Some may think that Kerry is basing his campaign in part on his service record and suggesting he has the ability to be Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces because of it.

I think the reason people have been thinking that is because that is what Kerry is saying.

How is GW Bush's record "scandalous"?

Madine:
Where has Kerry said that his service record is all that important?
As for GW's records, the information that the White House "occassionally finds" and releases speaks volumes about his "military career." Some might consider side by side Senator McCain and GW. Which military record are you proud of?
Still, as I said, the voters shouldn't take either into primary consideration because who and what someone was 30 years ago is virtually irrelevant to the decision of which to choose.

Some may think that Kerry is basing his campaign in part on his service record and suggesting he has the ability to be Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces because of it. I think that misses the point about the man. We shouldn't care about either candidate's service record 30 years ago.

In part he is because of the male vote and the fact that since Bush stood at ground zero he has been capitlaizing on the image of exclusive strength to command--even to the ludicrous level of flying onto an aircraft carriier to announce "Mission Accomplished." Normally, I think Kerry would agree, but since the macho is making a point of it, he has to counter with a 30 year old record.

steven:
One of the love/hate relationships we, the public have is with photo-ops. We want a "visible sign" that our elected officials are active in a given situation (how many kindergarten classes did Bill Clinton visit?) but then when they do we cringe that we have no idea of the sincerity of the gesture. Certainly Kerry wasn't using Viet Nam as a photo-op, was he?

In his convention speech, Kerry spoke more often about his service record than his Senate record.

Kerry hasn't released all of his military records.

I would say Kerry's record is closer to Bush's than McCain's.

I would say Kerry's record is closer to Bush's than McCain's

anyone who remained in the us during the 60s and 70s has a record closer to bush's than kerry or mccain.

 

Well, you can't deny that one of the things that Kerry really wants everyone in the country to know about him is that he is a decorated Vietnam veteran. Only after that comes rolling back the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest, the health care plan, his position on stem cells, and so on.

I find the "people shouldn't vote on his war record..." argument interesting. It's kind of like the "people shouldn't vote based on gun control" complaints from the left, who have the advantage on issues they see as important (economic ones) and yet manage to lose on the "unimportant" social ones. Like it or not, the average person doesn't care about the same things a political junkie does, nor do they vote on the same issues.

I mean personally what I want to hear about is the long-term budget deficit and Social Security reform, but sadly my pet issue gets little attention. I'm not going to call the whole campaign a farce because it doesn't address what I want to hear, though.

vincible:

I think Mr. Kerry is trying to distance himself from previous Democratic candidates (like the last several) who had no basis for saying security would be better if they were president. So, he must say something. However, what is Mr. Bush saying in his speeches. Last week in Tennessee he stated 8 times "you are safer." My point on the either man's record is that (as President Bush found out) on security "reactive" means cleaning up the debris when the event is over. I think Kerry knows we live in a dangerous world the same as Bush.

The 2 issues you mention are very important and should be primary considerations in selecting a candidate. They also are 2 issues most Americans don't want to talk about it (boring). However, it's the boring issues that usually rob you blind and make your life miserable not the terrorist attacks you didn't have.

Madine:

Do you think the candidate's military service, regardless of what we "know or don't know" is that important in choosing which one can best lead the nation? I mean, to me it isn't because when I was 20 I thought and did many things that might be considered a little silly, perhaps even preposterous. So, if the decision on me were made on that basis I'd wonder what the voter was thinking. I would say the same logic should apply here.

Secondly, if you think Bush's and Kerry's record are "close" to one another, then it really shouldn't be an issue, right?

In his convention speech, Kerry spoke more often about his service record than his Senate record

Madine,
Not only at the convention. He has carefully molded this into a centerpiece of his campaign. Personally, I would much rather focus on his years in the Senate than a few months in Vietnam but now it's a shitstorm and we all have to wade thru it. I'm not a big fan of Kerry's but do feel badly that so many vets are pounding on him. I also think that Kerry lit this fire under his own ass and wont stop fanning the flames.