Playing the Veteran Card: Loyola Breaks the Rules
Over the last few weeks it seems that many veterans eager to use their service as a campaign talking point, have had a little problem with following the rules.
First, we had Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal who claimed that he had served in Vietnam when he actually spent the war pursuing a series of deferments before landing in the Marine Corps Reserves. These days you can be pretty sure that any reservist you meet has spent time in a combat zone or will be pretty darn soon. But that wasn’t the case in the 70’s when Blumenthal served. He never got anywhere near Southeast Asia and veterans are justifiably upset at his false claims.
Next up was Rep. Mark Kirk, a Republican candidate for Barack Obama’s former Senate seat in Illinois. Kirk has spent the last 9 years claiming that he won the prestigious Naval Intelligence Officer of the Year award in the late 90’s. Turns out that his entire unit received an award for outstanding service from the National Military Intelligence Association, a professional group that is not part of the Department of Defense. Now, that’s nothing to sneeze at and a wonderful award for an intelligence unit, but Kirk’s exaggeration (and it’s a pretty big one), whether intentional or not, is unacceptable.
With that backdrop, I headed out of my home in Chesapeake the other day and, while driving down Virginia Beach Blvd., saw a large campaign sign for Ben Loyola, a Republican candidate for Glenn Nye’s seat in Virginia’s 2nd Congressional District.
Loyola’s campaign sign has his name and it sports a rather large photo of Loyola in his Navy dress whites. I did a double take. As the wife of a Navy veteran and an advocate for military families, I’m perhaps hyper aware of Department of Defense regulations drafted to essentially mirror the Hatch Act. The Department of Defense has a series of directives specifying exactly how active duty personnel and veterans may or may not engage in the political process in order to avoid the appearance of the DoD endorsing a particular party or political viewpoint. Of course, these directives also cover the political campaigns and campaign materials of active duty service members and veterans.
Department of Defense Directive 1344.10 states that, yes, it is perfectly acceptable for veterans to use photos of themselves in uniform in campaign materials as long as they include a disclaimer that the photo doesn’t imply official endorsement of the Department of Defense. However, the directive goes on to state that the “[u]se of photographs, drawings, and other similar media formats of the member in uniform cannot be the primary graphic representation in any campaign material.” DoDD 1344.10 Sec. II.B.7.c.(2)(a) (emphasis added).
You see that photo up there? Does that seem to be the “primary” graphic representation in the Loyola campaign sign? Yes, it does. While there’s a tiny disclaimer down at the bottom that you could probably see if you parked your car, got out, walked over to the sign and pushed the grass down at the bottom, that doesn’t matter. The regulation expressly prohibits Loyola from using a photo of himself in uniform as the “primary graphic representation” in this sign.
Ben Loyola is violating DoD regulations with his campaign materials.
While all of us in the Hampton Roads area laud what Loyola has done for his country and thank him for his service, it is not OK for him to ignore DoD direction about using his veteran status to campaign for public office.
Ben Loyola, if you’re reading, Take those signs down.
I’m sure you (or someone in your campaign) thought that photo of you in your dress whites would score you some brownie points with the Navy community here in Hampton Roads. And you’re right, it will. But those same military families that you hope to attract are rule followers. I seriously doubt they’ll be thrilled about you breaking them. I know I’m not. Let your service speak for itself, don’t cut corners and break rules so you can slap people in the face with it. I expect more from a Naval officer.
Note: On the evening of June 2nd, I sent the above photograph to Ben Loyola’s office along with the pertinent DoD Directive and asked for a comment. I have not received a response.
Join us on Facebook.
Follow us on Twitter.
June 5th, 2010 at 8:09 pm
Coming from a veteran… run in the issues, dude. Stop pimpng your military service. Did you serve just to bulk up your future political resume?
June 5th, 2010 at 8:24 pm
Mr. Mizusawa is playing fast, as well, though in a different way. His anti-Rigell “Dummies” mailer the other day violated copyright and trademark laws.
June 6th, 2010 at 8:59 am
Stephanie
Believe you me… Mark Kirk is the very first Congressmen to thump his military service when it benefits him. Rep Kirk district covers the only USN basic training center in the US (great lakes) and one of the largest VA centers in Illinois (N Chicago). Let me tell you all this, there was no interpretation error on the Kirk campaign. It was deliberate and he got caught with his hand in the cookie jar.
