Will Vietnam Be an Issue in 2008?

Great Debates
1

Assume Bush wins in 2004. He won’t be able to run in 2008, so his deeds during the Vietnam war won’t be an issue. It’s unlikely Kerry will run again, so neither will his.

So will either party’s candidates have to answer for their deeds during the Vietnam war in 2008? Or will this issue have been beaten to death by then and no one will try to bring it up? Does either party have candidates who couldn’t have gone to Vietnam if they wanted to (too young, too old, or too female (as in Hillary))?

Assume Kerry wins in 2004. He’ll run again in 2008. Will the Republicans put up a highly decorated, gung-ho war veteran who was never ambivalent about his participation… someone like John McCain, just to highlight the differences between their candidate and Kerry? Or, again, will this issue have been beaten to death by then?

And when will there be an election when Vietnam won’t be an issue? 2012? 2016?

2

That’d be a good reason to support Hillary Clinton (or another woman), then we’d be able to focus on events since, oh, I don’t know, 1980.

Two war heroes (McCain v Kerry) would probably cancel each other out, since neither would have anything to gain from denigrating the other’s service. Ditto two non-veterans.

I’d actually like to see McCain vs. Kerry. Not only would I then have two decent choices, but those two actually personally like each other. Hopefully we’d then get a civil and issue-oriented campaign.

3

I don’t think it will be an issue. Vietnam is only an issue in this campaign because of the whole “War on Terror.” The Dems, since McGovern, has always been seen as squishy on National Defense. Kerry needed to emphasize his Vietnam experience to reassure the country that he can be trusted with national security. Bush’s Vietnam record would not have been brought up again if it wasn’t for the sucker punch Swiftie attack ads.

In 1992, Willie Horton, the Pledge of Allegiance, ACLU membership and other trivial matters from 1988 were not brought back up.

You didn’t see a lot of Bill Clinton draft dodging, didn’t inhale, or bimbo of the week coverage in 1996.

2004 hasn’t brought back the lock box of 2000.

4

It works this way:

We’re in a war.

A war we went into without a clear idea of our goals and objectives, and no clear exit plan from the get-go, with a completely unrealistic idea of how the locals were going to react to our presence. The current administration makes grand claims about imminent success and their extensive knowledge of just who they are fighting, when there is daily evidence that they are talking out their ass.

Reminds more than a few people of a certain Southeast Asian Police Action.

So Kerry points out his record of protesting the Vietnam war, to indicate that he is someone who knows the flaws of Vietnam, trying to position himself as someone who will try to figure a way out.

Well, thinks a susicious electorate, lotsa people protested, some with a patriotic flair, but many of them simply too pansy-ass to go and fight.

Not so, says Kerry. A war hero, I was. Three purple hearts, doncha know. Faced fire on a river in Cambodia on Christmas Eve while Nixon denied our presence there, I did.

Hmm, not bad, thinks the electorate. How 'bout you, Georgie?

Well, Georgie managed to get himself out of the draft, and while the jury’s still out on how much he actually did do in the Texas Air National Guard, there’s no doubt that he was somewhat less than fully devoted to his duties to his country. Plus he now forces the National Guard to fight foreign wars. Plus some of the people around him are (or are the direct proteges of) the very people who made Vietnam such a memorable experience.

So what to do? His lawyer and some friends put together some ads that say they heard tell of John Kerry in Vietnam, have examined his tales, and have this to say (at least once you’ve weeded out all the horseshit and double-speak):

“Ya weren’t there on Christmas Eve, ya lyin’ sack o’ shit!”

Which only forces the Kerry camp to focus on Georgie’s record even more.

Georgie can’t afford to focus on the today’s issues too much, or his policies’ deep shortcomings will show. So he keeps his side talking about Vietnam.

Johnny has to draw attention away from the fact that, for the last twenty years in the Senate, instead of making grand pronouncements and fostering controversial bills, he more or less just showed up and voted, many times trying to appease middle-of-the-road and conservatives voters as much as his supporters on the left, which doesn’t play well in a tight, highly polarized election. So he keeps talking about Vietnam as well.

As to whether the Vietnam war will be an issue in 2008, it depends. If either of them wins, and, four years from now, we’re still floundering around in Iraq, (or in Georgie’s case, Iran and Syria as well), it will be an issue. If we are not, I doubt it.

5

Hasn’t military service always been an issue, just to a varying degree of importance? If a presidential candidate did serve in the military, it’s usually a positive to at least mention it and get it out there.

Another possible presedential candidate in '08 is Senator Chuck Hagel. He was in Vietnam, and (last I heard) he was against the war in Iraq, but hopefully Iraq isn’t an issue in eight years. So whether it’s McCain, or any other politician, previous military experience seems to be a feather in the cap of a candidate.

6

The answer is: If either candidate thinks there is advantage to be gained by bringing up Vietnam, it will be an issue. It’s that simple. So whether or not it will be an issue is entirely dependent on who the candidates are. And this early in the game, we have absolutely no idea. The most likely candidate at this point is Dick Cheney, simply because if Bush wins he’ll be VP and the nomination will he his by default unless he declines to run for health reasons. Not that I think it’s likely that he’ll run, but he’s the most likely out of any public figures today.

