military going Dem?
http://www.capitaleye.org/inside.asp?ID=300
The Other Iraq Surge
A sharp increase in contributions from the military to Democrats
suggests the Republican commander-in-chief and his party are losing
the troops’ support.
By Lindsay Renick Mayer
September 13, 2007 | Assessed favorably this week by the war’s lead
general, the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq appears to be causing a
surge of another sort—and one that’s not positive for President Bush
or the Republican Party. Since the start of the Iraq war in 2003,
members of the U.S. military have dramatically increased their
political contributions to Democrats, marching sharply away from the
party they’ve long supported. In the 2002 election cycle, the last
full cycle before the war began, Democrats received a mere 23 percent
of military members’ contributions.* So far this year, 40 percent of
military money has gone to Democrats for Congress and president,
according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. Anti-war
presidential candidates Barack Obama and Ron Paul are the top
recipients of military money.
“People are saying now enough is enough,” said Lt. Col. Joyce Griggs,
an intelligence officer who said she spent two months in Baghdad
earlier this year, speaking for herself and not the Army. “If you’re
a soldier, you’re going to do your job, do what you’re commanded to
do. But that sentiment is wide and deep.”
Griggs, who voted for George H.W. Bush but not his son the current
president, contributed to Obama’s presidential campaign this year,
she said. Among the military forces, she’s not alone in her support
for the Democratic senator from Illinois, who has spoken out against
the war since its start. Obama, who has never served in the military,
has brought in more contributions from uniformed service members—
about $27,000—than any other presidential hopeful, Democrat or
Republican. “I feel that he’s the most progressive candidate and he
stands for change,” Griggs said. “I believe he is that breath of
fresh air that we need to get this country back on course.”
Among GOP candidates, Ron Paul, the only Republican who opposes the
war, has brought in the biggest haul from the military since the
start of the 2008 election cycle in January—at least $19,250.
Republican John McCain, a Vietnam War prisoner who backs the
administration’s policy in Iraq, has raised $18,600. Paul, who was a
flight surgeon in the Air Force, got nearly twice as much from
servicemen and women in the campaign’s first six months as GOP
fundraising front-runner Mitt Romney and four times more than better-
known candidate Rudy Giuliani.
“If you’re a Republican partisan, but opposed to the war, it is not
surprising that you’d find Paul somewhat attractive,” said Ronald
Krebs, a political scientist at the University of Minnesota who
studies the sociology of war and military service.
Other presidential candidates who have served in the military in some
capacity include Republican Duncan Hunter, who served as an Army
ranger in Vietnam; Democrat Mike Gravel, who served in the Army; and
Democrat Chris Dodd, who served in both the Army National Guard and
the Army Reserve.
Donations May Be a Way to Protest, While Still Following Orders
In the 2000 and 2002 election cycles, uniformed service members gave
about three-quarters of their federal contributions to Republicans.
The percentage dropped to 59 percent in the 2004 cycle and has
remained there since. This shift toward Democrats is most visible
among members of the Army, who gave 71 percent of their money to
Republicans before the war began. So far this year, members of the
Army have given a mere 51 percent to the GOP, spreading their
contributions nearly evenly between the two major parties.
The drop in contributions to Republicans—which began nearly the
second the war in Iraq did in early 2003—seems to suggest that there
is a passionate group of people in the armed services who are looking
for ways to express their opinion, said John Samples, director of the
Center for Representative Government at the Cato Institute. “This
[data] suggests that among the military, the people who feel most
intensely about the Bush administration and the war in Iraq are
negative about it,” Samples said. “It’s a general discontentment over
the way the administration has handled the war—or even that we’re in
a war.”
Although members of the U.S. military don’t give much in political
contributions compared to employees of most industries—just under
$1.8 million in the 2004 election cycle and about $330,000 so far for
‘08—this surge in giving to Democrats is telling for a segment of the
population that has historically been labeled as strongly Republican.
“My guess is if you asked most of these folks, they’d continue to
identify as Republican. But the fact there’s been longstanding
tension between this administration and the uniformed services and
the fact that nearly all Republican candidates have not distanced
themselves from the war has obviously affected their standing with
those in the military,” Krebs of the University of Minnesota said.
Other observers say that the shift in contributions, especially to
Democratic presidential candidates, is merely evidence that the
military force has grown more diverse. “This shows that the military
does not quite fit the stereotype of this Republican monolith,” said
Joyce Raezer, chief operating officer of the National Military Family
Association. “The military in a lot of ways reflects the country.
It’s diverse in a lot of ways. It’s not a surprise you’d see people
exercising their ability to support a variety of candidates.”
As for 46-year-old Barack Obama, his popularity may be explained by
his youth, which would appeal to uniformed service members, who tend
to be young, said Joe Davis, director of public affairs for the
Veterans of Foreign Wars. “[Obama] brings youth, and with youth comes
energy and new ideas. One could say that is very appealing to a newer
generation,” said Davis, whose group represents an older contingent
of servicepeople. Younger members of the military are less likely to
donate money to candidates at levels that can be measured, however.
Federal Election Commission records indicate that most military
donations come from officers or civilian employees.
For the presidential candidates, reaching out to the military may not
be a bad strategy to gain votes. According to the Department of
Defense, the voting participation rate among uniformed service
members was 79 percent in the 2004 presidential election, compared to
64 percent of the general public. That would translate into
approximately 1.9 million voters in the 2008 election.
Despite being a popular recipient of military contributions, Ron Paul
does not have an outreach program in place specifically for the
demographic, according to Jesse Benton, a spokesman for the Texas
congressman’s presidential campaign. “[Paul’s] freedom message is an
all-inclusive message and we don’t tailor it for one party or
another,” Benton said. “Ron is for strong national defense and for a
strong military. He wants to bring the troops home to protect our
borders. If you’re looking for the candidate who really supports our
troops, that’s Ron Paul.”
Civil Servants Take a Stand
Civil servants in defense-related positions are also increasing their
donations to Democrats. Contributions from employees of the
Department of Defense seem to follow the incumbent party in the White
House, favoring Democrats in 2000, while Bill Clinton was still
president, and heavily favoring Republicans since George W. Bush took
office. But in the 2008 election cycle, only 62 percent of the
defense department’s contributions have gone to the GOP, compared to
79 percent just before the war began. A career senior executive at
the DoD, who spent some time in Iraq and asked to remain anonymous
for this article, made a political contribution for the first time
ever this year as one way to express outrage toward the Bush
administration’s eavesdropping program and definitions of torture.
“My breath is taken away by the disregard of constitutional rights by
this administration,” the defense official said. “I decided that I
would still not do any political things at work. I don’t even have
political discussions when I’m at the office. But I decided I needed
to do more. We can’t have people not doing what needs to be done.”
The war in Iraq is now in its fifth year and has claimed the lives of
more than 3,700 U.S. troops and an estimated 66,000 Iraqi civilians,
and has cost the U.S. more than $448 billion. If the proposal Gen.
David Petraeus unveiled this week is implemented, the number of U.S.
troops in Iraq would be scaled back to 2006 levels by next summer. To
outspoken members of the military, that’s not the reduced role they’d
like to see the U.S. play in Iraq. “People have been saying all along
that this whole surge would not work. They said it before it
happened,” Griggs, the Army officer, said. “I think the American
public is getting less and less tolerant, and this report (from
Petraeus) didn’t help that at all.”
-CRP Researcher Douglas Weber contributed to this report.
*Data reflects contributions greater than $200. The Federal Election
Commission does not require recipients to itemize smaller donations
or disclose those contributors’ names and occupations.