It's just excuses, excuses. Frankly, I'm tired of hearing it from either side.

Let me correct myself...it wouldn't be AS relevant if were in peacetime. Considering the opinion from most Repubs that this is not the man they want running, his military record is his biggest stregnth.

Now...what I really want to see happen is, how McCain gets questioned on his past...particularly the Keating 5 issue and how he handles it.

Military leaders are not supposed to exercise poor judgement... *wink*

Wait - the majority of Repubs DON'T want him running? So it was just my imagination that he won the nomination by a landslide+ ?

R-E-A-D what I wrote...I did NOT say majority.

"Considering that MOST....."

he may have won by a landslide...but considering with what he was up against, and there is still a consensus that he is 'too liberal' a candidate for the GOP still gives pause.

Just because a lot of people PICK you for something still doesn't mean you are the BEST candidate for the JOB!

McCain is the best out of the available choices!

Co-sign! Well put.

Most = more than half = majority.

For one, Clinton was the PRESIDENT of the US. McCain was not. Clinton clearly abused his power with Lewinsky, and thought that b/c he was the President that he would get away with that he did. Moreover, McCain didn't deny anything, and Clinton denied UNDER OATH that he had any sort of sexual relationship with Lewinsky.

I think we're trending towards (and I don't particularly like this either) accepting politician's mistakes if they're open and honest about making them. Not that all can be overlooked, but clearly some sins can be forgiven.

<3 you.

semantics...


here is a shovel.

While I appreciate your point, I again would like to point out that the only duty that a President is constitutionally bound to is that of Commander-in-Chief. Our forefathers realized that task as a keystone of the President's responsibility to our country and the world, and thus was sure to put it in.

Now I think other things are important as well, we should not be so short-sighted to turn our backs on the Constitution or the history of the country.

President of the US, also known as, commander-in-chief. That in turn makes him the highest ranking military officer.

I'm not the one with the arguments ranging from ridculous to just plain wrong. I think you better keep that shovel for yourself.

prove me wrong...

Please.

Daemon doesn't like John McCain. This has translated into a lack of interest regarding his military service. Yet, less people still find it an important consideration when voting.

I don't see what the big dispute is about.

Very much in the ballpark shiner!

it's not that I don't 'like' McCain.

It's that he is the least likey person I would vote for because what I would like to see done and what he has planned don't mesh.

HOWEVER...if he is to be the next POTUS, we need to worry less about is military record and more about his senatorial one.

I have no reason to try and prove you wrong.


Your opinion is that military experience doesn't matter. Ok. That's your opinion.

Your opinion is that if we weren't at war, military experience wouldn't be as important to some as it is. Ok. But we are at war. Moot point.

Your opinion is that "most" repubs don't want otherwise. The numbers say different.

What do you want to be proven wrong on?

haha, I actually misspoke and you may be more reluctant to agree with me...

I meant to say "less biased people still find it..."

You tell me...you said it.

I'm not suggesting the president's "Commander in Chief" title be removed. He/she can still be Commander in Chief and seek the professional counsel of people with much experience below him/her. Any good CEO or boss does the same. A good president also has humility.

Oh, silly me, adding in "she" and "her"...our founding fathers never expected a woman to be a serious contender for president, either! Tell me, what happens one day if a woman is a party's chosen candidate for president - though women can be in the military, they officially cannot be in combat (say what you will about women being on the front lines right now - they're not supposed to be, and the military is taking actions to correct that). Because I don't think simple military service is enough to the people who talk it up as a "must" - I think what they're really looking for is combat experience. Will military service then become a moot point, or will it become yet another reason why some people don't want a female president?

ETA: By the way, the President has many duties required of him/her in the Constitution, not just commander of the military. He/she is also Head of State and has the power to meet and form treaties with the heads of other nations, among other duties specified such as appointing other heads in the govt. and judges, and giving a state of the union address "from time to time."

Seid, the thing is dude, you're running a semantic/rhetorical argument ("his experience doesn't matter to me because it was in the past" while drawing a distinction with later experiences), so getting the semantics correct is important, because otherwise it deteriorates into quibbling, like in so many other threads.

I don't think anyone is saying military service is a prerequisite - just that, as part of the job, it is potentially useful due to the many and varied (and sometimes contentious) interactions between government (and specifically the Executive Branch) and the military (if not the military/industrial "complex"). It's another piece to consider, for many people, when examining the potential pros of a candidate - and certainly more specific and universal than claiming that "a good President also has humility," which is certainly arguable and 100% unprovable as an assertion.

Right - this is why we simply don't elect the highest-ranking general every four years. Additionally, this is why we don't elect the highest-ranking diplomat, the head of HUD, or Tom Hanks (who certainly seems like a worthy and talented man on the whole).

Agreed...and I would LOVE to stay on point without people picking over the tiny shyte!

McCain is 72 years old????????????????????? I knew he was old, but I didn't realize he was that old.

Anyway, three of those fifty things stuck out to me:

22. His captors continued beating McCain in the hospital, coercing his ship and squadron name, and their intended bombing target. When pushed to give the names of his squadron members, he gave the names of the National Football League's Green Bay Packer's offensive line.

