Jim Gourley; “10 reasons not to vote for a veteran” redux
The other day, we discussed Jim Gourley and his list of ten reasons to not vote for veterans. Apparently, he didn’t feel that he’d been beat up enough so he writes another piece in the Stars & Stripes today. Basically he’s saying that he made gross generalizations about veterans to make his point; we shouldn’t make gross generalizations about veterans. What? You guys didn’t see that?
As to the respondents who disputed the validity of my reasons, I cannot agree more. They were entirely correct that the arguments against voting for veterans were gross generalizations that could not be readily applied to any candidate by simple virtue of their time in uniform. However, what these people missed is that this was the entire point of the essay.
If one cannot rationally apply blanket statements and stereotypes of military service in arguing against a candidates’ potential for elected office, then neither can they use them in support of that candidate. This is why they were listed as ten inconvenient reasons.
I guess that he was pointing out absurdity by being absurd, but you know rereading the original, I don’t see it. If that was his intent, he should have explained it in the original. He also says;
I have no strong leaning to either party. My voting record in presidential elections is 50/50, and I’m a registered independent. As for my service record, I served as an Infantry platoon leader before moving on to the Intelligence career field.
Yeah, well, I voted for Jimmy Carter in 1976 and Joe Manchin in 2012, and I’m a registered independent, but is there anyone on this blog that can’t figure out which way I lean politically based solely on the ideas I present here?
While I wouldn’t vote for a candidate based entirely on whether they served in the military or not (Tammy Duckworth, Chuck Hagel, never), their service is certainly a big consideration, especially if their service influences their politics. And I think the rest of you would agree. However, I would never write an opinion piece that gave you reasons to vote against any candidate solely because they didn’t serve, but that’s what dingus here wrote.
I should point out that I was right when I said in the original piece that he’d hide behind his service when defending himself.
Thanks to Chief Tango for the link.
Category: Dumbass Bullshit
Irrelevant comment… “I have no strong leaning to either party. My voting record in presidential elections is 50/50, and I’m a registered independent. As for my service record, I served as an Infantry platoon leader before moving on to the Intelligence career field.”…
…but still a *huge* dickhead.
ohhh, he was a Infantry PL before he got dumped into a Brigade staff job? Well I guess that makes it all ok. Or was he branch detail to the Infantry for 12-18 months were all he did was mark time until he could go do his “real” job? I would love to hear from the guys he was in charge of when he was a PL.
John “Blue Falcon” Gourley can kiss my straight leg mechanized mortar maggot ass.
Backpfeifengesicht!
When did this guy work for John “I was for it, before I was against it” Kerry?
Gourley claiming that we “missed his point” makes me smile. Since his past makes it clear that veterans are a big part of his target audience, he’s essentially saying he’s an incompetent writer who doesn’t know his audience and can’t write for them.
And no, we didn’t miss your point, Gourley. We get it that you’re shilling for liberal causes and politicians. That much was completely apparent in the first paragraph of your original article – when you played apologist for Gansler’s “real job” gaffe and took potshots at Fox News.
Most of us here think you’re just a butthurt ass with a hardon for the military. And I think that’s far closer to the truth than you want to admit.
Hit the nail on the head, as usual.
Well played Sir…
Square in the black, Hondo.
If his original point was that a candidate’s military service shouldn’t be the sole consideration in deciding whether to vote for him/her, Gourley did a very poor job of articulating it.
Making assumptions is problematic at best. Like maybe if I assumed that any candidate without military service did not serve because he or she did not qualify to serve, and therefore should not be elected. That might actually make more sense than the assumptions this clown posits.
I’m not even sure what the purpose of his article was about. If it is intended to spur healthy debate and conversation among veterans and non-veterans then he should have mentioned that. Otherwise he is just coming off like an asshole who is trying to make powerful friends.
Bag, douche, one each.
A bit of clarification.
Bag,douche,(1)one each.pin-headed/needledicked.
Gourley is the result of a collision between a truck carrying water and another one carrying vinegar.
He is proof positive that hippies screw goats.
or that you can indeed produce progeny from anal sex
Veteran status is secondary. The first consideration is where does the candidate stand on policies. Between two candidates who are equally in all other ways with respect to policy, veteran status would serve as a tie breaker, particularly if their service involves combat time, because no greater example of service to the nation can be asked.
