|
That is not meant to reflect negatively or positively on the man. I think that one point can be safely stated as a fact. Many issues that we now see as political issues, such as Pristina Airport, School of the Americas, his corporate career after his military career, and his votes for Republican executives, etc, did not register on a "political" scale with the General. He looked at it from a military perspective, in my opinion.
However, we should not assume that military men do not have liberal attributes, such as compassion and social justice. No doubt, military career men do not spend a great deal of time thinking about what they will do in the civilian world once they are relieved or retired from their military duty. I give the General the benefit of the doubt. Why? Because he has spoken words and thoughts that warm the hearts of many progressives. Is he just doing it for ambition reasons? That is an individual decision that each voter will have to make.
But, I think voters will have to look at the General thru a different lens than the "normal" politician. He is not a normal politician and it is not possible for him to be one. He could only start his political career after his illustrious military career was over. In a way, he is like the philosophical clean slate, in many voters minds.
They are willing to give him the benefit of the doubt because they understand from where he started and from where he came. They are willing to look at him at this moment in time and judge him by his words and deeds and are very forgiving of actions that took place while he was in the military and while he was transitioning from the military, such as when he was working for the cable network, CNN. Americans are basically ready to give him an equal opportunity in the political arena.
|