Rules for Vets

Rules for Vets:

What should the governing principles be in cases like this one?

(This is from State Representative and Afghanistan veteran Rick Noriega, who is currently challenging chickenhawk Senator John Cornyn in Texas. It appears as though the Republican Party of Texas is moving in to "swiftboat" Lt. Col. Noriega - promoted by Brandon Friedman)

We know where this is going.

The Republican Party of Texas, and by extension, Senator John Cornyn, has requested that I release my military records to them.

The fellow goes on to say that he was planning to do it anyway; but while he's at it, he takes several swipes at "cronies" planning a "smear campaign" and "dishonest attacks on veterans."

The Republican letter is more flowery than a garden:

There are few nobler callings than the call to run for elected office. [*coughcoughcough* Excuse me. --Grim] We applaud your answering that call and wish you the best of luck in your primary against Misters Kelly, McMurrey and Smith.

You have indicated that you intend to make military experience, integrity and transparency the cornerstones of your campaign. We are grateful for your service to this great country and we agree that those that seek higher office should support transparency and openness regarding all of their public service records....

They then provided him with a letter (on Republican Party stationery, even) to sign that would authorize the release of all his records.

The letter strikes me as an audacious document, and though it is kindly worded, the underlying concept seems unsavory. I don't mean to say that an opponent should never be able to ask after the nature of your service. Especially if you are running "on military service," an opponent might reasonably ask, "Well, what sort of service did you provide?"

On the other hand, the main choice you get in terms of how you serve is if you do. You can buck for certain assignments and so on, but that doesn't mean you'll get them. The military is ultimately in the driver's seat. Your record may not be all that impressive, without it being your fault in the slightest. (By the same token, some candidates could look great on paper, but...)

Making release of your personal records a mandatory condition for running for public office might discourage a good officer with an indistinguished career; or a man with a highly distinguished career who nevertheless did not wish to discuss certain aspects of it. Citations for bravery and valor, in particular, can be the sort of thing you'd rather not talk about. We understand there are a host of reasons for that, some highly honorable and sympathetic.

I'd like to say, then, that it's legitimate to mention that you chose to serve, without necessarily being obligated to sign away all your privacy to every military-generated document about your service. The political process is nasty enough as it is, already far too much about the politicians themselves and too little about the concepts and ideas they want to enact; and even the best of men, perhaps especially them, may not wish to discuss certain things about their past.

There probably is some threshold beyond which it is legitimate for an opponent to ask for at least some records to be released. This particular fellow seems only too ready to sling mud to claim that he's running a pristine campaign that ought to be immune from dirty campaigning; but it should be possible to run one. If we can make it possible, perhaps someone will.