Keffer v Vaught, Take Two?

Jeff Siegel in Dallas is reporting that Bill Keffer is looking for a rematch of his upset loss in HD107. The winner, to some degree of surprise, was Democrat, Allen Vaught.

That contest pretty much flew under my overworked 2006 radar, but I'm still a little confused about this line:

... Vaught has his share of strengths. He is an Iraq war hero, which should cut into Keffer's well-known national security stance.

Last I checked, there weren't many votes that come up affecting national security in Austin. Allowing for some of Warren Chisum's social policy arguments, I suppose. I'm curious enough now to ponder how it is that a State Representative obtains not just any national security stance from that post, but a well-known one at that.

Vaught ought to be on solid ground. I managed to catch a little bit of a CNN special on Iraq that featured the State Rep. He's obviously got an amazing story to tell about his service. Of course, I'd argue that Vaught doesn't need a stance on national security. His <>em>record will do just nicely. It's also worth keeping an eye on Vaught for the future. I don't think he'll peak out politically at State Rep.

SIDENOTE: Vaught's website even has some info on the recently popular discussion of the "castle doctrine" (or, as it should be referred to: the "portable castle doctrine"). Worth noting the objections to the law by prosecutors. Not that Republican apologists would let that get in the way of their reality-challenged fun.