Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Military could be swing vote in '04
The Atlanta Journal Constitution ^ | November 30, 2003 | SCOTT SHEPARD

Posted on 11/30/2003 3:29:16 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife

WASHINGTON -- U.S. soldiers leapt to their feet and whooped in elation Thursday when their commander in chief unexpectedly appeared at a Thanksgiving celebration in Iraq.

"He's got to win in '04. No one else can prosecute this war like he can," Capt. John Morrison of Butler County, Pa., told a reporter at the gathering.

Earlier in the week, President Bush got an equally gratifying reception at an Army base in Colorado: approving grunts of "hoo-ah," chants of "U-S-A" and, from one section of the audience, cheers of "Four more years."

"I'm glad you're on my side," Bush, wearing an olive green Army jacket over his shirt and tie, declared to the 5,000 flag-waving soldiers and family members at Fort Carson, at the foot of the Rocky Mountains, which has deployed 12,000 of its 15,000 troops to Iraq.

The two presidential appearances, both drawing heavy media coverage, gave the impression that the political bond between the U.S. military and the Republican Party remains strong. Out of the glare of the cameras, however, there are indications that bond has weakened.

In fact, the military might have become yet another special interest group of swing voters to be wooed in tight elections.

Reasons include the mounting casualties in Iraq, uncertainty over the president's plans for occupying and reconstructing that country, and what some critics interpret as a lack of respect and financial commitment from the Bush administration for veterans.

"If your job is to recruit military voters to your party, it's going to be easier if you're a Republican, even in 2004," said Peter Feaver, a political science professor at Duke University. "But if you're a Democrat and your job is to woo military voters to your party, it's going to be easier in 2004 than it was in the last presidential election, which was the high-water mark in terms of Republican appeal to military voters."

No political expert is predicting a wholesale exodus of military voters to the Democrats in next year's presidential election. "The cultural divide is still too great for that," Feaver said. But since a state's electoral votes can turn on hundreds of ballots, as occurred in 2000, rather than millions, every group will be courted heavily by both parties, even if it means just peeling off a few votes here and there in targeted states.

Defense spending bill

Republican National Committee spokeswoman Lindsay Taylor dismisses any suggestion that American soldiers are not solidly supporting their commander in chief.

"President Bush enjoys the support of our men and women in uniform because he has significantly increased defense spending to provide the resources they need to carry out their duties, as well as increasing their pay," Taylor said.

Before visiting Fort Carson, Bush signed into law a record $401.3 billion defense spending bill that included a 4 percent pay raise for soldiers and significant boosts in family separation allowances and imminent danger pay.

The signing ceremony, held at the Pentagon rather than the White House, came after months of criticism from military and veterans circles.

That criticism prompted Benjamin Wallace-Wells to raise the prospect of a military "swing" vote with a cover story in the November issue of Washington Monthly magazine.

Wallace-Wells, like other journalists trying to assess the political leanings of the military, relied heavily on anecdotes to make his point because the Pentagon prohibits political polling of soldiers.

There is widespread acceptance, however, of the notion that military officers favor the GOP by 8-1, while the ranks of the enlisted, even with their higher proportions of women and minorities, still tilt 3-2 for Republicans.

The 2000 presidential contest provided the most convincing evidence of the consensus view that the military is pro-GOP. In the Florida recount, Bush's partisans fought vigorously to prevent Al Gore's advocates from excluding disqualified military absentee ballots from the presidential vote recount.

"There may be something to this idea that the military is no longer in lock step behind the Republicans," said Stewart Nusbaumer, a disabled Marine veteran from New York who organized Veterans Against the Iraq War earlier this year. "We're hearing from soldiers every day who are fed up with the mess the president has made in Iraq."

While the Army chief of staff, Gen. Peter Shoomaker, recently told a Senate committee that "morale is solid" among the troops in Iraq, a mid-October study by Stars and Stripes newspaper found half the soldiers there reporting low morale and complaining of insufficient training and equipment.

There are 1.4 million active-duty personnel in the military. Guard and Reserve forces total 1.3 million.

There are about 3.6 million military dependents. And so far, it has been the dependents of soldiers who have been most vocal in their criticism of the president.

