digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at thecandidacy.com

3 Ways to Improve Obama's Popularity with the Military

thecandidacy.com — "The reality is that Republican politicians are much more popular among service-members than their Democratic counterparts...whether or not these criticisms are warranted is irrelevant. The fact remains that Obama ’s popularity is lacking with service-members and their families. Here are three things he can do to boost his popularity."

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • BECoole, on 06/05/2008, -47/+43Why would he want to do that? He hates the military and he hates the type of people who want to protect this country. If Obama has his way, the military will become the world's largest peace corp.

    And let's not forget, Obama will balance the budget on the military's back, just like Clinton did.
    • SgtAl, on 06/05/2008, -14/+11Dont forget Base Realignment and Closure and Reduction in Force was started by George H.W. Bush, as part of the "Peace Dividend" from winning the cold war. A lot of mid-career military people were forced out with over half their career complete. Under Clinton the program continued and he couldnt have stopped it without approval from Congress even if he had wanted to. If you are going to blame anyone for dismantling the military make sure you blame the right person.
    • ClosedCaption, on 06/05/2008, -23/+19I see no problem in cutting the Military budget. Its irresponsible to put 3 times the amount of our largest competitor into bombs and bullets when the rest of America is going down the crapper. This type of money being poured into the Pentagon only creates a War Economy if its no wars we'l have less jobs and vice versa. That's not any kind of economy I want or the kind that will sustain America.
    • wonderchemist, on 06/06/2008, -10/+6Unlike Bush, who prefers 'balancing' the budget on the back of our kids and grandchildren.
    • chicofaraby, on 06/06/2008, -11/+7"Obama will balance the budget on the military's back"

      I hope so. The military industry is ***** the hell out of taxpayers. Trillions of wasted dollars for nothing.
      • Stevanoski, on 06/06/2008, -3/+7And that kind of thinking under Clinton got us 9/11
        • ordig, on 06/06/2008, -3/+2No, supplying fundamentalists with guns, and hiring them to be our shadow army against the soviets is what got us 9/11

          -Charlie Wilson
        • chicofaraby, on 06/06/2008, -2/+1How'd our multi-trillion dollar "defense" do on 9-11? I forget.
    • p0s3r, on 06/06/2008, -2/+9Wrong. Obama has no plans on balancing the budget. He'll fund massive entitlement programs on the Military's back.
      • jforjools, on 06/06/2008, -6/+1yeah, that's why dems are so big on the Webb-GI bill. They just wanna screw the military over. Yeah, that must be it.
        • p0s3r, on 06/06/2008, -1/+7Does Obama plan on balancing the budget?
          Does Obama plan on increasing entitlements?
          Does Obama plan on cutting the military's budget?

          No, Yes, Yes. Draw your own conclusions.
        • goforbroke, on 06/08/2008, -0/+2The Webb bill was just a liberal effort to buy military votes.
  • BECoole, on 06/05/2008, -37/+40I think the new GI Bill is a sleazy Democrat attempt to buy military votes by expanding the socialist entitlement mentality. In the name of fiscal responsibility, Bush should veto it.
    • postingbh, on 06/05/2008, -15/+20Bush vetoing entitlements in the name of fiscal responsibility? Bush has overseen the largest entitlements spending increase in history, charged to the credit cards of people who aren't even old enough to vote.
      • PolishLogic, on 06/05/2008, -7/+11Stating that his spending is the largest increase is only half the picture. In terms of actual dollars sure, but how about in terms of percentage of GDP?

        It's all relative in that regard.


        "charged to the credit cards of people who aren't even old enough to vote."

        That's how the government has historically funded it's programs. That's no creation of this Administration. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, I'm just trying to keep it fair.
        • postingbh, on 06/05/2008, -4/+6"In terms of actual dollars sure, but how about in terms of percentage of GDP?"
          - Yes, I was speaking in terms of GDP.

          "That's how the government has historically funded it's programs."
          - ...since Reagan took office. Before Reagan, gov't programs were not primarily funded through debt. Clinton and the Republican held Congress set us back on a fiscally responsible course, to the point where we actually had a budget surplus. Many point to the existence and enforcement of PAYGO as the driving factor in creating that budget surplus and debt reduction.

          However, GWB and the Republican Congress gutted PAYGO and then proceeded to pass the Medicare Modernization Act, which essentially put us on the path to national bankruptcy circa 2040.

          Make no mistake about it, both parties have royally ***** our fiscal future. Unfortunately, the population at large still accepts nostalgic propaganda that the current GOP represents fiscal conservatives. In fact, nothing could be farther from the truth.
        • PolishLogic, on 06/06/2008, -2/+6While that's all fine and good, included in that cost is a significant increase thanks in large to Social Security. It's not his fault that baby boomers have reached SS age and sucking money at an alarming rate.

          My biggest disappointment in terms of what Bush was promising to enact during his 2000 campaign, is the fact that he didn't end up privatizing social security. I'd much rather have that money going into an investment account and earning a return. Take the SS money out of your check and deposit it directly into a private account. Even at an ultra conservative investment structure, you'd have more money in the long run.

