It seems you missed Dseid’s qualification about liking a military man in times of war. We were not at war in '96. Nor was there any issue of Clinton being reckless with the lives of his troops.
Dole was drafted, btw. Kerry volunteered. Any fucking asshole can get drafted. It takes something special to volunteer.
You’re probably right. News junkie that I am, I honestly don’t remember (or never watched!) previous convention speeches. I guess it’s not realistic to expect much substance in this kind of speech.
If we discount an interest in substance, I think Kerry did pretty well for himself. He’s often portrayed as wooden and aloof, but I thought he came across as very human and likeable. Sure there was the requisite cheeseball comments (what political speech doesn’t have that…), but he was upbeat and sincere sounding. It was a long speech, at least by our MTV influenced standards, but it wasn’t boring or drawn out.
I think he did a fine job. Definitely a plus for Kerry. (I’ll look forward to my $1000 health insurance rebate if he gets elected. 
)
But I do have to say, for those who relish his jabs at Bush and Iraq, that he took the coward’s approach. He won’t lead us into an unnecessary war? What the hell was he doing as a Senator* voting for the Iraq war then? How about coming out and saying “I was mistaken. If I had it to do over again, I would not have voted to allow the President to wage war on Iraq.” I can’t truthfully say that I would expect ANY politician to be so honest and blunt, but let’s not get carried away and give him more praise than he deserves. He made a very safe, very oblique criticism of the Iraq war-- nothing more and nothing less.
*Let’s all remember that it’s Congress and Congress alone that can declare war.
You can see video of his speech online at the NYTimes site, as well as CNN and probably many other places. The Times video wasn’t working last I checked, though.
Good point.
No, he’s not. First of all, he said “in times of war.” 1996 was not a time of war by most people’s standards. Are you saying America’s situation hasn’t changed just a bit over the last eight years? And I don’t think he said he is voting for Kerry because he’s a veteran, but included it as a characteristic that he likes about him. Even if Bush was a vet, I wouldn’t vote for him because we agree on pretty close to zero issues. Perhaps if DSeid said he thinks vets just make better Presidents, this would apply. And finally, though I don’t think it applies here, people’s opinions can change. Holding one opinion in 1996 and another in 2004 does not make one a hypocrite.
My point is that there’s no veteran’s status litmus test in politics, in my mind.
Being a veteran or war hero is nice and all, but has no bearing on how you’ll act as a leader. I put this philosophy into action when I voted in 2000 for George W. Bush instead of John McCain in the primaries. I was closer to Bush on the issues, so this was a logical choice.
I’ll do so again this year, when I vote for the Guardsman instead of the Swift boat commander.
Anyway: Kerry is not Obama or Clinton, but in my opinion he gave a good and energetic speech, and did what he had to- talked about who he is and what his vision is. He wasn’t wooden or those kinds of things he’s made out to be. And I liked the videography as well, he was more relaxed there.
I didn’t see Kerry’s speech, but watching the naysayers try to nitpick it sure is amusing.
Yeah, as if every other political convention acceptance speech from the last twenty years have been something other than rhetoric and bullshit. :rolleyes:
He didn’t vote dircetly for the war. He voted to authorize the Chimp to go to war if circumstances warrented it. His mistake was in trusting that Bush would have any sense of ethics or honor as well as believing Bush’s cooked up intel in the first place. He also said in an interview that he simply didn’t expect Bush to “fuck it up” (Kerry’s words) as bad as he has if he did go to war.
Calling him a coward is pretty weak, btw, considering his military service.
This speech was effective, IMO. He wasn’t speaking to Dems but to the undecideds. A LOT of those undecides are anti-Bush. There are more anti-Bush voters than Dem voters. Kerry did a good job presenting himself as a defender of his country with far more credibility than Bush could ever hope for.
Well, yes, repeat, no.
I wouldn’t be interested in voting in Rusty Calley. But those two helicopter pilots who risked their asses to save people at My Lai… But I am interested in a man who takes these things with the correct degree of seriousness.
And I am very interested indeed in a man who is willing to go against his own self-interest for what he thinks is right.
We hear a lot about how Kerry was interested in “punching his ticket”, being in Viet Nam specificly for the advantage combat experience gave a politician (this may seem strange to some of the younger dopers, not living in that era…but it was a BHAD (big hairy ass deal)…) And you know what? I don’t doubt it, not for a minute. I think Kerry is like Clinton, I think he started running for President right about the time he first jerked off.
But that overlooks an important point: Kerry threw himself into the anti-war movement upon his return and he didn’t have to! His dues were paid, dues card stamped, he could have sucked up all the “war-hero” political gravy while only murmuring politely about “doubts about the war”.
