Ohio Governor Jim Rhodes (1909-2001) 'forgotten' "chicken hawk"?

I did not start this thread to discuss the Kent State Massacre. Also, if it doesn’t belong here, please move it to the correct category.

Yes this guy was the governor of Ohio during the infamous “Kent State Massacre”
(May 4, 1970) in which 4 students were shot to death by Ohio National Guardsmen.
This guy was a Republican and certainly a conservative. In a May 3, 1970 press conference

Wow that guy sure could talk and act pretty tough, so it made me think - ‘I bet this guy didn’t spend one day in the military’ and after a bit of searching, it seems I was right about this guy’s military service (or lack thereof).
Basically, my questions are do you think this guy qualifies as a chicken hawk and what made him immune to being singled out as such?

“Chickenhawk” is a recent coinage referring to warhawks who could have served in Vietnam but didn’t.* Rhodes would have been 18 years old in 1927 – no wars at the time he could have served in, and in 1941 he was 32, just a bit old for it, though I’m sure older men did volunteer and get in. Also, in the post quoted he is not even being a warhawk, but railing against a domestic political movement; there’s nothing in it that even expresses his opinion on the Vietnam War itself.
*And a somewhat older coinage referring to pimps who recruit minors as prostitutes, and Rhodes actually was one of those; my post is my cite.

BTW, does a thread about a dead man really belong in the Elections forum?

Does it only apply to Vietnam? It came into use because of Vietnam, but I was under the impression that it applies to anyone who supports war but refuses to fight.

Its use is entirely post-Vietnam and only WRT Vietnam, AFAIK.

I don’t know if it only applies to Vietnam, but, at least, I would think it would apply to people who were of an appropriate age during some sort of large scale mobilization of the American populace and “refused” to fight.

I mean, whether or not you think military service is important for being commander-in-chief, I don’t think you could call Obama a “chickenhawk” for supporting certain military actions yet not having served in the military. He’s just not the right age to believe that a “real man” would have served.

Similarly, Rhodes would have been too young for WWI and a little old for WWII.

If he were born in 1909 then he would have been 32/33 when the US was entering WWII. They were taking men in that age range at that time (18-42,; 17 with parental permission). He wouldn’t have been drafted, but he certainly could have volunteered if he chose to.

As an ex-servicemember myself, I’m sure that he had to do some pretty fancy “dancing” when he discussed what he did during the war around vets. Most guys who didn’t serve usually did and do. Or they simply change the subject unless they were conscientious objectors.

Barack Obama had no need to join the military as

A) There was no war going on when he was old enough to join
B) He was smart enough to get into a good college

Anyone who calls him a “chickenhawk” doesn’t know what the "eff’ they are talking about.

Or, for that matter, calls him a “hawk.”

He served with distinction in the US military, recently in actions during the Civil War over the Superhuman Registration Act.

Otherwise, I don’t think chickenhawk is appropriate but other terms might be.

He is very willing to use military force when necessary.
Ask Osama bin Laden about that.
Oh wait….

But a hawk would not bother about “necessary.”

Thanks for the quick replies and it’s good to see everyone stayed on topic.

By the way BrainGlutton sorry for if I placed this in the wrong category. (The last time I posted any new SDMB topic was 10 months ago. Let’s hope I choose a category more wisely the next topic I choose). :slight_smile:

Although I could easily enough deduce the warhawk/didn’t serve meaning based on context, there is only one meaning of chickenhawk (besides, y’know, the literal meaning) that I had ever been familiar with: an older gay man who pursues much younger men.