          I will completely agree, though, that the current incarnation of GOP leadership is just as spendy as their counterparts across the aisle.
        • postingbh, on 06/06/2008, -1/+1"While that's all fine and good, included in that cost is a significant increase thanks in large to Social Security."
          - Not really. Social Security is certainly a problem, but it pales in comparison to Medicare. In fact, the Social Security problem is about 1/5 the Medicare problem. Medicare unfunded liabilities have exploded under the Bush administration thanks to the Medicare Modernization Act.

          "It's not his fault that baby boomers have reached SS age and sucking money at an alarming rate."
          - No, but it is his and Congress' fault for not recognizing the costs associated with adding entitlements (especially those in the MMA) for the baby boomers. You seem to be thinking that the baby boomers just grew up unexpectedly overnight. This demographic glitch was known about for decades before Bush took office. No one should act surprised that the baby boomers are starting to retire. By the way, the first baby boomers only became eligible for Social Security on Jan 1 of this year.

          Privatization of Social Security simply isn't necessary. Mostly because the fiscal challenges of Social Security aren't that bad and aren't that difficult to fix. And let's not kid ourselves here: nobody's going to privatize Social Security anytime soon because old people vote and they don't want SS privatized. Thinking that privatization is even a possibility is a little naive.
        • postingbh, on 06/06/2008, -1/+1Perhaps I wasn't clear enough about Social Security. SS is running a surplus and will be running a declining surplus until about 2017. That's when SS stops subsidizing the rest of the budget and starts running a deficit.

          In the meantime, Medicare costs will be increasing at a rapid rate b/c of compounding interest on debt. Unlike Social Security, Medicare has been running at a deficit since 2004. By the time SS starts running at a deficit, Medicare will have been running at at a deficit for 13 years. Medicare is our main fiscal problem - not SS, not the military/wars/national defense, not earmarks.

          People are worried about SS running out around between 2035 and 2045. But even then, it's only borrowing about 25-30% of its expenditures. More importantly, Medicare will be financially paralyzing us before then.

          We need to restore PAYGO and balance the budget. In fact, that's one primary reason I support Obama over McCain. Both support PAYGO, but if a Republican takes office, the GOP has no incentive to focus on spending cuts. We'll get another 4-8 years of big-spending, heavy-debt *****, with nobody focused on savings.

          Among other reasons, I want a Democrat in the White House b/c it will force the Republicans to make a decision: either return to their fiscally conservative roots, or stick with their big-spending neocon agenda and lose even more power. I want the GOP to go back to its roots, not the fiscally irresponsible agenda they run now. And when Obama takes office, I want the GOP to go into full attack mode on spending. I want the GOP to criticize every dollar spent Obama and Congress authorize. We desperately need to return to fiscal conservatism both on paper and in mind, and having a Democrat in the White House is the best way to do that, especially right now.
    • MadKennyP, on 06/05/2008, -14/+5It is actually a Democratic attempt to provide education benefits to our soldiers serving in Iraq.
      • PolishLogic, on 06/05/2008, -3/+14Actually it's going to provide full college payment for every soldier that completes basic training.
        • MadKennyP, on 06/05/2008, -3/+6Former Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John Warner (R-Va.) added, “I think this argument that it’s going to hurt retention is very thin and tenuous, very thin and tenuous. The flip side of that is, putting a big piece of cheese out there will induce more qualified people to join just to get this. It should be a tremendous incentive for recruitment.”
        • PolishLogic, on 06/05/2008, -4/+4...aaaaannnnnnddddd?

          I've always stated that Webb's bill was just a disguise for boosting recruitment at the cost of the taxpayer, nothing more. The same people (Democrats) that are upset with how our military is used and who scream about how we're not prepared for a war with Iran sure seem to be doing their damnedest to provide heavy incentives in hopes of dramatically increasing our troop base.

          I wonder why......
        • bicyclethief, on 06/05/2008, -2/+5@PolishLogic

          Try wrapping your cynical mind around this: Or it could be that people actually want to reward those that give military service to their country.
        • jforjools, on 06/06/2008, -2/+4@polishlogic--
          Newsflash: Dems really are big on supporting our troops. We've been saying for a long time that support for the war and support for our troops are *not* the same thing.

          I do not support this war.
          I fully support our troops--and want to show it.
        • jforjools, on 06/06/2008, -2/+2Polish logic says: "Actually it's going to provide full college payment for every soldier that completes basic training."

          Apparently basic training is now a lot longer than it was when I went through it in 1985. No soldier is going to be eligible for free college in exchange for a few weeks of 'playing soldier' in the mud.

          That's just a patently false assertion.
    • zeitgueist, on 06/05/2008, -3/+12Wait wait wait....you're asking Bush to veto something based on fiscal responsibility? You have to be ***** me. Even hardcore Republican pundits get pissed off by how fiscally irresponsible Bush is.
    • bicyclethief, on 06/05/2008, -8/+9"I think the new GI Bill is a sleazy Democrat attempt to buy military votes by expanding the socialist entitlement mentality."

      Sounds like you'd rather cut off the nose to spite the face.

      Yet another conservative who only pays lip service to "support the troops."
      • Troika37, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1So am I allowed to say it?

        I think the new GI Bill is a sleazy Democrat attempt to buy military votes by expanding the socialist entitlement mentality.

