Dems should make better use of the fact Kerry VOLUNTEERED for Viet Nam

[glarius]

More emphasis should be put on Kerry volunteering for Viet Nam.
Does anyone think as I do, that it is quite remarkable that the wealthy, privileged man John Kerry was at the time of the Viet Nam war, actually volunteered to serve in the armed forces?...Much has been said about his well deserved medals, but to me the amazing point that shows what admirable CHARACTER the man has is that with all the enlistment avoidance that was available to him, he chose to step up with the less privileged and serve. To me this is the most impressive thing I've heard about his character....Why doesn't the Democratic party keep emphasizing this fact to the American public?.....They could make TV ads emphasizing this.....:shrug:

edit: The Republicans have defined Kerry as a flip-flopper with their repeating this TV ad, ad nauseum...The Democrats need to do their own defining of him...IMO
By the way, I'm a Canadian, where many men came to avoid serving...and were welcomed....

[balanced]

1. What does this mean--he "volunteered." If it is unequivocal,

then by all means put it in the TV ads and contrast it with Mr. and Mr. Chickenshit.

[glarius]

2. That's what I think...they should be playing these ads over and over

to the American public....That's what the Republicans have done with the ads defining Kerry as someone who flip flops and it seems to have worked for them....The Dems need to do their own defining of Kerry!!!

[livetohike]

3. I'll look for the link

to back this up, but I think he requested duty in Viet Nam. As opposed to Bush, who stated he didn't want to go to Nam. Again, I'll look for this link too.

[sangh0]

4. Yes, Kerry requested duty in Viet Nam

and Bush* requested that he NOT be sent overseas

[balanced]

5. Is this an official document? Or is it heresay among friends? Or

is it "official" heresay?

[glarius]

7. Pardon my ignorance, but isn't it an accepted fact Kerry volunteered? n/t

[Brotherjohn]

8. There are many links to pictures of the actual documents. Here they are.

They are official military documents that have been released by the respective campaigns of each of the candidates. They are hardly hearsay, and they speak for themselves.

EDITED to show just the pertinent portions of the documents:

BUSH:


KERRY:


I know you can find the entire Kerry document posetd on his web site, but I wouldn't be so sure about Bush's.

[livetohike]

10. Thanks for finding this BrotherJohn

eom

[balanced]

15. Thank You. The question as first posed: Why don't the

democrats play this up as a factual matter, at least, if not a value matter? It is a good contrast to Mr. and Mr. Chickeshit Bush and Cheney.

[Brotherjohn]

18. Well, for the Dems (esp. Kerry) to play an ad showing these documents...

... is walking a fine line.

The risk is looking like you're bragging or arrogant, and the possibility that many if not most people are satisfied with the level to which Bush has explained his actions re the Guard. It can also appear as childish: So you were in the guard, well LOOK AT ME! LOOK AT ME! I'm a war hero!

If so, Kerry could end up hurting from such an in-your-face comparison. It could be best to let the facts speak for themselves as they get out though other sources. Most people by now know that Kerry volunteered to go to VietNam and earned medals for valor there. The comparison with Bush's military record speaks for itself, and only Bush's strongest supporters will try to denigrate Kerry's military record. Some think this tactic is backfiring on them already.

Of course, the fact that they're criticizing him on his medals and even his Purple Heart injuries, for Crissakes, does move it more in the realm of fair game. THEY are the ones talking about Kerry's Viet Nam War record. But that doesn't mean it's without risk.

None of this means that people supporting Kerry for President can't bring such obvious differences to light.

I think a clever enough ad could walk the line. Set it up as a direct response to absurd attacks on Kerry's War record and injuries, with quotes and citations from conservative pundits questioning the severity of his injuries. Then say, "since conservatives are so eager to use 35-year-old military records to paint a picture of the character of the presidential candidates, then here's a picture for you: Then show and highlight the two documents.

[balanced]

19. What you say (below) is absolutely correct.

"I think a clever enough ad could walk the line. Set it up as a direct response to absurd attacks on Kerry's War record and injuries, with quotes and citations from conservative pundits questioning the severity of his injuries. Then say, "since conservatives are so eager to use 35-year-old military records to paint a picture of the character of the presidential candidates, then here's a picture for you: Then show and highlight the two documents."