June 6th, 2010 at 4:39 pm
It would appear that Mr. Loyola has stayed within the confines of the DOD directive. In this particular instance, the computer derived portion of the display that depicts Loyola in uniform is less than 20% of the entire area, hence it is not the primary graphic representation. Alternately, the directive does not specify a minimum font size other than the disclaimer be present. Had the 4×8 not met with the specifications, then probably they would not be there now.
June 6th, 2010 at 5:04 pm
Nope. Wally if you read the directive it’s clear that “graphic” means a photo or illustration of the member in uniform. The photo up above of Loyola is the *only* photo (or “graphic”) on the sign. Hence it is the primary graphic. The directive doesn’t make any distinctions about how much of the campaign material the graphic takes up.
June 6th, 2010 at 5:57 pm
If he had any integrity, he would have taken then down when it was pointed out…
June 6th, 2010 at 6:11 pm
In computer derivatives, all components of the iteration are indeed graphics (each individual letter, line, and so forth). If graphic “means” photo or illustration, it would indeed say photo or illustration.
“Graphic” indeed paints a broad brush and semantically incoherent. You are assuming intent, which if fact is only an interpretation. It is what it says.
June 6th, 2010 at 6:19 pm
Wrong answer. So we can expect to see a photo of any vets running for office on the future political signs? Not a chance. try this one: Name me one other candidate who has a military uniform photo on a sign. Just one… I’ve have never seen a single candidate put a in military uniform photo on a 4×8 yard sign. Just saying…
Integrity is a word he should have learned in the military . His lack of learning are valid reasons he will be a losing candidate on Tuesday night. He is playing the Bill Clinton “is” word game. It wil cost him on Tuesday.
June 7th, 2010 at 5:59 am
Mr. Bailey:
Whether or not you feel it the advertisement is appropriate or not is in fact your valued opinion. Yet again, there are no word “games”. The directive is what it is and says what is. If the directive’s true intent is as you believe, then the directive needs to be reworded. I neither condone nor object to Mr. Loyola’s signage as I do any other candidates’ provided they are promptly removed when required. The subject of this thread indicates Loyola “broke the rules” when in fact he remained within the rules. On another note, your post clearly infers that Mr. Loyola is not you preferred choice if you intend in participating in the primary.
June 7th, 2010 at 11:27 am
Next let’’s address the continuing illegal placement of signs.
Saw a Loyola and Rigell signs on the corner of Great Neck Rd & Wolfsnare with signs placed on top of them. The sign covered about 1/3 and read “illegal sign-citizens for a clean VB”. They were on the signs Sat am but had been torn off by the afternoon.
Yes, these are only a few of the many signs placed in city right of ways. etc. If you can’t follow the law, why are you running? Trashing VB is ok as long as you win?
June 7th, 2010 at 2:29 pm
Why is it so easy to convince yourself you are right? By Lawyer Mama’s and WB’s reasoning, a 3″ x 5″ picture would qualify as the “primary graphic” if the rest of the 4′ x 8′ campaign sign were only words. If you stop for a minute to think objectively about the other angle, or if you examine the extreme end of what you consider “clear”, even to the point of absurdity, then maybe you can see the sense of what Wally’s written here.
The Directive appears to be vague enough that it is reasonable to expect the Loyola camp didn’t anticipate a problem. I bet if we were talking about a (D) candidate, nobody would have ever said a word.
June 7th, 2010 at 4:24 pm
I bet if we were talking about a (D) candidate, Wally would have accused him of treason by now.
The directive is what it is, and clearly prohibits this display.
There are important reasons for this directive, including that our military is under the command of civilian leaders.
By the way, I heard an awesome radio spot from the Sierra Club today, Eileen.
June 7th, 2010 at 5:56 pm
It isn’t a R vs. D issue for me. I’m opposed to a vet using their service uniform, history and service to gain votes. Run on the issues not your military service. As a vet, I do not believe military service is the key factor in any election outcome. R, D or I, it makes no difference to me. And the DoD directive is very clear.
June 8th, 2010 at 6:41 am
Ben is another closeted gay man. Back in that late eighties when he was a LT he used to hang out at a club in Virginia Beach called Charades and yes it’s a GAY club. I have seen him there several times with different guys. Things all changed as he started to advance in the military. Now he is a married gay closeted homophob. From what I here he is still “playing around” on his wife.
June 8th, 2010 at 7:53 am
WB: “the DoD directive is very clear”. spotter: “clearly prohibits this display”. That’s just not true. Saying it over and over here doesn’t make it so.
How “clear” would you characterize the statutes in question in the Sestak case? Or am I correct in believing this is a mostly partisan criticism?
