Who Are the Soldiers Supporting for President?
According to a Houston Chronicle analysis of the third-quarter finance reports, Ron Paul once again leads in donations from those who list the military as their employer. He is followed by Barack Obama, and then by John McCain.
Paul also led among military contributions in the second-quarter reports.
The Houston Chronicle analysis says the average size of Paul’s contributions from military sources is $500, much higher than his average overall donation. More than a third of Paul’s military-related contributions came from Army affiliates; a third came from the Air Force; and a fourth from Navy donors. The rest came from affiliates of the Marines and other branches.
One of the contributors to Paul’s campaign was Lindell Anderson, 72, a retired Army chaplain from Fort Worth, who donated $100 to the Texas lawmaker. “As a Christian, I think he speaks to a theme that the United States shouldn’t be the policeman of the world,” said Anderson.
Jennifer Duffy, an analyst with the non-partisan Cook Political Report, speculated that Paul might be an attractive candidate for military personnel who oppose the war, “but don’t want to cross the line and vote for a Democrat.”
Texas A&M political science professor George C. Edwards III attributed support for Obama among the military to the factors that he attracts support from many black voters, and blacks are a bigger proportion of the military than their overall share of the national population.
Analysts said the ability of Paul and Obama to rake in as much money from military employees as they did suggests there is a certain degree of dissatisfaction with the Iraq campaign among veterans and those in uniform.
At the Texas headquarters of the Veterans of Foreign Wars in Austin, state adjutant Roy Grona said military personnel do not vote as a bloc. “There’s probably a lot of veterans that aren’t happy with the war in Iraq,” he said.
liberranter
October 18th, 2007 at 9:35 am
Needless to say, the Moron-in-Chief and his spinmeisters will soon work overtime in a pathetic and ultimately futile and counterproductive attempt to discredit Dr. Paul and his supporters within the armed services. I also wouldn’t be the least bit surprised to see the Pentagon launch a witch hunt to determine who within the ranks of the armed forces is a Ron Paul supporter and to harrass, discredit, prosecute, or discharge (under less than honorable circumstances) anyone who voices support for him or contributes to his campaign. After all, we can’t have members of the Praetorian Guard siding with the Emperor’s enemies, now can we?
Patrick
October 18th, 2007 at 9:59 am
I heard a clip of a dude call into Hannity with this info last time and it was really funny. I think some people who have the time to call into those “conservatives”(Hannity, O’Reilly & Limbaugh) should let them know this tidbit and see how they try to spin it.
Those guys should hedge their bets and stop bashing RP so much. Straddle the fence so they don’t have to do a 180 when he becomes a serious competitor towards the end of the campaign……which he actually has a fair chance of winning.
Chris S
October 18th, 2007 at 10:12 am
I guess AIPAC has been too busy lately to smear Paul. With all those nifty propaganda commercials they made in their Iran war propaganda blitz, they haven’t had time to start smearing Paul as an antisemitic Jew-hating Iran lover. Although I’m sure the production values on the commercials, when they do appear, will be top notch.
Len
October 18th, 2007 at 10:28 am
I can’t comment on the “discrediting” of Dr. Paul but as far as the military is concerned, that is pure bunk. In my 30+ years associated with the US military, 25 in uniform by the way, has the military in any way, shape or form tried to coerce, influence, guide or suggest how one should vote. They do however encourage ALL personnel to exercise their right to vote.
That included during the Reagan-Carter election, when we were suffering under the incumbant’s administation or the Clinton-Bush election where we knew that despite Clinton’s draft dodging and dislike of the miltary, one could say that one was voting for him without fear.
It’s simple. The military defends people’s freedoms- both at home and abroad.
dan
October 18th, 2007 at 12:14 pm
Hey Len, what the hell does destroying Iraq and murdering hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have to do with “defending people’s freedoms”?
To this American it looks like we’re there to set up permanent bases and control Iraq’s oil and this talking point that we’re defending anyone’s freedoms by doing so is strictly propaganda for the gullible and feeble minded.
Jerry Greenberg
October 18th, 2007 at 12:34 pm
I could be quite comfortable with Ron Paul as president. I have suggested to the Democrats that they set aside partisanship and embrace patriotism and principle.
They should get Nancy Pelosi to temporarily step down from the Speakers chair and cross party lines to elect Ron Paul, an antiwar Republican as Speaker. If moderate Republicans join them with the assurance that the white house will remain iun Republican hands, they can impeach and remove Bush and Cheney. Ron Paul would then move to the white house and promptly end the war. Nancy Pelosi would the resume the Speaker’s chair.
