The Daily Brief

In yet another amazing coincidence, CNN ran a story today about overseas military absentee ballots and how a repeat of 2000 could occur again this year. The situation is made worse by the fact that thousands more people are deployed this time around, many of them to remote and inhospitable regions.

What’s most interesting about the article is that it appears to dispute my assertation that perceptions of heavy Republican voting by military members leads to Democrats applying strict interpretations of the law when counting military votes, and Republicans allowing improper ballots to go through as a means of maximizing their respective advantages.

Thousands of votes from U.S. troops overseas could go uncounted again in November without emergency legislation extending deadlines for the ballots, a Chicago election official warned President Bush in a letter Tuesday.

Nearly 30 percent of military voters who requested ballots in 2000 didn’t get them in time to vote. Theresa M. Petrone, a Democratic member of Chicago’s three-person Board of Election Commissioners, told Bush the problem could be solved if he proposed emergency legislation giving election officials up to 14 days after Election Day to collect and count ballots.

Note that this is a Democrat pushing the deadline extension– in Chicago, of all places.

White House spokesman Ken Lisaius declined to comment, saying he hadn’t seen the letter. Congressional leaders have opposed amending the Help America Vote Act of 2002 and such emergency legislation is unlikely before November.

Now note that “Congressional leaders”, who I assume to be Republicans, as they currently hold a majority in both Houses, are opposed to amending the act that would allow for an extension.

Is this a sign that perceptions are changing? Politics is an odd game with irrational actors, but you can get a grip on how people will behave if you know what their perceptions are, since politics is basically the creation and manipulation of perception for personal advantage. This story may be a sign that a perception exists among both Parties that the overseas absentee vote may not break heavily towards the Republicans in this election, and could in fact help the Democrats. Whether that’s true or not doesn’t matter. Politics isn’t about truth, it’s about perception.

I find this story odd, because I can’t imagine a Democrat pushing for something that would be disadvantageous to the Party, and the Republicans then resisting an amendment that would benefit them, especially in an election where the military overseas absentee vote stands a chance of deciding the Presidency.

Or it could be that Theresa M. Petrone is a good person who actually gives a shit. It’s been known to happen, even in politics.

In an amazing coincidence, the Secretary of Defense has distributed an unclassified message for widest possible dissemination that touches on a couple things that we’ve been talking about here lately. It’s basically a reiteration of long-standing DoD policy and regulations covering the actions of military personnel vis-a-vis elections and political candidates. Note that most of these policies deal with acts committed while serving in an official capacity (i.e., in uniform, explicitly identifying self by rank and service prior to making political statements, on-duty, etc.). I’ll quote the salient points:

General Policy. As a matter of long-standing policy, DoD personnel acting an their official capacities may not engage in activities that associate DoD with any partisan political campaign or election, candidate, cause or issue.

Inquiries from political campaign organizations. DoD personnel must forward all inquiries from political campaign organizations to a public affairs officer (PAO) for awareness and appropriate action.

Installation commanders will ensure that candidates who visit military installations to conduct official business do not engage in any political campaign or election activity during the visit. The preceding prohibition does not apply to the President, the Vice President, or the Speaker of the House of Representatives. To avoid the appearance of preferential treatment, installation commanders should offer all candidates for national office who are not current members of Congress or serving governmental officials the same access to installations as any other unofficial visitor.

Media coverage of installation visits. When an installation commander invites a candidate to an installation to participate in official business, and the media seeks to cover the event, the candidate may appear on camera and in photographs as an official participant, but may not make a statement or respond to media queries while on the installation. The Secretary of Defense may authorize exceptions to this policy on a case by case basis for the Pentagon Reservation, but under no circumstances will a candidate receive approval to make a campaign or election-related statement or to respond to a campaign or election-related media query. When an elected official arrives or departs a military installation via military aircraft, the installation commander will not authorize media coverage of the arrival or departure if the elected official’s itinerary includes political campaign or election activity in the local community. The preceding prohibition does not apply to the President, the Vice President, or the Speaker of the House of Representatives. When the President, Vice President, or Speaker of the House arrives or departs a military installation via military aircraft and part of that official’s itinerary includes political campaign or election activity in support of a particular candidate, the installation commander will allow the media a photo opportunity to cover the arrival or departure of the President, Vice President, or Speaker of the House, but will not allow the supported candidate to be present during the photo opportunity.

