At a personal level, I agree with those expressing their
annoyance over  "chickenhawks." They feel dismay that George W. Bush
and many other Republicans seem to have the support of most military
personnel even though, in their own personal history, these
"chickenhawks" avoided military service or, at the very least, any onerous military service,
let alone combat duty.
     But personal annoyance, even disgust, does not
necessarily change one's vote when public policy choices near and
dear to one's heart seem to be at stake.  I remember many liberals
who were outraged over Al Gore's supposed flipflop involving Elian
Gonzales (pandering to some of Florida's crucial voters?) back in the spring.
But I bet very few liberals abandoned Gore, come election
time, because of the Elian saga.
   The prognosticating about military personnel and W reminds me of those
political conservatives who expressed outrage that feminists tended
to support Pres. Clinton, often quite vehemently, despite Clinton's
outrageous  personal behavior.  If, in fact, military personnel do tend
to support Bush over Gore, it most likely is because of these voters'
 views on public policies and priorities, not so much their take on
the  candidates' past military service.  Certainly, feminists and
other supporters of Clinton did not condone Clinton's
immoral behavior, but most did rally in support of Clinton.  Their
rationale often was the following:  much more important than his irresponsible
personal actions  were/are Clinton's public policies - his actions as
a politician, not as a man.
                                                      Robert Emerson

Robert W. Emerson

Email: [log in to unmask]

W: (352) 392-0163;
   (352) 392-8794

H: (352) 371-3140