While the United States is amid wars on multiple fronts, Kansas' two Republican Senators have irresponsibly placed a hold on President Obama's nominee for Secretary of the Army, Republican Congressman John McHugh.

Concerned that their state could become the home for some Guantánamo Bay detainees, Kansas' two Republican senators have placed a hold on the nomination of Rep. John M. McHugh as Army secretary. That means a litte more time as candidates in waiting for the people gearing up to run for McHugh's seat in an upstate New York district.

Sens. Pat Roberts and Sam Brownback are seeking answers from the Obama administration about the possible moves of some detainees to the prison at Fort Leavenworth, Kan.

But that's not all:

Roberts and Brownback have also blocked Senate consideration of the Deputy Secretary of the Army, for the same reason. In both cases, the senators concede the nominees deserve consideration, but will have to wait until they're satisfied with an unrelated question. (Reminder: there are already terrorists being detained in Kansas, whether Roberts and Brownback realize it or not.)

Defense Secretary Robert Gates is reportedly "furious" with the far-right Republican senators who've blocked progress on the nomination. He's apparently under the impression that the Army needs leaders in their offices in the midst of two wars. Imagine that.

I wonder if anyone in the Kansas or D.C. media will ask Kansas' two Republican Senate candidates, Reps. Todd Tiahrt and Jerry Moran, whether or not they support the hold, preventing Army leadership from being in place during this time of war.  Oh, and if this is President Obama's thanks for appointing Republicans to leadership roles, those cries from Republicans seeking bipartisanship will continue to ring hollow.

For daily news and updates on the U.S. Senate races around the country, regularly read Senate Guru.

There's more...

There's clear benefit in appointing Republicans to top military positions in a Democratic administration: it adds bipartisan cover to all sorts of progressive policy, from Iraq withdrawal to repealing DADT (assuming that happens before I'm 50).

But a little gnome in the back of my head always complains when Obama appoints a Republican to a national security position like secretary of the Army - on some level, does it confirm the longstanding conventional wisdom that only Republicans are serious enough to handle our nation's defense?

There's more...

Not to be impolitic, but John McHugh (R-NY) is a dolt. He seems smooth. But he's got nothing but standard-issue GOP talking points, and even on those, he's about six months behind and liable to screw it up. Take his latest on Iraq:

Will the Iraqis step forward and carry on their shoulders that which the American military has been carrying on theirs? If they don't, then we have to begin to face reality.

Begin to face reality? On Iraq? Well, we had to hit him on that ...

That sound-bite just seemed to capture a certain mind-set so beautifully. The mind-set of Friedman Units of time, of corners turned and light glimpsed at the ends of tunnels. Of denial. I mean, some time in the future we may "begin to face reality"? What a wanker.

So, we had to go with it ...

Here's the ad:

It's part of a general strategy of earned media, phone-banking, etc to tie McHugh ever more strongly to the Iraq debacle using his own words against him. Because Iraq ... well, that's the biggie. And since we have limited resources, we can't lose our focus on the biggest issues of all.

Just to give a little context on the "disappearing Congressman" visual of the ad, we did a previous ad with that image. We bought about 500-600 points in each market of that ad, and the word-of-mouth and memorability of it gained us a lot more exposure than that. Just about everyone has seen or heard of this ad a number of times ...

Now, we're not a highly funded campaign. In fact, we produce these ads in-house, with the same person (me) in charge of Internet outreach, policy, politics, media releases, media management, ad production, and ad placement ... uh, among other things. And we, well I, have followed a few basic rules to maximize our impact: repeat themes and visuals to make them stick better, concentrate each ad on a single theme/message to make it more clear in people's minds, come up with a single visual theme for McHugh (the "empty suit" visual), and stick to messages that can resonate with the news rather than build "issues" out of trivia (out-of-context votes on issues outside the biggies). Now, those aren't exactly earth-shaking insights, but they're particularly important in a less-funded campaign. And not followed enough, imo. Plus, by using McHugh's official photo, we are re-mixing and claiming his brand.

Luckily, though, we live in a very weird district: it's actually cheaper to reach people by TV than any other way. We get ads for 6-10 dollars per point. That's just crazy. But it has allowed us (since we have very little production costs because I make them ... this ad cost $200) to buy enough ads to actually make an impact, as long as we followed those rules, imo.

Back to the ad ... we knew, and the polls now reflect, that the electorate would turn back to Iraq strongly. John McHugh supports the policy, and the policy can best be illustrated by a burning car bomb. Rather than spend our time building case after case on a wide variety of issues, we're hanging a broad case all around a central pillar of Iraq.

{Bob Johnson is running in NY-23 against John McHugh. Donate if you can ... }

As some of you probably know, I work for the Democrat Bob Johnson in this NY-23 race, so this is by no means an impartial diary. In fact, I made the ad here, so your comments and suggestions will go straight to the source, so to speak.

This ad is a stark, aggressive ad. We wanted to go after McHugh's main characteristic: his complete ineffectiveness. Our nation has huge issues, and we just can't afford to have a Congressman who just disappears when it matters ... and we wanted a striking visual to illustrate that. We were aiming for something a bit more memorable than your average "grainy slo-mo of the politician."

(more below the flip)

There's more...

Democrats need to demand accountability. It's good politics (the Courage Campaign polling in CA-50 is persuasive on that point), and it's good policy.

But the Democrats can't just say "we are for accountability." We need to stand up and call for specific steps, and we need to speak with one voice to show Independent voters that there is a difference, that we will run things differently.

And last week, there was news that illustrates, again, the path for us to follow ...

There's more...