I don;t care for Kerry......Generally, I don;t ever vote for North East Dems......I grew up in the NE with Dems like Cuomo, Dinkins ect.....I also have never voted democrat.....I have certain core beliefs that are at odds with their core beleifs so it would be a complete mockery to pretend i have not made up my mind....C'mon...Bung is voting for anyone not named BUSH!!! same with you....i hardly think a strong debate is going to change that?........question though: If you are very open and independent like you say, picture this: Bin laden is caught, Iraq calms down and the economy continues to grow at 7% gdp.....would you votre for Bush??
If just those things happened and nothing else, that wouldn't be enough at this point...unless Dean was the nominee.
Look, I understand that Kerry served and what it meant. But let's get real. There was an excellent and nuanced profile of him focusing on his service and protest activities last week in the Washington times. The facts are, he enlisted in the Navy as an officer out of Yale. Not the sort of thing someone looking to face the enemy with a grenade and bayonet does. He wanted to avoid getting drafted and sent to infrantry school. Nothing wrong with that, but the route Bush took was at least as hazardous. He had to go through a year of flight school which involved almost daily flying of high performance jets. The casualty rate from that was a lot higher than some officer sitting drinking coffee in a ship. Kerry apparently volunteered for boat duty, which at the time meant ferrying sailors back and forth. Right afterwards, they got changed to Mekong Delta patrols, which was hazardous for sure. He won his first medal for shooting a VC who had fired a rocket at them. Reports are that the boat's gunner had hosed down the hooch thoroughly before Kerry went in and that he finished the guy off. For the life of me I can't understand why that warranted a Silver Star, when grunts were doing that sort of thing every day. His second medal came from turning the boat around and picking up the guy who fell off. What was he supposed to do, just leave him? I'm sure he did his job and served honorably, I'm not questioning that, but it hardly sounds like Audie Murphy to me. Or Bob Dole or Bush Sr. for that matter. But they were from a differnet generation, one that didn't spend their time preening for TV cameras and inflating small deeds into monumental ones. He received two wound that were described as scratches and one that took him off duty for two whole days. I know for sure that plenty of grunts got these types of injuries almost daily and no one was showering ribbons on them. But then Kerry was an officer, and apparently medals came a little easier for them. He invoked a rule that officers with three purple hearts could go home, which he did after 5 months. He got a plum stateside desk job, which apparently left him plenty of free time to organize anti-war rallies. Some have suggested these anti-war activities while a serving officer should have got him courtmartialed. Instead, he asked for and was granted a release six months early. Funny, I didn't hear about too many enlisted troops getting off six months early. After this rather charmed service you would think Kerry would be grateful. Instead, he saw his chance at fame and grabbed it. He went to congress and testified that the military routinely committed atrocities. Apparently he hadn't actually seen any of them personally, but he heard of them. I guess Jane Fonda knew all about them too. Maybe her Viet Cong buddies told her when she was posing on an AA gun that had shot guys like John McCain down. Guys that were going through hell on earth while Kerry was hanging around with Hanoi Jane and her crowd, trashing guys who faced death every day. Guys that would get spat on when they returned and called baby killers, thanks to a guy with a couple of medals and 5 months in country. I don't suggest for a second he did anything dishonorable while in Nam, that would come later after he came home. But I don't see how 5 months of duty gives him the right to say that anyone who disagrees with his votes to weaken security "has something against those who served" like he did last week. Or gives him the right to equate flying F102's like Bush did with going to Canada to dodge the draft.
ART, come on, I thought you said you were an honest person. Answer me this, who was the last republican you voted for? It's not really Bush that you are against, although I do believe that you don't like him. It's the republican ideology. You will never go along with the republican ideology and I doubt you ever have.
Who I voted for in the past is not relevant. Who I dated in the past is not relevant, nor where I worked in the past, nor trades I placed in the past, etc., etc., etc. What matters is what would I do today, tomorrow, and the day after that. What matters is my mind open to new information. The past is gone. I choose not to live there.
OK, let me re-phrase the question. You don't have to tell me who, but have you ever voted for a republican President ever? You don't have to name him, but have you ever voted for one? Surely, an open minded guy like yourself has not voted for just one party his whole life.
So what is your point? That Kerry is above criticism because he served? That seems to be his attitude. Anyone without the CMH who dares to question his consistent votes to weaken national security gets the "against those who served" line. Now suddenly, you're not entitled to have an opinion if you weren't in combat? The Dem's and the media didn't think much of that when Clinton was the nominee. Then the party line was we have to get beyond all that ancient history, let's not be devisive and judgmental. It took courage too to be a draft dodger. I'm not denigrating Kerry's service nor the fact he faced real danger and handled himself with honor and courage. But he was hardly the only one who did that. There are 50,000 names on a black wall in Washington of guys who did a lot more.