Operation “Vote For The Troops” Needs You

Many members of our military are being disenfranchised as jurisdictions across this country have failed to send out military ballots on time. Those affected military members will not have a say in the government that sent them off to war. These members are being silenced because somewhere between 80 and 90% of them vote Republican.

The jurisdictions that can’t get ballots out to the military have been successful in getting ballots out to felons. They have visited the jails and handed out ballots but they can’t see fit to get ballots to the military. The same people who bend over backwards to make it easier for illegals to vote work hard to keep the military from voting.

There is something you can do to help our military members. If you are having trouble deciding on whether to vote for the Republican or the Democrat in your particular race please vote for the Republican in place of a disenfranchised soldier, sailor, airman, or marine.

If you were not planning to vote please reconsider and go vote Republican for a member of the military who has been disenfranchised by corrupt politicians.

The men and women serving in our military are the guardians of our freedoms and their hard work ensures our right to vote is protected. Even so, they are denied one of the rights they fight to preserve. It is up to us fight for them here at home and vote in their stead.

If you are torn between two candidates pick the Republican in honor of a disenfranchised military member and if you were not going to vote please make the effort and vote Republican in honor of a military man or woman who has been screwed by corrupt political operatives.

The brave men and women of our military have our backs overseas, it is up to us to have their backs here at home.

Be a a patriot and stand up for a soldier.

Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Big Dog

Gunline

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.



Print This Post

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

18 Responses to “Operation “Vote For The Troops” Needs You”

  1. Adam says:

    I would love to know the list of these “jurisdictions” that you’re talking about and your evidence that they are deliberately done this way because of the way the military votes.

    I would love to see evidence to suggest the people who you think are doing this to the military are the same people who are working for felons and illegals to vote.

    I also wonder about the 80% to 90% figure. Considering Obama won 44% of the military vote in 2008 I question such a statement.

    This blog posting is a little lighter on the facts than usual.

    • Big Dog says:

      Compared to 32 percent of the civilian public who described themselves as Democrats, only nine percent of military officers and 16 percent of enlisted personnel did so. Twenty-nine percent of the military respondents either said they were independent or declined to answer the question.
      Link

      9% of officers means that 91% are not and 16% of enlisted means that 84% are not. Some identified as Independent or did not respond.

      Link

      Link

      Link

      So Obama got 44% of the vote. That is based on exit interviews which means all the absentee ballots from overseas did not figure in the results and that is assuming that they were even received or counted. The 44% comes from those who voted here.

      I bet that if we were to actually count the vote we would see he had a lot less.

      Exit interviews are not actual counts and cannot be considered accurate when a large swath of the population is not counted.

      I am suspect of that number because it is not representative of the whole, unless you can prove otherwise.

      It also does not include those who could not or did not vote but wanted to.

  2. Big Dog says:

    According to exit polls taken on the day of the election, 44% of those with a military background voted for Obama, and 54% percent of those with a military background voted for McCain (while 2% voted for others).

    This poll asks people with a military background. That is different than those who are actually serving.

    How many blacks were in that poll? Considering that they voted 95% for Obama that would skew the results, especially if they just asked those with a military background.

  3. Big Dog says:

    And this solidifies it

    Notice how black military fell to Obama 79%-12%. That is the only category in which Obama was ahead. All others fell to McCain by much more that you indicate and Obama at much less than 44%.

    This is of active duty, not those with a military background though retirees favored McCain 72%-20%.

    It is all about the question.

  4. Adam says:

    On the subject of the military party ID:

    First of all it’s hard to accurately poll the military. Second, there are numerous concerns about the sort of polling done by Military Times. For instance they randomly select from their subscribers, not from all military personal. The science of their polling is not that strong. At best the polls support simply the conclusion that the military is more liberal than conservative. It does not strongly support the idea that 80% to 90% of the military votes Republican.

