How times have changed these past four years! Four years ago a man who served a brief stint in the military made his military service the cornerstone of his presidential campaign as the former lieutenant proudly proclaimed, "Reporting for duty!"

 

Four years later, Democrats are disparaging the long military career of former Captain, John McCain and claiming that being a military commander does not qualify as executive experience.

 

Former military officers are prized by American businesses, who often hire them directly into management positions precisely because of their executive experience in the military.

How times have changed these past four years! Four years ago a man who served a brief stint in the military made his military service the cornerstone of his presidential campaign as the former lieutenant proudly proclaimed, "Reporting for duty!"

 

Four years later, Democrats are disparaging the long military career of former Captain, John McCain and claiming that being a military commander does not qualify as executive experience.

 

Former military officers are prized by American businesses, who often hire them directly into management positions precisely because of their executive experience in the military.

 

Bingo. Direct hit.

I he was a Naval flight squadron commander in the 70's, then yes he made budgetary requests and administered budgets, made promotional employment decisions and disciplinary decisions, including courts martial, and PARTICULARLY in the 1970's, was worried about legal issues and organized training and classes for his squadron on everything from sexual harrassment to race relations.

 

Dad has a cruise box full of this stuff. You're welcome to look at it, but I think you are being reckless by making bald assertions without having any knowledge.

 

Fair enough. I'll defer to your experience.

How times have changed these past four years! Four years ago a man who served a brief stint in the military made his military service the cornerstone of his presidential campaign as the former lieutenant proudly proclaimed, "Reporting for duty!"

 

Four years later, Democrats are disparaging the long military career of former Captain, John McCain and claiming that being a military commander does not qualify as executive experience.

 

Former military officers are prized by American businesses, who often hire them directly into management positions precisely because of their executive experience in the military.

 

I agree with your post, particularly the bottom section.

 

However I think the hypocricy runs both ways. When Clinton was running the GOP made a big point of noting that George H. Bush and Bob Dole were war veterans/heroes (and they were). Meanwhile Clinton was one who did everything he could to avoid the service and/or draft.

 

Yet in 2000 the GOP took someone as their leader (George W. Bush) who did everything he could to stay out of harm's way in the Vietnam era and said, "That's irrelevant" when running against Kerry who had served in combat.

 

Now we see that this Military record is important because McCain is running. (BTW, it is one of the great appealing points for me about McCain.) I wish the hypocricy on both concerning the Military would end. Anyone who has served honorably in the Military has a leg up in my mind (not the only factor but a good start) whether that person is John McCain, George H. Bush, or Max Clelland.

I agree with your post, particularly the bottom section.

 

However I think the hypocricy runs both ways. When Clinton was running the GOP made a big point of noting that George H. Bush and Bob Dole were war veterans/heroes (and they were). Meanwhile Clinton was one who did everything he could to avoid the service and/or draft.

 

Yet in 2000 the GOP took someone as their leader (George W. Bush) who did everything he could to stay out of harm's way in the Vietnam era and said, "That's irrelevant" when running against Kerry who had served in combat.

 

Now we see that this Military record is important because McCain is running. (BTW, it is one of the great appealing points for me about McCain.) I wish the hypocricy on both concerning the Military would end. Anyone who has served honorably in the Military has a leg up in my mind (not the only factor but a good start) whether that person is John McCain, George H. Bush, or Max Clelland.

The current issue is executive experience and George W. Bush had that experience as a governor and John Kerry did not, except for his brief Navy experience. Kerry should have touted his service as executive experience but his real weakness was that he had virtually no major legislative accomplishments in his quarter century in the US Sentate. Absent a strong Senate record, he attempted to focus his campaign around his brief experience in the Navy. Kerry invited ridicule with his poorly conceived convention. Kerry ran a poor campaign and still nearly unseated Bush.

 

Dole had a long list of legislative experience and there was more to his campaign than running as a war hero. Dole ran on his overall record and voters said, "No thanks." Dole's weakness was that although the art of compromise is prized in the US Senate, IMO, it is not a great selling point for a presidential candidate seeking to become CIC.

 

Clinton's "loathe the military" and the lengths to which he went to avoid military service and subsequent lies about how he avoided that service made his draft dodging a character issue. IMO, subsequent events demonstrated that Republicans were right to make character an issue in both races. Regardless of how one feels about Clinton's accomplishments, it is hard to deny that his honesty and integrity matched up poorly his races with both George H. W. Bush or Bob Dole.

 

Democrats with strong military service credentials do not seem to fare well in Democratic primaries. Kerry was the exception, but he was both a Vietnam War veteran and an anti-war activist, which foreshadowed his nuanced campaign for president.

I agree with your post, particularly the bottom section.

 

However I think the hypocricy runs both ways. When Clinton was running the GOP made a big point of noting that George H. Bush and Bob Dole were war veterans/heroes (and they were). Meanwhile Clinton was one who did everything he could to avoid the service and/or draft.

 

Yet in 2000 the GOP took someone as their leader (George W. Bush) who did everything he could to stay out of harm's way in the Vietnam era and said, "That's irrelevant" when running against Kerry who had served in combat.

 

Now we see that this Military record is important because McCain is running. (BTW, it is one of the great appealing points for me about McCain.) I wish the hypocricy on both concerning the Military would end. Anyone who has served honorably in the Military has a leg up in my mind (not the only factor but a good start) whether that person is John McCain, George H. Bush, or Max Clelland.

 

You are absolutely correct. The hypocrisy (and unwillingness to admit such) is disappointing, particularly with this issue. Any military service, particularly on the warfront, is to be commented, celebrated and respected. Those that did not do so for Kerry should be ashamed. This is doubly so for those that do not do so for McCain.

There is no comparison.

 

Bill Clinton was a draft-dodger. George W. Bush served as a guardsmen and got sent where he got sent, only to be subjected to defamatory ridicule by a false media report.

 

John Kerry served honorably and then came home and disparaged his country. He then got ridiculed by the Swift-Boaters, who made some claims that were untrue and still others that weren't.

 

When John McCain was being broken and beaten and tortured and asked to reveal the names of his comrades, he gave his captors the name of the Green Bay Packers offensive line.

 

Obama can take his message of 'Hope' and shove it.

There is no comparison.

 

Bill Clinton was a draft-dodger. George W. Bush served as a guardsmen and got sent where he got sent, only to be subjected to defamatory ridicule by a false media report.

 

John Kerry served honorably and then came home and disparaged his country. He then got ridiculed by the Swift-Boaters, who made some claims that were untrue and still others that weren't.

 

When John McCain was being broken and beaten and tortured and asked to reveal the names of his comrades, he gave his captors the name of the Green Bay Packers offensive line.

 

Obama can take his message of 'Hope' and shove it.

 

What does Obama's message of hope have anything to do with anyone else's military record? By "taking his message of hope and shoving it," what exactly do you mean? Are you against hope? Are you saying that Obama is disingenous? Or are you saying that there is no way that Obama can deliver?

 

I respect McCain for his incredible courage as a POW as much as anyone, but that cannot be the reason I vote for him. And...it has nothing to do with Obama. Obama was certainly too young to have served in Vietnam. Your comment shows ire toward Obama that somehow seems to result from McCain's service...which is, too say the least, confusing.

There is no comparison.

 

Bill Clinton was a draft-dodger. George W. Bush served as a guardsmen and got sent where he got sent, only to be subjected to defamatory ridicule by a false media report.

 

John Kerry served honorably and then came home and disparaged his country. He then got ridiculed by the Swift-Boaters, who made some claims that were untrue and still others that weren't.

 

When John McCain was being broken and beaten and tortured and asked to reveal the names of his comrades, he gave his captors the name of the Green Bay Packers offensive line.

 

Obama can take his message of 'Hope' and shove it.

 

 

Your ending was too vitriolic for the topic for me. Whatever your opinions on Obama (which I probably hold close to the same as well) they really aren't relevant to this issue since he has never made claims to military. (Over ruled. :D)

 

As to the statement about Bush just doing what he was told, yes. But let's be real, he was given a National Guard commission because of his connections (as so many others of power and influence were). Don't have facts to prove it and will be glad to be told to "drop dead because I don't have proof." That's just a ploy used by so many not only in that era but in others as well. (See Pat Robertson's story of getting out of military action in Korea.) It's not a Republican thing either. I'm sure the same was just as true of sons of Democrats as well.