        From one who's been there.
    • spinchange, on 06/05/2008, -8/+10That's why the Republican leadership co-sponsored it and 25 other Republican senators support it. Because it's a sleazy Democratic attempt to buy votes. Right.
  • RHMiller, on 06/05/2008, -11/+30That's your opinion. I see the GI Bill as the just part of the responsibility the USA has to take care of its veterans. They make the sacrifices that our impotent and cowardly politicians all too often will not. Cut the budget somewhere else. You don't send soldiers off to die and lose limbs and then forget them in the name of "fiscal respinsibility". Not very cool, BECoole.
    • BECoole, on 06/05/2008, -13/+15Nobody has forgotten the veterans. They have plenty of programs now, including socialized medicine.

      But at some point, even veterans have to cut the federal apron strings and make a go at it like everyone else. If we are going to give veterans this bill, why not give them houses? Why not buy all their food? Aren't you being stingy if you don't do all these things? That thing called work is really just a burden, no?

      The siren song of socialism is hard to resist, isn't it?

      BTW, It's not a budget cut if it was never a budget item.

      Oh, and I find it offensive that you would say we "send soldiers off to die and lose limbs". We send them off to make the enemy die and lose limbs. None of us, except for guys like Obama, want our soldier to be harmed.
      • RHMiller, on 06/05/2008, -8/+9I did not imply in the least that I or anyone else "wants our soldiers to be harmed". However, casualties are a reality. We know when we deploy troops that some will not make it back and others will not come back the same.

        If you don't like Obama that's fine, there are plenty of reasons to dislike him. But to imply that he "wants our soldiers to be harmed" is patently absurd.
        • BECoole, on 06/05/2008, -7/+12Democrats, including Obama, despise people who think that force can be a valid option in our foreign policy.
          You wouldn't join the military unless you thought it was a valid option.

          Bob, I remember Vietnam and I remember liberals like Obama spitting on our returning soldiers. Obama would never personally do that, wouldn't be politic. But he agrees with it. Just look at who he surrounds himself with.
          I'm sure John "*****" Kerry supports the bill too. That bastard even met with the enemy to undermine the war effort.

          My whole point is that this new GI bill is a cynical Democrat ploy to buy military (those people they spit on) votes by promising immoral socialist largess.

          Socialism *is* immoral. The cynicism is just icing.
      • MadKennyP, on 06/05/2008, -12/+3We do buy their food and provide them housing. The education benefit simply becomes available after they've completed their service to the country. Do you consider retirement benefits to be "socialism" also?
        • BECoole, on 06/05/2008, -3/+10Strange, my Dad had to buy his own food and buy his own house when he got out.
        • DWalla, on 06/05/2008, -2/+7Yeah... I was thinking the same thing... my father-in-law had over 20 years in the military and they certainly didn't buy his home or food... nor guarantee him a job. There's a big difference in receiving a retirement check for services rendered and socialism.
        • MadKennyP, on 06/05/2008, -5/+2My Dad did too. But he received benefits when he got out after serving in WWII. Damn socialists . . . providing benefits to veterans!
        • BECoole, on 06/06/2008, -0/+3Retirement is for people at the end of their working life - people that aren't likely to produce enough going forward to support themselves. I have no problem with that (except if it's from the Gov't in the form of a social program).

          Supporting a bunch of 25 year olds is an entirely different story.
      • chicofaraby, on 06/06/2008, -2/+6WTF does any of this have to do with socialism? Do you even know what the word means?
    • Qong, on 06/05/2008, -6/+6He's right, the GI Bill isn't the right thing to do. Real veterans should be the ones receiving benefits, getting proper care for the harm that was done to them during their actual service.

      I have a rather large number of veterans in my family, and while all of them are doing just fine, as far as I know, plenty of other veterans are not doing just fine. That is where our tax money needs to be spent, not giving incentives and unnecessary bonuses to people that aren't warranted in any way.
  • diamondbigdog, on 06/05/2008, -16/+30The new GI Bill is inadequate and has qualifiers that limit implementation. We have a GI Bill and certainly it would be good to improve upon it but without the limits and barriers.
    Obama will NEVER get any large portion of the military vote. He might get 15% if he is lucky. The people in the military know a leader when they see one. Obama is not a leader and I would not be surprised to see the Dems try to disenfranchise the military like they did in 2004 where they partially succeeded.
    • mypetridish, on 06/06/2008, -2/+3"... That's not change we can believe in... =D.... heeeeeheeeeheeee (McLaugh)"
    • hwy9nightkid, on 06/06/2008, -3/+2It's funny I see the opposite, because of the age difference or something but.. McCain seems out of touch.
  • DavidS9, on 06/05/2008, -10/+27And don't forget there is a Better GI bill going through the senate right now. But since it isn't a "so you talked to a recruiter here's a hundred grand" bill its not getting any press. I think The President should veto the Dem its a waste of money and doesn't really help anyone.
    • MadKennyP, on 06/05/2008, -14/+4It's not better. It's worse.
      • PolishLogic, on 06/05/2008, -2/+10How so?
        • p0s3r, on 06/06/2008, -2/+3He'll never answer, because he can't find an article on DailyKos or HuffPo to give him his rationale. Even his mindmasters can't find valid criticism of McCain's bill.
    • erranttv, on 06/05/2008, -2/+3Funny, I just submitted a post about that other GI BIll--the one they didn't really consult with veterans on. Its also the one that all the veterans groups DO NOT support.
  • JessicaLF77, on 06/05/2008, -5/+41As a soldier, I'd appreciate it if Sen. Obama would visit our servicemembers in Iraq. And sit down and talk to them. Not the generals, but the guys who are out on the streets every day. I think it's irresponsible to take a stance on an issue without having the whole picture.
    • ClosedCaption, on 06/05/2008, -16/+6Ok, If someone comes over and visits troops, how does that equate to being informed of the "whole picture"? BTW..If your point was valid then he has the whole picture because he has been to Iraq.
      • JessicaLF77, on 06/05/2008, -1/+19BTW, he has the whole picture from over two years ago. Things have changed.
        So you're telling me that he already has the whole picture just by listening to suits in Washington? The article was about a way to improve his popularity with the military. Many of the servicemembers that I work with feel largely ignored by him, unless he's using us as a political tool.
        • ClosedCaption, on 06/05/2008, -16/+6When was the last time McCain was there? Hasnt things changed since then also? I never mentioned suits in Washington so I'm a little confused at why you would bring that up. According to ABC news this is what they found.

