Will we have a President who served in Vietnam?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 12:18:27 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Presidential Election Trends (Moderator: 15 Down, 35 To Go)
  Will we have a President who served in Vietnam?
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2
Author Topic: Will we have a President who served in Vietnam?  (Read 4136 times)
ChainsawJedis
Tj Hare
Rookie
**
Posts: 116


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: February 22, 2015, 01:30:27 AM »

Watching a report on Jim Webb, and it occurred to me that Vietnam is the only major war which we have not had a president who served in it. I don't think Webb has a major chance in 2016.

PS. I'm not really counting Bush 43. I don't think he was ever in Vietnam.
Logged
Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers
olawakandi
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 87,776
Jamaica
Political Matrix
E: -6.84, S: -0.17


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: February 22, 2015, 03:07:53 AM »

If Clinton choses not to run. In that scenario, I support OMalley due to his tenure as mayor of Baltimore.
Logged
OldDominion
Rookie
**
Posts: 50
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: February 22, 2015, 01:25:13 PM »

Webb would be the best shot at it but in all likeliness, no. The Vietnam vets are getting old and a lot of them were turned off by politics coming home for obvious reasons so the ones that did get elected are few in number and don't have the name recognition of a John Kerry or a Jim Webb, for example.
Logged
ChainsawJedis
Tj Hare
Rookie
**
Posts: 116


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: February 22, 2015, 03:23:04 PM »

Webb would be the best shot at it but in all likeliness, no. The Vietnam vets are getting old and a lot of them were turned off by politics coming home for obvious reasons so the ones that did get elected are few in number and don't have the name recognition of a John Kerry or a Jim Webb, for example.

I do think it has a lot to do with the persisting unpopularity of that war. The veterans aren't seen as war Heroes in the same way as WWII vets.
Logged
Mister Mets
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,434
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: February 22, 2015, 06:06:08 PM »

Webb would be the best shot at it but in all likeliness, no. The Vietnam vets are getting old and a lot of them were turned off by politics coming home for obvious reasons so the ones that did get elected are few in number and don't have the name recognition of a John Kerry or a Jim Webb, for example.

I do think it has a lot to do with the persisting unpopularity of that war. The veterans aren't seen as war Heroes in the same way as WWII vets.
There are a few other factors.

A greater percentage of Americans served in World War II.

The public is ready to elect a woman.

Presidents have served full terms. The post-WWII Presidents Clinton, W and Obama all got reelected, and seem to have avoided truncated terms. As a result, there are less opportunities for others to get into the Whtie House.
Logged
Türkisblau
H_Wallace
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,402
Ireland, Republic of


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: February 22, 2015, 08:13:36 PM »

I would contend that we have not had a President who "served" in WWI.
Logged
politicus
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,174
Denmark


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: February 22, 2015, 08:45:42 PM »

I would contend that we have not had a President who "served" in WWI.

Truman did.
Logged
DKrol
dkrolga
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,542


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: February 22, 2015, 08:47:48 PM »

I would contend that we have not had a President who "served" in WWI.

Eisenhower did state-side logistics and planning, Truman fought in 1917 and 1918.
Logged
Türkisblau
H_Wallace
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,402
Ireland, Republic of


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: February 23, 2015, 05:59:18 AM »
« Edited: February 23, 2015, 06:01:14 AM by Pacific Speaker Türkisblau »

Ah, alright. The source I read said Missouri National Guard or something of the sort.
Logged
MATTROSE94
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,803
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -5.29, S: -6.43

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: February 23, 2015, 06:16:45 AM »

If Clinton choses not to run. In that scenario, I support OMalley due to his tenure as mayor of Baltimore.
Martin O' Malley was 10 when the Vietnam War ended, so he was way too young to have served during the war (though some of his relatives might have served in Vietnam).
Logged
ag
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,828


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: February 23, 2015, 08:39:51 AM »

Ah, alright. The source I read said Missouri National Guard or something of the sort.

Missouri Army National Guard. In France. It is not like the US had a major standing army back then.
Logged
TheElectoralBoobyPrize
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,519


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: February 23, 2015, 12:54:31 PM »

Webb would be the best shot at it but in all likeliness, no. The Vietnam vets are getting old and a lot of them were turned off by politics coming home for obvious reasons so the ones that did get elected are few in number and don't have the name recognition of a John Kerry or a Jim Webb, for example.

I do think it has a lot to do with the persisting unpopularity of that war. The veterans aren't seen as war Heroes in the same way as WWII vets.

I think it's bad luck more than anything.

2000: Vietnam vet won popular vote
2004: Vietnam vet was running against against wartime incumbent
2008: Vietnam vet was nominee of party whose president had become deeply unpopular
Logged
politicus
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,174
Denmark


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: February 23, 2015, 01:20:33 PM »

I would contend that we have not had a President who "served" in WWI.

Eisenhower did state-side logistics and planning, Truman fought in 1917 and 1918.

No, July 1918 to the armistice.

Korea is a interesting case. Carter served in the Pacific as a naval officer, but never saw active combat afaik.
Logged
ag
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,828


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: February 23, 2015, 03:19:23 PM »

I would contend that we have not had a President who "served" in WWI.

Eisenhower did state-side logistics and planning, Truman fought in 1917 and 1918.

No, July 1918 to the armistice.


