"Kerry is running on his military record"

[The Kernel]

I have to disagree with you, there. Bush's campaign is based around his War on Terrorism and security. Kerry's platform really has very little substance to it other than his military service, right now.

Bullshit, Kerry has been pushing his new healthcare agenda hard, as well as his economic reforms to lower corruption.

[tharkûn]

Bullshit, Kerry has been pushing his new healthcare agenda hard, as well as his economic reforms to lower corruption.

Damned if I've seen it being pushed hard. I live in Michigan, one of those infamous swing states. I further live on the border of Democrat/Republican territory and am all but daily accosted by some undergraduate volunteer for the Kerry campaign. His healthcare agenda has yet to make it on the airwaves I've seen (and beleive me there are WAY to many political commericials here) and the best I've seen in print or elsewhere is some vague harangues about how healthcare should be a right or how the people should have access to Congress's healthcare plan.

On the other hand I DAILY hear about anybody-but-Bush, I could probably generate pages of "lessons John Kerry learned in Vietnam", and this is the first I've heard that he even HAS anti-corruption reforms waiting in the wings. Aside from ABB and useless bitching about jobs the only other thing that makes press about the Kerry campaign is Vietnam. And don't give me media bias BS. The local media comes out of Ann Arbor and Detroit where the press has 80+% admitted democratic leaning and a sizeable number of greens and other assorted screwballs.

If Kerry does have a real campaign, he is doing an ABYSMAL job getting it out ... and this is in a battleground state where he NEEDS to turn out the moderate suburban vote.

[Master of Ossus]

Bullshit, Kerry has been pushing his new healthcare agenda hard, as well as his economic reforms to lower corruption.

Uh-huh. Where?

Moreover, pushing something and making empty promises is not a platform. I defy you to give me a url where Kerry's economic policies are explained completely.

I can easily provide links to where Kerry is talking about his military service in Vietnam. Where are his economic plans fleshed out? Where are his social reforms enumerated? Saying Haliburton sucks is one thing. Actually having a plan to deal with it is something completely different.

[Guardsman Bass]

If I could point something out about Kerry, in columnist Walter Shapiro's book One Car Caravan, in which he spent considerable time with the nine democratic party nominees early in their campaigns, he made one comment when he was interviewing Kerry; "All of the conversations with Kerry seem to circle back to his service in Vietnam." It seems pretty obvious from this that Kerry was using the "Vietnam veteran" as part of his campaign from the very beginning.

[The Kernel]

Uh-huh. Where?

Right here (relevent portions highlighted):

Before we begin today, I want to honor the sacrifice made by the brave American soldiers who gave their lives in Iraq over these last difficult days. Our prayers and our thoughts are with their families, and we will never forget their service for the country we love.

No matter our disagreements over how to approach policy in Iraq, we are all united as a nation in supporting our troops and ultimately in our goal of a stable Iraq.

When William Gaston, after whom this hall is named and this college's first student, arrived here in 1791, America was a young nation with a people yearning for freedom and opportunity. The promise of America was that the paths to a better life would be open to those who worked hard and planned for the future.

That is still the promise of the America we believe in and the America we must reclaim. And building an America in which middle class incomes are rising, good jobs are being created, and working people can build a better life for their families is what this election is all about.

There is a fundamental difference in this election: President Bush has no real economic plan for long term prosperity and higher standards of living. I do - and at its heart is a strategy to create 10 million new jobs in the first term of a Kerry Administration.

This President, whose tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans have left America 7 million jobs behind what he promised, now seems to think that one month when unemployment actually increased can make up for three years of massive job losses. He doesn't seem to know - or acknowledge - that the industries that are expanding pay an average of $9,000 less than ones that are contracting.

George Bush talks about a recovery, but doesn't seem to realize that today we have a wage recession in America - with average Americans workers making $1,200 less a year; with millions of families struggling to pay higher health care costs, higher property taxes, and higher college tuitions - all of it out of lower incomes. While Americans are becoming more and more productive, they are increasingly working at lower wage jobs.

President Bush praises the productivity of our workers, but never mentions the unfairness which denies them the gains of their own labor.

Due to George Bush's tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, the average worker now pays more in taxes at the local level. The burden for most Americans has gone up while wages have gone down.

By almost every measure of real life in the real America, George W. Bush just doesn't seem to understand what's happening to hard-working families.

