Troops contribute to Iraq war critics

Way back in September, USA Today reported that Barack Obama and Ron Paul, who don’t have too much in common, were the top two presidential candidates when it came to financial support from U.S. troops.

It had a certain political salience — opponents of the war in Iraq took note of the fact that the top two recipients of military donations went to critics of the Bush policy — but it was still relatively early in the process. At the time, money from donors who listed the Air Force, Army, Marines, Navy and National Guard as an employer were still fairly small — Obama had more support than any other candidate in either party, but it was still just 44 contributions totaling $27,000.

Would the trend continue once the race grew more competitive? Actually, yes.

Conservatives opposed to redeployment in Iraq have consistently claimed that U.S. troops are on their side…. Yet U.S. troops disagree. Yesterday, the Center for Responsive Politics reported that members of the military donated the most not to McCain, but to two anti-war candidates:

“Individuals in the Army, Navy and Air Force made those branches of the armed services among the top contributors in the 4th Quarter, ranking No. 13, No. 18 and No. 21, respectively. In 2007, Republican Ron Paul, who opposes U.S. involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan, was the top recipient of money from donors in the military, collecting at least $212,000 from them. Barack Obama, another war opponent, was second with about $94,000.”

These donations reflect the military’s disapproval with the Iraq war and President Bush’s handling of it. A recent Military Times poll found that just 46 percent of U.S. troops now believe that the country should have invaded Iraq, and only 30 percent approve of Bush’s handling of the war.

John McCain likes to say that, as far as he’s concerned, the message from the troops to the country is, “Let us win.”

If money talks, it sounds more like their message is, “Get us a president who’ll end this war.”

The Center for Responsive Politics’ report on contribution trends included a few other interesting tidbits:

CLINTON LEADS WITH LOBBYISTS: The industry that has perhaps gotten more discussion in this race than any other, lobbying, continues to favor Hillary Clinton. She received $823,000 in 2007 from the lobbying industry, which gave about $2.7 million overall.

WOMEN SPLIT BETWEEN CLINTON AND OBAMA: Clinton has outraised Obama with women — $35.1 million to his $28.8 million — but his campaign finance reports list more female donors — 29,000 versus her 25,000. Clinton and Obama’s percentages from women are about even — 45 percent of her total and 43 percent of his. On the Republican side, Mitt Romney collected the most from women at $14.4 million from about 11,000 donors. […]

$1.4 MILLION CAME FROM OVERSEAS: Americans living abroad contributed $1.4 million to the presidential candidates in 2007, exceeding the $908,000 they contributed in all of the 2004 election. These donors favored Democrats with 69 percent of their money in ’07. Obama was the top recipient for the year, but Hillary Clinton, whose husband visited London in October to raise money, dominated in the 4th Quarter.

The whole report is pretty interesting. Take a look.

I guess they got tired of the do and die,
and want to do some question why.

  • I guess the Dem leadership will look at that data and wonder how they can use it to finally stand up to the Republicans.

    Or not.

  • CLINTON LEADS WITH LOBBYISTS

    Well, as she’s said: lobbyists are people, too 🙂

    I suppose it would depend on *which* lobbyists she got the money from — big pharma or the nurses’ union — that would give us a better bead on what the numbers might mean. Everyone has a right to petition the govt and since SCOTUS has declared that money is a form of speech (and thus protected)…

  • It’s really something to hear the big brave Republicans now. It’s hard to imagine any soldier siding with the pathetic notion of “we started a war over a lot of lies and mistakes, so what, now you have to LET US WIN.” That’s how Napoleon did it after all, invade a country, then they just let him win.

    Then flash to Senate hearing only yesterday, Mike McConnell, big brave head honcho of the manly macho CIA. He says “for him” waterboarding would be torture, because he has “a condition.” Mukasey doesn’t have a condition, but if waterboarded parses that, “to me it would be torture.” So we have two here, willing to torture others, but can’t control their own sniveling at the thought of someone doing the same to them. What condition does this describe?

  • Comments are closed.