Poll: Wartime Records Won't Sway Voters

[Padraig18]

1 hour, 23 minutes ago

By NANCY BENAC, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - John Kerry (news - web sites)'s protests against the Vietnam War and President Bush (news - web sites)'s wartime service in the National Guard generate disapproval largely among people who already have made up their minds against that particular candidate, according to a national poll released Friday.


Adam Clymer, political director for the University of Pennsylvania's National Annenberg Election Survey, said the findings could be significant in a close presidential race.


It appears, however, that the disapproving responses "are coming heavily from anti-Kerry or anti-Bush people who see the issues as welcome opportunities to pile on in opposition," Clymer said.


The survey found that overall, 44 percent of Americans disapproved of Kerry's anti-war activities, and 40 percent approved.


EDITED BY ADMIN: COPYRIGHT

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040220/ap_on_el_pr/campaign_vietnam_poll_1

[citizen snips]

1. It did not resonate much with Clark.

Clarks military did not win him the nomination.

[Padraig18]

2. Good point.

:)

[Donna Zen]

31. Difficult to say that is true.

Considering all the bullshit that got piled on Clark from day one. Including and especially the Shelton smear. Shelton supported this war and still does, shills for defense contractors, and continues to advise Edwards.

Focus groups responded that they trusted Clark to "keep them safe." So I guess that says something.

[Cocoa]

3. common sense says that the contrast favors Kerry enormously

there's so many different ways it helps Kerry.

I expect to be told over and over that it makes no difference, but I won't believe it.

And I don't trust Annenberg, by the way. Their piece exonerating Bush on the AWOL story has been cited by a lot of Bush apologists.

[displacedtexan]

6. If Kerry's military record gets one more vet to the polls Nov 2nd...

that's a good thing.

BTW, was that *'s "major league asshole," Adam Clymer?

[AP]

10. Edwards's class indentity, southerness, and apparent moderation will get

100 voters to the polls for every 1 Vietnam Vet Kerry pulls.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

21. the results so far don't indicate that to be the case.

maybe in the south but not anywhere else.

[AP]

26. It's a big part of the reason he closed 30 pts on Kerry in WI.

And it might be why Kerry is retooling today (if he is, indeed, retooling -- I hope he's not canceling events because he's overconfident).

[KittyWampus]

43. I'd Say Freepers Were Responsible For Maybe 10-15%

of Edwards "closing".... and maybe another 5-10% on the Drudge smear.

[janx]

44. LOL! Yes.

That is the "major league asshole." B-)

[CityDem]

48. Big Time!

Per the bunker boy.

[AP]

4. Some big clues that would have allowed you to intuit as much:

- Kennedy didn't run on his wartime record, even though a movie had been made about it. He ran on being a playboy, optimist, who wanted to shoot the moon (of, course, after he assured everyone he was an anticommunist -- but he didn't even rely on his record in WWII fighting fascists to make that argument).

- FDR didn't run as the C-i-C during WWII, and I don't even think there's a single picture that seeped into public's conscience of FDR in any kind of military unifrom, flight suit or otherwise (which is amazing, since he was a war time president! ). You can't get fascits like Pinochet OUT of their uniforms. One of the most congnitively dissonant pictures I've ever seen of Pinochet was of him in his Burberry coat buying the Daily Mail down at the newsstand in London.

- The only picture I ever remember seeing of Carter in a unfiorm is that one from his graduation at the Naval Academy. The guy was in the damn Navy, but he chose to run as a peanut farmer. Democrats work for a living, you know.

- people are surprised to hear that McGovern was a tailgunner in WWII. He ran for president during the Vietnam War, and people really didn't appreciate that he was in WWII. (However, he did run largely on being against Vietnam and not on much else, and lost when Nixon ended the draft and said that he'd wind down activities in 'nam.)

- Check out the exit polls from WI. Edwards and Kerry pull about the same % from military families. Even military families don't flock to the candidate with military experience.

