|
Duckworth and Roskam tied?
Wednesday, May 24, 2006 - Posted by Rich Miller This just in from the Tammy Duckworth congressional campaign… a new poll has her tied with Peter Roskam. The following is a tabular report of a telephone survey among 400 registered voters in Illinois’s 6th Congressional District, who are likely to vote in the general election in November. The survey was conducted from May 9 through 11, 2006 by trained, professional interviewers following procedures established by Bennett, Petts & Blumenthal. Krol has some additional thoughts, while also noting that President Bush’s favorables/unfavorables were 34/65 in the poll: It’s an open-seat election (they’re vying to replace retiring Congressman Henry Hyde), so only 20 percent undecided before Memorial Day seems way low. Voters in the district haven’t been exposed that much to Roskam in this campaign so far. He hasn’t spent much money. Duckworth probably has higher name ID than your typical suburban congressional challenger by her virtue of her immense publicity and primary, but independents and Republicans probably don’t know much about her. Still, this has to be highly encouraging to Duckworth after her dismal-in-victory showing during the primary (she narrowly defeated the vastly under-funded Christine Cegelis of Rolling Meadows and may have lost if third candidate Lindy Scott wasn’t on the ballot). It’ll definitely be encouraging to Duckworth’s national fund-raising abilities. Roskam has to be a bit scared by Bush’s numbers in what’s long been a GOP district. Roskam is more conservative than Hyde on guns and is more conservative than Bush on immigration. If there’s a Democratic tide nationally and in Illinois, and a general throw-the-bums out sentiment, Duckworth could pull off the upset. Roskam has the money and the DuPage County GOP ground troops to take it up a notch any time he chooses and (presumably) create a little distance between himself and Duckworth, who really needs Cegelis to ask her volunteers to back her. Roskam has yet to pull the trigger, however. Your thoughts? UPDATE: Sweet has more: [The poll] shows that 26 percent of the respondents identified the Iraq war and bringing the troops home as the most important problems they wanted their next representative to address.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
- Skeeter - Wednesday, May 24, 06 @ 9:34 am:
It confirms what I have said. Roskam has been elected to office out there, so he should have started with a much higher base. I don’t think he is particularly well liked with most who know him viewing him as a far right extremist (of course, in C6, there are some people who like that about him).
It will be interesting to see what sort of ads Roskam runs. Vague is better for him. If he talks about the issues, he loses.
- VanillaMan - Wednesday, May 24, 06 @ 9:51 am:
Voters are giving Duckworth time before they make a final decision about her. Roskam is known, and she is not, so they are giving her a look. That is what this poll is reflecting.
- Bill Baar - Wednesday, May 24, 06 @ 9:51 am:
Skeeter, I’d say just the opposite, Roskam has to talk issues and forget the Duckworth a tool of City Democrats. He can’t ride Protect Marriage either.
What he should do, if he was a little bold, was say this:
My values tell me marriage is between one man, one woman.
My patriotisim, especially in time of war, tells me that don’t ask, don’t tell is a needless affront to gays who have served and died in this war. If elected, I would ask it be dropped as DoD’s policy.
I don’t know Duckworth’s position on don’t Ask, don’t tell. I called yesterday but they haven’t called back. I know she is opposed to same sex marriage and instead favors civil unions.
The war is the issue here. I’d be Radical Republican and do what for me at least is the right thing…. at least with regard to don’t ask, don’t tell.
But I’m not politican for sure….
- Conservative Republican - Wednesday, May 24, 06 @ 9:52 am:
Who has the “higher base”? In the primary election, Roskam far out-polled Duckworth AND all her Democratic challengers combined. This poll is meaningless.
Duckworth victory in Nov? Dream on.
- Bill Baar - Wednesday, May 24, 06 @ 9:55 am:
CR,
There are a lot of isolationist Republicans in Dupage… it’s the heritage there. If I were Roskam, I wouldn’t feel to comfortable.