Families air concerns Families at Fort Carson have generally supported the war, but there were expressions of concern during the president's visit this past week, especially about the president's failure to attend any funerals or memorials for soldiers who have died in Iraq.

"What makes me mad the most is, past presidents have gone to funerals and he hasn't gone to any," said Lori Hartman, whose husband, Spc. Corey Hartman, heads to Iraq in February. "It's like he wants to turn his back and not realize what's really going on."

To blunt such criticism, Bush met for almost two hours with about 100 relatives of killed and wounded soldiers from Fort Carson. It was his third meeting with families of fallen soldiers since the war in Iraq began.

A bigger political problem for the president than "swing" military voters may be the 26.4 million military veterans, who constitute 13 percent of the nation's adult population.

Veterans are fuming over the Bush administration's attempt last summer to cut billions of dollars from the Department of Veterans Affairs budget over the next decade and to close some VA hospitals. It was an "in-your-face insult," said Joe Fox Sr., head of Paralyzed Veterans of America.

They also are agitated over the president waiting three years to change a 19th century military regulation that prohibits a retired soldier from receiving both a pension and disability benefits.

Ultimately, the administration agreed to a compromise that only partially repeals the law and phases in over 10 years, too late for thousands of aging veterans.

The compromise was "borne of political expediency, to make an embarrassing issue go away," said Thomas Coreny, national president of Vietnam Veterans of America.

Feaver, in his studies of civil-military relations, lumps soldiers and veterans together as "national security voters."

These voters are culturally more conservative than the general population and are, to some degree, disdainful of cultural elites found most frequently in the Democratic Party. They have tended to support the Republican Party since the Reagan presidency and its unprecedented defense buildup.

Feaver said the Clinton presidency and the perception of an anti-military sentiment in the Oval Office solidified the national security voter preference for the GOP, culminating in robust support for Bush in 2000.

"Many factors push someone to vote," he said. "And now, there is the potential for forces which have always pushed toward the Republican to be neutralized, or even pushing a little bit towards the Democrats."

"A little bit," said Veterans Against the Iraq War's Nusbaumer, "may be all the Democrats need."


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: 2004; fortcarson; georgewbush; gwb2004; leadership; militaryvote; thanksgivingvisit
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-61 next last

President Bush and U.S. Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez (left) react during the president's secret visit to Iraq. AP Photo/Anja Niedringhaus, Pool


Iraqi Governing Counsel member Ahmad Chalabi (C) smiles while U.S. military troops applaud U. S. President George W. Bush who surprised U.S. military troops stationed in Iraq with a secret Thanksgiving Day visit to personally honor their service and sacrifice at the Baghdad International Airport, November 27, 2003. The president arrived in Iraq unannounced and met with troops before returning to his Central Texas ranch for the weekend. REUTERS/Larry Downing

1 posted on 11/30/2003 3:29:17 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife

Al Gore -- who fought counting the military's absentee ballots -- is deeply saddened.

2 posted on 11/30/2003 3:36:13 AM PST by martin_fierro (_____oooo_(____)_oooo_____)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: martin_fierro
LOL - What a dweeb.
3 posted on 11/30/2003 3:38:45 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife
Since many if not most of the active-duty military by necessity vote as absentees, it is more important than ever to assure that the absentee vote is properly and accurately tallied and included in the final totals, and not simply just flatly trashed. And as a larger percentage of the military is of minority designation than the general population, this may also be a civil rights question.
4 posted on 11/30/2003 3:38:57 AM PST by alloysteel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife
George Bush could have a real problem getting the military vote if the Democrats would run a pro-defense candidate like Zell Miller or the late Scoop Jackson. We know the chances of that happening.

I've heard Hillary's sock puppet, General Wesley Clark, is about as popular in military ranks as a skunk at a picnic.

5 posted on 11/30/2003 3:44:53 AM PST by Vigilanteman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: alloysteel
All votes need to be tallied. Each and every one. The mandate Bush is going to have, the coattails, the international impression of American resolve and the right for all to be heard, must drive a full count. The Left discounts these votes (even thwarts them) because they don't help them figuratively or politically.
6 posted on 11/30/2003 3:46:13 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Vigilanteman
Bump!
7 posted on 11/30/2003 3:46:40 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife
Amen.
8 posted on 11/30/2003 3:56:05 AM PST by anniegetyourgun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife
In the Florida recount, Bush's partisans fought vigorously to prevent Al Gore's advocates from excluding disqualified military absentee ballots from the presidential vote recount.

