Mudville Gazette

October 04, 2004

4 to 1, baby, 1 in 5

Greyhawk

No one here will be surprised:

An unscientific survey of U.S. military personnel shows they support President Bush for re-election by a 4-to-1 ratio. Two-thirds of those responding said John Kerry's anti-war activities after he returned from Vietnam make them less likely to vote for him.

"Patriotism" was likely another frequent response. I'd guess the Swift Vets had a bit more cred with the GIs than ol Mike Moore did.

In the survey of more than 4,000 full-time and part-time troops, 73% said they would vote for Bush if the election were held today; 18% said they would vote for Kerry. Of the respondents, 59% identified themselves as Republicans, 20% as independents and 13% as Democrats.
The survey was conducted Sept. 15-28 by the Army Times Publishing Co., which distributes the weekly newspapers Army Times, Navy Times, Air Force Times and Marine Corps Times.

The Kerry camp was quick to insist the results were wrong, and that the military loves their boy:

Kerry campaign spokesman David Wade called the Army Times Publishing effort "an inaccurate e-mail survey" and said that Kerry has "the vision and values to keep faith with military families and America's veterans."
Of survey respondents, 65% of active-duty and 67% of Guard and reserve troops said that Kerry's activities after Vietnam made them less likely to vote for him. Kerry served in Vietnam as a naval officer and was awarded a Silver Star, a Bronze Star and three Purple Hearts. He protested the war after returning home.

Only 12% of active-duty troops and 16% of Guard and reserve troops said Bush's actions in the National Guard made them less likely to vote for him. Bush received a coveted pilot's slot in the Texas Air National Guard during the height of the Vietnam War and missed a number of mandatory drills after he stopped flying fighter jets in April 1972.

Described as historically "Republican and conservative" as a block, the story also notes that it's estimated that military personnel favored Bush over Al Gore 2-1 in the 2000 presidential race, meaning Kerry doesn't have the support the former VP did among GI's.

The story concludes: Military personnel who responded to the survey said they were generally happy with their jobs: 73% said they would re-enlist.

No word on whether that's contingent on any future developments.

UPDATE:However, comma, the French support Kerry 9 to 1. Where do you stand?

Posted by Greyhawk at 06:16 PM | Permalink | Comments (19) |

Show Comments Here (19) |

Hide Comments

With the way the Dems like to challenge and throw out absentee ballots, especially from the military, they need a good ratio. I fear there is going to me more voter fraud this year than ever.

Posted by Sandi at October 4, 2004 08:40 PM

Yes I think the Democrats are going to try harder to cheat but this time around it is going to take a very hard try. The Republicans are watching for voter fraud like hawks since they are highly motivated after the 2000 fiascos, and since the Justice Department and several Federal Law enforcement organizations are now directed by a Republican administration, the penalties will be there and I have a feeling they will be severe. There have already been some rumblings and warnings on the grapevines.

Posted by toad at October 5, 2004 12:02 AM

I am one of those who support Bush. I don't like kerry because his record when it come to supporting the troop. To me, Bush has a stronger leadership and more appealing character. Feel free to contact me.

Sing,
Leo
US Navy

Posted by leo at October 5, 2004 12:20 AM

In my Reserve unit its running like 100% to 0 for Bush. No one like the Poodle.

Posted by EROC at October 5, 2004 01:36 AM

I am a Disabled Veteran Marine. I do not see how any one in the military or with a loved one in the military could support Kerry.

Could someone contact me and tell me what they beleive supporting the Military means, so when I talk to liberals and can show them what a person in the military thinks it is...

I think it is telling the troops they are fighting the right battles. I think it is never leave anyone behind. I think it is never surrender. I think it is voting for the weapons they need to fight with. I think it is voting for the money to pay for the war they are in.

If I am wrong, or I missed something, please let me know what it is.

astonerii@yahoo.com

Posted by Allen Stoner at October 5, 2004 04:26 AM

I think it also includes planning so that the troops can succeed. It includes listening when generals say we're going to need more people to get this done right. It also means spending money on things the troops need, not on the overhead that goes to the ceo's of private companies.

But then, the president may have felt he tried to do those things. I give him some benefit of the doubt.

But anybody who thinks John Kerry voted against getting supplies to the troops is off his rocker. He voted for a bill that did just that. Then, when the president had the bill amended to give himself a blank check to spend without congressional oversight, Kerry voted to try to kill that bill, so that the original bill could pass.

Was the president, in amending the bill, saying, do it my way or we'll cut off the troops?? No, he wasn't. He wanted to fund the troops.

Was Kerry saying, do it my way or we'll cut off the troops?? No, likewise of course not. He wanted to fund the troops too. That's why he voted (in fact authored) a bill to do so.

Both sides knew all along that some form of the bill would pass, and they were arguing about what form it should be in.

