« Previous · Home · Next »
Say Again?
By John
Paul Leads in Donations from Military Voters:
WASHINGTON — Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul, the congressman from the Houston area who opposes the Iraq war, has gotten more contributions than any other White House contender from donors identified as affiliated with the military.According to a Houston Chronicle analysis of campaign records from January through September, Paul received $63,440 in donations from current military employees and several retired military personnel.
Democrat Barack Obama, another war critic, was second in military giving. The Illinois senator got $53,968 during the nine months.
He was followed by Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz, a decorated Navy pilot and former Vietnam prisoner of war, who received $48,208 in military-related giving. McCain has been one of the most vigorous defenders of President Bush's decision this year to increase U.S. troops in Iraq.
The military contributions — nearly 1,000 of them are listed in Federal Election Commission records for this year — represent a small fraction of the overall contributions to the candidates.
Paul, whose campaign Web site notes his military service as a flight surgeon in the Air Force in the 1960s as well as his opposition to the current war, raised a total of $5 million from July through September alone. Also, many contributors do not disclose their occupations, making it difficult to determine the total extent of military contributions to any one candidate.
You know I while I'm pretty sure that this is the millionth time that someone has tried to spin up a lede to make it look like the US Military is universally against this whole Iraq thing, but -once again- it just doesn't jive with my own experience in uniform.
I conducted an informal poll in the squadron when I read this story. Of the six other dudes in the room, only one had even heard of Ron Paul, with the only mental connection being "isn't that the dude with those weird ass supporters?"
Yes.
But that's aside the point.
I hate this subtle fishing for some sort of anti-war, anti-Bush vibe in the military. I hate the way deserters are fawned over and heroes ignored. If the media was so interested in how we feel, all they have to do is take a peek at any one of the 1600+ active military blogs. We're overwhelmingly in favor of this mission, and -based on my own experience serving- we represent the majority of the military.
Or, they could get off this crap and hit the CENTCOM news wire. Y'see, we're finally starting to wrap our fingers around the throat of this insurgency, and it'd be nice if the MSM let the American people know about it. Just sayin'.
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://op-for.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1281
Comments
Skip, he's not saying that all mil-blogs have to be of one mind about the war or that there's any such unwritten rule. He's saying that most are. That's pretty much undeniable, even with notable exceptions.
yah, Lex nailed it Skips. Key word there was "overwhelming," not "universal" or "unanimous."
Ah and as to your other point Skippy.
Ask any 10 Americans which name they know: Cindy Sheehan or Lt. Murphy. Who do you think comes out on top?
The MSM puts the spin on everything. I'm sure anyone who put 'war protester' or something similar, as their occupation is automatically considered affiliated with the military.
John,
With all dues respect-no one nailed anything. Blogs are like any media-people buy the product they want. That's why I'm not an Uncle Jimbo fan and other people are. I'll slide on over to Hemlock and here about politics there.
The media print all kinds of things and there is all kind of media. You the buyer can get all the slant youwant. There is no such thing as MSM any more-there are simply outlets that sell more. Want more coverage of LT Murphy? Package the story up and get it out there. Its a story worth telling and I submit that DOD has as much right to play the sales game as anyone else.
The same is true for strangling the insurgency. It has been reported-even in the Washington Post. However there is still the nagging question that refuses to be answered. If there is so much "progress" if AQI has been defeated, then why do we have to stay and stay and stay? Oh yea there is that annoying detail of the Iraqis who still can't get there government together.
When the government can show some hope of getting this over with people will stop complaining. Problem is-no one believes the political messenger anymore.
Step out of the way fellas, the goal posts are shifting and you don't want to get run over.
Post a comment
Potential comment conditions listed here. Oh, and you may use basic HTML for formatting.
While I doubt that a lot of people are giving money to anyone, much less Ron Paul, the assumption that all military people are of one mind when it comes to the war or the President is fundamentally flawed. I talk to plenty of people and my conversations tell me that opinion about Iraq is all over the map. About the only thing this primarily Navy audience is agreed on is not wanting to go to Iraq on an IA or that the Navy is not big enough.
I'd also submit that its wrong to say the MOH winners are ignored-I've seen reports on most of the Major news outlets about this and in most of the major papers-go back and check the Early Bird for the last week or so.
Generalizations go both ways and this unwritten rule that all mil-blogs have to be of one mind about the war feeds some of the thought process you describe.