Ladies and Gentlemen,

I’d like to share the commentary of Jim Bootz, concerning the recent Candidate Endorsements by the DFL Veterans Caucus, to fellow members of the Caucus.

From Jim Bootz, Chair of the DFL Veterans Caucus:

***
I had mentioned earlier that I was going to comment on the choices that were made on our three early endorsements, and I think I’ve finally got time to do it.

There probably isn’t much that needs to be said about the endorsements of Sarvi and Madia. I think we all agree that they’re great choices. The first was unanimous and the second was nearly that.

There was a bit less of a consensus on the endorsement of a Senate candidate, though it wasn’t really close. I’d just like to make a few points about the reasoning behind my vote. Any and all of you are welcome to do the same.

As far as the criteria that we use to endorse a candidate on behalf of the Veterans Caucus, probably the most concise way of wording it is to ask just one question: “Who would best serve the interests of veterans, active military, and their families?” That’s the one area that should be of equal importance to all caucus members. As individuals, we have other issues that we feel are important, possibly even more important than veterans issues. But, we shouldn’t be taking those into consideration in the decision to endorse. If we do, we’re not serving the caucus anymore, we’re serving ourselves. Most likely there are some Vets Caucus members who consider themselves pro-choice and some who consider themselves pro-life. But, if we start bringing those biases into the equation, then we’ll be trying to turn the Veterans Caucus into the “Pro-Choice Veterans Caucus” or the “Pro-Life Veterans Caucus”. And, we’re neither.

If anyone has read even a few of the letters to the editor that I’ve managed to get printed in the Star-Tribune, there should be no doubt about where I stand on the Iraq War, and it’s a position that I’ve held from the very start. But, nowhere in the founding or the intent or the mission statement of the DFL Veterans Caucus was there any mention of it being a vehicle for an anti-war message. It’s as simple as this: the Vets Caucus has a pro-veteran agenda, not an anti-war agenda. There are plenty of good pro-veteran and pro-troop arguments to be made against Bush’s war. But, I’d have to ask this about the candidate: Is his stance against the war one of many ways that he supports veterans, or is support for veterans just one of the many facets of his overall anti-war stance? In other words, where is his primary focus?

And, then ask, not only “Where is that focus now?” but “Where has that focus been in the past?” One Senate candidate has been speaking publicly on behalf of veterans and active duty service members for several years. The same candidate has made several trips to visit with the troops in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Kosovo, and made a learning experience out of it. Again, that same candidate has used his books, editorials, speaking engagements, and a nationwide talk radio show to inform the public about inadequate body armor and vehicle armor, new technologies that have made it possible to provide life-saving helmet liners to the troops, and the many ways in which veterans have been getting short-changed on the benefits they were promised as compensation for their service. Only that one candidate created a veterans group in his campaign, inviting the public to its kick-off rally and a commemoration of Veterans Day. The same candidate held veterans’ listening sessions around the state to educate himself and his campaign staff about the issues. That candidate was one of only two who said he will try to get on the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee if he’s elected. Nobody is guaranteed their choice of committee assignments, but that is his first choice. And, finally, only that one candidate invited the DFL Veterans Caucus to set up a table at his summer picnic and raise funds for the caucus. With his encouragement and help from campaign volunteers, the caucus left that night with $735 in donations. Any of the candidates could have done that. Only one of them thought to do it.

Veterans are a high priority with Al Franken. They’re not an afterthought. They’re not a group to pander to. I like all four of the Senate candidates, but I don’t see how someone could even begin to compare the other three with Al when it’s a question of who would best serve the interests of veterans, active service members, and their families.

Again, I welcome your comments. I don’t mean for this to be a contest. It’s just my way of explaining my rationale. I want to make sure that, if anyone is feeling that there was something unfair about the process, they at least have the information about Franken that I was looking at when I made my decision.

Thanks,
Jim
***