Posted on 02/22/2011 2:51:27 PM PST by rhema
Democrats have apparently given up on the NASCAR vote. Several of the party's House members are backing an amendment to the fiscal 2011 budget that would block any Pentagon money from going towards the sponsorship of stock-car racing as part of the military's marketing efforts.
It wasn't so long ago that Democrats actively courted NASCAR fans. They became all the rage after Democrat Mark Warner won the Virginia governorship in 2001 partly on the basis of his assiduous attendance at NASCAR races. In the 2004 presidential election, Democrats were hunting down "NASCAR dads" (mostly Southern white males) for votes the way Republican were angling to secure the support of "soccer moms" in the 2000 election. But John Kerry, the party's 2004 presidential nominee, fell flat both in the South and with NASCAR fans, and Democratic interest in the demographic waned.
It apparently has hit rock bottom now. Rep. Betty McCollum, a Minnesota Democrat, wants to yank $7 million a year in Pentagon funding for NASCAR sponsorships, despite a strong overlap between enthusiasm for the sport and areas where large numbers of young people volunteer for the military. Surveys have found that one out of every three members of the military is a NASCAR fan.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
I see no reason to give Nascar money. They make plenty all by themselves.
$7 MILLION? $7 MILLION?! That’s 1/1000th of a percent of the debt! Why would you cut a sponsorship that has brought countless young men into the Army thanks to common interest?
This is racist, IMO. They want the Army to be filled with blacks and Hispanics despite the hue and cry from the Left about racism in wars. Blacks and Hispanics (except maybe Montoya fans) don’t watch NASCAR.
PLEASE don't tell me there's “conservatives” who think that was a good idea!
Do they sponsor under a generic “Pentagon” heading, or as Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines with four different teams. Having Uncle Sam in the NASCAR business at all would seem possibly counterproductive to me, because the same rednecks probably take a dim view of US government ownership of GM and Chrysler. It’s more than demographics, it’s motivationals.
It’s posts like this that make me wonder if it’s really hopeless.
We’re broke. Painting “Army” logos on NASCAR racecars and drag racers etc. at the cost of $7 million a year is not an essential task for our government. I am certain there are much cheaper and more effective ways to reach young citizens. Perhaps high schools should provide a one-day military day at each high school where local vets and recruiters come in to answer questions.
The fact that a majority of Army families like NASCAR is no reason to spend tax payer money on it.
We’re supposed to be fiscal conservatives. One way to prove it is to cut stuff that is more or less “ours”, willingly, without a lot of whining about it.
This strikes me as a perfect opportunity to do so.
I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that the Dems. are “against” sponsorships for NASCAR on the basis that it is one of the few sporting events that includes an invocation (often including specific mention of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ) and requests sincere respect for the National Anthem.
The Pentagon ought to invest in all teams without partiality, even if that means giving each one of them little more than the amount needed to buy the sticker(s) of their choice. I don’t like Uncle Sam taking sides in private contests governed by private rules, period.
“I see no reason to give Nascar money. They make plenty all by themselves.”
I agree . . . what the hell are we funding them for . . . I’m a devout Tea Partier . . . all politics aside, what do we give them a dime for? What am I missing?
Besides is it really seemly to ask a private team to “Beat Army! Beat Navy! Beat Air Force! Beat Marines!” ??? Which is necessary if the Pentagon does not literally lend something to all???
They want to find someway to get back to a bunch of drafted malcontents to make sure the military becomes useless and sympathetic to liberal causes. If they can't do it one way, they'll do it another.
THE MILITARY ADVERTISES ON NASCAR FOR ONE REASON, AND ONE REASON ONLY - IT GETS THEM RESULTS.
Why the hell would any conservative, clear thinking American want to make them use some more expensive means? (And for the record I have no financial interest in NASCAR and don't even watch it.)
I’d think the question ought to be on enlistment forms, even if it sounds awfully consumer marketish, like “what led you to shop at Sears?”
Yeah, I am with you. If the Military wants to run a NASCAR team, find a patriotic corporate sponsor. We need to cut ALL non-essential spending and get back to the constitutionally mandated purpose of the fed.
I “hope” it gets results, but are these chaps really ignorant of the existence and purpose of the American armed forces until “OMG! the Air Force logo is on that car!” and it clicks? Isn’t it a redneck cultural thang?
The Pentagon might be better served to buy advertising in publications distributed at the races.
Not to mention the fact that those NASCAR-fan Armed Forces recruits undoubtedly tend to be too "combative" for the Dems' fond dream of a Meals on Wheels "Army."
Hey, they made the USPS stop supporting a bicycle racing team. I personally watch a lot more of that than car racing but it never really made sense to me we were throwing taxpayer dollars at any sport.
Please, no hate from the NASCAR fans out there, I was always just a little uneasy sponsoring any racing team. My $.02.
How do we know that. If it is so, why isn't the evidence put forth to make the argument?
The dems aren't proposing to cut this for fiscal reasons. They know it's a heavily republican crowd and NASCAR fans are very pro military. What dem wouldn't be against that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.