« LORD FARIS ON FRANKEN: HIS INTEGRITY HAS BEEN CALLED INTO QUESTION | Home | MCCAIN TAKES LEAD IN RASSMUSSEN DAILY TRACKING POLL »
MN GOP PRESS: “ASHWIN MADIA COZIES UP TO FAR-LEFT FRINGE ORGANIZATION”
By Michael B. Brodkorb | August 4, 2008
St Paul – Republican Party of Minnesota Chair Ron Carey today released the following statement regarding Ashwin Madia’s support from the Council for a Livable World.
“Ashwin Madia’s endorsement from the Council for a Livable World is just another example of how out of touch he is. This group doesn’t believe Iran is currently an imminent threat, it has lobbied for cuts to the defense budget, opposes arms sales to Israel, and a top advisor even advocated for negotiations with the Taliban after 9/11. Minnesotans are looking for a candidate who will take a responsible approach to our most serious threats, not someone who cozies up to far-left organizations with extreme positions.”
Ashwin Madia On A List Of Endorsed Candidates On The Council For A Livable World’s Contribution Page. (https://www.eservicepayments.com/cgi-bin)
Madia Has Received $1,250 Through Council For A Livable World. (www.fec.gov)
To Receive The Endorsement Of The Council For A Livable World: “Candidates Are Required To Answer Rigorous Questionnaires On Issues And To Defend Their Positions In Interviews.” (http://www.livableworld.org/work/, Accessed July 30, 2008)
A Primer On Council for a Livable World:
Council Doesn’t Think Iran Poses An “Imminent Threat.” “Council for a Livable World believes that Iran does not currently pose an imminent threat to the United States, and is unlikely to do so for years and perhaps more than a decade.” (http://www.livableworld.org/policy/iran/, Accessed July 20, 2008)
FLASHBACK - Madia: “Iran Is Not A Threat.” “The short answer to the question is no, Iran is not a threat. However, Iran is still a concern. It is true they still do have the capability to enrich Uranium; it’s true they still need more transparency in their nuclear process. It’s true they fund Hamas in Hezbollah. It’s true they are not partners for peace in the Arab/Israeli situation.” (Ashwin Madia, Iraq Forum, December 11, 2007)
Iran: Not A Threat?
Iran Test-Fired Long-Range Rockets With “Special Capabilities.” “Citing broadcasts on state-run Iranian television, the Associated Press reported out of Tehran that the country had continued an ongoing military exercise in the Persian Gulf with another round of missile tests. The tests included the use of more long-range rockets capable of reaching Israel, as well as other devices with what state-controlled media referred to as ‘special capabilities,’ though no further details were provided.” (Glenn Kessler and Howard Schneider, “Iran Launches More Test Missiles, Draws Rebuke From Rice,” Washington Post, July 10, 2008)
The State Department’s Recently Released Annual Terrorism Report Says That Iran Is The World’s “Most Active” State Sponsor Of Terrorism. “Iran remained the most active state sponsor of terrorism. Elements of its Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) were directly involved in the planning and support of terrorist acts throughout the region and continued to support a variety of groups in their use of terrorism to advance their common regional goals. Iran provides aid to Palesti nian terrorist groups, Lebanese Hizballah, Iraq-based militants, and Taliban fighters in Afghanistan.” (”Country Reports On Terrorism,” U.S. Department Of State, Office Of The Coordinator For Counterterrorism, 4/30/08)
Just Months Before 9/11, The President Of CLW Said U.S. Defense Budget Should Be Cut. “The United States no longer faces the Soviet Union war machine; yet this country is spending as if the world has not changed. This outrageous request to increase last year’s already bloated budget by an additional $33 billion comes at a time when the recently enacted tax cut is already draining vital resources from education, health care, prescription drug benefits, and repairs to the nation’s roads and bridges.…. In the meantime, the defense budget should be cut, not increased, until the Pentagon can cope with its problems.” (John Isaacs, Commentary: “Fewer threats, more defense dollars,” San Diego Union-Tribune, July 18, 2001)
