Today on Blogcritics
Home » The Military Hates Kerry

The Military Hates Kerry

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

Poll results here

Among members of the US military:

Bush Approval Rating: +38%

Bush Favorable Rating: +46%

Kerry Favorable Rating: -35%

Right Track/Wrong Track: +33%

Bush on the economy: +24%

Iraq was worth it: +32%

Kerry has a good plan regarding Iraq: -54%

Bush A Better Commander-In-Chief: +45%

Bush A Strong Leader: +52%

John Edwards Favorable Rating: -8%

Dick Cheney Favorable Rating: +38%

John McCain Favorable Rating: +58%

Donald Rumsfeld Favorable Rating: +42%

Colin Powell Favorable Rating: +82%

So. The people doing the fighting in the War On Terror support President Bush overwhelmingly. And hundreds of Vets who served with Kerry openly despise him.

Who is a better fit for the role of Commander-In-Chief? I report, you decide…

Powered by

About RJ

  • http://macaronies.blogspot.com Mac Diva

    D-e-s-p-i-s-e. I am tempted to use the word in a simple Subject/Verb/Direct Object sentence.

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ

    Thanks, MD!

    You offer no comment on the substance of my post, but you DO offer a crucial retort vis-a-vis my spelling.

    Congrats!

  • SFC SKI

    From my own experience, most Soldiers are not talking politics, they are, however, making sure they get their ballots in.

    Soldiers, in my opinion, should not be overtly political, in the end we have to support the Commander in Chief, the President, whether we voted for him or not.

  • http://none.com Bob A. Booey

    RJ, I’ve seen a few polls indicating that Bush, while ahead, isn’t clearly dominating the military vote when active soldiers are asked whom they’ll be voting for. Certainly not by as wide a margin as this poll would indicate.

    Your data’s true, but your conclusion’s an illogical appeal, that we should vote for Bush because the troops like him better as Commander-in-Chief.

    First, that’s not unique to Bush. He’s a wartime President, and all wartime Presidents enjoy significant military support.

    Second, the military always, always votes GOP in the modern electorate. The Annenberg study you cite itself explains an over 2-1 disproportionate representation: 43% of the soldiers polled were Republicans, only 19% Democrats. With those numbers, you’d expect even a wider margin. The military favored Dole when he was a big loser — should we have rallied around him too, RJ? Appeals to the authority of a crowd only persuade those with authoritarian personality types.

    Here’s how you know it’s a skewed sample, if you’re trying to draw an analogy to the general population of civilians: They give Cheney and Rumsfeld, who have seen dropping and often negative ratings in recent months, overwhelmingly positive approval ratings. Rumsfeld’s so damn beloved that it’s very likely he’s on the outs in a second Bush term.

    Third, the reason soliders who are polled think highly of our war efforts is basic cognitive dissonance. If you’re involved in something and risking your life for it, of course you’ll be motivated to judge it as worthwhile and successful. This doesn’t change the fact that there have been multiple stories about the low morale of the military in the Middle East from multiple sources and, more importantly, that the military is completely over-stretched and that the issue of resources and manpower will only get worse. Don’t take it from me — this is the conclusion of virtually every military policy analyst, political scientist, diplomat, and general who’s analyzed the problem.

    Got anything to say about that stuff? I’m still looking for that logical, researched, evidenced defense of why Iraq was the best course of action to make us safer that doesn’t rely on vague language and tough guy rhetoric. None of you right-wingers who seem to be frothing at the mouth lately have risen to the challenge of being able to do that.

    I’m calling you out, RJ, since you have such a boner for Bush lately. You seem to be a better researcher than Mark Edward Manning, Al Barger, and the rest of the right-wing “think tank” on this site, so it’s on you. Go to it.

    That is all.

  • andy marsh

    Holy Christ Bob…This is about the 5th or 6th post of yours I’ve read…I have to say…you’re more full of shit than a christmas turkey!!!
    I was in the navy for 20 years…military vote republican because they want to feel like they have a govt that is supporting them…cognitive dissonance…what a bunch of bullshit…overeducated moron!!!

  • andy marsh

    I apologize for the moron comment…that was a little overboard

  • http://www.kolehardfacts.blogspot.com Mike Kole

    Funny enough, Charlie Rangel says he wants to reinstate the draft because it is his opinion that minorities and those from lower economic classes are disproportionately represented in the military.

    It must be some kind of whopper of collective cognitive dissonance then, eh, BAB?