DISQUALIFIED ballots? Lots wrong with that statement. I believe this article is wishful thinking.

9 posted on 11/30/2003 4:08:59 AM PST by patj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vigilanteman

you said the magic word Hillary

10 posted on 11/30/2003 4:21:52 AM PST by PokeyJoe (Merry F'ing Christmas (From the new hit movie "Bad PokeyJoe"))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife
One item was left out. Mr. Bush – like his predecessors – has fought against repeal of the Disabled Veterans Tax. This tax costs me $801 a month.
Of course this only affects a few hundred thousand veterans, so we’re not a big political voting block.
11 posted on 11/30/2003 4:27:21 AM PST by R. Scott
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vigilanteman
George Bush could have a real problem getting the military vote if the Democrats would run a pro-defense candidate like Zell Miller....

Do you think military folks would buy all the socialist, anti-american crap the democrats stand for if they'd just run Zell? Looks like a massive 'bait & switch' to me.

12 posted on 11/30/2003 4:27:59 AM PST by tbpiper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: PokeyJoe


13 posted on 11/30/2003 4:30:53 AM PST by R. Scott
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: tbpiper
Most military I know/knew pretty much ignored political rhetoric. Promise them anything but give them the shaft is the norm for political campaigns. Past performance was always the accepted indicator of future performance.
14 posted on 11/30/2003 4:33:44 AM PST by R. Scott
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife
Wow--I actualy started to read this thinking it was a news article. Then I realized it was propaganda from the Atlanta Urinal Constipation.
15 posted on 11/30/2003 4:52:47 AM PST by SkyPilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: R. Scott
One item was left out. Mr. Bush – like his predecessors – has fought against repeal of the Disabled Veterans Tax. This tax costs me $801 a month.

Have the Democratic candidates taken a different position on this issue?

If not, then how will Bush's position cause disabled vets to vote for the Democrat?

16 posted on 11/30/2003 5:22:03 AM PST by 07055
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

Comment #17 Removed by Moderator

To: PokeyJoe
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!
18 posted on 11/30/2003 5:36:18 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: seamole
Paying soldiers a livable wage is good policy.

Of course it is and another nice thing about it is, it helps reelect Bush. A strong military and superior national defense is what a GOP government invests in.

19 posted on 11/30/2003 5:43:09 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: seamole
This is a cynical age. It's time the Pubbies stop playing by outdated rules.
20 posted on 11/30/2003 5:43:44 AM PST by 07055
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife
"What makes me mad the most is, past presidents have gone to funerals and he hasn't gone to any," - Lori Hartman

My understanding it that this it not true. With a couple of exceptions (persons known personally by the president) and group memorial services, past Presidents have NOT attended servicemembers funerals.

It is easy to understand why. First of all, which do you go to? You certainly couldn't go to all, in any large scale conflict you'd be spending all your time going to funerals.

If this article in any way reflects Dem party thinking that the military, or veterans, will help them win the White House in '04, they are worse off than I thought.

And I do not like the implication, which was also made in the first Gulf War, that the military is just some glorified welfare program with uniforms and dangerous toys. The military does not exist to provide housing, education, medical benefits, etc. for its members. Obviously these things must be provided, but they are not it's reason for existing. It exists to defend our country from people, like the Islamofacists, who want to kill us. If we don't want to have a military anymore we'd have to completely close the borders, allow no air traffic, and return to the way we lived life circa 1900. That would be fine with me, but it would be the only way. It would also require the dismantling of the UN, or it's relocation without us as member elsewhere, a noteworthy benefit.
21 posted on 11/30/2003 5:48:37 AM PST by jocon307 (The Dems don't get it, the American people do.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #22 Removed by Moderator

To: jocon307
Excellent points.
23 posted on 11/30/2003 5:54:01 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: seamole
From the roof tops!
24 posted on 11/30/2003 5:55:10 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

Comment #25 Removed by Moderator

Comment #26 Removed by Moderator

To: Cincinatus' Wife
Military could be the swing vote in 04 --- Yeah, if the DIMS let the military absentee ballots be counted!

