Smithers MINNEAPOLIS

this is my favorite part:

“Iran is obviously a big issue,” Sarbaum said, “Here in Iraq for my third time; starting another war right now — is it really necessary?”

Read the comments at the end of the article that are from people who say they were in the Iraq war.

Even if 2/3 of the military were liberals (the actual numbers I’ve seen are about 20% Democrats), the odds of getting no McCain supporters are 2% or less. If the stats follow others I’ve seen, the odds are about one in a million of getting no McCain supporters.

It is possible that the military is turning against the GOP, but given what I’ve seen elsewhere, I’m going to have to suggest that this is some selective reporting worthy of Walter Duranty.

There are arguments to be made for political liberalism, but if this is what I think it is, this is just the opposite.

Even if 2/3 of the military were liberals (the actual numbers I’ve seen are about 20% Democrats), the odds of getting no McCain supporters are 2% or less. If the stats follow others I’ve seen, the odds are about one in a million of getting no McCain supporters.

There are arguments to be made for political liberalism, but if this is what I think it is, this is just the opposite.

The other option, of course, is that you’re paranoid. Good luck.

I’m going to have to suggest that this is some selective reporting

I think that’s the point, Bubba. This article suggests that all armed services members are 100% in the bag for McCain. The fact that they could find 5 or so democrats is “suprising” and warrants a news feature.

Kruse, say what? How exactly can an article suggest that “100% are in the bag for McCain” when it doesn’t even mention his name?

You need a bit of help with your reading comprehension, friend. And if someone suggested to me that “100%” of our troops were in the bag for McCain, I’d question their statistics, too. The simple fact of the matter is that when someone presents monolithic evidence in contradiction to numerous other reliable data, I have to assume that they’re doing a little bit of “selective” collection of data.

How many people are in the military?

Of all those people, why is is “SURPRISING” that they should be able to find a few who support democrats for president?

Comprehend the word “SURPRISING” for me.

jkruse, it’s not surprising at all that they could find democrats. What’s surprising is that they found no one from the other side, when all the stats I’ve seen indicate that soldiers are far more conservative as a group than people in general. Even if evenly split, or as liberal as Taxachusetts, it would be unlikely to find no supporters of McCain in this group.

See what I’m getting at? More or less, this is like rolling the dice 10 times, and never getting a 4, 5, or 6 on top. You either have to assume that this is bizaare luck, or that the dice are loaded.

Given the title of the article, and the distribution of political views among journalists, the best explanation here is that the dice are loaded. It’s a shame that they think they can get away with this.

Jeez. I’ll try this one more time, but your reading comprehension is starting to bum me out.

You write, it’s not surprising at all that they could find democrats. But then what’s the point of the article? It’s called, “Surprising Political Endorsements By U.S. Troops” Nobody claims that they’re interviewing a random sample. Rather, the implication of the article is that despite the fact that all soldiers are Republicans, OMG - look we found 5 democrats! How can that be?

Here are some other fascinating articles abc news could write in the same vein:

“Surprising accomplishments of Kentuckians,” where the reader learns that despite common knowledge that everybody in the state is an uneducated coal miner, here are five that went to high school and have all their teeth.

“Most Improbable NBA Stars,” featuring Steve Nash, Dirk Nowitzki, Andris Biedrins and Yao Ming.

And so on…

See what I’m getting at? More or less, this is like rolling the dice 10 times, and never getting a 4, 5, or 6 on top. You either have to assume that this is bizaare luck, or that the dice are loaded.

Given the title of the article, and the distribution of political views among journalists, the best explanation here is that the dice are loaded. It’s a shame that they think they can get away with this.

The option is, of course, that the dice are paranoid.

Paranoid or loaded, it’s not random, Tuffy. And sorry, Kruse, the article is supposed to be representative of soldiers–but unanimous for the Democrats.

Again, I could find five Communists in uniform if I tried, but that doesn’t mean squat. Reporters are supposed to show what’s there, not what they wanted to see.