A Little Substance, Please

“Reporting for duty,” blah, blah.
"Swift Boat Veterans," blah, blah.
"Three Purple Hearts," blah, blah.
“Requires Constant Supervision,” blah, blah.
“Four Months and out,” blah, blah.

What has John Kerry done--since his discharge from the Navy up to this day-- that would cause an undecided voter to consider voting for him as POTUS? Seriously?

See, that’s why most of my posts regarding the senator have been to poke fun at him/his wife or to point to something really ill-advised that he/his wife has said or done. All the nonsense on conservative blogs regarding the senator’s military service has a MEGO effect on me and I've seen nothing from the record of John Kerry's senatorial sojourn that would make me think, "hey, this guy might make a good president."

Yes, I know that the conservative focus on the Kerry service record exists because the senator himself has promoted it over and over again. And yes, I know that this is tit-for-tat for the undue focus placed on the president’s military service. (At least many of the critics of Senator Kerry’s service have some knowledge of how the military operates, which is more than I can say for most of those who criticized President Bush’s service.) So what? Senator Kerry served in a combat zone, got his medals and was discharged honorably; end of story, at least it is on this blog.

However, military service hasn’t exactly been a reliable barometer of how a given man will perform his duties as POTUS. So why are we even going there, other than to play the game of mutual mud-pie throwing?

Kerry-supporters: what has the senator done for his state and the country lately? Point me to the meat and potatoes.

Comments

[GMRoper]

J. Great post. You of course are right, Adolph Hitler ran for Chancelor of Germany on his war record among other things. And NO, I'm not comparing Kerry to Hitler.... sheesh, it's a bad day at blackrock when you have to insert this disclaimer. At any rate, looking at his Senate record, Kerry has nothing to run on. No major legislation carry's his name, No committees of note. Although, he did get the little league to allow games for handicapped players and that was a good thing.

[StinKerr]

There's 30 years that they don't want you or me to notice. He's now saying that he'd increase the Army by 40,000 and "double the Special Forces" contingent. Yeah, right.

Looking at his record he's been solidly in favor of reducing the military and their benefits. As to SF, they can't be 'doubled' in force size without drastically lowering the bar for entry and qualification. Maybe they could be renamed to "Somewhat Exceptional Forces".

Oops. I forgot, he doesn't want to run on his record. He wants to run on those medals/ribbons that he threw away but didn't throw away or something... He was 'ashamed' of them then but he wants to ride them to the Presidency now.

I don't believe a word that comes out of his mouth. I'll just look at what he's done and decide who he is.

[John Salmon]

The Bush campaign is taking the smart political tack of saying that Kerry's 'Nam service shouldn't be questioned. But what he did after the war, including his libelous accusations of war atrocities by American servicemen, is ripe for the picking.

The one apparently impressive part of Kerry's resume is his service as a prosecutor in MA. Good track record of getting convictions, successfully went after some Mob thugs...don't know why he doesn't want to talk about it. (Kerry did briefly mention his term as a prosecutor in his acceptance speech).

[Christopher Taylor]

He's voted against every single new weapons system that's come down the pike during his time as a Senator, and sponsored a bill to slash the CIA budget by 3 Billion (with a B) dollars. He voted against additional appropriations for Iraqi soldiers. That's some of what he's been up to in the past years.

But seriously, milady, I'm sure you know more than a few officers and enlisted men in your past who, despite having served and perhaps even gotten comendations and honorable discharge were totally unworthy of both and were a discredit to the uniform.

If Senator Kerry chooses to focus so strongly on his war past, does it not serve everyone to know the whole story? I surely don't know, he may have been a great and courageous fellow. But if it turns out he was not, should we not know that too?

[JLawson]

Juliette, I think you're gonna starve before the meat and potatoes get served out... Kerry's pounding his war hero record so hard it makes me think the rest of the pantry's pretty well empty.

Either that, or what they're going to find is going to be so putrid that you won't want to even touch the plate.

I just looked over Tacitus's analysis of Kerry's positions on Iraq and the Wot over at Redstate (Redstate || The disengagement) and I've got to admit to a very unsettled stomach after that meal. I'm afraid Kerry's going to pull a Nixon/Chamberlain on us - pull out of Iraq ASAP while proclaiming peace in our time... and then stand back while the fires rage.

Then again, I could be wrong and he's actually not a self-centered, self-obsessed twit acting as Ted Kennedy's sock puppet, who doesn't have a shred of statesmanlike quality in his soul and who would screw over the country in a heartbeat in order to advance the DNC.

If he gets elected, I sure as hell hope I'm wrong.

Jerry

[John Salmon]

"He's voted against every single new weapons system that's come down the pike during his time as a Senator, and sponsored a bill to slash the CIA budget by 3 Billion (with a B) dollars. He voted against additional appropriations for Iraqi soldiers."

You know, even that sorry voting record wouldn't troble me, if I had some kind of sense that Kerry takes the terror war seriously. Pre-9/11, everything WAS different. But it's hard to have a sense that his views have changed. He's stuck in the "I'll respond if attacked" mode, as he put it in his acceptance speech. Man, that ship already sailed. It's way too late to simply be reacting to events, hoping we can enlist allies, etc. Kerry is stuck in the past and would be worse than useless as President.

[baldilocks]

Chris,

Of course we should hear/read about it. However, I'm afraid that both sides have descended so far into the attack mode that nothing of substance about the senator will be paid attention to, i.e. the substance of his senatorial career. (For example, John S. above says that his career as an MA prosecuter had some weight.)

And I really do want the few Kerry supporters who read this blog to give me a real good reason or two for their support. (I presume you're not one of them. :-) Hating GWB doesn't count.

[david]

Kerry has a good Army record, but a bad Senate record.

[Attila Girl]

Juliette is right; we should be concentrating more on his Senate record, or lack thereof (gutting intel, weakening the military is all I know so far). There is also his stint as Lt. Gov., which I never hear discussed.

This isn't being covered in the Old Media, so we need to ferret some of it out ourselves.

[Mrs. du Toit]

We had this same thing with Clinton, but people refused to pay attention. People did not want to look at a man's past as anything other than a novelty. The Left was successful at spinning the idea that "the past is the past."

It isn't an issue of his service record--that's just the details in this example. It is an issue of CHARACTER.

Everyone is able to overcome bad choices as a youth, but there has to be some evidence, some change, something that would lead us to believe that past behavior was "ignorance of youth" not the launching of a life time pattern.

In that sense, it doesn't matter if we're looking at his service in the military or his service in the Boy Scouts or college. We're looking at the man in an attempt to determine if he is trustworthy, forthright, and someone you can count on.

What was established in those Swift boats, observed by the men who served with and near him, was that Kerry was not a man you could trust or depend on. He served because it was a milestone on his Gantt Chart to the Presidency. He needed to serve, so he did, but he did it in such a way as to take every shortcut possible to become a JFK-like war hero. Then he had no trouble lying about his escapades if it was politically expedient.

All of that would be history if something about him had changed since then. But he hasn't changed so it is fair game.

His actions in Vietnam and after are no different from his statements today "I was for the 87 billion before I was against it." "I was for the Vietnam war before I was against it."

It's relevant.

[Christopher Taylor]

There is no time in our history in which the intelligence budget needed to be or could be considered better if slashed by billions. I understand that some leftists after the fall of the Berlin wall could try the arguement that we don't need the military any more and new weapons systems are robbing citizens of food, but it didn't really wash back in the 90s either.

It's true that the primary substance of the campaign - whatever meat Kerry allegedly has - is being washed over, but that's mostly due (I beleive) because of the political reality of today. Kerry is not running on "vote for me" he's running on "vote against Bush" and trying to convince people, based on his 4 months in Vietnam, that he's a strong national security guy and big on defense. He's trying to provide the moms out there worried about their kids' future in a world at war against terrorists that he's not the milksop weak-kneed incompetent on national defense and security that everyone knows Democrats tend to be.

The problem is, the war on terror was barely alluded to at the DNC, and Democrats list terrorism about 9th on their list of things to be concerned about, after Bush, Bush, Bush, tax cuts, health care costs, Bush, and so on.

[Cassandra]

Juliette:

I have to respectfully disagree with you on this one. I have several friends who are Democrats and their support of Kerry directly rests on his Vietnam service. To them, that Bush "did not serve" and Kerry "volunteered to defend his country" is gospel, and the only thing that has any chance of changing their minds is to present them with the facts.

More importantly, as Mrs. du Toit rightly points out, this is a character issue. If he has lied about his record (and he has) and has chosen to make his military record the central issue of this campaign, what does that say about his fitness for office?

The WOT is one of two issues that will be uppermost in voters' minds come November(the other being the economy). Kerry has not presented any serious alternatives to Bush's handling of the WOT - he only vaguely insinuates, based on his Vietnam service of 4.5 months that he would do a better job. Therefore the appropriate refutation is to point out that he did NOT do a good job in Vietnam.

If that is his primary credential as a war president, he's in trouble.

I come from several generations of military people and my husband is active duty. But no one's record is beyond question, especially when they insist on bringing it up at every opportunity. I don't like to harp on Kerry's past either. I'd prefer to talk about the issues - a subject the Senator studiously avoids. And I've had plenty to say on that subject - I've addressed his positions on outsourcing, trade, women's issues, intelligence, and defense spending.

But if Kerry insists on slinging mud at Bush's service and the press will only cover anti-Bush stories, how else is the truth going to get out?

Don't voters who are planning to vote for Kerry because they believe he's a war hero deserve to hear both sides of the story?

[Andy]

Does free-rider mean anything. From day one this guy's done nothing but take free rides to the next step.

I have to wonder, what was so compelling about John Forbes Kerry that his first elected office was that of was Lt Governor? Surely there must have been a worthwhile record of some sort to get him the nod.

[Sharps Shooter]

Dave: he falsified his military record, from mediocre-good to FALSIFIED. That is a character issue.

Cassandra: Concur yr analysis.

Juliette, I respectfully suggest that you consider Kerry's record in both the discrete and the aggregate. He is the one re-invoking VietNam AS IF it were honorable. SwiftBoat veterans who supervised and observed Kerry point out that Kerry has been, AND IS CONTINUING IN HIS EFFORTS AT, falsifying his record in the War.

THAT is a character issue, today, Ma'am, and its very nature impinges on OUR tomorrows, Juliette.

[Key]

Debate the side point, and miss the main one...

I was so hoping for some meat and potatoes!

(Good post, Juliette.)

[Mike]

OK, so he's been in the Senate for 20 years or so. And what legacy has he left?

The "voted against every military bill" charge isn't true:

Kerry votes

We're in the last lap of the campaign, so we're going to see a lot of dirty tricks from both sides.

But it'll take a lot of effort to convince me that Kerry should get to be President.
But that's still not enough for me. Just what HAS he done in those 20 years other than enjoy a life of luxury and position?

[Christopher Taylor]

No, he didn't vote against EVERY military bill, just every major military system that came down the pike:

http://www.lt-smash.us/archives/002675.html#002675