Who Are The Troops Supporting?

[rpm]

There is always the rally cry of "support the troops" when someone (who is'nt in the military) wants to justify the Iraq war. So who do you think the troops (who actually ARE in Iraq) are supporting for President?

link

The Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks campaign cash, looks at the 2007 money-raising and finds the following:

In 2007, the 2008 presidential candidates raised $582.5 million and spent $481.2 million.

In the 4th quarter of 2007, individuals in the Army, Navy and Air Force made those branches of the armed services the No. 13, No. 18 and No. 21, contributing industries, respectively. War opponent Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, received the most from donors in the military, collecting at least $212,000 from them. Another war opponent, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, was second with about $94,000.

Wow, the troops are supporting the anti-war candidates. What a bunch of Amerihaters!

[Yeager]

RETREAT!!!!   RETREAT!!!

Oooops

REDEPLOY!!!!!!  REDEPLOY!!!!!

[Rino]

Just a thought, when I was in I made no where near enough to donate to
a candidate.  So I'm thinking the frontline guys have way too many irons in
the fire to waste time on stupid crapola like this.

     Who cares what the generals do, they're mostly politicians themselves
anyway.

[68Hawk]

Military personnel largely try to keep themselves separate from politics, or as separate as is possible in this day in age.  

The efforts of so many must not go in vain.

[Tumor]

If it makes you feel any better rpm, no... generally speaking, "the troops" would rather not be at war.  If we could canvas a thousand years of soldiers, I doubt you'd find many who LIKE being in a combat zone.  They'd rather be at home than risking thier lives daily for a bunch of armchair quarterbacks who use them as political jabs on a message board.

Tumor

[rpm]

Tumor, I'm a vet and understand troops don't like war. It's the armchair quarterbacks in Washington we have to worry about.

[JB88]

i dont think that is what is about tumor.  

i think that it is about countering the current thinking that the military is one of the greatest support bases among the neo-cons.

[Tumor]

FWIW, I know ~very few~ who have anything but disdain for Billary.  Obama on the other hand is quite popular.  McCain too.

Tumor

[LePaul]

That's a small amount of money, regardless of how you cut it.  

I mean, max donation is what these days? $2300?

So...quite possibly...10 people donated the max.  The math can be most anything.

Either way, that's not a lot of money.  If that grows another comma, sure, then its newsworthy  

[eagl]

You might think this is military-speak BS, but here's who the troops are supporting...

*crickets*

Really.  We got orders from the MAJCOM commander that although we are strongly encouraged to inform military members to go out and vote, we are forbidden to actually discuss the election at work or in anything but very generic terms with subordinates.  We can participate in political activities when off duty as long as such participation cannot be construed as representing the opinion or position of the military or it's personnel.

Therefore...

To answer your original question, you don't get an answer.

Personally, I think with Romney out of the race it's anybody's guess.  There seems to be a national concensus that McCain is not a "true" conservative and that means he will be directly competing against the Democrat candidate as if they were both FROM THE SAME PARTY.  In that matchup, Obama stacks up quite well, at least on tv.

But "the troops" have received direct orders not to even discuss politics this election year, other than to help educate people on how to register and vote.

[Chairboy]

Originally posted by LePaul
I mean, max donation is what these days? $2300?

So...quite possibly...10 people donated the max.  The math can be most anything.

Might want to work on that math...

[lazs2]

for as many soldiers as we have..  that is no money at all..   It is not significant enough of an amount to mean anything.

I am not surprised that a libertarian appeals to liberty loving soldiers tho.   war or no.  ron paul is about one hell of a lot more than the war...  any war...

lazs

[john9001]

some numbers are missing, how much did the military members contribute to the other candidates?

[bsdaddict]

McCain's thoughts on pulling out #1

McCain's thoughts on pulling out... #2

[eagl]

Originally posted by lazs2
I am not surprised that a libertarian appeals to liberty loving soldiers tho.   war or no.  ron paul is about one hell of a lot more than the war...  any war...

lazs

Yea.

Many servicemembers, officers in particular, take their oath to support and defend the constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic very seriously.  From a constitutionalist point of view, that pretty much makes Ron Paul the only candidate they can support without violating their oath...  That said, if Ron Paul changed his stance on the war but kept everything else the same, I think he'd still get the support of constitutionalists because a president is constitutionally permitted to direct foreign policy.  The fact that he is against the war simply means he's a bit of an isolationist.  If he were for the war, one would assume he'd go about continuing it by following the constitutional guidelines on such matters.  Of course, the lack of a unified group to formally declare war against would be a bit of a barrier to that sort of position, but I'm sure he'd find some way to do it.

So his position on the war is nearly irrelevant IMHO to constitutionalists and even many libertarians.  The important thing to them is "how" a president goes about conducting a war.  "Why" is a question left to the policy makers, and in the constitution, the "why" is left to the president with concurrence from congress.  If congress funds it, they effectively concur.  Pretty simple I think.