I do not believe military service should be required for a POTUS, but I tend to think the candidate should have served honorably or not served for an honorable reason.
I do not like the way Bush got out of really serving. I am content with how Reagan served only via the USO. I prefer records like Jimmy Carter’s, however he is good proof that a good military record does not make for a good president. McCain’s record is a plus for him. Clinton’s was fairly neutral. He dodged via a college exception earned via hard work and great grades, not Daddy pulling strings.
I also hold Republicans to a higher standard as we are in theory the party of the Hawks and if you are going to be a Hawk, you should have served honorably.
At the very least, such a requirement would introduce a bias against women (because, let’s be fair, far fewer women join the military) at a time when the first female president is a not-far-fetched possibility in 2008 or 2012.
Besides, how would you implement it? Likely, the list of potential candidates, including governors and senior senators, as well as congressman and state legislators thinking 20 years ahead, is full of people who’ve never served and have no incentive to support such a measure. Why would anyone vote for it if it meant the chance they may one day be president, admittedly slim, gets reduced to zero?
You’ve got to be kidding. Clinton clearly dodged the draft, by having he and his Uncle work the system working the system, pulling strings for years. But he is honorable. But Bush also (may have) worked the system (Dan Rather couldn’t prove it thought), and actually serves in the military, but he’s NOT honorable?? :rolleyes:
Proof positive that if a guy’s from your party, either Democratic or Republican, he can do no wrong.
Good reading comprehension.
a) I am Republican. As in voted for Reagan and registered and everything. I like McCain better than most democrats. (great service record BTW)
b) I said Clinton is **neutral ** as he **dodged the draft ** by working hard and having great grades. I **did not ** say he was honorable.
c) I approved of Reagan. He had the honorable way out.
d) I mentioned that despite a great service record, Carter was a **terrible ** president.
Got it. Improved reading comprehension.
Dodging draft by working hard, getting good grades with Uncle pulling strings neutral. Actually serving while potentially having father pulling strings bad.
Jim, don’t worry about it. It’s just another case of protecting the Name of the Great God Bush against blasphemy by pointing out that That Evil Slick Willie Did Worse ™. If there’s not a fact you can skew, make one up.
Clinton’s uncle pulled some strings, apparently, to get him assigned to a naval billet that would have resulted in keeping him out of combat. Here’s the Snopes story of Clinton and the war:
The military trains its people into accepting violence as a method to gain ones ends. The acceptance of killing is dangerous in the political stage. I have never seen military service as a positive.
David Suzukis series years ago ,made the point that we train killers. I prefer thinkers and negotiators. The world is too dangerous and complex to have the single minded warriors in charge.
Thanks for the link. I was under the mistaken impression he avoid the draft by college deferment and being a Rhodes Scholar. I did not realize that he also had a strings pulled. It sounds like many strings. However, he it still looks like being a Rhodes Scholar is what allowed all those strings to be pulled.
I would downgrade my acceptance of his service record from neutral to poor, but still better than Bush.
gonzomax: that is a depressing view of the military. Would you say they trained Jimmy Carter to be a killer? How about JFK? I served in the Navy and never even shot a gun. Your remarks are actually on the insulting side to millions of veterans.
David Suzuki deals more in natural science and the environment. Could you be thinking of Gwynne Dyer’s documentary “Anybody’s Son Will Do,” from his War series? According to the linked page,
You bring up 3 military presidents as proof they are peaceful. They were not. Eisenhower warned of the danger of the Military Industrial complex and how it would try to take over the system. It has.
Would you be happier with a philosopher king or Alexander the Great.? I want intellectuals, diplomats and thinkers in the white house. Is that asking too much. ?
It seems to me that Carter qualified as an intellectual, a diplomat and a thinker. He just happened to have a distinguish military career serving as a nuclear officer in the Navy.
I am really trying to understand your POV. Please help me out a little.
But as I recall the issue wasn’t that he didn’t serve but that he dodged serving. Had he not been eligible to serve, the question would not have arisen.
Some members of the Army yes, but not all. Carter was a Navy Nuclear Officer. As in running nuclear power plants/commanding Nuclear subs for Admiral Rickover.
I would say that he was not trained to be a killer, but rather trained to be a leader and thinker. Somewhere else in life he picked up the diplomacy part.
Carter missed serving in WWII. He graduated from Annapolis in 1945 if I recall correctly.
So yes, I would deny that Carter was trained by the military to be a killer.
I was also Navy, though only a lowly 4 year enlisted Electrician Mate. Guess what, I was most emphatically not trained to be a killer, just a logical troubleshooter. I never even fired a gun. I got out of it in boot camp very easily.
So again I say, Veterans are not trained to be killers. Some are, many are not and most in the Navy are not!
I am actually a bit surprised by your post RickJay, I expect better from you. It sounds more like something I would hear from maybe Der Trihs.
Abraham Lincoln never served and a lot of people think he was a great president. He also did things like suspend habeus corpus and plunge the natiuon into the bloodiest war it has ever seen (even though there was a way to avoid war by letting slavery continue) and consequently building up our first real national debt. Still, I prefer him over our current president who has served in the military, only accounted for 3500 or so American deaths, mere nibbling of our rights at the margin and a mere 30 or 40% increase in our national debt.
