John Kerry - reporting for duty

I suspect that the two-party system has a lot to do with this; it tends to polarize things.

Traditionally, major social trends such as gender equality and environmental issues are never brought to the forefront by one party. They are defined first in the marketplace of ideas and then incorporated into the platforms of the two major parties, moderating in the process.

At the same time, the refinement of these issues may cast a particular group (the tobacco industry, for example) in the role of villain. Individuals identified with these factors may suffer severe economic and personal losses, and may blame an officeholder closely identified with that trend, and his party, for their predicament.

Thus much of the political scene tends to narrow down to "us" vs. "them". Small independent businessmen in rural areas, for example, seldom show much enthusiasm for individual candidates. But their natural aversion to additional regulation and their pursuit of low-cost labor engenders an instinctive suspicion toward the Democrats.

Here's why he said it: Because he *did* report for duty, did go to Vietnam, did find himself in combat with the enemy. He was underscoring the fact that Bush did NOT report for duty, or at least not the same kind of duty. Bush took time out of his National Guard tour to go work on a political campaign.

That's why he said it.

.
I'm simply amazed at the staunch Democrats in America, such as the ones you saw at the Democrat National Convention, who, in their zeal to elect John Kerry over George Bush, throw all honor and principle out the window. (Not all Democrats are the hypocritical zealots of whom I speak, although they are certainly represented very well in these threads.)

For years - for decades - the Democrat Party has been absolutely loathsome of anything and everything military. Moreover, on one hand, they've been saying for years that a person's military record didn't matter, as in the case of Bill Clinton. But on the other hand that's all they now seem to harp on. And their "excuse" is that it's different in a time of war. Well no, it isn't different - as Democrat President Franklin Roosevelt made very clear.

Even John Kerry himself said, "I am saddened by the fact that Vietnam has yet again been inserted into the campaign.....We do not need to divide America over who served and how. I have personally always believed that many served in many different ways.....But while those who served are owed special recognition, that recognition should not come at the expense of others; nor does it require that others be victimized or criticized or said to have settled for a lesser standard. To divide our party or our country over this issue today, in 1992, simply does not do justice to what all of us went through during that tragic and turbulent time."

Of course, that was in defense of Democrat Bill Clinton, a true "draft dodger" who ran against true war heroes George HW Bush in 1992 and Bob Dole in 1996. Where's the principle? It's no place to be found. Where's the hypocrisy? It's everywhere you look.

Moreover, anyone who says that President Bush's service in the Air National Guard is anything less than honorable, understands neither the structure or the mission of the Guard. Also, what they don't understand - or care to admit - is that President Bush has authorized the Department of Defense to release ALL of his military records to anyone who requests them. John Kerry, on the other hand, has refused to do the same. And while John Kerry won't authorize the release of his own "questionable" military records, we see Democrat party operatives going so far as to forging military documents - a "watergate-type" crime - in an attempt to discredit President Bush's ANG career. It's crazy - absolutely crazy.

John Kerry looked like a fool with that stupid salute and "reporting for duty" comment. This is especially true when you look at his very own abysmal record when it comes to supporting the military.

John Kerry decided to run on two issues to beat George Bush. One was the ABB (anybody but Bush) sentiment, which is about the dumest and most ignorant reason I've ever heard. And the other is that he was a Vietnam "self-proclaimed" hero.

How many "heroes" have you seen that continually harp on it like John Kerry does? The answer is, they don't. It's really kinda' sick, if you ask me. And even if he was a "hero" in Vietnam, which I strongly doubt, his cowardly and traitorous actions afterwards trumps everything he may (or may not) have done. The guy is an absolute disgrace when it comes to representing both the military mission and the military personnel. It's no wonder that upwards of 70 percent of the voting military will cast their votes for President Bush. And it's no wonder that at a recent Air National Guard convention, those in attendance gave President Bush thunderous applause and approval, but were only "politely" receptive to John Kerry a couple of days later.

John Kerry had - and has - absolutely nothing to offer except his "questionable" war record - which he won't fully release to the public - and his initials, JFK. The guy's an absolute dunce, and a dishonorable and hypocritical one at that.

And make no mistake about it, anyone who criticizes President Bush's Air National Guard service is either extremely naive' and ignorant of the structure and/or the mission of the Guard - and probably never served in the military themselves - or they are so blinded by all the rhetoric that's been thrown at them that I almost have to question their intelligence and wisdom - because they have absolutely no idea what they're talking about.

(Point of reference: I served in the active duty Air Force for 6 years in the early 70's, and part of my duty assignments was to work side-by-side with ANG personnel - including their pilots. I know what they did, I helped with what they did. And it was extremely critical and dangerous, and most honorable.)

That stupid salute and "reporting for duty" comment was an embarrassment. And when you saw the film of that stupid salute and "reporting for duty" comment, you saw the true face of the Democrat Party - both of them.

