Yes, but once force, he did actually serve, with distinction.
Got any distinctive examples of Bush's service?

I've already answered that question, and it's irrelevant to the point I'm making. Kerry and Bush both sought to avoid service in Vietnam. Kerry failed, Bush didn't. Kerry gets credit for his actions once he was there, but the idea that he was somehow vastly superior to the President doesn't wash, because he was trying to do precisely what Bush did.

I'm referring to the integrity of Kerry's action after he inlisted. I don't see any integrity in Bush's.
As you said

But if you care more about what the guy does once he's in office

is the point I'm making. I believe Kerry has shown that though he did not want to go to Vietnam, and once he was placed in combat, he had the integrity to serve with distinction and honor.
I'd say that goes a long way in convincing me, since I see Bush doing no different in his office now then what he did in the Guard, though apparently he's sitting in the Oval office sober. But I'm sober too, and in now way qualified to run the Nation.
However, you'd get my vote if you ever ran for President.
Hummmmmmmmm
Now there's an idea. You've already have the Presidential name, now you just need the office!

Certainly it appears that Kerry did well when the chips were down, but I'm not convinced that what little we know about President Bush's time in the Guard is sufficient to tell us much about him. But, as you say, you're not happy with what he's done in office, so really, would it make a difference if it turned out that Bush's Guard service was extraordinary in any way, whether good or bad? It seems to me, as I've said many times before, that with a track record as President, it should be really easy to judge President Bush. It's figuring out who the Hell Kerry really is that's the challenge.

While I appreciate the thought, as long as the two party system endures, I'll never have any success in politics. The Republicans certainly don't want a guy who's pro-choice, pro-gay marriage and anti-death penalty, and the Democrats would run screaming when I started talking about cutting taxes and appointing judges who will stick to the clear written meaning of the Constitution. I'd be the perfect candidate: everyone would hate me. (Hmm, a uniter, not a divider.)

LOL!
Since I'm thinking of starting a write in campaign for you (tongue firmly against cheek here), I was just wondering what your stance is on public funding for sports stadiums, since Minnesota has had an ongoing battle for about a decade and public funding has sunk the deal every time.................

Speaking as someone who's kinda liberal, I can think of few public expenditures I oppose more than funding sports stadiums.

"Yes, Kerry volunteered to serve; after his draft board told him he was going to serve one way or another. Yes, Kerry joined the Navy; after he was told he couldn't defer his enlistment to study in Paris. Yes, Kerry fought in the rivers in Vietnam; after he volunteered for Swift boat duty on the assumption he wouldn't have to."

I haven't really read much about the Paris thing, and it's difficult for me to believe, regardless of the change in Swift boat tactics, that captaining one would possibly have been seen as less hazardous duty than on a "regular" Navy ship in the Pacific. I'm happy to read more, however, if you have any other pointers on the topic than a general link to Glenn.

I don't think what either candidate was doing thirty years ago is crucial.

But it's still difficult for me to believe, given Kerry's vast priviledge and connections, that he couldn't have gotten out of service outright, if he's really wanted to, and impossible for me to believe he couldn't have gotten a billet that was as safe as any, in an office somewhere, or Stateside, or whatever, if he's simply desired one.

I mean, all the cases of the folks such as John Ashcroft and Dick Cheney really seem to bely that notion, and contrast sharply, don't they? One didn't even need more significant privilege in many cases than being canny, white, and middle-class, as Tom Delay shows.

But:

Ashcroft received six student deferments during Vietnam, plus another "occupational deferment," on the grounds that his civilian job--teaching business law to undergraduates at Southwest Missouri State University--was critical.

[...]

Cheney, who explained that he "had other priorities" at the time, received two draft deferments --one for being a student, and one for being married. In 1965, the government announced a change of policy:
Married men would now be drafted, unless they were also fathers. Nine months and two days after that announcement, the Cheneys had their first child.

None of which makes them bad people, as you say. There's a perfectly good argument that they were simply sensible in response to a war they didn't see a good enough reason to join (although that seems inconsistent with their political opinions about it, and raises the charge of hypocrisy, but whatever).

All it comes down to is that John Kerry would seem to have had many less dangerous options. And it seems as if he had a genuine sense of duty. For whatever that's worth.

Looking back at what you said, this just doesn't seem correct to me, in my present state of knowledge: "Kerry and Bush both sought to avoid service in Vietnam. Kerry failed, Bush didn't."

Do you really argue that Kerry was trapped into his service, both in general and in particulars? Could you offer some cites for what you must be reading to suggest that to you?

"Kerry gets credit for his actions once he was there, but the idea that he was somehow vastly superior to the President doesn't wash, because he was trying to do precisely what Bush did."

Samesame. I really need some evidence to believe that he was forced to go to Vietnam, and to believe that Swift boat duty, before the tactical change, was as approximately safe as hanging out in the Pacific.

I believe that all this boils down to one important fact: Integrity. Stack Bush's Guard duty next to Kerry's Navy duty. I don't think there's much to argue about. If you think a man's past integrity means nothing, fine. I happen to think intertity is something a person carries through their life. Bush's so called AWOL is not about breaking the law, or that there may or may not have been an attempted cover-up (all smoke anyway), it's that Bush's service is murky, which brings his integrity into question.
A man of integrity has no such questions left unanswered.

"I happen to think intertity is something a person carries through their life."

Taking one of those odd moments when I speak in Bush's defense, and as a not-Christian, I believe in the possibility of redemption, with the more years that past, the greater the chance (emphasis chance). I'm not going to hold absolutely against someone, in most cases (mass murder frenzies excepted, say), what they did thirty or even twenty years ago as a sure indictment, rather than as a clue to be investigated.

Gary, please give me a little time to dig through Google and see if I can dig up the articles that gave me that impression. I did not come to it simply from looking at Kerry; there were some quotes and other reports that led me to the conclusion there was not a great deal of difference between

Rook, so by your definition, lost records create an integrity problem? Because your accusation begs the question that there is, in fact, an integrity issue involving President Bush's National Guard service, one that, despite intense media pressure, has yet to emerge. Hope springs eternal, eh? And I presume you are in favor of Senator Kerry releasing his Vietnam records as well, then?

If there is one thing I find particularly annoying about the entire 'Bush AWOL' game, it's that it almost invariably comes from people who haven't been there. I spent over a year in the National Guard, over ten years on active duty, and the last two-plus years in the Army Reserve. I deal with the paperwork problems inherent in that on a daily basis, trying to get my soldiers paid, get them into the right schools, and so on. The idea that some gaps or irregularities in President Bush's 30 year old records equates to an integrity problem tells me far more about the politics of the person making the statement than it does about the facts.