Dan Rather REPLACED!

Bikerman2004

[QUOTE=lokstah]And regarding his behaviors after returning -- well, I question the effect of that aspect of his service history. I think the general perception of the Vietnam War in the American psyche is so muddled, so tainted, that not too many middle-road swing voters were swayed by the fact that the man criticized the war on returning. A hell of a lot of people did, many of the veterans. Sure, there's a fierce philosophical argument regarding protest and its effect on soldiers, but that's chiefly the domain of more traditional conservatives./QUOTE]

I think what he did upon returning just made the flip-flop label stick even more.
He went to war and then he was against it. That is what swing voters see. They see a man that cannot make a stand on anything. True at the time many were speaking out, but that is something he should have dealt with before running for president. I don't buy all that protest stuff. If protesting is done properly then it shouldn't effect the soldiers. During Vietnam protesting was done wrong. The protesters actually attacked the soldiers, whom most were drafted and didn't want to be there to begin with.

lokstah

Well, I'm not sure about that. I haven't heard any rhetoric -- from Republicans, from SBVFT guys, or other critics -- making and pushing that point. It's possible that some swingers have interpreted it for themselves, but I have my doubts.

For one, it's not a particularly logical point. The general public is familiar with the concept of venturing off bravely to war, and returning jaded, angry, or disgusted -- it's not an alien notion. On the contrary, it's something we see in fiction, in books, movies, and so on all the time; particularly, thanks to pop culture, when it comes to Vietnam. Whether they agree with it or not, I don't think they've found Kerry's postwar anger confusing, which is why they'd turn to answers like, well, he's a flip-flopper -- that's the only explanation.

And I understand the concern many conservatives have with the protest movement in the 70s, but my sense is that it's not a behavior too widely condemmed outside of resolutely conservative circles. I'm interested in the possibility of my being wrong, but I just haven't picked it up in the buzz.

Bikerman2004

[QUOTE=lokstah]Well, I'm not sure about that. I haven't heard any rhetoric -- from Republicans, from SBVFT guys, or other critics -- making and pushing that point. It's possible that some swingers have interpreted it for themselves, but I have my doubts.

For one, it's not a particularly logical point. The general public is familiar with the concept of venturing off bravely to war, and returning jaded, angry, or disgusted -- it's not an alien notion. On the contrary, it's something we see in fiction, in books, movies, and so on all the time; particularly, thanks to pop culture, when it comes to Vietnam. Whether they agree with it or not, I don't think they've found Kerry's postwar anger confusing, which is why they'd turn to answers like, well, he's a flip-flopper -- that's the only explanation.[QUOTE]

If you take it with all the other flips the Republicans say he has done then it fits perfectly. By itself no one would make that assumption.

limerickman

I am curious to get the view of those Americans about this election.
It looks now that Kerry is trailing Bush with 6 weeks to go.
Is the result finalised ?

In the Sunday Times Andrew Sullivan (former Liberal commentator - newly converted conservative) suggest that Kerry's record as a senator and his apparent vacilliations were predetermined by the process of actually being a
Senator.
In simple terms, Senators can chop and chnage their votes continually during the drafting of legislation and that this fact alone would make any reading of any senators voting patterns appear to be inconsistent.
Sullivan goes on to conclude that rarely does a Senator get elected as President.
Those who enter the race as Govenors, stand a better chance of getting elected because their voting record is minimal and thus they cannot be accused of chopping/changing.

lokstah

It's not finalized, but historically, coming back from this sort of deficit at this point in the process would be more or less unprecidented. I hang my head.

There's probably some truth to that. An irony, though, is apparent when you take a hard look at Kerry. Earlier in the Republican campaign process, frequent mention was made of Kerry's voting record in the Senate -- described, according to a generalized left/right standard, as the "most liberal record" on the floor.

That, to me, indicates something of a refreshing consistency of principle. The Bush team has found a more effective and memorable criticism which sticks, though, so the consistently-liberal-label has been shelved.

The flip-flop argument is, itself, a philisophically weak claim. Unfortunately, it's not a weak campaign talking-point, the Bush's advisors are no dolts. Half the country is walking around with "Kerry flip flops" on their lips. We're doomed...

Bikerman2004

I think governors have a better chance. Just because they don't have much of a voting record to contend with. A senator may vote on a bill's various amendments before the final bill is passed. That may explain some perceived changing. A governor probably gets better 'presidential' experience. A state could be viewed as a mini-country.
I don't think the election is decided yet. But Kerry is running out of time to define himself as anything other than what the Republicans have.

limerickman

Thanks for the replies.
Yes Sullivan says that checking the voting records on bill amendments would make every senator appear to be "changable".

On Irish television tonight they did a good piece about the US electorate and the fact that the college count per state.

Very interesting to hear your views though.

lokstah

I wouldn't bet on a finger lifting in my neighborhood. Go on, let the cliches fly.



Hey, what's the rationale from Sinclair, out of curiosity? There's not a major new agency on the planet that doesn't find itself in a major reporting scandal from time to time... whether resulting from a massive liberal bias or a bad Korean-Bantu translation. What's the official line from these guys?