of the Lt. Gov.
That said, all the service member need do is comply with what is an unusually clearly written DoD directive.
By Greg Walton May 5, 2010 at 4:37 pm
Eisenhower was shown in uniform in photos or on TV when he was trouncing Adlai Stevenson.
By old sarge May 5, 2010 at 4:41 pm
Gresham Barrett “served” in uniform between 1983-87, but he was not “forged in combat”. AFAIK, he never left the states, and resigned his commission, ending his uniformed service.
By Someone in Spartanburg May 5, 2010 at 5:09 pm
Don’t forget that Jim Lee is currently an Active Reservist running for the Fourth Congressional seat to get rid of the RINO Bob Inglis.
By The Colonel May 5, 2010 at 5:16 pm
In answer to Skidmark’s questions, yes, there is one very critical rule regarding speech directed towards elected officials. The rules are spelled out in Article 88 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), quoting “Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.”
Article 88 specifically addresses officers’ behavior but the catch-all is Article 134 – basically doing anything that makes the military look bad or would be a crime in civilian life. The DoD has many policies/directives regarding campaigning (generally: not in uniform, not on the Gov’t dime or using Gov’t assets)
By The Colonel May 5, 2010 at 5:31 pm
Sarge, you’ll recall that Ike wasn’t forged in combat either, he sat out WWI in Texas and went from being a COL to a General of the Army without ever having a combat command and it is likely, he never heard a rifle shot fired in anger (though he was bombed while living in London and was afloat during the Normandy Invasion – I’m not slighting him, just pointing it out. Ike was both an excellent Allied Commander of SHAEF and President)
By SnakeMD May 5, 2010 at 6:16 pm
Is Mark Sanford still in the Air Force Reserve? (medical corps?) How come we have never seen a picture of him in uniform? What ever happened to “conduct unbecoming an officer”? When and where does he serve? He certainly seems to have a lot of free time to travel. Just curious…
By Silence F-ing Dogood May 5, 2010 at 6:52 pm
It is me or do the younger gusy/gals just make a bigger deal out their service??? Sens. Knotts, Courson, Leventis, Anderson, Cleary, O’Dell, Cromer, Hayes all served in the military in some capcity if I am not mistanken – some with high disguishment or ranks. But it seems like the former generations make less hay of it. Sure it is mentioned on their webiste et cetera, but doesn’t seem to be the ceteral theme of their campign or sucha “hey look at me” kind of thing.
K. Jenerette’s para-jumping video set to the tune of let the bodies hit the floor almost made me puke.
By WorkingTommyC May 5, 2010 at 7:22 pm
The Colonel:
Articles 88 and 134 are further reasons I think elected officials should be divorced from military obligation. Not that it’s done routinely now, but what happens when an elected official is brought up on charges for criticizing someone where it is forbidden by the military? Just the threat of such action could intimidate reserve officers in elected office.
The potential for abuse is as bad as the abuse actually occurring if you’re truly on guard against tyranny. You HAVE to take precautions. Seeing the abuses that HAVE occurred, I think we need to take another look at the way things are handled in this regard.
Geo. Washington was a true citizen-soldier. He was a citizen who would engage in armed conflict when necessary–sort of an instant transformation but only when needed. The closest he could compare to now is the inactive reserve. He had the training but was not regularly deployed and probably did not even drill after his military services was over.
The modern reserves are not what the minuteman was in the truest sense. I am, with absolutely no military obligation now, more of a citizen soldier in the minuteman tradition than someone in the guard or reserves. If we were invaded, for example, I’d organize with others and help form part of a local militia in order to resist the enemy as necessary in order to support the military objectives of our country. I have the basic training necessary and OJT would quickly bring me up to speed.
In fact, the legal definition of the modern South Carolina militia:
“SECTION 1. Militia.
“The militia of this State shall consist of all able-bodied male citizens of the State between the ages of eighteen and forty-five years, except such persons as are now or may be exempted by the laws of the United States or this State, or who from religious scruples may be adverse to bearing arms, and shall be organized, officered, armed, equipped and disciplined as the General Assembly may by law direct.”
