IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New Agreed.
[link|http://www.unc.edu/depts/diplomat/AD_Issues/amdipl_1/milsvc_II.html|Linky]:

The generation of political figures that reached the White House during the last one-third of the 19th century, with one exception, consisted entirely of veterans with substantial military records. Only the Democrat Grover Cleveland had remained a civilian, even though of military age, during the Civil War (not especially committed to the Union cause, he paid for a substitute to avoid serving). Theodore Roosevelt, an infant during that conflict, rose to the rank of colonel of volunteers as the Rough Rider hero of the Spanish-American War and followed the assassinated McKinley in office in 1901.

After Roosevelt left the Presidency in 1909, the nation experienced a long hiatus in the advent of veterans to America's highest political office. Not until 1945 with the inauguration of Harry S. Truman, a National Guard artillery officer in France during World War I, did a chief executive with a stint in the armed forces again became President. But Truman led off a procession of no fewer than nine Presidents in a row with veteran's status: He was followed by Eisenhower, Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, Richard M. Nixon, Gerald R. Ford, Jimmy Carter, Reagan, and Bush. All but Truman and Carter, the latter a career naval officer from 1947 to the end of the Korean War in 1953, were World War II veterans (Eisenhower also was on active duty as an army officer during the First World War). All but Eisenhower, a long-service West Pointer, held relatively junior rank. All but Reagan saw overseas duty and two -- Kennedy and Bush -- distinguished themselves as junior officers by gallantry in combat.


It's hard to argue that FDR needed military service to have a strong presence or to instill discipline. Similarly, Ford's and Carter's military service didn't seem to enable them to connect with enough people to govern from a position of strength.

It's a bogus argument that Keillor puts forth. While there are good arguments for national service of some sort, requiring a person have "military experience" to be president is a bad idea.

Cheers,
Scott.
New Different issues
Similarly, Ford's and Carter's military service didn't seem to enable them to connect with enough people to govern from a position of strength.
He didn't say it helped them connect with people. He said it seemed to instill a sense of purpose. While I think that can be true, I still think it's much more important that the people sending troops into harm's way feel a personal stake in the outcome. Sons and daughters, friends and neighbors in the military gives you a different outlook.

That's one reason I like the tradtion in the British royal family of military service. I don't know how much those assignments are for real, and how much for show, but they lead to friendships. There's a difference between "send the 4th Regiment" and "send Stephen's regiment".
===

Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link|http://DocHope.com|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats].
[link|http://DocHope.com|http://DocHope.com]
     "Presidential candidates should have military experience" - (rcareaga) - (21)
         Starship Troopers redux? - (tjsinclair)
         Ah. Like both the men the current draft dodger defeated. -NT - (ben_tilly)
         Wondering if he felt that way 10 years ago? -NT - (bepatient)
         Biden shows the next-best thing - (drewk)
         If a man needs the army to give him discipline and focus... - (warmachine) - (16)
             To every rule there are exceptions - (jbrabeck) - (13)
                 So we should go out and create a state of Perpetual Combat - (jb4) - (4)
                     Well, we have one now... - (hnick) - (2)
                         And we see how well that's working out, don't we? - (jb4) - (1)
                             It's cyclic - (drewk)
                     There's a HUGE difference - (jbrabeck)
                 Bush demonstrates that National Guard improves nothing - (warmachine) - (7)
                     Generalization --- '64 - '72 NG were those looking to avoid - (jbrabeck) - (6)
                         If we require military service as a condition of candidacy.. - (inthane-chan) - (1)
                             And this elite will be responsible for - (jbrabeck)
                         Are you saying that warfare is the only worthwhile form... - (warmachine) - (3)
                             Where did I say that? - (jbrabeck) - (2)
                                 Should AD be mandatory or a choice for requirements? -NT - (warmachine) - (1)
                                     Would never work as a requirement - (jbrabeck)
             Agreed. - (Another Scott) - (1)
                 Different issues - (drewk)

Conical spray... with sesame seeds!
123 ms