Red State / Blue State | An election season blog

In the December 2001 edition of the Atlantic, David Brooks wrote an essay titled "One Nation, Slightly Divisible," in which he suggested that America is divided largely into two political cultures, one "red" and one "blue." His idea is based on those electoral maps in 2000 that colored majority-Republican states in red and majority-Democratic states in blue. Brooks' witty essay pictures the red-state voter as trending rural, a salt-of-the-earth type, concerned with individual liberty and family values, whereas the "blue" voter trends urban, more of a book-reader, a Beltway-savvy intellectual, the environmentally conscious soccer mom or dad.

Cliches? Maybe. But Brooks does have his finger on two very strong currents in the American votership. It's not that Pennsylvania is a "blue state" or Alabama is a "red state." It's that our two political cultures don't talk to each other much, or even know much about each other. To bridge that gap, we've brought together two "red" voters - John Franklin and Cynthia Sneed - and two "blue" voters, Terri Falbo and Timothy Horner. Each week, they'll ponder and debate the issues arising in the election campaign. The hope is that they'll model an intelligent discussion, a great big conference room where red and blue sit down together.

Joe Franklin, Red Stater

Question Number Three: John Kerry's Vietnam War record has been called into question. One group, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, is being backed by several Republican backers of President Bush. It has launched a Web site and aired TV ads calling into question Kerry's medals awarded during Vietnam. A book, Unfit for Command by John O'Neill, suggests Kerry is lying about his war record. What do you make of such tactics? Should they carry much weight with voters?

There are many issues of more importance facing our country during the upcoming election than Sen. Kerry's war record. President Bush's National Guard record is not important, either.

If war records were a prerequisite for becoming president, former Sen. Bob Dole would have been elected or perhaps former Sen. Bob Kerrey. President Clinton would have never been elected.

Perhaps Kerry's record as an antiwar activist is the reason this issue is resurfacing. No doubt, a lot of veterans lost any respect they might have held for Kerry because of his post-Vietnam activism.

The interviews of [Unfit for Command coauthor] John O'Neill and [Vietnam vet and Kerry defender] Jim Rassmann that I've seen left me with the impression that both were creditable. O'Neill's position is nothing new. He's made his claims for more than 30 years.

I've not read the books concerning Kerry's war record or seen the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ads.

The veterans, both pro and con, have a right to be heard. There appears to be far more anti-Kerry veterans than those supporting him. It is difficult to believe all the recollections of these vets were bought! The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ads may influence a handful of voters, but I doubt it. On the other hand, these voters deserve to know everything about any candidate's past because that candidate's future might have a huge impact on our nation.

Perhaps we need to focus on the troops in harm's way in Iraq. The Vietnam War is history today just as World War I was in the 1960. I don't recall any hoopla about World War I in the '50s or '60s.

The difference is in the veterans. Most from the "Big Wars" never discussed their experiences, seldom complained, and never bragged like some of those in more recent times. I recall hearing a long departed WWII veteran say, "The difference in a veteran and a veteran of a foreign war is, a veteran of a foreign war can tell a bigger lie and no one will dispute him." Even though this was said in jest, he might recant that statement if he were alive today. If the old veteran ever lied he sure as hell did not do it before the United States senate, in a signed affidavit or in a book.

A man of many faces and many positions, like Sen. Kerry, will glean votes for his war record and antiwar record! Oh well, the Republicans have the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and the Democrats have . . . Michael Moore.

Most people in South Alabama had rather sit down to dinner or enjoy a ball game with the Swift Boat Veterans than give Michael Moore the time of day.

Is the problem John Kerry's war record or John Kerry's record of the war? Read his 1971 Senate testimony and the rebuttals by hundreds of Vietnam veteran’s (found on the Web and in numerous publications). It simply is not plausible that these veterans are liars. Neither is it plausible that they are all Republicans.

posted at # 6:06 PM