  • http://macaronies.blogspot.com Mac Diva

    Two words: Education and conformity. The education profile of military personnel differs from that of the general population. (Not as much as it used to since a high school diploma or GED is now required.) Military personnel are younger and less likely to be college-educated. Furthermore, many military personnel are steeped in Right mores from early childhood or high school (ROTC) on.

    Mike K., Rangel has studied the issue extensively, including interviewing minority and women military personnel. Nor is the discrepancy hard to see if you consult the data, particularly for support and infantry units in the Army. The majority of females in the Army are nonwhite. I suspect that many of those not bowing to conformity are black, Hispanic and Asian personnel.

    And, we should not overlook the fact that the military is drawn disproportionately from the South, a place steeped in conservatism and lower educational achievement.

    Another interesting aspect is the pass through. How many one or two term veterans remain as lockstep with conformity to Right Wing ideology after they leave? I suspect a significant proportion becomes disillusioned after discovering how little their military service counts in the civilian economy.

  • http://www.iamrighturpie.blogspot.com/ jadester

    wow. Such…overwhelming percentages.
    i think i’m gonna go put several thou on red at the local casino’s roulette table, seeing as how there’s an overwhelming chance i’ll win.

    “Kerry has a good plan regarding Iraq: -54%

    Bush A Better Commander-In-Chief: +45%

    wierd. so if only 45% think Bush is a better commander-in-chief, doesn’t that mean 55% think he isn’t? i wonder what the percentage for “Bush has a good plan regarding Iraq” would be

  • http://www.kolehardfacts.blogspot.com Mike Kole

    Rangel may have studied the issue thoroughly, but I continue to abhor his conclusion: use compulsion to get the result you want.

    The irony remains: The draft was rightfully attacked during and after Vietnam as a tool for placing the poor into the military and the war against their will. If Rangel gets hiw way, it would force well-off people into the military against their will.

    The common thread is: against their will.

    No draft. Never.

    Rangel would do

  • http://www.tude.com/ Hal Pawluk

    The mutiny in Taji adds some perspective on the question of how valuable polls really are:

    The Army is investigating members of a Reserve unit in Iraq who refused to deliver a fuel shipment to a town north of Baghdad under conditions they considered unsafe, the Pentagon and relatives of the soldiers said Friday. Several soldiers called it a “suicide mission,” relatives said.

    Nineteen members of the 343rd Quartermaster Company were detained at gunpoint for nearly two days

  • Shark

    I’d wait on drawing any conclusions from a poll taken of active duty GIs concerning their current commander in chief.

    I predict this will change when these Iraq war vets start coming home. You’ll hear A LOT of anger about being sent to “fight terrorism” and ending up playing policemen, garbage collectors, plumbers, painters, and bulls-eye targets to a population of 25 million hostile Muslims.

    Not to mention the “back-door draft”, stop-loss orders, and lack of health care and jobs once they return.

    BTW: ALL polls are a joke: as I used to tell my boss when he wanted a “marketing survey” done:

    Shark’s Law: Polls automatically exclude people who refuse to answer polls.

    (You can use that if ya like, kids. Just gimmee credit!)

  • andy marsh

    sometimes you make some valid points Shark…they also exclude people with unlisted phone numbers…folks on the do-not-call list all fo that…
    The job thing though…I’m pretty sure that if you have to leave a job because you were called up to active duty from the reserves, that by law your employer is required to give you that job back when you return.

  • Shark

    BTW:

    Another Shark prediction:

    IF Kerry wins, we’ll hear A LOT of revelations, complaints, etc. from many big-wigs at the Pentagon re. the way this war and the accompanying {un}Intelligence was ram-rodded through by Rummy, Cheney, Wolfy, Armitage, et al.

    Hide and watch, kids.

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ

    jadester:

    Please note the pluses or minuses in front of the percentages…

    (Or, better yet, just go to the site I linked to!)

  • http://lifeinaurora.blogspot.com Jason Koulouras

    I am not sure what all these statistics actually mean. I believe you could poll another group of people with similar interests/occupations/backgrounds and get results just as skewed the other way

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ

    BAB:

    Here are just a few of countless reasons why liberating Iraq was a good idea (and why the military hates Kerry):

    – With Saddam in power, the Iraqis were shooting at our aircraft nearly every day. Remember the No-Fly Zones? Shooting at Coalition aircraft was a clear violation of the peace agreement signed by Saddam after the Gulf War. Therefore, a de facto state of war had existed the minute Iraq began trying to kill our airmen and airwomen.