Well, considering that the US only entered the war in 1917, that one needed time to mobilise, train, and bring the troops to Europe, this is about how long you can expect an American to serve in WWI. In any case, Truman, unquestionably, was a combat veteran.
Logged
Thunderbird is the word
Zen Lunatic
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,021


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: March 03, 2015, 03:52:27 PM »

Webb would be the best shot at it but in all likeliness, no. The Vietnam vets are getting old and a lot of them were turned off by politics coming home for obvious reasons so the ones that did get elected are few in number and don't have the name recognition of a John Kerry or a Jim Webb, for example.


Maybe for similar reasons we never had a World War I vet president.
Logged
Mr. Smith
MormDem
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 33,072
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: March 03, 2015, 03:56:00 PM »

Watching a report on Jim Webb, and it occurred to me that Vietnam is the only major war which we have not had a president who served in it. I don't think Webb has a major chance in 2016.

PS. I'm not really counting Bush 43. I don't think he was ever in Vietnam.

The Korean War isn't major enough for you?
Logged
politicus
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,174
Denmark


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: March 05, 2015, 12:00:49 AM »

Webb would be the best shot at it but in all likeliness, no. The Vietnam vets are getting old and a lot of them were turned off by politics coming home for obvious reasons so the ones that did get elected are few in number and don't have the name recognition of a John Kerry or a Jim Webb, for example.


Maybe for similar reasons we never had a World War I vet president.

You did. See above.
Logged
politicus
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,174
Denmark


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: March 05, 2015, 12:10:17 AM »

Watching a report on Jim Webb, and it occurred to me that Vietnam is the only major war which we have not had a president who served in it. I don't think Webb has a major chance in 2016.

PS. I'm not really counting Bush 43. I don't think he was ever in Vietnam.

The Korean War isn't major enough for you?

Carter served on a submarine in the Pacific during the Korean War. It depends how closely you want the service to be related to the theatre of war.
Logged
MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!
Kalwejt
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,380


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: March 05, 2015, 07:31:51 AM »

Watching a report on Jim Webb, and it occurred to me that Vietnam is the only major war which we have not had a president who served in it. I don't think Webb has a major chance in 2016.

PS. I'm not really counting Bush 43. I don't think he was ever in Vietnam.

The Korean War isn't major enough for you?

Carter served on a submarine in the Pacific during the Korean War. It depends how closely you want the service to be related to the theatre of war.

Carter never seen combat (after WWII, hardly any submariner did) and AFAIK he wasn't close enough to Korea to be regarded as participant of the conflict.

If we use this definition, any soldier/sailor/airman/marine serving in the Pacific would count as Korea and Vietnam vet, even if they served miles away and had no connection.
Logged
Thunderbird is the word
Zen Lunatic
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,021


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: March 07, 2015, 05:16:15 PM »

Webb would be the best shot at it but in all likeliness, no. The Vietnam vets are getting old and a lot of them were turned off by politics coming home for obvious reasons so the ones that did get elected are few in number and don't have the name recognition of a John Kerry or a Jim Webb, for example.


Maybe for similar reasons we never had a World War I vet president.

You did. See above.

ouch, missed that...I guess that I tend not to think of Truman and Eisenhower as not being WW1 vets since they weren't of the generation that actually served in the trenches. We didn't really have a president of the Hemmingway/Lost Generation.
Logged
The Mikado
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,677


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: March 07, 2015, 06:21:01 PM »

The point about Clinton, W. Bush, and Obama all being 2 termers serving out the whole 8 years (presumably so in Obama's case, at least) is a good one. That's a solid block of 24 years with three presidents...a whole generation aged out during just three administrations. Compare that to the period between Eisenhower leaving and Reagan taking office, 1961-1981. There were Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, and Carter in the White House in a 20 year time period. Times like that are far more effective at hitting presidents that had been in many different roles in life.
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,841
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: March 07, 2015, 07:29:13 PM »

The Vietnam vets are getting old -- 65 years old or so. I see nobody since John McCain (who was in his 30s and 40s during the Vietnam War, as was often the case with aviators) touting his combat in the Vietnam War. The Vietnam War has not been good for political exploitation.

A hero general? General Norman Schwartzkopf chose to avoid partisan politics. He is no longer available, as he is no longer alive.

The next war vet to use wartime service as part of his appeal will involve one of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan -- maybe.   
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,611


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: March 12, 2015, 07:48:19 PM »

We did have someone elected President who served in 'Nam. However, Gore didn't take office.

Ah, alright. The source I read said Missouri National Guard or something of the sort.

Missouri Army National Guard. In France. It is not like the US had a major standing army back then.

Yeah, this wasn't like Dubya enlistment in Texas Army National Guard, which was clearly designed to keep himself out of 'Nam
Logged
Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook
The Obamanation
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,853
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: March 14, 2015, 02:21:44 PM »

Bush was a Vietnam veteran in the sense that he was in the military at that time, but he never went to the jungle, which I'm guessing is what you're asking.
Logged
Sumner 1868
tara gilesbie
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,053
United States
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: March 15, 2015, 06:16:46 PM »

Being a veteran of any war has no appeal to Americans post-Vietnam for obvious reasons. I'm pretty sure no "War on Terror" veterans will take the presidency-especially Iraq veterans.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.052 seconds with 11 queries.