Be the Spark!

contribute now

McCain and the Veteran Vote

AIR DATE: Monday, May 12th 2008
How does your experience with war affect your presidential vote?This sure is an exciting time in Oregon. Over the next couple of days Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama will be traveling across the state, courting votes for the May 20th Primary. Then on Monday the presumptive Republican nominee, John McCain, makes his first visit to this fine state.

When Barack Obama first came to Oregon we did a show about race. When Hillary Clinton came we talked about gender and the generational divide. Now that John McCain is coming, we're turning to veterans.

One of the big things that differentiates John McCain from the other people vying to be the next Commander in Chief is his military experience. He served as a Navy pilot in Vietnam, flying attack aircraft from carriers. In 1967, he was shot down, injured, and then held captive as a prisoner of war for five-and-a-half years.

This experience has obviously shaped his life, his campaign, and his position on the war in Iraq and veterans affairs.

Are you a veteran of war? How has your experience shaped the way you look at the presidential race? How important is support for military families, healthcare for retired veterans, the recognition of servicepeople killed at war to you?

Do you think someone needs to be a veteran of war in order to be an effective Commander in Chief?

How does your experience at war impact your vote?

Photo credit: Wigwam Jones / Flickr / Creative Commons

GUESTS:

General Merrill ?Tony? McPeak (retired): Senator Barack Obama's military advisor and national campaign co-chairman

Tim Glaser: Veteran of Iraqi Freedom and Desert Storm. He now works as a computer contractor and lives in East Vancouver

John Neuman: A six-tour veteran of the Vietnam War, regional director of the Pacific Rim States for the Vietnam Veterans Association and founder of Veterans of Oregon

Tagged as: 2008 election · mccain · military · president · veteran

I am more interested in a candidates agenda and what he/she intends to do to help our country out of the morass it is in than what 'box' media puts her/his supporters fit in. Frankly - according to the media hype, the only qualified person to be a President is an elderly Christian rich black woman who served in Viet Nam. o.0
selehka —
I am a combat vet from 2 tours in Afghanistan. My concern is less for thier combat experience and more for the fact that they volunteered at all. Robert Heinlein in his political novel "Starship Troopers" made the point that veterans have shown a personal resposability for the "state" that i think is very important. It shows that they have a greater view then thier own personal interest.
Matt11b —
I believe the person your talking to right now is John Neuman. I wish you'd acutally make sure you guests get their facts right before letting them on the air. His slander of Obama was terrible. He trotted out a lot of talking points used by right wing raido that have been disproven. If he wants to talk about flip flopping in politics he needs to look no farther then John McCain.
Frostfly —
Frosty talk of "flip flopping" can be dangerous. We have this idea that the people we elect should know everything from the very begining. But what about learning? What if someone comes to understand something in a different way should they hold to thier origional idea simply because they said one thing and they dont want to be caught "flip flopping" or do we want someone who is going to have thier opinions change as thier experiences change?
Matt11b —
When I talk about flip floping in this case it's backed up by McCains voting record. For instance, claims to support veterans, yet refused for a long time to sign on to the new GI bill(i'm not sure if he's signed on yet). HAS BEEN torutured, and claims publicly to be opposed to the US using it. Yet voted aginst a bill to ban torture.
Too me flipfloping is when you say something and vote the other way. If you say something, Then admit you changed your mind, it's not flip flopping it's changing your mind. People do that sometimes and I don't have a problem with it. No one is right all the time. but when you tell me one thing and do something else it makes you not only a flip-flopper, but also a liar.
Frostfly —
There is a difference between "presenting facts" and "talking smack." When your guest states that Barack Obama refuses to participate in the pledge of allegiance or the singing of the national anthem, this crosses that line, and it is your duty as an unbiased host to correct him. I'm very disappointed you just let that one go.
Jesse42 —
No it isn't! It is clearly a guest stating their opinion. All sides Clinton/McCain/Obama and their supporters repeatedly misstate information, including the candidates themselves. It isn't up to a host to decide who is correct; especially when the crux of the show is anecdotal and opinion.
scottmil —
No, he was NOT "stating an opinion" -- he was stating AS A FACT that Senator Obama does not say the pledge of allegiance or sing the national anthem. And that is simply FALSE. It is nothing but lying right-wing propaganda.
BruceM —
It's not the job of a host to challenge all potentially incorrect views by a guest; especially when they are on a show to give their opinion or slant on an issue and in this case a somewhat unrelated issue. There were clearly opinions by Mr. Neuman and Mr. McPeak that are factually incorrect and can be disproved.
scottmil —
I think the error lies in the guests short cutting, using one incident and a couple circumstances that cast Obama in a non-patriotic light, turning the one photographed incident into a case for evidence for a common practice.

