Surprising Political Endorsements By U.S. Troops (ABC World News)

[Bozita]

Source: ABC World News

Surprising Political Endorsements By U.S. Troops
American Soldiers Speak Out About Their Presidential Endorsements
April 7, 2008—

ABC's Martha Raddatz asked American soldiers in Iraq what issues are most important to them when looking at the presidential candidates. Though the military is not supposed to engage in partisan political activity, these soldiers spoke out about their personal endorsements, and their opinions are likely to matter. In 2004, 73 percent of the US military voted for a presidential candidate, and officials believe it may be even higher this time around.

PFC Jeremy Slate said he supported Barack Obama because of his stated intention to pull out of Iraq right away. "That would be nice," Slate said, "I'd like to be home, yea."

SFC Patricia Keller also expressed support for Obama, citing his representation for change.

Specialist Patrick Nicholls from Eggawam, Mass., pointed out that many soldiers on the frontlines are frequently thinking about their families back at home.

Read more: http://abcnews.go.com/WN/story?id=4244798&page=1

---

Hillary and Obama getting plenty of support.

Very little for McSame.

[Iris]

1. what? no one wants to fight the 100 year war?

n/t

[ColbertWatcher]

6. I find it sick...

...that the GOP can imagine America in the Middle east for 100 years, but cannot see Social Security lasting more than 40 years.

[Iris]

17. good point.

Yet they consider themselves the "party of ideas."

[gorbal]

13. As much as I like this

As much as I like this don't get this confused with a scientific survey.

[Bozita]

14. IIRC, this is the first MSM report of soldiers' preferences.

ABC News is sticking its toe in the water.

[blm]

2. Media wouldn't even NOTICE Pat Tillman's support for John Kerry. Big change.

Back in 2003 only military supportive of Bush were given any consistent press coverage.

Heck, media wouldn't even tell the public that most military voted for Kerry.

[Benhurst]

3. Ron Paul was getting considerable support, which was most interesting considering

his position of severely cutting back the military/industrial complex to a shadow of itself, limiting its role to actually defending the United States, not the global empire.

The grandiose role of The World's Only Superpower seems to have little support from the ranks in the military.

[nichomachus]

4. Ron Paul suckered in a lot of people . . .

. . .mostly those who only had a superficial knowledge of what he really stood for.

[Warpy]

9. Hey, that's fine with me

because the more people he suckers away from the GOP, the better.

[IronLionZion]

19. haha, his opponents in the congressional primary said he was against the troops!

I loved it. it was awesome since he had the biggest support from the troops out of any of the Republicans in the presidential primary.

[SpiralHawk]

5. Eggawam, MA? WTF That's a major ABC boner

It's Agawam.

Get a clue you Disney corporate republicon propagandists...

[FatDave]

8. LOL

Man, you couldn't get me to pose like that! Not sober anyway.

[intheflow]

18. No shit.

I saw that and immediately :eyes:.

I used to live in "Eggawam," didn't know the town changed it's name. Must have been when Riverside became Six Flags, I was out of there by then.

[Deny and Shred]

7. Expect Rovian 'caging lists' making sure the votes of the troops are discounted

There are a couple reasons either party can lawfully challenge votes at the polls. Too many people listing the same address is among them. Rove already identified military bases as places where many people (in Iraq) list the same address. Given their monitoring capability, I'd expect the troops to be parsed as to political leaning, and mass challenges. All it takes is a sympathetic state officer (think Kathleen Harris) to obviate multiple votes of those putting their lives on the line.

http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/167.html

This video is long, but explanatory - Greg Palast. What I'm talking about isin the second half, I believe.

[proud2BlibKansan]

11. This was my first thought as well

They are definitely disenfranchised voters.

[leftrightwingnut]

15. How do the challenges work? For instance, is it possible to challenge only some votes from...

...the same address? Or does one have to throw all of them out, if successful?

[flashl]

16. Some info ...

Caging list

Caging is a term of art in the direct mail industry, as well as a term applied to a technique of voter suppression. A caging list is a list or database of addresses, updated after a mailing program is completed, with notations on responses received from recipients, with corrections for addresses that mail has been returned undelivered from, or forwarded onward from.

With one type of caging, a political party sends registered mail to addresses of registered voters. If the mail is returned as undeliverable - because, for example, the voter refuses to sign for it, the voter isn't present for delivery, or the voter is homeless - the party uses that fact to challenge the registration, arguing that because the voter could not be reached at the address, the registration is fraudulent.<4> A political party challenges the validity of a voter's registration; for the voter's ballot to be counted, the voter must prove that their registration is valid.

[samsingh]

10. they should support Obama

[JohnnyCougar]

12. But why are these troops supporting the enemy, which is Barack Hussein Obama?

I'm confused! I thought supporting the troops meant helping them die for the vague notion of an enemy called "terror" that lurks around any nation challenging our business interests! And now these troops want to not die! What gives!