Since it seems serious questions get a lot more attention here than trivial ones, here is one:

Would you feel John Kerry's background would negatively affect his chances of wining the presidential race in some of those southern/midwestern states?

Sen Kerry's paternal grandparents were Eastern Europeans [Kohn, or a name similar sounding].

I am a native Californian, and think it makes no diffence here.  

I think saying things like, "We need a regime change in Washington" is going to hurt him. At least I hope it does.

I live in Boston and am involved in politics.  If John Kerry can win the primary, which I think he can, I don't think he'll win the Presidency.  His heritage will not be a hinderance from the D side of the aisle nor in the general.  What will be a problem will be his constant restating of his positions.  He has deep pockets and is well polished, articulate and smart but has problems in his home state and is very much a Dukakis liberal - in fact he was Mike's Lt. Governor.  Kerry will have to go even further to the left to win the primary - his statement about "regime change" is just one example in what I think is a political ploy to open him up to GOP attacks which will insulate him against attacks from Howard Dean, Gephardt, etc.  

In the end, however, I don't think the country as a whole will embrace a MA liberal.  And, I hope I'm right.  I think John Kerry is nothing more than a political opportunist who will do/say anything to get elected.

I happen to like Kerry alot, but I don't think he has a chance to win the presidency. Like you, I think his being a liberal from Massachusetts is a killer.  Someone might get lucky like Clinton and have Bush fall on his face (war goes bad and economy doesn't pick up).  Kerry marrying big money won't help his image either.  Neither will his insincerety in the Vietnam Vets Against the War (where he first gained national notoriety) play well.  He moved alot of us anti-war folks when he threw his silver star on the capitol steps in the VVAW's first big rally.  Who could have more credibility on that war than a highly decorated officer?  Turned out he tossed a replica and kept the real medal at home.  So, he offends both sides of that (old) issue, the right for the gesture and the left for the insincerity.

All politicians will say/do whatever it takes (read they all lie). The real challenge for the typical voter is, and always will be, selecting the lesser of 2 evils to serve us in an unbiased and favorable fashion.

Kerry is the strongest candidate for the Democratic Party.

He is not a "fake patriot" like Rush, Bush, Delay, etc., who swallow up our civil liberties under the guise that anyone who exercises their first amendment rights is unpatriotic.

Kerry fought and was wounded in Vietnam.  He is a decorated soldier.  The other jokers who pretend to be patriots never spent a day in the military.

While it's true that President Bush did not spend any time in the active military, he did join the Texas Air National Guard and became a jet fighter pilot.  Believe me, they do not put stupid people or cowards in the cockpit of fighters.  Plus, just being a jet fighter pilot brings has it's own risks in training and regular flights.  By the way, after graduating from Yale with only average grades, George W. Bush got his MBA from Harvard WITH honors.  The media doesn't talk about that very much.  Many may not agree with his politics, but he certainly is no dunce.  We also knows where he stands on issues.  He is not going to say one thing while campaigning and then do something else when elected.  Examples:
"I'm not going to send American boys to fight an Asian war."  (Circa 1964)
"I will fight to have line-item veto power for the president." (Circa 1992)
"I will change to military to allow gays to serve." (Circa 1992)

Did Bush join the Guard to duck active duty and combat in Vietnam? He certainly wouldn't have been the only one that chose that course of action if true........fighter pilot or not.

On the other hand, Kerry was a decorated Navy veteran who experienced combat in Vietnam. We'll see how much the media "talks" about this distinction between the two candidates(assuming they meet) during the campaign season. MfSD.

-- Modified on 4/5/2003 3:02:26 PM

"he certainly is no dunce."

He still wins in being the president with the lowest IQ, his father being the second runner-up.  So, I suppose that makes him the dunce of all presidents?

... Now back to Kerry. I don't think his wife's somber attitude will help him much in the campaign. I know she's gone through some rough times, but somebody get her some Prozac.

By the way, thanks for everyone who replied to this topic - I got a huge research paper due on Kerry. Wish me luck. [wink]

I am really hoping for Al sharpton, as I believe he more accurately outlines the Dem's & Kerry's policies.

However, I lke Bush's chances with Kerry.