Those lieing, backstabbing, conniving, two-timing, bottom-deal..................................

Sorry I wandered too far afield describing DIMS.
27 posted on 11/30/2003 6:10:30 AM PST by SandRat (Duty, Honor, Country. What else needs to be said?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: seamole
The (literally) communist left (Veterans for Peace, Military Families Speaking Out, etc.) is preying heavily upon military families, especially after losses are published in the local paper. This is a phenomenon which should be reported more, so that unsuspecting families know to keep their guard up

Is this the group that's taking family members of dead soldiers to Iraq to "investigate?"

28 posted on 11/30/2003 6:11:07 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: SandRat
Bump!
29 posted on 11/30/2003 6:11:31 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

Comment #30 Removed by Moderator

To: seamole
Bump!
31 posted on 11/30/2003 6:20:48 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: R. Scott
One item was left out. Mr. Bush – like his predecessors – has fought against repeal of the Disabled Veterans Tax.

This is more than offset by all the terrific things Bush and the Republicans have done for retired, disabled, and just plain normal, veterans

32 posted on 11/30/2003 6:22:54 AM PST by templar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

Comment #33 Removed by Moderator

To: patj
DISQUALIFIED ballots? Lots wrong with that statement. I believe this article is wishful thinking.

I agree. The Atlanta Journal Constitution has become a New Yawk Times wannabe. It's often hard to tell the difference between it and Pravda.

34 posted on 11/30/2003 6:32:57 AM PST by geedee (A liberal flies the flag when protesting against their country, then hides it when she's at war.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: seamole
Ah, yes. Thanks for the LINK!
35 posted on 11/30/2003 6:34:20 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: PokeyJoe
ROTFLOL at the Chipmonk. What the heck did she just bite into? It must have been the truth to taste that bad in her mouth.
36 posted on 11/30/2003 6:39:12 AM PST by SandRat (Duty, Honor, Country. What else needs to be said?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife
The military is not the swing vote. As a voting block it is way too small.

It is the military and its supporters that form the significant block. These are relatives of the troops, veterans, people who are predisposed to identify with the military, service organizations allied with the military etc. They have one thing in common: awareness.

The vocal anti-war types typically have virtually zero experience with the military and don't want to start now. Their criticisms of the President and the military stem from socio-political ideology. They crave any appearance of military failure to reinforce their political agenda.

In contrast, the military network position is based on familiarity of military tradition, LIKE A COMMANDER BEING WITH HIS TROOPS ON A HOLIDAY, and operational aspects of the military. They are aware of successes and failures where the layman with no insight just sees failure. To juxtapose D-Day into the present for example, the anti-military types would be screaming and screeching over the casualties while completely ignoring the attainment of a foothold on the European continent. BTW More American lives were lost in D+30 minutes than 10 Iraqs.

The support, by the military, of the President, shows that the people, with their boots on the ground, strongly approve (for you pollsters) of this president's actions.

37 posted on 11/30/2003 6:48:14 AM PST by pfflier
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: seamole
That's sounds like something I need to read about.

Do you have any reported stories for reference? We need to seek an injunction against these groups to stop such actions.
38 posted on 11/30/2003 6:58:10 AM PST by PokeyJoe (Merry F'ing Christmas (From the new hit movie "Bad PokeyJoe"))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: 07055
The political show push for elimination of the tax has come from the Democrats this year. I believe they first made sure it had no chance of passage.
39 posted on 11/30/2003 7:01:54 AM PST by R. Scott
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

Comment #40 Removed by Moderator

To: R. Scott
Bush has an electorial lock, just as Reagan did in 1984. Bush will win the entire south, 2/3 of the midwest, and N.Y.
and will do so regardless of the Milit. vote.
41 posted on 11/30/2003 7:06:11 AM PST by BOOTSTICK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: templar
This is more than offset by all the terrific things Bush and the Republicans have done for retired, disabled, and just plain normal, veterans

Right!

