Very interesting, nonbipartisan opinions from OUR TROOPS

[giant]

WASHINGTON — When asked whom they would trust as commander in chief, people in military service and their families chose President Bush (search) over Sen. John Kerry (search), a decorated Vietnam veteran, by almost a 3-to-1 margin.

Bush, who served in the Texas Air National Guard, was more trusted by 69 percent while 24 percent said they trusted Kerry more, according to the National Annenberg Election Survey (search) released Friday.

Among all Americans, Bush has a narrower advantage on trust to be commander in chief, 50-41.

The military sample was far more likely to be Republican than Democratic, which could help explain the more favorable view of the president. Four in 10, 43 percent, of the military sample said they were Republicans, while 19 percent said Democrats and 27 percent independents.

Those in the military and their families have a more favorable view of Bush than Americans generally, and they take a more optimistic view about Iraq, the economy and the nation's direction.

A majority in the military sample, 64 percent, said the country is on the right track. Among Americans generally, 55 percent said the country is headed in the wrong direction.

The National Annenberg Election Survey found that seven in 10, 69 percent, had a favorable view of Bush. Only three in 10, 29 percent, had a favorable view of Kerry.

The Annenberg poll, which does not report head-to-head preferences, did not ask the military respondents whom they support for president. The report cited a 1948 law that prohibits polling members of the military about their voting intent.

The poll of 655 in the active military and their families was taken Sept. 22-Oct. 5 and has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 4 percentage points. Their answers were compared to those of 2,436 adults surveyed between Sept. 7-Oct. 3 with a margin of error of plus or minus 2 percenta

 

[Mmmmmm]

Uhhh...

It would be a bit generous to say that the poll was "nonbipartisan" (whatever that means? non-partisan? or do you mean poly-partisan?)

Since the people being polled were Republicans by a more than 2 to 1 margin they are 'very-partisan' (to coin a phrase). And since Bush writes their paychecks and is on record as intending to continue to write many paychecks, the people being surveyed have clearly indicated that they wish to remain gainfull employed.

Then you might want to take a look at how the stats are presented. By my calculation, only 19% of the respondants were Democrats yet 24% favored Kerry as president.

Finally there might be a problem with the poll itself. 27% independent!!! 7 times the national average. Headline should read: Military supports Nader. And what of the other 10% of people polled? Were they the ones who told the biased pollsters to shove it up their asses?

 

[giant]

Ummm, its the opinions of the troops which was being pointed out, be they Republicans or Democrats, its what the people there, fighting in the war actually think and that is what matters not someone in the media or Kerry camp, who all say "we are making catastophic errors and heading in the wrong directions" and "they would most certainly have done everything different"

I was pointing out what those who dont have anything to gain or lose (you can disregard your paycheck theory, I mean really...soldiers know President Bush doesnt write their checks...how silly)by the election,(both candidates are promising mostly the same thing, in fact Kerry kinda borrowed Bushs Plan) and therefore are expressing an honest opinion, hence my bipartisan statement.

I do agree with you that polls for the most part are dizzying and not all that important, however this one sheds light on what the people doing the work in the war actually believe and that is, that America is heading in the right direction.

Peace

> It would be a bit generous to say that the poll was
> "nonbipartisan" (whatever that means? non-partisan? or do you
> mean poly-partisan?)

> Since the people being polled were Republicans by a more than 2 to 1
> margin they are 'very-partisan' (to coin a phrase). And since Bush writes
> their paychecks and is on record as intending to continue to write many
> paychecks, the people being surveyed have clearly indicated that they wish
> to remain gainfull employed.

> Then you might want to take a look at how the stats are presented. By my
> calculation, only 19% of the respondants were Democrats yet 24% favored
> Kerry as president.

> Finally there might be a problem with the poll itself. 27% independent!!!
> 7 times the national average. Headline should read: Military supports
> Nader. And what of the other 10% of people polled? Were they the ones who
> told the biased pollsters to shove it up their asses?

