Question for Veterans

[DoveTurnedHawk]

Suppose you have only two candidates to vote for in the Democratic party who are very similar on the issues.

One was a Lieutenant. The other was a Four-Star General.

All other things being equal, which candidate would most veterans (assuming they are predominantly enlisted or junior officers) be more comfortable voting for?

Would they go for the Lieutenant, on the theory that they can relate to him better? Or would they go with the General, out of respect for that achievement and the inculcated notion of chain-of-command? Or do generals typically evoke distaste among the enlisted and junior officers? Or something entirely different?

Thanks! This is a genuine effort to obtain information, I have zero interest in dogging any candidate or starting some kind of silly penis-size war. All viewpoints are of course welcome, but I am especially interested to see the viewpoints of veterans, since I am utterly clueless on this.

What would veterans do?

DTH

[XNASA]

1. I'd vote for the Sailor, the Soldier.......

..the Flyboy (or Flygirl) then the Marine. In that order.

But honestly, it makes no diff to me. But I think that the branch of service probably carries more weight than the rank does. If they were both from the same branch, I don't think it matters at all.

For example, Sailors and Marines don't care much for each other, even though they're both in the Dept. of the Navy.

[hlthe2b]

2. Can you expand on that?

(sailors and marines don't care for each other....) How do other branches of the military relate? just curious...

[XNASA]

8. Each branch is quite loyal to it's own.

At least they were when I was on active duty in the Navy.

I think that the Sailor/Jarhead, excuse me, Sailor/Grunt rivalry stems from the fact that both the Navy and Marines share a lot of training schools, etc. So you see a lot of each other, and you're both often at sea together, but you're both very different in appearance and even disiplines. Sailors wear jeans and grow beards, Marines keep their hair high & tight and use a lot of startch. Stuff like that.

Also, on every ship I was ever on, the Marines ran the brig, even though perhaps only 5% of the ship's company were Marines. Therefore, they were hated by the sailors.

I don't think the rivalry is as intense between the Army and Air Force.

[atreides1]

9. Rivalry

There has always been a rivalry between the services, sometimes it's
friendly and sometimes it's not so friendly.

The Marines are part of the Navy, the Air Force use to be part of the
Army.

It could also be the jokes about the Marines and the Navy:


Q: Why are there Marines on Navy ships?
A: So that the sailors can have dance partners.

Q: What does MARINE stand for?
A: My A** Rides In Navy Equipment.

Just a guess on my part, I was in the army, and we had some names
for the air force.

[HawkerHurricane]

19. More Marine Jokes...

said with the utmost respect...

What's the Marines symbol stand for?
It's an eagle, for America, over a globe, for world wide commitment, with a anchor shoved up his arse so he remembers who he works for!

Like I said, siblings. Constantly bickering, but don't pick on one unless you want to fight both.

[HawkerHurricane]

16. Very poorly...

The old Army/Navy rivalry has transformed to a Air Farce/Navy rivalry... there is a old joke that says the Navy took up aviation to keep it out of the wrong hands, that is the Army's. The Navy sees the Air Force as its main rival for money.
The Marines/Navy rivalry is a sibling one; they fight constantly, but gawds help you if you start picking on either one as they will both team up to get you then.

"A shipmate before a sailor, a sailor before a marine, a marine before a soldier, a soldier before a civilian, a civilian before a dog, and a dog before a airman"

[DoveTurnedHawk]

10. Fascinating Point, Thank You

I appreciate it.

DTH

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jmaier]

6. I've know some wonderful

people who are/were flag officers. Intelligent, dedicated, humane, liberal minded and your comments are frankly insulting. A military career is public service and full of far more personal deprivations than most political careers.

As to the thread itself -- this is plain silly. I think Wes Clark's most recent comments on the topic of his career vs Kerry's speak eloquently.

"We were both junior officers in Vietnam. Afterwards, we took different paths in public service."

[DoveTurnedHawk]

7. Thank You for the Constructive Comment (eom)

DTH

[ResistTheCoup]

34. "Anyone who spends their entire 34 year career killing people has serious

mental problems"

That's a mind-boggling, outrageous charge to make. Are you then saying that Kerry only spent a couple of years "killing people"? Get a grip man.

To DTH: Speaking as a Vietnam Era Vet I'd have to agree with everything jmaier said vis-a-vis Clark and Kerry. They both have had distinguished careers and are decorated combat veterans. Their former ranks don't mean as much to me as what I think they bring to the table now.

While I like Kerry I feel that he is an 'old face'. By that I mean he's been in politics a long time. And his speeches (even his 'victory' speech in Iowa) tend to put me to sleep. He just seems to drone on and on. (Probably all the years on the Senate floor.) Nothing personal against Kerry, I just don't think he has the charisma and enthusiasm of Clark, plus, fair or not, I think he'll still be painted as a "New England liberal" and won't do as well in the south or midwest.