What Kerry did can be perceived in any number of ways. His entire campaign has been based on shadowing Bush and verbally attacking his policies. To date, Kerry has yet to share anything even resembling a "How" on any of his "I will"/s. In doing so he plays on the fears, the passions and the stupidity of the American people, primarily those in the democrat camp and its fringes. It has never been about how he will lead in reality, it has always been how in conjecture. If you watch him, his every move plays to inflamming key areas and passions through words and verbal jabs. He has no concern for those who he may offend or who he is talking to. He just doesn't care. Thus the "reporting for duty" comment. He is attempting to pander to the military vote, the service vote. Yes it was foolish and yes he would have been the laughing stock most anywhere else but not many at that convention have given much thought to that, they don't care. More importantly though I believe it offensive and inflammatory.

Kerry and his party don't give two hoots about the people. All they care about is getting into office and they will use whatever they deem necessary to do so, even to the point of stooping to that level. For them, it is not about America's well being or betterment, it is all about winning, no matter what and no matter how wrong.

To answer this question:
How is it that the US people, or at least a large number of them, thought that what John Kerry did and said was a great thing, whereas the rest of the world would have been rolling in the aisles laughing?
Because they are asleep and it is more important to be entertained and to hear what they want to hear rather than hearing the truth, because generally the truth is not easy to take.

.
It was silly, but pails to serving a plastic turkey to troops on Thanksgiving for a photo op, or landing on a aircraft career for a top gun look.

I don't like the look and feel of this type of politics. Its election year stunts, but if we want to find fodder for silly looking political stunts, the last four years are full of them.

When elections roll around, you will notice a very low level of real discussion. Campaign are geared for the squishy middle that don't know what they like, but know what they don't. Mostly they don't like thinking too hard.

Kerry said that at a convention. A political convetion is one where the candidates strongest supporters not only make up the majority of the crowd, but "are" the crowd. I would expect that the convention delegates would cheer wildly if the candidate stood on stage and blew their nose loudly. Yes - conventions are that insane.

As for how the American people felt about that one phrase -- that would be hard to judge. Overall, I think democratic convention was judged as a generally negative event. Normally Democrats pick up 5-8% popularity in the week following a convention. This year they only picked up 3%. (By contrast, Republicans normally only pick up 3-5% after a convention and this year they picked up around 8%).

I think it would be impossible to judge any one speach and certainly I don't see it coming down to one catch phrase as being the source of the swings.

I think most pundits agree that Kerry's phrase was not very well thought out. Most of the talk shows have used it to absolutely blast Kerry.

It would be more like, "well er, ahhhhh, ear I am for da dute'!" :D

I couldn't even begin to imagine a Canadian politician even taking a war stand period, yet alone REPORTING FOR DA DUTEE!

They would be laughed off the stage for even mentioning going to war or being in a war.

FINALLY, even if they DID stand up and say it, they would INSTANTLY sink ANY chance of being elected to run Canada, they'd be shipped south so fast it would make their heads spin.

Canadians don't elect miltary wannabes, heros, or wannabe heros.

That's wannabe, mate. Not wallaby ;)

.
You apparently don't understand the mission to which President Bush was referring. I'll not speculate, however, on whether your lack of understanding is by choice or something else.

For you, or anyone else, to exploit that "mission accomplished" message and turn it into something it was not intended to be is being blind, ignorant, or partisan.

Consider this. You have a long term goal, one that will take 5 years to accomplish. Do you focus on that one long term goal, or set little smaller goals along the way - especially if that long-term goal is rather lofty? Of course the best way to achieve that long-term goal is to set your sights on the smaller ones, and take them one by one, step by step.

I think your smart enough to know that President Bush's "mission accomplished" message was indicating that the first step - the first goal - was completed, and it was a significant step indeed. And just like you and your goals, once one goal (i.e. mission) is reached (i.e. accomplished), it's on to the next.

And while you may call it a "shameless exploitation", others would not. I'm sure that the sailors on that carrier were extremely honored that the President of the United States would land on their carrier to personally congratulate and thank them for a job well done. And do you know what else he did? Instead of spending the time with the flag officers, he spent hours upon hours mingling and talking with the sailors on deck and in their chow hall. Of course, if you want to find a way to criticize something, look hard enough and you'll find it. Unfortunately, it makes a person unaware of the good things that came out of it - and the good that was the real intention. And I'm sure that in the eyes of those sailors, there was plenty of good.

You may think that his primary reason for the carrier landing was just to create a photo-op. Well I disagree whole-heatedly. I believe his motivations were to provide a genuine gesture of thanks to the service men and women who completed that mission - the first difficult step necessary to reach the loftier goal. And the "photo-op" that resulted, was merely a by-product of his real intentions.

After all, the best "photo ops" just naturally happen, and are by-products of something else.

One of the tasks that the President of The United States takes on is that of Commander in Chief of the US military.

