Values Added: Porktastic Edition (Sarah Posner & Michael B. Dougherty)

[Bloggingheads]

[Wonderment]

Don't miss that Paul campaign ad about Newt that Sarah and Michael reference in the diavlog.

If I can be forgiven a violent metaphor, the ad really drives a stake through Gingrich's political heart. RIP, Newt.

I'm really rooting for Dr. Paul to triumph in the Iowa caucuses, as Michael suggests he may.

Whatever his flaws, and I concede they are many, Ron Paul is the only major-party peace candidate out there this cycle, and it's heartening to know that his counter-militarism, counter-exceptionalism message is being heard.

[graz]

Truth be told.

[Wonderment]

Originally Posted by graz

Truth be told.

Yes, I love that moment at 57 seconds when Dr. Paul says, "We have to be honest with ourselves." (You know something is happening but you don't know what it is, do you Mr. Gingrich?)

Gingrich is smirking and Santorum is rolling his eyes, but talking truth to power on national television has got to throw them off their game.

Paul's message is utterly heretical in both parties, but it's especially cognitively dissonant to his über-exceptionalist pro-Iraq War colleagues on the debating stage. How did a guy whose foreign policy views are compatible with those of Noam Chomsky and Dennis Kucinich even get invited to the venue among Republican presidential wannabes, much less share a podium and a mic as an equal? It's like an abolitionist suddenly running for president of the Confederacy. (Who knew that 15% of the white South opposed slavery?)

I also like how Chomsky references Eisenhower in the post-debate clip. It's a message to the Republican base: go back to your pre-Nixonian, pre-Reaganista roots, i.e., when you had enough cognition to experience dissonance about creeping and catastrophic militarism.

[miceelf]

Originally Posted by Wonderment

How did a guy whose foreign policy views are compatible with those of Noam Chomsky and Dennis Kucinich even get invited to the venue among Republican presidential wannabes, much less share a podium and a mic as an equal?

He had to have compensating benefits (i.e., be especially nutty in other ways).

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by Wonderment

Don't miss that Paul campaign ad about Newt that Sarah and Michael reference in the diavlog.

You can always assume that if the ad is in sepia tones, nothing good will follow

[chiwhisoxx]

Originally Posted by Wonderment

Don't miss that Paul campaign ad about Newt that Sarah and Michael reference in the diavlog.

If I can be forgiven a violent metaphor, the ad really drives a stake through Gingrich's political heart. RIP, Newt.

I'm really rooting for Dr. Paul to triumph in the Iowa caucuses, as Michael suggests he may.

Whatever his flaws, and I concede they are many, Ron Paul is the only major-party peace candidate out there this cycle, and it's heartening to know that his counter-militarism, counter-exceptionalism message is being heard.

It's interesting what people will tolerate when they think a pet issue of theirs will be advanced. I think there's pretty strong evidence from Ron Paul's past that he's some sort of virulent racist, and yet you hope he wins the nomination. I think a past of racist remarks and consorting with the KKK is disqualifying, end of story. It's an interesting question, though. Obviously Wonderment cares deeply about non-aggression. How far can/should you go in supporting noxious figures to advance your beliefs? I don't have the answer, but I still think the question is interesting.

[miceelf]

Originally Posted by chiwhisoxx

It's interesting what people will tolerate when they think a pet issue of theirs will be advanced. I think there's pretty strong evidence from Ron Paul's past that he's some sort of virulent racist, and yet you hope he wins the nomination. I think a past of racist remarks and consorting with the KKK is disqualifying, end of story. It's an interesting question, though. Obviously Wonderment cares deeply about non-aggression. How far can/should you go in supporting noxious figures to advance your beliefs? I don't have the answer, but I still think the question is interesting.

I always wonder in such cases (including this one) how much is tolerating problems and how much is self-deception. The two bleed into one another, I suppose.

Wonderment in general is a smart and principled guy. I should say that. But the Paul support is strange.

[stephanie]

Originally Posted by miceelf

I always wonder in such cases (including this one) how much is tolerating problems and how much is self-deception. The two bleed into one another, I suppose.

Wonderment in general is a smart and principled guy. I should say that. But the Paul support is strange.

What Wonderment said here is that he hopes Paul wins Iowa. (It's so unlikely that Paul would win the nomination that I can see someone deciding not to have a position on that, although I think Wonderment has been somewhat more rosy in his assessment about Paul's overall support among the right than I think is supported by the facts.)

