Most Active-Duty Service Members Uncertain or Pessimistic About Obama
Tags: US Military.
Click here to get Caucus of Corruption: The Truth About The New Democratic Majority by Matt Margolis and Mark Noonan.
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 Obama’s lack of military service and experience leading men and women in uniform.
“Being that the Marine Corps can be sent anywhere in the world with the snap of his fingers, nobody has confidence in this guy as commander in chief,” said one lance corporal who asked not to be identified.
For eight years, members of the U.S. military have served under a Republican commander in chief who reflected their generally conservative views and led them to war in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Now, the troops face change not only at the very top of the chain of command, as Obama nears his Jan. 20 inauguration, but perhaps in mission, policy and values.
Sadly. we are going to learn the hard way that Obama has as much business being commander-in-chief as I have flying a rocket to Mars.
Thank you for visiting Blogs For Victory. If you enjoy our content, please consider making a donation to help us cover the costs of our servers.Matt Margolis is co-author (with Mark Noonan) of Caucus of Corruption: The Truth About The New Democratic Majority. He also blogs at The Buffalo Bean. Follow Matt on Twitter.
19 Responses to “Most Active-Duty Service Members Uncertain or Pessimistic About Obama”
Caucus of Corruption
Matt,
You realize that Mark has stated on several occasions that MilitaryTimes polls aren’t any good don’t you. At least not when they put Bush in a bad light. This is a little hypocritical don’t you think?
“Sadly. we are going to learn the hard way that Obama has as much business being commander-in-chief as I have flying a rocket to Mars.”
Based on what? I mean what’s the worst he can do, invade a country that isn’t a threat?
so why do you pay lip service to gossip and rhetoric casper…spreading the existing lies and layering them with the common idiocy of your deficient mentality?
nothing you said can be verified…and as far as your claim about invading a country…well thats pretty well a stupid correlation….when in fact quite the opposite is factually true…
stooge #2, get your head out of your duff…
I think you ought to give that Mars idea a shot, Mark.
In an incredible flip of statistical skullduggery, the very instant Mark declared “six out of 10 active-duty service members say they are uncertain or pessimistic”, 33% of all respondents felt optimistic, while only 25% felt pessimistic, which means there were nearly thirty percent more optimists than pessimists.
Ain’t statistics kool?
MilitaryTimes describes their methodology HERE, where they admit it’s all voluntary, i.e. laughable.
Like bozo said, if you actually look at the statistics of active duty servicemen surveyed, considerably more of them are optimistic than pessimistic. 32.46% optimistic, 24.96% pessimistic. Maybe Matt’s headline should have read, “Only one in four active duty servicemen are pessimistic about Barack Obama as commander in chief.”
Less than half the activity duty servicemen (42.27%) think we should have gone to Iraq in the first place.
Less than half of active duty servicemen (45.04%) approve of the way Bush is handling the situation in Iraq.
More than 70% of active duty servicemen think the US is somewhat likely or very likely to succeed in Iraq. This despite the woefully inadequate commander-in-chief about to take charge, and despite the fact that less than half of them even think Bush is doing a good job.
Oh, let’s not forget that over 50% of active duty respondents indicated they are Republicans, only 13% indicated they are Democrats. So it doesn’t seem likely that as a group that would support a Democratic president no matter who he or she was.
There is no nation that poses a serious threat to America in the modern day. Not one. Russia? Nope. Our military beats theirs. North Korea? Wasted 80% of national uranium supplies in a bomb fizzle. Also, lacks everything else. Iran? Ahmedinijad’s up for re-election this year, and prospects aren’t TOO bright. China? War is unlikely, and we’d still win. Would be bloody, though. The biggest threat is terrorists. However, they can easily be beat. And terrorists could not take over the country. In reality, we do not to heavily emphasize the military in our budget. We should be able to keep the reserves and national guards at home, and leave the fighting to the real soldiers.
But you lefties swore by the Military Times poll when it came out in your favor – why is this one not held to be Holy Writ by you guys?
Certainly, though, the poll is not exact – most troops, I’ll bet, are just going to go on doing their duty as best they can regardless of who gets in office….with the caveat that clearly bad Presidential leadership will eventually demoralize the force and lead to a drop off in numbers and quality. The Carter era military is the prime example of a military reflecting the weakness of its Commander in Chief.
