Joe Sonka December 10th, 2007

(crossposted at BlueGrassRoots and DailyKos)

In light of Mitch McConnell's despicable comments last week about our military deaths, its worth noting this story from the LA Times last Friday on how Republicans are hemorrhaging support from the military. Check out these numbers from the Bloomberg/LA Times poll conducted Nov. 30th to Dec. 3rd of active military, veterans and their family:

Was it worth going to war in Iraq?- only 36% yes, 57% no (was 64% yes in 2004)

Should we withdraw our troops now or within the next year? Or should we stay as long as it takes?- 58% withdraw, 35% stay

Do you approve of the way that Bush is handling the needs of active duty troops, veterans and military families?- 35% approve, 53% disapprove

What party do you trust to do a better job of handling issues relating to military families?- 39% Democrats, 35% Republicans

And military families in KY are quite aware of the fact that Mitch McConnell has rubber-stamped Bush's failed policies every step of the way. And let us not forget, it was Mitch McConnell that TWICE filibustered Sen Jim Webb's amendments to restore proper troop rotation and rest between tours, which both had broad bipartisan support and 58 votes. I noted back in July the LHL story on the shift in attitudes towards Bush/McConnell/Iraq in Ft. Campbell, where the strain on military families has reached the breaking point.  

A few days after the Sept. 11 attacks, Bo Ward put these words on the sign at his 12-chair barbershop near the main gate at Fort Campbell: "President Bush, show no mercy. Kick their ass!"

But almost six years later, and after more than four years of war in Iraq, Ward's no longer so sure.

"Soldiers are tired; wives are tired; families are getting worn down," Ward said. "I know these boys can't just pick up and come home from Iraq, but we need some kind of exit plan."

**************

Kentucky has given heavily to the war effort. Fort Campbell's latest round of deployments will push to 23,000 the number of soldiers from the post serving in the Middle East conflict.

At Fort Campbell, the place Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. military commander in Iraq, once called home, feelings about ongoing efforts in the Middle East and Republican leadership during the war are mixed.

On any given weekday, Ward's barbershop, the fort's largest, is a place where privates and senior officers sit side by side waiting for a trim. Ward chats with these soldiers as he snips away. And he says he thinks many of them now would be happy to see Washington set a date for leaving Iraq.

"Right now, you've got first sergeants and sergeant majors and E-7s and E-8s that are getting out of the army right and left," Ward said. "They're saying 'I've been deployed three times, I'm pressing my luck, I'm not going to give up my life and my family for something where there's no end to it.'"

Karla Tucker works at a furniture store just down the street where many military families shop. She also says that many soldiers, exhausted by repeated deployments, are deciding not to "re-up" as their enlistments end.

"These young men and women are coming back with all kinds of problems; some of them are on anti-depressants; their marriages are in trouble," Tucker said. "There are families right and left that are deciding not to hang around; they're leaving here and going home. I personally have not heard anyone say they're going to re-enlist. It's sad."

It is sad, and this war's tragedy goes far beyond even the high number of deaths and serious injuries. The effects of the war have taken a deep psychological toll on many soldiers returning, breaking up families and even leading to a 26-year high in the suicide rate among the Army's active duty.  Below is the video of Lt. Col. Andrew Horne on MSNBC, explaining the strain on families from the extended tours that Mitch McConnell filibustered in order to maintain.

Military families know the role that Mitch McConnell has played in being Bush's lapdog in respects to Iraq, and what once helped him will now be an anchor around his neck as they turn on Bush. Just look at McConnell's recent poll numbers among those in Western KY (where Ft. Campbell is located). In just 2 months, McConnell's approval/disapproval rating went from 66/23% to 49/36%. Western KY is usually where Mitch pulls in his biggest amount of support, but if a candidate is able to significantly cut into this, Mitch could seriously be in trouble next year.

As I mentioned back in July:

Meanwhile, Marine vet Jim Webb shows how you deal with a repetitive talking point regurgitator and Bush enabler on Meet the Press.

Can you imagine Mitch McConnell having to debate a tough Marine veteran like this in his Senate race next year? Someone that actually has a distinguished military record and can speak for the veterans and their families that have paid such a heavy price for their sacrifice to their country in Iraq?

Perhaps we can make that happen, eh?

Perhaps we can, indeed.

• 2008 KY U.S. Senate Race , Andrew Horne , Filibuster , GOP , Iraq War , Jim Webb , Mitch McConnell , Opinion Polls , Republican Party Decline
• Comments(3)

Matt Gunterman October 28th, 2007

You no doubt all seen the new Herald-Leader commissioned poll that finds the support of Sen. Mitch McConnell (R) to continue its fast-paced erosion.

In short, it finds that McConnell’s unpopularity is now surpassing his popularity, and that all his potential Democratic opponents are sitting very pretty a year out from the election.

Here’s the quick breakdown:

McConnell v. Chandler: 46/41
McConnell v. Luallen: 45/40
McConnell v. Stumbo: 46/37
McConnell v. Horne: 45/34

What are the most telling findings of the polling?

First, that McConnell never gets above 46 percent support against any of the Democrats. Second, that that’s the case even against Horne, whose inclusion in the polling essentially represents — because of what I suspect is low name recognition across the state — the equivalent of “generic Democrat.” A majority of Kentuckians don’t want to vote for McConnell.

What’s the most inane comment in the H-L article? This one from Danny Briscoe:

[...]

Although Chandler and Luallen showed the same deficit to McConnell, Chandler is better off because he’s already endured barrages of harsh ads during the 2003 election, said Danny Briscoe, a Democratic campaign consultant.

“Ben Chandler’s had millions of dollars attacking him, Crit Luallen’s never taken a punch,” he said. “It’s hard to imagine if she had millions attacking her that she’d be in the position she’s in now.”

[...]

This makes no sense. Then why is Chandler sitting in the position he’s sitting in, even after the millions of dollars spent attacking him? Are we to imagine that negative advertising takes a person a set distance from some base? Did Chandler start professional life at something like 70 percent, and after decades of negative advertising he’s been eroded to 41 percent against McConnell? Because, you know, there’s never been a case in all of electoral history where a challenger defeated an incumbent by surviving (and actually gaining popularity) in the face of his or her rival’s relentless negative attacks.

Where do they find these inane people?

Plus, I’ve heard lots of people argue — and not that I agree with it — that a strength of a Luallen candidacy is that it’s harder to relentlessly attack a woman. I’m not so sure about that. It might be hard to attack them in the conventional sense, but there are ways of undermining people’s confidence by playing on stereotypes, whisper campaigns, and the like.

The thing to keep in mind here, I think, is the case of Sen. Jim Webb (D) of Virginia. In 2006, Webb’s incumbent opponent Sen. George Allen (R) outspent Webb $19 million to $8.5 million.

In June of 2006, six months out from the election, Webb still trailed Allen 56 percent to 37 percent.

So, neither Horne, Stumbo, Luallen, or Chandler is in a bad position.

• 2008 KY U.S. Senate Race , Andrew Horne , Ben Chandler , Crit Luallen , Greg Stumbo , Jim Webb , Mitch McConnell , Opinion Polls
• Comments(4)