Even so, the general idea is that Obama does appear to make traditional patriotism and the marks that go with it, and has shown a typical leftist distain for the flag and the usual marks of patriotism. (Even if they have been exploited by the Right). If the guest had phrased it more like that rather than projecting the one known incident into what is easily rebutted as a falsehood through an apparent claim for plural similar incidents, then these claims of lying would be less easy to make.

I have a far left friend who calls the U.S. Flag "The Republican Flag," while being ridiculously proud of the flag of her native country. The left has carried distain for the U.S. Flag since the time of the Viet Nam war (and the Beats in NYC long before that). That this is based on the subversive intentions of The American Communist Party (at least in the beginning) is now easy to document. Alan Gingsberg, Chomsky, MLK, just about all of the early players were frustrated and angry victims or reactionaries of the McCarthy Era. Some of that is understandable to be sure. HOWEVER.....

The beat just goes on, but it is disconcerting to see a candidate with what looks like a closet case (at least) of distain for the only real symbol of our democracy with a potential first lady who it seems must now be kept far from the public eye - poised to take the highest office in the land with such a short public service record behind him to compare with his choice in the church he has long attended and apparently the people who must have influenced his real thoughts by association.
ratfink67 —
+ Besides it being incorrect that Mr. Obama doesn't participate in the pledge of allegiance or the national anthem. What would be the problem if he didn't?

+ A flag is nothing more then a logo. There is absolutely nothing to suggest, lack of flag worship, means someone dislikes the country in which they live or doesn't care about its future. Are you suggesting Mr. Obama is trying to infiltrate the country with dislike? Why would he run for president if he didn't like America? It wouldn't make much sense.

+ Your friend, on the subject of flags, is irrational.

+ The flag is not "the only real symbol of our democracy," its just a flag! The meaning or lack of meaning is up to the individual and its potential symbolism should not be dictated in a democracy.
scottmil —
I'd be interested to know if Mr. Neuman voted for Senator Kerry?

With respect due Mr. Neuman for his service, but I wish he had more thinking and less out loud. The U.S. got into Vietnam initially to help the French retain a colony, not for Vietnamese freedom. John McCain has consistently voted against taking care of Veterans, eg. he currently opposes modernizing the GI Bill to actually cover tuition, because he fears it will lure soldiers out of the military.
pnoordijk —
I am retired military. I am a conservative Republican. Nonetheless, I found the swift boating of John Kerry absolutely shameful in 2004, even though I had no intention of voting for him.

For the first time in my adult life, I am choosing not to vote. For the last two elections, I chose the "lesser of two evils" option. What I have learned is that when you choose the lesser of two evils, you keep getting more and more evil to choose from. I am done with that.

I am more angry with the Right than the Left. I am not one of those who is against McCain because he isn't hateful or bigoted enough. It isn't so much McCain I have a problem with, it is the influential elements within the Republican Party who I have a problem with. I feel the conservative movement has been hijacked by psychopaths and I refuse to have any part of the political process until they are weeded out. The Republican Party is going to have to earn my vote back, and if that means we end up with a liberal, inexperienced Democrat who talks pretty for President, so be it. Time to pay the devil.
Luke T. —
I believe it's the responsibility of the moderator to correct the "facts" presented by Mr. Neuman. Barack Obama frequently LEADS his Senate colleagues in the Pledge of Allegiance. He has not only introduced but passed important legislation; for one, on ethics and campaign reform. If Mr. Neuman wishes to state that he will only vote for a veteran, that is a valid opinion-- which of course would mean that he certainly voted for Mr. Kerry in 2004 over Bush.
coastalview —
In my opinion, veteran status is not much of a factor.

Look at Eisenhower - he did wonderful things for our country, most of wish was non-partisan. He warned us of the military industrial complex, which we ignored.

US Grant was not only a lousy general, but the worst president (pre-2000) - extremely corrupt.

I have mixed feelings about Teddy Roosevelt's accomplishments.

PS - to respond to one of your guests: The President CANNOT DECLARE WAR. According to the constitution, it takes an act of congress to declare war. Of course the last time that happened was Dec 8th, 1941.....