30. To this day, McCain cannot lift his arms over his head from the injuries sustained during this period.

32. On one of these occasions, a sympathetic prison guard secretly loosened McCain's rope bindings for the night. Months later, on Christmas Day, this same guard secretly drew a cross in the dirt next to McCain. McCain often relates this story as a testimony to his faith and humanity.

All of that is pretty awesome.

Agreed that it's potentially useful, which is why I said I appreciated McCain's knowledge through experience. But it's just a piece of the puzzle.

And in my mind a good president would have humility. I'm not sure why you think that military experience is more universal than humility, which really every human being should apply to everyday living, imho.

I had a Vietnam vet teacher in high school who would have relapses like he was in combat. My fav teacher of all time, though, and extremely challenging.

What if McCain does a State of the Union and jumps on the podium because he's escaping capture?

Kidding.

If there was a list like that about Obama, there would be about 100000 threads in this forum talking about it. I'm by no means a McCain fan, but the fanatical following behind Obama is unreal.

Some people will find this information useful when they vote - some won't. I really don't see what the big problem is with this list. It's a qualification on the resume, like anything else.

Exactly.

So did I. You didn't dare complain in his class, or he'd launch into his stories of having to sleep on the hillsides in the jungle, where they'd have to tie themselves to trees to keep themselves from rolling down the hill at night. "THAT'S SOMETHING TO COMPLAIN ABOUT!" he'd yell.

I don't want to continue too much of a derailment here, but my point is merely that there are concrete and well-defined aspects of the job where military history would be an advantage.

Humility is a nice attribute that most people respect, but we can't really give the same concrete and well-defined aspects of the Presidency that would always benefit from humility - only areas where, in our opinion, this would happen. Whether or not I agree with that opinion (I agree on a pretty limited basis), it seems clear - it's almost quantitative versus qualitative. No offense intended, just pointing out the differing nature.

Seriously something to consider

Exalt

No.

Physical and mental health evals have cleared him for all we know.

I do not mean to pick on you at all in any way KSig RC just your posting was a good place for me to ask you and others the following question:
How many of our past Presidents have been professional military?
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

*
*
*
*
*

*
Six (6):Washington, Jackson, William Henry Harrison, Taylor, Grant, and Eisenhower.
From http://fs6.depauw.edu:50080/~jkochan...ident/all.html

As for the rest,check out List of United States Presidents by military service http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...litary_service
By Rank:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._military_rank

31.

Additionally:
Taft Sec War under Theodore Roosevelt.
FDR - Assistant Secretary of the Navy

Non uniformed military serving as POTUS during war time,
Wilson WWI
FDR WWII

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

6 not 31.
Was not a trick question-Professional. As in career.

Thats just ridiculous, the arguments here had nothing to do with professional military or not. It was military service, of which is 31. That makes roughly 72% of past presidents with military service prior to holding the Presidency.

And as pointed out, only 6 were career. The rest were time of war. And look at the time frames covered by most of those and the type of war.
In current day pool of candidates, one will more likely see a MBA than a career military, let alone extended service time.
And just being in a military branch, does not of and by itself give nor provide great enlightenment to all knowledge.
My Uncle more of less agrees with General Sherman-told me awhile ago that all war does is waste good men.

Me,if one was going to use only one rule, I would much rather see a very smart, sharp business person. And have them rely on Professional Military for advise.

And out of your 31, how many did you know served?
And how many where in combat?
How many said anything in great detail about it?
Did you know that Ford saved his carrier?
LBJ was a staff officer who Johnson's biographer, Robert Caro, stated, "The most you can say about Lyndon Johnson and his Silver Star is that it is surely one of the most undeserved Silver Stars in history. Because if you accept everything that he said, he was still in action for no more than 13 minutes and only as an observer. Men who flew many missions, brave men, never got a Silver Star."[15]

What does it matter? The debate was about military experience, now you've done gone and changed the subject, for what reason I'm really not sure, other than you seem to brushing off and cheapening McCain's military record.

Each candidate has strengths that they play too, ya know, I can say I want a good military candidate because he has adviser's and such to handle the money and the other things. It's all about personal opinion, it's just merely stating his military experience, its not saying you should vote for me because I've been in the military. When you fill out a job application, do they not 99% of the time ask you if you were in the military. As a candidate he is obligated to prove why he thinks he would make a good president, he highlights his military experience as I'm sure Obama would had he felt compelled to serve.

The president has adviser's to, what do you know? Advise him on things he might not be familiar with. Obama highlights his strengths, and so does McCain, just so happens for McCain military was one of them.

So take your damn attempt at train wrecking this thread, and move it elsewhere.

Then let's disband the military all together and just let everyone else have free reign on us?

General Sherman: "
On June 19, 1879, Sherman delivered his famous "War Is Hell" speech to the graduating class of the Michigan Military Academy and to the gathered crowd of more than 10,000: "There is many a boy here today who looks on war as all glory, but, boys, it is all hell."[76]"
And BTB, LBJ used another Sherman statement when he declared that he would not run for re-election.

What the hell does that have to with the topic of discussion?

Just answering you.;)