So the great issue in this election is how to move America in a new direction.

And a strong America begins at home - with the state of our economy.

But instead of a credible economic plan and an honest debate, our present leadership has given us the old politics of false and simplistic negative attacks. I am committed to a different course.

Two weeks ago, in the first of a series of speeches, I set out my proposal to end tax benefits that encourage outsourcing and actually reward American companies for moving jobs overseas. Outsourcing will occur, but a company that stays here should not be put at a competitive disadvantage because a company that leaves can defer paying its taxes - perhaps forever. That's the law today; in fact, our taxpayers even spend $12 billion a year to subsidize the export of jobs. If I am President, I will fight to change that law - first, as a matter of simple equity: American workers should not be paying for the destruction of their own livelihoods.

Second, I will invest the savings from reform in new incentives to create new, good paying jobs here - and to lower corporate taxes by 5% to make all our companies more competitive. Let me be clear: under my plan, 99 percent of American businesses and 98 percent of Americans will get a tax cut.

In coming weeks, I will focus on the health care costs that today burden American enterprise and - for example - make it $1700 more expensive to produce the same car here than it costs in Canada. And I will discuss how America, by investing in new technology, in broadband, and in the great imperative of energy independence can lead the world in the jobs of the future.

Today, I turn to an issue that is essential to all the others because it is the foundation of confidence in our economic future. In the last three years, the federal budget has gone from record surpluses to record deficits - which, if left unchecked, can become a fiscal cancer that will erode any recovery and threaten the prospect of a lasting prosperity. Ultimately, as deficits drive up long term interest rates, they will dry up investment and undermine the belief, at home and overseas, that America is worth investing in.

George Bush now promises to reduce the deficit - the same promise of fiscal responsibility he has made and broken in every year, every budget, and every State of the Union message. The record is clear: a deficit reduction promise from George W. Bush is not exactly a gilt edged bond; and if he continued in the Presidency and performed as he has in the past, a third Bush term could mean a third Bush recession.

When it comes to the federal budget, I will move America in a new direction - by cutting the deficit in half in four years while making health care affordable; by paying for every program I propose; and by rolling back the Bush tax cut for the wealthiest Americans while expanding tax cuts for the middle class.

This will not be easy. It will require tough decisions - not just for one budget or one campaign, but for years to come and often in the face of unforeseen circumstances. But I know we can take this course and stay this course - because we've done it before.

And that is why Americans can trust what I am saying: I have a voting record that, on the most critical budget votes of the last 20 years, helped balance our budget and pay down our debt.

When I first came to the Senate in 1985, the federal deficit was soaring- as it is today.

In the 1980's, the national debt clock in New York City became a symbol for a federal deficit and debt that were out-of-control. Back then, many Democrats thought we could spend and spend without having to pay the bill. And back then, most Republicans even claimed that if you gave huge tax cuts to the wealthy, they would somehow pay for themselves. I guess that's what they mean by "an elephant never forgets."

At that the time, I joined together with a group of reformers from both parties - like Republican Senator Warren Rudman and Democratic Senator Fritz Hollings - to push for a deficit reduction plan with real teeth. What we got was real grief from leaders in both parties - and by the early 90s, the deficit was increasing so fast that the debt clock would sometimes breakdown because it couldn't keep up.

We made tough choices in 1993 - when a new President challenged the Congress to return to fiscal sanity. And the choice really was tough; fiscal sanity won by exactly one vote. I was proud to cast a deciding vote in the Senate to bring the deficit under control. In 1997, we finished the job by passing an historic bipartisan balanced budget agreement - which not only balanced the budget for the first time since 1969, but extended the life of Medicare, expanded health care for children, and cut taxes for middle class Americans.

By 2000, we were on the road to saving Social Security and we were paying down our national debt for the first time since Andrew Jackson was president - 170 years ago. The numbers on the national debt clock were spinning backwards.

Just before George Bush took office, the clock was taken down. Talk about wishful thinking.

The new President, who had promised to change the partisan tone in Washington, promptly turned his back on the bipartisan balanced budget consensus of the 1990s. Instead of short term decisions to stimulate the economy, he made long term mistakes that exploded the deficit.

He lavished tax cuts we couldn't afford on those who didn't need them. He made a clear choice: to pass the bucks to the privileged while passing the buck to our children. Because of this President's decisions, a child born today will inherit at $20,000 debt - a "Birth Tax" that he or she had no part in creating.

