Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

Kerry’s speech delighted me for its sheer awfulness from beginning to end. Trees are cathedrals? What a lovely dopey idea to broadcast during a time of real national peril.

That salute has got to end up as a Saturdy Night routine in short order. Could you imagine McCain or Dole striking poses like that? Do real heroes feel the need to brag constantly? I know we disagree about the extent of Kerry’s actual “heroism” in Vietnam—his scrapes, bruises, pimples, mosquito bites and so on for which he demanded medals during his four months of service—but he brought a camera to film it all so he could put himself on display in home movies? Wow.

And the delivery—wow again. I thought Bush was the one who mangled the English language. We’re going to double the special forces to commit more terrorist acts? Can you imagine the glee and ridicule of Bush had said that? Michael Moore would have spliced it into his film immediately.

I’m also relieved to hear that the next time we’re attacked, Kerry promises to strike back—after the damage is done. But then he also promises to cooperate with and not offend “allies”. So which it is, Senator? Action along the lines of Bush or not pissing off Chirac and Kofi Annan?

Kerry might as well have showed up in his NASA teletubby suit tonight for all the dignity he showed.

Well, it certainly seems you watched a different speech than me. It’s true that Kerry has primed me not to expect inspiring oratory, but I was very pleasantly surprised by his performance. Sure the drone in his voice was still there, but there was some real content and a message which I think you’ll be disappointed to learn resonates with more of the uncertain voters than you think. There may even be 1 or 2% of the formerly definite for Bush voters who reconsider their stalwart positions when the propaganda they’ve been fed no longer rings true. It will be telling to watch the polls over the next week or two.

Of course following through on any of those promises is going to be awfully tough if the Dems don’t take back the house, a proposition that is a little more likely than most would have you believe, and it’s not hardly a slam dunk, even if they do. But speeches are a time to state a vision, not speculate on the reality of politics. I believe Kerry did so quite competently, and the challenge to Bush to play clean might help cause the bringing out of the attack dogs to backfire a bit. We’ll see.

About 80% of Kerry’s vision, as he expressed it tonight, had to with himself. His time in Vietnam, his children (who he loves—unlike Republicans, who hate their children,) the deep beautiful lessons about trees and bicycling through Communist zones taught to him by his mummy and daddy. I know he was responding to focus groups and polls that told him he needed to humanize himself, but I thought I was watching an episode of Oprah—not a serious adult putting forth a case why he should be the one to lead an embattled nation during a time of war.

Kerry is not a serious presidential candidate. All that remains is to learn whether or not America is serious about actually facing our nation’s challenges or if they want to pretend that it’s September 10th, stick their heads in the sand and be led by a narcissitic opportunist like John Kerry.

Martin said about Kerry: “the deep beautiful lessons about trees and bicycling through Communist zones taught to him by his mummy and daddy…”

The Dem’s have one thing right. There are many on the right who would divide us into those who see things their way and all others as communists or unAmerican or unpatriotic or narcissistic opportunists. Funny really how some on the right validate their opposition so often, and so blatantly. Kinda like shooting oneself in the foot and asking, who did that?

It was a great speech, the best I’ve ever seen from Kerry. Pat Buchanan agreed that it was a great speech, and said that if he knew nothing more about Kerry than that speech, he’d have voted for him. And Pat Buchanan is hard right, not middle America, so his comments bode well for Kerry’s chances with the swing voters across the country.

I heard Buchannan say that too, buddhistMonkey. On MSNBC if I recall correctly. Love your handle!

The capacity for self-delusion displayed here is incredible. I wouldn’t give the speech an A for content, but I was struck by how natural and animated he looked. Not only was it the best speech I’ve ever seen him give (and I watched the lot of the debates), it was probably several notches above.

I would wager that the speech made the Bush campaign very nervous.

I thought Kerry’s speech was good. I do think he went overboard with the Vietnam references. I don’t think, Dan, he brought up Vietnam to show that he is qualified for the office, he brought it up to show that he would take decisions to go to war seriously. This combined with “reporting for duty” dig at GW shows that he understands the substance of courage and not just the rhetoric. It’s a strong message, which is why I thought he made too much of it.

More than the substance of the speech, I had problems with its execution. He definitely seemed rushed. He kept shifting his feet way too much. That “Senators and menators” line was the worst of a few major flubs (Martin was kind enough to mention the “terrorist actions” slip) but the rest of the delivery was done very well. And there were a few lines where he ended on the wrong tone, too high. Edwards did it on nearly every “impact” line in his speech last night and it drove me crazy. At least Kerry only did it like two or three times.

Marting said I’m also relieved to hear that the next time we’re attacked, Kerry promises to strike back—after the damage is done.

What an obtuse distortion. I think most people would agree that it’s very likely we will suffer another terrorist attack at some point in the future. Kerry is saying if this happens, he will strike back appropriately.

But then he also promises to cooperate with and not offend “allies”. So which it is, Senator? Action along the lines of Bush or not pissing off Chirac and Kofi Annan?