- ChiliMan - Wednesday, May 24, 06 @ 10:04 am:
Duckworth will win. There’s no reason she won’t be able to pull ahead in what will be a very tight race.
- you're nuts - Wednesday, May 24, 06 @ 10:18 am:
Sounds to me like a bunch of volunteers sat in a basement calling people after a ten minute class. Seems like a pretty easy way to get a poll to show the data the you would like. If they want real traction they should a real polling firm and get solid data. But I bet they don’t want to see the real data right now.
- Just Observing - Wednesday, May 24, 06 @ 10:25 am:
You’re nuts: Bennett Petts & Blumenthal is a very good firm out of DC, so you are ill-informed to say they are not a “real” polling firm. However, I do think Roskam will crush Duckworth in November.
- Wumpus - Wednesday, May 24, 06 @ 11:11 am:
Haha, this poll is comedy. This is not Bean v Crane! Wake up people, unless Roskam gets caught on camera beating up a small child, he will win by 20%
- you're nuts - Wednesday, May 24, 06 @ 11:21 am:
Just Observing,
I know that firm is reputible. I just dont see the need for the disclaimer prior to the data. It sounds more like they used the the firms guidelines not necessarily the firm. If they used the firm for the polling wouldn’t the story read: A poll commissioned by the Duckworth campaign conducted by Bennett Petts & Blumenthal shows a virtual tie. I don’t think that firm actually did the polling.
- you're nuts - Wednesday, May 24, 06 @ 11:24 am:
Plus I’ve never had poll come in that says in 95 out 0f 100 caes the margin of error is plus or minus 4.9%. If it is a statistically sound poll the margin is the margin not some of the time but all the time
- You and I think from the Gut - Wednesday, May 24, 06 @ 11:24 am:
Duckworth will win because all the Roskam supporters have to offer is to
1. Deny the validity of the poll
2. Assert without reason that Roskam will win
I almost feel bad for Roskam, I bet this time last year he thought he was going to coast to victory over Cegelis, and now he’s got a serious opponent who’s going to run a real race, and all that Roskam has are hard right credentials that aren’t going to amount to crap when the hard right stays home this November.
- Rich Miller - Wednesday, May 24, 06 @ 11:26 am:
“You’re nuts,” that is standard disclaimer language on polling. I’m not sure you know that much about polls.
- Goodbye Napoleon - Wednesday, May 24, 06 @ 11:33 am:
Roskam would be a good candidate in a normal year against a Cegelis or another lesser candidate. However, he doesn’t have the personality to win a tight race. In the end, I think a lot of swing voters just won’t like the guy. Duckworth might win the squeeker.
- you're nuts - Wednesday, May 24, 06 @ 11:38 am:
Rich, et all…
I read polls on a daily basis; you might even say I earn my living doing it. (and not a bad one at that) Perhaps its just that none of my firms use that particular language. So you’re saying that standard language indicates that in 95 out of 100 cases the margin of error is ###. I’m sorry you may be right but I have never seen that on any polling i’ve analyzed.
- Ravenswood Right Winger - Wednesday, May 24, 06 @ 11:45 am:
has Rahm’s protege moved into the district yet? That would be another issue for Roskam to attack Tammy with during the campaign.
- Rich Miller - Wednesday, May 24, 06 @ 11:48 am:
“You’re nuts,” there is always a small chance with every poll that it is an outlier. Sampling error plays a big role in this. Not every poll is accurate as a result. That’s why full disclosure is always important, and that’s what the pollster in this case did.
- Rich Miller - Wednesday, May 24, 06 @ 11:53 am:
For more info on sampling error, see Introduction to Survey Methodology and Design. Here’s a useful passage from
20 Questions A Journalist Should Ask About Poll Results:
==Interviews with a scientific sample of 1,000 adults can accurately reflect the opinions of nearly 210 million American adults. That means interviews attempted with all 210 million adults – if such were possible – would give approximately the same results as a well-conducted survey based on 1,000 interviews.
