MyFox
 

DallasDave's Blog

by DallasDave from Hell

Last Post 222 days, 7 hours Ago


Why doesn't Fox4 report on this? 

 *****************************************
*****************************************

Who Speaks for the American Military on Iraq?

by William Marina
by William Marina

The bias in the way in which the Media has covered the emerging presidential campaign has been evident for some months now.

The implication has been that a hawk like Rudy Giuliani speaks for the American soldiers and other military members, when he, John McCain, Fred Thompson and others, continue to parrot the Bush Administration’s line that the US must "stay the course in Iraq," as withdrawal would be a betrayal of our heroic fighting men and women.

The Media has given short shrift to Ron Paul, the only candidate among the Republicans who argues for withdrawal.

If that logic was correct, then Ron Paul must be the most hated of the candidates among those people associated with the US Military. But, is that true?

Given the means of electronic voting today, if the Bush Administration had the intestinal fortitude to do so, that hypothesis could readily be tested. The GOP was certainly keen to count the Military’s votes in the disputed election in Florida during the 2000 election.

Is there some alternative means of ascertaining the feelings of our Military with respect to the candidates and their views? As it happens, perhaps there is!

Few would argue that in politics, people and interest groups tend to put their money where their mouth is. That is, they give money to those candidates whose views reflect their own interests.

That being the case, the latest information we have about party donations is quite interesting!

Analyzing the latest finance reports, military-support for the Republican candidates, The Spin Factor broke down the donations from the Army, Navy, Air Force, and among Veterans (their figures do not include the Marines, which only slightly alters the results). The results can be easily verified by checking the reports by employer for Ron Paul and the other candidates.

Name          Total $      Army      Navy        AF        Vets

Paul            23,465         6,975      6,765     4,650     5,075
McCain
     15,825          6,925      6,305     1,795         800
Romney      3,551          2,051              0     1,500              0
Giuliani        2,320         1,450          370        250          250
Hunter
          1,000                 0       1,000            0          --
Huckabee       750            250                0      500             --
Tancredo         350            350                0            0             --
Brownback        71             71                 0            0             --
Thompson
            0               0                 0            0             --

*Note: The numbers for the last five candidates have not been thoroughly verified.

52.53%: Ron Paul
35.4%: McCain
7.9%: Romney
5.2%: Giuliani
2.2%: Hunter
2.6%: Others

Thus, more than half of the Military and Veterans donating funds to the Republican Party candidates gave their monies to one candidate, Dr. Ron Paul.

I would suggest this is about a clear an indication of the views of our Military on the positions of the Republican candidates as we are apt to get. Why doesn’t the Media offer this data to the American people?

July 19, 2007

William Marina [send him mail] is Professor Emeritus in History at Florida Atlantic University, a Research Fellow of the Independent Institute, Oakland, CA, and Executive Director of the Marina-Huerta Educational Foundation. He lives in Asheville, NC.

8 Comments |  Add a Comment

Member Comments Total Comments: 8
Page 1 of 1
TexasTruBlu read my blog view my photos
Jul 19, 2007 | 10:56 AM

During the last elections, some ballots from military personnel were held up offshore and didn' t make the deadline. The Gore campaign sought to keep them from being counted as they were destined for Florida. Who is going to make sure that military votes are included in the count this time around? I want this to be a huge public issue because if anyone has a right to vote, it's our military overseas.

Marks read my blog view my photos
Jul 19, 2007 | 11:45 AM

Be careful what you read! When someone is supplying analysis with data, it is always helpful to look at the data yourself.

A perfunctory analysis of the candidates shows Ron Paul had $100 dollars under the title "No Employer Was Supplied" while the top tier candidates had millions listed under this heading. Effectively, this "analysis" is subject to a very low confidence level. When comparing numbers, they need to have comparison value.

To assume that every donor stated their employer correctly, or to try to determine where those millions came from in the "No Employer Was Supplied" category is to fall victim to the ecological fallacy. The data is worthless.

DallasDave read my blog
Jul 19, 2007 | 2:25 PM

"ecological fallacy"

What does the environment have to do with it?

It isn't worthless. If there was no employer stated then they are hiding something.

Marks read my blog view my photos
Jul 19, 2007 | 5:14 PM

You just gave one of the best examples of an ecological fallacy with your statement inferring that people are hiding something. The fact is, as a donor to a campaign you do not have to provide every data aspect. Simply providing the amount given, a name, and an address is enough identifying information for the FEC.

In statistical terms, $100 is to $2,000,000 exactly what it looks like: nothing. No comparisons can be made between the two, and discounting the lack of information is as bad as making an inference regarding it. Thus, the data collated by the author has no meaning.

Marks read my blog view my photos
Jul 19, 2007 | 5:35 PM

Dave, I stand corrected on FEC requirements. As per FEC:

Federal law requires candidates to collect certain information about each donor, including name, address, occupation, and employer.

So my effort at discreditation of the above article on those grounds can be disregarded. Have a good day.

DallasDave read my blog
Jul 20, 2007 | 8:46 AM

Maybe the media chosen candidates got their millions from unemployed contributors...

Marks read my blog view my photos
Jul 20, 2007 | 11:38 AM

Could be...

DallasDave read my blog
Jul 20, 2007 | 12:25 PM

Actually, that should have been "unemployed" contributors...

Page 1 of 1


Write your comment below:




DallasDave

I am intelligent enough to know that politics are not 1 dimensional. I am neither right nor left, Republicrat nor Demlican (as if there's a difference), conservative nor modern "liberal". Most blogs posted under this persona are not my originals.

Member Since: 10/12/2006