Military wary of Obama -Military Times

[Blarch]

When asked how they feel about President-elect Barack Obama as commander in chief, six out of 10 active-duty service members say they are uncertain or pessimistic, according to a Military Times survey.

In follow-up interviews, respondents expressed concerns about Obama’s lack of military service and experience leading men and women in uniform.
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/12/military_poll_main_122908

Discuss:

[Sherman A1]

1. Charming, but one January 20th at noon

he is the boss. Their job is to salute and say Yes, Sir.

[NJCher]

2. says this page gone awol

Cher

[lazer47]

3. FYI, The Military Times is a right wing, Repug filled perodical.

[Blarch]

5. Kinda like the Military.

[lazer47]

7. I know for a fact that the Army had one good Democrat in '86

but I retierd,,,,

[Captain Hilts]

12. Actually Army and Navy Times have treated Prez Bush pretty roughly the past few years. nt

[w4rma]

33. not true. (nt)

[babylonsister]

4. One big fat lie. Per VetVoice:

http://www.vetvoice.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=2330

Military Times Damages Credibility by Promoting Unscientific "Survey"

[Blarch]

8. Thanks for the link.

This is dishonesty right off the bat. By saying "six out of 10 active-duty service members," the Times is implying that they've randomly selected active duty members of the military for the survey--and that their sample is representative of the entire military. They're implying this because that's how professional, credible polling companies conduct surveys. Unfortunately, the Military Times is either too cheap or too daft to do a poll the right way. So naturally, I looked for an explanation. At the very bottom of the page, I found a link with the fine print:


Although public opinion pollsters use random selection to survey the general public, the Military Times survey is based on responses from those who chose to participate. That means it is impossible to calculate statistical margins of error commonly reported in opinion surveys, because those calculations depend on random sampling techniques.
The voluntary nature of the survey, the dependence on e-mail and the characteristics of Military Times readers could affect the results.

[KansDem]

6. "...lack of military service and experience leading men and women in uniform."

I don't recall this magnitude of concern for George "aWol" Bush...

[theoldman]

9. I don't think that Lincoln served in the military.

Obama has the appearance of being military and that is what counts the most. The military leaders will respect him much more than they respected Bush.

[BrotherBuzz]

30. Lincoln served

Lincoln was in the Illinois militia. He served as a captain in the Blackhawk War in Illinois and Wisconsin, although he never saw battle.

[Critters2]

36. Yep. The ceremony where he mustered out took place just down

the street from where I'm sitting right now.

[DCBob]

10. Serving in the military is not a prerequisite for being POTUS.

Obama will be CIC on Jan 20. They better get in line and salute.

[Phx_Dem]

11. This is not a real poll. It was conducted voluntarily thru e-mail.

Apparently, the Military Times isn't above trashing their new Commander in Chief.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brandon-friedman/military-times-damages-cr_b_154406.html

Once again, the widely-read Military Times is deliberately attempting to accentuate the perceived rift between the military and the incoming Obama administration by promoting an amateurish, unscientific survey called the "2008 Military Times Poll."

<SNIP>

Let's start with the main piece. It begins this way:

When asked how they feel about President-elect Barack Obama as commander in chief, six out of 10 active-duty service members say they are uncertain or pessimistic, according to a Military Times survey.

This is dishonesty right off the bat. By saying "six out of 10 active-duty service members," the Times is implying that they've randomly selected active duty members of the military for the survey -- and that their sample is representative of the entire military. They're implying this because that's how professional, credible polling companies conduct surveys. Unfortunately, the Military Times is either too cheap or too daft to do a poll the right way. So naturally, I looked for an explanation. At the very bottom of the page, I found a link with the fine print:

Although public opinion pollsters use random selection to survey the general public, the Military Times survey is based on responses from those who chose to participate. That means it is impossible to calculate statistical margins of error commonly reported in opinion surveys, because those calculations depend on random sampling techniques.

The voluntary nature of the survey, the dependence on e-mail and the characteristics of Military Times readers could affect the results.

No. Sorry guys. It couldn't just "affect the results." It actually invalidates the entire survey as anything resembling a realistic reflection of attitudes within the military.

<SNIP>

[NYC_SKP]

13. Then four out of ten is actually pretty good.

If the group polled is already predisposed to respond in a right wing fashion and/or the question is biased.

[AtomicKitten]

14. They get an earful of Rush Limbaugh on a daily basis.

[bowens43]

15. Who cares?

I really couldn't care less what they think.

[zulchzulu]

16. I guess that's why troops deployed abroad gave 6:1 to Obama in campaign contributions

If you look at the article, there is a lot of "uncertain" when asked in the poll. Who knows how the poll was asked and under what conditions. But, if you look at those really interested in Obama as thr candidate, you can't dismiss this story as well:

According to an analysis of campaign contributions by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, Democrat Barack Obama has received nearly six times as much money from troops deployed overseas at the time of their contributions than has Republican John McCain, and the fiercely anti-war Ron Paul, though he suspended his campaign for the Republican nomination months ago, has received more than four times McCain's haul.