Top Advisor To Council For A Livable World Suggested Negotiations With Taliban After 9/11. “The media say that the Taliban wants to negotiate. Great! What we want is to influence high-level people in Afghanistan to make a decision.” (Roger Fisher, “Getting to Yes with the Taliban,” The Boston Globe, October 5, 2001)
* Roger Fisher Is A Member Of The Council’s Advisory Board. (http://www.livableworld.org/work/board/ July 31, 2008)
CLW Has Taken Anti-Israel Positions
Council Has Attacked U.S. Arms Sales To Israel:
“[T]he Pentagon Has Notified The Congress Of A Proposed Sale To Israel Of 100 Guided Bunker-Busting Bombs. What For? Israel Has Requested The Sale Of The Lockheed Martin Corp. GBU-28s Worth As Much As $30 Million.” (Fauzia Qureshi, “Israel’s Defence,” The Nation, 6/1/05)
* John Isaacs, President Of The Council For A Livable World, Said The Proposed Sale Was Clearly ‘A Provocative Step’ That Would Prompt Concerns About A Unilateral Israel Strike, Particularly In Iran And Elsewhere In The Middle East.” (Fauzia Qureshi, “Israel’s Defence,” The Nation, 6/1/05)
Council Attacked President Clinton For Offering Israel Sale Of F-22 Fighter Jet:
“President Clinton Told Israel Yesterday That He Would Recommend Allowing That Country To Buy America’s Most Advanced Fighter Plane, The F-22, Which The Air Force Touts As A Super-Weapon That Could Decide Future Battles.” (Greg Schneider, “Clinton Backs Sale Of Top Fighter To Israel,” The Washington Post, 1/20/01)
* Council’s Luke Warren: “It is unprecedented for a U.S. president to promise the most technologically advanced weapon in the world to a foreign country before it is even produced …” (Greg Schneider, “Clinton Backs Sale Of Top Fighter To Israel,” The Washington Post, 1/20/01)
###
This is a reminder that I am a part-time research consultant to Erik Paulsen for Congress. Minnesota Democrats Exposed is my personal blog and it is not created, endorsed, sponsored, or authorized by any political party, candidate, or candidate’s committee.
Topics: Ashwin Madia, Uncategorized | 28 Comments »
August 4th, 2008 at 11:20 am
A nice reminder that there are fools who favor a “Rascally Puppy” approach to a nuclear Iran. A little lacking in the “Serious Responses To Serious Situations” department? *shrug*
August 4th, 2008 at 11:25 am
Isn’t MnGOP still licking their wounds from the last time they attacked Madia on Iran and, oh, two days later even the Bush administration backed away from their ridiculous Iran rhetoric and embraced diplomacy as compared to fear and war mongering?
At least this time MnGOP isn’t relying upon a missile test that ended up being fake as their basis for the release.
August 4th, 2008 at 11:31 am
Ha..
Why are you posting an eservie payments link for the list of endorsed canidates?
“Ashwin Madia On A List Of Endorsed Candidates On The Council For A Livable World’s Contribution Page. (https://www.eservicepayments.com/cgi-bin/specialwebapp.vps?appid=40a27221f816144b21e9f2e0d81891b8fefa73e062ae9ac3483c55132979d6e860c5f215f4782ccf4aceff04467f6935)
Is that your payment from MnGOP?
August 4th, 2008 at 11:34 am
My bad, the link is now working.
August 4th, 2008 at 12:09 pm
If $1,250 is cozying up, I assume that suggests that for $20,000, Norm Coleman and Ted Stevens are not only cozy, but doing things that are illegal for two men to do to each other in 24 states.
August 4th, 2008 at 12:28 pm
This type of post does nothing to encourage intelligent dialog on important issues like Iran. As we could see by Bush sending a diplomatic envoy to Iran recently, there is a clear need for opening the channels of communication between the U.S. and Iran. We need to stop this “heads in the sand” approach to international relations. Obviously the MnGOP is even further under the sand than a Bush Administration that had to back track on their policy towards Iran because silence was so clearly the wrong policy.
August 4th, 2008 at 12:28 pm
I wonder what Erik Paulsen has to say about Iran? His website says nothing about Iran, Iraq, or most any other issue. It’s easier to just claim your opponent is wrong without taking the risk of coming up with your own position.
I’ll take Iraq War veteran Ashwin Madia’s judgment on foreign policy over Paulsen’s any day. Besides, we’ve already seen that Madia’s position on Iran has become widely accepted, even by President Bush. Once again, you’ve proven that you and the MMNGOP are far to the right of “W”.
