Chris Cillizza's Politics Blog -- The Fix

washingtonpost.com's Politics Blog

California Democrat Forms Defense PAC

Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.) is forming a new political action committee that seeks to bolster Democratic candidates' credibility on defense issues.

SecureUS PAC, as the organization will be known, is designed not only as a fundraising mechanism but also as a medium to hone the party's message on defense-related matters and train candidates to speak intelligently and effectively on them.

"The goal of the PAC is to improve Democrats' message and policies on national security and defense issues," said a source close to the group, who requested anonymity because the PAC's existence will not be public until tomorrow. 

The source said the idea for the new PAC germinated during the 2004 election as President Bush scored political points by questioning Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry's ability to keep America safe.

Harman is currently the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee and has recruited an impressive cadre of board members for the PAC, including Richard Holbrooke, former U.S ambassador to the United Nations.  Democratic pollster Mark Mellman (of the Mellman Group) is also involved and will present research on where the party stands on security issues at the PAC's unveiling tomorrow.

SecureUS is scheduled to be unveiled at a 12:30 p.m. event at the National Press Club.

By Chris Cillizza |  October 5, 2005; 6:34 PM ET  | Category:  PAC Watch
Previous: Miers Nomination: The Gang Meets | Next: Audio: Cillizza on Miers Nomination


Add The Fix to Your Site
Be the first to know when there's a new installment of The Fix! This widget is easy to add to your Web site, and it will update every time there's a new entry on The Fix.
Get This Widget >>


Comments

Please email us to report offensive comments.



Good site

Posted by: Dublin Accommodation | March 22, 2006 9:46 AM

No president or political party should glory in an unjustified and undeclared war. Too many human sacrifices have defiled the stated many reasons for the Iraq war. Seems like we've moved from advancing freedom to crushing opposition only. We can't simply "cut and run" but we can reach a point to exhale and come home.

Posted by: Benjy | October 12, 2005 6:19 PM

Two points: Biff, regarding your proposed defection, exactly where would this supposed disillusioned majority of the Democratic base go? The "neo-cons" to whom you refer (I'm guessing Wolfowitz, Kirkpatrick et al) moved to the Republicans precisely because they saw a viable alternative to the Democrats that seemed to better represent their positions. How about your pacifist Dems? Green Party? Have fun with that. And "war-mongering" is a bit of a stretch.

Carl, your point is well taken and the sentiment is one shared by most thoughtful liberals, centrists, and not a few Republicans, if they were pressed. FDR led us to war, Truman dropped the bomb, and JFK was a bigger hawk than any in recent memory (see the phantom "missile gap" platform) But such a characterization, however apt (and colorful), doesn't get us elected. There are a lot of ignorant voters out there (so I'm told), and we need an appropriate response. Clinton did wonders for us on many fronts, but the "Third Way" left this one with the Repubs (unsurpising, perhaps, given the context). I say godspeed to this thing. Let's hope it works so that we Dems can reassert ourselves as strong on security. Defense and liberalism aren't mutually exclusive -- now if we can just convince the rest of the country.

Posted by: Eric | October 11, 2005 10:14 PM

Dems are 'sissies' on defense while the GOP are, what? Bullies? Real Men? Macho? Tough Guys?

Good grief, are we back on the primary school playground? They'll always out-macho you, even if they have to drive around on camo-painted hummers with their dicks hanging out.

Why not frame it smart vs dumb defense instead?

Posted by: Carl Davidson | October 7, 2005 2:44 PM

National Security Dems recognize the difference between a just war (Afghanistan) and an unjust war (Iraq). I am not a pacifist, I believe our soldiers should be used for wars that are just. Afghanistan was justified because we were attacked by Osama bin Ladin and the government of Afghanistan would not turn him over to us. Now, what are the ever shifting reasons for the war in Iraq? Let's talk about changing reasons for a war as it goes on. Didn't the Republicans have a word for it? Oh yeah, it was mission creep.

Posted by: phinky | October 7, 2005 7:51 AM

What a joke, more war mongering? Disenfranchise more of their base. How much of the anti-war crowd do you think went out and voted for Kerry?

How come they haven't defected the party yet like the neo-cons did 30 years ago?

Posted by: Biff | October 7, 2005 1:03 AM

Nick D., I agree with your thoughts.

I also think it would be worthwhile to create a homeland security-related PAC for the Dems to help gain the advantage on that very important issue, too.

Posted by: Fan of PAC | October 5, 2005 5:03 PM

This is great for the Democrats. A woman Representative stepping up to the plate for liberals in a normally conservative controlled issue is pretty risque, but warranted on the issue. I believe it will not turn heads like a Christian Coalition group does, but provide that needed firepower to Democrats to not look like sissy fools when it comes to US Security.

However will it be too late? That's the real question.

Posted by: Nick D. | October 5, 2005 4:52 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 

© 2008 The Washington Post Company