If Cheney runs, then expect Vietnam to be an issue because of Cheney’s five deferments.

Vietnam will stop being an issue around 2020, which will be the first election where anyone who served in Vietnam will be too old to run for office.

7

Yes, but boths sides should have learned by now that it’s a loser of an issue. Clinton, who not only didn’t serve but had a billion differing reasons why not and who protested in freaking Moscow, won two terms against bona-fide WWII heros. Bush, who chose National Guard service rather than risk going to 'Nam and who chose a guy with five freaking deferments, beat Gore, who served in theater.

How the heck Kerry saw all that and decided that “I was a hero in Vietnam before I was an anti-war activist” was a good campaign theme I’ll never know. And why they keep flogging the contrast between his service and Bush’s in the face of all evidence? Heck, I’m thinking maybe Karl Rove is running both campaigns.

8

Wait until the Gulf War vets start running for office.

9

Why should that matter? Unlike Vietnam, there can be no talk about deferments or guard service or anything else because there was no draft. Military service is a choice, just like going to college.

I’ve said before and I’ll say it again. I am damn sick of Vietnam and all this back-and-forth over a war that was over 30 years ago and 8 years before I was born.

10

I sure hope so! I would just love having to choose between John Kerry and John McCain!

11

Come 2008, Vietnam will likely be an issue. I can see Chuck Hagel bringing it up in his probable presidential bid. In fact, I’d say Hagel is the Republicans’ best hope right now, but that’s another thread, I’m sure. McCain won’t run for president, since he’ll be 72 and content with a prominent role in the Senate—possibly as Republican leader, since Bill Frist is retiring in 2006. I realize that McCain will only be three years older than Reagan was when he was first elected, and I realize that lots of people have the strange impression that McCain is a moderate, but I think McCain would be happier as the Senate Republican leader (majority or minority.) It’s not like the people of Arizona are ever going to vote him out; he’s there for life.

Assuming Kerry wins this year (and there’s a darn good chance of it,) his Vietnam service would be neutralized by Hagel’s, and it probably wouldn’t come up if his challenger is a non-veteran, anyway. Firstly, Kerry’s Vietnam service is well established, and secondly, he’d have his presidential term to run on, and he’d need to run on it, or appear like he’s screwed up for the past four years—you know, kind of like the Bush campaign is avoiding running on its record.

If Kerry doesn’t win this year, I don’t see any prominent Democratic veterans who are likely candidates. The Democrats’ likely stable for 2008, should Kerry lose, contains Bill Richardson, John Edwards, Janet Napolitano, Dick Durbin, Ed Rendell, Joe Biden and Bill Nelson, to name a few off the top of my head. I’m not sure if any of them are veterans. (Inevitably someone’s going to note that I don’t have Hillary Clinton on my list, so let me save us the trouble and point out that I’m sure Hillary Clinton will never run for president, and that she’ll keep her Senate seat until the day she dies. Anyone who says otherwise either 1) doesn’t understand politics very well, 2) is the victim of conservative misrepresentation designed to scare their voter base into donating more money, or 3) doesn’t understand politics very well and is the victim of conservative misrepresentation.)

My prediction about Iraq is that by 2008, no matter who wins in 2004, it’s going to be an unstable breeding ground for terrorists, because USUK forces are going to abandon it once the civil war there starts. With no more war in Iraq to fret about, and with the rest of the world hating America’s guts anyway, presidential candidates will turn inward, and that’s all they’ll run on. One’s military service record won’t matter much to anyone at that point, since it’ll be all about domestic issues. I’ve been feeling lately that it’s too late to fix Iraq, and that President Bush has demonstrated that he’s not interested in doing so, and that even President Kerry couldn’t do it. In four years Americans will be so war-weary, having dodged the draft will be an asset.

Boy, I’ve been growing cynical lately! Let’s just hurry up and vote Bush out already, before I grow too negative! Kerry '04!

12

I just did a little research and have found some military experience in the backgrounds of a couple of the Democrats I mentioned. Bill Nelson was a veteran of the Army reserves (but did he get there through luck or connections? Who can say? Who can say?) Ed Rendell was an Army veteran, but I’m not sure how much combat he saw. Both were Vietnam era veterans, though.

Maybe it’s just because I’m a native Pennsylvanian, but I think Ed Rendell would make a good president. I’m a native of Tom Ridge’s old House district, but I wouldn’t want him as president, though I did vote for him for governor. That poor bastard will never find work again in elective office. He might run for president in 2008, but c’mon… he supports abortion rights! That’s why he never made it onto the Bush 2000 ticket (that and I suspect that the guy in charge of locating a running mate for Bush had… um… someone else in mind all along.) Ridge could get elected president, if he could get through his party’s primaries, which he couldn’t do. By the time he got to South Carolina, he’d be wiped out like a fly on a windshield.

13

If Kerry should lose, then Vietnam will not be much of an issue for the Democrats.
It will be the vote on the Iraq resolution.

Kerry’s defeat will be viewed by many in the party as not standing up on Iraq originally. This will make it extremely difficult for folks like Hillary Clinton or John Edwards to get the nomination.