I always find it amusing when certain people use the same “beliefs” as both a sword and a shield.
Also, I can only imagine morale, cohesion and competence was/were extremely high in his platoon.
If by extremely high you mean it sucked, I think you may be on to something…..
GT Thank you as usual. Yes I bet his platoon though he was a GREAT leader…NOT! I wonder what the transfer request rate was in his platoon?
I wonder if he took his job as a PL seriously, or if he was just another LT doing only what he thought was needed to get his ticket punched for promotion?
Don’t even get me started on Duckworth. Sure, she had an honorable service, but from what I saw volunteering in Joe Walsh’s campaign, she threw that all away and went completely looney.
And lacks the intestinal fortitude to come here and attempt to make his circular argument to an audience that can give him (near) immediate feedback.
Yep, that certainly tells me everything I need to know about him.
This guy makes my head hurt. Is he for us or agin us?? Did he write that article and then have a moment of clarity and realize “oh shit, I just crapped on my fellow vets, I better fix this shit.”
Or is he just a tool bag who thinks he is smarter than all of us put together and if we don’t get what he was trying to say, well then shame on us.
I am voting for the tool bag option.
Ditto. Toole bag.
A family friend from long ago once told me “You better make sure your mind is in gear before you engage your mouth” – in this guy’s case I think the gears are completely stripped.
I am often well aware that I am not the smartest guy in the room, but I’m confident I’m never the dumbest guy either….
The reason I missed his point about the absurdity of using veteran status as dis-qualifier being as ludicrous as a blanket endorsement is because he never made that point.
Regarding civilians versus military service there is one crucial difference. We who served honorably understand what we did just get it the club, we know that those who stood beside us had done exactly the same things we did to get there. We know that those who stood beside us could be trusted because of what they did to qualify to stand beside us. You never know that about a civilian because there is no qualification effort required.
A rich mommy and daddy gets a civilian a free pass to a great school and a head start, but is no guarantee that there is any substance or character behind that head start. In the military there are no free passes to get in, there’s no avoiding the basic training requirements and school qualifications. Failure to pass those minimal requirements results in separation.
That means you always know what you are starting with when dealing with a veteran. I like that, it’s certainly not my only qualifier nor would it ever be the only thing I consider. But in lieu of evidence of malfeasance I’m more likely to trust a vet because my life experience has taught me that’s been a very safe bet over my life time in both my choice of friends and my choice of colleagues.
So in case my post at the other thread about this jerkoff wasn’t clear, Mr. Gourley can pound sand until his hands bleed for all I care.
Gourley’s shit is so weak it’s pathetic. He claims he was merely illustrating the wrongfulness of favoring a Veteran who seeks elective office by arguing against favoring a Veteran who seeks elective office. But the two are not comparable. There are certain presumptions, rebuttable, to be sure, about the former that cannot be reasonably made about the former. For one, an honorably discharged Veteran has proved some degree (usually, a high degree) of responsibility, commitment, dependability, self sacrifice, and self discipline. A Veteran is rarely a lone wolf but a team player, one who has been taught certain American ideals and knows how to keep a promise, in the form of an oath. Thus, these blanket presumptions are valid, but can be rebutted on a case-by-case basis. As general statements made about Veterans on the whole, they are valid and true statements. The same cannot be said about Gourney’s convenient, after-the-fact explanation for his silliness. In fact, his idiocy supports my assertion that the enviable qualities and character traits possessed by many Veterans are not shared by all.
CORRECTION. “There are certain presumptions, rebuttable, to be sure, about the former that cannot be reasonably made about the latter.”
Meatwad sums up my feelings towards this asshat…
http://youtu.be/r6V7fUDynG4
I have voted for vets including george mcgovern and al gore. Its april 30 so happy vietnam war protestors victory day!
Okay, I may not be the most qualified to speak here, but I’m going to give it a shot.
Serving in the military demands respect. You put yourself below the needs of the rest of the United States, her citizens, your fellow soldiers, and so on. This runs directly against why Al Gore signed up (to help his dad get elected, if Wikipedia is to be believed). There is a certain respect that must be given to those who have served.