A factual comparison without too much on the value judgment side would definitely be appropriate.

[Ironpost]

6. Coming from a 'Namn vet

I joined the Navy so I wouldn't have to go to Viet-Namn. But my first station was at Warner Springs, California and most of the 100 or so sailors there were Viet-namn vets. After tet of '68 and '69 I felt it was my duty. I'm real proud of the fact that the man to be our next President is a decorated viet-namn vet. 15 months in country. GO JOHN KERRY. GIVE 'EM HELL KERRY

[glarius]

9. Welcome to DU!

My point in posting this, is that a very wealthy man, who could have escaped service (as Bush, Cheney and their ilk did) VOLUNTEERED. I think that is incredibly admirable....By the way...I'm a Canadian where many men came to escape service at that time.

[livetohike]

11. Welcome to DU!

:hi:

[Sparkly]

12. I agree, it's an important distinction

Not to knock people who chose not to go, unless they're hypocritical chickenhawks who attack Kerry's service today...

It's worth saying that Kerry did many things he did not have to do. Born to the same sort of privilege as the Chimp, he chose combat duty, then chose to protest the war afterwards which was definitely NOT the easy way to go! What gets me is the Chickenhawks and Freepers calling him an "opportunist" for both of those choices. Some "opportunity!!" The "opportunity" to get killed? The "opportunity" to go up against Nixon? How dumb are they?!

[glarius]

13. In both cases, chosing to go and protesting afterwards, he showed

the opposite of what the chickenhawks are trying to characterize him as....He chose the harder road in both cases....

[billhos]

14. I think he should change the subject

away from Vietnam and talk about what he is going to do in the next 4 years and not what he did 30 years ago. My health Insurance is to expensive. Why not talk about that? why not talk about we haven't gotten significant tax reduction while millionaires(like him)have. Why not talk about the issues affecting every one of us. Polls have shown most people don't care about what they did back then. I think Kerry is the loser from this strategy, because there are as many questions about his service as there are about Bush. And it just takes attention away from the issues, which he will need if he is too win over an incumbent and have a mandate to govern. best bill

[balanced]

16. I agree. But he must counter the republican machine. He can't

just ignore these Vietnam things. Why not play up the fact that he volunteered when he could have done the same thing as Mr. and Mr. Chickenshit? And remember Bush and the aircraft carrier? These images must be changed to "chickenhawk" or some such.

Kerry is on the right side of the issues as regards health care, taxes, deficits, the environment, jobs, etc.

We do have to worry about the war/foreign policy issues because the republican machine is pushing these big time.

[AlinPA]

17. Yes this is Kerry's strong point. Be patient, I'm sure the campaign

will do a lot of showing his record nearer to the election when more people are paying attention. September-October. There is a lot of material and opportunity to show his battlefiled leadership and valor.

[zoeyfong]

20. I hold it *against* him that he volunteered. Offering to help dig does

not get anybody out of a hole. It is hard to know what he was thinking when he volunteered; if he knew the war was wrong, but still volunteered, that is pretty crazy and shows that he places more importance on winning and showing solidarity with the government than on doing the right thing. If he thought the war was right and winnable, that shows poor judgement on his part; yes he was young, but i think he is pretty smart, and should not have allowed himself to get caught up in the gov't propaganda. Even now, with the whole medal tossing thing, kerry still seems very dodgy about which side he actually came down on, and why.

I mean, i have some skills that might be useful in Iraq, but there is no way in hell i would volunteer to go over there, because that war was fatally flawed and fundamentally unwinnable from day one, and my going over there would not change that one iota. The only thing that can be done to help our military now is to BRING THEM HOME. I would give kerry a lot more credit if he consistently opposed the war from the beginning and tried to bring the troops home, rather than for his offering to help us dig our hole deeper. Unfortunately, the democratic message right now seems to be, "Hey, we support stupid, unwinnable wars just as much as republicans do."