June 9th, 2010 at 6:15 pm
Did anyone happen to look at the fine print at the bottom of the sign?… I didn’t think so.
June 9th, 2010 at 6:25 pm
Louis, so Ben is in the “closet”? He’s had a security clearance for 30 years, I saw him at KoKomo’s, and Croc’s at the beach in the 90s and he was going out with several waitresses and professional women at the time, now has a wife and a new baby and has had a “male” married business partner for over 20 years. You had better go get your “gaydar” checked and recalibrated by some factory authorized dykes.
June 9th, 2010 at 6:58 pm
Kinda got to me last summer when the McDonnell campaign had the endorsement of his daughter (dressed in US Army uniform) and had a picture of him in US Army uniform. Was I the only one who saw this?
June 9th, 2010 at 7:25 pm
Zone come on do you think he would be the first gay man that had a wife? There is nothing for me to get “straight.” I saw him in action if you know what I mean. Also before he even started his company he told me exactly how he was going to do it…by using his minority status to gain federal contracts. And yes he did tell me all this over drinks in a gay bar. Whit a guy he was seeing at the time standing next to him. Why would he tell me this…because he recognized me form the PSD i was working at at the time; you see we were both “under cover” in the military at the same time.
Last thing, I have had my TS clearance for 28 years both in and out of the military and for that last 24 I have been with the same MAN.
All systems working here!!
June 10th, 2010 at 11:25 am
Louis, so you had drinks in a gay bar and you were both “closeted” and in the military at the same time. Did you “serve” together in the same units and at what bases, and were you enlisted or officer? What about his “guy”.. was he serving with Ben and you and how did they meet?
June 10th, 2010 at 6:16 pm
Zone please remember this was way before don’t ask don’t tell so yes everyone was in the “closet.”
When I was living off of Holland and South Plaza almost every day on my way to Little Creek I would see Ben driving a burgundy Thunder Bird with black interior down Holland merging on to Independence. Ben lived South of South Plaza Trail at the time. What base he was on at the time I would say was NOB. During 86 – 91 I was working at PSD Little Creek and PSD Naval station. We met in a professional capacity on NOB and at the time I can remember telling him that I thought he looked like a guy I see almost every morning and he admitted it was him. The next time we had an opportunity to talk was at Charades. Charades was a bar that is now a Mexican restaurant next to K-mart in Town center.
No we never “served” at the same command. I was enlisted. I did not talk to his friend so I could not tell you anything about him except that it was clear that they were on a date.
It’s funny how you find it so hard to believe that Ben may be playing both sides of the road. We if he was congress man, who also has a wife and family, but was caught in an airport restroom by an undercover cop or a religious right preacher caught coming back from vacation with a male prostitute; then maybe you would believe.
June 10th, 2010 at 6:28 pm
Louis, by the way, I worked part time for Ben in his Audio Visual business at the time which had a contract to do the lighting, sound and automation of the special effects for “Charades”. Along with “Buzz”, “Arron” and “Devin” who were specialists working for Ben, we were there several months during installation of the club systems and had to return to the club several times with Ben to test and “fix” stupid problems which the owner said he had, which he didn’t. And yeah, we got free drinks sometimes. It was just another job, not a lifestyle. Ben can get along with anybody and doesn’t judge or discriminate against anyone no matter who they are, but has been kicked around by racists at the local banks, business associations, and the Republican Party who doesn’t like Latinos or legal immigrants.
June 12th, 2010 at 11:31 am
“Ben can get along with anybody and doesn’t judge or discriminate against anyone no matter who they are” That’s why he is totally against any rights for gay people in and out of the military. Read below!
Thank you for your recent email. I forwarded it along to him.
Ben believes that marriage is between a man and a woman, and the military should continue with the “don’t ask, don’t tell policy”.
–
Joshua Clark
Political Director
Loyola for Congress
(757) 831-9581
If Ben did not discriminate then why will he not say “I believe that ALL people should have equal rights under the constitution that being Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
You say he is not I say he is. That’s what makes the U. S. of A so nice…we can disagree.
Thanks for the conversation. What’s the next topic?
June 12th, 2010 at 2:05 pm
Well, it doesn’t make any difference any more what Ben is for or against. He got the crap beat out of him by Scott Rigell, who voters think is more in tune with the gay community, minorities, the military, liberals and Democrats in general, and will be the best representative that money can buy.
November 14th, 2010 at 1:13 am
fantastic post ! I’m waiting for the next one !