Obama doesn’t have to have it like that – but it will take him demonstrating his support for the troops and the success of their missions to garner the necessary confidence of the overall military force. Iraq is getting more and more off the table, but Obama must fight to win in Afghanistan and, also, when it comes down to complaints about the troops and the troops asserting they did the right thing, Obama will have to show that he’s taking the word of the troops unless there is concrete evidence against them.
Kinda left that part out didn’tcha?
like that hollow head of yours really understands what you read, eh deja-stooge…
so whats a soldier?
women…minorities…Jr enlisted Service members…
doh…you kinda missed the jist of it alll…didn’tcha?
Mark,
“But you lefties swore by the Military Times poll when it came out in your favor – why is this one not held to be Holy Writ by you guys?”
That’s happened from both sides though. Until the 2006 poll there were a lot of conservatives on this blog that swore by the MT poll. Kahn referred to it often. It wasn’t until Bush’s approval ratings in the poll started going south that anyone questioned it’s validity. The biggest positive that I see for this poll, is that it is the only poll out there that although flawed, consistently polls military personal. If you chose to accept its findings, you need to accept them all and not cherry pick. If you don’t think this is a valid poll, then you probably shouldn’t use it or make any statements regarding the opinions of our military personal, unless you have another source.
please, dont tell us what we sware by or dont…you really dont have the ability to read my mind…in reality…your second guessing someone elses opinion is not much more than a means of gossip…
which is about all ya seem to be able to handle…
Honestly, we don’t need to emphasize the military at the moment. Terrorism can be defeated with a small force. Leave the reserves and the guards out of it, and let the real soldiers fight.
mule,
You just issued a gratuitous insult to the members of the Guard and Reserve.
But you lefties swore by the Military Times poll when it came out in your favor – why is this one not held to be Holy Writ by you guys?
1) And you swore that MT polls were “bogus,” full of that ever-present evil “bias.” Now you like MT polls; were you full of it then, or are you full of it now?
2) This poll doesn’t even paint the picture you’re trying to paint. There’s more optimism than pessimism, but that’s not how you’re trying to portray it.
To recap: You’re citing a poll you used to say was worthless, and you’re not even citing it properly. Well done.
Mark, my brother’s in the guard. He’d rather be at home doing the jobs that the military needs to be doing at home.
Back in 2006, Matt or Mark (or did you have another editor?) felt compelled to insert this remark into a reader’s comment because the reader cited a recent Military Times poll that indicated weakening support for President Bush:
“(Ed. Note: Amused Observer must have forgotten this part of his linked report:
The mail survey, conducted Nov. 13 through Dec. 22, is the fourth annual gauge of active-duty mili tary subscribers to the Military Times newspapers. The results should not be read as representa tive of the military as a whole…
I mean, we here at Blogs for Bush would hate to think that a lefty blogger would leave out the most vital information in the poll – ie, that it isn’t a poll, and there’s no way to tell if the respondents to the mail-in survey really are in the military)”
http://www.blogsforbush.com/mt/archives/2006/12/a_letter_from_s.html
I would hate to think that Matt or Mark would leave out the most vital information in any poll, either, like the fact that MORE respondents were optimistic than pessimistic about President Elect Obama.
“Terrorism can be defeated with a small force.”
I see atheistass want a continuation of the liberal strategy to fight terrorism as a police action, or a simple law enforcement issue.
The same strategy Clinton used. The same strategy that allowed them to grow leaps and bounds during the 90s.
I believe you forgot the lib talking point that we did not send enough troops to fight terrorism.
How small a force? Will Obama’s civilian army, which will be as well equipped as the military, be able to handle terrorism?
tired, Clinton caught all those responsible for the 1994 WTC bombing. You can visit them in jail, and ask them if they think Clinton was tough on terror.
Obama’s civilian army
Still with this? It was bad enough when it was just a little campaign attack idea, but to actually believe it post-election? That is just plain stupid.
Post #16 is definitely leaving a mark. It’s going to be a lot of fun quoting these wingnuts’ posts of the past 8 years verbatim to them as they do a complete 180 for at least the next four years.