Dan Grant

One of the most interesting people I met at YearlyKos was Dan Grant, who worked in Afghanistan and Iraq on democracy-building programs and is now running for congress in Texas' 10th congressional district. It's not the most liberal seat on the planet, but the GOP incumbent ran unopposed in 2004 and only got 55 percent of the vote in 2006, so given that the very softest of targets have almost all broken Democratic already and that the larger political climate continues to be very favorable to Democrats (see, e.g., this PDF from Democracy Corps).

Dan himself is both a cool guy and also has the kind of meaningful, detailed knowledge of US Middle East policy issues -- not just the right stance on the war, but real understanding of and engagement with what's happening -- that it seems to me the congress could use more of. He also has a good politician's voice, firm handshake, and ability to very earnestly say things like "the mortar shells didn't really care whether or not I was wearing a uniform when they blew up my office." At any rate, I don't think I really endorse candidates per se, but check out his website.

Photo courtesy of Dan Grant for Congress

Comments

Grant's position on Iraq: Implement a smart strategy to end our involvement in Iraq’s civil war

Implement a smart strategy? And that would be . . ?

End our involvement in Iraq's civil war? Damn, and here I thought it was a brutal US military occupation.

So where's the beef? Where's the "real understanding of and engagement with what's happening"?

Hey, he's got a firm handshake.

Posted by Don Bacon | August 6, 2007 12:19 PM

Comeon Don. Most people in this country don't care about the Presidential election, and if there's something they care less about, it's Congressional elections. Everyone knows his issues page in August 2007 wont get him elected in November 2008. If there's one thing the Dems need its people who know a thing or two about foreign policy. I'd stay tuned.

Posted by Sam | August 6, 2007 12:41 PM

Dan is indeed a good guy. And the Texas 10th, while on the conservative side, would at least have a ready base for volunteer recruitment (UT).

Posted by Tom | August 6, 2007 12:50 PM

Yeah, c'mon Don, we don't need every prospect Democratic freshman to put up their own fourteen point program to end the war. He's for ending the war, and stressing the Civil nature of the current conflict is good politics too.

Posted by AJ | August 6, 2007 2:02 PM

Don, get a grip. The statement expresses the understanding that there is a civil war going on. And no, it is not a "brutal US military occupation." It is in fact a fairly benign one by almost any standards, even with Abu Ghraib, etc. The problem is that is totally useless in stopping the civil war.

Posted by nolaboyd | August 6, 2007 2:04 PM

Don must be the opposition researcher fro Dan's opponent. He wants Dan to develop a detailed multi-point plan so he can then spend the rest of the campaign nit-picking it. AJ is right — he's for ending the war. And he knows what he's talking about, having been there. Have you, Don?

Posted by Wilfred Sheed | August 6, 2007 2:06 PM

Dan... has... meaningful, detailed knowledge of US Middle East policy issues

They love that in Texas.

Posted by Dan (not the candidate) | August 6, 2007 2:44 PM

Mentioned on Burnt Orange Report:

Dan Grant Makes the Big Blog Time

Posted by Sam | August 6, 2007 5:47 PM

Dear Don:

I'm a veteran of OIF2. That's Operation Iraqi Freedom 2, which ran from 2004 to 2005, to you civilian-types. I was stationed on the southeast side of Baghdad, at a place called Camp Cuervo, now called al-Rustamiyah that year. My take on Iraq: "Don't go. People get killed."

Dan Grant knows exactly what he's tallking about. He and I have lived it. He and I were sweating out in 140-degree heat while you were safe here at home, probably living life as normal, and having a good time. When he help direct the elections from the Green Zone, that was world-class. Everything he says is based on experience and is the truth. Can any other candidate say the same?

This is a challenge to Don and all you other smart-aleck, clueless neocons out there: go see an Army recruiter. I have a phone number for you, and will set you up for an appointment. Put your money where your mouth is for once. Go ahead and see all of our "progress" first hand if you dare.

Sincerely,
S.

Posted by Skylor Williams | August 6, 2007 5:52 PM

I don't judge politicians on 14 points, just one: Immediate withdrawal. Perhaps that's Grant's "smart strategy" but who knows? He's not saying. Let's hope so.

Posted by Don Bacon | August 6, 2007 7:24 PM

Dan has a real chance of changing TX10 from red to blue. In 2006, Ted Ankrum, the Democratic candidate in the 10th, managed to garner over 40% of the vote with just $65,000 against Mike McCaul's (and his wife's) wealth. Things, even in TX are changing. I live in the Houston end of the district and we have even elected a Democrat to a second term in the State House.

