Home Mobile Archives Reader Blogs Register Login

Tuesday, April 27, 2004

Campaign Tactics

Apparently the questions about Kerry's anti-war days are hitting a little to close to home, so he's renewed questions about Bush's National Guard service.

From USA Today:

Democrat John Kerry battled back Monday against a Republican offensive designed to erode one of his biggest assets as a presidential candidate: his credentials as a decorated veteran of the Vietnam War.

Kerry responded testily when asked in several TV interviews whether he had changed his story about throwing combat ribbons or medals over a fence at the Capitol in an anti-war protest in 1971. For the first time, he also cited President Bush's spotty attendance in the National Guard.

Kerry called the medals issue "a distraction" and a campaign tactic. "It's coming from a president who can't even prove that he showed up for duty in the National Guard," he said in an interview with WTAE-TV in Pittsburgh.


Does anyone else find it laughable that one of Kerry's biggest campaign assets is his status as a decorated veteran of the Vietnam War? Especially given the fact that he was apparently ashamed of what he did in Vietnam. I mean, he threw his medals or his ribbons or something over the fence at the White House. That isn't exactly the action of a man who is proud of his military service.

Are these allegations about Kerry's Vietnam record really coming from the President? I don't think I've ever heard the President or one of his spokesman say much of anything about Kerry's service in Vietnam or his anti-war activities afterward. The only questions I've heard on these topics have come from the press.

And if the medal issue is "a distraction" and a campaign tactic, then how does Kerry classify his questioning of Bush's National Guard service? Isn't that "a distraction" and a campaign tactic as well?

I find it somewhat interesting that Kerry would respond to questions about his anti-war past with an attack on the President. Why doesn't he just address this issue head-on? Is he hiding something? Is he proud of what he did back then, or is it something he's now ashamed of? Either way, why won't he address this issue directly instead of avoiding it?

Comments

No Comments Yet

Post a Comment


Before commenting, please recite:

Grant me the serenity to ignore the trolls,
the courage to debate with honest opponents,
and the wisdom to know the difference.

Name   
Email   
URL   
Human?
  
 

Upload Image    

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Note: Notifications will only be sent to confirmed email addresses.