However, that respect is dependent on what one does with themselves after they separate. The vast majority of veterans go on and live as good of a life as they can, and that respect stays no matter what they go through. However, in the case of Mr. Gore (I don’t know enough about this other fellow, but according to Wikipedia he certainly deserves some respect for his service in the Second World War), he went on to stab his military community in the back, as well as the American people. No respect is deserved for this man.
The same goes to anyone who takes advantage of their military status to gain power and then abuse it. Sorry, protestor, but just because they served doesn’t mean that they deserve that respect anymore. Actions matter most.
Again, though, I am the least qualified person here to talk in defense of what you’re attacking (I know I’m not the least qualified person here period…). The others will certainly state it better than I can, because I haven’t done this. I haven’t gone through any military service.
But, then again, neither have you.
Fuck-wit today would be a celebration for the communists of Vietnam who conquered the Southern part of Vietnam.
If you are an opponent of the American Involvement, then Jan 27th 1973 would be the day you would celebrate, since it was the day the Paris Peace treaty was signed, ending US involvement.
Go fuck yourself.
Shit bird.
You left out John Forbes Kerry who I am sure you voted for. Most people don’t know it, but he served in Vietnam. He was in Cambodia in December of 1968….that memory is seared in his brain…seared in his brain. Please go take Just an Old Dog’s advice.
Congrats on your celebration of the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of innocent Vietnamese. I was going to send you a Happy Mass Murder greeting card but I couldn’t find anyway at the store. Because it’s nothing to celebrate and only crackpot scumbags would celebrate such an event.
You don’t deserve air.
vietnam war protestor aka uss liberty,GO FUCK YOURSELF,and I CAN’T FIND THAT DICKWADS FACEBOOK PAGE ANYMORE?
Here is a good article on Al Gores service. I’m no fan, but he did serve…. http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/gorevietnam.asp
Chief tango made a good point in emails that there is a correction at the bottom of the Foreign Policy version of the story (that I couldn’t see through the stinkin’ pop-ups) which says essentially that the original version of the first piece was incorrect because Lt Governor is not a Republican as Gourley thought, but a Democrat. I think that error played into Gourley’s intent in the first place. he says he doesn’t lean right or left, but he thought that Brown was a Republican just because he was a veteran. Was his bias slip showing?
This statement caught my eye from his latest.
“That duty calls us to diligently balance the cause of honoring our veterans with the need to maintain fair and equal processes against the blight of undue hero worship.”
There’s the very telling tale for me, “Hero Worship”. Not just hero worship but “the BLIGHT of UNDUE hero worship”.
“Undue hero worship”. I think he just told the world where he stands in regards to veterans and more importantly, himself. He seems to have a gnawing self esteem issue regarding his military service and therefore uses that broad, emotional brush to paint over all others.
Be sure Mr. Gourley, most every veteran I know and ALL on this blog do not share your low esteem issues regarding our service to our country. Quite the opposite, we are very proud of our service and see our brother and sister veterans as people to be ESTEEMED, not degraded and not to be put in the same boat as you see yourself. Please, then leave me out of your opinions of veterans.
A veteran as a political candidate is not “hero worship”. It is, as VoV stated so eloquently above, an appreciating of what a veteran of known background and accomplishment in one area of life, brings to the table. If the veteran candidate has an agreeable platform (with me in honesty) and is willing to take a stand on it then yes, I will vote for them. If they are a Chuck Hagel or some such, not in my lifetime would I cast a ballot for them.
I truly don’t think Gourley knows where he stands. Except at a publisher’s desk seeking bylines. I think he found if he couldn’t get his press time with substantive issues from a veteran’s point of view, then he formulated his controversial issues. They will always be the headline grabber, which is simply all I see him as.
+100000000!!
Bateman/Gourley 2016!
or
Gourley/Bateman 2016!
