Talk Elections

Election Archive => 2012 Elections => Topic started by: CLARENCE 2015! on April 11, 2012, 02:04:07 PM



Title: A Time for Choosing
Post by: CLARENCE 2015! on April 11, 2012, 02:04:07 PM
This has been the topic for some talk I've had with friends...  Mitt Romney is about to have a time for choosing. I spent the last hour checking every Presidential election in my lifetime and seeing the backgrounds of every major candidate for the Presidency and Vice Presidency in my lifetime and here is the list I have compiled-

1944
FDR- N/A
Truman- Army (WWI)
Dewey- N/A
Bricker- Army (WWI)

1948
Truman- Army (WWI)
Barkley- N/A
Dewey- N/A
Warren- Army (WWI)

1952
Eisenhower- Army (WWI/WWII)
Nixon- Navy (WWII)
Stevenson- N/A
Sparkman- Army(equivalent of ROTC) (WWI)

1956
Eisenhower- Army (WWI/WWII)
Nixon- Navy (WWII)
Stevenson- N/A
Kefauver- N/A

1960-
JFK- Navy (WWII)
LBJ- Navy (WWII)
Nixon- Navy (WWII)
Lodge- N/A

1964
LBJ- Navy (WWII)
Humphrey- N/A
Goldwater- Army/Air Force (WWII/Korea)
Miller- Army (WWII)

1968
Nixon- Navy (WWII)
Agnew- Army (WWII)
Humphrey- N/A
Muskie- Navy (WWII)
Wallace- Army (WWII)
LeMay- Army/Air Force (WWII)

1972
Nixon- Navy (WWII)
Agnew- ARmy (WWII)
McGovern- Army (WWII)
Shriver- Navy (WWII)

1976
Carter- Navy (Korea)
Mondale- Army (Korea)
Ford- Navy (WWII)
Dole- Army (WWII)

1980
Reagan- Army (WWII)
HW Bush- Navy (WWII)
Carter- Navy (Korea)
Mondale- Army (Korea)

1984
Reagan- Army (WWII)
HW Bush- Navy (WWII)
Mondale- Army (Korea)
Ferraro- N/A

1988
HW Bush- Navy (WWII)
Quayle- National Guard (Vietnam)
Dukakis- Army (Korea)
Bentsen- Army/Air Force (WWII)

1992
Clinton- N/A
Gore- Army (Vietnam)
HW Bush- Navy (WWII)
Quayle- National Guard (Vietnam)
Perot- Navy
Stockdale- Navy (Korea/Vietnam)*****SEE NOTE BELOW

1996
Clinton- N/A
Gore- Army (Vietnam)
Dole- Army (WWII)
Kemp- Army

2000
W Bush- National Guard (Vietnam)
Cheney- N/A
Gore- Army (Vietnam)
Lieberman- N/A

2004
W Bush- National Guard (Vietnam)
Cheney- N/A
Kerry- Navy (Vietnam)
Edwards- N/A

2008
Obama- N/A
Biden- N/A
McCain- Navy (Vietnam)
Palin- N/A

2012
Obama- N/A
Biden- N/A
Romney- N/A
???- ???

*** First of all- I want every one to know something about James Stockdale. You probably know him as the old man who stumbled in the 92 VP debate... he is an American hero whose conduct as aPOW places him above even McCain. I urge you to read up


ANYWAY... to my point. In EVERY election in my life time, there has been a major candidate for Pres or VP with military experience. If I am the oldest member of this board- that means in YOUR lifetime, the same is true. This is the first time in my life that there may not be any major candidate for Pres or VP who has served our nation in the military

I urge Mitt Romney to select a veteran as his Vice Presidential running mate to not make history in this awful way...those of us who served will be watching


Title: Re: A Time for Choosing
Post by: opebo on April 11, 2012, 02:06:33 PM
So are you saying he should choose James Stockdale?


Title: Re: A Time for Choosing
Post by: CLARENCE 2015! on April 11, 2012, 02:07:26 PM
That is unfortunately impossible


Title: Re: A Time for Choosing
Post by: opebo on April 11, 2012, 02:10:55 PM
Sorry, a bit of a faux pas there - I just checked and according to wikipedia he has passed away.

Any suggestions, clarence? Colin Powell? Might get a bit of the black vote.


Title: Re: A Time for Choosing
Post by: CLARENCE 2015! on April 11, 2012, 02:16:50 PM
He would be outstanding but may be a bit too old... I would give a few options-

Bob McDonnell- Army
Duncan Hunter- Army (Vietnam)
Duncan D. Hunter- Marine Corps (Iraq/Afghanistan)
Allen West- Army (Persian Gulft/Iraq)
Chuck Hagel- Army (Vietnam)

There are MANY more but these men off the top of my head would be excellent...


Title: Re: A Time for Choosing
Post by: tmthforu94 on April 11, 2012, 02:35:15 PM
I have great respect for candidates who have military experience, but it is usually not a deciding factor for me. It wouldn't hurt Romney, though, to have a nominee. I think Governor McDonnell was in the Army or Navy, so it boosts my belief he'd be one of the best for the position.