As a matter of self-preservation, Ron Paul ought to then nominate Dennis Kucinich as vice-prsident!
Mooser
October 18th, 2007 at 2:46 pm
Ooooh dan, you shouldna’ oughta said that stuff. Now they start screaming about which language we’d be speakin’ and which awful foreigners will be raping our sisters.
Most of ‘em have some idea of what they were involved in, and their extreme defensiveness show it. But they scream and rant, like their cannons shot rolled up copies of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and all they did was drop bound editions of the Federalist Papers from the planes.
Unmitigated Audacity
October 18th, 2007 at 4:15 pm
As a Dem-leaning Independent, I love this idea. Its a fanciful, high-concept bit of Sci-Fi because it will never happen. But it should.
Nancy could use her new-found spare time to get her face done (again) to fix what went wrong last time. They need to remove a few staples (or maybe bolts?) to loosen that ghastly death mask she’s wearing. Seriously, Reid and Pelosi need to retire and make room for somebody with balls and the ability to apply reason. Tho I don’t know that any such creatures exist in the current Congress, sad to say.
Anyone serious about stopping an attack on Iran, which would be a tragic and collossal mistake, should get on their Congress-critter to join Kucinich’s 30 co-sponsors of his resolution to impeach Cheney. As bad as things have gotten on many fronts – civil liberties, foreign policy, the economy – if we attack Iran we are headed for the abyss on all those fronts and more.
George
October 18th, 2007 at 4:25 pm
Paul has accomplished a lot in the last few months(without the help of the mainstream media) furthuring the anti-war movement. He is the only voice of reason in the Republican party and could I say – even more Anti-War then any other dem. nominee. He has also introduced the classic terms “just come home” and “we just marched in and we can just march out” to the average Rep. voter. He is contantly attacked by Fox and right wing radio talk show hosts. He is also the only candidate that talks openly about closing bases in South Korea, Europe and beyond. His campaign is at a critical juncture…he is 3rd in the race for cash in hand – but still lacks the donations and MainSteam Support to overtake the Existing Political elite. Will you Register Repbulican and help us?
RonPaul2008.com
Chris S
October 18th, 2007 at 4:25 pm
Wouldn’t that disqualify Nancy Pelosi, AIPAC Girl?
SamDi
October 18th, 2007 at 4:51 pm
Ron Paul is like a quality stock…the more we invest in him, contribute to his campaign, the bigger and better he will be known to American voters. NBC, CBS, CNN, Fox have a gag order on him. It won’t matter because their viewers are the same and beginning to decline. Ron Paul gets his growing strength through the internet and word of mouth.
Speak up, talk up Ron Paul. We will win with Dr. Ron Paul.
Tim R.
October 18th, 2007 at 6:46 pm
Can someone please SPECIFICALLY explain how the United States has “murdered” hundreds of thousands of Iraqis? Murder has a specific legal defintion and I would like to know how our military operations have resulted in the murder of “hundreds of thousands.” Please be SPECIFIC.
ingrate
October 18th, 2007 at 7:00 pm
Len,
The military follows the orders of their commander-in-chief. Most of the time that has very little to do with defending anyones freedom. More accurately, they defend the government that continually destroys our liberties while inflicting the administration’s foreign policy on the rest of the world.
Steve
October 18th, 2007 at 7:01 pm
The US government has caused the death of 600,000 Iraqis by these methods:
1 Shooting them
2 Bombing them
3 Machine-gunning them
4 Firing artillery at them
5 Running over them with armored vehicles
6 Tying them up and dropping them off bridges into rivers
7 Suffocating them (in torture centers)
8 Forcing them to work as unprotected collaborators, by destoying the economy
9 Stimulating civil war, so as to divide and rule
10 Destroying their government & replacing it with a figure-head puppet state unable to protect them from common criminals
Does that cover it?