          http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3601542

          Obama got 44 contributions worth about $27,000 and Paul 23 for about $19,300. Republican John McCain, an Iraq war supporter and Vietnam prisoner of war, was third with about $18,500 from 32 donors.

          "things changed" but he's not ignored by the servicemembers. Sitting around talking to ppl in Iraq still would not present a
          "whole picture" either, just the picture of those he spoke too. Right?
        • jerger23, on 06/05/2008, -3/+17Review the title of the article: 3 Ways to Improve Obama's Popularity with the Military.

          McCain not in the scope of this discussion, but since you brought him up. Do you really think a decorated war veteran, former POW, and demonstratedly pro-military Senator really needs to worry about improving his military popularity? Obama is the one who needs to pull military voters away from his opponent.

          As far as talking to people in Iraq to gain a better picture; there is no doubt in my mind that candidates should be over there to find out what troops on the ground are thinking.
        • ClosedCaption, on 06/05/2008, -9/+5Uh I didnt say anything about McCain and improving popularity. I said When was the last time McCain was there to get the "whole picture" and hasnt things changed since then. I think you responded to the wrong person or something.
        • JessicaLF77, on 06/05/2008, -2/+18John McCain last visited Iraq on March 16, 2008. I'm sure things have changed in the last three months, but not nearly quite as much as they have changed since January 5, 2006 (the time Sen. Obama visited).
          The only reason I mentioned suits in Washington was because you seemed to think that he has the whole picture without having to visit Iraq or even meet with Prime Minister al-Maliki. I wonder how he's getting all the information without speaking to two directly involved parties, that's all.
          The article I was making a comment on was "3 Ways to Improve Obama's Popularity with the Military." I feel that as a military member who has not decided on who to vote for, I may have a little insight into it.
        • jerger23, on 06/05/2008, -5/+11"Obama got 44 contributions worth about $27,000 and Paul 23 for about $19,300. Republican John McCain, an Iraq war supporter and Vietnam prisoner of war, was third with about $18,500 from 32 donors. " Sounds like a reference to McCain's popularity. Only thing is, financial contributions do not equal votes.
          You are trying to give plenty of reasons why Obama should not have to travel to Iraq to gain popularity with the military and you pulled McCain into it.
          My bottom line has not changed, yet you fail to address it: Obama could gain military support by going to Iraq.
        • ClosedCaption, on 06/05/2008, -10/+3@ Jessica...I believe that Al-Maliki would have a better idea of the whole picture than speaking with individual troops so I would agree on that point but I have a feeling I'll still be dugg down for some reason *shrug* And seriously, if you still dont know who you're voting for either you're pretending or you're not paying attention.

          @Jerger...Financial donations are a good sign of who's going to get those votes. The only thing that equal votes are votes and we arent there yet, so we have to use SOME metric. You're right actually, Obama should not HAVE TO travel to Iraq to gain support. Obama SHOULD HAVE TO have correct policies that gain military support. Showing up there is nothing more than a photo op. I agree that it may make some feel good to see him there and talk to him but that shouldnt trump actually making policy that benefits the military.
        • RHMiller, on 06/05/2008, -2/+7Dugg up because you assumed you'd get dugg down but spoke your mind anyway (without insulting).
        • JessicaLF77, on 06/05/2008, -1/+13@Caption
          I agree that speaking with PM al-Maliki would be the best as far as how future relations with Iraq should be handled. But if he wants to talk about what the soldiers are doing and what they want to accomplish, I think he should talk to them.
          And no, I really don't know who I'm voting for. And I have been paying attention. There's a lot about both candidates that I'm fond of, but there's also a few "deal-breakers" for each one. I'm just going to wait it out, listen to some debates, read up on their platforms some more, and make my decision when the time gets nearer.
        • jerger23, on 06/05/2008, -1/+14Financial contributions are not a good metric of who will get votes. They only indicate the level of financial investment those interested in donating to the campaign of their favored candidate are willing to give.
          If you looked at only the quantity of money donated, you'd see Obama must surely win because he's earned more from more donors. If you looked at number of donors, Obama wins again, but this time McCain is second. If you looked at average donation, Ron Paul supporters are far more willing to invest in his campaign.
          In any case, it's still only looking at those people who chose to donate. I have never donated to a political campaign, nor has anyone I work with (that I've discussed this with), yet I could easily tell which candidate the overwhelming majority of my coworkers support.
        • PolishLogic, on 06/05/2008, -0/+11@ClosedCaption

          "I have a feeling I'll still be dugg down for some reason *shrug*. And seriously, if you still dont know who you're voting for either you're pretending or you're not paying attention."