On that, if you think an issue or two are important and aren't getting a hearing, I can see supporting a candidate who you don't otherwise care for because that candidate's involvement in the campaign in a serious way would force attention on those issues. That's especially the case if one believes -- as I think is reasonable -- that support for Paul is more likely to represent support for the positions on which Wonderment agrees with him than on weird ideas about the Fed or the gold standard or any racist past.

The argument would be that Paul's views can't be so easily ignored if he becomes a serious challenger in the primary. However, I expect they could be, as long as it's obvious he won't win, which he won't, and as long as it's clear the other candidates think they do better by trying to get to the right of Obama on national security/defense and even portraying Obama as a scary radical leftist scared to use force or defend the US on those issues, as seems to be the trend.

If the Republican primaries are to include a somewhat popular libertarian, though, Gary Johnson seems to me so, so much better than the wacky Paul. Too bad. Once again the Republicans aren't preferring the candidates a Republican me would. What a shock. ;-)

[chamblee54]

Mr. Dougherty is crying wolf about the Catholic Church losing it' s tax exempt privilege because of it's teachings. He goes on to say that this institution will be seen as somewhat akin to the Ku Klux Klan.
I didn't know that the KKK had a problem with pedophile Grand Dragons.
chamblee54

[chamblee54]

Mr. Dougherty says the Catholic Church is in a compromised position by "choice".
This is confusing. I thought choice was a violation of the most vehement teaching of the Catholic Church.
chamblee54

[Don Zeko]

Originally Posted by stephanie

On that, if you think an issue or two are important and aren't getting a hearing, I can see supporting a candidate who you don't otherwise care for because that candidate's involvement in the campaign in a serious way would force attention on those issues. That's especially the case if one believes -- as I think is reasonable -- that support for Paul is more likely to represent support for the positions on which Wonderment agrees with him than on weird ideas about the Fed or the gold standard or any racist past.

The argument would be that Paul's views can't be so easily ignored if he becomes a serious challenger in the primary. However, I expect they could be, as long as it's obvious he won't win, which he won't, and as long as it's clear the other candidates think they do better by trying to get to the right of Obama on national security/defense and even portraying Obama as a scary radical leftist scared to use force or defend the US on those issues, as seems to be the trend.

What concerns me about Paul is that I think his crank ideas about monetary policy are more likely to influence policy than his ideas about foreign policy are. The Fed already isn't doing enough to deal with mass unemployment, and many of the members of the fed's board of governors are uncomfortable with how loose Fed policy already is. I think there's a real risk that the Fed will see Paul's campaign as a threat to the Fed's independence if it gets off the ground, possibly leading them to raise rates in an effort to preempt the Paulites. I don't see any similar mechanism by which a more successful Paul campaign drives reductions in military spending or anything like that.

[stephanie]

Originally Posted by Don Zeko

What concerns me about Paul is that I think his crank ideas about monetary policy are more likely to influence policy than his ideas about foreign policy are. The Fed already isn't doing enough to deal with mass unemployment, and many of the members of the fed's board of governors are uncomfortable with how loose Fed policy already is. I think there's a real risk that the Fed will see Paul's campaign as a threat to the Fed's independence if it gets off the ground, possibly leading them to raise rates in an effort to preempt the Paulites. I don't see any similar mechanism by which a more successful Paul campaign drives reductions in military spending or anything like that.

Yeah, unfortunately I agree with you.

[sugarkang]

Originally Posted by chiwhisoxx

I think there's pretty strong evidence from Ron Paul's past that he's some sort of virulent racist, and yet you hope he wins the nomination. I think a past of racist remarks and consorting with the KKK is disqualifying, end of story.

The worst thing about Ron Paul that I've seen is that he allowed racist remarks to be printed in his newsletter over 20 years ago. While it was his fault that the words were printed, he himself was not the actual author.

If that's the only dirt that exists on Ron Paul, then it's not much. Maybe there's more, but I haven't found it. Any other "dirt" seems to be the typical guilt by association tactics akin to Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright ties to Obama.

Ron Paul was the only one to defend Mitt Romney's Mormonism against other Republican candidates during the 2008 debates. He's the only one to criticize the assassination of a Muslim American as a violation by the government. If he really is a closet racist -- and I don't believe he is -- there's no doubt in my mind he would still be the best person to defend the rights of minorities than any other candidate.

