October 06, 2004
Kerry Leads In Key Endorsements
I watched recently, a CNN interview with an American soldier just back from Iraq, in a segment about his home state of Florida’s status as a key battleground state. The young white male was obviously inebriated, slurring his words and the glassy look to his face, suggested more than mere alcohol intake. It was not a reassuring image for us grateful and empathetic Americans, but I was angrier with CNN for showing a brave warrior in such an unflattering light. I could make out absolutely none of his comments, however the voiceover followed up by clarifying his intention to vote for Bush.
We now know that 30 of 35 foreign nations are pulling for a Kerry victory in November, news that is the equivalent of peyote for Freepers everywhere. And, although some on the Right have tried to massage certain overtures by 9/11 families, presently only 5 widows have publicly endorsed a candidate - John Kerry. We know the largest Police union in the country has switched and endorsed Kerry, and he also has the endorsement of the country’s largest Firefighter’s union.
In fact, at johnkerry.com an entire section is devoted to his impressive list of endorsements (presently at 61), which is spread over 6 web pages. Conversely, there is no section of georgewbush.com devoted to his list of endorsements. In fact, the results of a search for ‘endorsements’ brings back 73 items, some of which are endorsements (in news items that are repeated); many of which are Republican Party member’s endorsements (again, some repeated); and, the remainder are Kerry flogging articles filed under the moniker, The Boston Fog.
This little exercise of mine was triggered by this stray news item detailing one recent endorsement of George Bush – by a group of Black Gay Republicans.
Alan Keyes, Armstrong Williams, Don King and the other Brothers Of The Sell-Out, were bearable, if only to remind us of that brilliant television character, George Jefferson. And, just when we thought the political masochism of Andrew Sullivan and the Log Cabin Republicans could be the closest one gets to possibly utilize the ‘safe’ word, some Black queens calling themselves the Abe Lincoln Black Republican Caucus, feel the need to show out!
Don’t bother Googling for an ALBRC website, because it does not exist. I thought about posting the email address of the group’s leaders out of spite. Though, had it been a week earlier, I probably would have. But, I’ve come across my share of Gay Republicans, living lives of desperate anonymity that they’d go to the extreme of defiantly supporting their persecutor, just to garner attention.
But, that Florida soldier on CNN made me wonder what percentage of our men and women in uniform, are supporting Kerry, and what percentage are supporting Bush?
This query has brought back the images and words of those American soldiers in Fahrenheit 911, and the anguish and anger of the American soldier’s mother featured, who had lost her son in Iraq. And, the maltreatment of another grieving mother, who was simply exercising her right to free speech. Bush apologists, when put in the impossible position of defending the President’s handling of the war, are now countering all such criticism as an act of aiding the enemy, or putting our troops at greater risk. Yet, another heinous truth an easily duplicitous American electorate is unaware of, are the documented evidence of abuse of our fighting men and woman, at the hands of a cynical administration exploiting them politically.
In the week prior to November’s General Election, look for the nation’s editorial pages to finally choose up sides in this Presidential contest. Although, I am looking forward to reading the justification for a Bush endorsement (Chicago Tribunes’ R. Bruce Dold is probably on his 5th draft), it will not be until far after the election is over, I’ll learn the answer to a more burning question.
Could the warrior defenders of this country and their families, who have suffered the most under Bush, actually yearn for another four years of the same maltreatment?
Bert, there’s no question why CNN would choose to represent our servicemen (the vast majority of whom support Bush enthusiastically) with a drunk soldier. It’s part of how the media shapes its message—this is a little subtler than forging documents, but not much.
They could easily have found many sober soldiers to talk about why they support Bush and the war in Iraq, but of course they find the drunkest one possible. It’s how the game is played. Do you think that CNN would ever put on the air a strung-out junky voicing his affection for John Kerry? Of course not. Their bias doesn’t work in that direction.
Here’s info related to your question.
And in New York, one of the most left-leaning cities in the nation but the one hit hardest by 9-11, the the firefighter’s union has endorsed Bush.
This is very interesting, actually. The soldiers and the firemen effected most by terrorism support Bush. Perhaps it’s because they, more than anyone, have seen first-hand what the stakes are in the war against the terrorists.
Basically, the closer you are to the reality of the world’s problem, the more you support Bush.
Ok Martin…
I’ll bite! First, if the very same soldier had expressed support for Kerry instead, would you have expressed the same outrage?
