Thursday, February 07, 2008

John McCain the Best Choice for Veterans -- NOT!

No, really. I know there exists a peculiar mindset among veterans that predisposes them to vote for McCain because "he's one of us", he knows the trials and tribulations that veterans have gone through, etc etc ad inifinitum ad nauseum.

Bullshit.

Just take a look at former Army sergeant Michael Bailey's compilation of the voting records of the top three existing candidates, McCain, Clinton and Obama, at What Veterans Should Know in Order to Vote.

Check out these statistics, all of them based on their respective 2006 voting records in the Senate:

· McCain supported the interests of the Disabled American Veterans 20 percent.
· Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America gave McCain a grade of D.
· McCain sponsored or co-sponsored 18 percent of the legislation favored by the The Retired Enlisted Association.
· Clinton supported the interests of the Disabled American Veterans 80 percent.
· Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America gave Clinton a grade of A-.
· Clinton sponsored or co-sponsored 41 percent of the legislation favored by the The Retired Enlisted Association in 2006.
· Obama supported the interests of the Disabled American Veterans 80 percent.
· Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America gave Obama a grade of B+.
· Obama sponsored or co-sponsored 12 percent of the legislation favored by the The Retired Enlisted Association.
These are not minor issues. These are issues of utmost importance to veterans. And you can see that both Democratic candidates outpaced McCain by a long shot in nearly every category.

And yet I'd hazard a guess that the vast majority of those veterans are going to vote for McCain. Because he's "one of us"...

At this point, I'd have to say that a veteran voting for John McCain is like a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders.

Please pass the word to your friends who are veterans and see if you can change their minds with facts.

31 Comments:

pepsiholic said...

Hey Farns, there's another reason that Vets would pick McCain over Osama Hussein or Shillary... National Defense. There a reason that democrats are perceived weak in that area... because they are.

Farnsworth68 said...

Really? Prove up!

SuLee said...

PH can't "prove up." He hasn't yet received that script page from the Rethugs.

--SuLee

pepsiholic said...

Easy, just look at Jimmy Carter, the Iranians held the hostages for how long? What happened to the when Ray-gun took charge? How about Clinton? Always promising to get those terrorists... always sending missiles to empty terrorist training camps.

Or... just look at the "cut and run" demorats of today. If we bleed, they run. The demorats of today are nothing but a bunch of cheese eating surrender monkeys (my apologies to the French, I believe they have more of a spine than the liberals do).

pepsiholic said...

OK, here goes... keep your fingers crossed :)

Here's how a demorat descibes your
problem Since then, there's been plenty of hand-wringing among the leadership and rank-and-file Democrats about how politically inept the party appeared in the face of Bush's saber rattling. But that's the problem. Democrats are in this position precisely because we respond to matters of war politically, tactically. We worry about how to position ourselves so as not to look weak, rather than thinking through realistic, sensible Democratic principles on how and when to employ military force, and arguing particular cases, such as Iraq, from those principles. There are a lot of reasons for this failure, including the long-time split within the party between hawks and doves. But we will never resolve that split, nor regain credibility with voters on national security, until we learn to think straight about war. And we will never learn to think straight about war until this generation of professional Democrats overcomes its ignorance of and indifference to military affairs.

pepsiholic said...

Hey Farns, have I "prove up" enough for yah?

Farnsworth68 said...

Not really. Quoting one dickwad Dem's shithead mutterings isn't any kind of proof at all. The link you gave (nice HTML work, BTW!) was an opinion piece that carries about as much weight in the proof department as the insane ramblings of Slanthead Hannity or Rush the dopehead Limbaugh.
Let's see some cold hard facts to back up your opinions of us traitorous leftwingers.

pepsiholic said...

Some cold hard facts? That's easy. Just look at Moveon.org and their General Betray-us add. Demorats were calling him a liar, a lackey for Bush before he even testified. Demorats would rather us lose in Iraq and Afghanistan then Bush get any credit. Winning the political war is more important to demorats.

pepsiholic said...

"Quoting one dickwad Dem's shithead mutterings isn't any kind of proof at all."

Uh Farns, did you read the entire article? You apprear to be the only one muttering. I thought it gave a very good analysis and so would you if you would stop with your knee jerk reactions.... Oh, It's proving me wrong so I'll just use the old fallback liberal policy of blaming the messenger.