[Wonderment]

Originally Posted by miceelf

He had to have compensating benefits (i.e., be especially nutty in other ways).

I don't look at it that way. What matters for me is that Paul is demonstrating that there is a strong and vocal peace constituency among Republicans. He gives other Republicans who lean that way permission to get on board.

Whether Dr. Paul has other baggage is secondary. Future Republican politicians will come along who don't have the "nutty" baggage but who do agree on peace.

For the US to change its policy of global military domination and virtually perpetual war-making and mongering, there needs to be a new bipartisan consensus. In that regard, Dr. Paul is an exciting and inspiring historical figure.

[Wonderment]

It's interesting what people will tolerate when they think a pet issue of theirs will be advanced. I think there's pretty strong evidence from Ron Paul's past that he's some sort of virulent racist, and yet you hope he wins the nomination. I think a past of racist remarks and consorting with the KKK is disqualifying, end of story. It's an interesting question, though. Obviously Wonderment cares deeply about non-aggression. How far can/should you go in supporting noxious figures to advance your beliefs? I don't have the answer, but I still think the question is interesting.

I agree that it's an interesting question, although I wouldn't characterize Paul as a "noxious figure." I face a similar question with Obama all the time, however. Can I support someone who's in favor of the death penalty, even for crimes in which a homicide is not committed? Can I support someone who is has extended Bush-era war practices in some many areas? (I'll spare you the rest of my list).

[Simon Willard]

Originally Posted by miceelf

I always wonder in such cases (including this one) how much is tolerating problems and how much is self-deception. The two bleed into one another, I suppose.

Wonderment in general is a smart and principled guy. I should say that. But the Paul support is strange.

Not strange at all. Wonderment is nothing if not consistent. In his monochromatic view of the world, peace and non-violence have overriding importance. It is a simple matter of logic that his support must go to the most pacific candidate.

[sugarkang]

Originally Posted by Wonderment

I don't look at it that way. What matters for me is that Paul is demonstrating that there is a strong and vocal peace constituency among Republicans. He gives other Republicans who lean that way permission to get on board.

I think that's part of it, but libertarianism is also a broader movement capturing younger minds. He's the number one recipient of donations from active military service members among all candidates.

I'd much rather have libertarianism subsumed under the Democrats, but it looks like the Republicans are doing a much better job of co-opting them. In twenty years, the GOP will probably be somewhere between libertarians and conservatives today.

[TwinSwords]

Originally Posted by chiwhisoxx

It's interesting what people will tolerate when they think a pet issue of theirs will be advanced. I think there's pretty strong evidence from Ron Paul's past that he's some sort of virulent racist, and yet you hope he wins the nomination. I think a past of racist remarks and consorting with the KKK is disqualifying, end of story. It's an interesting question, though. Obviously Wonderment cares deeply about non-aggression. How far can/should you go in supporting noxious figures to advance your beliefs? I don't have the answer, but I still think the question is interesting.

I know I'm the last person you want to hear this from, but kudos for the outspoken criticism of hate speech. Every time a Republican stands up against bigotry, my hope for humanity is bolstered. I dream of a day when people like you overrun your party and drive out the racists. More power to you.

[TwinSwords]

Originally Posted by sugarkang

The worst thing about Ron Paul that I've seen is that he allowed racist remarks

And let's note, here, that the remarks weren't only racist. There were also homophobic comments, lunatic conspiracy mongering, and promotion of anti-government militias that advocated violence.

Originally Posted by sugarkang

...to be printed in his newsletter

Wow! You admitted it was his newsletter! This might be the first time I've seen a Paulbot who didn't try to deny Paul had any connection to the newsletters.

One minor correction: there were a number of different newsletters in which Paul's demented ravings appeared -- all owned and published by him.

Originally Posted by sugarkang

...over 20 years ago.

Make that "less than 20 years ago." The newsletters were published through the early 1990s.

Originally Posted by sugarkang

While it was his fault that the words were printed, he himself was not the actual author.

You (and he) say so, but how do we know? Take his word for it? Of course you would. But the newsletters were written in the first person, as in:

"Boy, it sure burns me to have a national holiday for Martin Luther King. I voted against this outrage time and time again as a Congressman. What an infamy that Ronald Reagan approved it! We can thank him for our annual Hate Whitey Day."

And, "even in my little town of Lake Jackson, Texas, I've urged everyone in my family to know how to use a gun in self defense. For the animals are coming."