 

[MMFA]

What does this prove?

The military has pretty much always voted for the Republicans.

Why wouldn't they? Over the years, who has usually been the ones to put food on their tables? Loyalty matters in the military. In fact, I'd say loyalty is the lifeblood of the military. Strange as it sounds, the military's going to be the *last* in line to blame the White House and the Pentagon. Quoting them is like quoting the NRA.

I'm sure this poll sounds nice, but it's just as easy to go around the web and find letters written by soldiers in Iraq complaining about the war. Just today there was a story out of Iraq about a National Guard unit that refused a "suicide mission" to deliver contaminated fuel.

Also, the people fighting the war are not the ones in charge. Nor should they be. They're there to do a job. They are professionals who follow orders. Bush is their commander-in-chief, and all they've been told about Kerry is that he's a wimp who takes orders from Paris. They've been lied to about Kerry voting against supplies for them, when, first of all, Kerry was doing no such thing, and secondly, Bush threatened to veto the same $87B bill. On November 2 they'll vote Bush and in large numbers. No surprise whatsoever.

But what are the facts that *we* can see?

When many key parts of the country are under insurgent control; when rockets and mortars are killing people in the Green Zone in Baghdad; when the Iraqi people regularly express serious suspicions of the interim government as American cronies; when there are daily reports of the military accidentally killing women and children, failing to reconstruct the Iraqi infrastructure, and in other ways utterly losing the war for "hearts and minds"; when all those things are apparent, how is a "nonbipartisan" (uh...) poll of military families going to steer you away from the facts?

The war was a mistake. America is not "on the right track", nor is Iraq. That ticking clock you hear is the countdown until the CIA or some other intelligence body declares Iraq an impossible mission to win. That will be a sad day for America-- and an even sadder day for Iraq, which will slide into a civil war-- and it will be truly sobering to see all the idiotic right-wingers in this country refuse to face the facts of their zealotry and gross incompetence and blame Michael Moore instead.

All of this is true now. More will come out. In a year or two Iraq, today, will seem like Shangri-La. Look at the record since Bush declared "Mission Accomplished": No WMDs, so the case for war has crumbled. The Pentagon's number one "inside" man turned out to be a spy. Attacks against the military are up. U.S. popularity is at an all-time low. Al-Qaeda is having a field day. One by one people are coming forward in Washington to say either "We were wrong" or "The war isn't going well". Everything Bush told us has been either a blatant lie or a serious miscalculation, and we are far from hearing the last of his mistakes.

I mean, the fuselage is smoking, half the windows are knocked out, the fuel is gone, the wings have been sheared off, and the computer is on the fritz-- yet people are still saying this plane isn't going to crash? Just how much more do you need to see? How hard are you really looking?

Kerry isn't going to radically change things. If anything, Kerry is status quo, a centrist who'll do a little here and a little there and that's about it. But Bush and his people are radicals-- do you comprehend that? I'm certain of this much. Four years of Kerry will be vastly superior to four more years of Bush-- four more years of disaster overseas and rollbacks of constitutional freedoms here at home.

This is what really amazes me. I have no problem with people who don't love John Kerry as if he were the second coming of Abraham Lincoln or John Kennedy. He's not. But you know what? People are attacking Kerry for what he *might* do. And very few people on the Right are looking at what George Bush has *already done*. Clear case of a hypothetical bad President versus one who has already earned himself the distinction of being (as I've said many times) the WORST President in the history of the nation.

Something doesn't add up. Historians are going to have a field day picking apart this president's horrific four years in office. I wonder what the polls will say then?

 

[giant]

Re: What does this prove?

I think you watch too much TV, history is bound to be indebt to Bush, your just jumping on the bandwagon...its easy to bash when its an ardous task..

what does it say then

that most of the Military are Republicans?

It says to me, that they stand up for their country and do something, "action" I believe is the word and not sit on the fence like most liberals complaining and telling us all how it SHOULD HAVE been done. Laughable.

