Remember all the talk about “mandates” after the last election? Despite an extraordinarily narrow margin, Bush stayed in the White House, then went on to claim that this represented a mandate from voters to stay the course.

The most recent edition of the “Patrick’s Place Poll” asked your feelings on stem cell research after the president’s veto of a bill that would have allowed federal funding for the controversial science.

There were three options for voters:

1. It represents a great hope against some terrible diseases. It should receive federal funding.2. It has potential, but it should not be endorsed through federal funding. Let those who want to pay for it do it behind closed doors.

3. It is absolutely wrong. Not only should it not be funded, but it shouldn’t be allowed at all.

And the seemingly-impossible happened. In a world when no one can agree on much of anything when it comes to hot-button political issues, there was unanimous agreement: 100% of voters selected the first option, saying it was worthwhile and should be funded.

One hundred percent!

So where, exactly, is that veto override?

Just saw this in Neil’s Journal:

Democrats at one North Carolina Baptist church have been put on notice: either they support President Bush or find a new place to worship, according to a story by Evansville, IN, NBC affiliate WFIT-TV.

My favorite line in the whole story is that the preacher says his actions aren’t “politically motivated.” I don’t know how he defines “politically motivated” actions, but when you throw people out of a church because of their political views, that sounds like “political motivation” to me.

I wonder if the preacher would throw Jimmy Carter — one of the most moral men ever to serve as President — out of his church? I’m a Baptist and I’d walk out of the church in a heartbeat.

What would Jesus do? I like John Scalzi’s answer over at “Whatever:”

“My Jesus would forgive the hatefulness of your Jesus.”

Well, they’re still at it. Supporters of John Kerry are still complaining about the results of the election, and some of them are now attacking Christians for causing Bush’s victory, citing the sudden desire for a more “moral” country as the reason Kerry lost.

I guess that makes them feel better.

They overlook the fact that there are plenty of Christians who voted for Kerry. There are plenty of Christians who aren’t entirely happy with the Republican party or President Bush.

They overlook the fact that there are plenty of heterosexual voters who really couldn’t care less whether gays have the right to get married or not; they have nothing against gay people and don’t mind if they have the same rights…it’s just that this one issue isn’t important enough to them to get them to the polls.

They overlook the fact that there are plenty of Christians who don’t believe it’s right to use abortion as the sole method of birth control, but who, at the same time, feel that they shouldn’t have the right to tell a woman what she can and can’t do with her body.

They overlook the fact that there are plenty of Christians who aren’t entirely happy with the way that the country has gone in the last four years, and who aren’t entirely convinced that going into Iraq was the right thing to do, whether they genuinely believed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction at the time.

And they overlook the fact that this was John Kerry’s election to win and George W. Bush’s election to lose. I know of virtually no one who was entirely happy with George W. Bush’s administration: even those I know who supported him had things to complain about.

Why overlook all of these points? Why throw blame at the “evil” Christians? Because they don’t want to admit the fact that despite all of the country’s problems and all of the reasons to be unhappy with Bush, just over 50% of the country didn’t trust John Kerry enough — or feel that they understood his position well enough — to believe that he would make things better.

Whose fault is that?

The latest political controversy this election year involves a media conglomerate determined to have its stations air an anti-Kerry documentary this Friday. There are many issues worth discussing here. But first, let me go back to the basics for a moment.

The media conglomerate in question is the Sinclair Broadcast Group, owner of 62 television stations, which make up approximately 24% coverage of American television households. This is an important fact, because the country is divided into geographic coverage areas called “markets.” You live in a television market, whether you realize it or not. Normally, the closest major city to you (which is normally where your local stations are headquartered) is likely the home city for your market.

There are 210 television markets in the country. The largest market is New York City, which consists, according to Nielsen Media, the company that tabulates television ratings, of 7,355,710 television households, or roughly 6.7% of the total television households in America. The second largest market is Los Angeles, with 5.4 million TV households (4.9%). Chicago is the third largest market. Some markets are “hyphenated,” which means that they consist of several major cities close enough together that they all fall into the same coverage area. The nation’s fifth largest market is a hyphenated market: San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose. (Just for fun, because I know you’re dying to know, the nation’s smallest market is in Glendive, Montana, with just 5,150 television households.)

Sinclair’s stations are located mostly in midsize markets and are mostly WB and Fox affiliates, thus the earlier statistic that even with 62 stations, they still manage to reach less than one quarter of all American households.