DoD maintains a long-standing policy that DoD personnel acting in their official capacities may not engage in activities that associate DoD with any partisan political campaign or election, candidate, cause, or issue. Consistent with this policy guidance, installation commanders will decline requests for military personnel to appear in or support political campaign or election events. All military personnel, including national guard and reserve forces, are prohibited from wearing military uniforms at political campaign or election events [doesn’t include color guards-S].

All military personnel, including National Guard and Reserve forces, acting in their official capacities may not engage in public commentary, including speeches and written submissions offered for publication, concerning political campaigns or elections absent prior clearance.

FYI

Hugh Hewitt has responded to my last post, and his response is pretty good.

First, he points to an interesting article from the San Diego Union-Tribune. Here’s the section that he quoted:

A series of polls by the Pew Research Center for the Public and the Press showed that Bush leads Kerry among men with military experience, 49 percent to 40 percent. Other polls gave Bush an even larger advantage.

A Battleground Poll conducted in late June by Democratic pollster Celinda Lake and Republican surveyor Ed Goeas showed that likely voters among active military and reserve personnel and veterans favored Bush over Kerry, 52 percent to 44.

He didn’t quote this portion, though:

Research on the other 85 percent of military personnel – the junior enlisted service members – suggests that group is “pretty much mainstream American, not disproportionally conservative, not disproportionally Republican,” Segal said.

Guess where I fall? I’m not an officer, nor am I a senior enlisted troop. I work for a living and I work with this group of people who comprise over 85% of the military. So what I said, based on my own personal experience, is true. I’ll also note that Hugh’s statement never said anything about voting, but how an overwhelming majority of active duty feel. If this poll (taken from the same article Hugh cited) and my personal experience is true, then an overwhelming number of active duty people don’t feel that they’re 100% against the Democratic Party. Some lean Democrat, some lean Republican, but most don’t care either way.

But the career personnel are more likely to vote,

That’s also true, but I think that’s changing, at least for this election.

The article also included these interesting factoids:

However, Lake said there was some anecdotal evidence Kerry does better among military wives.

Last September, a Battleground Poll showed Bush’s approval rating among military family members at only 36 percent.

Peter Feaver, a professor at Duke, said Kerry is making inroads among the families of military personnel, particularly the kin of Guard and Reserve members deployed to Iraq.

That’s generally true from what I’ve seen.

Although the military has done little in the past to encourage people to vote, the Pentagon launched a major campaign this year to help the troops, particularly those deployed overseas, register to vote and to apply for absentee ballots.

That’s utter horseshit. As long as I’ve been in, there has always been a big push to get as many people to vote as possible, even in the off-years. We have people who act as Voting Representatives. They go around, encourage people to register to vote and help them do so. I’ve never seen is anyone tell us how to vote, not even implicitly. I guess it’s understood that we’re all going to vote Republican anyway, because we can’t help it.

Now I will quote from and respond to Hugh:

But it seems to me he’s trying to speak for his colleagues in the military far more than I am

I speak for my colleagues, because that is one of the things I’ve always done on this website. I speak for myself, but since no one else I know has one of these things, I consider it my responsibility to represent the point of view of the people I work with. Other people with different points of view, from different services and occupations within those services, can represent themselves as they see fit, but this point of view is mine and those I know, based on how we see it.

But let me again quote what Hugh said the first time, when a Marine, in uniform, said he was 100% against Kerry and 100% for Bush:

This is how the overwhelming number active duty military in this country feel about the Democratic Party and its Michael Moore-loving elites.