    – Clinton wanted it done, and Congress agreed, in 1998, WELL BEFORE 9-11. But Clinton lacked the balls to go through with it. Bush didn’t.

    – Kerry voted for the war, and even publicly supported the liberation of Iraq before 9-11! But he now claims to have opposed a war that he voted for, and to have supported a bill to fund our troops in Iraq that he voted against. Kerry is simply retroactively altering his position on a war that has become unpopular because…well…it has become unpopular.

    – Kerry slandered his “band of brothers” when it was politically helpful to him in 1971. He even called HIMSELF a “war criminal.” Fast-forward to 2004. Now he fancies himself a “war hero” despite the fact that most of the guys who served on the Swift Boats with him hate his guts.

    – John McCain, a favorite of the Democrats and the MSM, said this at the GOP National Convention:

    After years of failed diplomacy and limited military pressure to restrain Saddam Hussein, President Bush made the difficult decision to liberate Iraq.

    Those who criticize that decision would have us believe that the choice was between a status quo that was well enough left alone and war. But there was no status quo to be left alone.

    The years of keeping Saddam in a box were coming to a close. The international consensus that he be kept isolated and unarmed had eroded to the point that many critics of military action had decided the time had come again to do business with Saddam, despite his near daily attacks on our pilots, and his refusal, until his last day in power, to allow the unrestricted inspection of his arsenal.

    Our choice wasn’t between a benign status quo and the bloodshed of war. It was between war and a graver threat. Don’t let anyone tell you otherwise.

    Not our political opponents. And certainly — and certainly not a disingenuous filmmaker who would have us believe…

    AUDIENCE (Booing filmmaker Michael Moore who attended the convention):

    Four more years! Four more years! Four more years!

    MCCAIN: Please, please, my friends.

    That line was so good, I’ll use it again. Certainly not a disingenuous filmmaker who would have us believe, my friends, who would have us believe that Saddam’s Iraq was an oasis of peace, when in fact — when in fact it was a place of indescribable cruelty, torture chambers, mass graves and prisons that destroyed the lives of the small children inside their walls.

    Whether or not Saddam possessed the terrible weapons he once had and used, freed from international pressure and the threat of military action, he would have acquired them again.

    My friends, the central security concern of our time is to keep such devastating weapons beyond the reach of terrorists who can’t be dissuaded from using them by the threat of mutual destruction.

    We couldn’t afford the risk posed by an unconstrained Saddam in these dangerous times. By destroying his regime, we gave hope to people long oppressed, that if they have the courage to fight for it, they may live in peace and freedom.

    Most importantly — most importantly, our efforts may encourage the people of a region, that has never known peace or freedom or lasting stability, that they may someday possess these rights.

    Now, can you honestly tell me, after reading this small sample of reasons to topple Saddam Hussein, that there is no reason to believe that liberating “Iraq was the best course of action to make us safer”?

    I’m not expecting you to AGREE with me, but to simply acknowledge that there is sufficient reason to believe that the liberation of Iraq was worthwhile.

  • Shark

    RJ,

    but that’s THIS WEEK’S reasons for invading Iraq.

    PS: You’re joking, right?

  • MCH

    “Honor the Fallen”

    “Army Sgt. Pamela G. Osbourne, 38, of Hollywood, Fla.; assigned to Division Artillery, 1st Cavalry Division, Ft. Hood, TX; was killed Oct. 11 when two rockets hit her camp in Baghdad. Also killed was PFC Anthony W. Monroe.”

    Mrs. Osbourne enlisted into the Army shortly before the terrorist attacks in 2001 at 35 years of age because she believed that actions speak louder than words. When she volunteered for combat, Pamela told her husband, “I’m not going to punk-out like some of these people,” referring to those soldiers who failed drug tests or came up with other reasons to avoid being sent overseas. “I’m going to serve my country, to protect my country,” she said.

    Mrs. Osbourne, a native of Jamaica, is one of the 30 American female soldiers killed (to date) in the Afghanistan/Iraqi invasions. She is survived by her husband, Rohan Osbourne and her children, Rohan, Jr., 14 and LaToya, 9.

    to view profile,
    http://www.militarycity.com/valor/honor_alpha_o.html
    to send condolences,
    http://www.fallenheroesmemorial.com/oif/profiles/osbournepamelag.html

    “Some gave all…all gave some.”
    – MCH, Vietnam era vet