Whe you look up "stupid communist bitch" in the dictionary, her picture comes up.
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 ...
It’s extreme ly cheap advertising compared to buying TV or Radio ads.
Thanks — that looks cool.
I guess I have a personal problem with the symbolism of having the Pentagon on some but not all racers. What would a “red blooded” patriot feel about “beat Air Force” etc.? That’s not the same as “I have a Pepsi endorsement and I’m aiming to beat Coke.”
Whe you look up "stupid communist bitch" in the dictionary, her picture comes up.
Are you an advertising and marketing expert? This isn’t about giving NASCAR money. This is about effectively selling the military to the public for recruitment purposes. Can you make a convincing argument that the military could better spend (or not spend) this money, and get the same recruiting results?
See my previous post, #44.
I’m all for not spending money. I am also for a properly-staffed military.
No I am a taxpayer and cuts need to be made everywhere.
Great, I concur. And micromanaging to the level of $7 million in a military budget in the range of $600-700 billion (~0.001%) is absurd. Tell the military what they have to work with, and let them decide how to best spend the money to get the job done.
This call to kill this spending is not about money saving, it is about politics, and FReepers should recognize that.
The military says this is the best recruitment money they have ever spent.
With a volunteer armed forces, this might be very cheap.
Well, it was in the article ...
If it is true that one in three members of the military is a NASCAR fan, that tells me that the hood of a stock car probably isn't a bad place to advertise. The issue, though, as some have mentioned, is cost-effectiveness.
Understanding that we have an all-volunteer military, I'd like to see recruiting dollars spent as wisely as possible too. Or would it simply be better to have a draft and avoid the cost of recruiting advertising altogether?
WELCOME TO FREE REPUBLIC’S MINNESOTA PING LIST!
148 MEMBERS AND GROWING...!
FREEPMAIL ME IF YOU WANT ON OR OFF THIS LIST!
I guess I missed that part. In fact, after re reading the article, I missed it again. I see nothing there at all that quantifies the cost benefit association. I see some reference to overlay but that is hardly to the point I made
I agree and turnabout is fair play- no federal loans or $ to colleges banning military ROTC on campus or recruiter visits.
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.