August 05, 2004
Maybe they don't know he served in Vietnam?
A Rasmussen poll shows that military veterans prefer Bush over Kerry 58% to 35%. Those with no military service favor Kerry by ten percentage points, 51% to 41%. Veterans also prefer Bush as Commander-in-Chief by a 60% to 33% margin. Finally, and this is my favorite part of the poll, 48% of Americans say they know someone who is currently serving in Iraq or Afghanistan. Among these voters, Bush currently has a ten-point advantage in the poll.
Posted by Karol at August 5, 2004 04:18 PM | TrackBackTechnorati Tags:
And every last one of them ought to be ashamed of themselves for questioning Kerry's patriotism.
Posted by: Gib at August 5, 2004 04:29 PMFunny how this blog goes ga ga over polls that are good for Bush and then downplays them as unimportant when they are good for Kerry.
This may not be as good for Bush as one may think for one simple reason. Vets do not vote in as high numbers as a lot of other groups, for what reasons I do not know. If I recall correctly, the National League of Veteran Voters had a poll after the fairly important and high turnout elections in 1992 and it was revealed that only 25-30% of the vets they polled had voted.
There really should be a lot more efforts at increasing voter turnout in general and those who protected us in particular.
Posted by: Von Bek at August 5, 2004 05:00 PMVon Bek, I don't care about polls but this one is interesting from an angle different than who is going to win or lose. Kerry has run pretty much exclusively on his veteran status. Yet, veterans are cold to him. That's an interesting story, no?
Posted by: Karol at August 5, 2004 05:03 PMNot really. George McGovern was a war hero and Nixon was not. Yet vets voted for Nixon. Carter was a Navy academy graduate and Reagan acted in a few WW2 movies yet vets voted for Reagan (an aside, Tom Brokaw gushed at the funeral and how Reagan was the personification of the greatest generation. A vet from the Italian theater, 2nd. Lt. Robert J. Dole of Kansas, sat next to him and reminded Brokaw that the Gipper had not really done much in the crucible of that generation-and I can't say I blame Dole for his comments).
There is nothing particuarly interesting or new about military families and vets being a bit more conservative than the general public.
This election is about Bush, not Kerry. The GOP can go after Kerry for flip flopping, being nuanced and now attacking his war record all they want. The election is mostly about Bush on Iraq and the war on terror.
Posted by: Von Bek at August 5, 2004 05:09 PMWho can blame vets for being wary of this guy? "Reporting for duty?"...ugh, how contrived can this guy get? Everyone knows when Kerry started fishing around Washington after his service, this war atrocities business was nothing more than a horse for him to ride. And so it goes. Odd how the guy plugs a short tour of Vietnam and never even mentions his Senate voting record as an afterthough. Why is that John? Maybe we'd find gaps, the occasional leftward lurch...and in general, feel a bit undewhelmed. Of course, he did vote for the war...oh but he changed his mind on that score now didn't he? HMMM....
Even casual Dems aren't sold on this creep. For them this election is "Bush versus that other guy that isn't Bush." Just check out the diction folks. Everthing is "Bush must go"....so on and so forth. The shame of it all is...principled Dems like Gephart and even Dean (who at least isn't a Washington hack) were somehow upended by this hollow man.
Don't look for seconds of that though...
Posted by: Texas Tom at August 5, 2004 05:26 PMThis reminds me of how average men in 2000 were not comfortable with what Camille Paglia called Al Gore's Little Lord Fauntleroy persona.
Now, (Read Texas Tom above).
***
With more disenfranchisement re-hash sure to come in 2004, Republicans must make it a refreshed memory that lawyers for the Democrats fought against military absentee ballots in 2000, just like they are today trying to get the Vets' anti-Kerry ad off the air.
Military absentee ballots that were not postmarked on or before the day of the election and therefore INVALID.
Posted by: Nick Saunders at August 6, 2004 08:41 AMThat's right, Nick, and Katherine Harris's certification was LEGAL.
And the Florida State Supreme Courts re-write of election law was OVERTURNED.
But we will still hear about the disenfranchisement of blacks who could not connect the dots, but not about the servicemen who mailed ballots on time, only to learn the military mail neglected to postmark after they mailed on time.
Posted by: michael parker at August 6, 2004 10:45 AM3051 You only get one set of teeth. Take care of them with a good
dental plan. Dental
insurance is
money well spent. I sleep better since I signed up for my new dental insurance
plan.
Get yours at: http://dental-insurance-plan.freeservers.com/
http://www.online-sports-betting-source.com
online sports betting
Sports Betting Odds
Sports Betting Line
Football Sports Betting
NCAA Sports Betting
NFL Football Betting Line
American Football Betting
Online American Football Betting
Online Football Betting Lines
Online Sports Book
NFL Football Odds
NCAA Football Odds
Las Vegas Football Odds
2004 Super Bowl Odds
Sports Book Betting
Las Vegas Sports Book
Sports Book Odds
Internet Sports Gambling
Sports Betting Information
College Football Betting Odds
College Betting Line
NFL Point Spread
NCAA Point Spread
Super Bowl Point Spread
Vegas Point Spread
Legal Sports Betting
Online Betting Odds
Online Sports Book Betting
Online Sports Betting Site
home based business
home based business
opportunity
