Military vote could be up for grabs if Dems pay attention

I remember during the Florida recount debacle of 2000, there were a couple of days immediately following Election Day when “overseas” ballots still needed to be counted. There was an assumption that the overwhelming majority of these ballots would be for Bush because most of these voters were military personnel, and, well, military folks vote Republican.

Indeed, Bush positioned himself during the campaign as a champion of all things related to the U.S. Armed Forces, despite having avoided military service himself. To hear candidate Bush tell it, Clinton had hollowed out our fighting forces.

“We have seen a steady erosion of American power and an unsteady exercise of American influence,” Bush said in his speech to the 2000 Republican convention. “Our military is low on parts, pay and morale. If called on by the commander-in-chief today, two entire divisions of the Army would have to report, ‘Not ready for duty, sir.'”

Putting aside for a moment just how patently false Bush’s claims were, comments like these reflected an assumed bond between men and women in uniform and GOP leaders.

There is increasing evidence, however, that the military vote is not a sure-thing for Bush in ’04. In fact, were Democrats to implement an effective strategy in this area, I believe a potential Dem nominee could take this advantage away from Bush completely.

Exhibit A: The Army Times, a semi-official publication for Army personnel, ran a scathing editorial in last week’s issue on the failures of the Bush administration to follow-through on benefits for the troops.

Under a headline that read, “Nothing but lip service,” the Army Times noted that Republicans in the White House and Congress “have missed no opportunity to heap richly deserved praise on the military. But talk is cheap — and getting cheaper by the day, judging from the nickel-and-dime treatment the troops are getting lately.”

The editorial went on to list a litany of ways in which the GOP is shortchanging military personnel — from cuts in soldiers’ pay and family-separation allowance, to less funding for military housing, to cuts to the military’s construction budget. (They forgot to mention cuts in veterans’ benefits and cuts to schools for children of soldiers who fought in Iraq.)

The administration, of course, isn’t fooling our men and women in uniform. They know, just as we know, that these cuts are necessary to make funds available for tax cuts for the wealthy. The military is well aware of this, and they’re not happy about it.

“Taken piecemeal, all these corner-cutting moves might be viewed as mere flesh wounds,” the Army Times said. “But even flesh wounds are fatal if you suffer enough of them. It adds up to a troubling pattern that eventually will hurt morale — especially if the current breakneck operations tempo also rolls on unchecked and the tense situations in Iraq and Afghanistan do not ease.”

The editorial concluded, “Money talks — and we all know what walks.”

Exhibit B: The Marine Corps Times, part of the same media consortium that publishes the Army Times, ran an article two weeks ago noting Republican opposition to the child tax credit for combat troops.

You surely remember the $350 billion tax cut package passed in May and the fact that it included a generous expansion of the child tax credit for all families — except the ones whose income falls between $10,500 and $26,625. What does this mean for the military? Almost 200,000 low-income troops got just as much as the other families in their income bracket — nothing.

The Marine Times notes that Democrats are fighting to restore the tax credit for the families left behind by the Republican plan and also explains the extent to which the GOP is resisting the effort because these low-income families don’t pay federal income taxes.

Best of all, the article even included some poignant comments fro Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y.). “When it comes to tax relief, Republicans have their priorities backward. They pass hundreds of billions in tax breaks for people who have lots of unearned income, such as capital gains and dividends, but they penalize those who work hard for a living and, worse yet, those who have put their lives on the line for the country. The Republicans actually think that the child of a combat veteran should receive a smaller child tax credit than the child of a member of Congress because the member pays more income tax.”

So which party is the champion of our troops and their families?

Democrats cannot cede the military vote to the GOP under the assumption that their political support is already spoken for. These are votes that are up-for-grabs and a concerted effort to reach out to the military could reap huge rewards for the party.

This would be especially true if the party were to nominate candidates with a military background — Kerry and Clark come to mind.