What happens if another carefully done poll of 1,000 adults gives slightly different results from the first survey? Neither of the polls is “wrong.” This range of possible results is called the error due to sampling, often called the margin of error.
This is not an “error” in the sense of making a mistake. Rather, it is a measure of the possible range of approximation in the results because a sample was used.
Pollsters express the degree of the certainty of results based on a sample as a “confidence level.” This means a sample is likely to be within so many points of the results one would have gotten if an interview were attempted with the entire target population. Most polls are usually reported using the 95% confidence level.
Thus, for example, a “3 percentage point margin of error” in a national poll means that if the attempt were made to interview every adult in the nation with the same questions in the same way at the same time as the poll was taken, the poll’s answers would fall within plus or minus 3 percentage points of the complete count’s results 95% of the time.
This does not address the issue of whether people cooperate with the survey, or if the questions are understood, or if any other methodological issue exists. The sampling error is only the portion of the potential error in a survey introduced by using a sample rather than interviewing the entire population. Sampling error tells us nothing about the refusals or those consistently unavailable for interview; it also tells us nothing about the biasing effects of a particular question wording or the bias a particular interviewer may inject into the interview situation. It also applies only to scientific surveys.
Remember that the sampling error margin applies to each figure in the results – it is at least 3 percentage points plus or minus for each one in our example. Thus, in a poll question matching two candidates for President, both figures are subject to sampling error. ===
Again, if you’ve never encountered the phrase “sampling error” then you don’t know much about polling.
- Skeeter - Wednesday, May 24, 06 @ 12:08 pm:
- Ravenswood Right Winger - Wednesday, May 24, 06 @ 11:45 am wrote:
“has Rahm’s protege moved into the district yet? That would be another issue for Roskam to attack Tammy with during the campaign. ”
In response:
Sure that’s a great argument for Roskam. He should talk a lot about the fact that Maj. Duckworth doesn’t even live in the district.
Of course, Duckworth will point out that she lives outside the district because due to her war injuries she was unable to find adaptable housing within the district.
She will also point out that the Republicans failed to support our troops to the extent that Maj. Duckworth now cannot live where she wants to.
Maybe you are right. Maybe the district has changed. Maybe C6 district wants to vote for a party that has screwed over our vets. When I lived out there, I thought it was a pretty patriotic/support our troops district, but times may have changed.
You may be right though. Hopefully Roskam will bring the issue up so we can see how it plays.
- JustinTime - Wednesday, May 24, 06 @ 12:38 pm:
Ah, so now it’s the 6th district’s fault Duckworth couldn’t live there, that’s a good one!
Love when you play the victim card Skeeter. Just goes to show what you and her supporters case is…don’t pick on her because she’s a wounded vet, which I’m sure she’ll play up once the race heats up.
Classic
- Ravenswood Right Winger - Wednesday, May 24, 06 @ 12:45 pm:
Skeeter, that was mighty funny! With logic like that, you should work for the Chicago Cubs!
- Pete Granata - Wednesday, May 24, 06 @ 12:51 pm:
JustinTime–Before you start taking cheap shots at Duckworth ask your boy Roskam why he could find time to hustle dog bite cases for his law firm and not volunteer to serve his country (JAG). Remember, we are at war!
- Skeeter - Wednesday, May 24, 06 @ 1:02 pm:
- JustinTime - Wednesday, May 24, 06 @ 12:38 pm:
“Ah, so now it’s the 6th district’s fault Duckworth couldn’t live there, that’s a good one!
***
Classic”
Response:
I don’t blame C6 at all. I blame George W. Bush and his friends in the House who have sold out our American vets. A soldier does her duty and pays the price of her legs, and we Americans cannot even make sure that soldier has a house to accomodate her new needs?
You find that acceptable?
You sure are happy to send Maj. Duckworth to fight but you are not so great at helping her out after she has done so.