Oh look, another false dilemma from the right. I think we can strike back at our enemy without calling the UN irrelevant or calling France and Germany “Old Europe” or accusing Turkey of being weak for listening to 90% of its people. They still might not endorse our actions but at least we don’t have to act like jerks about it. Kerry mentioned pretty clearly that he would never let any foreign body have veto power over our national security. Again, it seems these points of yours are obtuse for a reason.

And when you belittle his time served in Vietnam, it sounds quite juvenile. I’m sure it’s easy to be so critical by the warm glow of your monitor. The ulterior motives you attribute to the home movies of his time in Vietnam is just bizarre. Are you saying he purposely brought his video camera with him to use in his presidential campaign some 30 years later?

Something strikes me as peculiar…

How does a guy “volunteer” for the Navy and immediately get sent up the Mekong river as the commander of a swift boat?

Don’t have time to do the research as I am going out of town, but, last time I checked, enlistees with the Navy don’t get officer commissions and they don’t skipper anything larger than a swabbing bucket.

> How does a guy “volunteer” for the Navy …

DJ: He enlisted in 1966, served for nearly three years including a stint at Naval Officer Candidates School, was promoted several times along the way. He requested duty in Vietnam in 1968.

> Don’t have time to do the research…

It took me about 20 seconds to go to his web site.

-Cf

AMAZING!!!

Kerry is “nit picked” at over minutiae. All of it visceral character assination.

Not a word about how the “W” cabal has over 107 children they are torturing in 6 prisons in Iraq!

Not a word about the tax dollar giveaways to Halliburton, Enron and Parmaceutical companies.

Not a word about how real wages are declining.

Not a word about why our returning war dead are hidden from us. How over 12,000 Americans are wounded and how the “W” Cabal cut combat pay for the guard in Iraq and cut benefits for solders returning home.

Not a word about how Martha Stewart is penalized for a mere $44,000 profit - and how much was it the “W stole from Harkin Energy in a more involved scheme? Then of Course Marvin & Niel Bush paid no consequences for the Savings & Loan scandels. And it takes 3 1/2 years to get a mere indictment on Ken Lay who robbed thousands of their retirement money.

Isn’t it remarkable how all these horrors are just swept under the rug and vitrol rather than fact are the REPUGS respone to everything. Could it be they do not have a record to be proud of-because all they have done is create a debtor class to pay for the wealth and horrible excesses of the top 1%

Keep up the mud slinging- because what goes around comes around

Martin-

I’m glad I wasn’t the only one who caught that slip about doubling our terrorist troops; I was a little sleepy at the time.

I give the Democrats and Kerry a lot of credit for putting on a great show this week. However, I’m afraid they have given the GOP a lot of ammunition for their “flipper” campaign.

Contrast the salute, the reporting for duty, and the band of brothers (was he kissing them last night?) with his anti-war demonstration period. Contrast his vision for a strong America with his Senate voting record. Contrast his claim that Iraq was a war fought because (implied) the President wanted it with his 90’s statements on Iraq and his vote authorizing the war.

In fights, wars, debates, etc. the side that gets to go last usually has an advantage. Although Kerry did a great job last night, I think he might have exposed too many ribs to the GOP.

his children (who he loves—unlike Republicans, who hate their children,)

Please, Martin, I can’t roll my eyes back any further.

…I thought I was watching an episode of Oprah—not a serious adult putting forth a case why he should be the one to lead an embattled nation during a time of war.

Kerry is not a serious presidential candidate. All that remains is to learn whether or not America is serious about actually facing our nation’s challenges or if they want to pretend that it’s September 10th, stick their heads in the sand and be led by a narcissitic opportunist like John Kerry.

It would be nice to have, instead of this straw man attack on the personal aspects of the speech, some detail as to why you believe he is not a serious presidential candidate. Why do you think voting for Kerry would be the equivalent to sticking our heads in the sand? There are some points in the speech about pretty specific policy in the war on terror that you could address.

By the way, something that made me laugh out loud — after the speech I flipped over to Fox to see what they were saying. Michael Barone was on the convention floor, with balloons falling, people cheering, dancing, etc. His assessment: “This convention was about HATE.”

That is one thing I knew going into the convention. No matter what the Democrats did, even if they resurrected Mr. Rogers and had him give every speech, Fox News would say it was all about hate.

Joseph Briggs:

Allow me to respond to your question:

First, Kerry showed little fiscal responsibility. My eyes rolled back when he said we can add money for education, give everyone health care AND decrease taxes. Ain’t gonna happen, my friend, simply because the dollars arent there. He has said he’ll pay for it by taking away the tax breaks for the rich, but even if this were done, it doesnt come close. He’ll end up nuancing this position endlessly.

Secondly, he spent all of about 1 minute talking about his career in the Senate. He gave a couple examples of what he had done, but the truth is, there aint a lot of meat on that bone. Its probably safe to say that Edwards has as much to say about his brief Senate career as Kerry does about his lengthy one.

