by DemFromCT
This was too good to pass up (h/t jfern at Daily Kos):
Based on the July 2007 Quarterly Finance Reports to the Federal Elections Commission, Ron Paul is the most supported candidate in terms of financial support by Military Personnel and Military Veterans...
Source: Finance Reports for the 2007 July Quarterly.
I have included the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines, as well as the Army National Guard, Air National Guard, Coast Guard and any military veterans.
These statistics include the contributions of employees who recorded or indicated their military branch. Contributions where no employer was specified were naturally not included.
Looking at the percentages, the antiwar candidates outstrip the pro-war candidates nearly 3:1.
| All 2008 Presidential Candidates | |||
| Name | Percentage | Name | Percentage |
| Ron Paul | 26.23 | Duncan Hunter | 1.05 |
| Barack Obama | 24.02 | Joe Biden | 0.84 |
| John McCain | 18.31 | Mike Gravel | 0.16 |
| Hillary Clinton | 11.08 | Sam Brownback | 0.07 |
| Bill Richardson | 5.59 | Dennis Kucinich | 0.05 |
| Mitt Romney | 4.05 | Tommy Thompson | 0 |
| John Edwards | 2.63 | Chris Dodd | 0 |
| Rudy Giuliani | 2.44 | Jim Gilmore | 0 |
| Mike Huckabee | 1.84 | John Cox | 0 |
| Tom Tancredo | 1.63 | ||
As a political headline it can't be beat, but given military demographics, I wonder if the real observation here is that race and class are better predictors of voting preference than military service is.
Likewise the NYT has a front-page story today that's essentially "Women like Hillary Clinton more than men do," and of course I wonder how much of that is causative and how much is a by-product of more women being Democrats.
Posted by: emptypockets | July 20, 2007 at 09:03
I think your graph/picture didn't come through DemFromCT.
By the way, what do you think about Joe from CT being President John McCain's Secretary of Defense?
Posted by: Jodi | July 20, 2007 at 09:05
OT. or more precisely on the previous one/WaPO on WH claim re DOJ/uncontemptable.
EW do you want us to wait for monday to see where this goes before putting pen to paper or fingers to email links or, if necessary, bodies on the trains/buses to DC for demonstrations?
Student of modern-day revolutions that you are, you probably know, in May '68, the student revolutionaries famously claimed "we are all German Jews." I happened to be a descendant of one the German Jews who saw the writing on the wall even before the Reichstag burned, which is why I exist.
With our Reichstag burning (as per FDL last night), one does not have to be me to say "we are all German Jews."
so what do we do next?
Posted by: BlueStateRedhead | July 20, 2007 at 09:16
The fact that so many are for Ron Paul shows that
a) they are really, really against this war; and
b) they haven't really thought this through very well/looked at Paul's other positions.
The Nader fiasco should have shown us that there's a sizable "give 'em the finger" contingent that votes with ONLY that in mind. [See Jesse Ventura.] One would hope that people would learn, but I remember heated conversations with people in 2000 about why voting for Nader was a bad idea.
It takes a certain degree of sophistication [although not that much] to see that "they are all alike" is bullcrap. It's easier to think that your vote is "voicing frustration" than to accept the hard work and difficulty that comes from realizing that nothing is perfect.
Posted by: Mauimom | July 20, 2007 at 10:10
Mauimom,
I wouldn't assume that all of Ron Paul's support comes from people who don't know his other positions. There is a small, but determined group of neo-fascists in the military.
Posted by: William Ockham | July 20, 2007 at 10:24
Mauimom and WO -- You may be right, but Ron Paul's major campaign focus has been that the Republican Party has strayed from its historic position of less government and keeping our country's nose out of other country's affairs. Now lets say you are a traditional Republican, not a neo-con, and you want to get the attention of Republican leaders, the best way to do that is send Ron Paul money. In the end, these folks may not actually vote for the man, but that want that viewpoint heard in Republican ranks. I have sent money to "fringe" candidates myself for exactly that reason. That is not to say such candidates will get my vote, but I want to make sure that their views are part of the political discourse.
Posted by: phred | July 20, 2007 at 10:38
ron paul would be a good change... therefore he won't get elected... people will find some excuse to vote for some other person and will be kicking themselves in the ass after it is over... go ahead and vote for the ones who have all the media and corporate support, but see where it gets ya. look at where it has already got ya!
Posted by: ... | July 20, 2007 at 11:16
Does It also show you that the military personnel embrace Mr. Paul's racist and xenophobic views? This is scary in so many levels. They support a non candidate that can't win? In second place is the no experience Obama? Because his platform is.... Doesn't this ring any bells? It seems that we have two countries now. Neither of the two get along. We have our shia/sunni battles of our own.
what is the most disturbing is that there is no concern for law. Many of us decry this loss, many of it embrace it because it is what they wanted all along. it is too bad. this could have been a great thing, democracy.
Posted by: oldtree | July 20, 2007 at 11:25
oldtree, perhaps you can point to an article that describes what you refer to as pauls racist and xenophobic views. thanks.
Posted by: ... | July 20, 2007 at 11:31
oldtree, if you were a traditional Republican that wanted to return to the tradition I noted above, which candidate would you send money, too? I'll grant you that Ron Paul has a serious downside and I in no way support him. However, when I saw the clip from one of the debates where he pointed out that the terrorists hated our foreign policy in the Middle East, not our freedoms, I wanted to cheer. None of the other Rethugs on that stage said anything like that, and Rudy went all apoplectic on us. I'm just saying that it seems to unfair to me to paint all contributors to Ron Paul's campaign as racist xenophobes. I think they are trying to make a much different point. Indeed I think what those contributions show is a big fat fracture in the Republican Party that is about to split wide open.
Posted by: phred | July 20, 2007 at 11:59
...,
You can start here: http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/06/ron-paul-vs-new-world-order.html
Posted by: William Ockham | July 20, 2007 at 12:57
thanks william.. i have read over the link and am not impressed with the arguments put forward, but it is a good peice of superficial journalism to alter ones impression of ron paul, which is perhaps the main intent.. i think ron paul is correct in his view of the federal reserve and i think most americans are unaware of the history and nature of the federal reserve.
Posted by: ... | July 20, 2007 at 15:38
what do you think about Joe from CT being President John McCain's Secretary of Defense?
Joe would not settle for less than VP. That's besides the obvious which, of course, is that MCain's campaign is over, and that's a fact. The reason he stays in the race is to get fed matching funds to pay off his debt. He has less chance of becoming President this year than i do.
Posted by: DemFromCT | July 20, 2007 at 16:52