Luckily C6 is a patriotic district and they will reject the abuse that the B-Team has dumped on our crippled vets.
Tell me, Ravenswood and Justin: Do you believe that when an American vet loses her legs the government should provide housing for her that can accommodate her new needs? Tell us more about your patriotism, Ravenswood and Justin. Tell me more about your love for America. Do it soon, before your friends screw over our vets again.
- SenorAnon - Wednesday, May 24, 06 @ 1:15 pm:
Rich Miller: “I’m not sure you know that much about polls.”
This might be the greatest understatement ever set to type on this blog.
- pickles!! - Wednesday, May 24, 06 @ 1:45 pm:
Heres my pick for election day
Roskam wins 53 to 47 percent.
Sixth district is too Republican for Duckworth to pull it out. Communites like Elmhurst, Bloomingdale, Bensenville, Glen Ellyn, Wheaton and others do not vote democratic, especially for a Chicago/Cook County Democrat, which is what Duckworth basically is, and will be portrayed as one by Roskam’s camp.
While Roskam is a bit to conservative for many fringe areas of the district, he will get the votes out of default, cause Dupage wont support a Cook County democrat.
the poll doesn’t take into fact that Roskam hasn’t lunched his blitz yet. He’s already had Cheyney out here to support him, and I bet Hastert brings in Bush or McCain later this summer.
- Wumpus - Wednesday, May 24, 06 @ 2:20 pm:
You and I think from the Gut-How about Roskam has people who live in the district that actually will work for him. Most people who would work for a Dem are still bitter over Cegalis. Roskam has legislative experience and a record to run on. Duckie is sitting there with Rahm’s hand up her rear pulling the strings…
the Rahmchurian candidate, I like it!
Anywho, looking at the primary numbers, you had Roskam in an uncontested race pulling down just shy of 51k vs the three d’s pulling down just shy of 33k. It is not that easy for the dnc/chicago fraud machine to cheat in Dupage. That will be a lot of tire slashing and Venezualan ballot machines to deal with. I don’t think the Chciago campaign workers/water district employees will play too well out here. “Hey you, vote for Duckworth or your streets won’t get plowed.”
- Semper FI - Wednesday, May 24, 06 @ 2:20 pm:
I am a War Veteran and do live in the 6th district and will not vote for Duckworth simply because she is an outsider and a puppet of the Chicago machine. I respect Tammy for her service, but is not the only Iraqi veteran who has been injured. Does she have any good ideas? or just what Dick Durbin tells her to say?
- Skeeter - Wednesday, May 24, 06 @ 2:25 pm:
Semper:
Thanks for opposing Maj. Duckworth with respect.
Wumpus:
When you speak of an crippled American vet, speak with respect. She lost her legs for all Americans, including you whether or not you deserve her sacrifice.
Tell us Wumpus, why do draft-dodging Republican keep bashing American vets?
- Wumpus - Wednesday, May 24, 06 @ 2:48 pm:
Wumpus did not bash her! All Wumpus said was that she is a puppet of Rahm & Chicago dems, and she will not win. Wumpus respects the service of vets. But is Skeet, hehe, Skeet, says that Wumpus doesn’t respect vets, it must be true. But do Wumpus one favor, tell Wumpus where he insulted her courage, dedication, service or anything about her character and Wumpus will apologize. What Wumpus said is largely accepted as true, given the facts of her candidacy. She was recruited by Durbin/Rahm to run.
Wumpus knows, you are simply trying to distort the issue into the fact that she lost her legs serving in the military and that is why she should win the election. Wumpus does not think that is good enough reason, but we each vote based on our own criteria.
Wumpus demands an apology from Skeet, Skeet!
