Here's a message I received that I think is worth answering at length…
Let me start by saying that I am a big fan of your writing. I loved POV when it was in CBG and try to check your site everyday. I also have every issue of Groo. But…come on now with your anti-Bush campaign. Do you really like John Kerry? I don't think so. Do you really think he would be a great president? No, I doubt it. I think you just HATE Bush.
I wish that entertainers such as yourself, Peter David (whose site lately has been very similar to yours, anti-Bush) Michael Moore, Bruce Springsteen, Pearl Jam, etc. would simply try to entertain us. I don't think you should try to use your "fame" to try to falsely influence others. The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth are Republican Stooges? Over two hundred men who served with Kerry are trying to smear Kerry. Why? What is the truth about what happened? John Kerry has told three different stories about what had happened. His own report contradicts his story today.
And if the demonstrators are any example of the kind of people who support Kerry, God bless the Democratic party and good luck in November. Still a fan, but not of your politics…
This is kind of interesting…first off, because of the definition of "fame" here. Peter David and I are less than .01% as famous as Springsteen so if Improper Use of Fame is the alleged crime, what we do is barely a misdemeanor. Secondly, anyone in the world can set up a weblog like the ones Peter and I have. Apparently, the argument here is that because we're a smidgen better known than some people, we oughta have less right to express ourselves. I can't say I understand that attitude. In the past, I've seen folks complain when celebs sprinkle their TV, movie and concert appearances with their political beliefs but I now have here the suggestion that a personal journal should also be free of them. Odd. Hey, just out of curiosity, how do you feel about the actor, Ron Silver, making a speech at the Republican convention? Is he using his "fame" to falsely influence others? Or is this only a principle that applies to those with whom you disagree?
On to your other points: No, I don't hate Bush. I don't really hate anyone in this world but I certainly don't hate anyone I've never met, and I've never met George W. Bush. I think he's been a very bad president who has harmed this country in many ways, only a few of which I've mentioned on this site. Perhaps there has been some elected official you felt did their job so poorly that they did not deserve re-election. If so, maybe you can tell me some way to express that viewpoint without that person's supporters trying to dismiss you as a "hater."
Do I think John Kerry would be a great president? No, though I probably have more respect for him than a lot of people who are going to vote for Bush have for Bush. As I look around at people who stand a chance of getting into the White House this year or maybe even next time, I don't see anyone who I'm confident would make a great president. That's how it usually is for me. I vote for the guy or gal I think represents the best chance of doing right by his or her office. At the moment, for the presidency, I believe that's Kerry. Show me a better candidate who has a real chance of winning and I'll vote for that person.
I've read over an awful lot of the Swift Boat Vets stuff, including plenty of their side. I don't see that Kerry has contradicted anything except — and you have to really stretch to view this as a contradiction — his reported Cambodian excursion. And I'm not sure they've even proven that's wrong. I think there are two elements to the claims against him. One is the question of whether he earned his medals. The other is the propriety of his later anti-war activities. On the first question, the views of most of the "over two hundred" are hearsay. Most weren't there…or at least, weren't close enough to the events that their testimony trumps that of the men who were present, and whose accounts correspond to every surviving bit of documentation. The propriety of the medals is disputed not by 200+ but by a small group of guys whose stories are full of holes and who can't, in some cases, even rebut charges that they were not present at the events they describe.
Perhaps you're confused because the 200+ are mad at Kerry for his anti-war efforts and they seem to have decided that since they are, they'll endorse the accounts of the small group of alleged witnesses. I think they're wrong in how they view Kerry's campaign against the war (and in some cases, how they excerpt his remarks before Congress) but they certainly have a right to their opinions. What bothers me is the attempt to blur the facts and make it seem like all 200+ were present for the incidents when Kerry earned his ribbons…or even that all 200+ knew him that well back in Vietnam.
Getting back to your main topic: If you believe I'm using my prestigious position as author of the Groo the Wanderer comic book to swing the election, maybe you'd be happier not reading this site. I could also direct you to a few hundred sites that like Bush a lot less than I do. If you think I'm a Bush-hater, I wonder what you'd call some of them.