Who will be the next President of the United States?

[NEON DEON]

Of the 43 U. S. Presidents, only 11 did not serve in the military.

74.4 % of U S Presidents wore the uniform. (32)

72 % were officers. (31)

56 % served in a command capacity. (LTCmndr/Major and above) (24)
56 % served during war time. (24)


I think the numbers speak for themselves.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._military_rank

http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/

[DeepIron]

I don't dispute the numbers ND. My dispute is with this statement: "Military service has long been seen as an indication of a candidates committment to the nation." Somehow, in the previous posts I'm supposed to accept this rationale but it doesn't explain why non-veterans win the presidential race.

Why and by whom is what I'm asking. In 56 elections, from 1789 to 2004, 32 of then were won by veterans, and 24 by non-veterans.
So I keep asking the question: Why does military service matter in this issue? Especially in the context of "a comittment the nation"? It seems to me statistically that a fair number of non-veterans have won the Presidency without dint of military service. Was their committment any less worthy than their veteran opponents? Were they perceived by the electorate as somewhat diminished? If so, why did so many win the office?

As I posted earlier (from 1789 to 1992):
"Few of the men either elected or running for the highest political position in the land, even if veterans, could have met military experience or training requirements of any consequence, if such had been established under the Constitution. Of the forty-one individuals who have held the office of President of the United States to date, either by election or accession from their Vice Presidential positions, over one-third -- sixteen in number, or thirty-nine percent -- had no direct experience at all, even fleeting, of life as a soldier or sailor, commissioned or enlisted, before assuming their weighty constitutional responsibilities. These sixteen Presidents gained the status of supreme military commander through their presentation to the electorate of entirely civilian virtues, qualifications, and experience. The other twenty-five men who became President and assumed command of the armed forces could claim service as a soldier or sailor, even though only briefly or unsubstantially in some instances."

So while a great many number did have some form of "military service" in many cases it was minimal or unsubstantial. Of course men like Eisenhower, Teddy Roosevelt and John Kennedy were renowned for their military experiences and I'm sure this would have figured promenently in the campaign strategies. But these men, and a few others are the minority...

[Tchocky]

Originally Posted by DeepIron

I don't dispute the numbers ND. My dispute is with this statement: "Military service has long been seen as an indication of a candidates committment to the nation." Somehow, in the previous posts I'm supposed to accept this rationale but it doesn't explain why non-veterans win the presidential race.

It's not supposed to explain why non-vets win.
You're arguing over something that has not been said.

[August]

Originally Posted by Tchocky

It's not supposed to explain why non-vets win.
You're arguing over something that has not been said.

Thank you Tchocky.

Nor might i add does it imply that military service is or should be the only factor a voter should consider when deciding a candidates suitability for office.

[DeepIron]

Dudes, this: "Military service has long been seen as an indication of a candidates committment to the nation." is all I'm trying to understand. My take is that by doing military service, a presidential candidate shows a <greater/more serious/more substantial/???> "indicator of commitment to the nation" that is somehow different from a non-veterans.

The questions I'm not getting an answer to is why? And by whom? What evidence is there to substantiate this claim?

I'm 51 and in all my years of voting (since I was 18, every election since 1976), I never once heard this said. Either I've missed out on something over the last 33 years or ???

The people I know and vote with have never said "Gee, the guy did 4 years in the Navy. He must really be committed to the country." We all did it because it was our duty as citizens. Not because we felt it was some special "committment". We were just regular joes doing what was expected of us and thought that's the way most people felt.

[EDITED] I rephrased my questions ...

[NEON DEON]

Well I must have missed the part of the arguement that stated you had to be in the military to be president.

Last time I checked the Prez was still the Commander and Chief.

Serving in the Military even in peace time says a lot about someones commitment to the country just based on the fact that he has agreed to put his life in peril to protect his country.

So I myself dont see how that is not significant to voters espescially since the majority of Presidents have served.

I also dont think you have to be in the military to be president either.

[DeepIron]

Well I must have missed the part of the arguement that stated you had to be in the military to be president.

You didn't miss it ND, it was never stipulated...

[DeepIron]

Ah, after thinking about it more, I see the differences here:

I should have caught this earlier. I've never considered military service to be any more or less than what citizens are expected to do. As I mentioned before, people I know who shipped out or joined did it because it was the right thing to do... no more, no less. No one ever said "I'm laying my life on the line for my country by joining the service." We just did what we were told to do...
To consider that because a president or candidate has done military service somehow demonstrates a "indication of commitment" is somewhat foreign to me because it wasn't anything special to me when I did my own military service. The President is just another guy who puts his dungarees or fatigues on the way I do...

Military service has long been seen as an indication of a candidates committment to the nation.

As interpreted by an the individual. The reason I disagreed with this is because I've never thought that way nor have I ever heard any of the people I hang out with make a big deal about it. I read this as a "blanket statement" initially without considering its personal interpretation... Which then lead to the veteran/non-veteran comparisons.

The phrase is subjective in that regard. If one sees a candidates military service as some special form of commitment to the nation, fine. I don't and that's fine too because I don't...

So, to August, I owe an apology... You see it your way, I see it mine.

[August]

Originally Posted by DeepIron

So, to August, I owe an apology...

Ah fuggedaboudit. Maybe if i had explained my position better you wouldn't have misunderstood me.

[NEON DEON]

Originally Posted by DeepIron

I've never considered military service to be any more or less than what citizens are expected to do. As I mentioned before, people I know who shipped out or joined did it because it was the right thing to do... no more, no less. No one ever said "I'm laying my life on the line for my country by joining the service." We just did what we were told to do...

I get that. I see that same sentiment reflected in Coast Guardsmen, firefighters, and police officers. I dont know how many times I have read a story in the paper or watched the news on TV where a firefighter has just rescued someone and risked his life in the process only to turn around and say ..................................

"I was just doing my job."

I appreciate what you and the men and women of our armed services have done to safeguard our freedom. I would not be so quick to trivialize it tho. After all, not everyone can or will do what you have done.

So whether you like or not.......

THANKS!

[AVGWarhawk]

This is why McCain needs to be president. He understands American. Please read his comment below:






Turning to the future, McCain said Americans are cynical about their country and their idea of liberty is "the right to choose among competing brands of designer coffee."



:rotfl:

If anything, we will get a good 4 years of good jokes and come-back lines.

[NEON DEON]

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

This is why McCain needs to be president. He understands American. Please read his comment below:






Turning to the future, McCain said Americans are cynical about their country and their idea of liberty is "the right to choose among competing brands of designer coffee."



:rotfl:

If anything, we will get a good 4 years of good jokes and come-back lines.

"Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly?
Because her father is Janet Reno."


John you are bad

[Tchocky]

That wasn't a debate. It was a mess. It was an embarrassment to American media.

EDIT - Never mind this clinging to guns/god. This shows that the media, or at least certain elements of it, believe that Americans cling to bull****.

Edit the second - http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/a...anapoulos.html

Owch.

[NEON DEON]

Originally Posted by Tchocky

That wasn't a debate. It was a mess. It was an embarrassment to American media.

EDIT - Never mind this clinging to guns/god. This shows that the media, or at least certain elements of it, believe that Americans cling to bull****.

Edit the second - http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/a...anapoulos.html

Owch.

Well I missed the deabate and the blog page you put up is empty right now.

I am going to take A wild guess and say that Obama got asked some tough questions for a change.

[Skybird]

Clinton and Obama fighting on this stalemate means the score is 2:0 for McCain.

However, this is a reprint from the NYT:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/...548215,00.html

Welcome to 2008. Everybody’s miserable.