So whether he or the person he hired to write for him wrote this, it was intended to be perceived by his subscribers as his own views in his own voice.

Originally Posted by sugarkang

If that's the only dirt that exists on Ron Paul, then it's not much.

Well, we already knew there are a lot of people who are indifferent to what he wrote, or paid to have written by the staff he hired, in his newsletters. Like you. Whether it's "not much" is something each person decides for him or herself.

Originally Posted by sugarkang

He's the only one to criticize the assassination of a Muslim American as a violation by the government.

Oh brother, LOL. This is just brazenly dishonest. Paul's basis for criticizing the assassination had nothing to do with the religion of the target; I can't believe you think you can get this stuff past the readers in this forum.

[stephanie]

Originally Posted by chamblee54

Mr. Dougherty says the Catholic Church is in a compromised position by "choice". This is confusing. I thought choice was a violation of the most vehement teaching of the Catholic Church.

I expect you are just making a joke, but I didn't think Michael's point here was confusing at all. I found Sarah's seeming difficulty in understanding the distinction he was making odd, actually.

[TwinSwords]

Originally Posted by Wonderment

... Dr. Paul ...

Gag.

Never a good sign when they drag out the "doctor" appellation. It's an appeal to authority, and a bit manipulative.

Originally Posted by Wonderment

Paul's message is utterly heretical in both parties

No, it really isn't. It's actually pretty normal and mainstream in the Democratic Party.

Or, I should say, I guess it depends what part of his message you're talking about. If you're talking about closing all our bases and eliminating the US military, then, yes, Paul's message is utterly heretical in both parties, as well as among the US population. I doubt 5% of Americans would support Paul's full blown agenda. But if you're talking about some of the things Chomsky described as non-controversial, or the bulk of what Paul says about treason and war and the police state, those are pretty mainstream views in the Democratic Party.

It reminds me of the praise rfrobison gets for being a nice guy. People have remarked before that Rob gets all this praise not just because he's nice, but because he's a nice conservative. A polite manner and willingness to discuss issues without animus are just normal for the liberals around here, but when a conservative does it, no one can believe it and we fall all over ourselves heaping praise on him. Bob Wright even went out of his way to highlight the anomaly by naming a politeness prize in Rob's name.

But this is roughly how you treat Democrats. You claim they are their moral equivalent of Hitler, and then make a conspicuous display of showering love on Ron Paul.

I've always assumed I knew what you were doing: You figured the Republicans were the ones who needed encouraging, so you'd highlight the one guy on their side who deserved praise. I get that; it was Bob Wright's reasoning, too, in praising rfrobison. But I don't want to let your claim about about the Democrats stand without challenge.

Originally Posted by Wonderment

but it's especially cognitively dissonant to his über-exceptionalist pro-Iraq War colleagues on the debating stage. How did a guy whose foreign policy views are compatible with those of Noam Chomsky and Dennis Kucinich even get invited to the venue among Republican presidential wannabes, much less share a podium and a mic as an equal?

Good question. I suspect it's because they know he's never going to get anywhere with the radical peace agenda, but they don't mind his positions on all the other issues. He's actually to the right of everyone else on the stage when it comes to his desire to effectively outlaw representative government*, dismantle most of the state, wipe out the safety net, and eliminate the sole hedge the American people have against the untrammeled abuse of private power. Paul -- Dr. Paul -- is a radical apologist for unregulated private power. Nothing good will come of your embrace of him, but you might help him increase the reach of his Rothbardian libertarianism.

* If your libertarianism says that everything government does is illegal or un-Constitutional, that all federal agencies should be dismantled, that everything government does (save for courts, police, and the military) should be stopped , you have effectively decided that government is not a tool the public can use to shape the kind of society they want to live in.

Originally Posted by Wonderment

I also like how Chomsky references Eisenhower in the post-debate clip. It's a message to the Republican base: go back to your pre-Nixonian, pre-Reaganista roots, i.e., when you had enough cognition to experience dissonance about creeping and catastrophic militarism.

Neither Chomsky, nor you, nor anyone else is going to get through to the Republican base. They are a lost cause, and they cannot be reached. The GOP leadership has worked very hard to cultivate a pliant and malleable base that will believe whatever Rush Limbaugh tells them to believe, even if it directly contradicts what he told them to believe yesterday -- and this base refuses to believe anything else that anyone says. We've all experienced it: you can hit them with fact after fact after fact and they just shrug their shoulders. If you want to advance a peace agenda, there are large parts of the polity you have a much better chance of reaching the the rightmost 30%.