The modern reserves and guard are actually part-time warriors who can be called up to do their job full-time for several weeks or several months at a time depending on circumstances. The modern reserves and guards are not for defense as much as forming part of the large standing army in the continuing mission of our world-wide police force. The mission of our military has changed drastically to one of on-and-off occupation wars vs. simply being prepared to defend our country.
In the early days of our republic, pretty much everything would be suspended during a time of war when the citizen militia were being called up. The federal and state governments did not meet as often then either making it more of a proper part-time job as it should be today.
What happens now is that good people willing to fight for our country are the ones most likely to be missing while attending reserve or guard duties while the sorry types remain in the legislature, potentially taking advantage of the absence of those of a nobler nature.
I’m not saying that we don’t need the guard and reserves as they are now in training, equipment, and abilities, etc. In fact, they would be much preferable to having large, standing, full-time armies. In their current form, they could form the bulk of our military if we’d just bring our military back to our country where they belong according to the Supreme Law of the Land.
But let’s be realistic and recognize them for what they really are today: part-time paid military–vs. pretending they’re something they haven’t been in a long time: unpaid volunteer citizen soldiers who meet monthly to drill a few hours in an atmosphere more resembling a gentleman’s club of the period.
By Brian Frank May 5, 2010 at 8:21 pm
Jim Lee, candidate for 4th district Congress would follow orders before Constitution, just like they did in NAZI Germany! Jim Lee is running against Constitutionalist tea partier Christina Jeffrey!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFYOso4KRjc
?
?
SC “republican,” Jim Lee, running for Congress wants more gays in the military!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rlxiMfv_OV4
By Paul May 5, 2010 at 11:40 pm
Mr. Frank is yet again embarrassing his chosen candidate by 1) denegrading the only candidate in the SC 4th race with any military experience; 2) throwing around intentionally inflamatory words like “NAZI” (a favorite tactic of the left I might add) in hopes of scoring a cheap political point; 3) exposing his utter ignorance of military matters by suggesting that Jim Lee would follow orders before Constitution, while the oathe we take strictly compells us to only follow “Lawful orders” by those appointed over us (FYI Lawful = Constitutional); 4) wildly throwing around catchy words like “Constitutionalist” and “tea partier” and trying to associate them to his chosen candidate.
Sir, Jim Lee has attended numerous TEA Party events to include the 9/12 March in DC and the 4/15 events down in SC with a campaign representative attending the DC march on his behalf. Don’t recall seeing Ms. Jeffrey at either event. Not going to debate your candidates street cred as a member of the TEA Party, but will point out that TEA is actually an acronym and should be capitalized, not all lower case as you spelled it. If you aren’t sure, it stands for Taxed Enough Already. We are also not called partiers, if you don’t mind. We are members of the TEA Party Movement. Guess I should just be glad you didn’t use that hateful word “bagger” that other leftists use to refer to this Patriotic Resistance.
By Paul May 6, 2010 at 12:01 am
BTW Mr Frank, since you are willing to throw out the assertion that Jim Lee wants more gays in the military, can you clarify Ms. Jeffrey’s position on that issue? Has she taken a position on that or has it been changing as rapidly as her ‘decision’ to support Giuliani…no Huckabee…no McCain…no, wait, who were the candidates again? Now that is leadership we do NOT need in Congress.
By Brian Frank May 6, 2010 at 2:31 am
If Lindsey Graham and Col. David Hunt and Jim Lee have their way!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-zdzPJCgQ8
By The Colonel May 6, 2010 at 3:06 am
WorkingTommy – yes, Geo. Washington didn’t drill after his service was over because he was too old. However, during his entire life of public service up until the Revolution, he was a member of the militia and actually showed up at the Second Continental Congress (of which he was a member) in uniform to indicate that he preferred war over continued servitude.
Harry Truman retired from the Reserves in 1953 AFTER he left the White House. Very few people realize that our 34th president was a member of the Army Reserves throughout his entire public life.