          If you're wondering the reason why I dugg you down, here it is.

          The election is 6 months away, there's no reason to have already made up your mind on where your vote is going. Looking at how both candidates have said things recently that go against things they said 6 months ago, I'd say she's pretty damn smart by not rushing to a decision based on one candidate or the other's position of the week.
      • jerger23, on 06/05/2008, -1/+14This who article is driving at ideas that will improve his standing with the military. Jessica's right; if you want the military behind you, you've got to have face-to-face time with service members at all levels. If you go to where they are fighting the war every day, that effect is amplified. Just because you may have met with senior leaders in D.C. doesn't build you a bridge to the 'Joes' (or Janes).
    • RHMiller, on 06/05/2008, -1/+15Thanks for your service, Jessica. I see in your profile that you are at Bragg. I was there '95-'96.. "Fayettenam, North Carolina."

      Keep your feet and knees together (this is a non-sexual paratrooper slogan for all you 'legs' out there).

      :) :)
      • JessicaLF77, on 06/05/2008, -1/+17So many things to love about Bragg. Best place to be in the Army (IMHO).
        Funny story about that slogan. I was pregnant, it was a brutal August in NC, and I was complaining about the heat. My 1SG overheard me complaining, and told me if I'd been a good paratrooper, I wouldn't be in such a predicament. ;)
        • ssn697, on 06/05/2008, -1/+8Too bad your comment is buried so deep in this thread, because that is freakin hilarious!
        • RHMiller, on 06/05/2008, -0/+9I agree. And the best part is the bond between paratroopers. The 1SG made a joke and she didn't freak out. He paid her the greatest compliment possible...he treated her like one of the boys.

          Airborne all the way!
    • erranttv, on 06/05/2008, -4/+10Uh, he has talked to service men and women and verterans many times--in hospitals. He already had a plan to visit Iraq when McCain pulled his stupid stunt about going there together. The real joke is that, not matter how many times McCain goes to Iraq, he still can't keep the Sunnis and Shia straight. Clearly, he has very little idea of what is going on over there if he can't keep that one little fact straight. The military in Iraq have better things to do than guard McCain on his multiple PR trips to Iraq.

      I also think that people are seriously underestimating just how much the military vote has shifted and will continue to shift. I also find it interesting, that in the face of the facts--Obama believes in supporting veterans, believes in the power of a real GI Bill, believes in funding the military adequately (and has demonstrated all of this in his legislative votes), that people still actually feel that McCain is a better choice as far as foreign policy experience. Seriously?
      • RHMiller, on 06/05/2008, -3/+3Well said. I have to tell you that (from own limited experience) the reaction from service-members is typically knee-jerk. Republicans are good, Democrats are bad.

        Are there exceptions? Yes. But it's kind of like finding Democrats at an NRA convention. Or, finding Republicans at an Earth Day celebration. They're there, but in very small numbers.
      • diamondbigdog, on 06/06/2008, -4/+5This is crap. It has been Democrats that screwed them every chance. Carter obliterated morale and Clinton gutted them.
        Obama will not get more than 15% of the military vote.
      • PolishLogic, on 06/06/2008, -2/+6He already planned it to go to Iraq? Strange, because his idea to head over there wasn't announced until a few days after McCain made his offer to come along with him.

        "believes in the power of a real GI Bill"

        The bill's power of increasing troop recruitment into the military? Numbers will increase solely based on the full-ride people will have coming to them upon completing basic training. Seems like that's what the ideal scenario would be if you're contemplating heading a military response to Iran. When the military is stretched thin, offer the pie in the sky to get more folks on board.

        "The real joke is that, not matter how many times McCain goes to Iraq, he still can't keep the Sunnis and Shia straight."

        Now if Obama could only get the number of states in the US correct. (Sorry, you set that up too perfectly. I had to make the comment.)
        • jforjools, on 06/06/2008, -6/+2Actually, there was an Iraq trip planned in March (maybe Feb?)....but the primary was too contested to manage the overseas trip. ....McCain had time for his world travel (under the tax payers dollar...and *not* out of his campaign warchest) because his nomination was in the bag.

          McC's trip have been completey *empty* anyway. All photo-op.
        • PolishLogic, on 06/06/2008, -0/+5"McC's trip have been completey *empty* anyway. All photo-op."

          Wow, you must have been pretty lucky to go along on those trips with him. Thanks for the inside knowledge.
      • BECoole, on 06/06/2008, -1/+2Why doesn't Obama believe in supporting soldiers in what they signed up to do? That is, KILLING THE ENEMY!

