The American Spectator

Old Texican| 5.25.09 @ 9:32AM

Doug, good point!
I was a CB (Civilian Builder). We got out there on the "sharp edge" around the world where they still ate you...after killing you.
Maybe Red Cross people?
Maybe Peacecorps people?
Maybe medical missionaries?

PS: I hope you will take a peek at my Memorial Day comment at the bottom of comments on "Chimp Change"

Murphy| 5.25.09 @ 11:35AM

Mr Kane is a fool.

An interesting point is how poorly military vets -- including war heroes -- have done in recent presidential elections.

Reagan defeated Carter. Reagan played a soldier in the movies, but never served. Carter served in the Navy with distinction.

GHW Bush, a war hero, beat that hapless and hopeless Dukakis, but lost to Clinton -- whom we can all agree was not a war hero.

Clinton defeated Dole, a war veteran.

W was a veteran, but his record was hardly the strongest aspect of his candidacy. He beat Kerry, who did serve, and of course Obama beat McCain, probably one of the most deserving candidates in fifty years who was also a decorated war hero.

Murphy| 5.25.09 @ 1:17PM

And .. just so we're clear: the Constitution requires no such thing as military service.

In this country, the people elect presidents.

Amazing that in one thread an author argues that the U.S. is becoming a "banana republic," while in another we're asked -- by the same writer! -- military service as a requirement for holding the office of president.

Roy| 5.25.09 @ 1:49PM

Murphy - a) Not even the referenced writer said the Constitution required anything, he was talking about his own voting behavior and recommending it to others; and b) The author of this post was, in fact, disagreeing with the referenced article or at least making derogatory comments about it.

As far as substance: I am always made uncomfortable by this sentiment. I can definitely understand it but it should not be carried too far. I have the highest respect for the military, many relatives who served, including an uncle who died in Vietnam and who I ended up named after. But respect simply does not equate to obedience, and when the media directs us to vote for John Kerry because he served in Vietnam it is demanding our obedience.

Beyond that and more personally the military does not want the majority of us any more. The "everyone should have served" sentiment made more sense in the days of WWII or Vietnam, but now the military will not even look at you if you are asthmatic, nearsighted, or, for pete's sake, overweight. Try telling a Vietnam era draft board that you ate too many Twinkies. I'm guessing they would have said "A few days in Basic will fix that." Not any more. We have a professional and much smaller military now and the rest of us have to serve in other ways.

It still kills me that I could not go to Iraq. But I have asthma and that was that. I could have taken care of the unfortunately necessary bureacro-babble while people physically capable of shooting terrorists were out shooting terrorists, and I hope the country figures that out eventually. But for now the way it is is the way it is.

Richard baker| 5.25.09 @ 2:40PM

Gentlemen:
The proper thought should be: Do you support the Defense of the Country "against ALL enemies, foreign or domestic". If so, count yourself as an American. If not, then WHY are you still here?

Oldefarte| 5.25.09 @ 3:05PM

Murphy, you really should get your facts straight["..Reagan defeated Carter. Reagan played a soldier in the movies, but never served. Carter served in the Navy with distinction.."]. Reagan DID SERVE in the Army. Also, your assertion concerning Doug Bandow ["...Amazing that in one thread an author argues that the U.S. is becoming a "banana republic," while in another we're asked -- by the same writer! -- military service as a requirement for holding the office of president..."] is equally inaccurate----the author's point is to apply the military requirement standard equally to both Democrats and Republican candidates, not as you state. Who's the FOOL now, Murphy?????

Murphy| 5.25.09 @ 4:35PM

Fart --

I stand corrected. Reagan did serve in the military for a few years. Carter had a longer and more distinguished service (two wars). But your point is taken.

Roy --

I never claimed anyone said this requirement was in the Constitution. I was merely pointing out that our founders certainly didn't think it was an important qualification.

My larger point was that the American people evidently don't view it as all that important either, which I find odd and interesting.

Mike| 5.25.09 @ 5:54PM

There are two distinct sides of people in this world, those who see things as clear and logical (soldiers) and those who see things as manipulation of the law and the Constitution (lawyers). It's not that hard to see really.

Mike| 5.25.09 @ 5:54PM

There are two distinct sides of people in this world, those who see things as clear and logical (soldiers) and those who see things as manipulation of the law and the Constitution (lawyers). It's not that hard to see really.

Richard Baker| 5.25.09 @ 6:40PM

Gentlemen:
Ronald Reagan was a Cavalry Officer who was assigned to a training film unit in Hollywood nicknamed Ft. Roach after the producer/director Max Roach who ran it. You can, occasionally, see some of these films on TMC. Jimmy Carter was a Naval Academy Graduate in the Class of 1946 who did not have active service in WWII. He also never served in Korea. After his Father died, he returned to Plains, GA to run the family business which was a very responsible act on his part as he wanted to be a career Naval Officer. Do a little research, guys.

Murphy| 5.25.09 @ 7:17PM

Carter entered the academy in 43 and resigned his commission in 53. I don't know if he saw any kind of combat. He did distinguish himself in his service and qualified to command a nuclear submarine -- not a mean achievement.

Richard Baker| 5.25.09 @ 7:27PM

Murphy:
Instead of being vague regarding Jimmy Carter, do some research, please. He was not a WWII or Korean War combat veteran, all of which he acknowledges. However, he was also not a nuclear engineer, as he said in his 1976 campaign. He was a Propulsion Officer and no engineer and there is a difference. Watching people over the years try to denigrate Reagan for his service serves, I guess, some sort of political end. Both men served honorably and Did Their Duty which is all that's expected. As Joe Friday said, "Just the facts, ma'am."

ruth| 5.25.09 @ 9:55PM

On another AmSpec thread, Murphy/Jeremiah called our CIA agents and soldiers war criminals. I believe he should man up and defend his scurrilous accusations or beg our heroes' forgiveness. Which is it, Murphy/Jeremiah?

Answers1| 5.26.09 @ 12:21AM

The primary criterion for president is to be an American citizen. Is Obama an American?

Bankruptcy Lawyers| 5.26.09 @ 9:19AM

Nice blog design. This seems like it would be a very interesting blog to keep up with. Please come visit my site legal attorney when you got time.

Immigration Attorney| 5.26.09 @ 9:22AM

Really it is nice post and thanks for sharing it and really it is very useful. Please come visit my site injury attorney when you got time.

Richard Baker| 5.26.09 @ 3:36PM

To Answers1:
A further elaboration. The President must be "natural born". A naturalized citizen cannot become President. Obama has spent approximately $1 million to keep his true birth certificate, which is in Honolulu, from becoming public.