Despite McCain's status as a decorated veteran and a historically Republican bent among the military, members of the armed services overall -- whether stationed overseas or at home -- are also favoring Obama with their campaign contributions in 2008, by a $55,000 margin. Although 59 percent of federal contributions by military personnel has gone to Republicans this cycle, of money from the military to the presumed presidential nominees, 57 percent has gone to Obama.

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/08/troops-deployed-abroad-give-61.html

[neverforget]

17. I was talking with an officer in the Army on New Years Eve and he has

no problem with Obama. He's a conservative Republican too. We got to discussing Iraq and Afghanistan and we were in agreement about them both: we need to get out now.

[Cha]

18. Of course they are..what do they get plugged

into? Fauxsn00ze and limpballs?

They who are wary musta just loved how the bushits made them into killers or be killed.

[babylonsister]

19. No they're not-see post #4. It's a buncha bunk. nt

[Cha]

21. Thanks babylonsis... I

didn't read any other posts..just added my 2 cents but I knew there must be a lot of military who were actually not wary at all.

Happy New Year:party::fistbump:

[Onlooker]

20. Democrats are more anti-military

Anyone who's a soldier because they want excitement probably doesn't back Obama. Anyone who's a soldier because he's paranoid probably doesn't back Obama. Anyone who's in the military because it's a family tradition probably doesn't back Obama. Those who do back Obama are probably the one's in the military because they see it as a good career move.

[babylonsister]

22. Do you have 'anything' to back that up with? Because iirc,

the majority of people in the military who made campaign contributions gave to Obama. So I think you're full of it, but don't let me stop you. :eyes: Yes, I get it you don't like Obama, but I won't give you a pass in spewing shit that isn't true. If it is, back it up.


If money talks, the troops are saying, 'Vote Obama'
By Steve Benen Wednesday Aug 13, 2008 8:00pm

Way back in September, we learned that Barack Obama and Ron Paul, who don’t have too much in common, were the top two presidential candidates when it came to financial support from U.S. troops.

It had a certain political salience — opponents of the war in Iraq took note of the fact that the top two recipients of military donations went to critics of the Bush policy — but it was still relatively early in the process. Would the trend continue once the race grew more competitive? Actually, yes.

The Center for Responsive Politics reported today that Obama has received six times as much money from the troops as John McCain.


more...

http://crooksandliars.com/2008/08/14/if-money-talks-the-troops-are-saying-vote-obama/

[Onlooker]

25. Do you think Democrats are pro military?

I like Obama a lot, but want him to be a liberal, not a Clintonian pragmatist, which is what I fear he will become if the left doesn't put pressure on him. But, one of the reasons I'm a Democrat is because the Democrats are more anti-military. Sure, they want to do more for the troops and veterans, but they don't want our foreign policy dictated by the military and don't consider that American interests are best one in the military theater.

[babylonsister]

27. So you have absolutely nothing to back up what you wrote. Gotcha.

And you like Obama? You have a funny way of showing it.

As for Dems being anti-military, since when? Anti-war, I'd like to think so.

[Onlooker]

32. Relative to the Republicans ...

... the Dems are anti-military. It's true they're not anti-military enough; otherwise we wouldn't be allowing the sale of arms to promote conflict around the world. But, they're better than the Republicans, and I think Obama will put a lot more emphasis into solving problems through diplomacy and economics than through military means. Did you think Obama was a warhawk? You'll be very disappointed.

[anonymous171]

35. Are you referring to the old angry hippy anti-war wing of the party?

[Onlooker]

37. No, but perhaps you think Obama represents that Reagan Democrats

I disagree. I'm referring to those who believe the military industrial complex represents a threat to our core values. Relative to the Republicans Democrats do not support the military, though they support the soldiers and the vets.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

23. I thought many of them voted for Obama. What gives?

This report does not make sense.

[FrenchieCat]

24. skewed push poll.....and nothing more.

It is being used to "set the tone" for the rest of the military. Couldn't have them want to look like they favor Obama and his plans to get us out of Iraq.

The military is being "used" as pawns, as always.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

31. Not shocking. Military propaganda. When my brother was in the Army, they

did the same to him. It happened under Clinton as well. There's a great deal of brainwashing.

[jenmito]

26. The link didn't work for me, but I saw another article with the same title. Did you see what

it said? If this is the same article: http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/1352687,CST-NWS-mili29.article , then you should notice these facts:

"Nearly one-third of respondents -- including eight out of 10 black service members -- said they are optimistic about their incoming boss."

AND:

"The responses are not representative of the opinions of the military as a whole. The survey group overall under-represents minorities, women and junior enlisted service members, and over-represents soldiers."

Couple all that with the fact the poll doesn't say how many of the 6 in 10 are "unsure" vs. how many are "pessimistic," I have a feeling the author of this article is just trying to make Obama look much less popular among the military than he really is.

[babylonsister]

28. Jen, see post #4 and #11. nt

[jenmito]

29. Thanks, babylonsister. Then it WAS the same BS poll. :) n/t

[anonymous171]

34. lol I wonder if the "military" was wary about Bush's lack of military experience.