Thirdly, he said all the things his audience wanted to hear, but I heard big SOUNDING comments rather than substantive ones. He said he would ask the tough questions that Bush didnt regarding intelligence information. But that begs the question….As a US Senator, why didnt he? Its easy to SAY you will do something, like increase jobs and improve education, but he doesnt have much of a track record to show that he has been capable of getting things done in his career. I dont see proof that would change now.

Fourthly, I credit him for his Viet Nam service 30 years ago. Though there are suggestions that his service wasnt as brave and honorable as he would have us think, I give him great credit for having served his country. But 4 1/2 months in the Mekong Delta 30 years ago doesnt qualify him for president any more than my summer job as a burger flipper qualifies me for CEO of McDonald’s.
Its only fair to look at what he has done in the 30 years since, and there isnt a lot to look at in the way of accomplishments (and judging by the manner in which even he brushed off his 20 year Senate career, he might have to agree with that).

Lastly, from the more subjective side, Kerry is simply not a good orator. He has a droning quality and continually prevented applause by starting his next sentence and by waving his arms. Even when people felt the need to cheer him, they were shushed. Kind of like a comedian who starts telling a joke before the audience has a chance to digest and laugh about the previous joke. Ya gotta allow the audience to participate. Part of this was a “time” thing, but was still clumsy.

Bottom line: It was a decent speech, hitting all the right topics, but it left an awful lot of doors open. The Reps need to be careful to avoid the biggest trap Kerry tried to set—that of appearing negative. Kerry is trying to turn the tables on them, and if they fall into that trap, they might never get out.

IT WAS A GREAT SPEECH, AND KERRY WILL “BURY” BUSH IN THE UPCOMING DEBATES. KERRY HAS A BRAIN! BUSH DOESN’T, NEVER DID, NEVER WILL!
TOO BAD, BUT THE REPUBLICANS ARE NOT GOING TO FOOL THE POPULATION. THE DEMO CANDIDATE KERRY WILL WIN THE POPULAR VOTE (AS DID THE DEMO CANDIDATE GORE IN 2000) BUT THIS TIME ALL VOTES WILL BE COUNTED AND THERE WILL BE A LANDSLIDE DEMO FINISH. GO LICK YOUR WOUNDS GOP. OUR COUNTRY DESPERATELY NEEDS SOLID “LEADERSHIP” NOT SOMEONE WHO PRETENDS TO LEAD. AND CONCERNING KERRY’S MILITARY SERVICE….BETTER NOT CRITICIZE KERRY……HE DID “SHOW UP”. BUSH DIDN’T! IT IS QUITE OBVIOUS THAT JOHN KERRY OFFERS A MUCH BETTER CHOICE FOR OUR COUNTRY THAN THESE PAST 4 MISERABLE YEARS.

If Kerry’s speach left you feeling hopeless ,you will have yourself to blame.Hope can only connect with the hopeful.If you spend your time listening to your ego and not to Kerry ,if you go searching for opportunities to undermine the candidate,you will never see anything good in what he is saying.A negative thinking person cannot accommodate hope.
Kerry was good.If you dont like him,leave him alone.let us learn to be humble even when criticising.

> He said he would ask the tough questions that
> Bush didnt regarding intelligence information.
> But that begs the question….As a US Senator,
> why didnt he?

Yeah! Good point, Joe! I mean, what kind of Senator would actually be dumb enough to trust what they hear from the White House!

-Cf

Christopher:

Nice dodge—-you might fool some with that little twist, but I doubt you’ll fool too many.

The 9-11 commission, along with the highly touted British Commission, has said in no uncertain language: Bush acted on the information that he had at the time, and acted in good conscience.

Its easy to go back after the fact, using the benefit of hindsight, and pick out those issues which didnt pan out. But the idea that you are harping on—that “Bush lied”—has been totally discounted.

In the intelligence world, nothing is certain. Its a hazy morass of clues, innuendo and guesswork—-sort of like putting a puzzle together, but not having the picture on the box, nor even knowing the number of pieces. In your hindsight, you want to make it appear that its simple fact gathering.

How about we take YOUR logic and apply it to YOUR candidate: He has accused the US of war crimes in Viet Nam, and has admitted to committing war crimes himself. See the following quote.

>”There are all kinds of atrocities and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities
as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free-fire zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50-caliber machine guns which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon against people. I took part in search-and-destroy missions, in the burning of villages. All of this is contrary to the laws of warfare. All of this is contrary to the Geneva Conventions and all of this ordered as a matter of written established policy by the government of the United States from the top down.” Kerry said those who condoned or engaged in such activities were war criminals.”

I dont call Kerry a war criminal, nor do I consider him one. The context of the events is of utter importance, and in the hazy context of war, one has to make quick and decisive actions. No time for nuance. From the comfort of our Barcaloungers, what Kerry did might seem brutal, but in the context of war, it was most likely necessary. And thats how I choose to see it.