So while the big issue in Iowa was 'electability' and I believe Kerry was probably the most 'electable' candidate in the Iowa race, I still believe that Clark beats him in the electability department overall. He has everything that Kerry and Edwards have combined, plus more.

[IndianaGreen]

4. Actually, they were both Lieutenants in Vietnam

Kerry's rank was the Army equivalent of a First Lieutenant.

Would they go for the Lieutenant, on the theory that they can relate to him better? Or would they go with the General, out of respect for that achievement and the inculcated notion of chain-of-command?

Wrong equation! People will go with the one they can more readily identify with in terms of socio-economic class. On that alone, Clark has Kerry beat hands down.

On a more substantive note, Kerry has been milking (and padding) his Vietnam experience. For example, Kerry got a Purple Heart for a minor flesh wound, requiring only a bandage. Clark got his Purple Heart after sustaining life-threatening wounds during battle.

Kerry has the world convinced that he was the only opponent to Nixon's Vietnam War. Kerry does not even give credit to the other co-founder of VVAW, Ron Kovic.

Skull & Bones is also an issue. This is not a mere Yale fraternity. It would be the height of fixing the election to have to choose between two Bonesmen, Bush and Kerry.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

12. The Class Issues Are a Good Point

I wasn't aware of that about the injuries, too.

Thanks!

DTH

[VolcanoJen]

20. What was Kerry's highest naval rank?

Was he a Navy Lieutenant-Junior Grade, or a Navy Lieutenant?

If he was a Navy Lieutenant, that's the equivalent of an Army Captain, not a 1st Lieutenant.

:D

[blm]

23. Do you have a link for your assertion, IG?

That Kerry convinced the world he was "the only opponent to Nixon's Vietnam War"...I'd love to see how he set out to accomplish that.

Or is that just YOUR prism?

[sandnsea]

5. The one who didn't pull rank

I'm not in the military, but I never knew a serviceman who liked it.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

11. Fair Comment (eom)

DTH

15. regarding rank

It did sound to me like Clark was pulling rank, even while saying he wasn't.
& if I'm not mistaken, technically doesn't the lowest civilian outrank the highest officer in the military? By that measure I'd say a senator was higher rank. :)

[jmaier]

22. Nope

DOD GS (general service) and ES (executive service) employee grades have roughly equivalent military ranks. Some GS employees rank below non-commissioned officers.

26. I meant

Civilian. Pure civilian. Not DOD employees, not how the civil service ranks things. I meant someone like me who is not in the military, just a civilian working in a private business. I meant in a more philosophical sense, in a political sense, in the sense that in the United States we are not supposed to be a military state, a banana republic & therefore ANY civilian outranks ANY officer.

[HawkerHurricane]

29. Civilian, pure or otherwise...

are outside the chain of command, and therefore don't count. I am neither outranked by a civilian, nor do I outrank one.

A senator does not outrank a general (outside the chain); however I know of no general who will intentionally piss one off... Power of the Purse is a wonderful thing.
(Oh, yeah, generals don't outrank senators...)

Chain of command
President
VP
SecDef
SecNav
Asst. SecNav
Chief of Naval Operations
Commander, Pacific Fleet
Commander, Pacific Surface Fleet
Commander, Tarawa ARG
Commander, Destroyer Squadron #
Captain, USS Blank
Department Head
Division Officer

Senators aren't on it. Niether are GS workers.

(oh, yea, certain senators work for ME. I guess I outrank them!)

31. thanks

Now I know where I got the idea since I view the President as a civilian and president is at top of chain of command.

Outside the issue of the literal chain command, I'd like to still go with my idea about civilians outranking military. Just a dreamer, what can I say?

[HawkerHurricane]

38. Heh...

Go ahead, try and give me an order...

The people of the United States, as a whole, select the man (void in 2000) who is my CinC. However, individuals do not.

American egaltarian democracy, meet dictoral/fuedal military system.

[EXE619K]

17. I agree with this....

When Clark said all that "I got four stars and you got a butter bar", thing...it really turned me off.

Clark, being a military man should know better.

geesh.

on edit: Ik Kan Nit geschpellin'

[VolcanoJen]

24. With all due respect....

... Clark was responding to the notorious razor-tongue of Bob Dole, who had just implied that with Kerry's Iowa victory, Clark was just demoted to a Colonel.

It's kind of easy to understand why Clark snapped back. :-)

[EXE619K]

28. It doesn't matter.

I heard the quote from General Clark...it wasn't a "snap-back" at Dole and his remarks, it was a cheap shot on Kerry.