August 4th, 2008 at 1:19 pm
Paulsen even took the page on Iraq off of his website. In his interview on WCCO, he gave a very ambiguous answer that was nothing more than talking points on the subject. He obviously doesn’t have a real position that he can talk about at great depth.
Maybe we should ask Erik about the dirty sexy money he took from that strip club in Vegas.
Ashwin Madia is right on Iran. I will vote for a Patriot over a career politician any day!
August 4th, 2008 at 1:38 pm
Interestingly enough, I just went to Paulsen’s website to check for the answer to a question that this post raises, namely, who has endorsed Paulsen? Frankly, no one. I assume that he is endorsed by the GOP but even that doesn’t appear on his website. I find note that Ramstad and Frenzel are mentioned but even their endorsement (if one has happened) isn’t noted. So….why snark about an endorsement received by Madia when one should be asking….doesn’t anyone even care that Paulsen is running enough to endorse him?
August 4th, 2008 at 1:53 pm
If anyone is out of touch, it has to be the GOP Party Chair, Ron Carey. To quote him: “Minnesotans are looking for a candidate who will take a responsible approach to our most serious threats…” Well, if you ask Minnesotans about a responsible approach concerning Iran, you’ll find most of them in agreement with Ashwin Madia. The U.S. should not pursue military options before first using diplomatic efforts while, at the same time, accumulate the best possible intelligence, establish sound strategic objectives, and continue to fund pro-democracy transmissions into Iran.
The American Jewish Council poll as reported in December 2007 returned the following result: “…by a margin of 3-1, those polled say that America should continue to impose economic sanctions on Iran.”
Accepting campaign contributions from an organization that promotes worldwide security through responsible, reasonable efforts should in no way reflect negatively on the Madia for Congress campaign. The GOP efforts to do so are illegitimate and wrong.
August 4th, 2008 at 1:58 pm
I think it’s refreshing that Ashwin Madia articulates his position on issues so well. Since diplomacy hasn’t been tried in years, who’s to say that it isn’t a serious response? Wow, even Bush has finally decided to give it a try, nothing else he has done has worked. I would vote for a candidate who can defend his position anytime before I would vote for someone like Erik Paulson who doesn’t even HAVE a position on this issue!
August 4th, 2008 at 4:47 pm
Hey, Michael – speakin’ o’ “cozy”, who are you gonna recommend Paulsen donates the strip-club dough to?
August 4th, 2008 at 5:15 pm
Madia is proving once again that he has put a lot of thought into his positions on major issues, such as Iran, and those positions are more in line with CD3 voters [and most of the world] than the knee-jerk reactions proposed by the MN GOP. We can only assume Paulsen is in agreement with his GOP party positions since he doesn’t speak out about any of these important issues. What we don’t need in this district is a head-in-the-sand politician avoiding public scrutiny.
August 4th, 2008 at 5:27 pm
Though it is funny to see a bunch of DFLers get on the George W. Bush bus and endorse his positions on things like foreign policy, statements like this:
“Once again, you’ve proven that you and the MMNGOP are far to the right of “W”.”
(as if there is little space “to the right of “W””) and this:
“Since diplomacy hasn’t been tried in years”
(how many years did the EU try diplomacy?)
make me think you are a little silly. Scratch that. A lot silly.
Is a vote for Ashwin Madia a vote for continuing the policies of George W. Bush? Well, if you listen to the silly people, it just might be.
August 4th, 2008 at 5:43 pm
Has Madia ever made the statement that the U.S. should take the military option off of the table?
If not, then he’s said nothing new or even out of the normal rhetoric that comes from both Dems and Republicans.
We’ve been using diplomacy with Iran for decades. Indirectly through the EU or back channels or even this newest example where a US diplomat was present in the room but did no negotiating.
No progress yet, and that’s with both a carrot and a stick. If General Madia thinks we can do better by removing the stick, then he’s more of a dimwit than I thought he was.
August 4th, 2008 at 5:58 pm
MoN,
The problem is that MnGOP is attempting to attack Madia for refusing to take the carrot off the table and simply rely on the stick. No one sane, not even Bush now, takes that position. Hell, it may be the case that not even PAULSEN takes that position (we’d know if he actually shared what his position was).