[Sulla the Dictator]

A polite manner and willingness to discuss issues without animus are just normal for the liberals around here

Umm....not for you though.

[sugarkang]

Originally Posted by TwinSwords

Oh brother, LOL. This is just brazenly dishonest. Paul's basis for criticizing the assassination had nothing to do with the religion of the target

Heh. I actually agree with you. Criticizing the assassination had nothing to do with the religion. It has to do with our rights as American citizens, regardless of his religion. As to all the other stuff you said, it's just, well, classic DoubleSpoons.

[TwinSwords]

Originally Posted by Don Zeko

What concerns me about Paul is that I think his crank ideas about monetary policy are more likely to influence policy than his ideas about foreign policy are.

Right. As well as his ideas about entitlements.

[miceelf]

Originally Posted by Wonderment

I don't look at it that way. What matters for me is that Paul is demonstrating that there is a strong and vocal peace constituency among Republicans. He gives other Republicans who lean that way permission to get on board.

I wasn't talking about his appeal to you, FTR, but his appeal to primary voters.

[basman]

Onederment I'll make you a bet: that rather than Paul's ad driving a stake through Gingrich's political heart, in the end Gingrich and Romney will be the last men standing, and it will be a horse race of some endurance. In a word, the proposition is that Gingrich will neither implode nor be exploded any time soon. That is not to say, Gingrich will win; he may or he may not; (I think he just may and it wouldn't surprise me.) It is to say, that the Republican primary is now a two man race and Gingrich is in it for the long haul.

The stakes you ask: your parrot and my pit bull, Gandhi, the loser gets to have and keep both.

Itzik Basman

[chiwhisoxx]

Originally Posted by TwinSwords

Right. As well as his ideas about entitlements.

this isn't right at all. I think it's wrong substantively, but that's just a different disagreement. politically, I think he views on monetary policy have a real effect on policy. I think you can attribute a lot of how the GOP field is talking about monetary policy to ron paul. when you talk about ron paul fans, a lot of people you're talking about are gold bugs, and it's one of the issues paul himself brings up the most. but when you talk about restraining the monster of entitlement spending, no one brings up ron paul right away. you talk about paul ryan. the idea to block grant medicaid didn't become a consensus GOP position because of anything ron paul did, just to take a random example.

[Wonderment]

Originally Posted by basman

Onederment I'll make you a bet: that rather than Paul's ad driving a stake through Gingrich's political heart, in the end Gingrich and Romney will be the last men standing, and it will be a horse race of some endurance. In a word, the proposition is that Gingrich will neither implode nor be exploded any time soon. That is not to say, Gingrich will win; he may or he may not; (I think he just may and it wouldn't surprise me.) It is to say, that the Republican primary is now a two man race and Gingrich is in it for the long haul.

The stakes you ask: your parrot and my pit bull, Gandhi, the loser gets to have and keep both.

Itzik Basman

Cute, but you've hedged the bet out of existence. I also think Gingrich may be around for a while (dead man walking). I'll give the three to one odds, however, that Gingrich is not the nominee. That's better than what you can get on Intrade. If Newt gets nominated I donate 30 dollars to the charity of your choice; if he doesn't you donate 10 dollars to the charity of my choice.

[Wonderment]

Gag. Never a good sign when they drag out the "doctor" appellation. It's an appeal to authority, and a bit manipulative.

I'm sure, in the interest of being consistent in your principles, you also gag and object vehemently every time you hear someone refer to MLK as Dr. King.

But if you're talking about some of the things Chomsky described as non-controversial, or the bulk of what Paul says about treason and war and the police state, those are pretty mainstream views in the Democratic Party.

Really? Can you name any mainstream political figures who have expressed these mainstream views, besides Dennis Kucinich? Can you name any who haven't lined up in relentless opposition to Paul and Chomsky's views on Israel? Can you name any who would agree with Paul and Chomsky that we should understand the grievances of those who advocate for the removal of US bases from their countries? Perhaps I misunderstand you: what view that Chomsky described in the clip as "uncontroversial" do mainstream Dems. accept?

But this is roughly how you treat Democrats. You claim they are their moral equivalent of Hitler, and then make a conspicuous display of showering love on Ron Paul.