In New York, the national debt clock has been turned back on - with the numbers rising faster than the human eye can see.

In a blink of history's eye, trillions in budget surpluses have been transformed into trillions in deficits over the next decade. From missions to Mars to tax cuts for the wealthy to a Medicare bill that benefits drug companies and burdens seniors, the Bush Administration has failed to pay for what it has proposed. This President has proposed or passed $6 trillion in initiatives in the next ten years alone that he has no plan to pay for.

His record shows that we can't trust what he says. And no matter what he says now, the Bush policies will not reduce the deficit but worsen it.

Instead of facing that reality, George Bush stubbornly refuses to change course. When false promises don't work, he tries excuses. Blaming everyone from Bill Clinton to Ken Lay to Saddam Hussein.

But that is not the reason for our own budget crisis. The independent, non-partisan Congressional Budget Office reported last month that 94 percent of the $500 billion deficit for next year is due to George Bush's excessive spending and ineffective tax giveaways for the wealthiest Americans. In fact, his tax cuts alone account for most of the long-term deficit increase.

And the price is being paid in many ways.

This Administration has squandered the historic opportunity to use the surpluses to save Social Security. Job creation is slowed by increased uncertainty about our economic future. And we are weakened abroad as well as at home. With our national debt increasingly owned by foreign governments, we devalue our own bargaining power with countries like China when they manipulate their currency to inflate their exports, depress ours, and in effect destroy American jobs.

So the deficit is not just about the numbers and statistics - although they are a damning indictment of the Bush record. The issue of fiscal responsibility will shape our entire economic future. My pledge is to restore fiscal discipline - and my budget plan is built on three economic principles.

First, we will not raise taxes on middle class Americans; we will lower them.

The Bush Administration has engineered the greatest tax shift in American history. Middle class Americans are now paying more of the national budget; wealthy Americans are paying less. Our present national leadership has transferred the tax burden from wealth to work. We will restore tax fairness. We will expand middle class tax cuts for families with children and married couples and pass new tax cuts to make education and health care more affordable while cutting our deficit in half.

But for Americans making more than $200,000, we will simply roll back the Bush tax rates to the level they were under Bill Clinton to pay for education and health care. With these resources, we can expand health care for all of our children and cover virtually all Americans while lowering the health care premiums that are squeezing families and hurting job creation.

I realize that honorable people can disagree about whether it makes sense to repeal the recent tax cuts for Americans making more than $200,000 so we can afford to invest in health care and education. I am willing to debate that disagreement at any time or place. It is a fundamental choice about our future and a central choice in this election.

But rather than debating real differences, the Bush campaign is engaged in the politics of deceit and distortion.

They are spending millions of dollars trying to mislead Americans about the basic facts: If you make less than $200,000, you'll get a tax cut under my plan. If you make more than $200,000 a year, you will go back to paying the same tax rates you did with President Clinton and our country will get health care and education. The top 2% will pay more than they do now. Everyone else will get a tax cut under a Kerry Administration.

Let me repeat: 98% of individuals - and 99% of companies and small businesses - will pay lower taxes under my plan.

Second, we will impose spending restraints so no one can propose or pass a new program without a way to pay for it. And we'll enforce budget discipline with spending caps. During the 1990s, we had spending caps. We cut the deficit in half and then balanced the budget. And along the way, we created 23 million new jobs, increased family income across the board, and gave middle class families a tax cut. Because we limited the growth of government's budget, family budgets were able to grow.

So my budget plan pays for my proposals. In contrast to George Bush's $6 trillion in unpaid-for spending, my plan returns to a concept known as 'pay-as-you-go.'

And in the months ahead, as I put forward new ideas for a stronger, better, more prosperous America, I will state, in specific terms, how to finance them without raising the deficit or middle class taxes.

I have already shown how we can pay for my health care plan and education. But we can and will do more by reducing or eliminating government programs that don't work.

For example, we'll freeze the federal travel budget, reduce oil royalty exemptions for drilling on federal lands, and cut 100,000 contractors now employed by the federal government. We'll streamline government agencies and commissions and reduce out-of-control administrative costs by five percent. And when we're done, the federal government will be smaller but smarter, more effective and less expensive.