Posted by jeaps | August 6, 2007 7:25 PM

You tell 'em, Skylor!

As a constituent of TXCD10, I am greatly heartened that we will have a contested Democratic Primary (for a change).

Either announced primary candidate will be a great alternative to Mike "Clear Channel, Bush Yes-Man" McCaul.

Democratic grass roots activists in CD10 are so committed to changing our District from Crimson to Blue that we have formed a state PAC, True Blue 10, to help promote Democratic candidates in our District from School Board to Congress!!!

So Don, what are YOU doing besides whining to create change?

Dan Grant, RUN AND RUN HARD!!!

Posted by David Greer | August 6, 2007 8:31 PM

Dear Don:

Dan has a clearly defined policy stance on Iraq.

http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2007/5/24/11442/7528/11#c11

Sincerely,
S.

Posted by Skylor Williams | August 6, 2007 9:41 PM

Skylor,

Thanks for the link. If this is Grant's true position that he's running on and not just something for Kossacks then it sounds good to me. I say "if" because he must have some reason for not putting it on his website, no?

Does this get me off the hook to enlist? I sure hope so. I'm in pretty good shape (if I do say so) but if the army is taking seventy-year-olds then they're worse off than I thought. Of course I could tell them about my 'Nam experience in 63/64 where it was 105 degrees (got you by one degree) and, judging from your photo, you weren't even you. But now you are, and that's good. I respect a fighter in a good cause.

David,

Click on my name and perhaps you'll learn something, if that's possible.

Posted by Don Bacon | August 7, 2007 12:08 AM

Oh gosh, I didn't know that's what we were dealing with. I give up.

Posted by Sam | August 7, 2007 3:37 AM

Dear Don:

For the record, your comment made you sound like a neocon. I apologize for that misinterpretation. I don't think you're a neocon. My personal mission is about "adjusting" neocons. With all the love that flows through me, of course.

I understand your "immediate withdrawal" position. I have a drinking buddy in Taji who's due home in October. We never should have gone into Iraq in the first place. Unfortunately, now that we're there, it's kind of too complicated to pack up and leave altogether. Iraqi culture itself is more complicated and nuanced than a vast majority of Americans realize. The war is a mess, and the President and the Republicans are to blame. A mess the rest of us got stuck with.

Dan Grant has the best and most reasonable Iraq solution. It balances the issues of 1)sovereignty of Iraq, 2)military spending, 3)effects of long-term warfare on the American psyche, and 4)the need to act quickly on terrorist threats abroad. It may not be on his website, but it is a part of his stump speeches when he visits folks.

Sincerely,
S.

PS: Yes, you are off the hook to re-up. : )

Posted by Skylor Williams | August 7, 2007 10:15 AM

Skylor,
You and I disagree (a little) because we come from different directions. You are mostly concerned (so you write) with sovereignty, spending, the American psyche and terrorist threats and I am mostly concerned with the lives of the patriotic people who are being sent by a lying, treasonous government to Iraq to serve as 'cannon fodder' for America's profit and power. (I hope I'm clear).

Let's imagine that a foreign army occupied Texas, and had caused widespread death and destruction to Texans including to those close to you. Even though you Texans wanted these foreigners to leave and were killing them, they said they couldn't leave because the situation was "complicated" and "nuanced". Get my drift?

In other words I'm a Ron Paul independent. I'll try to watch Grant.

Posted by Don Bacon | August 7, 2007 6:21 PM

Don:

I think you and I agree that the war was started under false pretenses. The actions of the Bush Administration are atrocious. It was some kind of macho vendetta taken by the current Bush to avenge his father by eliminating Saddam, and that thousands upon thousands of lives have been ruined for profit by the neocon agenda. For that, I am deeply saddened, angry, frustrated. Under our laws, the President and his cohorts ought to be impeached and serve jail time like criminals. But I also think you are trying to paint me in colors to show that I am somehow unsympathetic or that I've minimized the value of our soldiers' lives. That is patently unfair.

I don't have to imagine your scenario. I've lived it. You seem to make the assumption the Iraqis don't want us there. That's both true and not true, and like I said, "complicated". I talked to more than a dozen Iraqis (through interpreters) while I was in Iraq. What they said would fill a book. Your attempt to appeal to emotion and make a "what-if-it-were-you?" oversimplifies their understanding of the plight they know they're in, and is also unfair.

Sincerely,

S.

Posted by Skylor Williams | August 8, 2007 6:59 PM