- Semper FI - Wednesday, May 24, 06 @ 2:57 pm:
Skeeter, I am a Republican and fought for my country, just like many Democrats did. Do not label all Republicans as Draft Dodgers my friend. Roskam has a better ground game as Rich Miller mentioned. This race will be won or lost in Dupage county where Tammy has no base. Roskam will turn it up after Labor Day with Henry Hyde in tow, and will probably win by 5% to 7%. I personally have not heard any buzz on Tammy here, I believe its all media spin and not realistic.
- Skeeter - Wednesday, May 24, 06 @ 3:37 pm:
Semper Fi– I did not state or intend to state that all Republicans are draft dodgers. That is obviously not the case.
What I did say was that draft dodging Republicans continue to bash our vets, and that is true. Bush and Cheney refused to serve. Now they preside over a government that does not provide body armor for our troops and will not provide adequate health care for our troops (and in particular, the National Guard).
Wumpus:
Read your earlier post again. You called a crippled American — an OFFICER — a puppet. That is disrepectful of our vets and shows your basic attitude about them. No apology for you.
- NW burbs - Wednesday, May 24, 06 @ 3:39 pm:
Semper Fi,
So, hypothetically, would you have voted for Roskam when he ran an outside the district campaign a few years back? (Why was it ok for Roskam to challenge Biggert while living outside her district, but now it’s somehow not ok for Maj. Duckworth to fight for her principles from literally a few blocks outside the 6th)?
Maj. Duckworth does live very nearby the 6th (barely a few minutes drive) and her and her husband have several friends, etc. in the district.
As we all know, there is no Constitutional requirement that a candidate live in the Congressional District in which they run. It’s not like she’s campaigning from Champaign or Peoria.
Finally, simply because Durbin and Emmanual encouraged her to run and set up a primary infrastructure doesn’t mean anything. As Maj. Duckworth has indicated several times through press interviews and in person at campaign events she is her own person and differs with Emmanual on several issues.
(Is it that she’s an independent, strong woman that freaks out conservatives? Why does Maj. Duckworth so worry the GOPers?)
Criticizing Maj. Duckworth’s establishment support is hypocritical given the strong GOP establishment support Roskam has enjoyed since Day One. The Illinois GOP cleared the primary for him. The trouble-ridden Washington GOP Establishment, not the least of which is indicted former GOP Majority Leader Tom DeLay, have rolled out the red carpet with $1000-a-plate funders for the Roskam. (Roskam certainly lives up to his namesake, a certain “Peter” from about 2000 years ago, by getting forgetful every time DeLay is brought up)…
The very fact Roskam has already started throwing around the ’sleaze card’ with the press shows he’s worried. From the right-wingers online I’d expect such malarkey (as this thread demonstrates), but not from the candidate himself 5+ months out.
He better stop it lest “Roskam” become synonymous with “pond scum” for going after a soldier who served her country and lost her legs defending his right to call her names like sleazy.
- Semper FI - Wednesday, May 24, 06 @ 3:56 pm:
Skeeter, President Clinton also dodged the Vietnam Draft. Selective memory? NW Burbs you sound like a media spin doctor. I understand your allegiance to Duckworth, but this tired Delay stance does not stick. Duckworth is supported by the Hired Truck corruption of Chicago along with Jan Schawkowsky, whose husband was sentenced to Federal Prison. I saw Tammy speak in Lombard recently, and I am sorry to say she has no Oratory skills or Charisma. So visit a few VFW halls in Dupage or Elk Grove, and you will find out Tammy Duckworth has no traction in the 6th district.
- Skeeter - Wednesday, May 24, 06 @ 4:04 pm:
Semper Fi:
Sure President Clinton dodged the draft.
But when he was elected, he treated vets with respect. He did not send them into a war with three years of planning but no body armor. He did not abuse the National Guard to the extent done now, where vets need to wait months for surgeries for their war wounds.
President Clinton may not have personally served, but unlike Bush/Cheney, after he was elected he did not turn his back on those who did.
