The Other Iraq Surge
60% of the troops via campaign donations do not support Bush’s Iraq war strategy? Do the Rush supporters think 60% of the military should leave the military since you think they are not REAL SOLDIERS? And what is a REAL SOLDIER vs. a non- REAL SOLDIER?
Capital Eye-| Assessed favorably this week by the war’s lead general, the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq appears to be causing a surge of another sort—and one that’s not positive for President Bush or the Republican Party. Since the start of the Iraq war in 2003, members of the U.S. military have dramatically increased their political contributions to Democrats, marching sharply away from the party they’ve long supported. In the 2002 election cycle, the last full cycle before the war began, Democrats received a mere 23 percent of military members’ contributions.* So far this year, 40 percent of military money has gone to Democrats for Congress and president, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. Anti-war presidential candidates Barack Obama and Ron Paul are the top recipients of military money.
“People are saying now enough is enough,” said Lt. Col. Joyce Griggs, an intelligence officer who said she spent two months in Baghdad earlier this year, speaking for herself and not the Army. “If you’re a soldier, you’re going to do your job, do what you’re commanded to do. But that sentiment is wide and deep.”
John,
Are you serious with that lead-in, or are you just trying to be sensational?
Aubrey
Is was from the article you can see it if you hit the link.
“60% of the troops via campaign donations do not support Bush’s Iraq war strategy? Do the Rush supporters think 60% of the military should leave the military since you think they are not REAL SOLDIERS? And what is a REAL SOLDIER vs. a non- REAL SOLDIER?”
I didn’t see this anywhere in the article. If I missed it, I appologize. Either way, “phony soldiers” is the proper nonmenclature.
What a BS thread.
IF (big if) this is reliable data, then only 40% (so far this year, 40 percent of military money has gone to Democrats for Congress and president, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics.
Geez John, why do you blatantly falsify data? Are you being advised by James Carville and forehead Begalla?
You are flat wrong on this one. Based on recent surveys an overwhelming number of soldiers are conservative or adhere to conservative ideals. In fact an overwhelming majority of those serving in the military say they will opt out at the first opportunity should a Democrat be elected president.
John – for Pete’s sake let it go! How often do you need to hear you’re wrong?
Do you continue posting this tripe to be funny? The votes are in John and YOU LOST!
News Hound
John: Real soldiers are ones who serve on a mission and tell the truth about it. “Phony soldiers” are ones who do not serve, lie about it and say they did.
I don’t blame our troops for wanting to get out of Iraq. They kick ass, work like dogs in 110 degree heat and have to listen to phony soldiers spread global lies about them.
John,
Not agreeing with the pack as usual.
But, since Bush isn’t collecting a war chest, I would find it hard to make a hard dollar to hard dollar comparison.
Plus, how do we know ’soldiers’ are making the donations?
Occupation as voluntarily reported by donor?
I do see a huge difference in party to party fund raising in this cycle.
Bush in 2000, primary and general elections, did very, very well as a fundraiser in general.
Fundraising alone can’t WIN the election, but early fundraising and in large amounts can dry up the field in a primary where the donor list is more limited than a general election.
And, we have the lesson of Mr. Whitehouse in the Georgia 10th, don’t we? That fundraising isn’t everything?
Still, very interesting to think about and research further.
MD
There is a reason I mention voluntary reporting of occupation.
Having reviewed hundreds of pages of campaign disclosures, then matching occupations to the listed occupations, the GOP candidates are a joke at reporting occupations.
Lowell Stacy “Casey” Cagle was busted by the weak knee’d Georgia Ethics Commission for NOT reporting the occupations of his contributors.
Now, in general, people give money without saying, “Oh, by the way, I sit on the Board of Directors of your bank, Casey. So list my occupation as Retired or Businessman. Just don’t let people know you and I helped start a bank together so you won’t be seen a having a conflict of interest while on the Banking Committee.”
Ask “Casey” how truthful and accurate he thinks his donors are about their ‘occupation.’
Also, the data was mined from contributions of $200 or more.
I understand for federal reporting there isn’t a lower break out point.
But, and I’m not all that sure, BUT even Aubrey’s fake soldier would have to swallow deep before throwing away $200 in one chunk, eh?
Just some thoughts at large on how poorly campaign finance usually works for the GOP.
MD
John…are you out there. You put forth phony numbers about real soldiers even send it out in a mass email despite full knowledge that it is a lie…defend yourself John or even better, admit you misstated the numbers.
Bart
If you add what Paul got and Dems got in donation the number is low!