They’ll have to “measure dicks”though to see who’s on the top of the ticket, given Bateman’s stated obsession with that particular activity…
Maybe I am the first one to see this (sometimes I’m slow on the uptake) but something just struck me like a hail stone on a clear day. Jim Gourley has his own political aspirations! Given all he has written and I am sure said to everyone who will listen, he will be an absolute Democratic, liberal voter’s wet dream. A left leaning, anti-veteran veteran! As left leaning as they come. In rereading his articles he has paved the way for himself to be rubber stamped by every leftist, liberal group in the country. The guy wants to be a Congressman or Senator! Why could I not see that before?
Huh. Good point. You’re probably right; he does seem to be setting himself up.
On my above comment I add. Jim Gourley, now I doubt if you are sincere in your writings or if they are part of your political desires. It would put you right in line with most every politician. That being to say whatever will get you elected when you decide to jump in a race somewhere.
In the meanwhile, take your hard on for veterans out of my and every other veteran’s ass and shove it up your own! As I said above, I’ve known NO veterans ever, in my experience who believe as you do about their comrades in arms. Minus the political, ass kissers in the Pentagon currently. At least they have an excuse. They are still serving and see themselves as lapdogs of the Administration and lack the balls to be anything else. You on the other hand, have no excuse, except to further your future.
I think there’s actually a simpler explanation, Sparks.
I could easily be wrong, but my guess – and I stress, this is only a guess – is that Gourley simply didn’t have what it took to be a decent Army officer. I’m guessing was called aside at about the 6 or 7 year point and bluntly told his record was not competitive and that he should resign before he got pitched, and he later did so. And I think he’s had a major hardon for the Army and DoD ever since.
As I said previously: maybe someone who served with Gourley can show up and tell us how good/bad/indifferent of an officer he was based on firsthand knowledge. Then we’ll know.
But that’s about what it will take for me to change my opinion here.
Hondo…Good point. He may have simply been told, “ya know, you should have stayed in the Air Force, if that helps you understand your future here in the Army”.
Maybe he got wind that there was another RIF coming and he was slated for it, thus he bailed?
All of the branch detailed MI LTs I knew (Three or four if memory serves) spent about three years in the Infantry. As soon as they made O3, they went back to MI as company commanders in the divisional or corps MI units. That Gourley went from Infantry PL to the S2 shop of a maneuver BCT tells me he wasn’t that good of a PL. And since he never had a company command, he knew he’d never make O4 and simply resigned his commission.
Still, he did more than Chevalier or Bernath.
Bateman/Gourley 2016!
or
Gourley/Bateman 2016!
They’ll have to “measure dicks”though to see who’s on the top of the ticket, given Bateman’s stated obsession with that particular activity…
Maybe we should send him a white feather to make his clown suit complete. Anyone who disparages good men is certainly not one himself.
Sorry! I forgot I voted for john kerry ;but as you know he was kind of forgettable! By the way why did john mccain join? How about bush the painter and danny boy quayle why did they join the national guard instead of army or air force? Again happy vietnam war protestors victory day!
No question about McCain, we could debate about Bush, and Quayle isn’t worth bothering with.
And didn’t you get moderated the last time you were here?
I wonder if that fool even knows that the younger Bush volunteered for service in Vietnam, but was turned down because he was too junior and didn’t have enough flight hours?
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brad-wilmouth/2009/08/25/fnc-bush-volunteered-vietnam-cbss-mapes-knowingly-omitted-story
Or, for that matter, if he knows that Bush wasn’t commissioned until 1968 and served on active duty for 2 years (1968-1970), albeit mostly in a training status?(Flight school for high performance aircraft takes a while.)
Last time I checked, someone in the military can’t exactly cut their own orders to go to combat. The most you can do is volunteer to go – which Bush did. It’s up to your parent service to decide whether you go or stay in CONUS.
Anyone who thinks that the National Guard was a good place to hide from Vietnam, they should go talk to those 101 National Guardsman whose names are on The Wall, well, if they could talk. They can still try to talk to the 6,140 who went to Vietnam, though.
Other sources say the number is slightly higher than that, Jonn. One source I’ve seen says about 8,700 deployed between the Army and Air National Guards.
Either way, your point is valid. The National Guard might have sent less people to Vietnam than did the active components, but that was because the political leadership chose not to send them. And the number was NOT zero.