"pulling rank" is the slimiest thing you can do in the service. And that goes for elisted, as well as commissioned...it's that simple.

I'm not trying to smear Clark here. But, it's true, he should apologize for that.

But, that's just my opinion.

[VolcanoJen]

30. In fact, he did snap back at Dole's snarkiness.

You might want to watch it again, here:

http://www.us4clark.com/mediaclips.html

At any rate, I think Clark regretted that snap, and quickly realized that it may be construed as a cheap shot against a fellow serviceman. That's probably why he said this today:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040121/ap_on_el_pr/clark_31

"We were both young officers in Vietnam. We just pursued different paths of public service," Clark said Wednesday.

Now, about those pretty three-color anti-Clark brochures that Kerry's been dropping all over New Hampshire... :-)

[IndianaGreen]

33. It was Dole that was out of line!

Let's not go down this path of being nice to repukes! I can almost hear the media saying that the Democratic nominee was mean to Bush, as they did to Gore.

Kudos to Clark for slapping Dole!

[in_cog_ni_to]

35. That whole "rank" thing

started with a RUDE remark by Bob Dole on Larry King Live. He said Clark was "only" a colonel and Kerry was a higher rank...paraphrased. Clark CORRECTED his ass...and rightly so. THAT is what started this, not Clark. He should NOT apologize, Bob Dole should.

[sandnsea]

36. He has said it otherwise

Maybe it's being blown out of proportion by the media, we'll see. And there's been posts on DU that seem to imply the same thing too.

[EXE619K]

13. Hey DTH!

I don't think how far one got in his/her comission really matters too much for me.

However, If I sat in one of those promotion boards(being prior enlisted)....I'd look for whether the candidate is:

1. OCS or ROTC

2. Citadel or WP

I never liked "buck LTs" from Military Academies. Most are hard to approach and hard headed(WP cronism I guess).

CO's background really counts....from my experience, there's a huge difference between OCS/ROTC vs. WP types.

Esp. the OCS guys are popular.....they "felt" your pain and are usually better at dealing with enlisted issues.

But, That's just from my experience.


VETERANS FOR DEAN! Woo-Hoo!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

14. All things aren't equal. Kerry voted for the war.

Most of Lieutenants I knew in the marines were first rate martinets and jerks. I never ran across any generals. I had to work for a living unlike officers.

[Cuban_Liberal]

18. Kerry.

I'll vote for the Democrat who's always been a democrat. Brass stars don't impress me all that much--- I'm not a parakeet who's drawn to shiny things.

[Padraig18]

27. LOL!

Cute way of putting it! :P

[IndianaGreen]

32. Nominating Kerry will split the party!

The split will come after the November Election, when despite our voting for Kerry while holding our noses, he brings another DLC defeat to fruition. The recriminations and finger-pointing will be long lasting and bitter!

Ironically, the only pro-IWR candidate that may actually win in November is Edwards. The reason: Edwards is not a Washington insider, and he is not a gun-grabbing Massachusetts Skull & Bones elitist.

[deminflorida]

21. Just make sure we don't vote for a Corporal....

last country to do that was Germany....just before WWII.

[EXE619K]

25. Hey...

easy on the two-stripers!

TOCs, S-3...etc couldn't function if it weren't for two-stripers.

[rbrussell]

37. Military Records...

Are largely irrelevant, unless they're really impressive. John Kerry and Wesley Clark both have respectable military records, but they aren't any more impressive than those of tens of thousands of other people who aren't running for President.

I'd be inclined (in principle) to vote for a Lieutenant with a lot of political expereince over a General with none. What I think a lot of your fail to realize is this: there are probably a couple of hundred living people who have held four-star rank, and maybe a thousand or so who've held three stars. Obviously some of them are quite old, but still.

Most of them would never even think of running for President. Only a handful of Generals have ever been elected President and, in the past one hundred and fifty years, only two Presidents have been elected who were primarily known for their military records- Eisenhower and Grant.

Whatever else you want to say about General Clark, no one could seriously put him in the same league as the two above.

[cryofan]

39. Vets should probably vote for Clark--he plans to fund healthcare for them

Healthcare for vets is a big part of Clark's healthcare plan. I myself am eligible for VA healthcare. It is a huge benefit for a vet, given the current outrageous price of insurance.

Clark is probably going to be my choice. I think he can beat Bush. But I doubt he can beat Edwards, and he may have problems beating Kerry.

[religiousleft]

40. I'm a vetern war resister

and it will take great discipline not to sit out a wartime election if my party insists on nominating a candidate based on his "heroism" while participating in imperialist violence. That said, better a Hawk than a chicken hawk. Better anybody than to let the Bush cartel continue.