Earlier this year, Sinclair came under fire after “forbidding” its 8 ABC affiliates from airing a “Nightline” broadcast during which the names of every soldier killed in the War in Iraq were read. The company, according to industry insider Newsblues, also forces its affiliates to air a daily “commentary” by corporate spokesman Mark Hyman who has called the French “cheese eating surrender monkeys” and antiwar Congressmen “unpatriotic politicians who hate our military.”

Now, Sinclair wants its stations to air “Stolen Honor,” a 42-minute documentary that focuses on John Kerry’s denunciation of the Vietnam War three decades ago. Democratic party leaders have filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission, claiming the documentary is basically an illegal corporate campaign contribution to President Bush.

I have worked for three media corporations in my career thus far. Sinclair has not been one of them. But one of the three I’ve worked for is one of those “major media conglomerates” that everyone loves to hate. But I can happily say that I have never worked for a company that made its corporate political beliefs well-known to its customers or employees. I didn’t know how my corporate superiors voted, and I was pleased not to know. I would certainly be concerned if a company I worked for dictated that my station air such a broadcast.

But having said that, I think it’s worth noting that there is once again a double standard in operation here with regard to the concept of political documentaries.

When Michael Moore came out with “Fahrenheit 9/11,” Bush supporters were outraged. Kerry supporters were amused at their frustration, and came forward with several important points that they seem to have forgotten lately.

First, they said that Moore’s movie was good for America because it contributed to the public discourse. If there were exaggerations or inaccuracies, they would not stand up to scrutiny. Anyway, they said, the American people are smart enough to judge for themselves and make up their own mind. I heard quite a few of Kerry’s supporters say that all Americans should see Moore’s film.

They apparently seem to feel that this film for some reason doesn’t contribute to the public discourse. Despite the fact that they back a candidate who challenged everyone to judge him by his record, the same American people must be in election overload if they’re no longer smart enough to judge for themselves what is and isn’t reasonable.

They criticized those Republicans who tried to discredit Michael Moore and those who resorted to personal attacks against him.

But as you might expect, Democratic partyofficials, including Terry McAuliffe, chairman of the DNC, were only too happy to refer to the producer of “Stolen Honor” as a “discredited journalist who held no standing in the profession.” Carlton Sherwood, the producer of the film, is a former Marine who served in Vietnam and earned three Purple Hearts of his own. Apparently, Kerry supporters do not feel that all Purple Heart recipients are created equal.

Then they told us to forget that Moore has an agenda (and that he has made no bones about having one); his film is a “documentary,” with real footage of what happened. It must be true.

This film, which apparently contains footage of Kerry’s actions after the war, for some reason can’t be true. As for Sherwood’s agenda, the Miami Herald reported that the film was made with $220,000 in donations from Pennsylvania veterans angered by Kerry’s post-war remarks which they feel hurt veterans and their families. It also mentions that Sherwood is a “friend” of Tom Ridge, but that Ridge had no involvement in the movie.

Those who were fans of Moore’s film were furious that anyone would criticize the film without first seeing it. I’m sure that those who are speaking out against “Stolen Honor” haven’t seen it, either.

But my favorite comment comes from Democratic party spokesman David K. Chai, who claimed that the movie is an attempt by Bush supporters to change the topic away from the War in Iraq.

If the topic of the day ever drifted to the War in Iraq for more than about twenty minutes at any time over the last year, it seems that the Kerry camp was quick to focus attention back where they felt it belonged: Kerry’s prestigious military service record. What he did in Vietnam, and what he said about what he’d done when he got back from doing it isn’t nearly as important as the War in Iraq. But how many times have we listened to the talk of his three Purple Hearts? And do keep in mind that Kerry’s side was the one that made military service such an issue to begin with; since Bush had no war service record, it’s not hard to figure out that the Bush camp wasn’t the one to make a big deal over who served overseas!

I realize that there is a difference between this film and Moore’s movie: “Stolen Honor” is to be broadcast over the airwaves and won’t require its audience to go to a theater and pay admission. But considering that “Stolen Honor” is only reaching only 24% of the country (if all stations involved air it), while Moore’s movie reached from coast to coast, I seriously doubt much damage will be done to Kerry.

Do I believe it’s right to air the program this close to the election? No.

But I have to wonder how many of the Kerry supporters now complaining about Sinclair’s decision to air this program would complain as loudly if a different media conglomerate ordered its stations to broadcast “Fahrenheit 9/11″ this Friday night. Somehow, I doubt that there would be many who would.

There’s something wrong with that, too.

In response to my earlier essay about the possibility of reinstating the draft, Neil of “Neil’s Journal” pointed out a few important facts, most recently telling me that it “seems you were way off on this one.” I like Neil and his journal, and I’m not trying to pick on him. Instead, I think that there are a few additional points that should be considered in light of this new information.

