GQ is for asking about pan-fried…err, good idea!
This seemed to be a decent article on the topic, but I dunno. If McCain is OK with him, then…
Sweet God Almighty. People actually believe this? How much juice do you wanna get out of a thirty-year-old fruit. Look, everyone already knows Bush was a loser in 1972. Hell, he pretty much says it himself. But Kerry has already overplayed his 'Nam schtick.
You know how to spot a real hero? He’s the one who never talks about it. The guys who go around talking about how heroic they were are losers. I was genuinely trying to keep an open mind about Kerry, and his DNC speech was his big shot with me… and he lost me at the salute.
How wrong can a person be? Kerry SERVED in Vietnam. He ran TOWARD people who were shooting at him. Bush has never done anything in his life that showed an iota of personal courage that I know of. The facts are there for those whose eyes aren’t all covered with scales …
Bob Dole ran towards the enemy. Bob Dole didn’t get much love from the Democrats. George Bush the Elder flew towards the enemy. Not much love there either. Why the sudden change of heart from you folks?
I don’t recall any substantial attack on Dole’s courage or war record. IIRC there was some controversy about one incident in Bush the Elder’s war record but it was unsubstantiated and I don’t recall anyone really pushing the issue, and it certainly didn’t rise to the level of the Swiftvets’ attacks. If people didn’t care for them, it had nothing to do with their war records[sup]*[/sup], it was because they didn’t like their politics. That’s certainly true for me. I had a lot of respect for Dole personally, but I didn’t like his politics.
I don’t think most supporters are saying that Kerry should be elected simply because of his war record. It was brought up as a defense against the inevitable cries from the right that the Democrats are weak on security. IMHO it continues to be such a big issue only because the Democrats have been forced to defend it. The spinmeisters on the right have actually managed to turn a heroic combat record into a political liability (something I find disgusting, in all honesty). I don’t recall the left trying to do that with either Dole or Bush the elder.
[sup]*[/sup]I’m sure that there were a few fringe people (pacifists, etc.) who held this against them, but they were insubstantial in number and influence and certainly not representative of the Democratic party.
I have no problem with this. Kerry served honorably and well, and I commend him for it. “Hero” seems a bit of a stretch, except in the sense that all who serve honorably and well are heroes … but OK, if his supporters want to call him that, whatever, it’s politics. But it is unbecoming for a man of 50 or 60 to tout his own war record; AFAICT, no politician since Eisenhower has made his military record such a central part of his own self-description; and that includes many with more impressive credentials than Kerry.
IMO it comes off either as self-glorification or as the guy at the end of the bar bragging about scoring a touchdown in 1975. “Yeah, yeah, we get it. You were great. Now can we talk about something else?”
If serving four months in 'Nam 30 years ago is the best and most important thing he’s ever done and is the defining element of his whole persona, that seems a little disconcerting. If it isn’t, why not talk about his longer tenures doing other things?
As far as Bush, the fact that he was a shmuck at 25 is old news; he’s said himself he didn’t grow up until he was 40. (For me, that was a problem: I didn’t think he was experienced enough to be president in 2000.) In any event, people judge him now based on his record, as they should. I’d like it if Kerry’s campaign had been on his plans and his entire record in public life instead of just one part of it.
I think the Democrats felt that they didn’t have much choice on this. They knew that they would be attacked on the issue of national security so they felt that they had to emphasize it. Maybe they overdid it, maybe not, but I don’t think you can really blame Kerry for this. And it’s only continuing to be such a big issue because of the attacks.
They attempted to ward off “weak on defense” attacks by emphasizing a military background. So what happens? They get attacks that question the value of combat medals and the validity of military record keeping!
Hey why not, if you can’t attack their defense credentials directly attack veterans and the military instead. Whatever the hell works. THAT is what’s unbecoming.
You ***lost ***me at hello…? 
I see this whole thing as a pretty big tactical error on Kerry and his campaign’s parts. While other candidates, like Dole, surely talked about their war experiences, I can’t remember any of them trotting out old military buddies to vouch them, and using it as so central a theme in the campaign. It practically BEGS the other side to go and find the likes of the Swifties.
Bush is such a weak candidate that if the Dems can’t beat him, they ought to just pack it in and turn their party’s “slot” over to some other group.
Check this out:
Texans for Truth
I’ve got nothing much to add to this except that part of me is happy about it and part of me is getting a headache…
Check this out. I swear I had no idea about the Texans for Truth when I posted it.
When you copy someone else like these guys did, it just looks even sillier and pettier than the original.
Well back to the OP topic… will Bush’s new poll advantage scare lazy voters into action ? There is a lot of quiet arrogance of more “intelectual” of Kerry voters thinking the voters will see the truth eventually. This might shock them into actually doing something… campaigning or donating.
I still think its a RNC bounce mostly…
A lot of us have been doing this already, and for a number of months. I think the Republicans have been doing the same. The polls could very well be missing most of the newly registered voters, as well as the registered voters who haven’t voted recently but will this time. The only question is, which party will benefit more from these new voters? I strongly suspect that it’ll be the Democrats because historically they generally benefit from higher overall turnouts. Whether they will benefit enough to actually win remains to be seen.
Might as well throw this into the pot…
There’s a disturbing talk of team play in that link.