The statement:
"John Kerry, Reporting for duty"
would be the typical response of a member of the military formally announcing their arrival to the base they have been assigned to.

When I saw John Kerry make his entrance to the Democratic convention, I simply saw it as an interesting and different way to announce his arrival.

I am sure that the planners of the convention spent hours coming up with what they thought would make the most impressive entrance statement.

You also need to take the statement in context.
As part of his "grand" entrance, John Kerry sailed across Boston Harbor with members of his swift boat crew.

I am sure that part of the strategy of the entrance was to present John Kerry as someone the US voter could trust to take command of the military should he be elected.

Party conventions in the US have become scripted publicity events for the candidate and the party.
Since no real news events happen on the convention floor, the convention needs to be set up to entertain both the party faithful and the US TV audience.

John Kerry's entrance was perhaps the only "drama" of the Democratic party convention.

Chas

Good question. I am curious to know why you think its strange and silly? Why would a leader of a Democratic nation get laughed out of a campaign if he did that in any other country? Why would Australian citizens and press crucify them and be considered a joke if a candidate did what John Kerry did? What is it about the rest of the world that sets them apart from their US counterparts in what they expect from their politicians and in what gets them excited and enthusiastic? How is it the rest of the world be rolling in laughter if a candidate did that in their election process??

Thanks in advance for answering so many questions.

I'm not overly impressed with GWB's term in office either. I don't like several of his policies and I don't think he has necessarily handle Iraq all that well.

However -- there is absolutely no way I'm going to vote for a liberal like Kerry. His voting record in congress is the main reason the world thought we were an easy target. He voted against nearly every tool the military has used to make this war as relatively casualty free as it has been. Then he wants us to believe that he really knows how to run the military. He sure impressed me with his military prowess with that "report for duty" -- NOT!!

He is also an elitist snob. (ie., "that Secret Service Agent pushed me, that's why I fell off that snowboard"). What a dweeb.

I am not questioning what Kerry did or did not do in Vietnam, and am willing to accept what he said about his combat duty. However, when he came back, he lied about and accused his fellow servicemen about all sorts of atrocities, giving the Hanoi regime all sorts of propaganda for free for which POWs were tortured. He admitted committing war crimes in the "Winter Soldier" hearings, so he is either a criminal or a liar. I believe he is a liar, because if he committed war crimes, he would have been court-martialed. Instead, he was honorably discharged. He also tried to get other veterans to lie before Congress. Kerry also met with representatives of the Hanoi regime in Paris while the war was still going on. Kerry gave "aid and comfort" to the enemy like Jane Fonda, but at least Fonda apologized for what she did. After the Tet Offensive, the Viet Cong were almost wiped out as a force, and the NVA were reeling from the casualties they took, way out of proportion of what was inflicted on US and South Vietnamese forces. The war could have been easily won at that time with a concerted counterattack. But because of people like Kerry protesting the war, political reasons prevented such an operation, and a great victory appeared like a defeat to the people back home. The mindset of people like Kerry turned victory into defeat, and strung out the war several more years. It could have been ended within a year after the Tet Offensive with the overthrow of the Hanoi regime, and the people in North Vietnam could have been celebrating the next Tet along with freedom. Instead they still suffer under socialism and communism, and inflicted that tyranny on the people of South Vietnam when they conquered it by force.

Then there is Kerry's record in the Senate voting against all sorts of military appropriations for needed equipment and supplies, including voting against the $87 billion after he "voted for it", ust to give an example.

It occurs to me that our friends who live outside the U.S. are telling us something important with all this vetching about JFK's "reporting for duty" thing. They don't get it. As a US citizen who served six years USANG, it's been hard for me to try to think like a civilian about it, but here it is: The reason so many US citizens dug the "reporting for duty" thing was it was manly -- military is a manly, testosterone laden experience, and many US folks who haven't been through military service themselves have vicariously lived through John Wayne movies (for the testosterone) and infinite war movies where the good guys fight a clean fight, almost get their a$$es kicked, but triumph in the end.

The US collective psyche got hurt on 9/11. We feel like we're in the middle of a bad movie and we're freaking out about it. When we see a guy stand up and say "Reporting for duty," we're GRATEFUL because that's something someone says when ready to work hard and kick some boo-tay.

Maybe instead of maligning our American gung-ho-ness and whining "oh he sounds so mean like a d***head when he says it, wahhh..., why don't you think to yourselves, I hope OUR leaders have the same kind of stones that guy has.

in my humble opinion , i think you missed part of the point johne kerry made . when he said that at the democratic convention , there was a certain deal of irony and second degree in saying that . Sure he is a patriot and he wants to be remembered so in a contry that very much favours patriotism . But also this was a way of saying to the republicans : do you want this time of tone ; well here we go , us too can do it ,you have no monopoly in being a patriot .
that is how i felt it was . and i certainly dont think kerry is silly or simplistic in any of his views .