[Cocoa]

12. maybe McGovern should have highlighted his service

:shrug:

[AP]

14. He would have won if he told what he was for, rather than against.

He took the bait. Everyone hated Nixon, and Nixon had vietnam. So he defined himself by Vietnam. Nixon pulled that rug out from under him.

If he ran on what all Democrats always run on -- opportunity, realizing a fair value of you labor, the idea that the government should be an unbiased referee between your interests (as laborer, consumer, and citizen) and the interests of capital/management/the powerful -- then he would have won.

[Leilani]

13. Kennedy certainly did run on WWIIservice

Of course, Nixon was also a vet, so that was not the issue.

The issue was that Kennedy had been a war hero. The book "PT 109
was about Kennedy's almost fatal mission. A film was also made, starring Cliff Robertson.

Kennedy also had a band of brothers who campaigned with him, & were his lifetime fiends.

The Kennedy family also were not shy about their eldest son Joe, who had been killed during the war. His story & the dangerous mission he volunteered for, were well publicized.

[AP]

16. If you listen to the campaign speeches -- I have copies -- he runs

on the idea the Democrats represent the working man, and is the party of the optimists.

He did not foreground his service, and he never argued that his service made him a better candidate. He wanted Americans to feel they'd be safe with him, without him exploiting fear, which is what FDR did.

The movie came out in 1963, and I believe the book came out in the mid 50s, but I'm not sure. So they weren't really part of the campaign, although people knew about his service.

[krkaufman]

18. Apples and Oranges.... Kennedy wasn't running against Carl Rove...

... and a massive right-wing propaganda machine, either. You can bet Kennedy would run a different campaign were he running in the 2004 GE.

[AP]

27. Right wingers were every bit as interested in power then as now.

Do you think he would have gotten shot if that weren't the truth?

[krkaufman]

30. Your statement suggests you know that "right wingers" killed Kennedy

"Who killed Kennedy" is mostly unknowable at this point, other than that Oswald pulled the trigger. It's arguable, however, that he was killed by former allies who helped put him in office, and who were upset that JFK and his brother had turned on them with such vigor.

Also, "interested in power" doesn't equate to having the machine with which to fight for that interest. The media has swung right, including near total control of talk radio, and the right has nearly perfected the art of negative political warfare. Kennedy would most certainly need to run a different campaign were he running today.

[AP]

35. What do you think was stopped when Kennedy was shot?

Regardless of who shot him or why, it was a pretty fortunate even for the corporatocracy, wasn't it?

The essence of Kennedy's campaign was also the essence of FDR's, LBJ's and WJC's. It's also the essence of JRE's campaign.

[Merlin]

33. I beg to differ. Nixon's crew was the Rovian model.

JFK was up against the scourge of Nixon's favorite tactic, "red-baiting," the right-wing campaign model that preceded the later "southern strategy" which Nixon introduced in '68 and which has dominated the right's approach until now.

JFK's solution was to find ways to get to the right of Nixon. That's a perilous, surgical proposition, only recommended for somebody who is completely familiar with the dangers of so doing. It worked. JFK immunized himself against the inevitable charge that he was "soft on communism" by finding openings he could portray as weaknesses in Ike's cold war policies that he could exploit.

Kerry--following Dean's example--can do much the same to Bush. And he must if he is to survive the onslaught that is surely coming. In this case, the shortcomings of Bush's war on terrorism--the failed military policies (Tora Bora), the diversion of resources (Iraq), the misuse of taxpayer dollars intended for our troops (Halliburton) are all rich potential issues that he can exploit, ala JFK.

[AP]

36. The far left isn't letting the Dems get to the right of Bush on terror.

They're trying to make IWR and PA votes liabilities (even thought the Dems were doing the best they could do to be diligent and reasonable without looking like unpatriotic cowards).

[Merlin]

41. It's the Honest Left, not far left. And there are better ways to do it.

I'll be damned if I'll stand for anybody telling me I was wrong to oppose the war. I was right, and I spelled out my reasons at the time, and I have been proven right. My experience is shared by tens of thousands who opposed this idiodic phony crusade.