These 600,000 dead (or whatever the number is) were all quite able to live their lives under the alleged “monster” Hussein, who magically became a “monster” when he stopped following orders from his gangster masters in Washington DC.
ingrate
October 18th, 2007 at 7:09 pm
Mr. X blew up the dam. As a result hundreds of thousands of people died. Mr. X was caught and there was plenty of evidence to bring him to trial for the act. Mr. X pleaded innocent saying, “It wasn’t me that killed the people. It was the water. All I did was get rid of the dam.”
ingrate
October 18th, 2007 at 7:27 pm
The HC article does not appear to give any 3rd quarter numbers, only start of year to 3rd quarter end. These are the numbers I gleaned from the FEC website. I left off Tancredo’s numbers which I remember as being around $1500 and there was some candidates with a few hundred or so bucks. Well over half of Paul’s ytd military contributions have come in during the 3rd quarter.
Paul $35516
McCain $21858
Barack $20156
Fred $18835
Clinton $12325
Romney $8010
Huckabee $6600
Giuliani $5550
Roberts $3668
Richardson $1750
iraqvet
October 18th, 2007 at 7:31 pm
Len
I’ve been in the military for just about the same amount of time as you, most of it in the Airborne.
In the past I have seen very little coercion from military members regarding politics. Under Clinton a lot of pretty disrespectful (and well deserved) comments were overlooked or tacictly supported and sometimes officially “condemned” (wink wink nod nod).
Commanders were usually careful to ensure that a soldiers involvement in politics did not have the appearance of the endorsement or condemnation of the military in general. Soldiers were forbidden to appear at political rallies in uniform or to endorse candidates, etc… You could put a bumper sticker on your car but you couldn’t put one on your helmet so to speak.
But under this administration, which is NOT conservative by the way, I have seen a very arrogant attitude from Bush supporters within the uniform against those who don’t. It far transcends merely requiring there be an overly obsequious and reverent attitude towards the president. It frankly translates into a sort of “loyal party member” attitude.
God help the soldier who dares speak his mind about the war or the policies of this administration. I’ve seen soldiers threatened with treason charges, disloyalty, inciting mutiny and generally subjected to a witch hunt who did this. I remember one officer who early on spoke to the press frankly about the war and his opinion on how we were blowing it in Iraq. They sent him to a FOB in the middle of nowhere, destroyed his career and made his life and tour a living hell.
We are given “talking points” or scripts when speaking to the media in general, again, God help you if you stray from them, your career is over at a minimum. When a planned photo-op is arranged, loyal party members select other fellow palace sycophants or soldiers who can be counted on to follow a script and feed this Hotel Sierra to the media who lap it up without question.
Don’t get me wrong, the average soldier is motivated and doing his job but don’t think for a minute that this nonsense that we are all loyal Bushies is anywhere near accurate. When asked if we support the democratic party or the Republican, we will choose the Sh*t sandwich with slightly less sh*t in it and I emphasize the word “slightly”.
Thus, when a third party candidate comes along who rings a bell with we in the military, one who is for limited government (in other words a TRUE conservative) and will take on conservative issues instead of betraying us to the Mexicans and a host of other liberal interests, we are naturally very interested.
The neo-cons frankly act like nazis and I am loathe to use this word because I am an avid student of history and know that it has been misapplied far too often in an undeserved fashion. However, understanding history and watching for parallels as I often do, I can say that these folks act like thuggish brownshirts, not like America.
Which begs the question they often ask of the rest of us: “Why do they (the neocons) hate America and want to turn it into a dictatorship?”
Hopefully Mr. Paul will be able to restore some semblance of our Constitutional Republic. We soldiers are eager since we took an oath to the Constitution.
Tim R.
October 18th, 2007 at 9:57 pm
Again, can someone please explain to me how the United States has “murdered” hundreds of thousands? You have to do better than just saying we bombed people. You have to give SPECIFIC indicents and the death tolls, please include specific dates. You have to explain how we did it INTENTIONALLY. You see, in law “murder” is defined as the intentioal killing of another human being without legal justification. So again, I ask somebody, anybody, to give me pure statistics that prove that the United States intentionally killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians. Either put up or shut up. Lets see some facts and statistics!
AElfwine
October 18th, 2007 at 10:33 pm
Tim R. I suggest you consult the geneva conventions which were ratified by congress and are supposedly the “law” of the land. I don’t have to provide you with anything; if you can’t use google then I have to assume you are too daft to understand any statistics I might provide you.
Hint: type “lancet iraqi casualties” in google, for the geneva conventions type “geneva conventions” into your google search engine.
You see tim in my book willful ignorance is unforgivable so quit demanding that we put up or shut up and educate yourself if that is still possible.
