In Nevada, Obama makes play for veteran support
President Barack Obama speaks to troops, veterans and military families on Friday, April 27, 2012, at Fort Stewart, Ga.
/ AP(CBS News) Republican presidential candidates have won a majority of veteran support for two elections running, but this November, in the first presidential election since 1944 in which neither candidate has served in the military, President Obama is hoping to turn that trend on its head.
On Monday, Mr. Obama will make his case to the nation's oldest veteran's organization, speaking at the national convention for the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) in an effort to prove why he, and not his Republican rival, Mitt Romney, who speaks to the VFW on Tuesday, is the better candidate for veterans and their families.
"What he has to say is very important to us," said Joe Davis, the VFW's director of public affairs. "We want to know how he -- and Mitt Romney -- are planning to keep America strong."
Like every major voting bloc, the ultimate significance of the military and veteran vote this fall boils down to just how close the presidential race ends up being. With about 22 million former members of the military currently in the U.S., veterans make up about 7 percent of the population. But the military demographic is crucial for another reason: Battleground states like Virginia and North Carolina are home to disproportionately large populations of military families -- making their support that much more desirable for both presidential candidates.
"This by all accounts is going to be an extremely tight election," says Peter Feaver, a National Security Council official under both the Clinton and Bush administrations, and now a political science professor at Duke University. "You see the presidential candidates seeking to appeal to every group: Even a group that might not be the most important overall -- they all matter in a close election."
(At VFW on Monday, Obama salutes veterans killed in the mass shooting in Aurora, Colo., on Friday.)
Veterans and service members have a historical tendency to favor the Republican Party, and a May Gallup poll shows Romney leading Mr. Obama 58 to 34 percent among registered veteran voters.
But in 2008, Mr. Obama won a majority of votes from veterans under 60 years old. Meanwhile, a May survey from Reuters/Ipsos shows Mr. Obama leading Romney nationally among veterans and their families by 7 percent. From the Obama campaign's perspective, there's a real chance that the president could win a majority of the veteran vote this November.
"President Obama, even more than the typical Democrat, has been assiduously cultivating the veteran vote," said Feaver. "I think he will probably do as well as a Democrat can do."
Mr. Obama has aggressively courted support among voters with a military affiliation, recently promoting a series of veteran-related initiatives he helped push through Congress and touting the administration's military record-- including the drawdown of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the death of Osama bin Laden -- frequently on the trail.
On Tuesday, the Obama campaign released a video highlighting its commitment to "keeping our nation's sacred promise to our veterans" and highlighting a St. Louis parade welcoming service members home from Iraq.
The first lady, too, has shown a particular interest in military issues: She recently launched a "Joining Forces" initiative aimed at providing support for military families. This spring, the Obama campaign launched "Veterans and Military Families for Obama."
The Romney campaign has launched a similar effort -- "Veterans and Military Families for Mitt Romney" -- to which it named former President George H.W. Bush and former Sen. Bob Dole honorary co-chairmen. Amid criticisms from the right that Mr. Obama is weakening the U.S. military, Romney has vowed not to cut its budget. But he took heat last year when he floated the idea of privatizing the veteran health care system, an idea the VFW openly opposed.
"Normally for a Democratic president, this would be sort of like Romney going to the NAACP," said Michael Desh, a professor at Notre Dame who specializes in American foreign and defense policies, of Mr. Obama's speech to the VFW. "At least since George McGovern, Democrats have had the war wimp label. but I actually think Obama, relatively speaking, is in a pretty good position with that group."
Because neither the president nor Romney served in the military, and because Mr. Obama has shown his willingness to use military force, Desch says the military vote is "not going to be as lopsided as it has been in the past."
Davis points out that veterans are a diverse group -- and one that's changing over time. There are about 2.4 million veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America organization. Meanwhile, as of 2011, there were about 270,000 surviving World War II veterans and 1.3 million veterans of the Vietnam War. So while today's self-selecting military members are often thought to have commonalities in their beliefs on a number of issues, there's no clear-cut political ideology for veterans as a whole.
"We care about the proper care and treatment and a strong national defense and homeland security," Davis said. "But nobody's born in a uniform. We all return to society. Political and ideological beliefs are based on who you are, and where you grew up."
The Brookings Institute's Michael O'Hanlon, who specializes in national security and defense policy, argues that both Romney and Mr. Obama can earn support from former service members by presenting bold ideas at the VFW conference and demonstrating a real understanding of issues relevant to the community.
"One glaring concern that military families have today is dealing with the strain that wars have caused -- especially the mental strain," he said. O'Hanlon suggested that both candidates would do well to present a plan for addressing long-term mental health issues among military veterans.
Davis also said the VFA was "very, very concerned" about how deficit reduction measures resulting from last year's deficit deal will trickle down to defense spending. Discretionary defense spending is expected to face crippling cuts if the so-called "sequester" cuts are enacted, which could lead to higher health care costs for veterans.
"Defense spending did not create the fiscal crisis, but the Defense Department is paying a large chunk of the cut to try and fix it," said Feaver. "The president has to talk about how he's going to solve the fiscal crisis without doing damage to national security."
Davis says Mr. Obama has so far proven his commitment to caring for current and former members of the military.
In the end, however, his success in winning their support this fall could easily come down to the cycle's predominant issue: the economy.
"The economy is going to suck the oxygen out of almost every issue in the election," said Desch.
