Obama politicizes military spouses

[darrels joy]

Obama politicizes military spouses

By see-dubya • August 12, 2008 10:39 PM
Here’s an interesting letter to the editor–which reads like a column– that Mrs. See-Dub noticed for me:

Michelle Obama is having “round table” discussions at various sites near military bases to discuss issues faced by military families (”Michelle Obama courts vital military families,” Politics, Thursday). A group known as Blue Stars for Obama, largely made up of military wives, has been asked by the Obama campaign to contact other military spouses and enlist/encourage them to attend and to, in turn, contact other military wives and ask them to do the same. It’s an attempt to infiltrate and extend support for Sen. Barack Obama in what has traditionally been a more conservatively leaning group…

Nothing wrong with that, except for this:

The problem is in how the campaign is attempting to bring military spouses to the discussions with Michelle. They are asking members of Blue Stars for Obama to go out and seek other military spouses, who are not signed on to Blue Stars for Obama, in order to drum up large crowds for the events.
Some BSFOs are known to be contacting other military wives, urging them to take part in a political event; the rough equivalent of “undue command pressure” — unacceptable behavior considering that spouses of junior officers or enlisted personnel can sometimes be intimidated by a request or admonition from the wife of a senior officer or enlisted military member. After all, the senior officers and enlisted write or have input on the fitness reports for those under their purview (”I can’t cross the chief officer’s or master sergeant’s wife; her husband holds my husband’s career in his hands”).

Since the military member cannot take part in publicly supporting a particular candidate, it has always been understood among military wives that it is also inappropriate for a military member’s spouse to use her position in the military community to solicit others toward her personal political views via access she has gained to e-mail addresses, phone numbers and other networking avenues available to her within the military context.

That’s not the worst thing the Obama campaign has done, but if that’s an accurate explanation of the norms that govern military wives, then this outreach effort shows both political desperation and an unpleasant disregard for the military’s customs and ideals. Which wouldn’t surprise me in the least–Obama’s great at being geostrategicalistic but I don’t think he’s gaining a lot of real traction among the military.

That brings politics, and the polarization inherently involved, into the sisterhood of military wives, a place where good order and unit cohesion are just as important as they are to the units of military members. The military should not be politicized on the staff or distaff side; it is clear the Obamas do not have a historical view of how the military community operates best and are capitalizing on military spouses who also lack such understanding.

http://michellemalkin.com/2008/08/12...itary-spouses/

[Advisor]

And we all know that there will NEVER, EVER be undue command pressure on behalf of the republicans.

[darrels joy]

We all know that there should NEVER be “undue command pressure” on behalf of any candidate!

For a campaign to request this is wrong and bad.

Joy

[reconeil]

Please show everyone here on Patfiles where or when: "Undue command pressure"
was; "EVER" ONCE exerted by Republicans on The U.S. Military For Voting,...as YOU infer.
Seriously doubt that any such despicable duplicities quite normal amongst shameless
Democrat Politicos (plus spouses),...have ever been so similary perpetrated by Republicans.

Neil

[SuperScout]

Originally Posted by Advisor

And we all know that there will NEVER, EVER be undue command pressure on behalf of the republicans.

Are you inferring that Republicans have exerted command pressure as you allege? Can you please give us some specific examples, with applicable proof, or will you retract your sladerous statement?

[Advisor]

Mission Accomplished

[Packo]

If your mission was to show that you just spout stuff out without any facts to back it up...yes, you have acomplished your mission.

I retired last year from 16 years of working for the military. During all the elections, not once did I see or ever hear of Command pressure to vote for anyone. The only incouragement to the trooops was to VOTE. Makes me wonder about your credibility. Any idiot can just make up stuff....I thought you were beyond that.

Pack

[reconeil]

I and no doubt all other Straight-Shooters here,...THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Neil

P.S. ANY so secretive, unknown and/or anonymous liars,...rarely ever have ANY: "Credibility".
Plus,...actually:"Advisor" TO WHOM & FOR WHAT should be also questioned.

[Advisor]

I don't recall that I made any accusations whatsoever. I did not name names, incidents, or anything else which can be construed as an accusation. Therefore I have nothing to retract.
As for 'undue command influence', I have to ask if the women doing this are sworn members of the military. If so, there is a case for UDI. If not, they are merely exercising their rights guaranteed to any citizen. I know there is an 'unwritten' tradition, but that is all it is...tradition. If it were forbidden by the command structure, that would also be UDI.
As they used to say, this ain't your daddy's army.
Also, as an aside, I just wonder if there would be the same hue and cry if there were Blue Stars for McCain?
As for the military being traditionally conservative, maybe that is changing? Maybe the women are concerned about the long separations time and time again without any end in sight? Hard to say.
So guys, lighten up.
One more thing..I do not enjoy being called a liar without cause. If I have lied, prove it. If not, as Archie Bunker used to say, 'Stifle it Edith."

[reconeil]

Totally False accusations or innuendos against an entire Political Party are
automatically close enough to LYING,...for me.

Neil