Chad Balcom —
PPS - It is proper that George W Bush isn't mentioned as a veteran, because he did not serve in the Texas Air Guard. He was signed up on paper, but never reported for duty. Greg Palast did an excellent piece on the matter. Look it up.
Chad Balcom —
Kennedy and Eisenhower got us into Vietnam (both vets). G. H.W. Bush launched Iraq1 and the invasion of Panama. McKinley started the Spanish American war (a veteran of the civil war), and that's just what comes to mind for now... And if G.W. Bush is to be believed he's a vet, and he started this Iraq war.
pnoordijk —
John Neuman's criticisms of Obama and Clinton raise some interesting questions. Is he afraid their lack of military experience might lead them to invade a foreign country based on faulty intelligence? Or mismanage a pursuit and allow terrorists to get away? Or undermine our constitution in the name of national defense?
Perhaps if he would just explain how the maintenance of C130's gives him such a qualified opinion on the abilities of the candidates then maybe I could understand his analysis of them.
John in Salem —
Why wasn't John Neuman challenged when he said Obama refuses to salute the flag or sing the national anthem? Obama has explained why he doesn't wear a flag pin. How many of us do?
carolyn hammond —
I just got this off the BBC "Two aides to Republican John McCain resign over ties to lobbyists who represented Burma's military junta."

I have been educated in the military, but never served. War is a result of going over and past sane discussion, so now with his experience in killing and pain, the waste of it all, why does he continue to hang out with military politicians. It's gross, move on.
john gogol —
Using military experience as a criteria for president would rule out a segment of the population, folks who's idealogy direct them to not pick up arms and kill other.
juliet —
While I was in the military, I considered myself a staunch republican, I was pro-Regan, and felt that the republican party knew how to "take care of" the military. This was up until we invaded Iraq and I couldn't find a rational reason as to why. The more digging I did, the bigger the disconnect and I eventually switched parties and now I vote democrat. I'd like to see senator McCain in the executive branch, but after the current administration's war to line the pockets of companies like Halyburton, I'm not willing to give them a second chance.
FredPDX —
I consider myself a veteran of America's military involvement in Central America during the 1980s. It was a dangerous, tragic and secret time that certainly shapes my understanding of U.S. foreign policy. I was not a paid soldier in covert operations. Rather, I was an unarmed but active opponent of U.S. activity in Honduras, Nicaragua and El Salvador.

My understanding of war is also shaped by my training as a historian, and as proud uncle of a marine killed in Iraq.

John McCain likes to criticize people who oppose his foreign policy ideas as "isolationist." The opposite word which he apparently uses to define his ideas is "engaged." My experience with war leads me to use a very different term. The idea that we should have bases, ships, missiles, and heavy troop activity all over the world is "imperialistic."

We don't just need a national discussion on race and class. We also need a national discussion on imperialism.

On a final note -to correct your first guest: George H.W. Bush, a decorated military veteran, did take the U.S. to war.
Mark in Albany —
If you want the US Conservative Republicans to keep murdering Iraqis for their oil, vote for John McCain.

Blood Oil

I don?t trust McCain at all he simply cannot be trusted.
Tom D Ford —
Seems to me that what is lacking in this discussion is talk about integrity -
kestrel51 —
The veterans I listen to are at ivaw.org
Chad Balcom —
Thanks for mentioning IVAW. There was virtually zero coverage of the Winter Soldier hearings earlier this spring, including by our "public" radio stations. What is truly missing from this discussion is a representative from Veterans for Peace, a chapter of which is active in Portland. Too bad the staff of this show didn't think to include that point of view.
coastalview —
Two points:

1. The false statement by Mr. Neuman that Barack Obama will not say the pledge of allegiance or salute the flag must not be allowed to go unchallenged. This is a discredited piece of misinformation that the right wing has been spreading about Senator Obama for months. I am disappointed that OPB let it pass without questioning it.

2. The role of commander-in-chief is just one part of the job of the president of the United States; therefore, whether or not a candidate has military credentials and/or military expertise should not trump every other consideration.
BruceM —
I cringed when I heard John Neuman state, unchallenged, the already-debunked-as-untrue smears of Sen. Obama that have been circulated via email by right wing groups. It is absolutely incorrect that Sen. Obama does not believe in saying the pledge of allegiance or singing the star spangled banner. He does both. He has supported legislation that children say the pledge of allegiance in school. He has co-authored and passed significant legislation vis-a-vis Campaign finance reform, earmarks and government transparency, as well as non-proliferation. Neuman implies that Obama is not patriotic, but he clearly has never heard Obama speak about his own patriotism which is profound.
agazelle —
Being a veteran is no prerequisite to running for president. Isn't this the point of a democracy? That we have few limitations on who can run for office?