Neil mentioned that it was the Republicans who stirred up the controversy about a draft as a fear tactic. But the E-mails that flooded the internet fueling speculation that President Bush wanted to reinstate the draft to supply more troops for the War in Iraq certainly were not written by card-carrying Republicans! Rather, they were produced by Kerry supporters who wanted to suggest that Bush’s war, which was based entirely on lies, would cost voters their children’s lives by causing a new draft. The E-mails didn’t mention that Democratic congressmen introduced the bills to create a new draft. They clearly hoped to stir up fear among voters that Bush and his party would be the one to reinstate the draft by neglecting to include the important fact of who sponsored the legislation. That is the politics of fear, pure and simple.

When we were getting the calls and E-mails in our newsroom from worried parents, virtually all of them had one thing in common: the question was phrased around the following assumption: “I heard Bush is trying to reinstate the draft! Is that true?” No one asked if Democrats were trying to reinstate the draft. Why do we suppose that this would be the case, if the E-mails were completely factual in their presentation of the possibility of a draft?

Once those E-mails begin flying and Republicans begin hearing from their constituents, is it a “tacky political ploy” to point out that it was the Democrats who sponsored the bills that called for a draft? Or is it clarifying a point that was conveniently left out of the propaganda designed to scare voters into selecting Kerry? You’ll have to decide that for yourself.

Finally, there’s this important statement Neil sent. Sen. Fritz Hollings, (a man I greatly respect and voted for as long as I lived in South Carolina), one of the politicians who sponsored a bill to reinstate the draft, made the following comment after the companion bill was killed in the House: “We introduced a draft bill in January 2003, when our nation’s defense needed more troops — and we still do. We were misled into Iraq, and now the Commander in Chief tells the troops they can’t win. You don’t draft young Americans for a mistake, particularly when they can’t win. Under these circumstances, I would vote against my own bill.”

Did Hollings withdraw the bill? Or is it still active? Surprisingly, it’s still there, though his office insists that it’s dead.

But think about it for a minute: let’s suppose that you’re a Democratic congressman who doesn’t approve of the current war and doesn’t trust the motives of the current president. Would you allow a bill that would reinstate the draft to linger, waiting for support among Republican congressmen who you don’t trust, either? Would you allow a bill with your name on it to exist, even if you yourself wouldn’t vote for it? Even if your initial motive to introduce the proposal was on “principled grounds,” if your position changes, shouldn’t your active legislation reflect that?

If there’s nothing wrong with a politician having a change of heart (indeed, if that’s something that constituents will find laudable), why would such a politician leave the proposal he no longer believes in out there?

To be fair, his office claims that it’s a dead bill because no one will bring it up: “They have too many other things to do before the end of the session,” according to a spokesperson. But that itself is an assumption. If we are to believe that “evil” Republicans are only out to prolong an “unjustifiable war,” as the original fear-mongering E-mails suggested, how are we then to rule out the possibility that these same “evil” Republicans wouldn’t be above suddenly and unexpectedly drumming up support on a bill before the session ends? Why not remove it from consideration, and with it, the talk of a draft if a draft — at this time — is the wrong thing to do?

Neil ends one of his comments with the hope that on November 2nd, “America willreject the politics of fear, and elect John Kerry.” If Kerry’s side of the issue, through either lies of omission or the fueling of assumptions, are trying to make it look like Bush (not Democratic congressmen) are proposing a draft, I would suggest that the Democratic party isn’t above using the politics of fear, either.

It comes down to this: if pointing out only part of the story is a fair tactic, while naming names is a “tacky political ploy,” then we cannot ever allow ourselves to be surprised that so few people trust our politicians and that so many are shocked after hearing the “other side” of the story!

Many people have become concerned about the possibility of the government reinstating the draft. A rash of rumors and E-mails have been spreading, threatening to turn the whispers of concern into the next urban legend. This sudden concern followed reports that at least two different proposals that had been made in Congress sought to return the draft.

A recent AOL survey questioned voters about which candidate they thought was most likely to restore the draft. When reporters recently asked John Kerry whether he thought George W. Bush would end up restoring the draft, he didn’t say yes, but he didn’t say no, either, further fueling that fire of speculation.

Keep this in mind for a moment as we briefly change topics.

Many Democrats took great exception to Dick Cheney’s comment that implied that choosing the wrong man for the presidency (in his mind, Kerry) could result in America being attacked again by terrorists. Many claimed that Cheney’s comment was completely out of line, because he was using fear as a ploy to unfairly influence people’s vote.