Where do people get that there were too many Vietnam refernences in his speech? Through the whole transcript here are the only 3 references I found:

“And then I reached across the aisle to work with John McCain, to find the truth about our POW’s and missing in action, and to finally make peace with Vietnam.”

“I know what kids go through when they are carrying an M-16 in a dangerous place and they can’t tell friend from foe. I know what they go through when they’re out on patrol at night and they don’t know what’s coming around the next bend. I know what it’s like to write letters home telling your family that everything’s all right when you’re not sure that’s true. As President, I will wage this war with the lessons I learned in war.”

“I fought under that flag, as did so many of you here and all across our country. That flag flew from the gun turret right behind my head. It was shot through and through and tattered, but it never ceased to wave in the wind. It draped the caskets of men I served with and friends I grew up with.”

The first one was hardly a comment, the second two were to build up his credibility for the Iraq situation - he has no choice but to mention it as Iraq and the economy are the 2 biggest issues at the moment. This said, 2 references is hardly overboard. Especially considering the opening of his speech was a background of his life, and he didn’t even mention Vietnam or the Army. The word “Vietnam” only appears twice in the entire speech.

Sure it was a selling point on his campaign, and had been menioned many more times this week, but I don’t see how you get that out of this particular speech?..

And in reply to the initial post- I don’t know if it’s a good idea to get into resume bashing when your candidate goofed off in the National Guard, did a terrible job as governor, then faked a lot of statistics to make up for it, and then stashed away lots of his public records to avoid further scrutiny. And while he managed to keep those relatively under wraps as he weaseled his way into the White House, he has since created a record National Debt, taken our country to war on shaky (at best) intelligence, and has made countless other shortsighted or outright bad decisions while in Office. He has managed to make excuses for all the big problems, it still doesn’t do anything to boost his credentials much. I don’t think Kerry’s credentials are perfect by any means, but side by side, it’s a no brainer.

It’s funny I hear republican co-workers saying “Well you at least have to respect him[Bush] for standing behind his decisions even when others disagree..” — LOL. This is exactly why I don’t respect him. He, and any elected official, are not elected to do whatever they want- they are elected to work democratically and in the interest of the people.

Peezee-

I think you are taking the night out of context by your last comment. Please add to that the ride accross the harbor with his band of brothers, the band of brothers on stage, the war footage in the documentary, Max Cleland (who lost his own Senate seat) introducing him, the salute, and the “reporting for duty” comment. The entire convention was a reminder of his Viet Nam service and a diversion from his anti-war stances after Viet Nam and his carerr in the Senate.

The topic at hand is his speech. I dont care about any wider context in terms of the comment I made. I want people to be specific about what they are talking about. I noted the context as such in my post.

I tend to agree about the week overall, and leading up to the speech - but to make such claims about the speech itself is a mis-statement. Probably not a big deal, but this is how partisan memes and mantras get started- by overlooking the fine print.

It seems to me that the underlying subtext to many republican comments here is that Kerry has no business campaigning on his war record.

Since when? I think many of you are just jealous that Democrats no longer have an aversion to emphasizing war records, religious faith, and patriotism. We’ve once again found our identity as the party of liberal and progressive centrism.

Peezee:

Imagine if Kerry dressed up in his military outfit, and gave a speech from a swift boat replica, complete with his crew behind him, but did not in words refer to Viet Nam. Would you still say there was no reference to Viet Nam?

The context and surroundings in which a speech is given is important when considering the speech itself. You claim to not care about any wider context, but George did a nice job of showing how the Viet Nam references were not simply in words alone.

That having been said, I simply dont see how 4 months in Viet Nam as a junior lieutenant has that much to do with being President. Bravery in action has little to do with the qualifications required to be President. There are many brave soldiers who simply dont have the proper skill sets to be leaders—be it in politics, business or whatever.

In the same way, great athletes have the ability to perform wondrously on the athletic field, but not all have the ability to be general manager or head coach. Not an indictment at all of them, but just a reality of life, showing the difference between the two activities.

I see what you mean about context - but I still think clarity is key. If you are in fact talking about the things surrounding the speech then say so. Thats all I was getting at, really not a significant comment - but trying to make sure I was ‘clear’ as well in these subsequent comments - lest I be labelled some sort of hypocrite ;)

I also don’t think a Kerry’s military record says too much about experience either (it does he has good character), but as Bush’s Aircraft landing showed - image goes a long way in todays TV soundbite world - sad, but its stupid not to play off that. I do think Kerry’s overall resume is still a lot more promising than Bush’s, even considering that Bush has already had 4 years in the office.

I simply dont see how 4 months in Viet Nam as a junior lieutenant has that much to do with being President. Bravery in action has little to do with the qualifications required to be President. There are many brave soldiers who simply dont have the proper skill sets to be leaders—be it in politics, business or whatever.

