Troops giving 6X more to Obama than McCain

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Troops_giving_6x_more_to_Obama_0814.html

"A new analysis shows the vast majority of US troops serving abroad have donated to candidates running on strong anti-war platforms, with presumptive Democratic nominee Barack Obama out-raising his Republican opponent by a 6-to-1 margin."

Well Craig I keep trying to tell them this claim that the military are all hard core republicans is a myth.

But they just deny it and say "everyone knows" the military is all republicans.

Well the military I know are mostly Democrat.

Just like they tried to hijack Jesus, they try to hijack Old Glory as well.

That's a load of crap Sherm and you know it.

The only thing I wonder is if you say it with a straight face.

Well I have been saying it for years, and none of you have refuted it or shown any data otherwise.

They just say the military is republican and everyone knows it but dont back it up.

Every time you say it, someone post a link (I've done it at least 3 times) that shows historically speaking, the military vote favors Republicans. Your stubborn refusal to admit it does not change the facts. You're wrong.

wELL DENY IT IF YOU WANT BUT THE ACTIVE MILITARY HAS DONATED MOST TO rON pAUL AND oBAMA.

his·tor·i·cal·ly

his·tor·i·cal·ly [hi stáwrikəlee]
adv
1. regarding history: according to or with reference to history or its course
The law will prove to be historically significant.

2. many times before: used to indicate that something has happened often in the past Historically, a rise in interest rates slows the rate of inflation. Historically, the military vote has favored Republicansadded by Aaron


Encarta ® World English Dictionary © & (P) 1998-2004 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

Perhaps this giving in the name of soldiers is like the $100,000 given by 100 sworn-to-poverty Buddhist monks from Hsi Lai Temple in Los Angeles, CA to Al Gore?

Perhaps Sherman, you should have read the story cited by Craig. It proves what you are saying is, once again wrong (does it ever get old btw), not only historically but in this election cycle as well in which 59% of contributions have gone to Republicans. So you see my good man, it wasn't a consertative that proved you wrong (does it ever get old btw), it was one of your fellow liberals that proved you wrong!!!!! (does it ever get old btw)

From the article...

According to an analysis of campaign contributions by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, Democrat Barack Obama has received nearly six times as much money from troops deployed overseas at the time of their contributions than has Republican John McCain, and the fiercely anti-war Ron Paul, though he suspended his campaign for the Republican nomination months ago, has received more than four times McCain's haul.

Despite McCain's status as a decorated veteran and a historically Republican bent among the military, members of the armed services overall -- whether stationed overseas or at home -- are also favoring Obama with their campaign contributions in 2008, by a $55,000 margin. Although 59 percent of federal contributions by military personnel has gone to Republicans this cycle, of money from the military to the presumed presidential nominees, 57 percent has gone to Obama.

And now that you've contributed to proving Sherm wrong Craig, let's discuss why John McCain is lagging behind Barrack Obama in the military vote.

Do you think it's because active duty personnel see Barrack as a peace maker and that he will bring them home or do you think it's because of the amount of money he's throwing at veterans?

In a weird way I'd say you're both right. The key words in the article, to me, are "US troops serving abroad". I've read statistics before that show that active duty troops do lean toward the GOP, but upon returning home lean towards the Democrats.

Reasons given for the change vary but I found the most feasible to be that they understand the concept that "we're all in it together" and the value of shared sacrifice. Something to do with relying on their fellow soldiers in combat translates to a repudiation of the me v. you "rugged individualism" on the right.

My bank is USAA, which was formed by WWI Army Officers when they were denied insurance from the industry. They created a collectivist approach where they would insure each other. Even to this day they refund unused money from the fund to members.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USAA

I joke to my FIL, through whom I have membership that the whole thing sounds vaguely Socialist. Even he, Republican through and through, agrees.

I'd say they are trending towards the Dems because they don't see the point in staying in Iraq ad infinitum and probably feel their work is done.