Veterans as a group are no more noble or heroic then anyone else. This aggrandizement of them by American culture is absurd, foolish and inaccurate. America and the world should be much slower to collectively label soldiers heroes.
scottmil —
I must comment that your four star general who advises Obama is very incorrect regarding the military service of past presidents. He has twice said that President Johnson was not a vet. He in fact was a naval comander before and during WW2 and served in the theater of combat as did JFK.

Also, the list of past presidents who served in the military is much larger than he has indicated; Tyler, Jackson, Grant, T. Roosevelt, and I am sure many others I cannot quickly think of in the pre-WW2 period. Since WW2, most of our presidents have been veterans. That includes Eisenhower, JFK, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Bush 1 (Bush2 if you count his activity during wartime actual service). Only Clinton never served or signed up in any way. Clinton took us into Bosnia and Kosovo, so regardless of the pros and cons of the two actions, the statement that non-veterans don't take us to war is incorrect as well.

The general's comments on George Washington were also inacurrate. While Washington did not himself declare the Revolutionary War, (congress did by delcaring a sucession - idependence - from Britain) he was an advocate of it. More importantly, Washington was a hawk. This is illustrated by the fact that Washington fairly single handedly started the pre-Revolutionary War - French and Indian War (which errupted in Europe as The Seven Years War) through his arrogant, botched performance during his work as a military attache' delivering negotiative papers for the British to the French in New France (Canada).

The above are historic facts, look them up.

The idea that a four star general doesn't know this, or is so biased that he will not admit it, is unsettling and rather illustrates the selective nature of politicing by ommision of real history and reality from the current Democratic and in this case campaign for Borak Obama. By now, the American public has soaked up decades of PC misinformation and revisionism to the point that the dishonesty is hardly noticed anymore because of reality being replaced by an attitude of self-righteousness.

But a lie is a lie and can lead to no good, especially as lies are compounded. The lies of the Right haven't served us and lies from the Left won't either. Regardless, the practical experience and historical witness that military service usually provides is nothing but an asset to a country with a tradionally large military. So unless we mean to dismantle our military almost completely, which I don't think even Obama wants to do, it will take more than being a very clever public speaker and lawyer to make an effective president that will be taken seriously internationally. Note; power always advances in the face of weakness.
ratfink67 —
well said and quite accurate - thanks for your input - and especially your comment about lies, quibbles, inaccuracies - call them what you will - they are poison to an open discussion and should have been addressed immediately by the host.
kestrel51 —
Well, the show is over and NOBODY challenged the LIE that Senator Obama does not sing the national anthem or say the pledge of allegiance. Shame on you, OPB!
BruceM —
Sir, I was challenging it too my radio in the car.... but had no way to call in or post at the moment. :( I've also noticed there are some comments/conversations above that did address it. Although at no time was it corrected on air.

To OPB: I enjoy this show very much but I was disappointed that the hosts didn't correct Mr. Neuman's statement about Obama. It not only was completely false and only furthered the lies, but it made him sound ignorant. I lost respect for him after that and wasn't much willing to listen to what he had to say.

I believe it's the job of the hosts to correct those things right away. Save face for him (maybe) and even be willing to use that moment as a spring board for deeper conversation.

I cared so much about this mess-up that I signed up to post here. Hopefully that says something to those running the show. You all are doing important work for our community. I have respect for you and understand it's difficulty, but I hope you're willing to challenge people when they're spreading untruth (especially in this critical time of the race).

Sincerely and respectfully,
Liesl Vistaunet
Lieslvista —
This talk of electing a Commander In Chief implies that we are going keep ourselves at war when what we need is a President who will only go to war when our security is at stake and not for the benefit of Bush/Cheney and their Godless Global Oil Companies.
Tom D Ford —
i guess i've got a problem here - i'm a vet, taught at the naval war college, and have a fairly good education.

to hear gen mcpeak say we need obama because he's "scary smart" is, in itself, scary. whether you agree with them or not, g.w.'s advisors are "scary smart" -- that sure as heck doesn't make them right. nor will it make obama right.

what we need in a leader is vision, integrity, and the ability to communicate. i found those running their lips in todays' program sadly lacking in their ability to articulate those points and tell me WHY i should vote for their candidate.

and i'm also put off by the gross generalizations voiced by many in this forum. passionate beliefs are not a substitute for rational thought.
kestrel51 —
To somehow suggest that a journalist shouldn't clarify inaccuracies made by guests is to suggest that Americans are better off trying to find a balance between the lies from both sides than actually knowing the truth. There is no excuse for allowing a something so clearly false to slip by unnoticed.

