Originally posted by Panacea
View Post
This blogger mentioned that the vast majority of military personnel had voted for Bush, and he referred to this as an "irrefutable statistic." He was basically claiming this was proof that Bush was viewed as a better Commander-in-Chief by the people in the best position to judge, the active military.
Personally, I don't believe that any such thing as an "irrefutable statistic" exists. There are always many different factors that affect any statistic, and always multiple ways to interpret statistics.
In this case, for example ...
Let's set aside the fact that just because somebody is in the military does not mean that that will be the ONLY thing they care about in choosing a Presidential candidate.
If I was a U.S. soldier in a war zone, I think that I would probably feel a little nervous about the idea of the White House going through a lengthy transition process with a new Commander-in-Chief just getting briefed on the classified details of the war, while I've got shells exploding around me.
It's entirely possible that at least some of the military personnel who voted for Bush did so, not because they felt he was necessarily better qualified than Kerry, but because they were worried about the consequences of trying to change administrations while the war was in progress.
People need to open their minds more. There is always more than one way to look at a situation. Just because you can't immediately see one doesn't mean that it can't exist.
Comment