KERRY SHELLS DUBYA

New York Post ^ | 2/10/04 | DEBORAH ORIN

[kattracks]

February 10, 2004 -- Democratic front-runner John Kerry yesterday escalated his attacks on President Bush's Vietnam-era military record and suggested Bush isn't fit to be a wartime commander in chief because he never served in battle overseas. "I remember what it was like to carry an M-16 in another country thousands of miles away and to not be able to tell the difference between who was trying to kill me and who wasn't, who was my friend and who was my foe," Kerry said.

[kattracks]

"I learned about a lot of questions a president ought to ask before you send young people into harm's way," added Kerry...

Apparently, the one question Kerry didn't learn about is how best to protect American from it's enemies.

[GeronL]

4 months. Lets remember that. Afterwards he has spent the rest of his life trying to gut the military

[ambrose]

Brief history lesson...

1864 In early 1864 Lincoln felt he was unlikely to win re-election, the war had not yet been decided. Despite this fact, the Republicans unanimously renominated Lincoln. The Democrats nominated General McClellan. The platform of the Democratic party called for a cease-fire. Between the Democratic convention and the election, there were spectacular Union victories? including Sherman's capture of Atlanta. McClellan repudiated the Democratic platform, but Lincoln won overwhelmingly.

[ambrose]

Candidate 1 is Abraham Lincoln as many people saw him in the summer of 1864. More radical members of his own party thought that he was not prosecuting the war vigorously enough. The summer of 1864 was one of the darkest seasons of Lincoln's presidency. During a three-month span that summer, Union casualties totaled 110,000, double the number during any comparable period of the war. Lincoln was heavily criticized by newspaper editors, members of Congress, and others for his insistence that the Confederacy must end slavery as a condition of peace. Some of his other policies were equally unpopular. In August, Lincoln gloomily predicted to a friend that he was "going to be beaten, and unless some great change takes place, badly beaten."

Lincoln's opponent in the 1864 presidential race was Peace Democrat George McClellan. The Democratic Party platform, adopted at the party's convention at the end of August, demanded an immediate end to the war. Southerners rejoiced. The Charleston Mercury exulted that a Democratic victory in November-just two months away at that point-"must lead to peace and our independence. . . if. . . we hold our own and prevent military success by our foes."

Southern hopes for McClellan's election were quickly dashed. On September 2, just a few days after the Democratic convention, Union troops captured Atlanta. The political picture changed overnight. Headlines blazoned the news across the North. Dissidents within the Republican party abandoned plans to nominate an alternate Republican candidate and threw their political clout into the effort to defeat McClellan. When the election was held only two month later, Lincoln won with 212 electoral votes, beating McClellan by more than 500,000 popular votes. His support was especially strong among Union soldiers.

[GeronL]

yup.

but the Republicans were for bigger government back then and Dems were for states rights.

maybe the same outcome though?

[ambrose]

[ambrose]

McClellan was branded a hypocrite by many critics who saw his public stance on the war issues as ambiguous and deceptive. Nominated because of his military record, he nevertheless ran on a peace platform, written by Copperhead leader Clement Vallandingham, but then asserted his support for the war in his letter accepting the nomination.

[ambrose]

How about if we capture Osama during the Rat convention.. have Kerry give his acceptance speech with a media split screen showing bin Laden in leg irons on the other half of the screen.

[GeronL]

well. If you want to be subtle about it. sure. =o)

[Fledermaus]

I hope Kerry keeps up these type of attacks.

He is making a HUGE mistake. First, the people aren't going to care about him in Vietnam. His post-Vietnam record makes it a wash and a pushes it to negative territory.

His only response when it is brought up will be that "the Bush campaign is questioning my patriotism", blah, blah, blah. Same tired line they brought out when Max Cleland lost his Senate race in Georgia.

Anyone that still cares about Vietnam made up their minds about that decades ago. And Kerry was and still is in the "it was a huge mistake" crowd. Bush's line is good, he used it on Meet the Press, is "we learned lessons from Vietnam and that's not to allow the politicians to control the war...it was a political war". That counters Kerry's record of slashing defense, intelligence agencies, etc.

Also is plays up the fact he voted to authorize Bush to wage war on Iraq (and gives Bush more ammo since Kerry said, ridiculously, that he didn't intend his vote to actually allow Bush to use force, just the threat of force...yeah, right) but he voted against FUNDING our BRAVE MEN AND WOMEN fighting there now.

That's the same short-sightedness of the Congress during the Vietnam war. I can't believe the even the right wing pundits haven't picked up on that yet.

If Kerry wants to make this election on national security by continuing to bring up Bush's military record and degrading Guard and Reservists with his line comparing them to those that went to Canada or jail to dodge the draft, then let him! He'll pay dearly for that once he ticks off CURRENT family members of Guard and Reservists who are bravely fighting, dying and supporting regular military around the world today.

And it keeps to national security focus on his bad record.

Which is why he'll drop it like a bad habit probably in a month when he's sure he's got the nomination sewed up and then start the old "It's the Economy Stupid" playbook from 1992.

Remember, we had a better recovery in the 4th quarter of 1991 through the election of 1992 than we'll probably get this time. But the Clinton's were able, along with the willing liberals in the press, to paint the economy as the entire issue. Of course, the Gulf War was well over by then and just a blip on the screen. But unfortunately today, many don't think we are still in a war on terror.

So regardless of how well the economy does, they'll try the same trick. Fortunately, it's not 1992 and we have FoxNews, the internet, more and more conservative publications, FreeRepublic, blogs, etc.

And Bush is going to spend $200 million or more to win this! I don't think Kerry can get even close to that, not even half!

[ambrose]

Another big difference is no Ross Perot this time... His game playing of dropping out and then jumping back in the race were designed to do nothing but hurt Bush 41 - and it worked.

The stock market is also booming, which it wasn't in 1992. The indices will likely be back to and above their post-meltdown levels by election day.

[Fledermaus]

Another factor: the far left nuts! They were having orgasms for Dean.

Now they'll be stuck with yet another "typical Dem" like Gore that they think is a sellout and suck up and Kerry's record is way longer than Gore's ever was.

So they might vote Green no matter who it is. They don't need a Nader or a Dean to lead them, they are nuts, remember? They'll just need a Kerry to push them back to the fringe and give Bush a squeaker lead in a couple of states.

The only theory that they won't switch to the Greens is the "we hate Bush" attitude. But the more and more vocal they'll get about it as the election rolls around is going to really turn away the moderates and independents.

So if the far left hangs with Kerry out of Bush hatred, the middle will shift like in 1980 and give Bush the 52-54% popular vote (even 50% is fine) and more importantly, the electoral votes he needs.

If Bush just wins every state he won in 2000 he'll have 278 electoral votes (7 more than the 271 in 2000 because of population shifts). That 7 extra let's him lose either New Hampshire OR West Virginia where he barely beat Gore (Nader votes). But not both.

So all he has to do is hold and pick up one like New Mexico. But it would be better to pick up Michigan (he barely lost that one) with about 18 electoral votes or even better, Pennsylvania. But that will be harder. They are heavily unionized and stupid.

My worry is he could lose Louisiana or Missouri. But I doubt it. Also there is the black turnout. If theory holds out, the Clinton's aren't going to use their HUGE clout to turn out the black vote with threats and payoffs (as in the Lousiana Senate runoff in 2002 in, literally, a few hours of mobilization) because they want a clear field for Hillary in 2008.

AND, regardless of Dean or Kerry, they have a ready made excuse...the candidate was too far to the left while the Clinton's are (liars) "centrists". Plays well to the morons.

But they were really worried Dean would devastate the party with his loss and by 2008 there wouldn't be enough Dems to elect them. Thus, they put Clark out there to take away some of Dean's tin-foil hat people. Clinton fired the idiot, he knows he's a sucker and a fool and a moron.

Okay, I need to stop the theories at this hour! lol I'm even confusing myself!

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

And Bush is going to spend $200 million or more to win this! I don't think Kerry can get even close to that, not even half!

Not without sleeping with another homely, desperate condiments heiress first, at any rate. :)

[GAGOPSWEEPTOVICTORY]

I don't get the Dim Bulb argument about Bush and the National Guard especially since Bush volunteered for the Guard, and didn't dodge the draft like x42 did. Plus, last time I checked the Guard back then was charged with protecting our shores against the Communists during the Cold War -- not exactly a low-profile, do nothing task -- while the other members of the armed forces were off fighting in Vietnam.

Kerry is likely to eat crow on these charges because of his own statements about Clinton's military service back 1992. He also has issues with his anti-veteran anti-troop conduct after he was sent home from Nam. Hopefully, the American people will wise up and realize how much of a disgusting, disingenuous person Kerry is and reject him come November.

[NYCVirago]

Excellent analysis. One comment: Self-important boomers like John Kerry think that everything they lived through -- JFK, Vietnam, etc. -- are the most important things ever. But there are two generations of voters now who neither remember nor care about such events. And for Kerry to argue over how he did more during the Vietnam era strikes the rest of us as the height of navel-gazing.

[Fledermaus]

Oh come on, she looks hot on those scarves! lol

[Fledermaus]

Flying a jet is dangerous regardless of war or not.

And it was just as important back then to guard our borders. Too bad we don't today!

[Fledermaus]

Especially when any voter under about 35 doesn't even remember all the hoopla about Vietnam beyond what the TV told them.

[Benrand]

"I remember what it was like to carry an M-16 in another country thousands of miles away and to not be able to tell the difference between who was trying to kill me and who wasn't, who was my friend and who was my foe," Kerry said.

And GWB can tell the difference of who wants to kill us right now and you can't. Mr. Kerry, why then do you not want to fight the terrorists and instead want to take them to court? Did you want to take the NVA to court?

[ambrose]

Another factor: the far left nuts!