RC> Hello Bob!

 RC> 30 Apr 07 00:34, you wrote to me:

 RC>>> In the current sphere of this line of political debate, the
 RC>>> military service of Gore

 BK>>  Gore served, and went to Vietnam. Bush didn't even serve in the
 BK>>  regular AF and he didn't even show up for all his duty in the
 BK>>  reserves.

 RC> Gore served behind the lines, neither here, nor there, he
 RC> served, but that wasnt my point, read on.

 That was my point. If they can accept Bush who couldn't even
 show up for all his duties, Gore is a blooming paragon by
 comparison.

 RC>>> and the lack of any for Clinton,

 BK>>  Clinton's lack of service was something the right tried to make
 BK>>  a big deal out of,

 RC> Clintons lack of service was a big deal, because of where
 RC> he was to avoid it.

 England? It's called a Rhode's Scholarship.

 BK>>  which is the only reason Bush's failure to
 BK>>  even complete his service became an issue. Before that nobody
 BK>>  cared one way or the other.

 RC> Bush was a fighter pilot, despite your statement above, he
 RC> at least was a fighter pilot, unlike our nations most

 Bush was a fighter pilot for part of his term. For the last
 couple years he was a grounded pilot, and not even there for at
 least 6 months, and a full year there is no record.

 RC> decorated hero, Robert Klahn, whom fixed radios.

 Robert Klahn never claimed to be a hero, but Robert Klahn showed
 up where he was supposed to, when he was supposed to, and did
 what he was supposed to, and did it well. Which is definately
 not like Grounded Pilot Bush.

 RC>>> werent topics the Democrats wanted to discuss.

 BK>>  Why would they not want to talk about Gore? He served. Which is
 BK>>  more than Cheney or Bush can claim.

 RC> The Democrats as a rule, never have trumpetted military
 RC> service of their candidates, until very recently, thats the
 RC> point.

 Until very recently military service wasn't much "trumpeted",
 except maybe for Ike. The republicans certainly did not want to
 trumpet Reagan's service, nor Bush II's. It was mentioned for
 all the others, but never a big deal.

 RC> Obviously with Clinton, there was no way they could.

 Obviously with Bush the only way they could was to lie about it.

 RC>>> Come 2004, Kerry's was all they wanted to talk about.

 BK>>  Kerry was a decorated combat vet, Bush never showed up for much
 BK>>  of his obligation. Bush admitted he could have gone to Vietnam,
 BK>>  he chose not to. Kerry volunteered.

 RC> Irrelevant, The Democrats have never made it a point to
 RC> trumpet the military service of their candidates before,

 No party did unless the candidate was a major hero, or was
 career military.

 RC> they arent very good at it.

 Not at trumpeting it, but match what the republicans can claim.

 RC> Listen closely...

 RC> Dwight D Eisenhower was Supreme Allied Commander during
 RC> WW2, yet many of you look back at his Presidency with
 RC> disdain.

 DD Eisenhower was supreme administrator for the most part during
 WW2. That was most of what his job was. Yet it's conservatives
 who largely disdain his military service. "The best clerk I ever
 served under," as one hero put it.

 Then, as president, he pulled us out of the Korean war into a
 stalemate that has lasted over 50 years.

 Eisenhower's presidency is best known for a recession. Yet his
 presidential accomplishments were far more to the liberal side
 than the conservative. Eisenhower signed two of the first of
 the modern era civil rights acts. In 1957 and 1960.

 Eisenhower sent in the troops to integrate schools, though some
 say reluctantly. And Eisenhower gave us one of our greatest
 public works projects, the Interstate Highway System. Don't even
 mention that the JFK tax cuts were from 90% top marginal rates
 inherited from Eisenhower, to the 30% range.

 So, while liberals may "somewhat" disdain his presidency,
 because of his poor economy, conservatives fought him tooth and
 nail on the civil rights issues.

 It wasn't necessary to trumpet Eisenhower's military service
 much, all they needed was, "I Like Ike".

 RC> John F Kennedy, Captained a PT boat during ww2, his short
 RC> presidency had blemishes.

 All presidencies have blemishes. JFK was a combat veteran, and a
 pulitzer prize winning author. Why wouldn't democrats trumpet
 his military service, except that wasn't done then.

 RC> Lyndon B Johnson, piloted B25's during ww2, that experience
 RC> didnt equip him for the bumps in the road he travelled over.

 I knew Johnson was a vet, didn't know he piloted B25s. That
 would also be a great thing to trumpet.

 As to the bumps, Johnson had them, and rode them. Johnson not
 only signed the Civil Right's act, but did so knowing it was
 going to be the most politically disasterous thing he ever did.
 He did it because it was the right thing to do. For that he
 deserves respect.

 RC> Skipping Nixon, I dont have to say much here do I?

 You should. Nixon was a Navy man. I believe he was a lawyer, but
 he served.

 RC> I'll skip Ford as well.

 Ford is one you should not skip. Ford was also a Navy man. He
 served on an Aircraft carrier in the Pacific. He was a junior
 officer when his carrier was caught in a typhoon. Planes below
 decks broke loose, and some caught fire. Ford led a rescue
 detail to the hanger deck, with planes on fire and loose, to
 search for survivors. He was more of a hero than most would ever
 expect. Just my opinion.

 RC> Carter served aboard a Nuclear Submarine, that service
 RC> didnt benifit him all that much.

 It most certainly did. It helped get him into the Whitehouse.
 Once there it didn't help much, though.

 RC> Reagan was paraded about as a poster boy for the war effort
 RC> during ww2.

 Poster boy is right, he made movies.

 RC> Bush Elder was a Naval fighter pilot, who served in several
 RC> combat operations both before and after his shootdown, many
 RC> of you Democrats didnt think that service helped him that
 RC> much.

 Not as president, it helped him become president, but didn't
 help him keep the job.

 RC> The Clinton, was over in England, not inhaling pot, didnt
 RC> serve at all, yet Democrats hail him as a hero.

 They do? Where? A success, maybe, but not a hero. Ok, a big
 success compared to the presidents immediately before him and
 the one who followed. I found him a major disappointment, but
 have to admit he's still better than either Bush or Reagan or
 Carter.

 Now, lets examine some *candidates* who didn't get mentioned.

 McGovern was thourghly trashed as a peacenik, but he was a
 combat bomber pilot in WW2 also.

 Goldwater was a pilot in the ferry command, flying aircraft and
 supplies across the pacific. He also held a military reserve
 commission until he retired. A Major General, at that time, I
 believe.

 Goldwater was a strong economic conservative, but held a lot of
 liberal social views. He supported the NAACP, and his opposition
 to the civil rights act of 1964 was mostly due to it's effects
 on interstate commerce. He voted for the two previous civil
 rights acts.

 RC> Bottom line, military service has traditionally not been a
 RC> pre-requisite for the democrats, if we see a President
 RC> Obama or Hillary, that will be all the more proof.

 It isn't any more for the republicans either.

 Let's see. We have:

 Truman WW1 artillery.
 Eisenhower supreme commander european theatre.
 JFK pt boat combat commander
 LBJ B-25 combat pilot.
 Nixon Navy lawyer
 Ford Naval combat officer.
 Carter Nuclear sub engineer.
 Reagan actor in war movies
 Bush I combat fighter pilot.
 Clinton never served
 Bush II served part of his tour, then failed to serve the rest.

 I don't know if Eisenhower ever actually saw battle, but I
 suspect he might have earlier in his career.

 So, republicans 3 combat vets.
 democrats 3 combat vets.
 republicans 2 non-combat vets
 democrats 1 non-combat vet
 republicans 1 national guard sorta vet who never showed up for
 part of his duty.
 Democrats 1 never served.

 Not a bad comparison.

 RC>>>>> After all, in 23 days, Otto became an A-10 Weapons mechanic.

 BK>>>>  I don't recall him ever saying that. When did he?

 RC>>> He said it a number of years ago in the WHAT'S_HOT! echo to
 RC>>> a Raymond Yates.

 BK>>  No, he said he worked on A-10s. As Hulett reposted in this echo
 BK>>  a few days ago. Any beginning trainee, or even a PATS waiting
 BK>>  for tech school could be out on the flight line working on
 BK>>  A-10s, even if it was only greasing, or wiping down, under
 BK>>  supervision.

 RC> In 23 days, whilst recuperating from his being pushed down
 RC> the stairs and being processed out, c'mon Bob, you arent
 RC> that naive.

 I don't know when he fell down the stairs. However, the military
 also does not let ambulatory patients sit around if they can
 find something for them to do. They could have him out on the
 flight line cleaning windshields. Or, if he could not climb the
 access steps, cleaning the tires, or assembling the ammo belts.

 Or just wiping hydraulic fluid off various cylinders.

 Unless you can actually show me what he was doing, don't try to
 claim you know.


BOB KLAHN bob.klahn{at}sev.org   http://home.toltbbs.com/bobklahn

... Damning with faint praise? This is praising with faint damnation.
 * Silver Xpress V4.5/P [Reg]
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5a