SFCraig wrote:I'd say they are trending towards the Dems because they don't see the point in staying in Iraq ad infinitum and probably feel their work is done.

We're it not for the 15 or so people I know who have been over there, some of them 2 or more times, I might agree with you. But I've been told over and over that by and large American soldiers want to finish the job and they don't want to leave Iraq in a position where civil war will break out or where Iran and Iranian influenced clerics take over.

Personally, I think it's all the money Obama is throwing at the military. Of course I can never find anything when I'm looking for it but I took a couple of 18 year olds who have been completely brain washed by the left to hear Barrack speak when he was in Charleston. They were somewhat disappointed because his speech centered on veteran spending including all college paid for veterans and more health care among other things.

I also don't know about your claim that as they come back, veterans drift to the liberal side of the spectrum. If anything, I've seen the opposite starting with myself but I'm not going to start going looking for data to back that up. I've been frustrated enough for one day on the internet.

This is kinda on:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rod-lurie/the-military-is-more-libe_b_115934.html

"The latest poll from Military Times shows that less than half of the military identify themselves as Republicans. The poll goes on to show that much of this anti-Republicanism comes from the bungling of the Iraq war."

I'm sure if I could find similar findings that show otherwise Craig. But the thing is, I've never claimed the military is overwhelming Republican. I've stated, and shown, they vote overwhelming consertative, which for the most part happens to be Republican. The reason is simple. By and large, Republicans do the things that take care of members of the military better then democrats do. They improve pay, the fund better, they give better benefits and overall, they just do a better job of looking out for the military.

I think you're right (in a way). I think what you said is how it is perceived by many.
But look at the denial of care for PTSD, the Walter Reed atrocity, Abu Ghraib, extended tours of duty, frequent rotations....all for a misguided and mismanaged war.

"Veterans diagnosed with PTSD can be eligible for up to $2,527 a month in disability compensation, depending on their condition. Those diagnosed with adjustment disorder generally receive no compensation."

http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/31766

That's taking care of vets?

Here's what I don't get so perhaps you can explain it to me. Taking care of vets is not a political thing. Yes, Congress sets and writes the rules and laws but they don't enforce them. The DOD and/or the VA is responsible for 'taking' care of the vets and as I said, that's not political, that's bureaucratic.

Often times, especially lately, when you have injustice done and someone, usually a liberal (Teddy B. was famous for it) brings it to light and the first thing they want to do is blame GWB for it as if he were personally responsible for the injustice. It generally gets a fair amount of play, especially in the liberal media and on web sites that you are much more familiar with then I am but in the end, the injustice is most always traced back to some bureaucrat who either interpreted a regulation wrong or used zero common sense in reading a rule or regulation.

One example would be last year when it came to light injured veterans were having part of their bonus taken back (I'd almost be willing to bet a hundred bucks you're familiar with what I'm talking about) because there is an arcane DOD regulation that says any military member who does not complete the required time stipulated for his bonus shall have the portion of the bonus taken back for the time he did not complete. This happened and Teddy jumped all over it. What he didn't report (as most liberals don't) is that first, it was a bureaucrat that made the decision and that once the regulation for the decision was determined, it was changed and the veterans who had money taken back, were reimbursed.

So please explain to me how taking care of vets is political.

As for adjustment disorder why should there be full time disability benefits?

Treatment
The primary treatment for adjustment disorder is talking. This reduces the pressure of the stressor and enhances coping. It allows the patient to put his or her rage into words rather than into destructive actions. Counseling, psychotherapy, crisis intervention, family therapy, and group treatment are often used to encourage the verbalization of fears, anxiety, rage, helplessness, and hopelessness. Sometimes small doses of antidepressants and anxiolytics are also used. In patients with severe life stresses and a significant anxious component, Benzodiazepines are used although, Triccyclic antidepressants or buspirone has been recommended for patients with current or past heavy alcohol use because of the greater risk of dependence. Tianeptine, alprazolam, and mianserin were found to be equally effective in patients with AD with anxiety.