From the same article:
The issues that drive most contemporary Democrats into politics are reproductive rights, health care, fiscal policy, or poverty, not national security. Even those young Democrats who are interested in foreign affairs tend to be drawn to "soft" subjects
such as debt relief and human rights. Aspiring foreign policy wonks will often get pulled into military affairs by way of, say, their work on demining. But when these young people visualize exciting jobs in the next Democratic administration, they think State Department, not Pentagon.

Just as GOP operatives have little incentive to focus on race and inner-city issues because such activism seldom wins the party votes, Democrats feel little pressure from core supporters to think seriously about military issues. This doesn't mean that most Democrats are anti-military, any more than most Republicans are racist. But it does mean that Democrats have little institutional credibility on security issues--same with Republicans on race. Recognizing its vulnerability, each side gets truculent rather than sensibly responsive when confronted by the issues.

Farnsworth68 said...

Nah, PH, I was just tweaking ya.
For some real analysis and facts surrounding the Democrats as "cheese eating surrender monkeys" (I can tell from that that you are a big fan of rightwing talk radio) who are shunned by the military, all of whom love Bush and the Rethugs, take a look at these:
· Admiral Fallon Calls Petraeus "ass-kissing little chickenshit"
· Former Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Merrill A. (Tony) McPeak cites Obama’s "judgment," "insight" and "courage" and calls him "our best hope to restore our security and standing in today's world"
· U.S. generals call for Democratic takeover
· US generals ‘will quit’ if Bush orders Iran attack
· Generals Opposing Iraq War Break with Military Tradition
· Military Leaders: Ignore Bush Veto Threat, Ban Waterboarding

There are lots more; these are just the ones from the first Google search results page.

Farnsworth68 said...

Oh, and here's another statistic that blows your whole thesis out of the water:
"The Military Times released its annual poll of active-duty service members, and the results showed something virtually unprecedented: a one-year decline of 10 percentage points in the number of military personnel identifying themselves as Republicans. In the 2004 poll, the percentage of military respondents who characterized themselves as Republicans stood at 60%. By the end of 2005, that had dropped to 56%. And by the end of 2006, the percentage of military Republicans plummeted to 46%."

pepsiholic said...

"Two retired senior Army generals, who served in Iraq and previously voted Republican, are now openly endorsing a Democratic takeover of Congress."

"five or six admirals and generals will quit if Bush attacks Iran"

Lol, wow you've found a couple disgruntled people, imagine that!!!

And so far, I see NOTHING that blows my thesis that the American people think democrats are soft on National Security... because they are.

pepsiholic said...

(I can tell from that that you are a big fan of rightwing talk radio) who are shunned by the military.

What, don't you consider Rush and Hannity to be rightwing talk radio?

pepsiholic said...

Farns, as usual, your "logic" totally escapes me. The number of self identified republicans in the military has decreased so that somehow in your twisted logic means the American people don't think demorats are soft on National Security?

This I have to hear... Flail away..

Farnsworth68 said...

Wow, PH, you are terrific! You are still plucking items that you see as low-hanging fruit, and elevating them to immensely high importance.
In the words of your undoubtedly revered and sainted hero, Ronnie Raygun, "there you go again".
The Military.com poll? Same thing. You are ignoring the fact that while the number of self-described Rethugs shrank, the number of self-identified Democrats increased. Pretty shocking, don't you think, for a party that's "soft" on national security? What is wrong with those people?
Also this debate was not over whether the American people view the Dems as soft on national security--the debate was over you saying that the Dems are soft. Pretty big difference, I'd say.
And WTF with Rush and Slanthead? I don't think you read my post very carefully: "cheese eating surrender monkeys" has become, I believe, wingnut talk radio slang for Dems. And that wingnut talk radio includes the two heroes you cite.
But I'm not at all sure whether those two actually used it. I don't listen enough to hear them actually say anything. But I have the feeling that no matter how long I listened, they still wouldn't say anything. But it still would surprise me very much if they have never used it on their entertainment shows.
It was Tucker Carlson whom I first heard uttering that deathlessly incisive phrase. But he didn't make it up, either (although he might be thinking a little better now that he dropped wearing those sissy-looking bow ties and allowed for a little blood to actually reach his brain...). No doubt it's part of the wingnut Rethug script that they all get every morning. That's why they have all come out against McCain -- and they all use the same phraseology. But yeah, I'm sure that's just a coincidence.
Oh, and just to make you feel better: flail flail flail

drainbamage said...