        That pussy-***** doesn't support the military or it's personnel.
        • jforjools, on 06/06/2008, -3/+2You mean, enemies like Ben Laden??

          yeah, he's totally for killing that dude...that's why it's so stupid to spend all of our energy on Iraq. The dude's still out there!! Bush's plan is sucking!!!
  • RHMiller, on 06/05/2008, -10/+6Lots of great comments. Thanks for the participation and information.
  • itstodd, on 06/05/2008, -20/+17suicide would work...
  • sterntastic223, on 06/05/2008, -10/+3clark as the veep
    • RHMiller, on 06/05/2008, -2/+2Clark would be an interesting pick and would offset Obama's weaknesses.

      But I don't think he is a likely pick because there are others whose "time" it is. Remember, the VP is the presumptive party candidate when a president leaves office. There would be a lot of prominent Democrats who would put up a stink at being "passed over" by Clark.
      • vault, on 06/05/2008, -0/+6Clark doesn't really add many new votes, though...and he might piss off the hardcore anti-war Democrats.

        If he doesn't go with Hillary to unite the party, he should probably go with Biden, as that helps the inexperience argument against Obama.
    • Stevanoski, on 06/05/2008, -2/+11Clark too weird, there is no way I would let him watch my children while staying at a Motel 6.
  • Stevanoski, on 06/05/2008, -15/+264th thing he could do is not meet with the President of a country like Iran while that country is busy funding the killing of American soldiers.
    5th: Count the votes of soldiers serving overseas unlike Algore and Kerry.
    • Pillage, on 06/05/2008, -5/+4I think you forget, it was the goodwill of the Iranians and not the hard work and dedication of the soldiers who forced Iraq into the lowest level of violence yet.........
      • RHMiller, on 06/05/2008, -2/+7Goodwill? Not quite. Interest-driven decision to reduce violence? Yes.

        I'm all for diplomacy, but let's not kid ourselves by calling labeling the Iranian government does as "goodwill".
      • R0am3r, on 06/06/2008, -1/+8A Nancy Pelosi quote for the win. She is such a retard.
      • diamondbigdog, on 06/06/2008, -1/+8Exactly, it was Pelosi who made the quote...
      • BECoole, on 06/08/2008, -0/+1Sorry Pillage. That sounded like something Chico Farby would write with a straight face.
    • retr0grade, on 06/13/2008, -0/+1He wouldn't need to go anywhere to meet a president responsible for needlessly killing Americans. George Bush lives right here in America.
  • lgfaphile, on 06/05/2008, -11/+24#4 Cut his remaining attachment to the America loathing left that was useful to him in local Chicago politics and do it in a convincing way (if that is possible).
    • Stevanoski, on 06/05/2008, -5/+13Damn, wish I had thought of that one, great post.
    • BohicaTwentyTwo, on 06/05/2008, -4/+14Well, to his credit, he did throw an entire church under a bus.
    • BECoole, on 06/06/2008, -0/+6Who will he have to take the cabinet and agency positions if he cuts all his Lefty friends? He doesn't know any Conservatives.
  • BohicaTwentyTwo, on 06/05/2008, -11/+19Number one, visiting troops would be nice. Start with Iraq.

    Number two shows the author has an isolationist slant. To say we have 500 bases in over 150 countries means you are counting embassies as bases.

    Number three has already shown Obama to be a complete failure. Instead of talking about the advantages of the Webb GI bill proposal versus the McCain-Graham GI Bill proposal, Obama instead attacked McCain basically saying, "Support the Democratic version or you hate the troops." McCain suitably flamed Obama in response.
    • RHMiller, on 06/05/2008, -3/+6Nope. I wasn't counting embassies. But that does include smaller installations such as airfields (not as big as our bases in Germany and S. Korea but manned by US soldiers nonetheless). So, the point remains the same - we have active duty personnel stationed in 500 different places in over 130 countries.

      "Number two shows the author has an isolationist slant."

      I am anything but isolationist. Not sure where you pulled that one out from.

      Take care.

      • BohicaTwentyTwo, on 06/06/2008, -0/+4Because I'm all about sharing information, here's some good 2007 information about us military bases overseas from the Center for Defense Information.

        http://www.cdi.org/friendlyversion/printversion.cf ...

        http://www.cdi.org/pdfs/ReedBsrPRV.pdf

        They list the total number of overseas bases as 823. This does not include embassies, but it does include 277 bases that are so small that they do not meet the criteria to be called small bases are are considered other.

        Discounting "Other" category, we now have 546 bases. However, those bases span only 32 countries, not 130. In fact, out of the 546 bases, almost 400 of them are in three countries (225 in Germany, 92 in Japan, 78 in South Korea).

        Not quite the global empire some people make it out to be.
  • N3tw0rk, on 06/05/2008, -12/+13I call BS. I don't think Obama needs help with "popularity" among the military. Donations DO translate into votes. When was the last time you donated your hard-earned cash to a candidate you didn't like and didn't plan on voting for?