I am one of those who firmly believes that draft-aged men opted for NG and reservist enlistments to avoid service in VN. Largely, that belief stems from my own recollections of the day. But that isn’t all. In Dec 1967, the National Guard Bureau ordered that no recruits would be accepted any longer without prior military service. At the time, the strength of the NG was over 17,000 than was authorized. (Was that because folks were smitten with NG service?) Months earlier, LBJ announced he would institute changes to the Selective Service rules and, as of May that year, no NG or reservists had been called service in Vietnam. (Again, it was a sfe haven at the time so men joined. Clearly, their other option was to go RA.) Units (only one infantry) and individual NG personnel did volunteer for service in Vietnam but these were few and far between. Yes, 101 National Guardsman died in Vietnam but it is also, in my view, on the money to say that the Guard and reserve components were used by draft-aged men to avoid the draft and potential service in Vietnam.
2/17 Air Cav: while it is true that relatively few Guardsmen were mobilized for Vietnam, that was a conscious political decision by LBJ and his cronies. The individuals serving in the Guard had nothing to do with it.
Was it “safer” in the Guard with respect to getting involuntary orders to Vietnam vice serving on active duty? Absolutely. And doubtless some “gamed” the system to serve in the Guard vice in a regular component.
However, that’s a moot point. Guard service was honorable service – no less honorable than someone who got drafted or enlisted and got orders to Germany or Japan or CONUS vice Vietnam. And remember: of the roughly 8.1 million who served in the military during Vietnam, less than 1/3 – a bit under 2.6 million, if I recall correctly – actually ever served in-country in Vietnam.
My point was that Bush served 2 years in CONUS on full-time active duty during Vietnam, then volunteered to go there himself and was turned down. He’d quite possibly have not gone to Vietnam had he been regular AF anyway, for precisely the same reason – too junior and not enough flying hours.
Jonn’s point was that Guard duty in Vietnam – while arguably “safer” than service in a regular component – was not perfectly safe, either. While being in the Guard reduced your chances of going to Vietnam, it did NOT reduce them to zero. Around 8700 Guardsmen served in Vietnam; 101 died there. The total was that low only because LBJ decided that the political cost of sending more Guardsmen was too high. So he gutted US forces elsewhere to find the bodies.
As I said before: a soldier doesn’t cut his own orders to deploy to combat. The most an individual can do is volunteer to go.
I know that from personal experience. It took me over 3 years – and one “close but no cigar” experience – to find a way to deploy.
The numbers of folks in the Air National Guard during that period who were not in country but flew over/very near it while stationed somewhere else might also skew those numbers. I don’t know what those numbers are, but refueling units, for instance, from the ANG did most of the refueling throughout Viet Nam.
Of course, the National Guard also worked around the home front quite a bit, perhaps most notably around DNC convention time during the summer of 1968. Not the same as being in Viet Nam, certainly, but not exactly sitting around doing nothing either.
Also, there were entire ANG units whose sole mission was to protect US assets like the buildings in DC and other high value stuff. They could hardly do that and be in Viet Nam at the same time.
All just to say, everyone did their part – some to a greater, some to a much lesser degree.
“The total was that low only because LBJ decided that the political cost of sending more Guardsmen was too high.” The enlistments of men w/o prior military service was ended under LBJ. This forced more into draft-eligible status, leaving more men exposed to the draft and potential service in VN. Thus, I will have to disagree–although amicably–with the line of yors I quoted.
Did you pick the wrong day to quit sniffing glue?
At least McCain, Bush and Quayle had honorable service compared to Clinton and Obama you ignorant fuckwidget.
This guy is a waste of oxygen.
Probably for the first time in his entire life he was honest and thought there were enough like minded scumfuck that would applaud him for it.
Guess that didn’t work out to well.
BAHAHAHAHAH,Me and my battle buddies plastered him,what a blue falcon douchebag.
“I have no strong leaning to either party. My voting record in presidential elections is 50/50, and I’m a registered independent. As for my service record, I served as an Infantry platoon leader before moving on to the Intelligence career field.”
So you voted for obama 50% the first time and 50% the second time? Why don’t you come here and tell us exactly which side of the fence you are straddling?
I can rspect someone who takes a stand that I disagree with but what really bothers me are spineless weasels who can’t even take a position.