Do you have any doubt (doubt, not hope) that the Pubs can pull off a flawlessly orchestrated convention? Come on…
They’ll have Arnold, coming all the way from Cahl-ee-FOR-nia, to make it fun and entertaining. Giulliani, too, will be there-- the true hero of 9/11. And Bush acatully does a good job reading from a prepared speech. I’ve heard him do it with my own ears.
Back to the speech. I was not expecting much, and he definitely exceeded my expectations. He showed his passion and his humanity. The country needed to get to know him and this was a great first step. I think having all of his shipmates on the podium with him was a great touch, maybe Bush could do the same if he could find Guardsmen who actually recall seeing him report for duty. I was getting a little concerned for him as he appeared to be a little sweaty, perhaps it was just uncomfortably hot there. I was impressed by his daughters’ speaking abiities- candidates’ children aren’t necessariy skilled public speakers but these young ladies had a lot of poise. Now the fire has been lit, let’s keep the heat on and do the job.
There was that dentist, that one time. Maybe he can stand behind Bush on the stage.
His war record doesn’t give any reflection of how he will be as President? I’ll agree that just any war service may not, but here is a man twice decorated for honest actual courage, showing bravery and dedication to not leaving a man behind. He saved a colleague’s life while putting himself in harm’s way, arguably more than once.
You go ahead and vote for the Guardsman.
My latter remarks were directed to Mr. Moto. Sorry, BobLibDem.
I assumed as much, Hentor. I didn’t think anyone was going to accuse me of going to vote for the Guardsman. Some of the pundits got on Kerry’s case about not waiting for applause breaks. I disagree, I think a faster paced speech was better. We’ve all heard people applaud before, what’s the big deal? He needed to wrap it up by 11:00 so the morning workers in the Eastern Time Zone could have a chance to hear it all and still get some sleep.
I am shocked to find out that you voted for Bush '41 in 1992, a decorated veteran, and Dole in 1996, also a decorated veteran. Golly, the Dems newfound respect for past military service is downright heartening!
Bush Sr. was and is a good man and was a decent president. We had two fine candidates in 1992 and I still think we made the right choice. Dole is another great American and certainly would have made a fine president. Again, we seem to have chosen well as the 8 years of Clintonian peace and prosperity illustrate. I think Bush brought a lot of the comparison of his war record to Kerry on himself. Statements like “I’ve been to war. I’ve raised twins. I’d rather go to war.” are just plain silly coming from a guy who didn’t go to war. Nobody stuck a gun to his head to play dressup and land on that carrier, but doing so invites the comparison.
Bob Dole’s war history is entirely in keeping with his character, and illustrates my point. He always struck me as a good man. I have never done anything but respect and appreciate his service to his country. However, his policies and positions on issues typically ran contrary to my own. Therefore, like so many others, I did not vote for him.
I draw less inference about character from George HW Bush’s decoration, not because it wasn’t valorous, nor because I have any reason to believe that he did not deserve it, but simply because, as far as I know, he wasn’t risking himself to directly save someone else. It reflects bravery and courage, no doubt, and I am highly respectful of it. To be honest, I only recall the barest of facts about it, but IIRC he was downed while attacking a sub. I just have a bias in terms of forming more opinions about character when the person is involved in trying to save another person. Likewise, I highly respect the qualities that Kerry showed both in winning the Bronze Star and the Silver Star, but I feel more powerfully moved by his actions in winning the Bronze Star.
But the question wasn’t about voting for someone only because of their courage in wartime, which you must have been fully aware of (I can only hope for your own sake). In fact, it would be exceptionally stupid of someone to make that the only reason for them to vote for a candidate. I could throw the charge back at you, suggesting that, since you imply this was why you voted for Bush and Dole, you obviously must be voting for Kerry. But then, I’m not stupid.
One brief aside, then to the speech.
I do find it interesting that when Clinton ran against Bush Sr. and Dole that his war dodging was a mark against his character and now that a dem has the better war record, it’s nothing worth noting. I’m not saying that any of you in this thread are saying that, so take no offense please. It’s just something I find curious.
As for the speech, it seems that Kerry hit on just about every problem I’ve had with the Bush administration. I agree with the plan he laid out on nearly every point. I was going to vote for him anyway as I disagree with nearly every thing that GWB has done, but now I’m kind of psyched about it. 
Most of what there is to know about Iraq, at least from the large, strategic POV is openly available; it’s not cloak and dagger stuff.
More to the point, I don’t know that Kerry wants more information, given that he has declined to be breifed in the past.