As I mention earlier, it (his Vietnam experience) is not so much about qualifications for president. Kerry is using his record to show he understands what war is about and because of this understanding, he will only go to war when we have to. He’s trying to contrast what has been seen as a brash move on Bush’s part in invading Iraq to his more “complex” analysis.

It may be because he has glossed over his time in the Senate that it seems like he is using his Vietnam experience as some qualification for president, and I don’t think they will disabuse anyone of this misconception, but I’m certain the rationale behind this war vet promotion is to emphasize his empathy with our troops. With this, he will press the “backdoor draft” and the “plan to win the peace” aspects of his dissent against our handling of Iraq. If he can focus on these points when speaking of his military service, I think it can work really well in any debate with GW.

jbod: You brought up some good points in answering for Martin which I want to respond to. It will have to wait for after work, though, so I can ensure a thoughtful answer.

Bravery in action has little to do with the qualifications required to be President

OMG! i dont think i need to say anything else.

Joe,

The 9-11 commission, along with the highly touted British Commission, has said in no uncertain language: Bush acted on the information that he had at the time, and acted in good conscience.

Its easy to go back after the fact, using the benefit of hindsight, and pick out those issues which didnt pan out. But the idea that you are harping on—that “Bush lied”—has been totally discounted.

I assume you meant the Senate Intelligence report instead of the 9/11 report, since the 9/11 report wasn’t about Iraq.

Anyway, it’s inaccurate to claim that “Bush lied” claim has been discounted. The Senate Intelligence Committee report was explicitly written not to discuss the administration’s use of the intelligence. It stopped short of addressing the creation of a secretive Office of Special Plans to filter intelligence, the use of favored but non-credible Iraqi exiles like Ahmed Chalabi, the administration’s claims of links between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein, and several pre-war statements exaggerating intelligence estimates or ignoring conflicting points of view. Politics played a part: Some on the committee had “wanted the White House’s use of the intelligence reports to be part of the study’s formal mandate,” but were shot down by conservatives. As a result, “the second part of the Senate study, exploring the White House’s actions, will likely be released after the November presidential election.” Your interpretation is an over-generous misreading of a portion of the report. The intelligence was faulty, but the innocence of the administration hasn’t been proved.

It seems to me that Republicans are using a convenient win-win approach to the recent committee reports. In the few cases the intelligence was right, the response is “We were right! Bush is vindicated!” In the cases the intelligence was wrong, the response is “They were wrong! Bush is vindicated!” How cynical and convenient.

Unfortunately, we have to wait until after the election to hear a non-partisan evaluation of the Administration’s actions. Until then, you and I will have different interpretations built on our different inherent biases.

peezee, you might be right that the surrounding Vietnam hype tainted my impression of Kerry’s use of it in his speech, but I seem to remember more than three mentions of it. The word “Vietnam” might not have been used, just reference to his service in the military maybe. The transcript also might not be an exact version of what he said more than what he planned to say.

…the idea that you are harping on—that “Bush lied”—has been totally discounted.

In the intelligence world, nothing is certain. Its a hazy morass of clues, innuendo and guesswork.

And yet Bush said, “Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.”

And Cheney said, “Simply stated, there’s no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There’s no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us.”

And Bush said, “The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons. The Iraqi regime is building the facilities necessary to make more biological and chemical weapons.”

etc., etc.

I’m not hearing any “innuendo” or “guesswork” there joe. When Tenet made a statement about the Iraq intelligence, he made the same assertion you do, that intelligence deals with “the unclear, the unknown”.

Tenet personally briefed Bush. At what point did the “innuendo” and “guesswork” turn into “no doubt”? Who decided that “the unclear, the unknown” was all of a sudden “certain”?

That was Bush’s call. Bush did not tell the truth. He lied.

I think it should be noted that Kerry’s military records show that he was deeply involved in planning and carrying out strategy, as well as commanding a swift boat himself. He was not merely a grunt working off a tour of duty, but an officer who demonstrated the ability to make decisions and lead.

Bush’s record, even at its most positive spin, shows a man who did not command other soldiers in the field, who never served in combat, and who, when the time came to maintain his full status at what his nation trained him to do, failed to do so. Was serving important enough for him that he was willing to fulfill his duties in that regard? No. He opted to take a route that didn’t require him to even do that much.

So, while Kerry risked life and limb overseas, however briefly, Bush simply waited the war out.

Cheney never served. He expressed the opinion that the war didn’t seem to be his top priority. Wolfowitz never served, I think because was 4-H. But even then, he was one of those people, Rumsfeld included, who were quietly undermining support for the war.

Armitage and Powell served. Armitage, in fact, was there to the very end, and helped to negotiate the emigration of Vietnamese refugees to the Phillipines and points beyond. Powell commanded in Vietnam both early and late in the war. These people witnessed the things that actually happened. Armitage witnessed the darker side of these things, as a special forces soldier specializing in counterinsurgency.

Interesting how things divide up. Truth was, Kerry is still willing to send troops to fight and die. So are Powell and Armitage. But these guys recognize that there are certain realities to war that spin can’t change. They’ve seen the things even our most violent movies don’t show, done the things most of us should hope to God we never have to do.

Bush? I don’t know, from the first, he has struck me as a man who willfully believes he has nothing to learn. In an office like his, where he is bombarded with complex and unfamiliar situations outside his previous experience, such willful drive not to gain new wisdom about the world is not only disappointing, but highly impractical.

> Armitage and Powell served.

Both Armitage and Powell have made very strong indications that they will not serve during a second Bush term. In other words, the only two rational people in the Bush Administration foreign policy team won’t be there for the next term. Not that it would make a difference anyway, since apparently neither of them has had any influence on America’s foreign policy so far.

I shudder to think who their replacements might be if Bush wins again. I guess it’s a moot point, though, since Bush ain’t gonna win.

-Cf

You can add Tom Ridge to that list.

-Cf

Other than a reference to working with McCain on finding the truth about our POW’s and putting 100,000 cops on the street, I can find no other reference to his 19+ years in the Senate. Quite under whelming, you must agree.

>>When I came to the Senate, I broke with many in my own party to vote for a balanced budget, because I thought it was the right thing to do. I fought to put a 100,000 cops on the street.
And then I reached across the aisle to work with John McCain, to find the truth about our POW’s and missing in action, and to finally make peace with Vietnam. >>

What is most telling here is not his 4 month stint in Vietnam or his Purple Hearts, which in my opinion are very questionable. (Yes, I know some of you (Chris) think he is the greatest hero since Audie Murphy, so no need to post your opinions on that comment. I already know them.) What puzzles me is where is his record in the Senate and what or why is he hiding it and WHY ONLY 3 SENTENCES ON 20 YEARS IN THE SENATE?

MAW, nobody’s been hiding his voting record. Your people have had to invent reasons for him to be ashamed of it. And that link is no is no isolated incident

Not at all, not in the least.

Kerry hasn’t been a bump on a log, despite what you claim, and he’s certainly got nothing to be ashamed of the way your people would have it.

I guess in terms of opponents, for you people, it’s anybody but John Kerry. If I were in your shoes, given the intelligence and knowledgeability he’s certain to demonstrate against Bush, I would have anybody but Kerry running against him too.

AP

The Senate report (or whatever report since I know i’m getting them all mixed together) specifically quoted Tenet as saying it was a “slam dunk” that Saddam had WMD’s. So why would Bush not indicate that in his comments.

I hope Dems follow your lead and stick with the “Bush lied” mantra. I truly believe it will work against Kerry in the general election, though it will work fine for those already voting for him. There are enough “outs” for Bush—-the ability to show how Joe Wilson wasnt exactly correct, how Michael Moore blamed Bush for letting the bin Laden family go when it was actually Richard Clarke’s doing etc.

I think the Dems see that the “Bush lied” approach can only go so far. Thats why they muted their criticism so much at the convention. If they really believed that was the strategy to use, then why did they not use it.

I do predict, though, that they will come back to it again as things appear to be slipping away from them. That hasnt happened yet, but I predict it will. I know these are only my predictions, but I’m brave enough to put them out there now for all to see. The prediction is that Kerry gets a small bounce (4-6%) that doesnt last long, it gets erased in the Repub convention and then Bush pulls away. But, we shall see, wont we.

Stephen, Stephen, Stephen,

The point was why no mention in his speech. Don’t you find that odd? Only 3 sentences for 20 years of service! Give me a break. Quite frankly I don’t know about his voting record, only what I have heard in Bush Ads. Wouldn’t this have been a great time to show it off? Please, you are not that stupid.

PS. I am still working on a response on your other lengthy post.

Check back later… Good posting.

Because people already know he’s a bit of a policy wonk. The purpose of that last speech was to demonstrate that he was a personable leader with who had some actual passion and principle to his politics. If you listened to the speeches and worked out the gist of what came before, you would see that the conventions was our party’s answer to how Bush had defined Kerry over the Primary season.

You can’t emphasize everything. It’s figure ground- there must be a meaningful difference between what you say, and what you don’t. If you’re confident people believe you’ve got certain qualities, you don’t need to beat people over the head with them.

As for informing you, Bush has a vested interest in how you are informed and misinformed. that’s why I linked to that voting record site. bring up the subjects you wish to, and you’ll find out what you want to know. To remain informed by your own party is to remain unable to correct their course.

Bravery in action has little to do with the qualifications required to be President

OMG! i dont think i need to say anything else.

Posted by Nick at July 30, 2004 11:57 AM

Actually, Nick, you DO need to say something else….something that actually shows your point. Better yet, how about explaining what part of being a junior lieutenant qualifies you for being president. I suppose you can try to make the leap that commanding 10 men in a unit is similar to commanding a nation of 280 million, but that doesnt really fly.