The strong spending caps in my plan will insure that spending doesn't grow faster than inflation. If Congress fails to keep spending in line, the budget caps will mean across the board cuts in every area except security and education and mandatory spending programs like health care, Social Security and Medicare.

So when I say a cap on spending, I mean it. We will have to make real choices - and that includes priorities of my own.

Let me give you a couple of examples. I've proposed a major expansion of national service programs to strengthen the values of patriotism, community and citizenship. And I believe we need to make pre-school universal so that every child in America gets the best possible start in life. But with the deficit worsening each and every day of the Bush Administration, we may have to slow both initiatives down or phase them in over a longer period. I don't like that. But those are the hard calls a President has to make.

Third, we will free resources and reduce the deficit by taking on corporate welfare. John McCain and I have introduced legislation to end corporate welfare as we know it. In a Kerry Administration, we will fight for that bill; we will take our case to the public if we have to - and we will pass it. Today, mining companies buy up public lands for five dollars an acre.

And Dick Cheney's old company Halliburton dodges taxes with offshore havens while it gets billions from no-bid government contracts. If I'm elected President, those days will come to an end.

By going after corporate welfare, as John McCain says, we can save tens of billions of dollars a year. Our bill calls for a Corporate Subsidy Reform Commission to recommend cuts and submit them to Congress for an up or down vote - with no amendments.

John McCain can't get anyone in the Bush White House to listen to our proposal. If I'm President, John McCain will get the first pen when I sign this bill into law.

We can't restore fiscal responsibility unless we have a President willing to bring our divided parties together - and ready to be straight with the public about what we can and can't afford.

We can cut the deficit in half in four years, expand health care coverage, and make it more affordable for the families who already have it. We can invest in education, restore pay as you go rules, and impose spending caps. We can rollback the Bush tax cuts for those at the top - and cut taxes for middle class Americans.

We can do all this if we set clear national priorities - and make the tough decisions - not just about the programs of others, but about our own proposals.

And we have to do this - because it is critical to any credible economic plan and the creation of new, good-paying jobs. An America that ignores the deficit will be an America that invites inflation and recession.

An America that pays for new initiatives and follows real budget rules will be able to build a new era of prosperity.

We know how to do this. We did it in the 1990s. Now it's time to return our government to fiscal responsibility - and our country to investment in the future, to job creation and rising standards of living.

And if I am President, that is the new direction I will set for our budget and our economy.

None of these choices are about numbers or dollars alone. They are the choices we make that build the fiber of our nation. They are the responsibility our generation has been handed and the legacy that we hand to the generations to come. This is the course we must choose. This is the course we will chart together.

Thank you.

Moreover, pushing something and making empty promises is not a platform. I defy you to give me a url where Kerry's economic policies are explained completely.

The Kerry/Edwards Economic Plan. If that isn't detailed enough, I'd like to hear what criteria you would accept and ALSO provide a link where GWB makes such aspects of his plan availible.

I can easily provide links to where Kerry is talking about his military service in Vietnam. Where are his economic plans fleshed out? Where are his social reforms enumerated? Saying Haliburton sucks is one thing. Actually having a plan to deal with it is something completely different.

It's all on his fucking website for fucks sake, along with a list of most of his speeches, sorted by subject. What specifically are you looking for his stance on?

[Crown]

The Kerry/Edwards Economic Plan. If that isn't detailed enough, I'd like to hear what criteria you would accept and ALSO provide a link where GWB makes such aspects of his plan availible.

There was an article in yesterday's NY Times where they pointed out that Bush's idea of an economic plan was to drastically lie about the expected defeciet in February so that when the true defeciet comes out in October he can say 'See, we are reducing the defecit.' Disregarding the fact that it is actually still growing...

[Durandal]

What is it with this idea that, if a candidate doesn't spell out every detail of every stance he has in his campaign speeches, he must stand for absolutely nothing?

All these people complaining about Kerry not standing for anything should learn about this resource called the "Internet."

[tharkûn]

What is it with this idea that, if a candidate doesn't spell out every detail of every stance he has in his campaign speeches, he must stand for absolutely nothing?

Because people vote off what they perceive, not reality. Campaigns are about getting your message to the people, and the message that is getting to the people is "Hi I'm John Kerry, I'm not George Bush, and did I mention I served in Vietnam".

Just because you have a policy available to be examined, does mean you are campaigning on it; what you are campaigning on is the message that makes it out to the general populace - not dyed in the wool partisans.