Both sides were involved in a political struggle - there were real differences, and I can understand someone who thinks the president might deserve a blank check (though that's not how war appropriations have been done during past wars.) And I can understand someone who thinks the president should have been overseen by Congress --the traditional method.

But you have to be daft to read that series of events and think 'Kerry was against getting supplies to the troops.'

Posted by ultra at October 5, 2004 06:40 AM

Glad to know you are taking the vote seriously. I am with you. Thank you for your continued writing so that we at home know a little more of what is happening. God bless our troops.

Posted by Pat in NC at October 5, 2004 09:29 AM

Part of the reason the Gore Campaign attempted to disqualify military ballots, they were falling 2 to 1 Bush. And the attempt was based on technicalities. The democratic party will stop at nothing to win, including disqualifying military ballots if necessary. Disqualification from a candidate that negotiated with the enemy during a time of war prior to his discharge from the IRR, arguably an offense under the UCMJ, if not out and out dishonorable conduct in and of itself.

Bruno
Capt USNR

Posted by Bruno at October 5, 2004 01:42 PM

As a Vietnam vet I, along with many of my comrades, experienced first hand the effects of John Kerry's anti-war efforts. The force of his lies turned a country not only against the war but against those who were sent to fight it. You cannot separate the warrior from the war. If you oppose one, you oppose the other. Today the same words which gave comfort and support to the NVA, encourage the terrorists. Every time John Kerry says wrong war, wrong time, wrong way, jihadists the world over smile. They understand the struggle is not just bombs and bullets but also will. The terrorists make us bleed, but John Kerry makes us doubt. Doubt deadens resolve and cripples the public will to continue the struggle and the terrorists win.

Posted by David in NC at October 5, 2004 02:15 PM

Mr. Ultra,
If Kerry's vote against supporting the troops was a clever ploy to get a better bill passed, why is Kerry's record for 20 years in the senate so dismal?
Is it because he is not clever at all or is it because he is weak and ineffective? Pretty obvious to me.

Posted by cottus at October 5, 2004 02:25 PM

Posted by cottus at October 5, 2004 02:26 PM

Ultra,

The problem is that's the way legislation works. And somebody like Kerry, who's been in the Senate for 20 years, understands perfectly well that there is no such thing as a piece of legislation that a legislator will agree with 100%.

He should have taken the good with the bad and voted for the 87 billion dollars. He voted against our troops. And, that is only one of many votes that he has made in his Senate career that have hurt our military.

That this guy could claim that he will be a good Commander in Chief is nauseating.

Posted by Eye Doc at October 5, 2004 02:28 PM

While it's true that Senators do vote for and against bills to make a point while still supporting the bill's main intent (especially ones that will pass overwhelmingly), in this case we all know why John Kerry voted against: Because at the time, Howard Dean was kicking his ass and he had to do something to placate the anti-war base that was supporting Dean. There is no other reason. In fact, that's why Kerry became the 'anti-war candidate' in the first place. Had Howard Dean not been in the race, and had Kerry led the primaries by a wide margin, Kerry would have run as a war hawk to position himself for the general election. The man has no scruples. He'll take whatever side of an issue helps him win.

Posted by Dan H. at October 5, 2004 05:22 PM

One of the things that baffle me about John Kerry and his experience is the fact that only since he started running for the democratic nomination has he become a centrist. After 20 years of being one of the most liberal senators, now he is trying to portray himself as a centrist. How is that escaping everyone.
Also, who are these military commanders that he says he has the support of now. Don't they realize that Kerry protested them and their activities in Vietnam? How can Kerry possibly run based on his military experience when he protested that very experience. How did no one in his campaign not catch on to that?
Lastly, who else realizes that the only (yes, the only) reason that John Kerry is the democratic nominee is because of Howard Dean's untimely scream?

Posted by Barry in TN at October 5, 2004 07:20 PM

Let's not forget Kerry himself said it would be irresponsible to vote against the $87 billion & then did exactly that. No sort of twisting & turning & trying to justify can square Kerry's positions, words, & actions. There is no consistency except political expediency. No sign of integrity or honor anywhere in the man.

Posted by Egan at October 5, 2004 07:35 PM

Can anyone tell me what Kerry's sister doing in Australia bad mouth our country while my fellow service member risking their life to bring freedom to Iraq.

leo

Posted by leo at October 5, 2004 08:24 PM

Kerry is doing everything in his power to lose this election. There can be no other explaination

BTW: This Desert Storm vet is voting Bush early and often... :-)

Posted by Doug Halsted at October 5, 2004 11:09 PM

But they forgot kerrys "V" that goes on his Silver Star,,,,Tsk Tsk Tsk slighting a vet like that

Posted by Roo at October 6, 2004 03:10 AM

I understand the senator did get couple bandage scratches from Vietnam from self inflicted.

Posted by leo at October 6, 2004 07:33 AM

Hide Comments | Show/Add Comments in Popup Window(19) | (Note: You must refresh main page to view newly posted comments here)