I’ve made it quite clear for me that I won’t even consider voting for a candidate for President of the United States who has not served in the US Military.

Can we keep this in mind if it is Sam Brownback or Mitt Romney against Wes Clark, Al Gore, or Christopher Dodd?

Left by Preston on January 30th, 2007 at 10:47 pm

with John McCain having a chance, I am deeply concerned, considering that over the last several years, he has become Bush’s little puppet. Remember that McCain is not 40 years old anymore. he would be the oldest president ever, surpassing Ronald Regan. I dont think that McCain will be able to handle the stress of the job at his age. Serving in the military, at least in this case does not mean that he will make a good president. looking at his record, he supports giving illegals a “guest worker” program. just on that, he loses my vote.

Left by chris on January 30th, 2007 at 11:21 pm

Military service is the first disqualifer for me — so if it is Romney or Brownback for the GOP, then I won’t be casting a vote for one of them.

But there are other reasons not to vote for somebody even if they do have military service. No way would I ever vote for Gore or Clark…I don’t know enough about Dodd yet to say that.

If I don’ t think anyone is deserving of my vote, I won’t vote for anybody.

Left by Robbie on January 30th, 2007 at 11:27 pm

Obviously you don’t believe a woman should be President inasmuch as there were barely any women in the Armed Forces during the time most women who would run for President today were of the age when people typically serve in the armed services.

In the case of the current candidates, that would only include Hillary, but what if Condoleezza Rice were running? She surely has U.S. security experience, if not military.

Even today, the number of women serving in the military has to be dramatically less than the number of men.

I’m just sayin ….

Left by dianne on January 31st, 2007 at 7:45 am

Dianne — Obivously I believe no such thing.

In June 1948, Congress passed the Women’s Armed Services Integration Act. So women have been just as free to volunteer for military service as men have since 1948.

Let’s look at when the current crop of female political leaders were born:

• Condi Rice — 1954
• Hillary — 1947
• Pelosi 1940

Which means, that when turned 18, they were just as able and free to enlist in the service as any one of their male counterparts.

Even Geraldine Ferraro (born in 1935) the VP Candidate in the 1984 election, could have volunteered when she turned 18 (but didn’t).

Further women have been allowed to enlist for my entire life, so it’s not really a reflection of my beliefs. It’s like saying I support slavery because I didn’t fight in the Civil War to oppose it.

When the law was enacted in 1948, women and men up to the age of 35 years old were eligible to join. So, any woman born after 1913 was eligible to join.

So in the interest of fairness, I will make this concession: If there is a female candidate for President who was born before 1913 (thus, having never had the equal opportunity to join the military as men), then I will not automatically discount her based on my “military experience” criteria.

Left by Robbie on January 31st, 2007 at 9:10 am

One more minor semantic point:

Even today, the number of women serving in the military has to be dramatically less than the number of men.

The number of women does not have to be dramatically less than the number of men. It so happens that that is the case. But all women have to do to counter it is to join up at a higher rate than men do.

All they have to do is walk into a recruiter’s office, raise their hands, and enlist. There is no law, no stigma — nothing — that prevents them from enlisting. Nothing except their own decision not to. And if they ever decide to run for President, I’ll hold it against them.

Left by Robbie on January 31st, 2007 at 9:15 am

Here’s an interesting list that I’ve never seen before of all women candidates for President and Vice President.

Of course the overwhelming majority of the 25 previous female Presidential candidates were nominated by the Socialist Party (or the “Workers Party” or the ” Socialist Workers Party”) — so I wouldn’t have been voting for them anyhow.

Left by Robbie on January 31st, 2007 at 9:24 am

Of course I know the number of women in the armed forces IS dramatically less .. I should have left out the “must” part. BUT,

As you know, women were not even allowed to be in combat until the early 90’s in the U.S. and the debate continues to rage today as to whether they should be allowed to be in combat at all. Only about 1% of military personnel were women at the time Hillary or Condoleeza were of the age that people normally join up and the 1% that were certainly never saw combat. My point is that to expect a woman candidate for president today to have been one of the 1% that served is simply unrealistic; therefore I still maintain that you have automatically excluded all women from your Presidential list.

That said, Hillary is not my candidate and Condi won’t run so it’s a moot point. I just disagree with your premise.

Left by dianne on January 31st, 2007 at 11:00 am

As you know, women were not even allowed to be in combat until the early 90’s in the U.S. and the debate continues to rage today as to whether they should be allowed to be in combat at all.

And your point is? Robbie’s stipulation was military service, not combat service.

What about Jim Gilmore (R-VA), Former Governor of Virginia? He served for three years as a US Army counterintelligence agent in Germany during the Cold War. I don’t think he was commissioned, but he served. Is that good enough?

What about someone who was willing, but not physically qualified for military service?

Of course, he hasn’t been getting ANY press. Other than the press release announcing that he is “forming a presidential exploratory committee”, I haven’t seen a thing about his candidacy in the media.

Plus, he’s a much more reliable conservative than McCain or Hagel and is more “electable” than (libertarian in GOP clothing) Paul.

Left by Anonymous on January 31st, 2007 at 11:44 am

I don’t think military service, although important, should be your main disqualifier. FDR never served, and he was a great president. Lincoln never served and he was a great president.

Guess who else never served? Yeah, that’s right, Reagan.

Left by Nazar on January 31st, 2007 at 10:50 pm

You’re wrong about President Reagan:

Reagan was commissioned as a reserve officer in the Army in 1935. In November 1941, Reagan was called up for combat duty but disqualified because of his astigmatism. After the attack on Pearl Harbor, Lieutenant Reagan was activated and assigned to the First Motion Picture Unit in the United States Army Air Forces, which made training and education films for the war effort.

Left by Robbie on January 31st, 2007 at 11:53 pm

Also, I’m not saying that a person can’t be a great President without having served. All I’m saying is that I won’t vote for them.

Left by Robbie on January 31st, 2007 at 11:56 pm

You could always stop being stubborn and realize you should vote for the best candidate whether or not he has served in the military. What are you thinking? Genghis Khan served in the military. Attilla The Hun served in the military. The list of horrible examples goes on and on. Would you have voted for Jamie Wilkinson for President. He was one of our country’s first, if not the first, commanding general after the constitution was adopted, and he was about as big a piece of shit as ever wore the uniform.

Jefferson never served in the military, are you saying you would never have voted for him?

Left by Patrick Kelley on February 1st, 2007 at 12:22 am

Alright, I stand corrected on Reagan, although he didn’t have actual combat experience, which you would logically need in order to know what it’s like to “send our young men and women in harm’s way”.

As for the voting part, personally, military service is a bonus for the candidate in my book, but I think that disqualifying a candidate solely on their lack of service is a somewhat narrow-minded position, no?

Left by Nazar on February 1st, 2007 at 10:58 pm