The most important question of the election

[natedogg]

Did the candidates act like jackasses during their early twenties when the country was being torn apart by a senseless stupid war that exposed our darker side as a nation?

If they did, in what way exactly? Or did they serve honorably?

Without this all-important information, how can we be expected to make an informed decision on election day?

natedogg

[cjromero]

I don't think it matters all that much. Military service has simply not been a good historical predictor of how effective a person will be as President or Commander in Chief.

Lincoln never fought in a war. Neither did FDR. And they were both effective wartime presidents.

On the flip side, Grant was by most accounts a terrible president. Eisenhower isn't consider an all-time great either.

Plenty of people do stupid things in their 20s. I frankly could care less about Kerry's service in Vietnam, and Bush's refusal to go to Vietnam.

[El Barto]

[ QUOTE ]
Lincoln never fought in a war.

[/ QUOTE ]

What about the Black Hawk War? (http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/sites/stillman.htm)

He was a Captain.

[Dr Wogga]

......What has their actual voting record been?

Who hasn't done stupid things in their younger years? Other than the pompous morons [sarcasm - directed at anybody from massachusetts who has voted in "ted the swimmer" and not considered Mary Joe Koepechne lying in his car drowning, but that's another issue for another day] probably everybody.

So where does your candidate STAND ON AN ISSUE? Kerry's problem is that he is on both sides of EVERY issue! His voting record differs widely from his rhetoric. This is what will be the deciding factor in the election. Not the smear pieces of the swift boat idiots or the pathetic dan rathers. The candidates voting record - or lack thereof, if the candidate missed 70 something votes while part of a committee???? Guess who that would be?? You are a 'regular (non-pompous) American. You go into the voting booth. Your focus will be on either: a) security -or- b) the economy. Everything else is window dressing. The economic issue will generally be a close issue with the American public (and I think most fair-mided people would concede an edge to Kerry because of the national debt. However, if security is your main focus, then one candidate has a track record as commander-in-chief. The other votes one way, but talks another. Will you actually take a chance with the waffler? I don't think so. So effectively a 2 issue race, but one candidate has a much bigger edge on one issue than the other guy has on his. Sorry Kerry backers, actions speak louder than words. Pfft........you lose!

[natedogg]

nt