Was talking with a Kerry supporter last week, and the story of the National Guard came up. She said that it was a shame that Kerry's patriotism was being smeared while our President shirked serving his country.
I wish I had asked this question: "Why did you vote for Bill Clinton?"
I think that's called "changing the subject". Whether a person voted for Clinton or not has nothing to do with the current election. Bush portrays himself as the choice of every true god-fearing patriot and urges young people to join and fight in this war he is waging against the Iraqi people.
In fact, Bush chose not to risk his own life to got to Vietnam. Did he disagree with that war? Or did he support the war but didn't want to give up his own life to the cause?
It is ironic that Kerry did actually risk his life and well being and was recognized for his service. He returned and spoke about the wrong things he saw being done in Viet Nam. Well, Kerry WAS there while Bush was partying his way through college and avoiding going to VietNam himself. And when Kerry returned he was ANGRY that lives were being risked and lost without a clear purpose.
Again, the past actions of George W. Bush and John Kerry should stand on their own. Whatever Clinton did or did not do is not relevant to the discussion. A red herring, if you will.
Posted by: Sue Unruhe at September 12, 2004 11:18 PMSorry, Sue, but I disagree. Bill Clinton, who dodged the draft, ran for President against Bob Dole, who served in VietNam. Senator Kerry, who supported Clinton, said that service in VietNam should not be an qualifying issue. Now he says it is. That's not a red herring, that's a flip-flop.
Posted by: Joel Fuhrmann at September 13, 2004 02:40 PMAhhh...cousin Joel, but who is doing the flip flop? Seems pretty darn equal on both sides. Dole and the repubs said back then that military service was a BIG deal. Now that it's a democrat who served and a repub who did not, now it doesn't matter to the repubs.
So, when both sides are flip-flopping equally, it seems to me to basically be a non-issue in this campaign. I can see it can be irksome to see that a democrat won despite his lack of military service and that now another democrat is proud of his own decision to serve.
I'm sure this is only the first of many issues we may need to just agree to disagree about. I enjoy a free exchange of ideas and beliefs, by the way. I hope I am welcome to share my views. You may want to lump me with the group of people you used to worship with (the evil liberals), but I can assure you that I barely resemble the people you have described here.
Posted by: Sue Unruhe at September 13, 2004 10:53 PMYes, you are welcome to share your views, and I'll even give you the last word on this mini-debate. I welcome political diversity, it changes my mind occasionally, and even if it doesn't, it makes me know why I believe what I do. The only condition is that it not resort to name-calling or ad hominem attacks. And since family is much more important than politics, I'm hoping that we'll be able to give each other hugs at the next family reunion.
I'm with you all the way, Joel. Attacking and name-calling are not my style. Family is #1 totally. I look forward to greeting you with open arms.
Cheers!
Posted by: Sue Unruhe at September 14, 2004 12:01 AM