Bad news for Kerry

[MKSheppard]

Kerry's caught the attention of the Vietnam Vets groups who go around
tracking down and exposing fake Vets, fake CMOH winners, Fake SEALs, etc.

AuthentiSEALs

Idiot named Bradford Exposed!

[Joe]

There's also the small matter of John Kerry's record on defense spending, certainly not something that would earn him favor with ex-military folks.

[Durandal]

I'm sure that some of the people signing this letter have axes to grind for one reason or another, but if 90% of Kerry's comrades have axes to grind against him then he's either the least lucky man in the history of the military or there was something going on, or some combination thereof. Realistically, in a country in which more than 40% of the population is against an incumbent president, the chances that over NINETY percent of a given population would be against a challenger without any reason to be so are almost astronomical, given the large sample size.

Take a statistics class some time. Sample size means absolutely dick if it's a poor sample, which this certainly is. You'll notice that they didn't call up Kerry's family to get their input on his integrity (which I assume is what they're calling into question), or his close friends. A random sample would ask anyone who's known Kerry, not just people he served with in the military.

The sample consists almost exclusively of people who probably don't like him because he protested the Vietnam War and accused them of committing war crimes. So yes, they most certainly do have an axe to grind. I'm sure that if I served in the military, and acted like an asshole during that entire time to people I served with, they'd call me unfit to be commander-in-chief as well when asked 20 years later.

So again, what specific, relevant reason do these people cite for declaring Kerry incompetent to be the commander-in-chief? All I've seen so far is "Uh ... we don't like him! Look, it says right here on this piece of paper!"

[Master of Ossus]

Take a statistics class some time. Sample size means absolutely dick if it's a poor sample, which this certainly is. You'll notice that they didn't call up Kerry's family to get their input on his integrity (which I assume is what they're calling into question), or his close friends. A random sample would ask anyone who's known Kerry, not just people he served with in the military.

Are you suggesting that this survey is totally invalidated by the fact that it specifically asks questions of a group of people with a particular relationship with Kerry? The survey never set out to determine how people who know John Kerry feel about his campaign. It asked veterans who served with Kerry about their feelings regarding his bid for the presidency. You cannot simply point to the fact that a survey is not definitive and therefore totally invalidate it.

The sample consists almost exclusively of people who probably don't like him because he protested the Vietnam War and accused them of committing war crimes.

And, of course, the fact that he falsely accused these people of committing warcrimes can be dismissed since it has nothing to do with his candidacy? Regardless of their reasons for disliking Kerry, it's clear that this is more than a partisan attack.

So yes, they most certainly do have an axe to grind. I'm sure that if I served in the military, and acted like an asshole during that entire time to people I served with, they'd call me unfit to be commander-in-chief as well when asked 20 years later.

I'm sure they would, also. However, if you're claiming that Kerry was an asshole and that this does nothing to affect his candidacy, then I think you're mistaken. Kerry has campaigned largely on the basis that he can somehow connect with people both in the US and abroad. If it can be shown that he's a jerk, who in fact has difficulty connecting with others, you don't think that this is going to affect his campaign?

So again, what specific, relevant reason do these people cite for declaring Kerry incompetent to be the commander-in-chief? All I've seen so far is "Uh ... we don't like him! Look, it says right here on this piece of paper!"

This has nothing to do with the validity of the survey, but only points out a few of its many limitations. One veteran, however, did note a potential lack of forthrightness about the incident for which he received his first Purple Heart. They also pointed to the fact that he falsely accused them of warcrimes.

[Stormbringer]

Why is it that anytime negative comments are made about Democrats its career threatening. Yet when any negative points which are just as proven about Republicans are shrugged off?

That's hardly the case. Look at how often Bush's past indiscretions have come up. They're hardly shrugged off.

The reason this is so damaging is Kerry has tried claiming his war record makes him a better Commander in Cheif. With him touting his past like he has it's natural people are going to dig into it. And frankly, Kerry has some questions to answer if he really does want to be Mr War Hero.

How is Kerry being branded unfit to command from info they gathered 30 years ago (when its possible they think he abandonned them all), any worse than Bush not even serving or having any command experience at all?

Well, if John Kerry really does have this many calling him unfit that's a lot different than not serving (though to be plain Bush's record sucks, flat out). Again with John Kerry making a big deal out of his war record if he really does have 90% of his former comrades disapproving, then it is something to seriously consider.

Not even considering any political influences on either of them, would you want an arguably "unfit" military experienced commander, or a civilian that ditched serving all together?

