"I'm John Kerry, and I Have No Platform"

This whole swift boat thing is getting ridiculous. I'll be perfectly honest: I don't really care how well Kerry served in Vietnam. I don't care whether he was in Cambodia. I don't care how he got his Purple Hearts. I'm not interested in the story behind the hat he carries with him. I'm more concerned with his actions after he returned, many of which involved blatant lies and slander, but even that pales in comparison to what should be important: ISSUES.

Kerry will not explain what he believes. I think I've been able to figure out that he supports universal socialized health care, and he did outline a few of his ideas in his acceptance speech, but that's about it. He still hasn't decided whether he agrees with the war in Iraq, and after he said he would've voted to give Bush the authority to use force, despite the fact that we haven't found "stockpiles" of WMD yet, he immediately qualified it by saying that he didn't expect him to actually, you know, ATTACK Saddam. It was just supposed to scare him into submission. What a joke. In any case, I still don't know if he'll keep the troops in Iraq or cut and run, because he seems to be hinting at both.

It's a similar situation with same-sex marriage. As far as I know, he doesn't support actual marriage for same-sex couples, but he might be in favor of civil unions. However, how is he going to handle situations like the one in California? Will he step up and condemn judicial activism, or will he just adopt a laissez-faire attitude to the whole thing? We don't know.

I'm sure you're all familiar with the flip-flopping, so I won't go any deeper into it, but I'm trying to make a point: Kerry is using his Vietnam service to cover up the fact that he has no core beliefs. Think about it. Almost every time someone brings up his defense record, his campaign claims that his patriotism is being questioned. They're also fond of saying that since he defended the country on a swift boat, he can do the same in the White House. I'm sorry, but that's a steaming pile of bullsh*t. It doesn't even make sense when you break it down.

But they don't care. The "Anybody But Bush" crowd will just parrot the talking points, and the "unbiased" media will give them as much support as they need by pointing out Kerry's military service in every single story involving the election. Even stories that are about Bush.

This brings me to the main point of the post: Kerry has backed himself into a corner by basing his entire campaign on Vietnam. Like I said before, he uses his service to dodge any criticism of his voting record, and his fan club is still clinging to the "AWOL/Chickenhawk" slur against President Bush. Yeah, let's ignore the fact that Bush crushed the Taliban, decimated Al Qaeda, and deposed Saddam Hussein. Until he can explain why he didn't want to fight in Vietnam, we can't trust him to defend our freedoms!

Unfortunately for Senator F**k Up, a few members of his little "Band of Brothers" are now coming forward and claiming that Kerry wasn't the hero he claims to be. They say that he lied about much of his service, and he may have put his shipmates in more danger.

"But wait," you say, "The important thing is that he served, and that's not an easy thing to do, so nobody should question his record!"

You know, I'd normally agree with that. In fact, I still believe that we should let Vietnam go so we can worry about the war that we're fighting at this very moment. But Kerry brought this on himself. He chose to run as a war hero rather than a senator, and he couldn't resist his little "reporting for duty" moment at the convention, so as wrong as it seems, I say he should face his critics. I think Charles Krauthammer says it best:

The Democrats next charge that the very idea of attacking the military service of a heroic American is disgraceful. On this there are two points. The "heroic" part is precisely what is at issue here, and the Swift boat veterans who themselves served honorably have some questions about it.

More important, who brought up Kerry's military record in the first place? If Kerry had not made his Vietnam service the very centerpiece of his campaign -- "I'm John Kerry and I'm reporting for duty" -- this attack on his record could more justly be deemed scurrilous mudslinging. But if you run as a war hero, your claims of heroism are fair game.

Exactly. As I said earlier, I honestly don't care what Kerry did while he was in Vietnam, and I respect him for his decision to volunteer, but since he's chosen to make it the centerpiece of his entire campaign, he should be willing to address the concerns of the Swift Boat Vets. Fair is fair, you know. Go ahead and talk about Viet F**kin' Nam all you want, but don't smear anyone who questions your service as a right-wing wacko on Karl Rove's payroll. You had a chance to run on the issues, but you chose to be the 'Nam candidate, so deal with it.

I've said it over and over: I really wish Kerry would tell us what he believes and what he plans to do if he wins the election. I don't know about the rest of you, but I haven't sampled the Dubya Kool-Aid. I disagree with a lot of Bush's domestic policies, I'm appalled at how far to the left he's brought the Republican Party, and frankly, the man embarrasses me pretty much every time he speaks. However, he's willing to say what he believes, and I'd prefer to know what I'm voting for, rather than taking a gamble on Kerry's super-secret plan for Iraq. Therefore, Bush is still getting my vote.

In a perfect world, the candidates would run only on the issues. The past would stay in the past unless it was somehow related to their political abilities. For example, senate votes would be fair game, but military service wouldn't. That way, the people could vote the way the founding fathers intended: By choosing the candidate who best represents their beliefs.

Unfortunately, this is the real world, and the real world kinda sucks. In this world, it's apparently fine to use your military service as an indicator of your leadership abilities, but if anyone brings up your voting record, they're questioning your patriotism.

Well, if that's the way it's going to be, bring it on. Let the Swift Boat Vets have their say, and then respond to their criticism with complete, honest answers rather than character assassination. If Vietnam is the most important issue of 2004, the least JFK can do is answer a few questions about what he did over those 4 months.

On the other hand, there's still time for Kerry to tell us what he would do as president. But I'm not getting my hopes up.