I recently heard a voter being interviewed on a national newscast and I was surprised to hear her say that she couldn’t imagine 9/11 having happened if Al Gore had been in office. I’m not sure how she arrived at such an absurd conclusion; the Oklahoma City bombing, tied to domestic terrorism, and the World Trade Center bombing, tied to Osama bin Laden, both occurred while Clinton and Gore were in office. Gore proposed tougher airport security measures as Vice President in response to the growing threat of terror, then backed off. It wouldn’t be fair to blame 9/11 on Gore’s failure to push those recommendations until they became requirements, but on the other hand, one cannot rule out the possibility that tougher security prior to 9/11 might have at least hindered the terrorists from that particular method of mass murder.

We’re talking about terrorists so willing to kill Americans that the prospect of dying for the cause doesn’t seem like a high price. I really don’t think they are remotely concerned about whether a Democrat or a Republican is in the White House at the time. Making their point (and accomplishing their goal) would seem to be their main preoccupation.

I thought Cheney’s comment was unreasonable as well. The question isn’t whether one candidate or the other will prevent us from being attacked again by simply being elected, or whether the election itself of one candidate or the other will encourage terrorists to strike again: I think that if a Republican is elected, terrorists will have a motive to strike again to dispel the myth that Republicans will prevent us from ever being attacked again. Likewise, I think that if a Democrat is elected, the same terrorists will have a motive to strike again to demonstrate that we are vulnerable no matter what we do. Either way, an attack would have a demoralizing effect on the country, which seems to be part of their terrorists master plan. The question we should be asking is how each candidate will handle the next attack when it does come.

But in any case, Cheney’s critics said that it was tasteless and inexcusable to have made such a remark. Keep that in mind, too.

Now, back to the draft issue. There are two bills that have been proposed to return the draft. You might be surprised to learn that the two primary sponsors of the two bills are Sen. Ernest Hollings of South Carolina, and Representative Charles Rangel of New York, both of whom are Democrats. The bills in Congress are gaining almost no support, but they’re there. And some Democrats aren’t making any bones about the “threat” of a draft:

“Under a second Bush administration, I don’t think we can rule out the fact that the president may try to get Congress to reinstate the draft,” says Representative Diana DeGette, a Colorado Democrat, according to MSNBC.

Political experts say that it would be very unlikely that a draft would get any real political support because politicians know that the voters would hold them responsible during their next re-election bids. Imagine for a moment the sheer horror these Democrats would feel if Republicans suddenly decided to back these measures. Imagine the backlash if the Bush administration announced that this was exactly the thing that needed to happen during such an unpopular war. The fact that the Bush administration hasn’t jumped “on board” with these proposals should tell you something.

But the assumption that the measures won’t go anywhere except into the minds of worried parents isn’t stopping Democrats from using fear as a ploy to attract voters who don’t want to see the draft restarted.

If you’re going to hold Dick Cheney in ill-regard for having tried to play off of voter fears, you must first consider the fact that there are those on the other side of the coin who have no problem doing the same thing. If you’re going to question why the Bush administration would attempt to scare people into voting against Kerry, you have to question why some Democrats don’t seem to have a problem with the same tactic when it happens to benefit their candidate.

After all, why is it not okay to attempt to capitalize on the fears of another terror attack while it is okay to capitalize on the fears of a new draft? Sounds like a double standard to me.

But back to that question on AOL’s poll: which candidate do you think is most likely to reinstate the draft? Many would have you believe that Bush is the only one who offers such a threat. But if the legislation proposed by some of his Democratic brethren is any indication, one cannot rule out the Kerry administration doing so, either. It would seem that if Kerry offered such a suggestion, he would already have some support within his own party!

Bill Clinton, shortly before undergoing heart surgery, urged John Kerry to drop the Vietnam theme of his campaign, according to MSNBC. The call came after the release of a new Gallup poll which shows that George W. Bush had a lead over Kerry greater than the statistical margin for error for the first time since January.

I find it sad that military service is still such a dominant issue of the campaign. It seems to have occurred to no one that Bush has military service that Kerry doesn’t: for the past four years, he has been Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, an accomplishment, like it or not, that Kerry cannot claim, at least not yet.

And that the suggestion that Kerry should drop the Vietnam theme comes from Bill Clinton is even more ironic, since Kerry was quick to come to Clinton’s defense in 1992 when Republicans attacked Clinton over the same military service issue back then.