On the basis of that alone I wouldn't particularly want either.

The fact someone who Kerry debatted on a TV show is leading this group of people signing doesn't bode well for its intentions, as well as him being an attorney from Texas.

Of course, his appearing couldn't have anything to do with him rebutting Kerry's charges. I mean really, why would a man object to being labeled a headhunting rapist? I think it's perfectly normal for some one to stand up and rebutt charges like that.

As for the Texas thing, that's just a red herring. Living in Texas has no bearing at all on this.

[Joe]

This has nothing to do with the validity of the survey, but only points out a few of its many limitations. One veteran, however, did note a potential lack of forthrightness about the incident for which he received his first Purple Heart. They also pointed to the fact that he falsely accused them of warcrimes.

MoO, what's your opinion on all the war crimes John Kerry accused US servicemen of committing in Vietnam? How much truth to the accusations?

[Master of Ossus]

Why is it that anytime negative comments are made about Democrats its career threatening. Yet when any negative points which are just as proven about Republicans are shrugged off?

I don't see that at all in politics. There have been lots of Republicans who have been forced out of office because of negative points (ie. Richard Nixon).

How is Kerry being branded unfit to command from info they gathered 30 years ago (when its possible they think he abandonned them all), any worse than Bush not even serving or having any command experience at all?

It's not. However, Bush is not the one touting his military record and claiming that this makes him a superior candidate for Commander in Chief. Bush's record sucks, but if Kerry's service is similarly checkered then it calls into question his ability to make claims like the ones his campaign has made regarding his military service in Vietnam.

Not even considering any political influences on either of them, would you want an arguably "unfit" military experienced commander, or a civilian that ditched serving all together?

I would prefer someone who was never in the military to someone who had a poor record in the military. However, I would not make a judgement on a political candidate solely on the litmus test of whether or not they served in the armed forces.

The fact someone who Kerry debatted on a TV show is leading this group of people signing doesn't bode well for its intentions, as well as him being an attorney from Texas.

Erm... groups like this do not form out of people who love the guy they're passing around petitions against. Someone must have disliked him, and it seems like they disliked him for a variety of reasons. In this case, a lot of people who did NOT debate Kerry on a TV show also seem to have signed the petition, and lots of them who are NOT attorneys in Texas also seem to have signed the petition. This is an appeal to motive fallacy.

[Master of Ossus]

MoO, what's your opinion on all the war crimes John Kerry accused US servicemen of committing in Vietnam? How much truth to the accusations?

I don't have enough information to discuss the matter in anything resembling an informed manner. There were clearly war crimes that occurred in Vietnam, but many of the warcrimes Kerry accused his comrades of committing have never been documented or confirmed by any source other than Kerry himself, and soldiers are permitted to a presumption of innocence.

[Darth Wong]

Why is it that anytime negative comments are made about Democrats its career threatening. Yet when any negative points which are just as proven about Republicans are shrugged off?

I don't see that at all in politics. There have been lots of Republicans who have been forced out of office because of negative points (ie. Richard Nixon).

That was decades ago, in a very different world. In the current political climate, right-wingers sling mud with virtual impunity. Hard-right talk radio and bombastic sermonizing a la Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, and Bill O'Reilly get huge ratings while Al Franken fights to get airtime.

How is Kerry being branded unfit to command from info they gathered 30 years ago (when its possible they think he abandonned them all), any worse than Bush not even serving or having any command experience at all?

It's not. However, Bush is not the one touting his military record and claiming that this makes him a superior candidate for Commander in Chief. Bush's record sucks, but if Kerry's service is similarly checkered then it calls into question his ability to make claims like the ones his campaign has made regarding his military service in Vietnam.

Umm, no. Bush made "character" a defining part of his campaign in 2000, and he is intent on making it an issue again in 2004 against Kerry. Given that campaign platform, his own past boozing and drug abuse and DUI activities have every bit as much relevance as Kerry's past political activism. His lifelong pattern of dishonesty is hardly irrelevant in such a campaign, particularly after a war in which he made a point of strutting around in an airman's uniform on national TV.

Not even considering any political influences on either of them, would you want an arguably "unfit" military experienced commander, or a civilian that ditched serving all together?

I would prefer someone who was never in the military to someone who had a poor record in the military. However, I would not make a judgement on a political candidate solely on the litmus test of whether or not they served in the armed forces.