This “the Democrats are peaceniks” crap is disgusting. You doubtless don’t remember pre US entry into WWII when the Democrats “always get us into a war” with citations of Woodrow Wilson. Roosevelt’s actions re the submarine attacks in the Atlantic also were characterized as “trying to drag us into Europe’s or ‘that British’ war.” And there was Harry Truman and Korea. And Harry Truman who initiated our actions in the “cold war” during which Democratic as well as Republican leaders oversaw the spending of billions and billions on defense with the money being authorised by one Democratic congress after another.
The “soft on defense” thing came out of Vietnam and the anti-war movement, but it was Kennedy who got us involved in the first place and it was Johnson who expanded our involvement beyond all reason. And it was Nixon who first got elected partly on the basis of ending it and who got us out in a rather hell-bent-for-safety fashion. And what’s more the anti-war group was right. That war was a big blunder as is the Iraq adventure.
Reducing the military is also cited by the “Dems are peaceniks” crowd. After the demise of the main enemy what would be more in line with good sense than reducing military expenditures to a reasonable level?
It boggles my mind that anyone considers GW a good war leader considering the half-truths and exaggerations that got us into Iraq and the lack of any sensible plan as to the aftermath of the military actions against the organized Iraq military resistance. Are people really so shallow as to fall for flight suits and big “Mission Accomplished” signs plus empty braggadocio such as “Bring it On?”
Maybe voters are that shallow. After all there is Jesse Ventura as governor of a usually sensible state like Minnesota, Arnold as governor of California and who can forget George Murphy as US Senator. As the mayor’s daughter said in The Music Man movie, “Yee gods!”
Would you mind pointing out the specific quote? It’s a long transcript, and I can’t seem to spot what you’re talking about…
I thought Kerry did a great job. For the “anyone but Bush” crowd, he masterfully reminded them of the litany of Bush’s failings and the downright scariness of the rest of the administration. For the undecideds, he did a solid job of expressing his goals and ideas for the country, to sell himself as the better man. I found the speech more riveting than Edwards’ (NurseCarmen was not the only one who found his boring). On more than one occasion during the speech, I found myself saying “Amen”, especially when he was talking about our dependency on foreign oil.
So I went to bed pleased.
Right after the speech, did anyone else hear the “balloon man” cursing on CNN? That was funny.
I’m not attacking you, Marley23. I’m just trying to make a point.
Between 1994 and 1996, I briefed and debriefed aircrews flying big, slow Navy P3 aircraft over Bosnia to perform reconnaissance missions. This was at a time when the Serbs would sometimes shoot at American planes - in fact, we listened to Scott O’Grady’s rescue over our comms circuits.
These missions weren’t without risk, to be sure.
Now, these aircrews were put in harm’s way by a man who avoided the Vietnam draft, just like the soldiers who are in Iraq and Afghanistan now were put there by a man who served as a guardsman stateside rather than in a combat role in Vietnam. And there’s no telling when war will come. In the modern age, the President is always Commander-in-Chief.
Now, if we’re to say it’s better if he’s a veteran, then that leaves Clinton right out, since both George H.W. Bush and Bob Dole were war heroes, and he was not. I don’t think this is necessarily so, though. I have stated such, and I have voted such.
When you vote, you should vote for a candidate based on issues and based on character. Veteran’s status ranks so far down on the list that I don’t consider it at all. What matters far more to me as a veteran is how a candidate will support the military, veteran’s benefits, and stand up for national security. And frankly, I have my doubts on John Kerry on these matters.
It’s right near the start.
This was the night of the Whoopi Goldberg fundraiser and caused a minor fuss. I don’t know if he’s ever explained it or if he’s subsequently agreed to be briefed.
Yes, but what is he going to do?
Whereas you should have no doubts about Bush’s actions on these matters. Clearly this is a man who wants to support the military, as long as that means making speeches and attending parades. When it comes to helping them with pay, benefits, equipment or training, not so much…
Oh; then I did see it, I just didn’t understand how that quote matched with your statement. He was busy, so he hadn’t been briefed by the evening of the announcement. That’s not exactly “declin[ing] to be briefed”, is it? If I say “today’s no good for me, how’s tomorrow?”, I’m not refusing to meet with someone. Apart from which, wasn’t that the announcement that Ridge made clear was not based on any new intelligence? Nothing about this implies wilful ignorance on John Kerry’s part, as you seemed to be suggesting. Not to me, anyway.
He explained it in the interview:
He’s a busy man. I just don’t get the problem here. 
The problem is that, should he get elected, he’ll need to hit the ground running. And he’s making no preparations to do so at this point.
Presidential candidates have been briefed on national security matters for decades, as a matter of policy. Most of them have been smart enough to avail themselves of this opportunity.
And, of course, there’s no time between now and January 2Nth (whatever the date is for Inauguration). Because it had to be right then, or he won’t be able to “hit the ground running.”