Popular in Politics
- Obama forgets to salute while boarding Marine One Play Video
- The Ted Cruz conundrum 103 Comments
- Senators lack votes on immigration despite progress
- IRS' Lerner was asked to resign, refused: GOP Sen. 207 Comments
- GOP Rep.: Obama elected because of Reagan's immigration reforms
- Petraeus biographer regrets affair
- As summer approaches, sequestration threatens holiday fun
- Obama prom pictures surface
Not at all. It's called learning from history so you're not doomed to repeat it!
____________________________________
Thank you for making a valid point and one ignored by all the goofy lefties on this site. All the crackpots say Republicans will go back to the policies that led to the current situation.
A real estate bubble and a financial crisis caused by lax regulation brought about a large share of the current problems, or rather, many problems today stem from those two events. I doubt we're going have rampant real estate speculation anytime soon and it's not likely we'll have banks selling bogus paper on the secondary market either. So yeah, I think the GOP will do just fine when Obama is voted out.
The larger issue is that the GOP keeps siding with business and tries to carve back "evil" regulations. Lately calling them "jobs bills." Yesterday, it was a banking scandal that resulted. Tomorrow it could be a chemical scandal, or a farm scandal... who knows. But with those stories about lobbyists writing laws for them, there will be more of that - there hasn't been a big scandal over that yet - and lobbyist-written laws will promote more corruption, fraud, and abuse... not less.
THAT will lead to another big scandal. No, we won't be just fine under that system.
Apparently, this is what the right wants to go back to:
____________
Still desperate to make people think Bush is running again, he wasn't running last time, and he isn't running this time.
What we WOULD like to go back to, is the 4% unemployment during Bush......can we AT LEAST go back to a decent economy, where people are working ? how about that lib ? or is "going back" to the days of people working, that's bad to you, huh ?
Unemployment was NOT 4% when Bush left! Not even close and you know it! You did live here back then right? We were losing jobs to the tune of a good 700,000 a month during the end of his time! THAT's what you want to go back to????????
Did you forget the part where top PENTAGON officials attested to the fact that gays serving openly would have LITTLE TO NO effect on morale? The stats are against you, my friend.
This isn't a question of political association, and really there's no reason for gays serving to be an issue here, so why mention it?
I suppose you should be answering your own questions of yourself before posing them to other people, lest you look like an uninformed, uneducated, loud mouth.
I'm just looking out for you man, a quick search on google will poke the holes in your arguments for me. But I wouldn't suppose you'll find the time in the day to do that?
Life is hard when you live under a rock.
This is from when Bush was running the show. Apparently, this is what the right wants to go back to:
George Bush has left nearly 90,000 veterans waiting for health care appointments. Current policy will exclude 500,000 veterans from the VA health care system by 2005. Bush has also proposed increasing fees and co-payments to shift the burden for care onto veterans. The President thinks a $308 million increase for the entire VA health care system is enough. Coincidentally, Congress provided that same amount of money this year to help defray the costs of new patients **at Florida facilities alone.** The President's budget seeks to close 8,000 nursing home beds nationwide, at a time when the demand for long-term care services is high.
Bush sought to roll-back increases in imminent danger pay and family separation allowances. The Administration wanted to cut imminent danger pay from $225 to $150 a month and the family separation allowance, which goes to help military families pay rent, child care or other expenses while soldiers are away, from $250 from $100 a month.
Many Veterans Trained in the Military Would Lose Overtime. Today, workers are not eligible for overtime protections only if they fall within the category of "professional employees." Generally only workers with a four-year degree in a professional field can be classified as "professional."
The Bush plan would do away with this standard requirement and allow equivalent "training in the armed forces" to be routinely substituted for a four-year degree. In other words, veterans who have received training in the military that is equivalent to a specialized four-year degree could be classified as "professional employees" and lose their overtime protection under the Bush proposal.
Employers Decide Who Gets Help: Also, under the Bush plan the employer makes the determination whether a veteran's training in the military is "equivalent" to a four-year degree, with virtually no guidance from the Department of Labor.
More Veterans Would Lose Overtime in Years to Come: The Bush proposal would deny overtime protection to more and more veterans over time, since it explicitly anticipates that "he areas in which professional exemptions may be available are expanding." As a result, the number of veterans who fall within the overtime exception for "professional employees" would grow over time, and the number of veterans disqualified from overtime protection would grow also.
Military Trains Many for Occupations: The military trains service members for hundreds of occupations, including lab technicians, other health care occupations, information technology, engineers, drafters, designers, planners, air traffic controllers, communications specialists, law enforcement, firefighters, security personnel, and journalists.
Bush Plan Undermines Recruitment: The armed services have traditionally used the training and experience acquired through military service, and the career opportunities they open up, as incentives for recruitment.
The Army, for example, offers new recruits a choice of over 200 occupations, each of which includes training and a listing of the civilian occupations for which training could help them find a job. The proposal would punish veterans with loss of overtime protection precisely because they have received the exact same training that is used as a recruitment incentive.
If potential recruits expect training in the armed services to deprive them of future overtime protection, they may find such training to be less desirable and may even be less likely to join the military.
2004:
The U.S. House of Representatives approved billions of dollars in cuts to veterans' programs over the next 10 years—on the same day it unanimously passed a resolution of "unequivocal support" for the nation's troops overseas. Proposed by President Bush as part of his 2004 budget plan, the reductions—estimated at $28 billion—would erode health-care benefits already stretched by other budget shortfalls, raise costs, and decrease veterans' access to medical care.