Many of South Carolina’s elected officials have served as “twice the citizen”, holding both elected/appointed public office and military office throughout the history of the United States. “Ol Strom” Thurmond was a Major General in the Reserves, retiring just before he changed parties in 1963. Thurmond was a genuine war hero, landing in a glider on D-Day, earning a Bronze Star and the Purple Heart. He joined the Army in 1942 at age 40 despite being older than draft age and deferred due to his position as a federal Judge. With the exception of Clyburn, Inglis and DeMint, all of our federal office holders have military service and Graham currently serves as an AF JAG COL. Sanford is still in the AF Reserves, I believe he is a MAJ and has been placed in the “Standby Reserves”.
I have been in the Army, (Active, National Guard and Army Reserves) since 1982. During those 28 years, I have been associated with several “elected official”, from school board members to a couple of state wide office holders, who were also “reserve soldiers” and none ever had a problem. Interestingly, all of them made very little mention of their service during their campaigns or their elected position while at drill.
We all swore to protect and defend the Constitution. The greatest risk to our way of life comes from the socialists in “progressive clothing” we are electing, not from the “elected and campaigning” members of the Reserves and Guard.
By bkm May 6, 2010 at 5:17 am
Is Sanfraud still serving in the Air Force? Maybe he can salvage that career when he finally releases his grip on power here.
By Nathan Earle May 6, 2010 at 11:51 am
@ Brian Frank: Why don’t you go look up “truth” in the dictionary? And then go apologize to Jim Lee for maliciously distorting his positions.
By WorkingTommyC May 6, 2010 at 11:51 am
Colonel:
Unless you can show me that there’s never been any votes missed nor favoritism given or received–all which I know occur–the point I’m pursuing is made.
I agree with your relative prioritization there regarding socialists vs. serving reservists and guardsmen in the military but your listing of those with military records is interesting but irrelevant since I stated above that I think a record can be a good thing.
We could probably find a lot of things less important than fighting socialists but that is an exercise in distraction. Much higher on the list of important things to do than fighting socialists is that the civilian government rules the military absolutely. It is a fundamental principle of our form of government and it must be protected even if it means ending the part-time military careers of elected officials.
By The Colonel May 6, 2010 at 3:06 pm
I’ll conceded the “never” but point out that Lindsey is just a COL which is about right for a military lawyer with his years of service and he is present for far more votes than Mr. “Not Present” Barrett.
By WorkingTommyC May 6, 2010 at 4:04 pm
Lindsey should be tried for treason.
By Matthew May 6, 2010 at 10:19 pm
Nathan,
What do you expect from a former Democrat hack and 911 Truther, truth to him is what he belives not reality.
By WorkingTommyC May 7, 2010 at 12:22 pm
Brian Frank has been proved accurate so far in everything I’ve heard from him–mainly because he listens to the long ignored Ron Paul and others who are willing to speak up and tell the truth instead of participating in the mass fantasies of helping the economy by spending more money and securing the borders by granting amnesty. That usually puts him at odds with Lindsey Graham and other political fools.
By SCLegaleagle May 7, 2010 at 1:26 pm
Examples: Bill Connor overplaying it, Alan Wilson playing it right. Both are veterans, and have the right to show their experiences. Connor “suspending” his campaign for military service is BS. The timing is right and gives his coffers a rest at the same time. Putting out a press release to play up the reserve duty (which could be moved in hjis situation) is a stunt (done better ont he West Wing episode with Jimmy Smits). Alan Wilson continues to serve and works around it.
Sudos to both for serving. However, sincerity gets more credit than miliing it..
By get the hook May 14, 2010 at 7:56 am
So now that you’ve told a lady with reasonable questions to “Get over yourself” and I have had a chance to humbly reflect.
Would you mind, please sir, if it wouldn’t be too much trouble and you could forgive a female for forgetting her place…explain the following reported in The Sun News?
“Katherine Jenerette – who is serving in the U.S. military and is prohibited from campaigning.”
http://www.thesunnews.com/2010/05/14/1473424/tea-party-hosts-1st-district-debate.html