> The military has pretty much always voted for the Republicans.

> Why wouldn't they? Over the years, who has usually been the ones to put
> food on their tables? Loyalty matters in the military. In fact, I'd say
> loyalty is the lifeblood of the military. Strange as it sounds, the
> military's going to be the *last* in line to blame the White House and the
> Pentagon. Quoting them is like quoting the NRA.

> I'm sure this poll sounds nice, but it's just as easy to go around the web
> and find letters written by soldiers in Iraq complaining about the war.
> Just today there was a story out of Iraq about a National Guard unit that
> refused a "suicide mission" to deliver contaminated fuel.

> Also, the people fighting the war are not the ones in charge. Nor should
> they be. They're there to do a job. They are professionals who follow
> orders. Bush is their commander-in-chief, and all they've been told about
> Kerry is that he's a wimp who takes orders from Paris. They've been lied
> to about Kerry voting against supplies for them, when, first of all, Kerry
> was doing no such thing, and secondly, Bush threatened to veto the same
> $87B bill. On November 2 they'll vote Bush and in large numbers. No
> surprise whatsoever.

> But what are the facts that *we* can see?

> When many key parts of the country are under insurgent control; when
> rockets and mortars are killing people in the Green Zone in Baghdad; when
> the Iraqi people regularly express serious suspicions of the interim
> government as American cronies; when there are daily reports of the
> military accidentally killing women and children, failing to reconstruct
> the Iraqi infrastructure, and in other ways utterly losing the war for
> "hearts and minds"; when all those things are apparent, how is a
> "nonbipartisan" (uh...) poll of military families going to steer
> you away from the facts?

> The war was a mistake. America is not "on the right track", nor
> is Iraq. That ticking clock you hear is the countdown until the CIA or
> some other intelligence body declares Iraq an impossible mission to win.
> That will be a sad day for America-- and an even sadder day for Iraq,
> which will slide into a civil war-- and it will be truly sobering to see
> all the idiotic right-wingers in this country refuse to face the facts of
> their zealotry and gross incompetence and blame Michael Moore instead.

> All of this is true now. More will come out. In a year or two Iraq, today,
> will seem like Shangri-La. Look at the record since Bush declared
> "Mission Accomplished": No WMDs, so the case for war has
> crumbled. The Pentagon's number one "inside" man turned out to
> be a spy. Attacks against the military are up. U.S. popularity is at an
> all-time low. Al-Qaeda is having a field day. One by one people are coming
> forward in Washington to say either "We were wrong" or "The
> war isn't going well". Everything Bush told us has been either a
> blatant lie or a serious miscalculation, and we are far from hearing the
> last of his mistakes.

> I mean, the fuselage is smoking, half the windows are knocked out, the
> fuel is gone, the wings have been sheared off, and the computer is on the
> fritz-- yet people are still saying this plane isn't going to crash? Just
> how much more do you need to see? How hard are you really looking?

> Kerry isn't going to radically change things. If anything, Kerry is status
> quo, a centrist who'll do a little here and a little there and that's
> about it. But Bush and his people are radicals-- do you comprehend that?
> I'm certain of this much. Four years of Kerry will be vastly superior to
> four more years of Bush-- four more years of disaster overseas and
> rollbacks of constitutional freedoms here at home.

> This is what really amazes me. I have no problem with people who don't
> love John Kerry as if he were the second coming of Abraham Lincoln or John
> Kennedy. He's not. But you know what? People are attacking Kerry for what
> he *might* do. And very few people on the Right are looking at what George
> Bush has *already done*. Clear case of a hypothetical bad President versus
> one who has already earned himself the distinction of being (as I've said
> many times) the WORST President in the history of the nation.

> Something doesn't add up. Historians are going to have a field day picking
> apart this president's horrific four years in office. I wonder what the
> polls will say then?

 

[MMFA]

Re: What does this prove?

Thanks for the laugh.