    • Adam says:

      “At best the polls support simply the conclusion that the military is more liberal than conservative.”

      Ignore that. That was meant to be the other way around of course. The military is clearly more conservative than liberal.

  5. Adam says:

    On the subject of the ballot mailing:

    You’ve listed these same instances before and you have zero evidence that it was done on purpose, let alone to disenfranchise the military. The truth is most of the cases relate to it being a tight deadline and the scheduling of runoff elections and such. There is no conspiracy.

    The problem with your story about how these people care more for inmates than the military falls flat on one very important detail: Chicago got the ballots out to both the inmates and the military on time and under the law. Yes, Cook and DuPage Counties where Chicago sits mailed out 100% of their requested ballots on time.

    • Blake says:

      Adam- mailing the ballots out is a simple thing- you know the date of the election- it’s NOT a surprise, is it? If so, the person responsible should resign or be fired for gross incompetence. It really is too simple a thing to screw up, therefore, the only conclusion I can draw is that it was intentional, with the intent being to deny the military the chance to cast a (probably conservative) vote.
      If the military were decidedly more liberal, wouldn’t you object? What if the race(s) might be decided by the margin of the military vote?
      Would you object then?
      Or do you believe that our inherent right to cast a ballot is truly an “arbitrary” right?

  6. Adam says:

    More on ballot mailing:

    The problem with suggesting a conspiracy against military voters by Democrats is that failure to get ballots out in time does not simply disenfranchise the military but all overseas voters. The truth is that only about 21% of overseas ballots are cast by military voters or military family members. About 77% are simply citizens living or traveling abroad. It would be interesting to see how this chunk of voters falls as far as party ID goes but you can clearly see how there is much more to the situation than simply military votes.

  7. Big Dog says:

    I think you meant more conservative than liberal. And, you say the Military Times pollig selects from its subscribers which is a good sample of the military.

    Second, you have no problem with an exit poll that asks people with a military BACKGROUND if they voted for Obama and assuming the 44% means that active duty supported him at that when it is simply NOT the case.

    And there is a difference between voter affiliation and how they actually vote. The military votes about 80-90% Republican (and the variance is between enlisted and officer).

    I know it is hard for you but it is true.

    Adam, the fact that some of them had late primaries is no reason to disenfranchise the military. Federal law says they have to have the ballots out at a certain time and they did not. Holder is delaying looking into it because he knows what those votes will be.

    And you forget the Gore campaign working to keep military votes from being counted as well as Ed Rendel in PA doing the same thing.

    It is DELIBERATE.

    The people living abroad are probably largely support for the military. Of those 77% how many are affiliated in some way with the military?

    It is the military that is consistently denied. See above re: Gore and Rendel.

  8. Big Dog says:

    And it is against the law in Illinois for felons to vote so why are they getting ballots. People who are incarcerated in that state are not allowed to vote.

    Tell me again how they are following the law.

    Oh no, let some felon not get to vote or let some person have his name dropped from the voter roll and Adam is all uptight about deliberate denial. Let thousands of military get screwed and it is OK.

    Well I say that any person who failed to get the ballots out broke the law and should be prosecuted. I do not care what the time frame was for the primary. This law has been on the books for years so they knew what they had to do. The scheduled the primaries late to give them cover to screw the military.

    The left hates the military and Obama is right up there. So is that schmuck Holder.

    This will all come back. Tomorrow they will get theirs.

  9. Adam would defend Adolf Hitler, if Hitler were a Democrat.
    He’d argue for the legality of the Holocaust, if Barack Hussein Obama had proposed it.
    What’s perfectly clear from the evidence to any disinterested observer is “unproven” to Adam, if it reflects badly on his co-partisans.
    You can’t persuade him of anything that’s against his Democrat social-fascist creed, so why bother?

    • Adam says:

      Once again Porretto posts a nonsense comment attacking me and suggesting I am defending something evil. What am I defending here, Porretto? Can you reply this time or will you just continue shouting at me and then running away?

