[Earthdweller]

So now "ties to the military" is a bad thing? Out of touch with the grassroots thinking again. Marxist thinking at it's worst.

We have got to start listening to what the people want or this nomination is going to be split ten ways to Sunday. It's already apparent...the endorsements are scattered to the wind.

Hunter is the only candidate that the base can get excited about in mass. The elitists with their delusional political hierarchy requirement are going to force us to lose.

[Puddleglum]

Did you get out your home edition of word-twister? No, ties to the miltary industrial gravy train can be a bad thing. Ties to the military and its ethos and spirit of service is an excellent thing. But big military budgets by the Fed Gov are as prone to mismanagement and lobbying shenanigans as any other government spending program.

Military spending is the third biggest line item in the federal budget, after interest on the debt and entitlements. That budget must be carefully managed with an eye to A) taking care of troops during and after their service, and B) ensuring high quality and sufficient quantity in their arms and provisions. It must be protected from undue influence by corporations that would benefit from juicy accounts, whether they delivery quality + value or not.

Military budgets are as susceptible to chicanery as highway funds and Water Resource Development funds.