But that's no obstacle to Kerry's getting to Bush's right. All he has to do is point out how Bush
a) blew the chance to corale bin Laden at Tora Bora by inept, timid military tactics which gave Musharaff the benefit of the doubt, for no good reason,
b) blew the chance to rebuild a viable, healthy Afghanistan--that would serve as a self-policing, anti-al Quaida outpost--by diverting us on false pretenses to an unessential conflict,
c) is blowing the chance to rebuild a viable, healthy Iraq by funelling rebuilding dollars to his buddies who have no interest in such a goal, thereby protracting our occupation and endangering our soldiers' lives,
d) has failed to implement the most basic precautionary measures domestically--such as inspection of US bound freight shipments--which simply must be done in order to assure our security,
e) has presided over a catastrophic economic policy which has weakened our infrastructure and dissipated our abilities to cope with the genuine crises that confront the nation,
...
and on and on.

[still_one]

5. Ask the Viet Nam vets if it sways them?

For the chickenhawks, of course it won't sway them

[AP]

7. Look at WI exit polls. Edwards & Kerry got virtually same proportion of

votes from military families.

So, if Vietnam vets went for Kerry, it looks like Gulf War families are perhaps leaning Edwards. Or maybe it's the WWII vets who remember the Great Depression who like Edwards?

[NewYorkerfromMass]

22. Edwards scored with the Republican vets

or else it wouldn't have been close. Most likely the ones "enthusiastic" over Bush.

[AP]

29. Republican vets won't be voting in the GE? Every time I think I've heard

it all, Democrats here say one more thing that makes me wonder...

Are you saying there are votes you DON'T want?

[StClone]

8. It wasn't the serving

Though it may be a draw for Kerry with Nam Vets, for Bush it's about the lies and credibility and AWOL is losing that battle (until Bush's $$$ worth of attack ads kick in).

[democracyindanger]

9. Comparing records isn't the point

The reason, I believe, for making this an issue is to prevent * from playing dress-up, as well as ending the 'Democrats are weak' meme. I wouldn't expect Kerry to win many votes because of his service, but it definitely renders *'s fake super-patriotism angle moot.

[krkaufman]

20. Thank you ...

... for pointing out again what's been said numerous times. The Democrats won't get to bread and butter issues if they can't quiet the "weak on defense" b-s -- especially with 3 active wars ongoing.

[janx]

11. I don't know about other people, but I'm TIRED of things military.

We have the greatest military (by far) in the world, but now the military--everything from the food they eat, the clothes they wear, their equipment, their vehicles, etc.--has been on television, literally, for years.

Since just after 9/11/2001 the media have had military subjects, photos, interviews, stories on constantly. I'm tired of tanks and sand and MREs, tired of the photos of dead soldiers, tired of tear-jerker interviews of families in grief.

This isn't WWII.

There has to be a saturation point somewhere. Maybe we just hit it.

[Leilani]

15. I Agree, it's been overdone

"This isn't WWII"

You're right, but the Repubs say this is WWIII.

I think the Dems just need to insulate themselves, that they are not anti-military, & that they are up to handling Iraq, Terrorism, etc.

Because Bush has already made clear he will run as a "wartime President."

[janx]

38. I understand your point, but the Republicans don't own

our military any more than they own our flag.

And I refuse to react to the notion that they do. The more reactionary we become in this respect, the more credence we lend to their claims.

Kerry is absolutely pandering to this reaction.

[krkaufman]

17. Ah, yes, typical spinning of poll numbers to one's preferred perspective

> "Poll: Wartime Records Won't Sway Voters"

Of course, the headline doesn't communicate the actual scope of the poll, nor did your post. The poll merely looked at Kerry's and Bush's relative "war" negatives: Kerry's protesting the war after 4 years of active duty in Vietnam, and Bush's skipping out on skipping out on the war.

The poll didn't look at their relative war records or overall military experience, nor did it include polling for those candidates without any military service.

So, to say that "wartime records won't sway voters" is an unintentional exagerration, or perhaps consciously misleading spin.