As many problems and as much unhappiness as there seems to be with the current administration, the unending pursuit of this one sore topic speaks volumes about the Kerry campaign, which has wasted no time in attacking the Bush camp for avoiding “real issues.” If everyone is so dissatisfied with the direction the country is going, as Kerry insists is the case, how can he be losing ground? Is he, as some Democratic party consultants fear, letting the victory slip through his fingers?

Are terror alerts a politically-motivated ploy to raise the president’s approval rating? That’s a question many Democrats are asking these days.

Most of Bush’s opponents don’t want to discuss what they’d like to see the current administration to do about the threat of terror if it can’t be allowed to raise a terror alert when it finds information that suggests a possible target or timeframe.

So far, no one has been willing to go on record saying that there is no threat of terror. No one has been willing to go on record saying that terrorists aren’t plotting new ways to infiltrate the United States. And while many seem to have myriad problems with the Bush administration’s color coding, few seem to have a clearly better alternative.

The same site that tabulates projected Electoral Votes which I mentioned in my last essay provides a link to a plot of President Bush’s approval ratings. Terror alerts and the other notable events have been plotted along with ratings gathered over Bush’s presidency.

It is suggested that an incumbent president’s approval rating is the best predictor of his re-election; presidents with an approval rating below the 50% mark generally do not get re-elected. At this writing, Bush’s median approval rating appears to be around the 47% mark.

But the reason for producing this graph is two-fold: not only does its author hope to offer these numbers as proof that Bush will not get a second term, he also hopes to show that Bush is strategically using terror alerts to boost his sagging approval rating.

Do the facts support his claim? Let’s take a look.

First, he suggests that every time there is a “dip” in Bush’s approval rating, a terror alert is announced. This isn’t entirely accurate. We don’t see sudden drops before terror alerts are raised that are steeper than general decline that is already occurring. It’s unquestionable that Bush’s approval rating has been declining for some time. But the rate of decline has been fairly steady if you remove the terror alerts from the picture. The low point shown before each rise is only a low point because the number then goes back up a bit. Otherwise, it would pretty much be a straight line headed in the same downward direction. There are no real potholes appearing here.

Second, he suggests that the terror alerts always raise Bush’s approval rating, justifying this continuing tactic. It’s not true. Many of the terror alerts do precede a brief spike in the numbers, but not all of them do. Some seem to have no effect at all. Also, there are occasional spikes that occur in the absence of an immediate terror alert, which means that they cannot be the sole cause of improved ratings for the president. Therefore, you cannot even assume that the terror alerts that do precede a riseare the only possible reason for that the rise.

Third, he suggests that as we approach the election, the number and frequency of terror alerts keeps growing. It is not entirely impossible to imagine that our election could be a time at which terrorists wish to strike in the hopes of altering the outcome. Also, this fails to consider the fact that as we dig deeper into the terror threat, it is inevitable that we will find more details about possible plans. The same thing occurs in medicine when a new test is perfected to successfully diagnose illness: more cases are generally found. This doesn’t mean that the number of cases are on the rise or that doctors are trying to scare the general public; it simply means that they have new tools that enable them to diagnose the problem more efficiently.

Fourth, the writer seems to miss one very obvious fact: despite the spikes that have occurred in Bush’s approval rating, none seems to be permanent. If, as he is trying so hard to prove, the Bush administration is issuing terror alerts to “boost” his numbers, it should be clear by now that the spikes are short-lived and that when an alert is issued without either a major arrest or a terrorist attack occurring, the numbers end up dropping lower than they were before the alert is issued. Does this sound like a strategy any team would use for long?

Fifth, he then adds:

“…for the record, we are not claiming that all these alerts are politically motivated. We are sure a considerable amount of these alerts were legit and caused by real and immediate information of potential threats. What is important to note is that many of these “immediate” terror alerts were later on discredited (in some cases they used old data, in other cases the announcements were less immediate and less urgent that we were lead to believe, as the press reported.) Those are the cases that could be interpreted as politically motivated, especially when they seemed to coincide with political news and events unfavorable to the administration.”

The conditional language, (”not all,” “could be interpreted,” “seemed to coincide”), means, in translation, that he could be completely off base. The facts the writer provides do not support the bulk of his case, least of all the notion that Bush is using terror alerts to “improve” his approval rating.

It comes down to this: you have to decide for yourself how seriously you want to take the threat when a new alert is issued. If you choose to assume that a new threat must be bogus because you feel Bush is a bogus president, so be it. But if an alert is issued and an attack occurs, you cannot then blame the government for not doing its part to warn you.