The media has already spoken about the fact that Kerry served in Vietnam.  They have also pointed out the fact that Bush was in the Air National Guard and did not have to go active duty.  Of course, these facts will be brought up again if Kerry actually does get the Democratic nomination.  I wonder if Kerry will still mention his Irish background during the campaign.  An Irish background that is bogus.  
As I said, you may not agree with President Bush's positions, but you know where he stands.  
There's a new sheriff in town, and I'm damn glad.

will delienate the other differences between the two candidates, Bush and his Democratic challenger, at length before election day.

My question isn't whether Bush "had" to go to Vietnam, his unit might have been activated. The question is, did he actively duck combat duty by seeking a flying job in the Guard, hoping that the unit he "picked" (or was picked for him) didn't get activated.

Don't worry, your "Sheriff" will probably win a second term. I would find it extremely ironic however if he won the electoral college vote, but lost the popular again. MfSD.

Neither President 41 or 43 has a low IQ.  For god's sake, 41 was the CIA Director - check out the link below and it will bring you to the snopes.com page that corrects that issue.

As to Kerry being an opportunist I didn't mean to say that he is the only one - of course they all are.  It is just that the Jr. Sen. from MA seems to be very adept in that department (just look at the religion/heritage issue, medal issue, derth of chartiable donations, etc).

If a D is going to win, I for one hopes it is someone that stands with his/her convictions like Dean, Sharpton or Graham.

Thanks to the original poster for giving me even more of a diversion while I prepare for my night school exams!

George Bush never qualified as a jet fighter pilot.  He flew trainers only.  He also failed to fulfill his military obligation.  At that time it was nearly impossible to get into the National Guard.  His connections got him in to keep him out of the draft.  I would have probably done the same for my kid.  However, I find it morally reprehensible that after dishonestly dodging the draft he would run for president.  I find his use of the phrase "Semper Fi" when speaking to US Marines a personal insult.  He never earned that right and is certainly not faithful to our nation.

And Al Gore on the other hand, failed 5 out of 8 courses in divinity school and later graduated from Harvard, and then dropped out of Vanderbilt Law School.  He did go to Vietnam, but had an office job in Saigon arranged by his father.  

P.S. By the way, exactly when was the Texas Air National Guard using F-102's as trainers?  When I was in the U.S. Air Force, we were using T-33's T-39's as trainers.  The F-102 was a jet fighter that was used as an interceptor, not as a trainer.

Kerry's recent remarks will hurt his chances more than his background will.  Maybe he should run for president of Iraq.  

Who cares!  He doesn't write reviews.

See the link.  He did not even fulfill his military duty -- some Commander-in-Chief.  Not surprisingly, you don't hear Rush Limbaugh calling his "Boy" a draft-dodger.

Bush was in the National Guard and not in the active military, so he could NOT be AWOL. Since he was in the National Guard he was also ineligible for any draft, so he would NOT be a draft dodger.

I agree that he did not complete his National Gaurd requirements but the raising of false allegations is just wrong.

-- Modified on 4/6/2003 1:12:36 AM

uh, wasn't that the last election?

Your point is taken though, Gore probably isn't much brighter than Bush, but like John Kerry, he did serve on active duty in Vietnam. MfSD.

If you're supposed to be at your Guard assignment, and you're away without official leave, that is AWOL, whether you are active duty or not.

Bush got a release from his commanding officer to work on a political campaign if memory serves me right. I will assume, having not investigated the particulars of Bush's Guard duty, that that is why he did not complete his Guard obligation. So I will therefore assume that Bush was never "AWOL" from his Guard unit.

My question remains though, did Bush seek out a Guard unit to fly with, to duck the draft, active duty and combat in Vietnam. I don't know, but plenty of rich, powerfully connected people got their kids out of service in Nam. Say what you want about Kerry, but he did serve in Vietnam, saw combat and was wounded and decorated. A distinction that separates him from our current Commander in Chief.

And if memory serves me, only three or four members of the current Congress have kids in this "war". MfSD.

He could cover the South and they'd be the best looking pair in the White House for a long time.

His background wont be an issue, IMHO, nor should it be.

In response to Goodguy: I spent 3 years in the army from 1967 to 1969, with 18 months in Vietnam, and two purple hearts; have an undergraduate degree and an MBA; that doesn't make me qualified to be a leader, especially the leader of the free world.  Nor does his service to our country make him any more, or less, of a patriot than the people you mentioned.  Please don't make generalities.  Mr. Kerry's record speaks for itself - THAT is what qualifies him to lead, recent stupid statements notwithstanding.

And my IQ is 162, so that qualifies me to be president? LEADERSHIP qualifies a person to be president, and W demonstrates leadership qualities better than anyone since Reagan, and Kennedy before him.  Kerry and the pretenders demonstrate no leadership qualities, or the ability to work with the opposition party.  God Bless George W. Bush!

Not to run this issue into the ground between us, but, I still fail to the the relevance of military service and leadership!

Lyndon B. Johnson served in the US Navy (briefly) during WWII, but yet he was one of the worst military presidents in the history of our Nation.  He so politicized the war that General Westmoreland was hand cuffed by Johnson's constant ear on public opinion (and MacNamara's idiotic input).

What has made Reagan, Bush I and Dubya fine military Presidents is that they listen to their Generals, find agreement and then let them do what the military does... break things and kill people, without interference.

IMHO, Nixon made the mistake of attempting to honorably end the war while dealing with dishonorable people.

Whether Viet Nam was a just war I will let the historians to work out, but nobody can tell me that if General Westmoreland was given the OK, Viet Nam would of been at most a 6 to 9 month conflict ending with a unified Viet Nam.  Many fine American's saw the futility of Viet Nam and didn't want to risk their lives for nothing.  Most of us who served there realize that, hold no malice for them, and blame the politicians for our treatment on return.  Politicians turned the American people against the war in Viet Nam, sadly the same Democratic politicians who previously supported Johnson's agenda.  What I remember is a bunch of weenies with their fingers in the air to see which way the winds of public opinion was blowing.  I refuse to see that as leadership!

Your points are well taken on the Vietnam conflict B. And I agree with your suppositional equation to some extent, regarding military service and leadership.

My point is Kerry chose to serve in Vietnam, was wounded and decorated, Bush may have(I don't know) ducked active duty and combat by going in to a Guard unit. The decisions that both men made at "that point in time", tell me something about their character, and the committment that both had to the nation. MfSD.

I guess I would put more importance in what they would do for (or to) our country now.

Obviously, I will vote for Bush.

they could still get the nomination despite Teresa Heinz Kerry's personal worth.  (Most of that could be in trust funds for the Heinz heirs.  She might not be able to use them for Kerry's campaign.)

-- Modified on 4/7/2003 1:35:20 PM

I served on active duty, and was discharged honorably.

Bush never did.

I see it as character issue, and I am entitled to my opinion. End of discussion. MfSD.

But actually, I like Kerry.  It's a measure of how much he scares the Republicans that they are so eager to go after him so early.  He is very electable, just like Clinton was in 1992.

Just what this country needs...a trial lawyer who made millions suing doctors as the next president...i hope no one gets sick...there won't be any competent docs left practicing...

never correct the misinpression that somehow he was Irish because of the spelling of his last name.  After he discovered his Jewish heritage a few years ago, chose to formally declared it a couple of months ago while he was in Florida (a Jewish voters rich state): http://216.239.57.100/search?q=cache:n3zCqYk1ssEC:www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/040/oped/Kerry_is_always_trying_to_have_it_both_ways%2B.shtml+John+Kerry+Jewish&hl=en&ie=UTF-8 (None other than The Boston Globe.)

And here I thought it was the newspaper's job to confirm what it reports as fact.

I suppose my question would be why is it Kerry's job to correct the Boston Globe's sloppy reporting?  Apparently the Globe never asked him until now, and just reported him as Irish.

Regarding Bush's decision to join the Texas Air National Guard, if he were simply doing it to avoid the draft, he could have simply joined and not requested fighter pilot training.  The fact that he was trained as a fighter pilot carries some weight, in my opinion.  He could have had a desk job with no risk at all.  There is no way I would ever consider him a draft dodger.

I have seen John Edwards being interviewed a couple of times over the last 2 months on the Sunday morning news shows.  He strikes me as all image with very little real substance.  John Kerry seems to have more depth, however I would say that both Gephardt and Lieberman both have more to offer as far as becoming a Democratic Presidential nominee.