Rod Lurie: The Military Is More Liberal Than You Think

the bias of gallup is very small. further, you have no evidence to suggest the poll grind presented his biased. any opinion, as i already stated, is biased. since the OP is opinion, it is in fact biased. if i gave you a source that was an admitted republican, you would cry bias. get it? further, the OP didn't address the fact that obama didn't win the active vote in 08'. leaving that out is another example of bias.

then the quote he uses he debunked by the military, but he still uses it as if it is fact. another bias.

Obviously your thinker isn't working as usual. Go back and read the article again and point out exactly what you consider a biased statement or conclusion from the author. No quote he made has been "debunked" by the military. But like everywhere and as you say there are differences of opinion and observations of identical facts all the time. The article remains accurate and unrefuted.
 
Last edited:
I'm shaking my head at the comment that most lower income whites vote Democratic. Isn't the whole point of 'Whats the Matter with Kansas' and the argument against the South that lower income whites 'vote against their economic interest?'. All these uneducated poor white people are suppose to be the base of the Republican party. Now they are Democratic voters?
 
I'm shaking my head at the comment that most lower income whites vote Democratic. Isn't the whole point of 'Whats the Matter with Kansas' and the argument against the South that lower income whites 'vote against their economic interest?'. All these uneducated poor white people are suppose to be the base of the Republican party. Now they are Democratic voters?

Just where did that comment come from?
 
1). (right after the list of politicians)

Read that again, cawacko. The author explains that the military is comprised 40% by ethnic minorities from the lower income classes that traditionally vote Democratic. He is only reflecting that many military Caucasians also come from the lower income classes. He made no mention of their voting propensities. I believe you are misreading his wording as the paragraph is clearly dedicated to the voting habits of the ethnic minorities.
 
Here is a direct quotation from a column written by Maureen Dowd in the New York Times on July 23: "Asked by a Democratic lawmaker a while back why there weren't more democrats in the military, General Petraeus smiled slyly and said 'there are more than you think.'"

Now go to Colonel Steven Boylan of the General's public affairs office in Baghdad who said of the quotation that it is "in error, as he never made nor never would make such a statement."

Well, I certainly believe that Petraeus did not want to make such a statement given that it is inappropriate that a military officer make any partisan comment at all. But it does bring up an interesting question : Is the military more liberal than the clichés would have you believe?

The answer is "yes" and the reason that Obama will win the active duty vote this November.

Most people with whom I talk, often quite educated, think the military is made up of knife-between-the-teeth grunts, uneducated robots without any kind of free will whatsoever -- people who goose step to Republican philosophy and particularly the Bush cowboy mentality.

It is true that in the recent past most members of the military have voted Republican. This is because the GOP is far more likely to flood the military with cash and thus make the lives of the service member bit easier. However, I believe any sort of polling will show, on an issue-by-issue basis, that the military is mostly made up of people with a liberal mindset. And that is what Petraeus was talking about.

Let's take a look at the most ardent post-military political leaders in our nation today. Who are they?

John McCain -- Vietnam vet, former prisoner of war -- is a Republican. Robert Dole is a World War II hero. George Bush, the elder, is a World War II hero.

But now look at the rest of congress. The former military that serve in the House and Senate are mostly Democrats

Here are the political leaders with military experience who have taken prominent positions on defense issues. They are:

Wesley Clark - Democrat.
Jimmy Carter - Democrat.
John Kerry - Democrat.
Bob Kerrey - Democrat (winner of medal of Honor)
Max Cleland - Democrat.
John Murtha - Democrat.
Jack Reed - Democrat.
Daniel Inouye - Democrat. (winner of Medal of Honor)
Jim Webb - Democrat.
Charles Rangel - Democrat.
Al Gore- Democrat

Why do so many members of the military who decide on continuing in public service join the Democratic Party? There are several answers to this, here are a few:

1) Forty percent of the military is made up of ethnic minorities. Most of those, as is also the case with most of the Caucasian members of the Army, Navy, and Air Force, come from the lower economic classes. These demographic groups have largely voted Democrat in the past and will continue to do so. When officers (the more likely to go into politics) live with their soldiers day in and day out, a certain empathy builds. It is unavoidable. Those officers begin to understand and respect the problems their soldiers and their families face or have faced on a day-to-day basis. Indeed, the primary reason that young men and women join the service is not their fetish for combat or killing but to satisfy the dire economic needs of their family.

2) The United States military is probably the most socialistic institution in the United States. Think about it. There is universal health care in the military (though we have seen how unconscionably horrific our medical attention has been to our soldiers in places like Walter Reed). Housing is available to all members of the military. Educationally, the children of the officers, even the Generals, go to a school with the children of the lowliest Private in the army.

The major institutions that produce our most elite officers come from a position of absolute meritoriousness as opposed to wealth or contacts. Right now Annapolis and West Point are two of the nation's most difficult colleges to get into. Those two schools, as well as the Air Force Academy and the Coast Guard Academy, are blatantly transparent in who and how they admit because they are federally funded. The students who are accepted have to come from the highest academic stock. Were a qualified high school student to be be rejected in favor of somebody because of that person's family's wealth or political connections, it would create a gigantic scandal, given that it is Congressmen who nominate (though do not appoint) cadets and midshipmen.

