These arguments never made sense to me. I think it's extremely heroic to face the horrors of war and put one's life on the line for one's country. But I also think it's extremely heroic to return from that war, put one's reputation on the line, and report what one has seen.
I don't necessarily have a problem with Kerry (1) fighting when called to and (2) coming back to protest the war. My point is that the net result, for Kerry, is that potential voters are once again left with two outwardly incongruous images. There is the image of the young, smartly uniformed officer leading his sailors into battle, but also of the young, long-haired slouch leading a hippie armie down the Washington Mall. That could work to his advantage, if both veterans and peaceniks focus on the images that appeal to them respectively, or it could work against him if each faction fixates on his time spent on "the other side." But to the average voter, who likes things cut-and-dried and candidates easily labeled, it's just flat out confusing. Never a good thing, politically.
The only part I do have a problem with is Kerry making a great show of throwing away "his" medals, only to find out they were someone else's, and he kept his. You have to admit throwing away another man's medals is a very hollow and empty gesture. I can respect his hating the war, but if you have such strong beliefs, follow through. (I don't buy his excuse that they weren't handy at the time. If so, fine, when you get home, throw away the real ones!) And it troubles me because it brings up the spectre of Clinton, another man who played both sides against the middle and ended up standing for nothing. I may be the only person around who really believes Bill "didn't inhale." It would be just like him to put a blunt in his mouth but not light up, in an effort to please both his doper friends and his straight friends all at once.
Speaking out about it was not a "safe" thing to do. These men felt that their country had been violated by an immoral government.
Well, you're right that it wasn't safe. We now know that Nixon paid a lot of attention to Kerry's testimony and considered going after him for it. Something else Kerry may want to make some political hay of in the next few months.
Iraq: Again, try to put yourself in the immediate post 9/11 environment. There was an incredible sense of loss, national unity and determination. I think it's entirely possible (and likely) to initially trust our president to do what's best, but then later, after seeing how he performed with that trust, to remove one's support.
Well, saying "let's go" then saying "We shouldn't have gone" is one thing. But the way it played out was with votes; a vote to send troops, then a vote against financing their efforts. It's not so hard to portray this record as a repeat of Vietnam, only this time with Kerry in the role of the villainous politician instead of the virtuous kid on the front lines.
Gun issues: I never understood why some hunters and other gun advocates believe that they need the right to own major assault weapons. Most of these gun votes that you talk about are doing things like establishing reasonable limits, and I support them.
Well, I don't think most hunters want an assault rifle. But the stand of the NRA has been that any regulation is a foot in the door to more regulations, until one day there are no guns, period. Does this make sense? Not really. But on the other side of the aisle, you have liberals fighting tooth and nail against banning pornography, because once you censor Hustler, then it's just a matter of time before you shut down Boy's Life. I don't buy the arguments in either case.
Again, though, my point is that Kerry is going out of his way to be photographed on hunting trips, which can't please the gun control advocates. But gun fans know it's all for show, since he's been a foe of guns on the floor of the Senate. So is he trying to please both sides, or make them both angry? And everyone in the middle is left, again, wondering just what he stands for. If he's against guns, let him say so. If he's for 'em, let's hear that, too. I guess what I'm saying is that where you see a dauntless crusader, I see a man putting his convictions aside to pander to votes. And maybe you have a better perspective, being from his home state, but I'm telling you that as part of the national audience he's now going for, Kerry needs to start making me see in him whatever it is you seem to. And so far, by playing both sides at once, he's not pulling it off.
Abortion, too, is a complex issue that continues to be over simplified by both sides, not just by the extreme right wing. Yes, abortion should always be a last resort, not the casual birth control option that some people regard it as. It seems like the left wants them legal and common, the right wants them illegal and nonexistent. But neither approach is a real solution.
It never makes me popular to say so, but I kind of like things the way they are. I don't want abortion illegal, because they were before and people still got them...in the most horrible ways. However, I don't want them cheap and easy, either. I like that a woman can get an abortion without having to fill out government forms and turn it into an exercise in bureaucracy. But I also like that she has to agonize over it and -- often -- enter the clinic through a gauntlet of protestors. Every time I hear a woman say, "it was the hardest thing I ever did," I want to say, "Good! It should be! And you should never get over it."
And speaking as someone who's due to be a dad soon for the second time, I think if the government wants to make ANY law it should be to make women go in for mandatory ultra-sounds before their abortions. My wife had one at only 9 weeks (!) along and already we could see a living, moving creature in there. What a woman does after that is her business.
Anyway, I think it's all moot. No president has the ability to legalize or outlaw abortion, so it doesn't matter so much what either guy thinks.
I watched some of the convention last night. Interesting stuff. My vote for science fiction author of the year goes to Bill Richardson, who somehow managed to portray Jimmy Carter's administration as a time of progress and national pride.
And hey, ins't it interesting that since the "Clubhouse" forum went up, discussions here have been almost entirely political? :?