Being a veteran is commendable. However, were I to run for office (and I’m not) I wouldn’t expect people to vote for me because I was in the Navy. People still want to know your positions on the issues of the day. Simply serving doesn’t equate to high quality. I knew folks in the Navy who were fantastic, but I also knew quite a few who couldn’t be trusted to get the job done (any job).
Being a veteran is certainly a plus, I just don’t think it’s a substitute for having a well-thought-out philosophy of foreign affairs, any more than being a successful lineman – or even a successful QB – makes you automatically qualified to be an NFL head coach.
Veterans of the current war obviously do have some additional credibility if they choose to support it or criticize it – after all, they’ve been there. But of course, all politics is local, and having spent the last few years in Iraq doesn’t particularly qualify one to address local concerns.
If the candidate is a veteran of other wars, it’s a positive bullet point on the resume, but it certainly is not a reason to elect someone in and of itself. Originally posted by Jerry, accidentally deleted in the latest flurry of spam
I think we can all see that if Max Cleland doesn’t get a break, no Veteran will. I agree that Dems should worry less about running veterans and more about trying to make fewer of them by getting us out of this Bush mess.
Cleland is a fine example – people respected his heroism, but they weren’t willing to give him a pass on the issues as a result.
Being a veteran is commendable. However, were I to run for office (and I’m not) I wouldn’t expect people to vote for me because I was in the Navy. People still want to know your positions on the issues of the day. Simply serving doesn’t equate to high quality. I knew folks in the Navy who were fantastic, but I also knew quite a few who couldn’t be trusted to get the job done (any job).
Being a veteran is certainly a plus, I just don’t think it’s a substitute for having a well-thought-out philosophy of foreign affairs, any more than being a successful lineman – or even a successful QB – makes you automatically qualified to be an NFL head coach.
Veterans of the current war obviously do have some additional credibility if they choose to support it or criticize it – after all, they’ve been there. But of course, all politics is local, and having spent the last few years in Iraq doesn’t particularly qualify one to address local concerns.
If the candidate is a veteran of other wars, it’s a positive bullet point on the resume, but it certainly is not a reason to elect someone in and of itself.
Originally posted by Jerry, accidentally deleted in the latest flurry of spam
I think we can all see that if Max Cleland doesn’t get a break, no Veteran will. I agree that Dems should worry less about running veterans and more about trying to make fewer of them by getting us out of this Bush mess.
Cleland is a fine example – people respected his heroism, but they weren’t willing to give him a pass on the issues as a result.