Title: Re: A Time for Choosing
Post by: Erc on April 11, 2012, 02:53:28 PM
For historical interest:

Wendell Wilkie and Alf Landon both served in the Army during WWI.  As far as I know, 1932 was the last election with nobody having official military experience (although Hoover and Roosevelt both played significant civilian roles during WWI, and Curtis apparently ran messages during a conflict between the Cheyenne and Kaw).


Title: Re: A Time for Choosing
Post by: Queen Mum Inks.LWC on April 11, 2012, 02:56:55 PM
I wish he'd pick Hagel, but that's not going to happen.


Title: Re: A Time for Choosing
Post by: Yelnoc on April 11, 2012, 03:59:39 PM
Bob McDonnell is the most likely pick, I would say.


Title: Re: A Time for Choosing
Post by: 5280 on April 11, 2012, 04:07:52 PM
Maybe this election cycle won't have anybody with military experience, that will be the first time.


Title: Re: A Time for Choosing
Post by: King on April 11, 2012, 04:12:43 PM
Most of the Military Republicans have tainted legacies from Iraq right now.  He could choose Robert Gates.  However, I don't think national security is a big enough issue in this campaign to bother.


Title: Re: A Time for Choosing
Post by: AmericanNation on April 11, 2012, 04:16:02 PM
David Howell Petraeus will likely serve in either administration.  Maybe not Obama's second term.  


Title: Re: A Time for Choosing
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on April 11, 2012, 06:08:38 PM
I wish he'd pick Hagel, but that's not going to happen.

Oh how I wish.


Title: Re: A Time for Choosing
Post by: All Along The Watchtower on April 11, 2012, 07:35:42 PM
W "served" in the National Guard, defending Texas from the Viet Cong (when, of course, he wasn't AWOL).


Title: Re: A Time for Choosing
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on April 11, 2012, 07:37:25 PM
Ron Paul served in the Air Force.


Title: Re: A Time for Choosing
Post by: Paul Kemp on April 11, 2012, 07:39:20 PM
I think you'll be pretty disappointed.

Does it really matter when it comes down to it? I'm not really sure it makes a difference either way. It's not like he'd be insulated from veterans as a president.


Title: Re: A Time for Choosing
Post by: Negusa Nagast 🚀 on April 11, 2012, 08:27:47 PM
A candidate's military experience is no indicator that he will be a good executive.


Title: Re: A Time for Choosing
Post by: FEMA Camp Administrator on April 11, 2012, 08:38:17 PM
A candidate's military experience is no indicator that he will be a good executive.

It shows a willingness to put yourself above country. As well, it can help get rid of some of those "chickenhawk" attacks that we're all so fond of.


Title: Re: A Time for Choosing
Post by: Negusa Nagast 🚀 on April 11, 2012, 08:49:37 PM
A candidate's military experience is no indicator that he will be a good executive.

It shows a willingness to put yourself above country. As well, it can help get rid of some of those "chickenhawk" attacks that we're all so fond of.

I would argue that (for most people), running for President is putting yourself above your country.  Yes, some people want the glory and power associated with the job, but the POTUS fulfills a stressful role, which can be physically and mentally taxing on one man. In some senses, it is self-sacrifice: you lose some of the little things we take for granted, such as merely walking down the street to grab a burger.


Title: Re: A Time for Choosing
Post by: King on April 11, 2012, 10:57:16 PM
A candidate's military experience is no indicator that he will be a good executive.

I beg to differ, slightly.  I think really sound military leader would provide a great break from the partisan divide in Washington right now; at least a relatively smart one with good diplomatic skills like David Petreus.

Eisenhower was successful because he was impossible to attack as an "American hero" and didn't have to appease a particular platform so he worked with everyone well, at least compared to other Presidents.  He managed the executive effectively.  I think another like him could do the same.

The only thing is that they probably won't make the best candidates in the modern age.  Ike wasn't exactly a great speaker.  We all saw how bad Wesley Clark failed. 


Title: Re: A Time for Choosing
Post by: AmericanNation on April 12, 2012, 11:41:44 AM
Petreus seems just destined to be on a presidential ticket.  He can build a resume (weirdly somewhat like Cheney) of diverse Cabinet level experience and then be a "gravitas" boost.   


Title: Re: A Time for Choosing
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on April 12, 2012, 11:56:00 AM
Most of the Military Republicans have tainted legacies from Iraq right now.  He could choose Robert Gates.  However, I don't think national security is a big enough issue in this campaign to bother.

Of course, Gates is thoroughly tainted by his association with Obama.


Title: Re: A Time for Choosing
Post by: Pingvin on April 12, 2012, 12:25:21 PM
If I remember, Perry had served in the USAF.


Title: Re: A Time for Choosing
Post by: FEMA Camp Administrator on April 14, 2012, 05:01:21 PM
Clarence, I'm afraid you made a historical error in Lodge's military record.