42 posted on 11/30/2003 7:19:08 AM PST by R. Scott
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: BOOTSTICK
Hopefully. As much as I dislike some of the Republican policies, the Democrats (AKA American Socialist Party) is even less desirable. The Active Military has traditionally been a Republican voting block due largely to the traditional Democrat’s blatant disrespect for them.
Neither party shows much actual respect for veterans and retirees – except for the occasional tossed bone and lip service when politically necessary. We’re just too small a voting block to wield much power.
43 posted on 11/30/2003 7:25:12 AM PST by R. Scott
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: R. Scott
Could you explain the Disabled Veterans Tax?

I pay about the same in taxes per month but am not subject to this tax.
44 posted on 11/30/2003 7:36:09 AM PST by edwin hubble
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife
If, as many have said, people vote their pocketbook. Try this on for size.

Under Clinton the gap between military pay and civilian pay had grown to 13.5 percent. And pay raises were capped at .5 percent below, I SAY AGAIN, .05 PERCENT BELOW the rate of inflation, guaranteeing that the gap would grow.

Under Bush, the gap has decreased to about 5.5 percent (in less than three years) and the pay raises have been capped at .5 percent above, ABOVE, the rate of inflation.

Also, the pay scales have been reworked to favor mid career and Sr NCOs and mid career officers. This was done without affecting pay raises for anyone else.

Another thing, now we are soldiers doing a soldiers job instead of these endless and thankless peace keeping missions where we were nothing more than UN lackeys with wishy washy rules of engagement that was sure to get us killed, all for a blue helmet. We finally have a purpose and are doing the job that we were trained to do.

Believe me, many soldiers know where their bread is buttered and will vote for Bush. As long as Bush gives us the tools to do what we have to and stays out of our way when we're doing it, he can't go wrong. (However, if he promised to close the pay gap in the next year, that wouldn't hurt at all)
45 posted on 11/30/2003 7:40:57 AM PST by fightin kentuckian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: patj
The Dems were trying to get ballots that were not postmarked before the election but received after the election disqualified. Hell, they even tried to get those received before the election disqualified because they weren't postmarked.

That points to some things that need to be fixed in the military's handling of mail. First, every absentee ballot should be postmarked. Second, in lieu of a postmark, perhaps a dated signature from someone (higher officer maybe) should be accepted. Third, a big push should be made to get those in the military to send in absentee ballots earlier (listen to the Dems howl about that one. "Bush orders military to vote for him"). The Dems took aim at a problem in verifying the date a ballot was sent. We need to fix that hole so they can never try to use it again.

Now if we could just fix the thousand and one methods of vote fraud the Dems use every election.

46 posted on 11/30/2003 7:46:04 AM PST by KarlInOhio (Global warming=fresh picked Ohio bananas. Yummy!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: seamole
Openly claiming there will be a direct correlation between a pay increase and a vote is pretty cynical.

But it's true. Under Cliton (oops... did I misspell that?) we were taken down to a skeleton crew and didn't see an honest cost of living adjust for YEARS. His administration showed nothing but contempt for our service members. In the last three years our paychecks, housing and morale have all risen sharply. (Whoopie! E-5's can get off WIC and food stanmps!) The only way things will conitnue to get better for us is if the POTUS stays put. The soldiers and families who have dedicated our lives (and lifestyles) to defending our country owe a LOT to Bush, personally.

47 posted on 11/30/2003 7:53:52 AM PST by Marie (I smell... COFFEE! coffeecoffeecoffeecoffee! COFFEE!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife
Before Clinton's Secretary of Defense - Cohen - left office he issued an order to stop voting on many military installations. How he and Clinton determined which forts, bases, camps, etc. they wanted to enforce that the military could not vote on them I do not know. I do know that this will make it very difficult for many of our military to vote as they will have to go off base.

Information Technology Association of America

http://www.itaa.org/

Is the leading the effort for electronic voting and this is what they want to enforce upon the military. Harris Miller, President, is a good friend and huge supporter of the Clintons. He works closely with Bill and Hill.

48 posted on 11/30/2003 8:32:38 AM PST by TrueBeliever9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xzins; MissAmericanPie; Salem; dennisw; Thinkin' Gal
PING see the post above
49 posted on 11/30/2003 8:34:04 AM PST by TrueBeliever9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl
For your archive
50 posted on 11/30/2003 8:34:54 AM PST by TrueBeliever9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-61 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson