Do I wake or sleep?

This is not an attack on anyone but Kerry, whose three wounds were superficial (particularly the first) and required no hospitalization.

It is a little childish, and rather foolish considering those who wore them had to know the media would go ballistic over it.

It's the nature of political conventions, though, that not every idea for buttons or signs is tasteful. Yet not a single story out of Boston about the Dem delegates. I'm sure there wasn't a single insulting button to be found amongst the lot of them.

From:

Well, since the Democratic nominee made a point of appealing to Bush not to indulge in negative campaigning and the word on high throughout the convention was not to attack Bush personally, probably not.

Sorry, I still find those buttons appalling. You don't get Purple Hearts in a Cracker Jack box. Anyone who was wounded in service gets one, no matter how superficial. It's offensive. That's the problem with buttons--you can't qualify what you're saying with simplistic images and slogans, and backtrack and say "what I meant was..."

From:

Anyone who is wounded in service in the presence of enemy fire gets one, but I'm not here to dispute whether Kerry's are legitimate. However, he opened himself up to criticism by basing his campaign on his Vietnam service as strongly as he did. Most veterans are reluctant to talk about their wartime experiences. He can't stop talking about his, because, IMHO, he's got no other achievements to run on.

I highly doubt that the Dem delegates were all respectful and nice. Most, probably, just as most Republican delegates aren't wearing those bandaids. The difference is in what gets reported.

From:

What gets reported--

You actually think the National Review, the Wall Street Journal and Matt Drudge wouldn't report something like that if they saw it? Of course they would. They didn't see it.

And sorry, I think Kerry's decorations are above ridicule (not criticism--ridicule). Again, Kerry mentions his service because for years conservatives have obsessed about service, and attacked Clinton for not serving. LOVE to see it biting them in the ass this time, with a man who pulled strings not to serve as their nominee. Maybe if Bush had actually gone to Vietnam he'd know how offensive those buttons are.

From:

I'd like to turn this one around on you: are you saying that service in the National Guard is not honorable? Because I did a stint in the Guard after my active duty time. Perhaps I should be personally offended.

From:

Please don't try put words into my mouth. You know I said no such thing.

However, serving in the Guard is not the same thing as serving in Vietnam.

From:

You're absolutely right. The greatest danger that Bush faced in the Guard was crashing the plane he was flying.

Not Vietnam, but also not without danger.

From:

Your answer really surprises me , Mike. Some things should just be off-limits regardless of what agenda it's used to serve. This time they went too far. I'm sure there's some guy in a VA hospital missing a leg who's getting a real chuckle out of this.

From:

The reference is very specific to Kerry and the questions about whether all of his Purple Hearts were legitimate. It has nothing to do with the guy in the VA hospital.

But if some things should just be off-limits, what about the Bush-as-Hitler ad and signs? That's offensive to no one? Oh, of course not, because it's completely true.

From:

Oh, I agree with you. That's ridiculous--in fact, Doug saw someone with a sign like that on Sunday and we agreed that was just over the to, and just...ridiculous. The difference is, you don't see Dem. delegates waving them. Such sentiments are out of line at a convention.

From:

Mike, come one, this is ME you're talking to here. You don't have to throw that in my face. You think I don't see hitler's image as offensive? You don't really think I'm that irrational do you?

I stand by what I said and it does surprise me that a vet like yourself would defend this, because thats exactly what you're doing. As always I respect your opinion but it does surprise me. If the dems used the mock-medal statement I would be equally incensed. It IS incredibly offensive to use an icon of valor and sacrifice, in every war this country has fought, and reduce it to a tool of mockery in ANY context.

To say "it's aimed at Kerry" isn't even worth debating. Hell this entire debate defies reason! Medals??? Does this REALLY matter?? But defiling our country's recognition of bodily injury incurred in the line of duty, no matter how minor, is wrong, it's disrespectful, and it's shameful. EVERY vet should be angered by this. I as a vet would never THINK of putting on a mock purple heart. Would you?

This one enrages me to a level I don't get to very often. Lets just say if I ever see anyone sporting a fake purple heart......I'll make him earn it.

From:

dje2004.livejournal.com

To my mind, whether or not those bandaids are only disrespectful to Kerry or to all vets is irrelevant. Whether or not Kerry's wounds were serious or superficial is irrelevant. Whether Kerry got his wounds under fire or not is irrelevant. What is relevant is that he served his country and he was wounded in the process. That applies equally whether someone served in Vietnam or the Guard. I'm not saying that anyone who serves is beyond criticism, but this kind of mockery is loathsome and reprehensible, and it's something you just don't do. Ever.

From:

Yep, real funny. There are men over in Iraq earning real ones every day, and this is a joke to them? Nice, thanks for the respect. Fucking lily white scumbag cowards. Don't let your "medals" fall into the pate, someone might get offended.

From:

Fucking lily white scumbag cowards.

Why the assumption that everyone wearing those bandaids was white? And even if true, where's the relevance? Is political speech by someone who is white and Republican automatically invalid?

And cowards? You're quite certain that none of them served? Oh, of course they didn't. Republicans don't do that. And no veteran would ever question another's medals. Not even a Swift Boat Veteran. Or 250 of them.

Purple Hearts are occasionally given when they shouldn't be. I happen to have observed one such occasion. It resulted from one soldier's excessive curiousity to see the insides of a bombed-out T-72 tank in southern Iraq in 1991, during the cease-fire, and the wound was minor, requiring only a field dressing. For his accident, that soldier is wearing the same Purple Heart as Max Cleland, who lost three limbs in combat. Are you telling me that if that soldier were running for office as a Republican, and stressing the importance of his combat service, you would consider it completely out-of-bounds to raise the issue?

And it's not just Purple Hearts. There was a general rule in the Army, at least in the 1st Armored Division, during Operation Desert Storm regarding combat service medals: everyone got at least one. E-1 through E-4 got Army Commendation Medals (I got one), NCO's and company-level officers got Bronze Stars (without "V" device for valor), and field-grade officers (Major and up) got Silver Stars. Of course, if a higher individual award for valor was warranted, it was given, so, for example, a Bradley gunner (E-4) in my company who scored 10 confirmed vehicle kills was awarded a Bronze Star with a "V" -- despite the fact that the kills might as well have been in a video game, as there was no incoming fire involved. He fully admitted to being embarrassed to receive the "V"

Point is, military records are not automatically excluded from question, especially if they are being loudly trumpeted as qualifications for office.

From:

From the Washington Post chat today:

Washington, D.C.: As an Indian (from India) I've watched bits of the Democratic convention and have started watching snippets of the Republican convention. I am surprised by the homogenous color (shades of white) of the attendees at the the RNC compared to the Boston party which had a very wide range of people and skin colors.
Is this really the case on the RNC convention floor? Or am I just seeing sections of the delegates on TV and in your photographs?

Robert G. Kaiser: No, this is a much whiter convention than the one in Boston. I looked up the statistic: about 6.4 percent of delegates here are African-American, and about that many are something else other than white. Whites are more than 80% of the total. The GOP is diversifying, but slowly.

"Point is, military records are not automatically excluded from question, especially if they are being loudly trumpeted as qualifications for office."

Questioning is one thing; ridicule is another.

I love Kerry's "loudly" trumpeting his military record. I'm sure it makes chicken hawks like Limbaugh squirm.

From:

African-Americans make up approximately 18% of the U.S. population and in recent contests have voted roughly 90% Democrat to 10% Republican, meaning that approximately 1.8% of the U.S. population is comprised of African-American Republicans. I'd say 6.4% at the convention is quite strong representation. Or, perhaps voting patterns and party affiliation are beginning to change.

Either way, I don't think it's a bad thing for the GOP. If there's an overrepresentation of African-Americans amongst the delegates (who in general tend to be more enthusiastic and active in politics than the general public), then we can infer that those African-Americans Republicans are more enthusiastic about the party than the average Republican is. If it's an indication of changing demographics within the party, it spells trouble for the Democrats, who would be losing their grip on their most reliable voting block.

