Military service: A diminished campaign asset? »
Posted by: TechnologyExpert 1 month, 2 weeks ago210 Comments Report this Story
For McCain, getting shot down and enduring as a POW has been a political asset. Now Clark was suggesting that the "getting shot down" part was an irrelevant--at least as far as being a credential for the White House.
Read Full Story at msnbc.msn.com
Join the Discussion 
+ Add Comment
Comments So Far: 210
-
KvilleTXComment removed: User banned.69 Replies
-
0%
joeblowe1 month, 2 weeks ago
There has been a lot of chatter about this. Radio, TV, etc. Pundits howling that Gen. Clark is a pawn of the DNC etc. A lot of the commentary seems to be putting forth the proposition that Gen. Clark has somehow denigrated or belittled John's service. I don't find that to be the case at all. All Gen. Clark is saying is that being in the military - and in particular getting your as* shot out of the sky - is NOT necessarily good training to be the President. I agree. It DOES give some indication of John's character, but it doesn't translate directly to experience useful in the oval office. Being a Senator for 20 years or so ... THAT'S a different story. That's political experience. Whether or not he was any good at THAT is much more indicative of his suitability for the President's job. Far as I can tell, maybe not so much... He does now have SOME useful positions, but I don't personally trust him to stick with them. Still plan to write in Ron Paul.
Reply-
0%
BB641 month, 2 weeks ago
Joe, the problem with this whole thing has been caused by the DNC. When Clinton ran against Bush 41, military didn't count. Then when Bush 43 ran against Gore, military was all that mattered. Then they ran Kerry and again it counted. Now they're running Obama who certainly never served in any military or reserve. Now it's not a big deal. I think it's time for the DNC to put up and shut up. Does military service matter or not? You can't have it both ways.
As to Ron Paul, don't even bother. I've met him, he's not worth the graphite.
Reply-
0%
bigurn1 month, 2 weeks ago
BB, you nailed it. Military service has been politicized far too often. It swings with the pendulum of how the military is viewed at that point in time.
Why is military service important at all? Because military service can (but may not) teach leadership. It can develop leadership ability. Anyone in a command position has some level of "executive authority"; do not kid yourself.
Anyone who has the authority to put our troops in harm's way should have an appreciation for the sacrifice they're asking. It ranges from simply being away from home, to death.
Gen. Clark has made his point, thin though it may be. I concede his thin point. He should now move on; there are much larger issues to discuss. Oil isn't getting cheaper.
Reply -
0%
joeblowe1 month, 2 weeks ago
The DNC MIGHT be behind this, but you've got to ask yourself: What does it say about Gen. Clark if the DNC tells him to make such a statement .... and he DOES? Is he a spineless wienie that shouts, "how high?" when the DNC says, "jump?" I find that a little questionable. I suspect he has made an honest statement of his own opinion. And yes, indeed, it is kind of funny to follow the importance given to military service depending on who is running. Anything for a slight perceived advantage, I guess. No wonder politics sickens all sensible people.
What, specifically, did you find objectionable about Dr. Paul? Not enough of a rock star? Or something more substantial?
Reply -
baddad59Comment removed: User banned.
-
baddad59Comment removed: User banned.
-
0%
injest1 month, 2 weeks ago
BB64
"I think it's time for the DNC to put up and shut up. Does military service matter or not? You can't have it both ways."
Considering the DNC lawyers in the 2000 election worked hard to destroy 2490 overseas military absentee ballots kinda sorts speaks volumes.
They did get 1500 destroyed, never counted before a judge stop them.
Reply
-