Graeme
October 18th, 2007 at 10:36 pm
See the famous Lancet report, Just Foreign Policy’s updated estimate, and methodology here: http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/iraq/iraqdeaths.html.
You’re wrong about murder being exclusively the intentional killing of someone: if somebody blows up an airplane to collect on the insurance money of priceless valuables onboard but didn’t specifically set out to kill the 250 people on the plane at the time, he or she would still be guilty of murder (you can quible and call it negligent homicide if you wish, though I doubt you’d get a jury to agree; there’s something almost more reprehensible about killing people not because you passionately hate them, but simply because they got in the way of your greed; they just didn’t matter to you at all).
The situation is similar in Iraq; the US military undoubtedly didn’t consciously try to murder over a million people there; that is merely a perhaps unfortunate (but entirely acceptable, obviously) cost of trying to achieve their objectives in that country, namely reducing Iraq to a compliant vassal state. Names and dates are difficult to come by without a proper war crimes tribunal or exhaustive truth and reconciliation project, but you’re insisting on a higher standard of proof than that which condemned the Nazis at Nuremberg. The Lancet study and others establish the numbers dead, and in most cases the way they died. By your argument Hitler didn’t kill anybody during the Holocaust either. Give me a break.
Tim R.
October 18th, 2007 at 11:19 pm
AELFwine, you neatly dodged the question. You told me to go and do some research in order to dodge the question. I asked for statistics and specifics and you could not provide them. Stop making claims that the US has “murdered” hundreds of thousands if you can’t back that up! In law, first degree murder, the most serious kind, is usually defined as the intentional killing of another human being without legal justification. There are lesser types of homicide as well, such as depraved indifference to human life and criminally negligent homicide. But you and your cohorts have not provided any SPECIFIC examples of how the US has committed hundreds of thousands of homicides that fit that legal definition.
The Lancet study you mention is higly controversial but even if we accept its numbers, the figure of over 600,000 includes such things as degraded infrastructure, increased disease,accidents, lawlessness etc. So you and your cohorts make the logical leap to say that things like degraded infrastructure or lawlessness are equivalent to intentional murder. Give me a break! Yes, many civilians have died and that is awful. Totally awful. But to say the United States has “murdered” them is a slanderous lie. You have cited no specific instances where they were intentionally or even recklessly killed. And worst of all you don’t even have facts to back up your lies. As the saying goes, you are entitled to your own opinions but not to your own facts.
Ron the Red
October 18th, 2007 at 11:26 pm
But you and your cohorts have not provided any SPECIFIC examples of how the US has committed hundreds of thousands of homicides that fit that legal definition.
How about a confession?
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1084
Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that’s more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?
Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: I think this is a very hard choice, but the price–we think the price is worth it.
Ron the Red
October 18th, 2007 at 11:30 pm
So you and your cohorts make the logical leap to say that things like degraded infrastructure or lawlessness are equivalent to intentional murder
Actually according to the Hague Convention and most international law an occupier is guilty of war crimes if he doesn’t maintain the country’s infastructure and protect its civilians.
It’s also obligated to protect the country’s cultural resources.
Thus the “handover” to an ineffectual Iraqi puppet government in 2004, a government in name only while the US military was the real power.
They wanted an out, to avoid being prosecuted for war crimes.
Chip
October 18th, 2007 at 11:38 pm
Tim R
Since the invasion of Iraq was executed by military and civilian agents of the “United States” in an offensive and illegal fashion because there was no:
1) Congressional declaration of war
2) lawful justification under international law for the invasion;
and since, most people killed in Iraq were killed intentionally (e.g., bombs were deliberately dropped);
then it is safe to conclude that many people in Iraq have been murdered, although quantifying those murdered with any degree of certainty is very challenging, if not impossible.
Murder is a typically a term of the common law and under the common law’s felony murder rule, if such rule were applied to the officers of the “United States”, ALL deaths connected to the illegal invasion of Iraq would be deemed criminally actionable. All though I am no expert, I believe a similar legal concept was applied at Nuremberg.
Assuming for the sake of argument that the invasion of Iraq was lawfully justified (i.e., defensive), it is still conceivable that “hundreds of thousands” have been specifically targeted for death by the small minority of criminally inclined troopers who have always served in the military and are likely more prevalent now under the reduced recruiting standards instituted several years ago.