If you;ve actually read what I’ve posted, you will already know that I’m in no way taking away from Kerry for his valorous service….I’ve said it was honorable and I stay with that belief.

But 4 months in Viet Nam 30 years ago has little to do with being president. If it does, then there are lots of other candidates we should be considering. What matters is what he has done since Viet Nam, and his overall record in the Senate——yes THAT record that he spent 1 minute discussing in his speech.

If he has things of substance there, then so be it. But I have yet to see much in his Senate resume that reflects 20 years of fruitful service.

BAM! The talking points shoot out of the GOP headquarters!

Seriously, what do you think that the purpose of that speech was? To convince Americans what a wonderfully wonkish senator he was, or to introduce him on a personal and issue oriented level to the American people?

You can’t say everything in a speech. You’ll screw things up if you try. This was people’s introduction to John Kerry as a passionate, principled candidate for presidency. To insert a sheaf of dry voting records into that speech would have been counterproductive. We know he’s a legislator, we know he’s taken strong legislative stances on these particular issues of interest, lets move on and do the job with this speech that it was meant to do. Notice the biography, the little details. Your people criticize that, but again, it worked for the purpose at hand: sketching out who John Kerry was and what he came from. (note to Martin: The punchline on the bicycle trip to East Berlin was that his father promptly grounded him). On and on, the details that mattered were the ones that filled in the blanks about him.

You criticize the speech for what it wasn’t and what it was never meant to be.

As for leadership, I believe any situation where you have to take responsibility for others, for things beyond yourself qualifies as education towards future leadership. You’re right if you say that alone doesn’t qualify him, but he’s worn enough hats over his life in leadership positions so people could say that his progress towards leadership of the nation ran through his command there.

Dan Spencer wrote: ” …but I didn’t realize that in four months in Vietnam you could learn everything you need to know to be president”

Dan,

being fired at really does build your character quickly. Believe me, I know.
It may not teach you everything you need to know to be president, but it sure proves guts.

jbod, Bush set the standard of military fly boy as qualification for being President. He used those images extensively in his campaign. Kerry is campaigning on ground Bush established after Clinton (who had no military service to run on). It is called the politics of getting votes. What was good for the Goose should be good for the Gander, eh?

JOHN KERRY told us more last night about his childhood memories of bike riding in Berlin than he did about his nearly three decades in public office.

“I ask you to judge me by my record,” he implored, but then said virtually nothing about it. There was a single throwaway line about his time as a prosecutor. Nothing at all about being elected lieutenant governor. And just three sentences about his 20 years in the US Senate. Twenty years! A third of his life! Yet neither in his speech nor in the video that preceded it did Kerry say anything about what those two decades have meant to him or what lessons they may have taught him or how he thinks they have prepared him for national leadership.

“Judge me by my record,” he says. But all night long — all week long — there is only one part of Kerry’s long record that the Democrats have wanted Americans to notice: the part that ended 35 years ago when he came home from Vietnam. Why are they so reticent about everything he’s done since?

His political career wasn’t the only thing missing from Kerry’s speech.

“This is the most important election of our lifetime,” he said. “The stakes are high. We are a nation at war — a global war on terror against an enemy unlike any we have ever known before.” And with that, he launched right into a discussion of — what? The nature of that unprecedented enemy? The threat from radical Islam? His strategy for victory? No: After raising the specter of an enemy “unlike any we have ever known before,” Kerry promptly started talking about — jobs. Coming less than three years after 9/11, this is the most important election of our lifetime. But why that is, Kerry has yet to say.

He spoke of his empathy for the young grunts “carrying an M-16 in a dangerous place” and about his respect for “all who serve in our armed forces today.” Couldn’t he have spared a few words to salute those troops for their two great achievements of recent years — the toppling of vicious tyrannies in Afghanistan and Iraq?

Kerry’s cheapest shot came at John Ashcroft’s expense: “I will appoint an attorney general who actually upholds the Constitution.” And how, exactly, does Ashcroft undermine the Constitution? By abiding by the Patriot Act that Kerry supported? That’s something else the Democratic nominee never explained. He did, however, enjoin President Bush to stick to the “high road” and avoid “small-minded attacks.”

All in all, it was a pedestrian address, uninspiring, cliched, and humorless. It made sure to work in all the poll-tested buzzwords — I counted 17 mentions of “strong” and “strength,” 28 of “value” or “values.” But buzzwords don’t decide elections, and they aren’t the key to a swing voter’s heart. Kerry may yet prevail over George W. Bush, but he didn’t close the sale last night.

PS- This was written by Jeff Jacoby
Heres the link- http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2004/07/30/buzzwords_and_cheap_shots/

First, Kerry showed little fiscal responsibility. My eyes rolled back when he said we can add money for education, give everyone health care AND decrease taxes. Ain’t gonna happen, my friend, simply because the dollars arent there. He has said he’ll pay for it by taking away the tax breaks for the rich, but even if this were done, it doesnt come close. He’ll end up nuancing this position endlessly.