- Wumpus - Wednesday, May 24, 06 @ 4:04 pm:
NW Burbs, thank you for your thought out response. We disagree. Roskam has establishment support, but he also has grass roots. Nothing worries me about a strong independent woman, I just don’t think Duckworth is one referring to the subject matter at hand. According to your logic, Duckworth is immune from criticism about her policy, company, etc just because she served. I have not heard one negative thing regarding her service outside of Skeet’s imaginary accusations and democratic war protestors (not singling her out, but nice blanket statements about all troops). Get real, she has to publicly disagree with Rahm on some issues, she is running in the 6th for goodness sake.
Skeet Skeet, you are touched in the head. I called her a puppet, because I (and apparently many others) beleive she is simply following Durbin’s/Rahm’s orders/script. She is an attractive mouthpiece for their Nationwide strategy, get a vet and run them for public office. It didn’t work in OH, I don’t think it will work here. You are just trying to make an issue out of nothing, you can’t be cereal about this arguement…can you? Cegalis had grassroots support, but she could not have won. Major Duckworth (who has minimal local gr support is a decorated vet and apparently, nothing about her stances on issues can be criticized because of that.
Duckworth will have a seat at the right, er left hand of our savior, Obama
- Semper FI - Wednesday, May 24, 06 @ 4:10 pm:
Skeeter, ever heard of Somalia? Clinton also bombed Civilians in Yugoslavia just to Wag the Dog during the Lewinsky Emabarrasement. As a Veteran I despised Bill Clinton, who was very anti-military along with Godzillary.
- Semper FI - Wednesday, May 24, 06 @ 4:15 pm:
Wumpus. May Polls bring false hopes, like those in 2002 and 2004 did for the Democrats. This happens every election cycle. The Bias media tries to pump up the Democrats, but in the end voters prefer the GOP due to National Security and Tax cuts. Duckworth is a impressive woman, but not a politician. She will lose in November along with Melissa Bean. The GOP will successfully paint both as lapdogs of Ultra Liberal Nancy Pelosi.
- Skeeter - Wednesday, May 24, 06 @ 4:18 pm:
Semper,
You need to read some history.
Somalia? That is petty compared to going to war in Iraq, with three years notice and still failing to provide body armor and then the failures following the fall of Saddam.
Yugoslavia? That is the war we won with no American combat losses. We defeated a brutal dictator who wanted to wipe out innocents. That was American planning and cooperation at its best. I note that in the former Yugoslavia we also worked with NATO. Interesting what a bit of cooperation will do.
- Semper FI - Wednesday, May 24, 06 @ 4:36 pm:
Skeeter, what is the point my friend? You are obviously so far to the left that you cannot be reasoned with, so have a good day and we will see you in the fall after the GOP once again controls the House and the Senate, and Congressman Roskam calls Duckworth a Great Competitor.
- Dozer - Wednesday, May 24, 06 @ 5:00 pm:
Skeeter –
“Sure President Clinton dodged the draft.
But when he was elected, he treated vets with respect. He did not send them into a war with three years of planning but no body armor. He did not abuse the National Guard to the extent done now, where vets need to wait months for surgeries for their war wounds.”
You don’t know jack based on your comments. Bill Clinton did not support our troops. he denied them the very equipment they asked for to do their job. When he met with Rangers from Samilia he asked why they didn’t leave their fellow rangers bodies behind? guess the condomin chief never heard of the ranger creed.
Duckworth is no Tommy Franks. this past weekend I saw some vet friends of mine. They knew both candidates. And they knew of Roskam’s families help with Vietnam vets. both agreed to help Roskam.
And the only thing I ever expected out of my country/government as a soldier was a rifle that worked, air support on the other end of the radio and a country to come back to.
you and your liberal puke pals somehow equate tossing press releases and sound bites around with real support of the troops. Oh lets moan about body armor. When a lot of the troops are now leaving the added body armor in lockers.
But if you never carried a rifle, ruck, radio and 210 rds of 5.56 ammo you know about having to run between cover and trying not to look like a turtle on your back.