Many people seem so annoyed by even the mention of a terror alert these days that I am beginning to think they would like for this country to completely suspend all homeland security activities until Inauguration Day in January. That way, the possibility of the alert system being used as a political ploy would be impossible.

Of course, this election year, we are learning that virtually anything can be used as a political ploy…even a trio of Purple Hearts!

After my last essay about the Vietnam issue in this year’s presidential campaign, Tara of “The Soundtrack of My Life” commented, “My, my, this Vietnam issue’s a hot button for you!”

Actually, it is. Here’s why:

Back in 1992, Bill Clinton had the audacity to run for president despite having received a deferment that kept him out of a tour of duty in Asia. Republicans were quick to jump on this as some sort of proof that he wasn’t fit to lead the country. They were wrong to do so.

For the first time, I became aware of John Kerry, a decorated Vietnam veteran, (although at the time it hadn’t been drilled into my head that he had won three Purple Hearts). Addressing Congress on February 27, 1992, he responded to GOP claims that Clinton was a “draft dodger:”

“I am saddened by the fact that Vietnam has yet again been inserted into the campaign, and that it has been inserted in what I feel to be the worst possible way. By that I mean that yesterday, during this Presidential campaign, and even throughout recent times, Vietnam has been discussed and written about without an adequate statement of its full meaning.

“What is ignored is the way in which our experience during that period reflected in part a positive affirmation of American values and history, not simply the more obvious negatives of loss and confusion.

“What is missing is a recognition that there exists today a generation that has come into its own with powerful lessons learned, with a voice that has been grounded in experiences both of those who went to Vietnam and those who did not.

“What is missing and what cries out to be said is that neither one group nor the other from that difficult period of time has cornered the market on virtue or rectitude or love of country.

“What saddens me most is that Democrats, above all those who shared the agonies of that generation, should now be refighting the many conflicts of Vietnam in order to win the current political conflict of a Presidential primary.

“The race for the White House should be about leadership, and leadership requires that one help heal the wounds of Vietnam, not reopen them; that one help identify the positive things that we learned about ourselves and about our Nation, not play to the divisions and differences of that crucible of our generation.

“We do not need to divide America over who served and how. I have personally always believed that many served in many different ways. Someone who was deeply against the war in 1969 or 1970 may well have served their country with equal passion and patriotism by opposing the war as by fighting in it. Are we now, 20 years or 30 years later, to forget the difficulties of that time, of families that were literally torn apart, of brothers who ceased to talk to brothers, of fathers who disowned their sons, of people who felt compelled to leave the country and forget their own future and turn against the will of their own aspirations?

“Are we now to descend, like latter-day Spiro Agnews, and play, as he did, to the worst instincts of divisiveness and reaction that still haunt America? Are we now going to create a new scarlet letter in the context of Vietnam?

“Certainly, those who went to Vietnam suffered greatly. I have argued for years, since I returned myself in 1969, that they do deserve special affection and gratitude for service. And, indeed, I think everything I have tried to do since then has been to fight for their rights and recognition.

“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.

“I would like to make a simple and straightforward appeal, an appeal from my heart, as well as from my head. To all those currently pursuing the Presidency in both parties, I would plead that they simply look at America. We are a nation crying out for leadership, for someone who will bring us together and raise our sights. We are a nation looking for someone who will lift our spirits and give us confidence that together we can grow out of this recession and conquer the myriad of social ills we have at home.

“We do not need more division. We certainly do not need something as complex and emotional as Vietnam reduced to simple campaign rhetoric. What has been said has been said, Mr. President, but I hope and pray we will put it behind us and go forward in a constructive spirit for the good of our party and the good of our country.”

I was impressed that a Vietnam veteran would publicly support someone who had the chance to go but didn’t. I was impressed that a veteran of any war could suggest that someone without military experience was capable of leadership, a claim that was so disputed by Republicans in 1992.

So what happened to those sentiments of twelve years ago? What changed? Kerry decided to run for President against someone who didn’t serve. Sure, every successful politician has to be an opportunist at some point. But I don’t have to respect that fact, nor do I have to change my point of view just because a politician changes his.

Kerry talks about wanting one America. He doesn’t really want “one” America so much as he wants a Democratically-controlled America. (By the same token, Bush doesn’t want “one” America so much as he wants a Republican-controlled America. It’s politics: that’s common sense.)

Reread Kerry’s own words about this being a country “crying out for leadership, for someone who will bring us together.” Does that not sound familiar this year? Isn’t that exactly what so many people who are dissatisfied with the current administration are saying? Could the parallel be any more profound?

Only this time around, who’s using the service of our soldiers “at the expense of others?”