But he didn’t. He offered up his political career as a sacrifice for what he thought was right, for what he knew was right. The anti-war movement was not popular, by no stretch of the imagination could his involvement with VVAW be considered a crafty political move. If anything, he was taking a major risk of being blocked out of mainstream politics pretty much for good.
It was what he wanted most in the world. Except for doing what was right.
Now, you show me what GeeDubya was doing at the same instant, and tell me how you think it stacks up.
Strange. I’m eligible for VFW membership because of duty I was assigned to from 1994 to 1996. The membership is being processed now. Funny how that can happen, if there’s no “war”.
I’ll certainly allow for a change of mind on this issue. But the rest of what I wrote certainly holds. War heroes don’t automatically make better presidents. If John Kerry gets elected, and becomes a great leader, it will be for reasons unconnected with his military service.
Do you actually ever read before you spout off, or are you just some kind of manic left wing tape recorder hitting the play button?? I think I was pretty clear saying that ALL politicians do this (the clue, in case you missed it, was me saying I expect about the same crap at the RNC from Bush and co.), but was HOPING for something a bit more.
-XT
Of course it’s not a litmus test, but circumstancially, it’s a point in Kerry’s favor that Bush doesn’t have. Frankly, I don’t see how any veteran can still support Bush after the number of military personel which have been needlessly put into harms way and killed under his watch. Iwon’t even go into the ways he’s screwed them on benefits, extended enlistments, etc. He’s been the most incompetent CIC that I can remember. clinton was NEVER incompetent. I know the military culture is conservative. I grew up in it as an Air Force brat and I served during the Reagan years. I know they hated Clinton mostly for ideological reasons, but Clinton was a good CIC regardless. Bush just flat sucks.
Did you tell anybody in '96 that it was “contemptable” to suggest that war record was meaningful? Did you tell McCain supporters that you had “contempt” for their views?
Let’s hope you can find the Guardsman.
Not to contridict you on a roll, elucidator, but an anti-war stance was a good political position in the 60’s, no? And a young man with political asperation could have latched onto that AFTER he punched his ticket in combat…sort of getting to have his cake and eat it too from a politial perspective. Thats not to say that Kerry didn’t have a deep conviction against the war going in…everything I’ve read seems to indicate that he did, and that it was sincere.
-XT
Puppy.
Neither you nor I would have voted for that resolution. I think Kerry is at least as smart as we are about what the vote acutally meant.
Nope. It’s possible to be very brave in one situation and yet cowardly in another. I won’t begrudge him any bravery bragging rights about his service in Vietnam. But this is the here and now, and I’m interested in the kind of man he is today. I’ll also grant that precious few politicians have courage to say what I had hoped Kerry would say about Iraq. I won’t hold it against him, but he’d’ve jumped up several notches in my opinion of him if he had.
A war record, or lack thereof, tells you nothing about how a man might lead a country, Diogenes. There’s plenty of evidence to show this.
And to suggest that you should blindly vote for someone with a chestfull of medals is certainly an idea that is contemptible.
I hate to do this, but there’s an obvious example of someone who took great political advantage of his WWI decorations.
[m]Moto**, I am not saying that a war record in itself is any reason to vote for somebody. I’m just saying it’s something to throw onto the scale. A voluntary war record means something too, as does the actual conduct during service.
What I really objected to was not the (correct) assertion that war hero does not necessarily equal good POTUS, nor is it even a requirement. I object to your statement that you had “contempt” for a view that it should be considered at all.
Okay, Diogenes. We can certainly disagree over how much weight to give it. I think too, you have to consider a politician’s character, and this certainly is a tangible part of that.
My use of “contempt” was a bit harsh, and I apologize.
I admire your good taste in hating to do that. I concur, I also wish you hadn’t.
One important point about Kerry’s speech: it means its over! They got through the whole convention with only minor embarassments, Sharpton didn’t say “honky motherfuckers”, Kucinich didn’t flash the peace sign, Willy didn’t light up a doob onstage, none of the shit that could have gone wrong did.
The Dem leadership spent those entire four days with their spinchters so tight they’d need a hypodermic for an emergency enema, pounded in with a sledge hammer. Waiting, just waiting for thier cell phone to ring when the trajectory of the shit intersected the locus of the fan.
And now…its their turn. I’m a little ashamed of my gleeful anticipation. But I’ll get over it, I always do.
Just for further clarification, I most emphatically did not call him a coward. I said he took a coward’s approach to his treatment of the Iraq issue in his speech. One very specific instance. I do not think that “cowardice” is an essential part of his character, which is what calling someone a coward would imply.
Are you attempting to twist what I said into a personal attack when I clearly wasn’t making one? I was NOT making a complex point; I think you know what I meant. America always has troops deployed internationally and often they’re in dangerous places. The country was not even at war even in a fraction of the sense we are now.
And I already agreed with you about that.