McCain said he would close getmo and stop torture by US.

I don't want the clinton/bush empire anymore.

I am going to the democratic caucus and vote for Obama.

PH, did you forget that regan was exposed for going to France before the election and some how 3 million of their dollars got into Iran bank accounts? Then after the election they just let the hostages go.

I agree with the dems having no spine, but what do you mean by cut and run? Following the will of the majority? I suppose we should continue to fight a war that is based in lies?

At least Carter had an energy program and encouraged conservation.

And when you say "Demorats would rather us lose in Iraq and Afghanistan then Bush get any credit."

You do not appear to say we have a chance of winning just the democrats want us to lose. Either way you seem to have lost it here. The only way we could "win in Iraq" is if we are there for 50 + years and we can change the mind set of the entire Iraq population through very creative brainwashing.

pepsiholic said...

Drainbamaged, So what if we are in Iraq 50+ years? Aren't we still in Germany and Japan? And what "lies" were used? Can you please show me proof or will I get the typical liberal response that there were no WMD so obviously Bush lied? As I told Farns before, a lie is when you know something isn't true. A lie isn't just being wrong. When John Kerry stood in front of his supporters in October of 2004 and declared that he was going to be the next President of the United States, do we now say in 2007 that he is a liar because he was wrong?

Farns bud... I know you have a really terrible times with numbers (ex. 700,000 killed in Iraq) But you stated:

"The Military.com poll? Same thing. You are ignoring the fact that while the number of self-described Rethugs shrank, the number of self-identified Democrats increased. Pretty shocking, don't you think, for a party that's "soft" on national security?

How is a DECREASE in the number of military people who call themselves democrats from 2006 (16%) to 2007 (14.4%) an increase?

So much low hanging fruit, so little time...

pepsiholic said...

Farns... "No doubt it's part of the wingnut Rethug script that they all get every morning."

Are you talking about the Rethug script that shot down Harriet Myers? Or... How about the illegal alien amnesty bill?

Demorats are the only ones I see that have scripts. Just ask Joe Lieberman what happens if he doesn't follow lockstep with the Nazi Brownshirts in his party.

McCain will still be a republican at the end of the day. Is Lieberman still a democrat or did you guys kick him out for having "unclean" views?

pepsiholic said...

Drainbamaged,

"PH, did you forget that regan was exposed for going to France before the election and some how 3 million of their dollars got into Iran bank accounts? Then after the election they just let the hostages go."

When I googled the article I also came up with these: •Smells Like Murder- The Death of Kurt Cobain

•One Giant Hoax- The Apollo Moon Landing

•Death, Drugs and Rock'n'Roll-Who killed Jimi Hendrix?


Dude, reading that stuff will rot your brain!!! Whoops... too late! ;)

pepsiholic said...

Farns, "No doubt it's part of the wingnut Rethug script that they all get every morning."

Is this what you are talking about?

pepsiholic said...

I don't think you read my post very carefully: "cheese eating surrender monkeys" has become, I believe, wingnut talk radio slang for Dems.

Actually Farns, it was the print media:

The line was first picked up and used predominantly by Republican American politicians and publications. They were led, according to the British national newspaper The Guardian, by Jonah Goldberg, a popular columnist for the US bi-weekly National Review and editor of their website National Review Online.[1] Goldberg's online-only column, the G-File, is written in a more casual, personal manner and in the late 1990s often contained Simpsons (and other pop-cultural) references. Goldberg's repeated aggressive use of the phrase "cheese-eating surrender monkeys" led to its more widespread use amongst his readers.

rootytooty said...

