Dookiestix wrote:Quote:I think both Kerry and Bush would do well to leave vietnam behind and start talking about what they have done lately and what they intend to do if elected in November.
Then let's hope that the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth will pay heed to that recommendation and start addressing the issues, rather than refuted heresay and false affadavits designed to demonize a Democratic candidate who went to Vietnam and served his country honorably.
I really don't care what the SBVs do or don't do. They have every right to question his claims where they doubt the veracity of his claims. After all, Kerry has made his service the centerpiece of his campaign. We, as the electorate, must decide how much weight to give the claims of the SBVs in deciding who to vote for. But the candidate themselves both need to start talking about the here and now, not the back then.
I just keep waiting for Kerry to talk for more than 15 minutes without referring to his 4 months of service in Vietnam. I'm not too sure he is capable of doing that, but I keep hoping.
A.) He does.
B.) Wouldn't the corollary hope be that Bush talks for more than 15 minutes without referring to "safety"? Bush is doing his best to make people scared about what could happen. Kerry needs to fight back on that same visceral level -- I've been there, I'm tough, I'll protect you.
sozobe wrote:A.) He does.
B.) Wouldn't the corollary hope be that Bush talks for more than 15 minutes without referring to "safety"? Bush is doing his best to make people scared about what could happen. Kerry needs to fight back on that same visceral level -- I've been there, I'm tough, I'll protect you.
The problem with your comparison in B) is that in my opinion you are comparing two different things. I think most Americans are concerned about safety from terrorism, at least since 9/11. It is an issue today, so talking about it is fine. Kerry's service in vietnam, regardless of how one views that service, is no issue today. What he did as a young man has little bearing on what he will do as president.
I'm talking visceral. Visceral like turning the lights to low and blue and trotting out 9/11 widows while the cameras search for people with tears streaming down their faces (and interestingly, when I was watching, couldn't find any...)
Kerry's team knew that would happen -- it's why New York was chosen -- and were also reacting to things Bush had already said, trying to portray Kerry as soft, wishy-washy, a wonk. Right now, what people are thinking of is the guy who reached over and saved a man's life in the middle of a war. That's not soft or wishy-washy, that's tough and protective.
Do I wish they would focus on the economy and actual diplomacy plans and such and leave the visceral stuff alone? of course. But if Bush is doing it, Kerry has to respond. And I think that's a pretty effective response, viscerally. eBrown was the first person I saw make the point that he was happy to have Kerry's detractors keep talking about Vietnam, and I agree. While people SHOULD be talking and thinking about issues, that image of Kerry saving Rassman (which nobody disputes) is a strong one.
What he did as a young man has little bearing on what he will do as president. <--- CR
Au Contraire.
Kerry's war experience, in direct contradiction to Bush's, has shown him just how much things suck when you are being shot at. And how terrible war can be on a civilian populace.
These things will help temper him from sending troops off to war without a damn better reason than the last time we went. It is one of the strongest points of his campaign.
Cycloptichorn
Apparently, they've been full of shite since this whole thing started.
http://mediamatters.org/