August 4th, 2008 at 7:03 pm
I would submit that former Captain Madia has a better grasp of the foreign policy situation than professional politician Paulsen.
August 4th, 2008 at 7:20 pm
MnGOP “attacked” Madia for down playing the threat posed by Iran.
CherylIP — got any proof of that? His timetable for surrender in Iraq is now history. He doesn’t even think we should continue to train the Iraqi Army. Spending half a tour in Iraq doesn’t make anybody a foreign policy expert.
Paulsen is a citizen politician. Unlike Madia, he has a full time job, wife, family, kids, mortgage etc….
August 4th, 2008 at 9:33 pm
MoN:
You must not have gotten the memo- the MN GOP attacked Madia on Iran on July 10th (attack available in the archives of this website), only to have Bush embrace diplomacy soon thereafter, thereby adopting the same position that Madia supports, and making the MN GOP look pretty silly.
Also, not sure what you’re talking about re Madia’s plan for a responsible exit in Iraq. If you took the time to read his plan, maybe your comments would be better-informed: http://www.madiaforcongress.com/node/4
Compare Madia’s plan to Paulsen’s plan. Oh wait- that’s right- Paulsen STILL has nothing to say on Iraq. How can you think this man would be a better representative when he refuses to stand for anything?!?!
http://www.paulsenforcongress.com/index.asp?keyword=iraq&searchSection=&SEC=%7B5D26CEF8-1334-423E-973E-E23DC047B350%7D&Type=SEARCH
August 4th, 2008 at 10:03 pm
The page on Paulsen’s website that probably gets the most hits, is the one that says:
No items contained the text “iraq”.
August 4th, 2008 at 10:45 pm
Former Marine Corps Captain Ashwin Madia understands that there is a place for war and a place for diplomacy. Hopefully the diplomacy that President Bush has started will work. How can our nation possibly fight a war on so many fronts?
I have much more respect for a patriot who develops an intelligent and well thought out position on foreign policy, than a career politician who doesn’t bother to do any homework or publish an opinion.
How long does Paulsen think he can keep quiet on this important subject?! And why would anyone want to elect someone with no positions on such important issues?!
August 5th, 2008 at 12:51 am
munchkinmom said:
“I have much more respect for a patriot who develops an intelligent and well thought out position on foreign policy”
Or plays follow the leader in his party. Is this “intelligent and well thought out position” at odds at all with the position of fellow Dems?
August 5th, 2008 at 4:29 am
What’s “intelligent and well thought out” about surrender and cut and run? Would this nation have followed Madia’s advice and that of Barak Obama, Al Queda would be fortifying Iraq and killing its opposition there instead of leaving the country in droves.
August 5th, 2008 at 9:09 am
“Spending half a tour in Iraq”
Actually, wasn’t it a full tour? As I understand it, MARINES don’t have 12-14 months tours like the army.
August 5th, 2008 at 10:16 am
Troy:
If you had followed the endorsement race, you would have known that Madia’s main opponent, State Sen. Terri Bonoff, called for a quicker withdrawal than Madia was/is calling for. Madia refused to tell the activists what they wanted to hear. Similarly, there is a vocal wing of the party calling for immediate withdrawal. Madia rejects that course. That would be cutting and running. A responsible withdrawal over 18-24 months is in the best interest of American and Iraqi security- just ask the Iraqis themselves.
August 5th, 2008 at 11:03 am
MinnVoter:
You may find worlds of distance between Madia and Bonoff, but I do not. I would call them “leave all our equipment there” and “give us enough time to get our equipment out” options of the “surrender after we have won” plan. *shrug*
August 5th, 2008 at 12:22 pm
Actually, Troy, Madia’s comments sound much like McCain’s lately….. The right is coming back to the middle where the public and Madia have been all along. The war is incredibly unpopular, no one thinks we should stay there forever, we need to get out responsibly. You can call it whatever you want but responsible withdrawal is what each is calling for.
August 5th, 2008 at 1:43 pm
CherylP:
The “right”? McCain? Not buying that, CherylP.
And is McCain really setting the time table at 18-24 months? Or are these “sound much like” comments using words that rhyme or have similar tone?