If you really desire greater specificity, you could always pay a lawyer to write a brief.
turkeybut
October 19th, 2007 at 4:16 am
I wonder if anyone knows if you register Republican and Ron Paul isn’t nominated do you have to still vote Republican. I know in some states you don’t have to show which party your want to register with, but the ones where you have to register for your party is what I am wondering about. Thanks
Paul D.
October 19th, 2007 at 4:58 am
Tim R. is being disingenuous. I have seen news stories every day for the past four years describing specific instances in which the US military killed Iraqi civilians by all the means Steve listed above, and more. He need only learn how to use Google or read the archives of this very website.
Peaceseeker
October 19th, 2007 at 5:11 am
turkeybut,
Are you serious!?
Once the primaries are over, no one is required to vote for any particular party.
In some states one is not even bound to vote for the party they are registered for, if they even must register for a party, in primaries. One can only vote in a Republican or a Democratic primary, not both, but can vote in either, again, in some states.
Once it is time for the General election one can split their entire ballot. Vote for some Republicans, some Democrats, some Independents and even write-in someone if you wish. In fact, I would encourage you to do this instead of pulling the lever, marking the box, or however it is in you state, for an entire party.
THINK before you vote!
If you do not know this, then perhaps you should not be voting.
ingrate
October 19th, 2007 at 5:16 am
Tim R.
The US started an elective war against Iraq in March of 2003. Over 4 and a half years later more than 1 million Iraqis have died as a result of that action. Another 4 million have been displace either internally or externally. I don’t have to give any specifics in saying a massive crime has been committed. The US bears a huge part of the responsibility for the death and destruction in Iraq. Your little “these are rules” ploy does not take away any of that responsibility.
Sure glad you post here. You show just how sick a person has to be in order support the Bush administration.
ingrate
October 19th, 2007 at 5:23 am
turkeybut,
In the general election, everyone in any given precinct gets the same ballot. No one watches them to see that they vote only for the party with which they have registered.
Joe
October 19th, 2007 at 7:08 am
They do 180s all the time. There core supporters seem to have short term memory.
Joe
October 19th, 2007 at 7:21 am
Congress never declared war against Iraq, therefore the war is illegal.
Dictionary.com – “In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder [...] occurring during the commission of another serious crime”
Here is the lancet estimation of Iraqi deaths.
thelancet.com/webfiles/images/journals/lancet/s0140673606694919.pdf
Even if it is only half that, or a quarter, or even a tenth, it is still dispicable.
Herb Hoffman
October 19th, 2007 at 7:47 am
Tim,
The U. S. was not attacked by the Iraqi Government or its agents. There was no credible threat against the U. S. by the Iraqi Government in 2003. The U. N. inspectors were actively doing their work when the Pres. Bush advised them to leave Iraq ahead of an imminent attack. Then came the infamous “shock and awe”, an indiscriminate bombing of Bahgdad which resulted in the deaths of many innocent people. This nation was not at war with the sovereign nation of Iraq and still we conducted indiscriminant bombing of a civilian population.
That bombing was intentional and no reasonable person could believe that it would not result in the deaths of innocents. Intentional killing without just cause qualifies as murder — in whatever degree. Most of the subsequent 1,000,000 plus deaths of Iraqi citizens would not have occured in the absence of illegal and immoral actions taken by the U.S.
I trust that this is a meaningful response to your request.
If you still need specific cases in point, the Blackwater murders are specific — Blackwater under contract to the U. S. State Department acted as an agent of this country.
Peace,
Herb Hoffman
Chuck
October 19th, 2007 at 8:07 am
Well said Steven. Could we also include raping some of them as well?
Tim R.
October 21st, 2007 at 7:22 pm
A few quick points:
The US Congress has not declared war since Dec. 1941. To say the war in Iraq is thus “illegal” makes no sense. Congress specifically AUTHORIZED force to be used against Iraq and Hillary Clinton and Edwards and John Kerry all voted for that resolution by the way.
Second: Force was also authorized by the United Nations Security Counsel.
Third: There is no doubt that many civilians have died and that is horrible. But who is to blame? The United States? Or the brutal insurgents going around killing their own people? The Sunni and the Shia are killing each other but yet the US is repsonsible for that? Yes, I’m sure we are responsible for some of the deaths but certainly not all. And not intentionally.
Also, everyone on here is SO ANGRY about the US and the deaths we allegedly caused. Were you just as angry when Saddam was killing his own people? When he killed thousands upon thousands of Kurds? When he bulldozeed entire villeges if anyone dared cross him? Were you just as outraged about him?