Second, read thru my post again, carefully. As you’ve pointed out, we’re well aware that Veterans prefer Bush over Kerry, but not because of Iraq, or anything to do with the current state of this country. Yes, a number of them ‘know’ someone fighting in Iraq, but if you’re not gonna take the word of Col. Killian’s secretary, your implied hearsay doesn’t cut the mustard.
My query deals solely with soldiers in uniform, on active duty! I understand such public expressions are against the Uniform Code of Conduct, and producing such examples of Bush’s support would’ve greatly strengthen your argument. Yes, Bush enjoyed overwhelming support back in 2000, but you have no way of knowing the answer to my question either.
We do know, the military commanders despise their civilian bosses at the Pentagon, especially Rumsfeld. We know a recent call up of reserves resulted in 1/3 of them failing to report. And, then there is this curious item that casts doubt on your assumptions.
And, we’ve been over this NY Firefighter issue previously, with you failing to respond to this next personal observation.
Your dismissal of the Kerry endorsement by the 180,000+ national union is bothersome enough. But, could you explain how the Kerry endorsement by the 2,900 NY Firefighter Officer Union -who also ‘…have seen first-hand, what the stakes are in the war on Terrorism’- have no significance for you?
Here is why most support John Kerry.
Posted by: Bert M. Caradine at October 7, 2004 01:06 AMThanks for biting. First off, I readily concede that most unions are vastly more likely to support a Democratic candidate in any election. This is a well-established pattern.
I respect unions greatly, actually and even belong to TWO of them (they make many important contributions to ensuring the rights of workers). But their leadership is usually top-down, and the activists who tend to dominate union leadership are able to issue endorsements with or without the support of the rank and file.
This explains quite nicely why an organization of firefighting officers with a membership of 2,900 supports Kerry while the NY firefighter’s organization with 86,000 members supports Bush.
I fail to understand what point you’re making about Killian’s aged secretary? Are you referring to her insistance that the documents CBS used to smear the president are forgeries? Because that’s what she said.
And yes, I would have the same opinion if the soldier interviewed voiced opinions in favor of Nader, Kerry or anybody. I’d say get your damned mike out of that fellow’s face and buy him another drink, ya putzes. He just got back from fighting terrorists and protecting America and he deserves better than CNN’s sleazy political version of Girls Gone Wild.
Posted by: Martin at October 7, 2004 01:38 AMwe’re well aware that Veterans prefer Bush over Kerry
Except, curiously, the most top ranking veterans.
Also I ran across this CSM article about growing numbers of soldiers in Iraq speaking out against Bush,
broader surveys of US military personnel and their spouses in recent years indicate they are more likely to be conservative and Republican than the US civilian population - but not overwhelmingly so.A Military Times survey last December of 933 subscribers, about 30 percent of whom had deployed for the Iraq war, found that 56 percent considered themselves Republican - about the same percentage who approved of Bush’s handling of Iraq.
Interesting,
One Marine officer in Ramadi who had lost several men said he was thinking about throwing his medals over the White House wall.“Nobody I know wants Bush,” says an enlisted soldier in Najaf, adding, “This whole war was based on lies.” Like several others interviewed, his animosity centered on a belief that the war lacked a clear purpose even as it took a tremendous toll on US troops, many of whom are in Iraq involuntarily under “stop loss” orders that keep them in the service for months beyond their scheduled exit in order to keep units together during deployments.
“There’s no clear definition of why we came here,” says Army Spc. Nathan Swink, of Quincy, Ill. “First they said they have WMD and nuclear weapons, then it was to get Saddam Hussein out of office, and then to rebuild Iraq. I want to fight for my nation and for my family, to protect the United States against enemies foreign and domestic, not to protect Iraqi civilians or deal with Sadr’s militia,” he said.
The phrase most often used by these guys appears to be, “We shouldn’t be here.”
“We shouldn’t be here,” said one Marine infantryman bluntly. “There was no reason for invading this country in the first place. We just came here and [angered people] and killed a lot of innocent people,” said the marine, who has seen regular combat in Ramadi. “I don’t enjoy killing women and children, it’s not my thing.”
Interesting.
Martin wrote:
Basically, the closer you are to the reality of the world’s problem, the more you support Bush.
Hmm… so we can conclude that New Yorkers and Washingtontians support Bush, while people who are safe in say, Idaho, support Kerry?
Reminds me of a woman who wrote a letter to the Wall Street Journal claiming that the New Yorkers who marched against Bush must not know anyone who was killed in a terrorist attack. She lived in Sugarland, Texas. (Which doesn’t mean she didn’t know anyone, but the contrast is rather striking.)
the NY firefighter’s organization with 86,000 members supports Bush
Man, those are a LOT Of firefighters. No wonder you guys have high taxes. ;)
Posted by: Woody Mena at October 7, 2004 08:23 AMThe problem for kerry and the Democrats isn’t that Republicans steal elections, its that they are stealing their base.
