Actually, Americans aren't divided over Vietnam -- are they?

[dropzone]

@Spavined Gelding

While this may skirt the issue of this thread, it is a response to dropzone’s somewhat amusing sortie.

I don’t know what’s sadder, that I waste my best material on you Philistines or how that was an example of my best material.

[Magiver]

@elucidator

Point of fact, indeed. Yes, thank you, I’m quite aware of Doonesbury’s satire on Kerry. Saw it in the original, in the moment, as it were. It was good stuff, those of us who liked Kerry then and like him now are not delusional, we weren’t looking for a plaster saint. A good man, possessed of common decency, will do nicely, thank you. We all knew that Kerry was a born political animal, like Clinton, he was “born to run”. His ambitions stuck out all over him.

But there’s the rub. Kerry returned with his ticket punched: he was a war veteran, articulate, good looking (in a knotty pine sort of way). The smart thing to do was to soft-pedal his opposition to the war. That way, he would keep from actually offending the right, while making soft noises of support for the anti-war wing. Lots of politicians at the time did exactly that.

But Kerry didn’t! He was willing to sacrifice his ambitions and associate himself with a very unpopular cause out of principle. There was no advantage to be gained, politically, by associating himself with the VVAW, it was not a savvy move, it was a principled move.

Another “point of fact”. There is no such thing as “veterans”. They vary as widely as any other group of human beings. It would seem that when you say “the veterans” you don’t include such persons as the Viet Nam Veterans Against the War. Are they not “veterans”? Or are we to assume that only such persons who hew to a particular political stance are really veterans, and the other guys are…something else?

Well that’s about the most honest post you’ve every written. Free of your usual satire and daggered wit.

I have no way of knowing what was in Kerry’s heart during his rebellious years. Given his background I would expect a more subtle expression of that rebellion. He certainly possesses the same flare for articulation you exhibit. His bio indicates that he enjoyed debating in school and it showed in the debates.

As a young Lieutenant, he could have waged the battle of the anti-war movement with a slant that was consistent with the movement and yet more respectful of his comrades. Whether he did this out of purely selfless reasons or for political advantage I can’t answer. Personally, I think he exhibits a quality of self-aggrandizementf ound in many politicians (as you say, a political animal). Just my gut feeling about the guy. I think he could have pulled off the “war-protesting rebel” if he had toned down the rhetoric. Clinton had no problem skating past “draft dodger” and it wasn’t for lack of effort on the part of Republicans.

I disagree that there are no such things as “veterans”. They exist as a statistical block, in different form for each criteria chosen. In this case, they stood against Kerry’s verbal assault on their ranks, which is different than being for Bush.

[RickJay]

Somewhere, Denny Walling is really enjoying this thread.

It’s as if nothing I wrote sank in.

[Magiver]

@dropzone

Okay, I’m starting (starting?) to foam at the mouth and I am sorry. Sam, I don’t despise you. You piss me off (the set of people who piss me off is large) but I should control my emotions better.

Magiver, you’re still wrong.

Wrong about what? Kerry didn’t have the veteran vote. It’s not my opinion and it’s not debatable. You’re trying to debate the righteousness of his testimony as if I’m arguing for or against it. The event horizon is the veteran voting block. It is a demographically discernable block that Kerry, a Vietnam Vet, didn’t have.

[tomndebb]

It is a demographically discernable block that Kerry, a Vietnam Vet, didn’t have.

Do we have a reference from Gallup or Harris or Zogby that establishes this point, yet? I am quite certain that there is a very vocal segment of the Vietnam era veterans who opposed Kerry and a (perception of a) smaller segment of Vietnam veterans who supported him, but I have not yet seen real numbers for voters who were in the military at that time or for voters who were in Vietnam at that time (and those two populations have distinct voting patterns, themselves).

[Magiver]

@tomndebb

Do we have a reference from Gallup or Harris or Zogby that establishes this point, yet? I am quite certain that there is a very vocal segment of the Vietnam era veterans who opposed Kerry and a (perception of a) smaller segment of Vietnam veterans who supported him, but I have not yet seen real numbers for voters who were in the military at that time or for voters who were in Vietnam at that time (and those two populations have distinct voting patterns, themselves).

I doubt you will get a post election analysis from a public source except maybe the University of Michigan or the NES. There’s no money in it.

[pantom]

Active-duty troops: 4 to 1 for Bush

Veterans: …more of a split, according to an early story.

I was going to say that maybe Magiver’s source was the first story, but apparently not. Either way, no scientific polls that I could find on a quick Google.

[Magiver]

@pantom

Active-duty troops: 4 to 1 for Bush

Veterans: …more of a split, according to an early story.

I was going to say that maybe Magiver’s source was the first story, but apparently not. Either way, no scientific polls that I could find on a quick Google.

You got me looking for where I got the number. Usually I print stuff like that out. It wasn’t the USA article but could have been from the same source. In talking with GOP precinct heads I got the impression the military vote was in favor of President Bush. They didn’t post any numbers in email form so I can’t quote them. My personal poll showed the same thing but that would be skewed in my favor because they represent my friends and acquaintances.

I’m off to listen to some tunes so ya’ll will have to discuss this without me.

[TLC1]

@rfgdxm

A lot of the opinion today no doubt is based on the fact the US lost the war. A bunch of US soldiers died, many Southeast Asians died, and we pulled out letting the Communists take control. Even if someone thinks the cause was just, in retrospect it was a mistake in that the US failed to free the people their from communism.

Well said! To many the war is not over in Vietnam. There are those that still dream of vindicating our losses somehow. I have heard comments that after we get done cleaning out the rat’s nest in the middle east, why not stop by Vietnam on the way home? Lose again? Not this time pal!!

Does anyone honestly think that the communist Vietnamese are resting well these days, what with the U.S. on a seemingly global rampage to settle old scores?

[tomndebb]

Does anyone honestly think that the communist Vietnamese are resting well these days, what with the U.S. on a seemingly global rampage to settle old scores?

To the extent that the Vietnamese government is not “resting easily” these days, it is due to the inherent problems with socialist philosophy that have been pretty well demonstrated to be unsuccessful. The U.S. and Vietnam have been increasing their cooperation over the past fifteen years and Vietnam (which only wanted its own independence and never sought conquest*) is not sponsoring any external terrorist cells, so the idea of the U.S. taking on another useless and costly war (when we are already struggling with the one we have) is probably not a thought that passes throughthe minds of anyone in either government (although it may give a few B-movie producers wet dreams).
*(Vietnam demonstrated that it was not interested in conquest by retiring from Cambodia once the threat of a U.S.-destabilized country run by madmen had been eliminated.)