    The Center for Responsive Politics reported that members of the military donated the most NOT to McCain, but to two anti-war candidates:

    "Individuals in the Army, Navy and Air Force made those branches of the armed services among the top contributors in the 4th Quarter, ranking No. 13, No. 18 and No. 21, respectively. In 2007, Republican Ron Paul, who opposes U.S. involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan, was the top recipient of money from donors in the military, collecting at least $212,000 from them. Barack Obama, another war opponent, was second with about $94,000."
    http://www.opensecrets.org/pressreleases/2008/Year ...

    These donations reflect the military’s disapproval with the Iraq war and President Bush’s handling of it. A recent Military Times poll found that just 46 percent of U.S. Troops now believe that the country should have invaded Iraq, and only 40 percent approve of Bush’s handling of the war.
    http://www.militarycity.com/polls/2007_main.php
    • diamondbigdog, on 06/06/2008, -2/+5Obama got 94 thousand dollars out of 250 million he has received and you say this is support from troops. It is a very small amount of support an d probably given by people with a little money in cushy desk jobs. The boots on the ground have no time for it or money to give.
      • N3tw0rk, on 06/06/2008, -1/+1Yet McCain has not even come close to that amount of donations. Why do you think that is?
    • JigoroKano, on 06/06/2008, -3/+4I was going to point out the same thing. I think the Neocons are counting their chickens before they've hatched if they think they still have the military vote locked up.
    • BECoole, on 06/06/2008, -1/+2The donations reflect troop dissatisfaction with the rules of engagement.
  • MadKennyP, on 06/05/2008, -6/+11Former Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John Warner (R-Va.) stated, “I think the argument that [the Webb GI Bill] is going to hurt retention is very thin and tenuous, very thin and tenuous. The flip side of that is, putting a big piece of cheese out there will induce more qualified people to join just to get this. It should be a tremendous incentive for recruitment.”
  • jforjools, on 06/05/2008, -4/+13Yes, the Web GI Bill will strongly increase recruitment efforts...and it's very, very notable that the cost of this bill is just a mere fraction of the recruitment budget!

    The cost of this plan is really quite minimal (especially if you want to compare it to the cost of the war itself...but even if you just compare it to recruiting costs.) Consider it a slight bump to the recruiting budget...What's for the pro-Iraq-war-folks to dislike then? Just do the numbers--really, you'll be shocked.
  • OffPiste, on 06/05/2008, -12/+9On US service men/women

    "***** em. If they would have learned to read they'd have real jobs and wouldn't be stuck in a war zone."

    Author Stephen King
    Obama supporter
    • zeitgueist, on 06/05/2008, -6/+5He's an idiot. What's your point? Some kind of guilt by association? You really don't want to get into that, because it would ridiculous on both sides of the aisle.

      Also, while I wouldn't doubt SK would say that, can you provide some kind of proof?
    • Vindicoth, on 06/06/2008, -7/+4"Oh, no, we're not going to have any casualties." —discussing the Iraq war with Christian Coalition founder Pat Robertson

      President George W Bush
      McCain Supporter
    • diamondbigdog, on 06/06/2008, -0/+9What King said was that it was important to learn to read or else you only had two options, the Army and Iraq. This is a link to the post I wrote about it with a link to the video of him saying it.

      http://www.onebigdog.net/stephen-king-pulls-a-john ...

      This is the Digg

      http://digg.com/political_opinion/Stephen_King_Pul ...
  • bicyclethief, on 06/05/2008, -8/+10The military will respect Obama by he making wise and effective foreign policy decisions. Period.
  • OC73, on 06/06/2008, -2/+94) Tap someone with military credentials for vice president.
  • WarSaw27, on 06/06/2008, -10/+6Obama is a bisexual, drug addict, pedophile, socialist, globalist sellout. The kinder gentler gay army should love the filthy sob
  • ileftfark, on 06/06/2008, -5/+4This is exactly the kind of "old politics" Obama is purported to reject. He hasn't ever made it a point to "be more popular" with anyone (or so his platform states); he goes out and does what he does and says what he says, and if enough people believe, it can happen. Whether or not you'll agree, this is the type of behavior we call "pandering" when Clinton or McCain do it. But that's politics. You can't be a politician and not play the game. That's the anomaly of Obama, and I think we'll really see that he really is a little more "politics" than we'd like to believe. Which isn't a huge knock on him- he's better than 99% of what we currently have, but this god-like status he has will soon dissipate into respect for one half-decent politician. Or at least I hope so.
  • iam413x, on 06/06/2008, -4/+3There's always my fave. Wesley Clarck VP.
  • OffPiste, on 06/06/2008, -6/+9Why do Democrats even try? They simply have ZERO credibility with the troops. No one believes it when a Democrat says they support the troops. There are simply too many examples of Democrats demeaning the integrity and intelligence of individuals who volunteer to serve our nation.

    Certainly there must be some Democrats that truly care about our troops, but when you have countless instances of sitting Democrats who make statements about how stupid Joe is you're not going to win any allegiance to your party.

    Bottom line, just as Republicans have a believed credibility gap with minorities, Democrats have a believed credibility gap with the military.
    • jforjools, on 06/06/2008, -6/+3And so the strong dem-support for the Webb GI bill isn't real? It's just fictional?

      That's some backwards thinking.