All these people complaining about Kerry not standing for anything should learn about this resource called the "Internet."

Don't blame the voters for Kerry not getting his message to them; the whole point of campaigning is to bring the message to the voters - not the voters to the message. If the major way you expect the masses to learn your stances is the internet; then you sure as hell aren't basing your campaign on your stances.

What you are campaigning on is whatever in hell the voters think you are campaigning and, if they get it "wrong" then somebody has blown it big time.

[Bugsby]

Yeah, but how do you bring the message to the voters? Speeches? Limited audience. Commercials? 30 seconds long, usually not substantive, and very expensive. The news? They want a sound byte if anything at all. The news is usually devoted to analyzing the polls and the campaign techniques, not to what the candidates are actually saying. Getting people involved and getting the message out is VERY hard. If you can think of a way to get every American to know John Kerry's complete stance on all the issues, then let's hear it. Better yet, send it to the campaign.

[Durandal]

Because people vote off what they perceive, not reality. Campaigns are about getting your message to the people, and the message that is getting to the people is "Hi I'm John Kerry, I'm not George Bush, and did I mention I served in Vietnam".

Just because you have a policy available to be examined, does mean you are campaigning on it; what you are campaigning on is the message that makes it out to the general populace - not dyed in the wool partisans.

No shit, Sherlock. Campaign issues are hot-button topics cooked up by campaign managers to win votes. They don't mean a god damn thing, and you'd be naive to expect any candidate to actually follow through on what he says about them after he gets in office.

Don't blame the voters for Kerry not getting his message to them; the whole point of campaigning is to bring the message to the voters - not the voters to the message. If the major way you expect the masses to learn your stances is the internet; then you sure as hell aren't basing your campaign on your stances.

Kerry has put his message on a publicly-available, easily locatable website. In case you haven't noticed, this "Internet" thing is starting to catch on.

What you are campaigning on is whatever in hell the voters think you are campaigning and, if they get it "wrong" then somebody has blown it big time.

No, in this case, what Kerry is campaigning on is what the neo-cons have said he's campaigning on, meaning that he's "running on his military record," which is blatantly untrue, as can be seen by a cursory examination of his website, whose front page doesn't mention his military record at all.

[tharkûn]

Yeah, but how do you bring the message to the voters? Speeches? Limited audience. Commercials? 30 seconds long, usually not substantive, and very expensive.

Somehow Bill Clinton didn't seem to have that problem. Kerry could start by mentioning the substance of his policies in any of the 7 Kerry blurbs I caught today.

If you can think of a way to get every American to know John Kerry's complete stance on all the issues, then let's hear it. Better yet, send it to the campaign.

Now why would I do that? Kerry's only redeeming quality in my eyes is that he isn't George W. Bush - I'm hoping that the third party vote will turn out in force and that in 2008 a real contest will emerge.

No shit, Sherlock. Campaign issues are hot-button topics cooked up by campaign managers to win votes. They don't mean a god damn thing, and you'd be naive to expect any candidate to actually follow through on what he says about them after he gets in office.

Irrelevant, the only message getting through is that he isn't Bush, and he served in Vietnam. You cannot get elected with successfully campaign against an opponent seeking to undermine your political position. Kerry's campaign, as opposed to his position himself, is largely I'm not Bush ... did I mention by purple hearts?

Kerry has put his message on a publicly-available, easily locatable website. In case you haven't noticed, this "Internet" thing is starting to catch on.

The most important part of most endeavors is where you spend your money and time. The bulk of Kerry's money and time is not going to the internet, it is a most minor part of the campaign.

No, in this case, what Kerry is campaigning on is what the neo-cons have said he's campaigning on, meaning that he's "running on his military record," which is blatantly untrue, as can be seen by a cursory examination of his website, whose front page doesn't mention his military record at all.

The opposition is going to try to distort the emphasis of your campaign and try to set up perceptions that favor them? Sacre bleu!!!

Your campaign is whatever reaches the voters, if the opposition manages to redefine your campaign then you have obviously failed to get your "true" message across.

[The Kernel]

The most important part of most endeavors is where you spend your money and time. The bulk of Kerry's money and time is not going to the internet, it is a most minor part of the campaign.