Based on the article Hugh himself quoted, this is not how the overwhelming number of active duty military in the country feel about the Democratic Party (not Kerry, but the entire Democratic Party). If that were the case, then an overwhelming number of active duty military are 100% against roughly half of this country’s voting public. Again, the first quote, where he builds upon his initial supposition:

The would-be commander-in-chief doesn’t have the respect of the men and women he seeks to command. George W. Bush does. So whose judgment do you trust when it comes to which man is better equipped to lead the military and guide the war?

The only thing I can say to that is to take that statement and use another group who are apparently the lapdog of a political party: African-Americans. The current President doesn’t have the respect of the people he is supposed to lead. John Kerry does. So whose judgment do you trust when it comes to which man is better equipped to lead this country?

I can extend that example out to roughly half of this country’s populace, perhaps more. If recent polls are any guide, than an overwhelming majority of Americans currently disapprove of the job Bush is doing. Aren’t the American people the best judge of who is doing a good job and of who is leading them? Then again, why should we listen to them? Shouldn’t we use our own personal judgement, instead of jumping on the bandwagon and going along with the crowd?

But we in the military aren’t average American citizens. We’re their servants, which makes this situation a bit more delicate than usual. Your own assertation refutes your advice to the American people to trust our judgement, since we’re apparently overwhelmingly Republican no matter what. If what you say is true, then we’re not a neutral party, but instead a special-interest group acting out of personal interests and desires. Since we’re as partisan as the next special interest group, then our judgement is automatically suspect, because we’ve just declared that we have a personal stake in the election and we’ve chosen our side. If that is the truth, then the military obviously can’t be held up as an example of unbiased and professional judgement. We’re as trustworthy as any other special-interest group, and our opinions should be treated as lightly as theirs.

Back to Hugh’s most recent post:

But he should ask himself if the Dems are as widely loved or not-loved as the President in military circles, why so much effort by Gore-Lieberman in Florida in 2000 to toss out the votes of military serving overseas? That’s the clincher in any argument over how the active duty military views the Democratic Party: When push came to shove, the Dems wanted the military’s ballots tossed out. Draw your own conclusion on which way the military votes.

That’s actually an interesting case, because it confirms what an overtly partisan military brings upon itself. Let’s shelve the matter of whether the military automatically votes Republican, and instead focus on the perception that we do. The military overseas absentee ballot debacle is a good illustration of what this perception brings about.

Now, I can’t make heads or tails of what happened in Florida. There seemed to be enough chicanery to spread around, but from what I’ve been able to gather from Googling the event, here’s what I think happened:

First, hundreds of overseas absentee ballots were tossed out by state election officials because they didn’t bear a postmark, which State law required. Among these non-postmarked ballots were military ballots, which in the past had been thrown out, but with the scrutiny of the 2000 election, they were given a closer look. Federal law stated that military absentee ballots were exempt from the postmark rule, and since people were actually paying attention this time around, the military absentee vote became an issue. Here’s an Op-Ed I found describing the situation and what happened:

Last Friday, some 1,400 overseas military ballots — 40 percent of all those cast — were excluded from the official count, many because they lacked postmarks as required by Florida law. Since the military vote was breaking for Texas Gov. George W. Bush by a nearly 2-to-1 margin, those disqualified absentees potentially could have added 200 to 300 more votes to his current 930-vote lead over Mr. Gore — which could be crucial to a Bush victory if the ongoing hand counts of ballots are allowed to stand.

The county vote counters were scrupulous about checking for postmarks thanks in large part to a five-page memo distributed last week by a Tallahassee lawyer who is assisting with Democratic election lawsuits in Florida. It outlined techniques on protesting absentee votes and included a section specifically on challenging postmarks.

Perhaps not surprisingly, counties won by Mr. Gore threw out more military overseas ballots (60 percent) than did counties won by Mr. Bush (29 percent). In one extreme example, Democrat-controlled Broward County disqualified 304 of its 396 overseas ballots.