“Well, they did it to us first” isn’t an excuse unless you believe that two wrongs do make a right.

An Op/Ed piece published in Sunday’s Richmond Times-Dispatch gives an interesting perspective to the use of images from 9/11 in campaign ads that have been making headlines and leading to criticism of the Bush camp from victims’ families.

What’s so interesting is that the writer of the essay, Debra Burlingame, is not only a lifelong Democrat, but is the sister of Charles F. ‘Chic’ Burlingame III, captain of American Airlines flight 77, which was crashed into the Pentagon on September 11, 2001.

Says Debra: “‘The 9/11 families’ are not a monolithic group that speaks in one voice, and nothing has made that more clear than the controversy over the Bush campaign ads.”

“It is one thing for individual family members to invoke the memory of all 3,000 victims as they take to the microphone or podium to show respect for our collective loss. It is another for them to attempt to stifle the debate over the future direction of our country by declaring that the images of 9/11 should be off limits in the presidential race, and to do so under the rubric of ‘The Families of September 11.’”

“They do not represent me. Nor do they represent those Americans who feel that September 11 was a defining moment in the history of our country and who want to know how the current or future occupant of the Oval Office views the lessons of that day.”

A few other noteworthy quotes:

“I suspect that the real outrage over the ads has more to do with the context than the content. It’s not the pictures that disturb them so much as the person who is using them.”

“As ‘relatives of 9/11 victims,’ they are virtually immune to challenge on the issue of who should have the loudest voice regarding the legacy of this national tragedy.”

And finally, this lifelong Democrat raises this important point:

“Whatever these 9/11 families may think of the President’s foreign policy or the war in Iraq, I ask them to reconsider the language and tone of their statements. We should not tolerate or condone remarks such as those of the 9/11 relative who, so offended by the campaign ads, said that he ‘would vote for Saddam Hussein before I would vote for Bush.‘ The insult was picked up and posted on Al-Jazeera’s Website. In view of the sacrifice our troops have made on our behalf, this insensitivity to them and their families suggests a level of self-indulgence and ingratitude that shocks the conscience.”

I’m happy to see a fair, balanced point of view. I know that there are plenty of people out there — both Republicans and Democrats — who are capable of standing independent of their preferred party’s rhetoric. That a family member of a 9/11 victim has done so as loudly and clearly as Ms. Burlingame has should say something extraordinary to us all…something much more powerful than the obvious, oft-forgotten notion that there are always two sides to every story.

Burlingame’s essay is ©MMIV The Wall Street Journal.

Here’s another gift for Liberals this political year: “Richard A. Clarke, the former White House counterterrorism coordinator, accuses the Bush administration of failing to recognize the al-Qaida threat before the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks and then manipulating America into war with Iraq with dangerous consequences.” (The full story, as long as AOL keeps it online, is here.)

He’s telling his story to 60 Minutes two days before he is scheduled to testify before a federal panel reviewing the attacks. Clarke is quoted as acknowledging that “there’s a lot of blame to go around, and I probably deserve some blame, too.” This generous admission of his own compliance hasn’t stopped him from writing a book about the entire situation in which he denounces the current administration for ignoring the threat of terrorism.

“I find it outrageous that the president is running for re-election on the grounds that he’s done such great things about terrorism,” Clark said. “He ignored it. He ignored terrorism for months, when maybe we could have done something.”

The simple fact is that we all ignored the threat of terrorism. The attacks of 9/11 were not the first terrorist acts committed in this country. But how many of us even thought about the threat on September 10, 2001? How many of us walked around thinking about the security measures designed to protect us? How many of us would have given anyone who suggested such dangers the time of day until we saw the threat become real in our living rooms on the following morning?

FDR, one of the greatest Democratic presidents in history was accused after the fact of ignoring a threat against Pearl Harbor because he knew that if it was bombed, it would mobilize the country against the Axis Powers in World War II. America wasn’t really ready to enter the war before the war came to our soil. That’s this country’s nature: we don’t want to send our sons and daughters off to war until we see the threat in a personal way. I’m not saying that we’re right to feel that way…it’s just that many Americans do feel that way.

Clarke also seems to take exception to the fact that President Bush wanted to know whether Iraq was involved. Isn’t that a logical question to ask? Shouldn’t any of America’s enemies be considered prime suspects? And for the son of a former President who went to war against a particular nation, is it so much of a stretch that the son might consider that nation a particularly obvious threat? The question, at least to me, doesn’t seem so outrageous.