I would like to add that I do think when we start basing patriotism on what we wear or don't wear, we completely miss the point of what it means to be truely patriotic (Democrats and Republicans should be able to agree on this). Those who continue to bring this up (that includes you, ABC News) insult millions of average Americans by suggesting that voting decisions can be simplified to a fashion statement.
BrianV —
I revisited this forum after a long day of work, to see if your host had found the time/effort to correct her guest's false statement about Sen. Barack Obama. I find it interesting that Ms. Harris found the time to respond in other forums on topics like healthcare, yet on this simple topic of integrity in journalism she is silent. This morning we were discussing donating to the pledge drive, but the failure to correct this falsehood has convinced us to place those dollars with another deserving media source, Free Speech TV. I am dismayed that after at least 10 separate online posts during the show, neither of the show hosts could follow up and challenge the stated false statement while still on the air.
coastalview —
I am a member of the VVA and I was drafted and served during Vietnam.

I was dismayed and disgusted at Mr. Neuman's comments. IMO he brought back the wrong lesson from Vietnam. His comments about walking around w/a uniform being a problem during Vietnam were for me absurd. Firstly, in the Army we were REQUIRED to wear our uniform in public, I do not know what service Mr. Neuman was in, although from his comments I would guess The Air Force. I wore my uniform in public whenever I was in the states (I was overseas for all but four months of my time). During that time though I was in what was supposedly the most 'liberal' state and I had no problems whatsoever. This sounded to me like the myth that we were spat upon when coming home from overseas, never happened to me nor anyone that I knew. Since there are not a lot of arrests from that time I tend not to believe the hearsay, since I can only imagine how most in the military would react to such supposed actions.

I would suggest to Mr. Neuman that instead of believing and repeating [re]publican and U.S. government myths about Vietnam and war in general he instead read books written by General Smedley Butler (winner of TWO Congressional Medals of Honor).

I am truly sad that as a VVA member Mr. Neuman is a spokesman for the VVA. I can assure you that his opinion is certainly not prevalent nor IMO is it realistic of those times.
pdxmaxx —
Folks,

A lot of you have complained about the fact that we didn't check John Neuman on his comments about Obama's flag pin or Pledge of Allegiance. I think we would have pressed him a bit if Obama's national campaign co-chair hadn't been sitting right next to him. It was my feeling that Gen. McPeak was in a perfect position to counter those claims himself -- if he chose to do so. He didn't.

Perhaps he felt that he needed an explicit invitation to respond to those accusations, but that's not something campaign surrogates normally seem to require.

By the end of the show, I was about to chime in to at least remark that there were a lot of complaints about the comments on our blog, but unfortunately we ran out of time. I apologize that an acknowledgment of the complaints didn't make it onto the air.
David Miller —
I unfortunately missed the original show and heard the rerun @ 9pm. Does it strike anyone else that McCain, who was a pilot in Viet Nam, thus spared from actually seeing the results of his bombings and strafings, seems still angry from his 5-year incarceration? I will not trust the man.
I have PTSD and have been working on getting well for almost 20 years. It's a long process but the important thing is to start. War, and all it's associated maladies affects generations of people, not just the generation that fought it. It is an exercise in insanity.
I also see many parallels between Iraq and Viet Nam: We entered the war on lies, we've "turned the corner" (light at the end of the tunnel)so many times we have gone in circles, we'll pull out when the host country "takes over their own security" which they never will, the "surge" produced nothing but more "suspected terrorist" and american dead, there is no defined "mission", and now the absurd argument that pulling out now would mean all who died, died in vain. As if pulling out a year from now with more dead would be defined any different. How sad. How ignorant.
mjlapine —
Unfortunately, McCain spent his years as a POW learning and polishing techniques to lie and he has made great use of that education ever since. He is a political backstabber, he cannot be trusted.
Tom D Ford —

Comments are now closed.

Thanks to our Sponsor:
become a sponsor
Web Analytics