Criticism
There has been some criticism of its classification. It has been criticized for its lack of specificity of symptoms, behavioral parameters, and close links with environmental factors. Adjustment Disorder has been classified as being so “vague and all-encompassing...as to be useless," but it has been retained in the DSM-IV because of the belief that it serves a useful clinical purpose for clinicians seeking a temporary, mild, non-stigmatizing label.

I'll agree that many blame the President for things a bit below his pay grade. But I'd say that since Jim Nicholson was a Bush appointee and presided over the VA for 2 years of scandals, that Bush IS responsible.

They were downplaying PTSD (I'd say for the money?). But it's a serious condition.

I'm the IT director at my firm. There are no failures beneath me that those above me would not blame on me.

It is important though to blame where blame is important. What are Bush's responsibilities and which are he ignoring this week?

SFCraig wrote:I'll agree that many blame the President for things a bit below his pay grade. But I'd say that since Jim Nicholson was a Bush appointee and presided over the VA for 2 years of scandals, that Bush IS responsible.

They were downplaying PTSD (I'd say for the money?). But it's a serious condition.

I'd say more likely for their denial- the denial of their bungling and the terrible results from it.

Is the firm you work for a bureaucracy in which those appointed above you can be fired but career civil servants below take an act God for each and every disciplinary action below written warnings and terminations just don't happen. Bush (or any other President for that matter) can fire all the appointees they like but they can't fix the bureaucracy because they can't fire incompetent and worthless government workers. If you think otherwise, I've got some ocean front property in New Mexico I'll sell you.

Overall what is the percentage of people donating money to a presidential candidate (military and non-military combined) that is giving money to Obama versus giving money to McCain?

As for currently deployed troops, I wonder if those who are there and believe it is right to be there also believe that there are more pressing matters than donating money to a political campaign, and those who are there but wish they weren't see the donation as having some say in their present existence.

I think there is much more than meets the eye here.

It should also be pointed out that we're talking about some fairly small sums here...$60,000 is not a lot when compared to the hundreds of millions raised overall for campaigns (we could be talking about what, 100 individual contributors, out of the million who have served overseas--hardly a scientific sampling), and it is certainly not enough to support Sherm's sweeping conclusion. But of course that won't slow him down.

For what it's worth, my own anecdotal evidence is that McCain is the preference of most other military people I talk to. I'm in the middle of a Navy training course, and my classmates overwhelmingly back McCain, and most regard Obama suspiciously. But of course, the military is a very large and diverse organization, and my class of 20 may not be representative.

I'm still waiting for Sherm's evidence (not assertion) that the military is actually a Democratic bulwark, which is of course why Al Gore tried so hard to get the military votes thrown out in Florida in 2000.

Aaron wrote:Is the firm you work for a bureaucracy in which those appointed above you can be fired but career civil servants below take an act God for each and every disciplinary action below written warnings and terminations just don't happen. Bush (or any other President for that matter) can fire all the appointees they like but they can't fix the bureaucracy because they can't fire incompetent and worthless government workers. If you think otherwise, I've got some ocean front property in New Mexico I'll sell you.

But Bush was the appointer, no? I think we can be objective and say that Bush was good at hiring unqualified cronies and firing them under duress.

Mike and Randall,

The significant fats are thus: They are active duty military and would be favoring the Republican at this juncture. It may change, but extrapolating, you can figure that something is amiss.

As far as them "having something better to do", wouldn't that have been the case in '04, '00, and always? That group of givers seem to be giving elsewhere.

In any case, those who give are trending Democratic. That is as alarming as if Unions or African-Americans wre trending Republican.

If you spin it the right way Craig a pile of shit is actually the beginning of a beautiful flower...

Well Aaron and randall, "facts are stubborn things".

I am surprised that Randall would put anecdotal evidence above empircal data, but he is still a good guy.

Just that loving eyes never see.

"blinded by the light".