Yes. It is debatable that decades-old experience has much relevance to how wars are likely to be waged in the future. It is highly debatable that experience as a POW makes someone less likely to put others in harm way. It should not be debatable that military service is not a requirement for political office in this country.
What disgusts me the most about this is how the Republican party line seems to flip-flop every 4 years on drugs and the military. Me, I didn’t care when it was Clinton; I didn’t care when it was Bush; I don’t care whether it’s Obama or McCain. But I’m tired of hearing
Drug use is important! Can’t have a president who used drugs, no sir. And military service is important! Can’t have a president who is a draft-dodger.
Drug use is irrelevant! It was a long time ago. And military service is irrelevant! So what if I’m running against a Vietnam veteran?
Drug use is important! Can’t have a president who used drugs, no sir. And military service is important!
As a nation of intelligent voters we must say STOP. Drug use, military service? If these things are only irrelevant when it’s our guy, and relevant when it’s the other guy, then they should always be irrelevant. What matters is what the candidate will do in the future.
Military service is a plus, but not an overwhelmingly determining factor.
Illegal drug use will always be a knock in most circles, because, um, it’s illegal.
I just hate politics. All this sniping and undermining. it’s truly horrible, and in no way helpful, other than to get the next schmuck elected.
I believe military service, especially service that was over 20 years, is quite helpful to a potential candidate for POTUS, but not necessary.
That website is horrible. Just bad. Beyond bad. Unimaginable.
from McCain or from McCain supporters? I’ve seen some on this very board touting his POW status and his military leadership as presidential training. Have republicans been making the comparison and using his impressive military record to indicate he is the better candidate in perilous times? Just the opposite of what they were stressing four years ago.
I agree with Sam that a good strategy would be not trying to denigrate his service in any way, but I think it has to be mentioned.
Is it necessary to be such an extremist? I never implied it didn’t matter. I’m only suggesting we look at both men’s credentials realistically. I’m voting for a president this year not 20 or 40 years ago, so I care more about their more recent records and positions on the issues, as well as their more recent displays of character.
btw, in another thread , although military service is emotionally appealing to the layman {myself included} there is no evidence that it helps anyone be a better president. We just had a thread and looked at that very issue. Since we’re facing some serious problems in this country I think that’s a fact every voter should consider.
I agree with this as well. The question is whether that same man, with that same character, is running for president now. By my recent observations, he is not the same person. I don’t know why, and I don’t need to know in order for it to influence my vote. I can honor and respect his service to this country and still think he’s not the best man for POTUS.
Do you think it’s true or false? I remember seeing a clip of McCain admonishing Bush for those kind of tactics telling him he ought to be ashamed of himself for having any part in it.
What does it say that isn’t true?
Did you leave a word or two out of that sentence?
Cite?
If it’s anything to do with what’s recounted here, Shelton is full of shit.
You are moving the bar then, and you’re moving it in an extreme way. Now it’s “this year,” we should judge them by.
Like I said before, why don’t we just elect a smart, photogenic 16-year-old? We could have a democratically elected Queen Amidala.
America has a very deep cultural military thing. For generations, politicians craved to have a military background, combat service, if possible. Its reminiscent of French politicians exaggerating or fabricating their connections to the Resistance of WWII. Note for instance the questions about GW’s drug use and his sketchy career protecting the skies of Texas from the Viet Cong air force.
Questions about the dedication and sincerity of his military committment brought a ferocious response, they fought that one tooth and nail, screaming their lungs out! Suggestions about drug use? Meh. Largely shrugged off, at least in comparison to accusations of a gold-bricking enlistment. This goes way back with us, its so ingrained we hardly notice it anymore. Go see John Wayne’s The Green Berets if you need a refresher on the kind of blatant propaganda we used to swallow whole.
We exaggerate the importance of military experience the same way we exaggerate the importance of leaders, and leadership. If there is one glaring exception, that would be Dwight Eisenhower, who held together an alliance that included Charles DeGaulle, Churchill and Stalin. Its a wonder he could have planned a luncheon, much less an amphibious invasion. Qualifications for the job extraordinary, performance adequate.
The McCain people are stroking the warrior nerve in our collective psyche, as has been done a thousand times before, and will continue so long as we fall for it. A pity we couldn’t run Kurt Vonnegut or Joseph Heller, they had lots of experience, lessons to teach us. But perhaps they lacked leadership skills.
Well, Clinton got elected twice as a “pot smoking draft dodger” so we can’t honestly say we Americans worship at the military altar. We elected Bush twice and he went AWOL.
Military experience is certainly better than can’t-come-up-with-better experience, though. It’s unfair to dismiss it as “doesn’t count!”
McCain’s experience shows he is a man of courage – but not the sort of courage required of a POTUS, who is never expected or even allowed to risk his own life.
I’d be more inclined to agree with you if there was a clear line of making the right choice under difficult conditions running through McCain’s life from then to now.
But there isn’t.
He came back from Hanoi, supposedly loaded with character from having withstood the worst that his North Vietnamese jailers could throw at him - and returned to a wife who’d had a pretty damned difficult time of it herself. She’d survived a terrible car crash, leaving her with two smashed legs, a broken pelvis, broken arm, and ruptured spleen. She underwent 23 operations, lost 4 inches in the reconstruction of her legs, and gained weight.
Fortunately, John McCain had the character and fortitude to cheat on her with multiple women, eventually landing a beer heiress nearly 20 years younger than himself, whose family (once he divorced his first wife and married the heiress) would finance his entree into politics.
A few years later, he’d have the integrity and character to be one of the Keating Five.
More recently, he’d have the integrity and character to reverse himself on practically everything he’d ever disagreed with George W. Bush on, and to kiss the asses of John Hagee, Rod Parsley, and the late Jerry Falwell, who he’d once called an ‘agent of intolerance.’
And there’s the four dozen or so flip-flops that he’s had the character to do in this campaign.
The latest - and this is really good - is:
Remember how, last year, he sponsored a pretty reasonable immigration bill?
Then, during the primaries, he said if that bill came to a vote at that time, he’d have to vote against it.
Yesterday, speaking to the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials, he had the integrity to change back to his original position.
No doubt his ability to withstand political pressure is directly attributable to his years of being tested in Hanoi.
This doesn’t even resemble what I’ve said. I said I’m voting for a president this year. That’s a fact. I did not say we only consider their actions and character this year. I’m saying more recent displays of attitudes and character should have more relevance than things that happened several decades ago. 10 to 20 years ago is more recent than 40 years ago wouldn’t you say? Especially if they seem to indicate a change in the person running for office. Does that seem sensible to you? I didn’t care if GWB smoked pot 20 years ago or had some alcohol issues 20 years ago. It didn’t seem that relevant. Likewise I don’t care if Obama experimented with drugs 20 years ago. I’ve already said I honor and respect McCain’s service but in considering who to vote for I want to look at more recent indications of who the person is and what they stand for. I want to see if their words and actions show any consistency.
I haven’t seen anybody say it doesn’t count at all. It’s a question of how much it actually relates to the situation at hand. The fact that he displayed courage and noble character then doesn’t automatically translate into that same character decades later.
Does the fact that Obama chose public service over a lucrative career count as noble character?
What does it say that is true, and is verifiable by you or me?
And even if McCain has a temper, so what? Don’t you? Don’t I?
We can elect the “unelectable” dope smokers and coke snorting drunks, but not someone that gets pissed off at political shenanigans, real or perceived, and that becomes public knowledge. Whoopty-doo.
Stop mincing words. If you have something to say just spit it out.