On Jun 7, 1:48 pm, "WF Peifer" <WFPei...@NoSpam.com> wrote:

"Eraser" <eraser92...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:1181228054.568178.301420@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...

First of all, I don't listen to Rush. Secondly (and anecdotally), I
was recently stationed aboard the USS Enterprise during the 2006 world
cruise. I have had the oppotunity to talk politics with MANY in the
military and have found them to be almost exclusively Republican. In
fact, I was surprised when I saw a West Point study by Dempsey,
Shapiro and Cummings which concludes that the military self-identifies
as Republican at a 63% rate....I thought the rate would be much
higher. (Btw, there are a slew of these types of studies and they
have very similar conclusions.) In any case, it shows that among
enlisted men & women republicans are self-identified at a rate of 3 to
2 (ie. 60%). Furthermore, as rank increases officers are more likely
to align themselves ideologically with the Rupublican party. This
particular study doesn't conclusively determine whether the Republican
leanings are due to self-selection, or if the party affiliations were
adopted after entering the military. The evidence suggests self-
selection, in that the majority report that their parents identify
with the Republican Party. One question, among many, that is raised
by these findings is whether we're seeing a generational effect that
will begin to fade as the current generation of officers retires, or
have institutional norms developed where identification with the
Republican Party is implicitly encouraged?

First of all, the "MANY in the military" that you've talked to probably
numbers no more than a hundred or two, which would be only a tiny

of the roughly 1.5 million military personnel currently on active duty.
Certainly not a large enough cross-section to view as reliable data.

Hence the reason the I called this observation anecdotal.

Secondly, military regulations forbid conducting formal polling of

duty military regarding their political affiliation, so the alleged West
Point study by Dempsey, Shapiro and Cummings would be an informal and
voluntary poll, results of which would really be moot. It's sort of

taking a poll, with the "don't ask - don't tell" policy in place, to
determine the number of gays in the military. You don't get reliable

back, because the question shouldn't be asked and the answer shouldn't

given.

I guess it would behoove you to read the study and examine the data,
the controls, etc. before passing judgment.

The most accurate assessment of the political inclinations of a fairly

segment of the military would probably be the voluntary polling done by

Military Times publishing group, which sometimes polls its readers about
their intentions in upcoming elections. Those polls usually show a
Republican inclination of about 60% - 70%. But it must be remembered

those polls only tap those who read the Army Times and Air Force Times,
which is largely the career military personnel, or less than 1/3 of the
total military.

...and, of course, these figures are very much in line with those that
I provided, thus lending greater credibility.

Now, let's think about the bulk of enlisted personnel for a moment.

does the military recruit from?

In large part, from rural areas.

Do they open recruiting stations next to
country clubs? Nope.

Your bias is showing here. You act as if one must be rich in order to
be republican. Completely untrue. Whatever happened to the other
silly stereotype of the left...ie. the dumb rural redneck?

They're usually placed near high schools, and mostly
in lower-middle-class neighborhoods, where students who want to go to
college, but can't afford to do so, may be looking for a way to get

and save money for college.

And now, you show that you are filtering the discussion through an
urban prism. The fact of the matter is that in rural areas, high
schools usually encompass multiple townships and boroughs. By and
large, the recruits that are attracted are solidly middle class...not
lower middle class as you would assume. Sure, there are some lower
mc, but there are also many who are upper middle class.

Those are young men and women who are far more
likely to be Democrats than those who have parents who can afford the

price of a college education today.

The reality is that most of the young men and women who join the
services are from the type of rural areas that I describe above. They
are solidly middle class, and based on these socio-economics factors
are more likely to be Republican.

I believe that if a formal poll actually could be conducted, you'd find

the vast majority of career officers and NCOs were Republicans,

No doubt about it.

but that the
vast majority of single-hitch enlisted personnel, a larger group by

to 1 than the career military personnel, were Democrats.

There have been numerous studies, you can reject them if you wish,
that show the opposite to be true. They consistently show a 3:2 ratio
of Republicans to Democrats in the enlisted military, which dovetails
nicely with the voting results in every election.

But we'll never
really know, since conducting such a poll would get you thrown off base

minimum, or possibly thrown into Leavenworth.

So, do I understand correctly that in your opinion it is impossible to
get reliable data on this matter?

Does anyone with even a shred of
military experience/knowledge REALLY believe that the average
serviceman leans left?!?! Get real.

They tried to get the ones that had not been post-marked by the cut-
off date disqualified.

Which they would have never done had they believed that the military
vote would have gone in their favor.

They were trying to follow election laws,
unlike the other side.

So, if the military vote leans left, then why didn't the Republicans
do what the Democrats were doing re the military vote...ie. trying to
quash it? (Btw, BOTH sides were doing whatever they coud do in order
to win this election. the Dems were guilty of many attemps to skirt
the law during the Fla episode. It's amazing how both sides see
everything as black or white, good guys and bad guys. Ridiculous. A
topic for another time though.)

