Tommy Sowers

Tommy Sowers announced his next "mission" late last week in an email to campaign supporters. Next up: serving as a Senior Advisor for the non-partisan Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA) organization.  From his blast:

That next step is now clear. Last week, I started my job as the Senior Advisor to the non-partisan Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA). IAVA's mission is my mission: to improve the lives of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans and their families.

The veterans of my generation's wars deserve a voice and IAVA has been filling that void for years -- advocating for conflict specific health care, for the new GI Bill, and for the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell...

I'll still be based out of Missouri, working to keep a promise to finish my PhD (and using the new GI Bill to do so). But I'll also be traveling and speaking on behalf of IAVA, likely in a town near you.

h/t Post-Dispatch

Direct link to story here.

Bradley Whitford Josh Lyman has a message for prospective Tommy Sowers volunteers.

I support this message, can't endorse that mustache. 

h/t PoliticMo

The Post-Dispatch has endorsed Tommy Sowers over Rep. Jo Ann Emerson in Missouri's 8th District: 

Mr. Sowers is hard to pigeonhole: He’s a boots-wearing, pickup-driving graduate of the London School of Economics, a scholar-warrior who had the courage to lead a Green Beret A-team in Iraq but is wishy-washy on health care reform. He is targeting veterans in his campaign but is opposed to the war in Afghanistan. But Tommy Sowers would bring new energy to a district that badly needs it.

Watch it live at KFVS12.com. Here's a wrap from KFVS12.com:

The Tommy Sowers campaign has unveiled a new ad today, titled "Horse Manure." Rep. Jo Ann Emerson "can dump all the horse manure she wants. The voters aren’t buying it," Sowers said in a statement.

This interview aired yesterday afternoon.

As posted by the Tommy Sowers campaign:

In May, Rep. Jo Ann Emerson falsely claimed that 8th District opponent Tommy Sowers "never commanded anybody" in the Army, and therefore does not have a perspective worth respecting regarding the federal 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' policy.  This was a remarkably dumb thing for Emerson to say; Sowers was an Operational Detachment Commander in Iraq and led a combat engineering platoon in Kosovo.

So when the VFW endorsed Emerson despite this smear, it did not sit well with the folks at VoteVets.org:

So why did the VFW endorse Jo Ann Emerson, who openly smeared the service of her opponent, a former Special Forces Major? Well, as you read above, VFW claims that Emerson has been a "great friend to Veterans". But, really, how great of a friend has she been?

• Since she began her current reelection campaign, Emerson received an "A" rating from IAVA. However, her previous grade from than organization was a "C+". Additionally, since 2001 Emerson has not received a rating of higher than 50% from any Veterans organization. Notably, Emerson received a 0% score from DAV in 2003 and 2004.
• In 2008, Emerson supported the watered down "new G.I. Bill", which provided far less benefits then the bi-partisan Webb-Hagel bill that ultimately passed and serves Veterans today.

Politician Rep. Jo Ann Emerson is aghast that Tommy Sowers would talk about military and veterans issues on the same day Barack Obama gave speeches about Iraq. (Oh noes!) She's so disgusted, in fact, that she published the following political statement last night on Facebook:

Released this morning: 

The Tommy Sowers campaign launched his first 30-second TV spot today, titled "Combat Bible."  The ad highlights Sowers' service in Iraq, and his opposition to "devastating trade deals and the Wall Street bailout." Watch it:

More to come.  The Beacon has a story on the event here. 

A long-time Fired Up! reader asks a good question about this passage in Jon Rust's inadequate response to the 'repugnant' letter he published about Tommy Sowers from Josh Bill, former chief of staff to the late U.S. Rep. Bill Emerson:

The second point -- the innuendo -- is unfair and inappropriate. I will admit: I don't see that sexual orientation has anything to do with whether a person is qualified for Congress. The same is true about race, sex, religion or national background. Each of these items is part of an individual's identity, but in themselves they are basically meaningless. Whether a person is Sikh, Protestant, Catholic, Muslim, Mormon or atheist, the more important characteristics are their governing philosophy, wisdom, integrity and work ethic.

My guess is that I may be a minority in this position, however, especially in the 8th District, which is what makes the paid election letter repugnant.

