Does Wartime Service Matter in Presidential Elections?
| Fri Mar. 28, 2008 10:26 AM PDT
An interesting point to consider as you digest McCain's hero-heavy entrée into the world of general election advertising, from Matt Stoller, via The Plank:
1992, 1996, 2000, and 2004 all saw the candidate without military service elected over the candidate who had served, in several cases heroically.
One could argue that Vietnam is a bigger part of John McCain's persona and appeal than it was of Al Gore's when he ran for president. And while John Kerry made a big deal of his wartime service, it essentially got dismantled by the Swiftboat folks. I'm not denying the trend; just saying we should be on the lookout for a possible exception this time around.
Continues Below
Continued From Above
Comments
Submitted by Eric Ferguson (not verified) on Fri Mar. 28, 2008 12:42 PM PDT.
All it shows is that veterans have no guarantee of being elected, but the candidate with the military record has won often enough to show it's possible, like Bush Sr. beating Dukakis, Carter over Ford, Kennedy beating Nixon, Eisenhower over Stevenson, Truman over Dewey. We could go further back, but the point is that one candidate's military record is no predictor.
Anyway, I wouldn't sink so low as to try to tear apart McCain's record if I saw a way to raise swiftboat-like doubt. I'm happy to after him for being consistently wrong and leading the country to disaster.
I'm with you, Eric.
There will be plenty that the country will not like about McCain in the next few months. I hope Move-On learned from it's "General Betray-us" mistake and will take on McCain based on his voting record and his position on the issues, especially the economy. Let's avoid helping him wrap himself in the flag that he's already reaching for.
I think the dems need to focus on his lobbyists in his staff and continuing the bush policy for 4 more years. We have achieved regime change, so time to come home. The war has cost americans too much. The GOP don't want tax increases,but they spend so much, we are forced to raise taxes. Where did the fiscal conservatives go?
I'm not too familiar with McCains Viet Nam history, but if K.Rove was running the Dem program he'd have them claiming that John McWaine lost a multi-million dollar airplane for the US and then spent the rest of the War not trying to escape and lying in a cot being interviewed by the Commy's
Mcain needs to be hit on:
1. flip flops.
2. age
3. temper (in debate with Obama got to get him riled.
lAso do we want him with his finger on the button?
4. Mis-speaks
5 boring speech...he reminds me of that commercial where the guy is giving a lecture on "words being important"...evey one bored then the kid yells, "the end" to stop him.
Just a few off the top of my head.
No it does not matter. That is why you have your generals and the Defense Dpartment ( a big reason that Iraq is such a mess is that Bush did not listen to the expertise of the generals and kept firing them until he found a puppet)that advise you. What you need is intelligence, wisdom and honesty, diplomacy. You surround yourself with knowledgable people ( again unlike what Bush did). McCain has flip-flopped his whole way of thinking, the people he accused of being intolerant ( the likes of Falwell and others) are now his buddies, Bush's tax cuts for the rich he riled against,now he wants to make them permanent, waterboarding in the deabtes he ranted that it was torture and against the law, then votes to not ban it. McCain sees no problem in staying in Iraq for 100 years. Being knowledgable at war (expertise in killing) seems like the last of any kind of experience you would want.
It shouldn't matter, but I'm afraid it does. Voters feel more confident with candidates who have put their lives on the line, so to speak. Thus, the percerption that a John McCain can protect the country and respond to a crisis better than a Barack Obama is pretty prevalent. This post is not an endorsement for McCain, but an opinion.
Submitted by BlogD (not verified) on Sat Mar. 29, 2008 7:34 PM PDT.
Tried to comment on this yesterday, got an error. Let's try again.
If you count back to WWII non-serving actor Reagan beating veterans Carter and Mondale, then 6 of the past 7 races had a non-veteran beating a vet. And the other election, Bush vs. Dukakis, was between two vets.
Clinton had it right: it's the economy, stupid. Not the war service. This year, Iraq will weigh in as a close second, and most likely not in McCain's favor.