What was obviously going on was political chicanery, but it underscores an important point: since the military is apparently openly Republican and is perceived to vote that way by everyone, then they’ve set themselves up for this kind of nonsense. If we’re “100% against the Democratic Party”, then we’ve declared ourselves to be hostile towards the Democrats who count our votes–Democrats who can suddenly decide to apply a strict interpretation of the law to our votes and a looser interpretation to other votes. And who can blame them? We’re “100% against” them.

From what I also gather, their was some tit-for-tat dealing between Republicans and Democrats over the hand counting and the absentee situation. The hand counting was apparently tilting heavily toward Democrats and the Republicans were crying foul because there was some shady work supposedly going on there, but the Republicans were no angels, either. For example, there was evidence that Republican election officials had improperly handled absentee votes. There was also evidence that many absentee ballots were missing signatures and what-not, which further confused the situation because of the overblown rhetoric swirling around at the time.

I also found this article covering Democratic reaction to the military absentee ballot situation:

Leading Democrats, including vice presidential candidate Joseph Lieberman, are calling on Florida canvassing officials who have tossed a number of military absentee ballots out because they did not have postmarks to reconsider their decision and count them after all.

Lieberman, on NBC’s “Meet the Press” on Sunday, said Republicans had managed a public relations victory over Democrats in general because of the decision by some county election officials to disqualify over 1,400 military absentee ballots.

[…]

“My own point of view, if I was there, I would give the benefit of the doubt to ballots coming in from military personnel, generally,” Lieberman said.

Of the local canvassing boards, he continued, “if they have the capacity, I’d urge them to go back and take another look [at accepting the ballots], because again, Al Gore and I don’t want to ever be part of anything that would put an extra burden on the military personnel abroad.”

Sen. Bob Graham, D-Fla., joined Lieberman yesterday to urge county election officials to reconsider their decision.

“I believe that we ought to bend over backwards to have everybody’s vote, and particularly those men and women who are serving us in uniform in high-risk areas,” Graham told NBC’s “Today Show” co-host Katie Couric.

[…]

Meanwhile, Florida Attorney General Bob Butterworth, a supporter of Vice President Al Gore, advised counties that they “should count” overseas ballots, even if they bear no postmarks.

“No man or woman in military service to this nation should have his or her vote rejected solely due to the absence of a postmark,” Butterworth said yesterday in a letter to the state’s 67 counties, according to an Associated Press report.

County election officials of both parties have said such non-postmarked military ballots have been discarded in similarly large numbers in past elections, but that more attention has been given them this year because of the closeness of the presidential race.

My point remains, though. If everyone assumes we’re always going to vote Republican, then we’ve made ourselves the target of people that we’re “100% against”. Our votes could get tossed out by unscrupulous Democratic officials. What’s worse, what about those in the military who don’t vote Republican? Their votes get tossed out too because we’re apparently all the same, and have no problem advancing the perception that we’re all Republicans, even when we’re not.

This obviously doesn’t excuse the Democrats who engage in this sort thing, but like I said, who can blame them? The conservative military, speaking on behalf of us all, has declared them to be their enemy and by jumping headfirst into partisan political waters, they’re screwing us all over.

Update: So, as I was saying…

To wrap this monster up, I want to say that by openly declaring who we’re for and against, we’re possibly introducing doubt into the citzenry’s mind about our loyalties. The people of this country expect us to serve the Constitutional government, and by extension all of them, with all the dedication we can muster, no matter who is in charge. That’s why we have rules that say you can’t attend a political rally in uniform, that you can’t publicly campaign for candidates, and that you can’t run for Congress. That’s why it’s imperative that we not allow ourselves to be used as a politician’s or pundit’s prop to advance their own agenda, whether you agree with that particular agenda or not. We have to maintain the image of neutrality. Yes, I know it’s just for appearance’s sake, but appearances matter in politics, and it doesn’t take much to introduce doubt into the citizenry’s mind about our fealty to the government and to question just which master we serve. Once that doubt exists, it opens the door to things that are much worse, and you can’t just say, “Well, I may be a conservative, and though I donate large amounts of money and time to the Republican Party and hate Democrats, you can trust me to do my job no matter what.” Tell me, why should anyone take you at your word? Why should anyone trust you? You just told half the citizenry that you’re against the people they elected to represent them, which means that you just told half the citizenry that you’re against them. You don’t just serve the people you agree with. You serve all of them, and you have to keep that in mind before you try your best to destroy our credibility with the half you don’t agree with.