Is it really Rust's position that a majority of Eighth District voters are bigots as he indicates in here?  That most of his readers are more concerned about "sexual orientation...race, sex, religion or national background" than candidates' "governing philosophy, wisdom, integrity and work ethic"?   I hope he's wrong. 

Michael Bersin makes a good point about Jon Rust's response to the gay-baiting letter he printed from Josh Bill, former chief of staff to the late U.S. Rep. Bill Emerson.  What does Rust mean when he writes, "people close to the Emerson campaign crossed the line in mudslinging too" (emphasis added)?  Rust offers no examples what the Tommy Sowers campaign has done to justify this suggestion that both camps have been equally slimy. 

Also: Several readers have wondered if Rust would be willing to print a similar letter speculating about the sexuality of a Republican candidate based on (1) his or her marital status or (2) the fact that he or she patronized a business that doesn't have a problem serving gay people.

Southeast Missourian publisher Jon K. Rust responds to the gross letter from Josh Bill noted below, but without actually naming Bill's name.  He's just "a writer who once worked for Emerson's husband" in Rust's response.

This week, people close to the Emerson campaign crossed the line in mudslinging too. In a paid election letter to this newspaper, a writer who once worked for Emerson's husband called into question Sowers' sexuality. The innuendo used was repugnant...

My guess is that I may be a minority in this position [not caring about a Congressional candidate's sexual orientation], however, especially in the 8th District, which is what makes the paid election letter repugnant. The innuendo is artfully done and clearly intentional. And it is the type of political tactic that is disgraceful, because it's not about what is true or not, it's about scoring a campaign point regardless of the truth.

The Southeast Missouri has published a disgusting letter to the editor from Josh Bill, former chief of staff to the late U.S. Rep. Bill Emerson and former mayor of Sikeston. The letter, headlined "Questions about Tommy Sowers," expresses concern that Tommy Sowers' website "doesn't even say how old he is or if he's single or married" (read: Is he gay?).  He also talks at length about a recent Sowers fundraiser in Washington, DC that Bill says was held in "the notorious U Street corridor of D.C.," apparently "famous for the homosexual community and notorious for everyone else."   As evidence (I'm using that term loosely), Bill points to a website that describes Local 16, the location of Sowers' fundraiser, as one of DC's "gay clubs and bars."

I wouldn't be bothered a bit if a candidate happened to hold an event at a gay bar, any more than I'd care if a candidate happened to be gay, lesbian, transgendered or straight.  Quaint questions like, "How might a person vote?" generally guide my personal candidate selection process.

Josh Bill obviously sees things differently. The intention of the letter is obvious, and it's hard to understand why the Southeast Missourian decided to publish it.  (Note that the letter that this isn't labeled as one of the paper's user-submitted stories where we often see political press releases.) UPDATE: The paper's publisher has clarified that Bill paid to have the  letter printed.

But even in Bill's narrow worldview, his letter and accusations have problems.

Politico: "There's ample risk involved in calling out an opponent’s military record, though, as a Memorial Day weekend scuffle in Missouri’s 8th Congressional District illustrates. There, incumbent Rep. Jo Ann Emerson found herself on the defensive after telling a newspaper that her Democratic challenger, Tommy Sowers, had 'never commanded anybody.' Sowers pounced on the comment, telling POLITICO that Emerson had shown a 'lack of basic understanding and respect for the military' and had sought to 'diminish' his record."

In responses provided yesterday to the Southeast Missourian and Beacon, Rep. Jo Ann Emerson refused to apologize for her demonstrably false and insulting claim that Tommy Sowers "never commanded anybody."

Instead, she came back with new accusations that Sowers is somehow trying to "cloud" the debate on the federal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy.  Wrong answer.

Look, the facts are pretty simple:

• Emerson made a demonstrably false statement about Sowers' service record
• Confronted about her statement, Emerson refused to apologize. 

The whole point of saying that a person "never commanded anybody, [so] he might have a different perspective" on repealing DADT is to suggest that Sowers doesn't really have any expertise and wisdom on military issues.  He "never commanded anybody," so what does he know? Emerson's reply that "she wasn't disparaging anybody" isn't convincing.

Instead of apologizing, Emerson chose to accuse Sowers of a "cynical attempt to divert attention from a position he has suddenly discovered is out-of-step" with the district. This is just dumb. There is no evidence that Sowers is waffling on his position in any way.