      I won’t expect a reply though. Porretto, being the intellectual coward that he is, doesn’t do well in settings where both sides can present their views. He refuses to allow any debate on his own site by cowardly deleting comments and it bothers him to see lively debate going on here between conservatives and liberals.

  10. Adam says:

    “And, you say the Military Times polling selects from its subscribers which is a good sample of the military.”

    Is it? Do they publish that info or are you just going by what you feel based on personal experience?

    “Second, you have no problem with an exit poll that asks people with a military BACKGROUND…”

    I agree and I forgot to say that last night. My point was simply that polling the military is hard and there are flaws in almost every method.

    “I know it is hard for you but it is true.”

    You say this without solid evidence though.

    “The people living abroad are probably largely support for the military.”

    Either way they are not active duty military and not part of the polls you are citing. If you’re going by active duty they make up 17% of the overseas vote. What about the 83% of other voters which you never mention? Your theory is that Democrats have to to disenfranchise 100% because they want to get to just that 17% that ere more likely to vote Republican? Doesn’t that seem a little strange when you examine all the evidence?

    “And it is against the law in Illinois for felons to vote so why are they getting ballots.”

    As far as I can tell it’s not illegal for those incarcerated in jails to vote which is what these ballots were for. They are not in prison or felons because there is a big difference. You are ignoring the point which is that Cook County got it’s ballots in the mail AND to the jails and any story that you and Fox News and other conservatives have run with is an absolute bald faced lie.

    “Well I say that any person who failed to get the ballots out broke the law and should be prosecuted.”

    Perhaps. I don’t totally disagree. I just think depends on the reasoning for it. You assume it was done on purpose. Your evidence is that the military votes more republican and that you think Democrats hate the military. You ignore all the rest of the facts in this case because the whole picture doesn’t support your story.

    • Big Dog says:

      Illinois law requires those wishing to vote absentee to apply for the ballot. It also requires that the ballot be completed in private and if anyone provides assistance that person’s name must be on the ballot attesting to the assistance.

      There is no indication that these 2600 ballots were requested. The folks from the election office took them to the jail (if they were requested they would have been mailed). Then they assisted in filling out the ballots.

      Is there any indication that these ballots were requested? What are the odds that 2600 incarcerated people would request an absentee ballot when it is unlikely many of them vote at any other time? The elections folks register them and then give them a ballot.

      Is there any indication that the ballots contained the name of the election worker who helped them?

      People who are incarcerated after a conviction and serving a sentence are not allowed to vote. How many of the 2600 were serving a sentence?

      I guess that when Gore and Rendel tried to keep the military votes from being counted it was OK and not an attempt to disenfranchise military voters because of how they vote.

      Those who support the military overseas who are civilians would likely vote more in line with the military. Otherwise, they would be the typical liberal who would stay at home in the safe environment provided by the warfighter. Not all libs fit this bill but most of them do.

      Let’s face it, liberals are not likely to join the military (unless, like Kerry, they were looking to further a career). Most view the members as morons who could not get a real job.

      What was it about staying in school and getting an education or you end up in Iraq?

      • Adam says:

        “People who are incarcerated after a conviction and serving a sentence are not allowed to vote. How many of the 2600 were serving a sentence?”

        Since it is against the law for those in prison to vote and given the publicity of the jail ballots I think it’s safe to assume none of them were anything other than people serving time in jail and not people headed to prison.

        “I guess that when Gore and Rendel tried to keep the military votes from being counted it…”

        Even if I accept that as the absolute truth of what happened how does that establish a pattern that somehow makes every issue of military voting the result of Democratic attempts at disenfranchisement?

        “Those who support the military overseas who are civilians would likely vote more in line with the military. Otherwise, they would be the typical liberal who would stay at home in the safe environment provided by the warfighter.”

        You have no evidence to base such a ridiculous statement on.