Everybody’s already linked to this story about Kerry and a couple of Marines eating at Wendy’s, and while I certainly agree that getting bothered by a Presidential candidate and the press entourage that clings to him like barnacles on a hull is a hassle, I did get a kick out of this bit:

“I’m 100 percent against” Kerry, he said. “We support our commander-in-chief 100 percent.”

So, if Kerry were to become the next Commander-in-Chief, would you still be against him 100%? Or would it come down to 60 or 75%? I’m trying to figure this out, because support for the current CINC is one thing, but when you openly express that you’re 100% against the guy who could be your next CINC, then you’re setting yourself up for a situation you don’t want to be in. We serve the Position, not the Man. The military has no business forming personality cults around politicians.

Oh, and what is this?

This is how the overwhelming number active duty military in this country feel about the Democratic Party and its Michael Moore-loving elites. Clip and save and reread when you hear Kerry-Edwards talking about how they will strengthen the military. The would-be commander-in-chief doesn’t have the respect of the men and women he seeks to command. George W. Bush does. So whose judgment do you trust when it comes to which man is better equipped to lead the military and guide the war? The active duty soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines, or John Kerry’s band of brothers?

I’m going to say this as nicely as possible: Go to hell. It pisses me off when fucking moonbats portray us as Pathetic Victims of the Man or Dumb Brutes Who Kill People for Fun. It pisses me off even more when people presume to speak on my behalf, and on my comrades’ behalf, as if we were some data point on a score sheet.

Let me clue you in on something, Hugh: We’re not fucking idiots. You will find as many opinions on Bush, Kerry and all the rest of it as you’ll find in the rest of the country. There’s about as many Democrats as Republicans in the military, especially among enlisted folk. There’s an even greater percentage of people who don’t care at all because they know that it doesn’t matter who’s President or who’s in control of Congress. Our lives don’t change.

When I first joined, Bush I was President. He deployed the military to Saudi, threw Saddam out of Kuwait and then authorized a series of deployments to various locales in and around Iraq. He also deployed us to Somalia. His Secretary of Defense, Dick Cheney, tried to nix or seriously reduce many of the critical equipment and programs that we eventually came to rely upon during the last 3 years. He also started the RIF, which gutted our force. It tooks us years to recover from that fuck-up.

Then came Clinton. He deployed us to Bosnia, Haiti, and a score of other countries for relief missions. The Ops Tempo remained at a constant high throughout most of his Presidency. Toward the end, we started getting money for quality of life stuff and the Ops Tempo decreased a little bit after the Kosovo Air War.

Then came Bush II. The quality of life stuff started drying up and he’s deployed us to Afghanistan, Iraq, Central America, and God knows where else. The Ops Tempo went back up.

Now you tell me: What has exactly changed during the past 15 years? I can’t tell any real difference between the three Presidents. I can’t tell any difference between the Congresses that have come and gone. Everything remains the same year after year and the motto remains unchanged: Do More With Less. In the Air Force, we’ve been on a wartime footing for what seems like my entire career. That’s three Presidents, Hugh. Nothing’s different and most people I know are aware of that, so don’t assume that we’re all gung-ho for Bush and the Republicans, and please don’t use us to lie to the citizenry. Some of us don’t like Kerry and a lot of us don’t care much for Bush, but most of us don’t care at all because it doesn’t matter who sits in the Oval Office. The only thing that changes are the places we go.