To summarize, however you might try to spin it, Edwards doesn't have the necessary executive leadership, national security, or military experience necessary to take office with 3 active foreign wars ongoing.

[Cuban_Liberal]

24. Your attack is unfair and unfounded.

If you will examine the initial post. he neither added nor subtracted so much as a single word from the article as posted at Yahoo.

[krkaufman]

32. Relayers of spin are still spinners

We have both, you and I, assumed the intentions of the original poster. I will stand by my impression that the poster is partisan and felt something was to be gained by the posting of the article, especially with its misleading headline.

[Cuban_Liberal]

39. I KNOW the intention of the orginal poster--- I live with him.

As I stated, your attack is both unfair and unwarranted. He copied and pasted a Yahoo news article verbatim, and his subject title is in no way misleading--- it is the title Yahoo itself gave the article (click the link).

You owe him an apology for implying something about him that is not true.

[Cuban_Liberal]

40. *crickets chirping*

As I suspected...:eyes:

[krkaufman]

50. Misunderstanding

> his subject title is in no way misleading--- it is the
> title Yahoo itself gave the article (click the link).

Yes, I'm aware that the thread title was also the headline for the linked article; and the headline *is* misleading, for exactly the reasons stated in my earlier post. Parroting an obviously biased headline (an exaggeration of the poll scope) appeared overly partisan to me, a feeling that was reinforced by the poster's avatar and past stated opinions.


> I KNOW the intention of the orginal poster---
> I live with him.

Ok. All I have to go off are his previous posts:

Kerry will not get my vote until November, although I will work for him if he's nominated. until then, my #1 task is seeing that Kerry does NOT get our party's nomination.

The poster is not an unbiased, objective observer of the joys of the primary process.

[Padraig18]

51. You're correct.

I believe the nomination of John Kerry to be an open invitation to electoral disaster in November. That said, I am and always have been ABB, and I will work my fingers to the bone to get Kerry elected, should he get the nomination.

[tritsofme]

19. AWOL story hit saturation point WAY too soon.

It will be a distant memory by November.

Thank you Terry.

[katieforeman]

45. very true

[Moderator]

23. Padraig18

Per DU copyright rules
please post only four
paragraphs from the
news source.


Thank you


DU Moderator

[mmonk]

25. and so we'll wait for the 200 million dollar spin machine

to change the numbers in the general election. It's a safe bet there won't be any change after continuous propaganda and we can always count on economic reports and numbers coming out of the government over the next few months to give bleak employment numbers for Edwards' one cause show.

[Guava Jelly]

28. Actually I believe they will

By negating the issue George W Bush Thinks he is the strongest in.
Security!!
He has nothing else to run on 9/11 is it.
The majority of Republicans will vote republican.
The majority of Democrats will vote democrat.
The independents will determine our next President.
The more tools the candidate can use the stronger he is ..
Being a war hero means you aint a P_$$y When it comes to defense.
Like the right wankers try to pen on the democrats this is a good thing.

[RedEarth]

34. In 1990, 70% of the population thought the Vietnam war was wrong

and now "44 percent of Americans disapproved of Kerry's anti-war activities".....strange.

[TruthIsAll]

37. It only takes a move of 2% from Bush to Kerry to make a BIG difference...

And we know that the military vote is moving from Bush to JFK..

End of Argument.

[katieforeman]

46. And they will move back agains once the Bush ad machine gets going.

Please see my post- how 200 million will destroy Kerry.

[mitchum]

42. But I thought polls were useless

I'm so confused

[West Coast Democrat]

47. I found this poll's premise to be misleading

the headline is "Poll: Wartime Records Won't Sway Voters," yet I didn't see much in the article about whether Kerry's military background was counted as a plus. It only mentioned the fact that no one cared about his protesting.

The poll should have questioned undecided voters as to whether they saw W's military record as a negative or positive, and the same with Kerry's military record, no protesting history.

[corporatewhore]

49. its the jobs stupid Nobody dont like nafta it can be the wining issue