Just for myself to be transparent myself, I graduated from West Point in 1984.

3) Former soldiers will almost always gravitate to the anti-war party. This happens for obvious reasons. The men who have been in battle tend not to romanticize it and tend not to take it flippantly. The reasons for going to war need to be extraordinarily convincing before anybody who has taken a bullet, seen their friends take a bullet, or who has lodged a bullet in the enemy's brain will put their support behind a war. Recent history has shown that the Republicans are more likely to use the military as a tool of policy rather than as a tool of defense. That is unacceptable to anybody who has served.

4) Finally, and maybe most importantly, is the Iraq war itself. The Bush administration sent our soldiers in on a mission that was initiated either by a lie or by the greatest act of incompetence in the history of this nation's intelligence gathering. In battle, our soldiers were ill equipped and not properly supported. (The "surge" was needed because Bush didn't send in enough troops to begin with). Our wounded soldiers have returned him to find inadequate medical care. The "love" that the soldiers felt from Republicans in peacetime turned into neglect and apathy during war.

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.

As of the start of the year, only 35% of military personnel approve of the president's handling of the war, and 75% said the military is "stretched too thin to be effective."

A few weeks ago I was in Las Vegas playing blackjack. Two soldiers who were a couple of days away from being re-deployed to Iraq sat at the table with me. After a few minutes of conversation I asked them whom they were voting for. They both said they were voting for Obama (these two guys were white). When I asked them why, they very simply and honestly told me they want to vote for the guy that will get them out of Iraq.

I think this year we will see, for the first time, the active duty military voting for the Democratic candidate.

a good article that bodes ill for the repugs

small wonder that they are trying to limit overseas military voting
 
Read that again, cawacko. The author explains that the military is comprised 40% by ethnic minorities from the lower income classes that traditionally vote Democratic. He is only reflecting that many military Caucasians also come from the lower income classes. He made no mention of their voting propensities. I believe you are misreading his wording as the paragraph is clearly dedicated to the voting habits of the ethnic minorities.

I could obviously be wrong but when the author says "these demographics" I take that to include lower income whites.
 
Obviously your thinker isn't working as usual. Go back and read the article again and point out exactly what you consider a biased statement or conclusion from the author. No quote he made has been "debunked" by the military. But like everywhere and as you say there are differences of opinion and observations of identical facts all the time. The article remains accurate and unrefuted.

lol...you need to reread the article bumpkin. it is right at the top, second paragraph.

Now go to Colonel Steven Boylan of the General's public affairs office in Baghdad who said of the quotation that it is "in error, as he never made nor never would make such a statement."

how does that egg taste?
 
Truth: There is no military vote.


Veterans and active-military members vote as voters.


When it comes to picking a president, they care about jobs, health insurance, and other kitchen-table issues – just like everyone else.


Consider that veterans narrowly favored Bill Clinton, who some called a draft dodger, over World War II hero George H.W. Bush in 1992, while Bush’s son won the military vote in 2004 by 16 percentage points against decorated Vietnam veteran John Kerry.


Republican John McCain, who survived captivity in Vietnam, won the military vote in 2008, but only by 10 percentage points.


“There’s this idea that veterans have a shared outlook and interests, but voting behavior is usually explained by other factors, like party affiliation, ideology and religion,’’ said Benjamin Bishin, an associate professor at the University of California-Riverside, who studied exit poll results from more than 20 elections between 1992 and 2002.


http://www.nationaljournal.com/2012...itary-vote-that-doesn-t-really-exist-20120528
 
lol...you need to reread the article bumpkin. it is right at the top, second paragraph.

Now go to Colonel Steven Boylan of the General's public affairs office in Baghdad who said of the quotation that it is "in error, as he never made nor never would make such a statement."

how does that egg taste?

Col. Boylan hardly represents "the military" and is certainly in no position to debunk anything that General Petraeus has to say on ANY subject. Idiot.
 
Col. Boylan hardly represents "the military" and is certainly in no position to debunk anything that General Petraeus has to say on ANY subject. Idiot.

LOL...he was representing the military, the general public affairs office....and he flat out said petraeus never said that.

:palm:
 
LOL...he was representing the military, the general public affairs office....and he flat out said petraeus never said that.

:palm:

Except that the General DID say that and has never denied saying it. A colonel just might be a public affairs officer within his particular command but The Allied Commander of Armed Forces, 4 Star General David Petreaus kinda sets his own agenda and speaks from his own experience and does so with tremendous more authority than any absurdly egotistical downline officer.
 
Except that the General DID say that and has never denied saying it. A colonel just might be a public affairs officer within his particular command but The Allied Commander of Armed Forces, 4 Star General David Petreaus kinda sets his own agenda and speaks from his own experience and does so with tremendous more authority than any absurdly egotistical downline officer.

he stated that on the general's behalf. and guess what buttercup....the general never countered the GPA....given that this guy says the quote was never stated, you have to be calling him a liar.

i'll take his knowledge over yours and the far lefty moonbat from NYT.
 
Back
Top