Don't be stupid, did you even check his website? The text I quoted above is a transcript from a public campaign speech; if you'd bothered to go to his website you'd see that several of his biggest speeches covered the breath of campaign issues. The fact that people are fixating on the "not Bush" and "military career" part of his campaign is THEIR misperception of the Kerry campaign.

[tharkûn]

Don't be stupid, did you even check his website?

Not recently, how much has it changed in the last few weeks?

The text I quoted above is a transcript from a public campaign speech; if you'd bothered to go to his website you'd see that several of his biggest speeches covered the breath of campaign issues.

Look you can argue that Kerry has somehow managed to campaign for his position, but that in no way negates the fact that the vast majority of the campaign I see doesn't articulate a position like say Bill Clinton managed in '96.

The fact that people are fixating on the "not Bush" and "military career" part of his campaign is THEIR misperception of the Kerry campaign.

The whole point of campaigning is to make the perceptions of the voters reflect the issues and stances you wish to raise. All this "misperception" means is that Kerry either has no campaign worth speaking about or that his campaign is actually devoid of substance.

It is not the fault of the voting public if you are unable to bring your campaign message to them. It is the fault of Kerry for not better relaying his message. Far too much emphasis and far too many newsbytes ARE "not Bush" and "I served in Vietnam". It doesn't matter if you actually have plans and policies if you cannot convey them to the voters, with all the imperfections in the electorate, through your campaign.

Essentially telling the voting public they are too stupid to "get" Kerry's real campaign, even if largely true, is a futile basis to build a campaign upon. Kerry needs to accept that his campaign isn't going to be a white paper, but is going to be whatever message he can get into the skulls of the electorate and DEAL WITHIN THOSE LIMITATIONS.

[Bugsby]

Come on! Kerry's trying his hardest, but the thing is that its the news that determines what most people see. Kerry can have a long speech where he lists every single damn thing he wants to do with his policy in an inspirational and constructive format. Yet he makes one reference to Nam or Not-Bush, and the media takes that 5-second sound byte and abuses it. Kerry's message gets lost.

[Stuart Mackey]

Come on! Kerry's trying his hardest, but the thing is that its the news that determines what most people see. Kerry can have a long speech where he lists every single damn thing he wants to do with his policy in an inspirational and constructive format. Yet he makes one reference to Nam or Not-Bush, and the media takes that 5-second sound byte and abuses it. Kerry's message gets lost.

Which tells me his spin doctors/campain manager need to be sacked.
Sound bytes like "Kerry will reduse the tax rate of 90% of both citizens and small to medium business" carry well. From what I have seen in this thread is that Kerry has a bad perception problem and he will loose the election unless he fixes that problem.

[tharkûn]

Come on! Kerry's trying his hardest, but the thing is that its the news that determines what most people see. Kerry can have a long speech where he lists every single damn thing he wants to do with his policy in an inspirational and constructive format. Yet he makes one reference to Nam or Not-Bush, and the media takes that 5-second sound byte and abuses it. Kerry's message gets lost.

First how hard Kerry is trying is obviously not hard enough, this isn't where he gets a gold star for effort, it is where you are judged by actual results. Either Kerry's campaign is trivial enough it isn't worth talking about or, for whatever BS reason, has devolved into "Not Bush, I was in Vietnam".

Somehow Bush manages to get his message - I'll kill the terrorist bastards and protect truth, justice and the American way - manages to get out even here in Ann Arbor, one of the most liberal college towns in the country. Somehow Clinton, It's the Economy Stupid, managed to get his message out as well. The problem may be that Kerry has a dissertation on American policy and not a message.

Kerry makes way more than a single message of "not Bush" and vietnam in the speeches I've seen; and his local reps are only marginally better. Seriously did ANYONE not think that "Reporting for duty" wasn't the best soundbyte and most memorable quip coming out of the convention? If Kerry didn't expect to be the single most repeated point of his convention, then he is an utter dumbass. If he wants to get his message across, then he needs to stop giving better vietnam quotes ... even if that means forgoing them altogethor.

Hell I've long thought that the best thing Kerry could do is to come forward and say, "Too much of the present campaign is about Vietnam. I beleive my time in Vietnam taught me leadership, but the country needs to discuss more pressing issues than the particulars of George Bush's or my own service during Vietnam." After that he aught to drop every mention of Vietnam except for a single paragraph in his bio on the webpage.

There is a limited amount of political bandwidth, don't waste yours on things that aren't essential to your message.