Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Military wary of Obama -Military Times

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
Blarch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-02-09 09:25 AM
Original message
Military wary of Obama -Military Times
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 Obamas lack of military service and experience leading men and women in uniform.
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/12/military_poll_mai...

Discuss:


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Sherman A1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-02-09 09:29 AM
Response to Original message
1. Charming, but one January 20th at noon
he is the boss. Their job is to salute and say Yes, Sir.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NJCher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-02-09 09:30 AM
Response to Original message
2. says this page gone awol


Cher
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lazer47 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-02-09 09:31 AM
Response to Original message
3. FYI, The Military Times is a right wing, Repug filled perodical.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blarch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-02-09 09:32 AM
Response to Reply #3
5. Kinda like the Military.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lazer47 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-02-09 09:38 AM
Response to Reply #5
7. I know for a fact that the Army had one good Democrat in '86
but I retierd,,,,
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Captain Hilts Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-02-09 10:45 AM
Response to Reply #3
12. Actually Army and Navy Times have treated Prez Bush pretty roughly the past few years. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
w4rma Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-02-09 04:13 PM
Response to Reply #3
33. not true. (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-02-09 09:31 AM
Response to Original message
4. One big fat lie. Per VetVoice:
http://www.vetvoice.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=2330

Military Times Damages Credibility by Promoting Unscientific "Survey"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blarch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-02-09 09:49 AM
Response to Reply #4
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.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KansDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-02-09 09:38 AM
Response to Original message
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...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
theoldman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-02-09 09:54 AM
Response to Original message
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BrotherBuzz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-02-09 02:21 PM
Response to Reply #9
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Critters2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-02-09 04:18 PM
Response to Reply #30
36. Yep. The ceremony where he mustered out took place just down
the street from where I'm sitting right now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DCBob Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-02-09 09:58 AM
Response to Original message
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Phx_Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-02-09 10:44 AM
Response to Original message
11. This is not a real poll. It was conducted voluntarily thru e-mail.
Edited on Fri Jan-02-09 10:45 AM by Phx_Dem
Apparently, the Military Times isn't above trashing their new Commander in Chief.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brandon-friedman/military...

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>

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NYC_SKP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-02-09 11:16 AM
Response to Reply #11
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.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-02-09 11:20 AM
Response to Original message
14. They get an earful of Rush Limbaugh on a daily basis.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bowens43 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-02-09 11:21 AM
Response to Original message
15. Who cares?
I really couldn't care less what they think.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zulchzulu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-02-09 11:37 AM
Response to Original message
16. I guess that's why troops deployed abroad gave 6:1 to Obama in campaign contributions
Edited on Fri Jan-02-09 11:38 AM by zulchzulu
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...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
neverforget Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-02-09 12:00 PM
Response to Original message
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-02-09 12:04 PM
Response to Original message
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-02-09 12:12 PM
Response to Reply #18
19. No they're not-see post #4. It's a buncha bunk. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-02-09 12:27 PM
Response to Reply #19
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:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Onlooker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-02-09 12:19 PM
Response to Original message
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-02-09 12:46 PM
Response to Reply #20
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 dont 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...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Onlooker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-02-09 01:51 PM
Response to Reply #22
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-02-09 01:55 PM
Response to Reply #25
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Onlooker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-02-09 04:12 PM
Response to Reply #27
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anonymous171 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-02-09 04:16 PM
Response to Reply #20
35. Are you referring to the old angry hippy anti-war wing of the party?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Onlooker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-02-09 06:52 PM
Response to Reply #35
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Liberal_Stalwart71 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-02-09 01:43 PM
Response to Original message
23. I thought many of them voted for Obama. What gives?
This report does not make sense.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-02-09 01:47 PM
Response to Reply #23
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Liberal_Stalwart71 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-02-09 02:23 PM
Response to Reply #24
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jenmito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-02-09 01:55 PM
Response to Original message
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... , 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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-02-09 01:56 PM
Response to Reply #26
28. Jen, see post #4 and #11. nt
Edited on Fri Jan-02-09 01:57 PM by babylonsister
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jenmito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-02-09 02:03 PM
Response to Reply #28
29. Thanks, babylonsister. Then it WAS the same BS poll. :) n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anonymous171 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-02-09 04:15 PM
Response to Original message
34. lol I wonder if the "military" was wary about Bush's lack of military experience.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Aug 01st 2014, 01:16 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC