Debate:Is a candidate's military record relevant anymore?

Look at recent elections. 1992: Bill Clinton (draft dodger) beats George Bush (combat veteran). 1996: Bill Clinton (draft doger) beats Bob Dole (wounded combat veteran). 2000: George W. Bush (draft dodger) beats Al Gore (veteran, did not see combat). 2004: George Bush (draft dodger) beats John Kerry (wounded combat veteran). Now in 2008 John McCain (former POW) is lagging behind Obama (never served). Are voters now more interested in a candidate's political record than their time in the military? CraigC 09:56, 7 September 2008 (EDT)

RELEVANCY

It is always a mistake to make broad assertions and generalizations based on stereotypes and prejudices. Especially when they contain errors based on a political misinformation campaign. The error of calling George W. Bush a draft dodger when he actually served in the Air National Guard. Or the incomplete assertion that names John Kerry as a wounded combat veteran without also mentioning his anti-military actions such as calling all American forces in Viet Nam as being war criminals. These differences in military service did make an impact on the elections. The relevance is especially pronounced to anyone who has ever served in the military or even had a family member that served. It also is relevant to the voter who sees their military service being belittled, slandered, lied about, or shown contempt for by those people who've never served their country. In the current election it has been attempted repeatedly to make John McCains military service record irrelevant since his opponent never served in the military. Which it looks to be as one of the goals of this debate, by the way. Everything is relevant in any election.--Roopilots6 09:07, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

Correct, everything is relevant, but that does not answer the question as to what /ought/ be relevant. I think military service certainly helps, but it's not the end all be all that McCain wants it to be. Soldiers are people first, and people are fallible; there are bad soldiers just as there are bad people and pointing that out (such as when Kerry went before Congress) isn't a bad thing at all. The point? Serving your country doesn't make you better or worse than anyone else, it just adds variety. Jirby 09:39, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

So then the addition of military service record as variety in an election is relevant. But then you say it is irrelevant in that it doesn't make you a better or worse candidate. So which one is it to be, relevant or irrelevant?--Roopilots6 10:20, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

Do you not read? Indeed, EVERYTHING is relevant; that's the way things are, but here's the kicker, that says nothing of what /ought/ be relevant. Palin's daughter, for example, was highly relevant in the days after the story broke about her being pregnant, but it shouldn't have ever been broken in the first place: Bristol isn't going to be the vice president, and what happened to McCain in Vietnam doesn't suddenly make him a superior leader because Obama /hasn't/ served in the military. Jirby 10:25, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

So you say it is irrelevant. But you also say everything is relevant. Here is my point to you. I served in the military for thirteen years. I know it made me a better person. I also know that for some people it will bring out the bad characteristics in them. Any hardship or challenge will do this and the challenges faced during a persons military service are very relevant towards their future tasks. To those who have a contempt for military service I doubt will be able to recognize what that relevance is for a candidate. You just get it, or you don't. It is an individual stance and not a collective one.--Roopilots6 10:45, 8 September 2008 (EDT)