I regularly vote for Democrats, including Barack Obama for whom I campaigned as well as voted. I certainly have never compared them to Hitler. Actually, in the previous post I compared Republicans to the leadership of the Confederacy in the Civil War, but you probably missed that because party loyalty clouded your judgment.

Neither Chomsky, nor you, nor anyone else is going to get through to the Republican base. They are a lost cause, and they cannot be reached.

I strongly disagree with that. There's lots of ideological rigidity in both parties, but people can change their views over time, especially young people.

[Wonderment]

He's the number one recipient of donations from active military service members among all candidates.

Very interesting. Do you have a source for that?

[Ocean]

Originally Posted by Wonderment

I'm sure, in the interest of being consistent in your principles, you also gag and object vehemently every time you hear someone refer to MLK as Dr. King.

I will consider whether I should start demanding that you call me Dr. Ocean. Only you, Wonderment.

[stephanie]

Originally Posted by Wonderment

I'm sure, in the interest of being consistent in your principles, you also gag and object vehemently every time you hear someone refer to MLK as Dr. King.

It actually just strikes me as odd. No one calls Gingrich "Dr. Gingrich," and being a medical doctor has nothing to do with Paul's appeal or lack thereof, politically. (The supposed allure of him having delivered babies aside.)

Plus, it reminds me of this nutty law school professor I had who used to bitch about how medical doctors were the only ones to use the title on a social basis. He'd say that if MDs in Congress were going to demand "Dr." as a title, all the JDs should, as well, which obviously would remove any specialness.

So I can't wait til it comes down to Dr. Romney and the anti-Dr. Romney, whether that be Dr. Gingrich, Dr. Paul, or Dr. Bachmann.

[Wonderment]

It actually just strikes me as odd. No one calls Gingrich "Dr. Gingrich," and being a medical doctor has nothing to do with Paul's appeal or lack thereof, politically. (The supposed allure of him having delivered babies aside.)

Plus, it reminds me of this nutty law school professor I had who used to bitch about how medical doctors were the only ones to use the title on a social basis. He'd say that if MDs in Congress were going to demand "Dr." as a title, all the JDs should, as well, which obviously would remove any specialness.

This is actually an issue in the medical profession nowadays. Many "Physician's Assistants" or "Nurse Practitioners" now have doctorates; however, by law, they are required to work under the auspices of an M.D. So when the Practitioner comes in for the consult and says, "I'm Dr. Jones," it's confusing to Patient Smith (and presumably wounds the ego of Dr. Johnson, M.D.)

I think official guidelines discourage or prohibit the Phd nurse from calling him/herself "doctor."

[Wonderment]

Originally Posted by Ocean

I will consider whether I should start demanding that you call me Dr. Ocean. Only you, Wonderment.

A sus órdenes, Doctora.

[graz]

Originally Posted by Wonderment

I'm sure, in the interest of being consistent in your principles, you also gag and object vehemently every time you hear someone refer to MLK as Dr. King.

The problem with your attempt to elevate Mr/MD/Dr/Great Thinker Paul (as used by you elsewhere also) is that most everyone else sees him for the mere mortal and wacky politico that he is. Your love and affinity for his single dovetailing issue does not overrule the complete package that most everyone else recognizes. Highlighting him as a beacon for the youth and a uniter of the extremes of both parties is wishful thinking. Electoral politics requires leavening "hope" (like your sometimes man Obama -- would that be mister?) with practicality. Polishing a turd doesn't remove its stink.

[sugarkang]

Originally Posted by Wonderment

Very interesting. Do you have a source for that?

Source. Numbers are from July 2011, so take that with a grain of salt.

Here are 2007 numbers for comparison.

[Ocean]

Originally Posted by Wonderment

A sus órdenes, Doctora.

Muy bien.

[graz]

Originally Posted by sugarkang

Source. Numbers are from July 2011, so take that with a grain of salt.

Here are 2007 numbers for comparison.

So what's the appeal for a military person?
Marijuana? Gay Rights?
It can't be demilitarization, that would end their careers.
His Libertarianism as social service gutting would deny them the benefits and pensions that are just about the best part of their service.
Maybe they like the idea of service more than the application? Can't say as I'd blame them.

[stephanie]

Originally Posted by Wonderment

I think official guidelines discourage or prohibit the Phd nurse from calling him/herself "doctor."

This irritates me. As a potential patient, I'm not so easily confused.

In any case, I see no reason to follow it in referring to politicians.