[Non-Sequitur]

Shouldn't Republicans make a big deal of this?

Why? Had Giuliani or Romney or Huckabee or Thompson won the nomination then would they have been required to choose a vet to add legitimacy? Palin, Jindal, Steele, all the other names being bandied about are all people without military service. Should we shirk from nominating them in the future for that reason? People who live in glass houses should be wary of throwing stones.

[af_vet_rr]

Why? Had Giuliani or Romney or Huckabee or Thompson won the nomination then would they have been required to choose a vet to add legitimacy? Palin, Jindal, Steele, all the other names being bandied about are all people without military service. Should we shirk from nominating them in the future for that reason? People who live in glass houses should be wary of throwing stones.

Agreed - if anybody makes this an issue, it will bite Republicans in the butt later down the road.

We've had 16 years now where there wasn't a a strong emphasis on military service (if there was, Dole would have beat Clinton in '96 or McCain would have annihilated Bush in 2000 in the primaries). It's not really an issue anymore - my generation is the last generation to face the draft, and the majority of 40-somethings and under have not served.

[af_vet_rr]

I would add - the situation isn’t going to change. I’ve met a lot of young Republicans over the past couple of years in their 20s through a college group one of my daughters belonged to, and the majority I talked to made it clear they had no intention of serving (even as officers, being that they had their degrees or would be completing them within a few years). A few said they were considering it, because it would look good on their resume or if they ran for office later on. Slightly disconcerting, and I’ve heard similar stories from friends elsewhere, but it makes me appreciate those who do serve all the more.

[MSF BU]

Yes. And we’ve had discussions on the forum before regarding those man enought to serve and those not. Mitt, Huck, Fred, Rudy all had the opportunity to serve and didn’t. Given the timeframe, it’s interesting that they couldn’t make time to serve either on active duty or as a reservist. Some guys, Reagan for example, cheated on an eye exam so he could serve in the military. G. Gordon Liddy lied about his asthma in order to serve. There are those who do, and those who don’t. If you don’t, you shouldn’t complain when you’re forty and somebody points out your decision.

[SJackson]

Why? Had Giuliani or Romney or Huckabee or Thompson won the nomination then would they have been required to choose a vet to add legitimacy? Palin, Jindal, Steele, all the other names being bandied about are all people without military service. Should we shirk from nominating them in the future for that reason? People who live in glass houses should be wary of throwing stones.

I tend to agree with you, though I consider service an asset.

What I wondered about was his draft status, that's legitimate, as I'm sure was asthma in many cases. And particularly the statement which was attributed to a WP interview in the 80s that he failed his physical due to asthma. Which implies he was drafted or enlisted. A matter of keeping the record straight.

[Jacquerie]

Their non-service is not the issue.

The point is the hypocrisy of the Left and old media.

Quayle and Bush were ridiculed for serving in the reserves.

Fast forward to today. The only experience the two Leftists clowns have is opposing our military at every turn and seeking their defeat. That is a legitimate issue.