Naw you and the Senator Turbin wouldn’t know about that now would you? And you and Al Gore surely would want to support the troops except, when it came time to count all those absentee ballots in FL right?
show me a pair of jump wings and I just might have an ounce of repsect for you. But I doubt any self respecting paratrooper would have such shallow thoughts about what supporting our troops means and why many of us will support Roskam.
Semper Fi, I’ll buy you a beer some time and tell you of getting to meet R. Lee Ermy
Dozer
- SenorAnon - Wednesday, May 24, 06 @ 5:51 pm:
“…after the GOP once again controls the House and the Senate, and Congressman Roskam calls Duckworth a Great Competitor.”
Who will be speaker under your scenario? Because the FBI’s turning the heat up on Coach Denny…
“Officials: Hastert “In the Mix” of Congressional Bribery Investigation” http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/05/federal_officia.html
- Wumpus - Wednesday, May 24, 06 @ 11:12 pm:
Well Senor Anon, I am not so sure about that. Who leaked? Could it be retaliation against “not supporting him” by Fitzgerald? I doubt it since he is not aself promoting opportunist like Spitzer.
- Anon - Thursday, May 25, 06 @ 2:23 am:
The write-up on the poll is correct about Duckworth needing to get the Cegelis supporters on board, but the writer seems to think that it’s all sour grapes on the part of the Cegelis camp. However, the Duckworth camp continually brushes off any interest from former Cegelis volunteers in doing anything for Duckworth. If it comes down to a narrow victory, The Sixth may end up being a reverse of the national trend where the liberal Democrats sit on their hands and in doing so, hand victory to the Republicans…
- bored now - Thursday, May 25, 06 @ 7:41 am:
Anon 2:23 am: it’s less a function of the duckworth campaign refusing help of former cegelis supporters than the duckworth campaign not actually doing anything. they simply are not organized. i don’t think they would even know how to utilize you…
- Passerby - Thursday, May 25, 06 @ 3:48 pm:
you and your liberal puke pals somehow equate tossing press releases and sound bites around with real support of the troops. Oh lets moan about body armor. When a lot of the troops are now leaving the added body armor in lockers.
Those troops are entitled to the best equipment available to be in battle. Once there, they can use their own discretion on whether or not the armor is necessary for a given mission, or too burdensome. By that faulty logic, they don’t need an M249 SAW for combat availability because they have an M-16.
I guess that’s what “liberal puke pals” were thinking when they “whined” about armor.
- Dozer - Thursday, May 25, 06 @ 6:05 pm:
troops due deserve the best equipment. But when the liberal whines end up interfering with the troops mission, or imapring their ability to do a mission all for the sake of a cheap political stunt aimed at trying to show the world what chicaken haws they are, it is a sickening sight.
I wish we had the SAW at times, the M60 was a pig to haul around. And if you think trading firepower to adding more junk on a soldiers back is the same thing, your as daft as skeeter. But there were times when I preferred a bolt action rifle.
I don’t think the Turbin or any of the others cared one whit about the body armor. I think they saw it as a way to move them in the polls.
I don’t seem to recall the same support the troops attitude when Aspen and Clinton nixed armor for the rangers.
Don’t seem to recall the support for the troops when Clinton shut down Army divisions that have left us with the force we have today, forcing us to rely more on Guard and reserve troops.
so spare me the feined rush to do what is right by the troops.
dozer
- Skeeter - Friday, May 26, 06 @ 9:25 am:
Dozer said:
“Duckworth is no Tommy Franks.”
You mean, she did not try and wage war in Afghanistan from the comfort of Florida?
Duckworth also did not fail to coordinate with Northern Alliance and fail to crush the Taliban.
Duckworth did not fail to cut off retreat from Tora Bora allowing Bid Laden to escape.
You are right on that one. Maj. Duckworth is no Tommy Franks.