Quote from: Wikipedia
Lodge served with distinction during the war, rising to the rank of lieutenant colonel. During the war he saw two tours of duty: The first in 1942, while also serving as a U.S. Senator, and the second in 1944–5 after resigning from the Senate.

The first period was a continuation of Lodge's longtime service as an Army Reserve Officer. Lodge was a major in the 1st Armored Division, a tank unit which would later be sent to North Africa; he went to observe allied tank troops in Egypt and Libya, and in that position was on hand for the British retreat from Tobruk. That tour ended in July 1942, when President Franklin D. Roosevelt ordered congressmen serving in the military to resign one of the two positions, and Lodge, who chose to remain in the Senate, was ordered by Secretary of War Henry Stimson to return to Washington.

After returning to Washington and winning re-election in November 1942 (just as the 1st Armored became the first U.S. armed forces to make actual contact with the Germans on land), Lodge served the first year of his new Senate term, but then resigned his Senate seat on February 3, 1944 in order to return to active duty, the first U.S. Senator to do so since the Civil War. He saw action in Italy and France. Promoted to a lieutenant colonel, in the fall of 1944 Lodge single-handedly captured a four-man German patrol. By March 1945 he was decorated with the French Legion of Honor and Croix de Guerre with palm. At the end of the war in 1945 he served as a liaison and interpreter to U.S. Sixth Army commander General Jacob Devers in Devers' surrender negotiations with the German forces in western Austria.


Title: Re: A Time for Choosing
Post by: CLARENCE 2015! on April 14, 2012, 06:16:42 PM
I sincerely apologize- thank you for pointing that out Cathcon


Title: Re: A Time for Choosing
Post by: Politico on April 14, 2012, 07:41:04 PM
It's not looking good for this trend:

Sen. Portman has no military experience.

Sen. Rubio has no military experience.

Rep. Ryan has no military experience.

Gov. McDonnell has military experience, but he is kind of tainted with the women right now, so his prospects have to be downgraded from earlier in the year. Was the front-runner, but I do not see how Mitt can pick him now with the gender gap what it is. Thank you, Rick Santorum, for depriving America of a great VP.

Gen. Petraeus, a Reagan-esque choice considering Reagan was the last nominee to pick a former CIA Director as his running mate, would be the ultimate pick. Petraeus is easily my favorite choice with the possible exception of Rubio, but there is no indication he is interested.


Title: Re: A Time for Choosing
Post by: Wisconsin+17 on April 14, 2012, 07:58:45 PM
He needs a conservative, a southerner and someone with military experience.

Duncan Hunter fits all of these. Personally I think he should go with Huntsman.


Title: Re: A Time for Choosing
Post by: Alcon on April 14, 2012, 08:01:14 PM
He needs a conservative, a southerner and someone with military experience.

Duncan Hunter fits all of these. Personally I think he should go with Huntsman.

??? Duncan Hunter was born in Riverside County, Calif., and lives in San Diego County now.  I don't even think he lived in the South during his military service.


Title: Re: A Time for Choosing
Post by: Wisconsin+17 on April 14, 2012, 09:27:16 PM
True that, I forgot Hunter was from CA not TX. I always associate him with TX.


Title: Re: A Time for Choosing
Post by: AmericanNation on April 15, 2012, 07:19:25 AM
Should Obama pick someone with military experience?  Is the democrat party capable of producing a national candidate with military experience anymore?  Talk about a weak bench. 


Title: Re: A Time for Choosing
Post by: AmericanNation on April 15, 2012, 09:00:53 AM
Tom Ridge is probably on the long list. 


Title: Re: A Time for Choosing
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on April 17, 2012, 05:51:39 PM
Gen. Petraeus, a Reagan-esque choice considering Reagan was the last nominee to pick a former CIA Director as his running mate, would be the ultimate pick. Petraeus is easily my favorite choice with the possible exception of Rubio, but there is no indication he is interested.

Your ignorance is astonishing. General Petraeus is an appointed government official and, thus, is prohibited from taking any part of political campaigning.

Even if we assume that he'd resign from CIA directorship in order to run for Vice President, such a reason to quit a key intelligence job would be pretty damaging to his image.


Title: Re: A Time for Choosing
Post by: Politico on April 17, 2012, 06:40:08 PM
Gen. Petraeus, a Reagan-esque choice considering Reagan was the last nominee to pick a former CIA Director as his running mate, would be the ultimate pick. Petraeus is easily my favorite choice with the possible exception of Rubio, but there is no indication he is interested.

Your ignorance is astonishing. General Petraeus is an appointed government official and, thus, is prohibited from taking any part of political campaigning.

I am well aware of this, of course. Since you are unable to read between the lines, here is the point of saying there is no indication Petraeus is interested: He has never shown any interest in politics.

Your arrogance is not astonishing.

Quote
Even if we assume that he'd resign from CIA directorship in order to run for Vice President, such a reason to quit a key intelligence job would be pretty damaging to his image.

Somebody is afraid of the prospect, I see. Obviously the role of VPOTUS is nothing to sneeze at, especially if one is primarily interested in serving the nation.