And once again, in a story that belongs in the “Convenient Timing” file, a top advisor comes out with a “tell-all” book about what’s wrong in Washington two-and-a-half years after the fact leading up to a Presidential election! Where were these charges a year ago? Where were these charges two years ago? Why didn’t we hear this story a month after the attack? I tend to automatically question any stories that seem so perfectly timed…but maybe that’s just me.

The latest fuel for political fire seems to be a few campaign ads for President Bush which include images from the 9/11 Terror Attacks. His critics wasted no time jumping on these spots because they felt they were insensitive to victims of 9/11 and used a tragedy to get votes.

There comes a point at which even the more politically charged among us must stop and think for a moment. Does anyone think that there couldn’t possibly be a Democratic candidate who, given the same set of circumstances, might have used images from 9/11 in their own ads?

As the 9/11 attack and the response thereafter gave Bush one of the highest approval ratings (at least for a while) of any president in years, is it a surprise? As the 9/11 attack and the response thereafter dictated dramatic developments in foreign affairs that continue today, is it unreasonable to address them in political ads? Should we ignore what happened?

When Democrats run commercials on economy, I fully expect them to avoid the job issue: after all, all those people who lost theirs during the last four years shouldn’t have to be subjected to the painful reminder of that fact.

When Bill Clinton ran for President, the Republicans made a big deal about his lack of military service. The Democrats said this was unfair and didn’t mean that he would be an ineffective leader.

Now, George W. Bush’s military service is being called into question by many of those same Democrats, and it’s the Republicans crying foul.

This typical political skirmish leads me to wonder whether the Constitution should be adjusted to add military service as a qualification for becoming president. It seems to me that the other side is going to call one’s military record into question no matter who is running. And I can’t agree that it’s all that fair.

Part of the controversy lies in the argument that President Bush joined the Air National Guard to avoid being sent to Viet Nam. Thankfully, I’m young enough to have missed that draft, but if I had the chance to avoid going to Viet Nam back then, I can’t honestly say I wouldn’t have taken it. I understand why those who did so chose that route. It makes me respect those who did go to Viet Nam that much more, but I understand.

What about someone who has never served, even in times of peace? You never know when war will break out. Even when all seems right with the world, joining up could still put you in the middle of a conflict. Is someone like me who has never served in the military even when it was “quiet” less of a citizen? Am I less patriotic?

In the business sector, workers get promotions. They rise in the ranks, and the top man can very often find himself supervising large companies in which there are employees doing jobs he’s never done before. That doesn’t mean he can’t be a good leader…it just means he needs people around him who will help him make the right decisions.

I don’t mean to be the slightest bit disrespectful of our veterans: it is their very sacrifices that allow us today to write these silly journal entries in a free country. I just wonder where we draw the line on one’s responsibility as a citizen.

The President’s military records are getting big news this week, because of what they contain and what some say they don’t. Did George W. Bush serve all of the time he was supposed to, or did he get paid for service he didn’t render?

The military granted him an honorable discharge; one might think that would answer the question. His critics say that there is reason to believe he wasn’t really there when he said he was…and that the whole thing was swept under the rug. There’s talk of a special favor when Mr. Bush was the governor of Texas that removed anything potentially embarrassing from his file. A report of an alleged 1972 cocaine arrest has his opponents asking questions. Democrats comdemn the White House for not being able to provide someone who can verify his whereabouts for the length of his service. Republicans condemn the Democrats for expecting something so ridiculous. And when a fellow serviceman appeared out of no where to vouch for Bush’s presence at TANG, both sides began picking his story apart, wondering about discrepancies in the timeline. It goes on and on. But I keep coming back to this:

The military granted him an honorable discharge.

Allow me to switch channels for a moment…let’s switch to a completely different subject matter and set of characters for the sake of conversation. Let’s say that a private citizen commits a crime. Suppose it is a crime that could potentially earn jail time. But let’s suppose that said citizen agrees to working community service in exchange for having the event be excluded from his record. Said citizen accepts the offer, grateful for the opportunity to keep his name clear and right a wrong.

Is this fair? Perhaps, perhaps not. Does it happen? Sure. Is the citizen to blame for taking advantage of it? Certainly not. If you’re looking to blame someone, blame the legal system that would allow certain people to get favorable treatment over others. If you were in the same situation, and you were given that option, would you say, “No, your Honor…I’d like to be punished to the full extent of the law?” Somehow, for most of us, I doubt it.

Back to the original thought: suppose that the allegations — clearly political motivated at this point whether true or not — are true, and that the President’s records have been “cleaned up.” If the military gave Bush an honorable discharge, is Bush to blame for that?