Why not, in a campaign where "support for the military" is interpreted as "generous increases in military spending accompanied by even greater (read: exorbitant and unnecessary) increases in demands upon the military"?

The fact someone who Kerry debatted on a TV show is leading this group of people signing doesn't bode well for its intentions, as well as him being an attorney from Texas.

Erm... groups like this do not form out of people who love the guy they're passing around petitions against. Someone must have disliked him, and it seems like they disliked him for a variety of reasons. In this case, a lot of people who did NOT debate Kerry on a TV show also seem to have signed the petition, and lots of them who are NOT attorneys in Texas also seem to have signed the petition. This is an appeal to motive fallacy.

Wrong. The accusation of "appeal to motive fallacy" assumes that this group is making a logical argument and that this logic is being refuted on the basis of the appeal to motive. This group, however, is not making a logical argument; they are only stating an opinion, with no particular logical reasoning other than their personal say-so. If anyone's guilty of a logical fallacy (hint: appeal to something which begins with "A"), it is the people who would point to this as some kind of proof.

[HemlockGrey]

There's also the small matter of John Kerry's record on defense spending, certainly not something that would earn him favor with ex-military folks.

Is it possible to find records on what Kerry voted on (FACTUAL records) online as regards defense? I'm willing to bet that a lot of the defense bills he voted against probably had enormous amounts of pork tacked on or were weighed down by some unacceptable provision, ala the Homeland Security bill.

[Natorgator]

There's also the small matter of John Kerry's record on defense spending, certainly not something that would earn him favor with ex-military folks.

Is it possible to find records on what Kerry voted on (FACTUAL records) online as regards defense? I'm willing to bet that a lot of the defense bills he voted against probably had enormous amounts of pork tacked on or were weighed down by some unacceptable provision, ala the Homeland Security bill.

Indeed they did. In fact, recently Cheney accused Kerry of voting to cut defense spending. When considered in light of the fact that Cheney was pushing for an even BIGGER cut at the time, it makes the accusation a bit hollow.

[Darth Wong]

There's also the small matter of John Kerry's record on defense spending, certainly not something that would earn him favor with ex-military folks.

Is it possible to find records on what Kerry voted on (FACTUAL records) online as regards defense? I'm willing to bet that a lot of the defense bills he voted against probably had enormous amounts of pork tacked on or were weighed down by some unacceptable provision, ala the Homeland Security bill.

As the Daily Show humourously pointed out (by calling it "pure genius"), the Bush attack ad about Kerry's spending took a single vote on an omnibus spending bill which happened to contain four military spending propositions and makes it seem as if he voted down four separate military spending bills in a row.

[SirNitram]

Take a statistics class some time. Sample size means absolutely dick if it's a poor sample, which this certainly is. You'll notice that they didn't call up Kerry's family to get their input on his integrity (which I assume is what they're calling into question), or his close friends. A random sample would ask anyone who's known Kerry, not just people he served with in the military.

Are you suggesting that this survey is totally invalidated by the fact that it specifically asks questions of a group of people with a particular relationship with Kerry? The survey never set out to determine how people who know John Kerry feel about his campaign. It asked veterans who served with Kerry about their feelings regarding his bid for the presidency. You cannot simply point to the fact that a survey is not definitive and therefore totally invalidate it.

One can, however, laugh at the Survey as badly biased and therefore quite useless beyond the obvious result; 'We don't like John Kerry'.

As someone who works in statistics, yes, asking questions just to those with a particular relationship will produce biased results.

[MKSheppard]

That was decades ago, in a very different world. In the current political climate, right-wingers sling mud with virtual impunity. Hard-right talk radio and bombastic sermonizing a la Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, and Bill O'Reilly get huge ratings while Al Franken fights to get airtime.

"Fights?" Are you sure the VRWC isn't out in force? Face it, liberalism really
doesn't sell that well outside some major markets like NYC, while conservatism has a ready made market all over the US.

[Darth Wong]

One can, however, laugh at the Survey as badly biased and therefore quite useless beyond the obvious result; 'We don't like John Kerry'.

Or to be precise, the survey produces the trivial result that people who have a bone to pick with John Kerry don't like John Kerry.

[Darth Wong]

That was decades ago, in a very different world. In the current political climate, right-wingers sling mud with virtual impunity. Hard-right talk radio and bombastic sermonizing a la Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, and Bill O'Reilly get huge ratings while Al Franken fights to get airtime.

"Fights?" Are you sure the VRWC isn't out in force? Face it, liberalism really
doesn't sell that well outside some major markets like NYC, while conservatism has a ready made market all over the US.

