I'm more conservative now in many ways than I was five years ago, so maybe I might feel differently after a few years in the USMC. Or I might not. Somehow, there are a few democrats left who went through years of military service including combat (John Kerry comes to mind) who somehow haven't yet seen the light of the GOP as posters on this board seem to suggest they should. I think a lot of Republicans associate all Democrats with the McGovern-peacenik wing of the party, even though they're a pretty small faction and most of them voted for Nader in 2000 anyway.
As for the comparison of service records (especially why this always comes up in respect to Clinton) here's the point I was trying to make:
Lloyd Bentsen's kid used political connections to get into a Nat'l Guard unit and avoid fighting in Vietnam. George W. Bush used political connections to get into a Nat'l Guard unit and avoid fighting in Vietnam.
Bill Clinton used a bunch of tricky legal maneuvers to avoid the draft in Vietnam. Dick Cheney used a bunch of tricky legal maneuvers to avoid the draft in Vietnam.
Why is it that in both of these cases, the former shameful individual example was a major campaign issue which supposedly proved the disregard of the Democratic party for national security, while the latter could be conveniently ignored even as the draft-dodger in question wrapped himself in Old Glory at the GOP convention?
This really doesn't play any role in my thinking about joining the service though, since I want to serve my country rather than any party. I wouldn't think very highly of someone who chose not to serve in the 90's just because they didn't like Clinton, so I can't imagine avoiding service now because I'd rather have a different Commander in Chief.
] err colonel on American Beauty "when he says this country is is going to s h i t"