Kerry's Pitch to Veterans Meets G.O.P. Counterattack

[Rose Siding]

Just days after the Democrats turned their national convention into a tribute to Senator John Kerry's military service, the Republicans are fighting back to retain the allegiance of the country's veterans, a large and highly symbolic constituency their party had considered a reliable part of its base.

To outdo the Democrats' roster of a dozen retired generals and admirals who endorsed Mr. Kerry, the Republicans now plan a list of more than a hundred who will pledge support to the president, Bush campaign aides say.
...
Still, aside from rousing applause at the mention of Saddam Hussein's capture, the response to Mr. Cheney's address was tepid, and some in the crowd said the Bush campaign had a lot to prove.
...
Aside from Mr. Kerry's military heroism, his campaign's main pitch to veterans is his support for making the federal financing of their health care an entitlement, a priority of most major veterans' groups. Opposition to that idea has come from Mr. Bush, whose campaign aides argue that Mr. Kerry has not said exactly how he plans to pay for the added expense.

Addressing the disabled veterans in Reno, Mr. Cheney sidestepped that issue, instead listing increases in veterans' benefits during Mr. Bush's term in office and promising increased financing for veterans' hospitals in the years ahead. He emphasized what he described as the administration's foreign policy achievements, including the toppling of the Taliban, the capture of Saddam Hussein, Libya's abandonment of its nuclear program and the arrest of the Pakistani nuclear scientist A. Q. Khan.

http://nytimes.com/2004/08/03/politics/campaign/03veterans.html

[RoyGBiv]

1. Cheney Sidestepped?

Really? Noooooo. Not Cheney. Surely not. :eyes:

I actually am surprised, however, to see it worded that way in a major newspaper.

[saigon68]

10. R. CHENEY IS A COWARDLY DRAFT DODGER

His "purple heart" was caused by eating too many BIG MACS

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[OKNancy]

23. delete

delete

[saigon68]

24. Pathetic rhetoric

If that's all there is -- its just BULLSHIT

[Massacure]

2. Over a hundred? A hundred what, Privates?

There are only 35 four star generals in the armed services according to http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004604.html. There are probably a similar number retired.

[KittyWampus]

3. No, Officers Who've Retired Into Lockheed Martin/Halliburton

etc.

In other words, the antithesis to Wes Clark.

[customerserviceguy]

4. Like I've said

It was dangerous for Sen. Kerry to play this as his highest strategy. I see his ads on TV, quoting the line about defending his country once before, and it's just jarring to hear. Sorry, but I never have, and I still don't consider the Vietnam war to be "defending this country". Yes, it was an intent to defend the country, but he surely knew after getting back that it had nothing to do with defending the best ideals of the USA.

Please, Sen. Kerry, talk about things that you have the clear upper hand on! There are so very many of them...

[Democat]

6. Kerry has done a lot more to defend American than Bush

Whether you personally agree with the Vietnam war or not, Kerry choose to fight for his country while Bush went AWOL.

Kerry clearly has the upperhand on this issue and he needs to keep pushing it.

Everytime they mention Kerry's service in Vietnam, Bush loses another vote.

[customerserviceguy]

12. Kerry's made the point about Vietnam

He needs to make sure the media focus goes on other issues. The right wingers would never vote for him, even if he had won that war singlehandedly, while those of us on the left will vote for him no matter whether he went or not. When you talk about Bush losing another vote, it would have to come from the folks in the mushy middle who haven't made up their minds yet. Those people don't wake up more than once every two or four years, and to them, Vietnam is an irrelevancy. Especially if the voter in question is under 35.

We've spent years telling the young people that Vietnam was a mistake, that America does not always use its military might wisely, and even conservative-leaning younger people acknowledge that it was an improper use of our power to get involved in a SE Asian civil war. Now, we're using our candidate's four month activity in that conflict as a major reason for electing him, while at the same time trying to get across the message that the reasons Iraq is wrong are the same reasons Vietnam was wrong (i.e., none of our business).

Sorry, but I worry about the mixed message being sent here.

[jacksonian]

8. the point is

the country claimed to be defending itself in Vietnam. We, including Kerry, came to realize over time that was a stretch of the truth.

But that fact says nothing against the men who showed up - they were defending the country in the way the country defined defense.

And just what was Bush defending in those days, his stash?