Isn't that the same thing I was basically saying?

[SirNitram]

One can, however, laugh at the Survey as badly biased and therefore quite useless beyond the obvious result; 'We don't like John Kerry'.

Or to be precise, the survey produces the trivial result that people who have a bone to pick with John Kerry don't like John Kerry.

It's really a wonderful case of a bad Type II Error(I think it's Type II), false negative. Take the example of a polluter charged to statistically analyze his own pollution. All he needs to do is find the right set of questions and circumstances that it always comes up a negative. For a polluter, he simply needs tools that won't notice pollution.

[Rogue 9]

There's also the small matter of John Kerry's record on defense spending, certainly not something that would earn him favor with ex-military folks.

Is it possible to find records on what Kerry voted on (FACTUAL records) online as regards defense?

Yes, there is. I'm looking through his voting record now (that's just the defense bills for the 1st session, 108th Congress; it won't show more than one session at a time). I'm noticing something interesting. In every vote I've gone over so far (admittedly a small sample, but I'm working on it) Kerry has abstained from the vote. *Keeps going through records.* Yeah, nothing. I'm wondering if the guy ever votes. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004, for instance. 98 yeas, 1 nay, 1 abstain. The abstained vote was Kerry.

Okay, just went through the entire list of defense bills for that Congressional session. He only voted twice, a nay for the McCain Amdt. No. 783; National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 and a yea for the Lautenebrg Amdt. No. 722; National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004. He passed on every other defense related vote that year. (Before I refined my search, he'd been abstaining for a lot of others too.) That's just for the one year. I'll back up some more and see what I can find.

[MKSheppard]

Isn't that the same thing I was basically saying?

Muhhaha, so you admit liberalism only exists in major cities, muahahha

[SirNitram]

Isn't that the same thing I was basically saying?

Muhhaha, so you admit liberalism only exists in major cities, muahahha

The Whacko Right has certainly indoctorined most of the rural areas. One need only walk around to see that. It's really quite disturbing after being in rural areas in a less extreme country.

[Master of Ossus]

That was decades ago, in a very different world. In the current political climate, right-wingers sling mud with virtual impunity. Hard-right talk radio and bombastic sermonizing a la Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, and Bill O'Reilly get huge ratings while Al Franken fights to get airtime.

In other words, no one is listening to the Democratic party and this is a problem with the networks instead of the country.

Umm, no. Bush made "character" a defining part of his campaign in 2000, and he is intent on making it an issue again in 2004 against Kerry. Given that campaign platform, his own past boozing and drug abuse and DUI activities have every bit as much relevance as Kerry's past political activism.

I never claimed otherwise. I simply pointed out that this IS a problem for the Kerry campaign, because Kerry has been making such a big deal out of his military record during the campaign process. Are you seriously suggesting that the Bush campaign is touting the fact that Bush served in the military as a cornerstone of his campaign? Did the Bushites spend $25 million running ad campaigns pointing to Bush's service in the military, the way Kerry's campaign is doing?

His lifelong pattern of dishonesty is hardly irrelevant in such a campaign, particularly after a war in which he made a point of strutting around in an airman's uniform on national TV.

Nor did I ever suggest it was. However, if Kerry's military record is checkered, don't you feel that this calls into question the validity of his campaign suggesting the exact opposite?

Why not, in a campaign where "support for the military" is interpreted as "generous increases in military spending accompanied by even greater (read: exorbitant and unnecessary) increases in demands upon the military"?

What does this have to do with anything? Are you suggesting that the only thing I should do in determining who to vote for is to look at who has a more extensive military record? This doesn't strike you as being shallow and one-dimensional? Are you suggesting I should look at this over their past voting record, accomplishments, etc.?

Wrong. The accusation of "appeal to motive fallacy" assumes that this group is making a logical argument and that this logic is being refuted on the basis of the appeal to motive.

I only pointed out that the refutation of their argument was an appeal to motive. And it was: the group's leader debated against Kerry, therefore their argument is biased and can therefore be ignored." That isn't an appeal to motive?

This group, however, is not making a logical argument; they are only stating an opinion, with no particular logical reasoning other than their personal say-so.

True.

If anyone's guilty of a logical fallacy (hint: appeal to something which begins with "A"), it is the people who would point to this as some kind of proof.

Like who? I don't believe anyone has ever suggested that this is the only reason why America should hate John Kerry. I only pointed out that this CASTS DOUBT on his claims of an excellent service record. The only thing that it proves is that people who served with him do not like him.

[Master of Ossus]

As someone who works in statistics, yes, asking questions just to those with a particular relationship will produce biased results.

Duh. The point is that this is the opposite result of the one that Kerry is promoting. If hardly anyone in the military who served with him liked the guy, you don't see that as being relevant towards his campaign, much of which is based around his service in the military?

[Darth Wong]

That was decades ago, in a very different world. In the current political climate, right-wingers sling mud with virtual impunity. Hard-right talk radio and bombastic sermonizing a la Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, and Bill O'Reilly get huge ratings while Al Franken fights to get airtime.

In other words, no one is listening to the Democratic party and this is a problem with the networks instead of the country.

Nice strawman fallacy. I comment on the current political climate, and you accuse me of blaming the networks for creating that political climate rather than shamelessly pandering to it. Is this due to right-wing knee-jerk bullshit on your part, or simply lousy reading comprehension?

Umm, no. Bush made "character" a defining part of his campaign in 2000, and he is intent on making it an issue again in 2004 against Kerry. Given that campaign platform, his own past boozing and drug abuse and DUI activities have every bit as much relevance as Kerry's past political activism.

I never claimed otherwise. I simply pointed out that this IS a problem for the Kerry campaign, because Kerry has been making such a big deal out of his military record during the campaign process. Are you seriously suggesting that the Bush campaign is touting the fact that Bush served in the military as a cornerstone of his campaign? Did the Bushites spend $25 million running ad campaigns pointing to Bush's service in the military, the way Kerry's campaign is doing?

I was unaware that Kerry's entire campaign was based on his military service.

His lifelong pattern of dishonesty is hardly irrelevant in such a campaign, particularly after a war in which he made a point of strutting around in an airman's uniform on national TV.

Nor did I ever suggest it was. However, if Kerry's military record is checkered, don't you feel that this calls into question the validity of his campaign suggesting the exact opposite?

It takes more than the dislike of people that he said bad things about to prove that he failed to do his duty in Vietnam.

Why not, in a campaign where "support for the military" is interpreted as "generous increases in military spending accompanied by even greater (read: exorbitant and unnecessary) increases in demands upon the military"?

What does this have to do with anything? Are you suggesting that the only thing I should do in determining who to vote for is to look at who has a more extensive military record? This doesn't strike you as being shallow and one-dimensional? Are you suggesting I should look at this over their past voting record, accomplishments, etc.?

You're quite fond of those strawman distortions, aren't you? I'm only saying that in a campaign which has been so transparently and utterly focused on the issue of military credibility by the conservatives, it is hardly unreasonable for the other side to fire back on this exact issue and point out that only one of these men actually risked his life in combat for his country, as your young soldiers are now being asked to do. The old adage about how a good commander would never ask anyone to do something he wasn't prepared to do himself would seem appropriate here.

Wrong. The accusation of "appeal to motive fallacy" assumes that this group is making a logical argument and that this logic is being refuted on the basis of the appeal to motive.

I only pointed out that the refutation of their argument was an appeal to motive. And it was: the group's leader debated against Kerry, therefore their argument is biased and can therefore be ignored." That isn't an appeal to motive?

Correct, since no one was saying that Kerry won that debate 30 years ago because of the motives of his opponent (and wow, yet another strawman on your part; it appears that you're going for a record of some sort). People were attacking the recent survey based on the motives of the respondents, and the recent survey was not a logical argument; it was nothing more than a statement of opinion.

This group, however, is not making a logical argument; they are only stating an opinion, with no particular logical reasoning other than their personal say-so.

True.

If anyone's guilty of a logical fallacy (hint: appeal to something which begins with "A"), it is the people who would point to this as some kind of proof.

Like who? I don't believe anyone has ever suggested that this is the only reason why America should hate John Kerry. I only pointed out that this CASTS DOUBT on his claims of an excellent service record. The only thing that it proves is that people who served with him do not like him.

It does not cast doubt on the fact that he willingly risked his life in the theatre of war, while George W. Bush found a way to avoid precisely that. The fact that he got a purple heart for a wound that some say was not that bad hardly refutes this clear distinction between the two men, since it could just as easily have been fatal; it was Lady Luck that kept him from more serious injury, not convenient assignment to a non-combat posting.

[Joe]

One of the vets against Kerry explains himself

[Glocksman]

Could you post the article?
I don't like to register at news sites as I get enough spam as it is.