What set me off was this first little item in the August 2009 VFW magazine (no link available yet):
********QUOTE******
Veteran Political Affiliations
A comprehensive Gallup survey entailing 138,000 interviews with veterans and military personnel (14% of Americans, fall into either category), revealed that 34% identify themselves as Republican, 33% as Independent and 29% as Democrat.
Frank Newport, who alnalyzed the daily tracking results from Jan. 2 through May 19, 2009, concluded: "Whatever the cause, the data are clear: having served in the military is associated with a more Republican and less Democratic political identity." This is in contrast to non-vets.
While the point spread in party affiliation is not that dramatic, the discrepancy in serving by age is tremendous. Only 7% of males between 18 and 24 have worn a uniform versus 74% of those ages 80-84. Veteran status begins to climb significantly after 56, the youngest age today that would have made an American eligible for the draft during the Vietnam War.
*************UNQUOTE********
The item appeared in the "news" section (p. 8), I'm guessing under the control of publisher Richard K. KOLB and/or Senior Editor Tim DYHOUSE; 406 W. 34th St, Kansas City, MO 64111, (816)756-3390).
O.K., so I have complained about wingnut slant in the VFW magazine before, going back to Election Theft 2000 and proceeding to 2004, and points in between elections, calling the magazine's editorial office, and after THEIR predictable negative reception, to the state and national headquarters. (I also complained to the Medal of Honor organization over those six MoH holders politicizing their medals by standing on Shrub's stage, wearing their medals, during the Theft recount period. I doubt that anybody has ever comlained to the MoH organization before or since.)
Now, the little item quoted above was just a little irritating. We might quibble that their "analyst" over-emphasized the Rethug "identity" of veterans, since the groups fall pretty much into the One-Third rule of almost all surveys, and the Independents, presumably, are open to Democratic overtures and leanings.
But then the article quoted below led me to fume at the several snipings at FDR and led me to count up the wingnut hits throughout the magazine this month, and there was the COVER story,
"GIs Died While Woodstock Rocked ...While the media reminisces, VFW remembers the 109 Americans who died in the Vietnam War during those four days of revelry."
But on to the the FDR attack piece. Eventually, it will be online at this site:
http://www.vfw.org/index.cfm?fa=news.mag&did=578**********QUOTE********
http://www.facebook.com/VFWmagazinehttp://www.bgsu.edu/departments/history/faculty/page23757.html
Dr. Stephen R. Ortiz, Assistant Professor (Ph.D., University of Florida, 2004). Dr. Ortiz joined the BGSU Department of History in the Fall of 2007 after having taught for two years at East Stroudsburg University of Pennsylvania. His research examines US veteran’s policy and the political activism of military veterans during the 20th century. In 2006, he published articles in the Journal of Military History and the Journal of Policy History. The article “The ‘New Deal’ for Veterans”: The Economy Act, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, and the Origins of New Deal Dissent,” was awarded the 2007 Moncado Prize by the Society for Military History for best article in the 2006 Journal of Military History. Currently, he is finishing a book for New York University Press entitled, From the Bonus March to the GI Bill: How Veteran Politics Shaped the New Deal Era. Dr. Ortiz’s teaching interests range broadly in the political, military, diplomatic, and gender history of the twentieth-century United States. More information can be found on Dr. Ortiz’s webpage:
http://personal.bgsu.edu/~sortiz/. (from VFW magazine: ) Stephen ORTIZ is an assistant professor of history at bowling Green University in Ohio. He is also author of Beyond the Bonus March and GI Bill: How Veteran Politics Shaped the New Deal Era (Albany: State University of New York Press, 2009).
'New Deal' ... or No Deal?
VFW Saves the Day for Depression-Era Vets
by Stephen Ortiz
2009 marks the 75th anniversary of one of VFW's greatest legislative triumphs. In 1933-34, the organization took on the mighty Roosevelt Administration and won.
In March 1933, President Franklin D. Roosevelt began the relief and recovery program of the New Deal. ... .... ...the Economy Act, ... led to a $460 million cut in veterans benefits. ... ....
...National Economy League (NEL) plan to cut veteran benefits by nearly 50%, more than $400 million. The NEL was a group of financiers and industrialists who argued for minimal government spending. It opposed the World War I Soldiers Bonus and the supposedly wasteful extravagance of VA benefits. ....
Getting Results
The VFW-led political backlash... .... ...rolled back some $100 million in cuts and limited reductions for those disabled in war to 25%. .... ...FDR grudgingly signed the legislation... ....
FDR vs. VFW
.... Yet FDR bluntly rejected demands by veterans and VFW, claiming, "no person, because he wore a uniform, must thereafter be placed in a special class of beneficiaries over and above all other citizens." FDR continued, "The fact of wearing a uniform does not mean that he can demand and receive from his government a benefit which no other citizen receives." ....
In the end (roll-back of Economy Act) ...handed FDR his first major defeat in Congress. ....
...(VFW Commander in Chief James E.) VAN ZANDT issued a victory statement claiming, "Congress has demonstrated it will no longer tolerate dictatorship."
... The refusal to back down to a popular President on the issue of VA benefits attracted a new wave of members for VFW. ... .... ...In standing up for what was right, VFW made out in the end. ... ....
********UNQUOTE********
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