      The bashing that Bill Clinton received by the military was deserved...but no more than W deserves for a similar background. The Dem-prez before Clinton was Carter...and he has an *oustanding* military record. The current Dem-nominee wasn't "of age" during a major military conflict...so I don't hold that against him.
      • p0s3r, on 06/06/2008, -2/+9How old was he during Desert Storm?
        • jforjools, on 06/06/2008, -5/+3He was 29 yo. I give him a pass. Do you know any 29-yo that left their careers (as in, they weren't already unemployed) to fight in Desert Storm?

          I had just gotten out of the military...and was pretty friggin happy to miss out on the whole operation. ...Does that make me unpatriotic, poser?
        • p0s3r, on 06/06/2008, -2/+9You said Obama wasn't "of age" during a major military conflict. He clearly was. That's the point I was making, nothing else.
        • jforjools, on 06/06/2008, -4/+2By your ethereal definition, anyone between the ages of 17 and 65 are then "of age"....

          "of age" in the real world is the more typical age 18 to 25 (on the outside) at the time of signing up.

          But you're missing the original point: Clinton's service record was rightly questioned....but it's the same deal with Bush. Don't group all dems into the same draft-dodging *****. (Noteworthy that you ignored Carter's exemplary service.) It has nothing to do with dems--and it has nothing to do with the dem's nominee for 2008.
        • jforjools, on 06/06/2008, -4/+2And how exactly does Desert Storm rank as a 'major conflict'? It was no walk thru the daisies, but the main event was only a few months--and there was no major occupation to follow it up.

          Anyone who enlisted during Desert Storm would've had to train first....And the main event was really only a few months.

          ...So are you saying Obama should've signed up for this 'major conflict'? And you're saying that most 29 yo's also did the same thing? ...And if they had done this, they typically would've served in Iraq?

        • p0s3r, on 06/07/2008, -2/+3 You said he wasn't "of age" during any major military conflict. Obama was 29 during Desert Storm. He clearly was "of age".

          I can't comprehend how you can read so much into a very simple observation.
  • carguy25, on 06/06/2008, -1/+4Is Obama unpopular with the military?
    • digitronix, on 06/06/2008, -3/+2Yes. Ron Paul is their man.
      • BohicaTwentyTwo, on 06/06/2008, -0/+6How many times has Ron Paul visited the troops in Iraq?
        • digitronix, on 06/06/2008, -2/+2Wrong question. Who got the most campaign contributions from military members?
        • BohicaTwentyTwo, on 06/06/2008, -1/+5South Carolina Exit Poll Question...

          Have you ever served in U.S. Military?
          Huckabee 29%
          McCain 36%
          Paul 3%
          Romney 17%
          Thompson 14%

    • retr0grade, on 06/13/2008, -0/+1Who cares? It's not like we'll count their votes anyhow.
  • yellowcakewalk, on 06/06/2008, -13/+2Obama's speech to AIPAC the other day shows where his loyalties are. Condolences to all the military families that will lose loved ones in the coming wars for Israel.
    • BECoole, on 06/06/2008, -0/+5Obama's family is Muslim. He has indicated support for Palestine and Hamas.

      Who was he telling the truth to?
    • EIderofzion, on 06/07/2008, -0/+6Judging by your post you think we are all slaves of Jews,, I can't imagine where that dogma came from?

      Maybe it's the same dogma that used to think black people not wanting to be castrated males or sex slaves to muslims thought in Mohamed's time.

      You know who the true African black people were right? not like Obama who is 60% arab but the ones who are currently legal slaves in Sharia led countries just because they are the "black"
  • showpup, on 06/08/2008, -1/+3My son is in the army... it's true.. our military does not like him. Shouldn't we be listening to those in charge of protecting us?
    • retr0grade, on 06/13/2008, -2/+1no. We should be listening to people who are smart enough to avoid a way of life that involves getting shot at.
      • RHMiller, on 06/14/2008, -0/+2Dugg down for ignorance. Your comment insults soldiers, cops, etc. The very people who keep others from stealing your lunch money everyday. Something I assume you couldn't do on your own.
  • erranttv, on 06/11/2008, -1/+2BS. Sorry, but on person does not equal military. My whole family is practically in the military and they want change--they're just careful who they talk about it with.
  • retr0grade, on 06/13/2008, -1/+1I call BS too. Obama doesn't need to kiss up to any interest groups- not the military, not anyone else. All he needs to do is to keep doing what he's been doing- stay out of the gutter, slap down the low blows, and call on Americans to do what's right and reject the politics of failure.
    • BECoole, on 07/09/2008, -0/+2How would he get Democrat votes if he rejected the politics of failure? The whole Democrat platform is based in failure in Iraq.
  • elvenrunelord, on 06/15/2008, -1/+1The military are the employees of the American people. Obama, if elected will be the president of the American people. If the military does not like Obama then they have a few options. 1 - Deal with it. 2 - STFU. 3 - Buck and spend some personal time in Leavenworth to think about their options. Obama should consider the will of the military no more so than he does the rest of the American population.

    I find it very hard to understand why the majority of people don't see this a a clear cut understanding of fairness and reality in general
  • gbudavid, on 07/19/2008, -0/+1http://bitsblog.florack.us/wp-content/uploads/2008 ...
    Obama may be doing this do the libs want one of his 300 centurions to put him here?
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.