From:

mysticblaze.livejournal.com

Let's look at all the energy that is being spent to protest the RNC, including people showing up to planned protests, the fires, the preparation of costumes. Let's also look at all the energy that was spent to protest the DNC, which also included planned protests and the preparation of costumes (I don't recall if any fires were set).

Now then, why not harness all that energy and use it to come up with a solution that helps the people in this country? While I agree that everyone has the right to protest, I don't see the point in wasting so much energy that could be used for better things, such as coming up with a feasible plan to address some of the issues that plague us today.

The protests and rhetoric are getting boring. Let's accomplish something instead.

From:

Obviously those people feel they are doing something by protesting. You have to raise people's consciousness before you can effect action. Also, and more specifically, in a republic you have to make your representative aware of your views if you expect them to carry out your wishes. These protests are certainly an attention-getter. In addition, some people feel so disenfranchised, they feel protest is the sole option left to them.

It's a little simplistic to say that protest precludes action, as implied by the word instead.

From:

mysticblaze.livejournal.com

Sometimes things can be that simple.

What better way to accomplish something than to say, "hey, here is a plan that I have drafted that addresses issue X and that will cost Y amount of dollars to implement" to present to your representative in lieu of a protest? Wouldn't that be more productive than walking around with a sign chanting slogans?

It is a great thing to complain about what you don't like in an administration, it is quite another to show that you know what you are talking about by finding an alternate/better solution to a problem that has not been addressed. Those people who spend hours preparing for a protest (or the purple hearts and bandages to mock Kerry's military service) have wasted time without achieving anything other than notoriety. Let's face it, by now, a representative should already know what the feelings of his/her constituency, since we have been barraged by them through constant media coverage.

From:

Again, it's not an either/or situation.

What better way to accomplish something than to say, "hey, here is a plan that I have drafted that addresses issue X and that will cost Y amount of dollars to implement" to present to your representative in lieu of a protest?

Who's to say those very same people are not doing both? You can't deny that these protests is getting publicity. If it does nothing more than involve people in this year's election, it's proved its relevance.

Those people who spend hours preparing for a protest (or the purple hearts and bandages to mock Kerry's military service) have wasted time without achieving anything other than notoriety.

How do you know that?

How can you state no one's mind has been changed by the protests? You can't.

Let's face it, by now, a representative should already know what the feelings of his/her constituency, since we have been barraged by them through constant media coverage.

Yes, that's the point I made above--the representatives know now how some of their electors feel on some of these issues, in part because of the protests. Therefore, the protests fulfilled their purpose. If I were a representative, I wouldn't look to the media alone to inform me--that would be one factor among many. I don't see how exercising your freedom of expression is ever a bad thing, sorry.

From:

mysticblaze.livejournal.com

I am not saying that exercising your freedom of expression is ever a bad thing. What I am saying is that there are times when people go overboard and do not achieve the effect that they desire, thus wasting their time.

What about all the people who have been disruptive in their protests and are now in jail? What have they accomplished? Surely now the taxpayers have to pay extra for their incarceration, which would not have been necessary if they had been peaceful protesters. It is people like those whose energy and zeal makes me wonder if they really believe in their cause or are looking to become infamous.

What does this accomplish?:

demonstrator being arrested

A demonstrator is handcuffed by police in Midtown New York Tuesday, Aug. 31, 2004, on the second day of the Republican National Convention.

There are appropriate and inappropriate ways to protest. Now this person wastes the time of other people by (a) getting someone to bail him out and (b) making a Court appearance for arraignment (at least) and (c) the investigation as to whether to continue to press charges. Is this really necessary?

From:

See, now you're targeting extreme examples, whereas before you were criticizing "all the energy that is being spent to protest the RNC, including people showing up to planned protests, the fires, the preparation of costumes." These are not the same--one is a subset of the other.

Getting arrested is not a tactic I would try myself, but it gets publicity which may be what they wanted. It got on the news, right? We're talking about it, aren't we? Perhaps they feel the tradeoff is worth the price paid. After all, Chicago '68 was an historic manifestation of how controversial the Vietnam War was--we still talk about that convention today. And eventually the various administrations admitted you can't pursue a war without popular support.

From: