The AWOL issue was pushed by Democrat's and the press after Bush was elected and we already knew he was acapable commander in chief having won two wars far easier than predicted by the press and the opposition. That alone is sufficient to make it a non issue. Since it was also based on the scimpiest of evidence it only made the Demcorats and the press look like they couldn't find a real issue to attack Bush on. With say 8 to 10 big ones laying around that makes them look stupid as well.

Kerry tried to prove he is a good commander in chief by claiming Vietnam hero status at his convention thus making his service a campaign issue despite well documented events in his life showing a dislike for the American military. While you can make the case that these were specific disagreements, not general ones they raise the spectre of Kerry viewing America's military as the bad guy. This makes Kerry's campaign theme an obvious target of skepticism. Throw in hundreds of people who disagree and it's a real issue. Nothing says partisan blinders like Democrats not seeing a difference in the 2 issues.

The simple version for Democrats:
1) Kerry raised the issue of his service as a positive, Bush didn't
2) Bush's criticisms came from a few in the I don't remember category with no documentation to prove there was an issue, Kerry's criticisms came from memory who do remember and have documentation to back it up.
3) We know Bush strongly supports the military, We know Kerry has turned on it in the past
4) We know Bush will not allow countries who have a proven record of placing their economic concerns over world peace and security to determine our policy, while Kerry has stated he would not blow off their support.

Even shorter: It's more of an issue for Kerry because we know Bush is a capable commander in chief and we have good reason to suspect Kerry is not.

Carter and Reagan proved to me a long time ago that I'd rather have a real leader as President with whom I have major disagreemants than one with whom I agree on more issues but is a horrible leader. It also tought me the importance of a strong military posture. I was unhappy with Carter as a candidate and President, but horrified of candidate Reagan. As a result my first presidential vote was for John Anderson. My second? - Reagan with far less worry.

For the record my votes for the 2 parties have been

neither
Reagan
Bush
Clinton
Clinton
neither

In both cases the neither votes went to more moderate Republicans who were fiscal conservatives, but less socially conservative than the party's chosen candidate. Does anyone claim a more balanced record? I'm real tired of being accused of a lack of political objectivity. I see two parties who let their extremists elect their candidates giving us a constant choice of the least objectionable and having to really focus on what the most important issues are. For the previous 4 campaigns it was a tough call for me. Now despite my desire to replace Bush, I will have to vote for him because the Democrats let Deaniacs run off the only moderate with a strong security record in their field.

Regards,
Mark