Jim Moran (D-VA) says military service isn't "public service"

<shrug> Since "in public service" is a euphemism for "politics", which is of course a dirty word, he's right. Soldiers perform a public service but they are not in public service.

Neither would a police officer, fire fighter, county clerk or even some administrative professional in the Department of Education, be considered relevant. But they're still doing work in the public service. One little word makes all the difference, and in politics, stuff like that can derail a person.

Since when did "public service" become restricted to "being a politician?" Isn't public service Exactly What It Says on the Tin, that is, serving the public in whatever means possible?

The context of the quote makes it clear that he was referring to relevant public service, i.e. serving in a legislative capacity. Again, bad choice of phrasing.

C'mon guys; don't be a moran.

(we really need an eye-rolling smiley)

From the point of view of someone honestly analyzing this comment, I would agree in principle that the mere fact of military service does not inherently make a person more or less qualified to hold public office. Of course, since both sides are currently doing everything possible to make their opponents look bad, there's no way you can get around this tit-for-tat deal of people strawmanning their opponents and acting insulted when they receive it in turn.

Yeah, basically. it seems that there's a whole lot of mud-slinging going on, lately. Even on this site, I got some stupid ad about one of my local candidates and how he sucks or something.

Since when did "public service" become restricted to "being a politician?" Isn't public service Exactly What It Says On The Tin, that is, serving the public in whatever means possible?

Let me think about that.

No.

OK, members of the civil service would also probably qualify. Bureaucrat is also a dirty word and the line between civil servant and politician is blurry at times.