The reason is the issues that the left embraces.
The union autoworkers know that kerry’s proposed mileage standards will hurt them, and many don’t care for all his anti-gun votes. They have also seen the surveys that show that Bush supporters tend to drive what they build(trucks and suv’s), while Kerry supporters tend to drive Japan’s nonunion autos( toyota, honda, ect.),,,OOPS !
As a % of the group, blacks and hispanics are far more opposed to gay marriage than any other group….OOPS !
A large % of minoritys would like to see a voucher system, so they could get their kids out of failing schools and into better schools where their kids could learn something…OOPS !
The problem, you see..is the Internet…now everyone can check the facts, voting records ect., without depending on a liberal media to spoon feed their agenda to them.
Democrats now curse the day that Al Gore invented that !!
Posted by: Beagle at October 7, 2004 09:25 AM“Could the warrior defenders of this country and their families, who have suffered the most under Bush, actually yearn for another four years of the same maltreatment?”
Instead of hoping for a way to blame even more stuff on Bush, why not ask this:
“Just how bad is kerry? When the soldiers who have suffered the most under Bush would still rather have Bush as their leader instead of kerry?”
Soldiers are not dumb. We know that liberal administrations do not support the military. Case in point - clinton! He totally dismantled us.
Why would someone vote for a boss, when they know that persons views, does not support them?
People can spin numbers to mean whatever they want them to mean. People can say “we support our troops, just not when they are under this commander in chief,” but until the left realizes the truth, the military will continue to be overwhelmingly Republican.
Is it because of the lefts history and views of the military? or is it as simple as, Republicans love their country more and are more willing to fight for her?
Right now I will stick with the former. But sometimes I can be alittle to generous in my assumptions.
Bert:
Please don’t use any Fahrenheit 911 info. to help prove what you post anymore. This is a purely partisan piece of disinformation. He only offers his opinions and what he thinks happened. No real facts to help back it up. Not good.
Instead, use “9-11 The Road to Tyranny” by Alex Jones. It is where moore stole most of his ideas from. And Mr. Jones supports all his movie with official documents and interviews. Jones is no flaming liberal who hates America, like moore, in fact, Jones is a conservative. The way he brings Bush to task is very admirable. He makes the liberals on here seem like conservatives when it comes to 9-11.
I think this will help you with future postings.
Watch Frontline, kctim. What Moore alleged is only the tip of the iceberg about Iraq.
This not about filtering out the biases, this about filtering out the B.S.’s The facts can always be extracted regardless of the slants put on them. Biases are simply a human fact of life.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 7, 2004 06:15 PMWell, I can remember when nine out of ten doctors recommended Lucky Strike cigarettes.
They were wrong also.
Posted by: NOTOTH at October 7, 2004 07:42 PM> … while the NY firefighter’s organization
> with 86,000 members supports Bush.
That’s 8,600, Martin. Nice try. Is that Bush Math?
-Cf
Posted by: Christopher Fahey at October 7, 2004 09:43 PMuntil the left realizes the truth, the military will continue to be overwhelmingly Republican.
Except that the military isn’t overwhelmingly Republican as pointed out by the CSM,
broader surveys of US military personnel and their spouses in recent years indicate they are more likely to be conservative and Republican than the US civilian population - but not overwhelmingly so.A Military Times survey last December of 933 subscribers, about 30 percent of whom had deployed for the Iraq war, found that 56 percent considered themselves Republican - about the same percentage who approved of Bush’s handling of Iraq.
kctim, is your belief based on some statistics, or just from talking to your Republican buddies on the base?
AP: kctim has dug up the old “military is overwhelmingly Republican” myth before, I’ve proven him wrong with actual data, and he still sticks by it. So it goes.
-Cf
Posted by: Christopher Fahey at October 8, 2004 10:29 AMkctim,
If you go back and re-read what I actually wrote, you’ll see I referred to the images and words of those American soldiers, and the anguish and anger of the soldier’s mother. And, in stark contrast to Iraqi PM Allawi’s speech before Congress, what they expressed were truly their own feelings.
But, while we’re swapping writing tips on the proper use of reputable source material, am I allowed to use the No WMDs’ in Iraq Report to say the war was unjustified?
Posted by: Bert M. Caradine at October 8, 2004 03:43 PM