<firelock...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:1181231299.523581.264010@q66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...

On Jun 7, 11:18 am, "WF Peifer" <WFPei...@NoSpam.com> wrote:

<firelock...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:1181223855.676035.61250@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...

On Jun 6, 1:22 pm, "Bob Loblaw" <Lawb...@loblaw.law> wrote:

They'll call this the Chickenhawk Generation.-

If you aren't a member of your community's emergency
services, you've got no right to make decisions about how
your community prepares for disasters.

If you were asked to join your community's volunteer fire department but
refused the invitation because of a fear of large vehicles, then your
opinion about what color their trucks should be is ignored, as it should

be.

The only thing you know about "chickenhawks" is that
they didn't join the military. You don't know if it was fear,
or inconvenience, or youthful political opposition to what
the military seemed to represent at the time - everything
else you think about them is just your own personal
demonizations, your attempt to dismiss their opinions
and derail debate by inserting irrelevancies.

Quite to the contrary, I know far more about them than you think. It's a
term that's been in my vocabulary for 40 years, since the Vietnam War. I
don't use it to characterize those who, like Bill Clinton, avoided service
and opposed that war. Quite to the contrary, I have a grudging respect for
them. And I have the utmost respect for those who supported the war and
backed up that support with service, just as I respect those who, like me,
opposed the war but served anyway. It's that fourth group . . . those that
were all for the war, as long as it was somebody other than themselves who
were fighting and dying . . . that I have no respect for, and for whom I
reserve the use of the term "chickenhawk".

If you aren't a police officer, you've got no right to
an opinion about crime prevention.

If you're asked to join your neighborhood crime watch but decline citing
"other priorities", you have no right to complain about how that
neighborhood watch schedules its patrols.

"Neighborhood watch" isn't the police, just like the
Congressional committees overseeing the armed
forces aren't the military.

Are you trying to make a point here?

If you aren't a teacher, you've got no right to an
opinion about education.

If you're asked to be a part of a PTA panel that will review curriculum

but

refuse claiming lack of time, you have no right to ***** when they

recommend

removing dodge-ball from the PE program.

So now the PTA are teachers? Are you even reading
what you write, or is this more evidence of the "not
thinking" I was talking about?

PTAs, by definition are comprised of both teachers and parents.

But, once
again, I believe you were trying to make a point here, although you're
probably the only on in the universe that has a clue as to what that point
might be.

If you aren't a politician, you've got no right to an
opinion about how we should run our country.

If you don't vote and refuse to register to avoid getting called for

jury

duty you're still allowed to have an opinion about how the country

should be

run, but by not voting you've given up the only way your opinion can

really

count.

By your thinking, such a person doesn't even have a
right to express an opinion - you'll make up a word
to shout him down, even if he has solid reasons
for not being part of the system. Or you would, if
you were thinking.

Did you even read what I wrote?

Perhaps that speed-reading course you took
caused you to completely miss the part where I said ". . . you're still
allowed to have an opinion about how the country should be run . . .". Or,
perhaps it's just that they only way you think you can look like you're
making sense is by trying to put words in other people's mouths.

That's where the thinking of those who scream
"chickenhawk" would lead - if they were actually
thinking.

The "chickenhawks" are much like the nerdy kid in school who would start

an

argument with someone, and when it showed signs of being about to become

a

physical fight would run to get his big brother or his jock friends to

do

his fighting for him. If you knew such a kid in school, did you have

much

respect for him? Why do you have so much respect for today's

chickenhawks?

I simply have no respect for people who squawk
"chickenhawk". Our country isn't run by the
military, the chickenhawk squawkers know that
and like it that way but conveniently forget it
when they're hurling their favorite insult at people.

Do *you* want it to be part of the US system
of government that military service is a requirement
for being in any position that makes any decision
about the use, funding, or any other aspect
of the US armed forces? George Washington,
Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin and
Dwight D. Eisenhower would disagree with you.

You read me wrong. I love the fact that the civilian government is superior
to the military in our country, and I DON'T feel that military service
should be a prerequisite to being part of that civilian government. But I
also don't believe that leaders who've never caught wind of the nauseating
stench of the combined odors of blood and gunpowder should ever take a "war
first, and diplomacy only as a last resort" approach to foreign relations.

I don't think ANYONE should ever take that approach, but I can understand it
a little when it comes from combat veterans like John McCain. At least they
truly know what they're committing our young men and women to. However,
when it comes from elitists who used influence to avoid being exposed to
that stench I consider it to be the absolute worst form of hypocrisy, and
those individuals deserve far worse epithets than "chickenhawk".