[customerserviceguy]

14. Everything you just said

is correct, but I'm concerned with how it can be construed. How can we elect Sen. Kerry, because of his service in Vietnam, then turn around and say that the war in Iraq is wrong? If Kerry was laudable for going to Vietnam, then our present-day soldiers in Iraq are also laudable, and maybe their mission can be viewed as laudable, too.

In the minds of the young, the only thing they know about Vietnam is Rambo, who summed the whole thing up as, "They wouldn't let us win." If that's what movie-fed minds believe, then which candidate is more likely to "let us win"? I don't want our message to be indirectly supportive of the Bush-Chaney-Rumsfeld message, which is, "re-elect us, and we'll finish the job."

[NewYorkerfromMass]

9. Ha ha!!! Kerry has the clear upper hand on MILITARY SERVICE

and the truth is so hard to deny!

[customerserviceguy]

15. Truth is whatever the spin doctors make it to be

Right now, Rove has instructed Bush to call himself a "wartime President", a self-fulfilling description if I ever heard one. Bush is trying to pit his "service" (!) as CIC of the present conflict (war on terror) against something John Kerry did many, many years ago. I'm old enough, and I assume that the rest of us here are either old enough, or are well-read enough, to know that there's no comparison, but we're already spoken for, when it comes to our vote.

I'm concerned about the people voting who are uninformed, and under 35, who feel 9/11 a lot more in their lives than they do a fear of being drafted to fight an overseas war that we should not be in.

[Bandit]

11. If you have listened to Kerry at all you would know that is all he talks

about. He has the upper hand on virtually every single topic except the rip off of Americans. Bush* is doing an outstanding job of that. Kerry is a true War Hero and Bush* is not. That is a complete factual statement.

[customerserviceguy]

17. You know that, and I know that

but does Joe Average Voter know it? Like I've said, Kerry has other great things about his candidacy, but the media seems to focus on Vietnam. His economic plans, his healthcare plan, etc., all need to assume center stage. When I saw even fairly moderate pundits on the weekend news shows mention the emphasis on Vietnam, I knew that it had gone too far.

There's still time to make the case, and I hope that Sen. Kerry uses that time wisely. If there's anyone left in America that does not know about his wartime service, they are too far gone to even find a voting booth!

[blm]

18. Baloney. Kerry's doing EXACTLY what he needs to and NOT only just to win

but win with a MANDATE to govern. Kerry needed to change alot of votes so he doesn't just squeak by, but wins overwhelmingly. He intends to GOVERN.


This part of the article says it all:

In fact, the Democrats' gathering in Boston appears to have helped Mr. Kerry pull even with the president for the first time among veterans who are registered voters, a CBS News poll issued yesterday suggests. After the convention, 48 percent of them favored Mr. Kerry, and 47 percent Mr. Bush. In June, Mr. Kerry trailed Mr. Bush among veterans by 15 percentage points, and by mid-July he had narrowed the gap to six.

That's a huge swing away from Bush and FOR Kerry. That translates into at LEAST a couple hundred thousand votes that Bush WON'T be getting again. And the whole AWOL issue has YET to be fully played out publicly. I'll be surprised if Bush ends up with even 40% of the veteran vote.

[sandnsea]

22. Do you live in America???

Most people who are against his Vietnam record are against it because they think he betrayed the country by not continuing to defend our presence in Vietnam. Half the country STILL thinks that. They blame the liberals who wouldn't let them "fight the war". Another large chunk differentiates politicians from troops answering a call to serve. Nobody has a problem with Vietnam vets anymore. Except the extreme left who don't seem to be able to have an objective, historic view of much of anything. Kind of like the southern rebel flag wavers.

[kskiska]

5. "…response to Mr. Cheney's address was tepid?

Even from his hand-picked, ticketed, oath-signing crowd? He's slipping.

[Nashyra]

7. I was in Reno protesting Cheney

I was interviewed by channel 2 and 4, made the cut on both stations for the evening news, my son's friends called from Las vegas to say they saw it. I had my Shove-it t-shirt on with Therese you go girl. Got lots of compliments, thanks to our own DUer for the shirt. We had a lot of support and horns honking for us about 150

[Hobarticus]

13. Cheney pledges to create MORE combat veterans...

Fun to watch them pander to these no-nonsense guys.

[TrogL]

16. The chocolate ration will be raised from 40 grams to 30 grams

increases in veterans' benefits

Last I heard, they were cut along with funding to veterans hospitals.

[JohnDoe1]

19. His apparel for a debate

should be his formal military dress with his three purple hearts. Sure would make quite an impression.

[tpdecm20]

20. The republicans of course will jump all over somthing like that