When voting please consider this. Most of us Vets that served our country always know that the military comes out better during a Democratic Administration. The Republicans enjoy sending us to war but don't want to take care of when we come home. If most vets were being very honest they would say the same thing. I don't want a President who sends us to "wars of choice" and then cuts VA benefits, wants to stop combat pay, makes them pay for their meals while in the hospital with life threatening injuries, stops their enlistment bonus when they are seriously injured or killed because of a war they were sent to, Tells the Congress that the soldiers are not worth the amount of the pay raise when at war, hides the fatally injured soldiers from public view so that the public doesn't see the "real human cost of war" and then puts out misinformation on the numbers of the seriously wounded, doesn't give them the best equipment to fight a war and doesn't even give them all the basics to subsist on.

Farnsworth68 said...

PH, I'm starting to hate the fact that I urged you to learn some HTML...
Okay, it appears that I was a little bit mistaken about the number of Dems increasing. Actually it was the number of independents, and I apparently misread the stats.
But unlike many people, I am willing to man up when I'm wrong and confess my sins.
Sort of...
And forget about the whole cheese thing. As usual, I never once said or implied that it originated in wingnut talk radio. But..."there you go again".

pepsiholic said...

"But unlike many people, I am willing to man up when I'm wrong and confess my sins.
Sort of..."

Now we need to work on that 700,000 deaths... especially since there's a newer, larger and more accurate survey ;)

pepsiholic said...

Rootytooty, that's funny. When I was in I remember all the grumbling that if a democrat was elected, there would be no pay raise and money to the military would be cut.

And most of that other stuff you stated... that was pretty much bureaucratic rules and you know that... just like the "doesn't give them the best equipment to fight a war" is pretty dishonest... but what do you expect from a liberal?

Anonymous said...

that's because you hung around with your other rightwinger buddies and probably all you did was bitch about the liberals. it's easy to say that but where's the facts to back it up? i don't know when you were in, but did the democrats not give you the pay raise you thought you deserved and cut the military? if you can't bring up some facts then your raving is like rain on the roof. it's irritating and loud but it runs off into the gutter. where it belongs.

pepsiholic said...

"that's because you hung around with your other rightwinger buddies and probably all you did was bitch about the liberals."

The only problem with that idea is that I was a democrat at the time.

pepsiholic said...

Ok, I researched it and Carter's military pay increases were in line with other Presidents but here's probably what I remember:

During his first month in office Carter cut the defense budget by $6 billion. One of his first acts was to order the unilateral removal of all nuclear weapons from South Korea and announce his intention to cut back the number of US troops stationed there. Other military men confined intense criticism of the withdrawal to private conversations or testimony before congressional committees, but in 1977 Major General John K. Singlaub, chief of staff of U.S. forces in South Korea, publicly criticized President Carter's decision to lower the U.S. troop level there. On March 21, 1977, Carter relieved him of duty, saying his publicly stated sentiments were "inconsistent with announced national security policy". (if Bush had done that you guys would have been all over him) [33][34] Carter planned to remove all but 14,000 U.S. air force personnel and logistics specialists by 1982, but after cutting only 3,600 troops, he was forced to abandon the effort in 1978. [18]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Carter

Farnsworth68 said...

Jeez, and you had to go back only 30 years to find a Democrat who appeared to try to cut military funding.
To most people in the military today, that's about as ancient as the Third Punic War.
Got anything later, or does Anonymous have you by the short ones?
(BTW, in case you're speechless, here's the reason you don't have anything later: We've had only one Democratic president since then, and he didn't do it.)
It doesn't surprise me at all that you bring up Singlaub. He was an active member of the Orwellian-named World League for Freedom and Democracy, which has been described by a former member as "largely a collection of Nazis, Fascists, anti-Semites, sellers of forgeries, vicious racialists, and corrupt self-seekers." (Singlaub has been credited with allegedly getting rid of all these types from the organization, but you gotta wonder why he even joined it to begin with, and subsequently what prompted him to do the purge.)
And yes, he was fired by Carter. Just as MacArthur was fired by Truman (another Dem! OMFG!!!). For largely the same reason. You were in the military, so you know that publicly criticizing your commander is a no-no. And it goes way beyond "no-no" when your commander happens to be the president of the US and you are one of his top generals.

Pepsiholic said...

Uh Farns, if you were following the thread closer, you would see that we were talking about when I was in the service.

Farnsworth68 said...

Damn! Okay, that's twice in a week. We actually were talking about when you were in the service.
I'm gonna have to start paying closer attention. I don't want to end up like you...