I agree. I’ve been wondering for some time now when Kerry is going to start itemizing more revenue (not necessarily more taxes). This speech wasn’t it. His economy page has three measures that would cost money or cut tax revenue, and one measure to promote fiscal responsibility. They sound reasonable but they are still pretty light on details.

It would be nice to know the projected costs of all of the new policies, which doesn’t sound cheap. He still has more to explain but that’s what the next couple of months are for.

Thirdly, he said all the things his audience wanted to hear, but I heard big SOUNDING comments rather than substantive ones. He said he would ask the tough questions that Bush didnt regarding intelligence information. But that begs the question….As a US Senator, why didnt he?

Well, it is his introduction of sorts to the American people, so the vagueness can be excused, I think. I was actually surprised by the number of details.

Why Kerry didn’t ask the tough questions regarding intelligence may be a valid issue but it’s not something any politician would be expected to bring up in this kind of forum. His camp thinks they can press this issue against Bush and score points. They may be right. Bush will have to come up with an effective counter attack/argument to this in the debates to make Kerry stop.

Its easy to SAY you will do something, like increase jobs and improve education, but he doesnt have much of a track record to show that he has been capable of getting things done in his career. I dont see proof that would change now.

Kerry’s track record has shown one thing: that this argument (that he hasn’t done much) hasn’t meant enough to his constituents that they would vote him out over it. I also think this approach can be countered with a quality over quantity defense. It may sound trite but wouldn’t that give it a better chance of working?

I don’t think the Bush camp’s flip-flop argument is going to hold. Bush has had a few too many flips and flops of his own. The Bush camp looks like they’ve dropped it and focused on national security. They now want to capitalize on the polls that are showing Bush ahead of Kerry for public trust in the war on terrorism.

There will also be the grim prospect of Kerry struggling against a Republican controlled Congress. If they are bitter about it, Kerry’s first two years could be fruitless and this could set the Dems up for a loss in 2006.

…I give him great credit for having served his country. But 4 1/2 months in the Mekong Delta 30 years ago doesnt qualify him for president any more than my summer job as a burger flipper qualifies me for CEO of McDonald’s.

As I mentioned earlier, it’s not so much that it qualifies him for the office but that it’s a qualification for the office. He has a deeply felt empathy for everyone serving in the military and this will add credibility to his decisions to use military force - that the decision has been treated with the ultimate respect that it deserves.

Lastly, from the more subjective side, Kerry is simply not a good orator. He has a droning quality…

Yeah, but he did do a pretty good job, regardless. I don’t like his speaking style either. It always sounds somewhat angry to me. It has its uses but it shouldn’t be the only tool in the toolbox. I actually think the best speakers I’ve seen so far have been Barack and Alexandra Kerry. I haven’t seen everyone though (and I’m not counting Bubba).

…and continually prevented applause by starting his next sentence and by waving his arms. Even when people felt the need to cheer him, they were shushed. Kind of like a comedian who starts telling a joke before the audience has a chance to digest and laugh about the previous joke. Ya gotta allow the audience to participate. Part of this was a “time” thing, but was still clumsy.

It’s a media-based world. He barely got through the whole speech in his allotted time. He had an incentive to rush and it got to him a little, but not enough to ruin the overall impact. It can be effective to speak over cheering. It allows you to add volume and emphasis to a point without sounding hysterical.

the Reps need to be careful to avoid the biggest trap Kerry tried to set—that of appearing negative. Kerry is trying to turn the tables on them, and if they fall into that trap, they might never get out.

That’s what I’m hoping for. The Dems have set the trap very well.

Methinks they doth protest too much. I think the Bushies are skeered. Perhaps they misunderestimated Mr. Kerry.

RightSideOfThings-
Political Career recitations are as dry as a cowchip, and stink just as much. He didn’t need to prove that he had a long career. If people are interested in his bio, you can probably find it on his website. If you’re interested in his votes, they’re online with everybody elses on the Thomas Database at the Senate homepage. This speech was about personal biography and convictions, not legislative triumphs. You guys are practically talking as if there’s a conspiracy to conceal his records.

He does not have to fill in the blanks for the audience at home who the enemy is. That’s just a bad habit of Bush’s and all the conservatives who think that if brains were gunpowder, Democrats and the general public wouldn’t be able to blow their own noses with it. Do I have to explain what their religion is supposed to be, what the nature of Al Quaeda is. Do I have to dwell on that subject to the exclusion of everything else? My heavens, its been three years, and we’ve been bombarded with information about who those people are, and what they seek to do. Do you guys derive pleasure from beating people over the heads with the obvious, the conventional wisdom?

As for Afghanistan and Iraq, the last time I checked, Osama Bin Laden was walking around on his own two feet, unshackled (probably like Mullah Omar), and the insurgents were still blowing people up at will. If you want to define victory in terms of toppling regimes, be my guest. But as this administration has learned the hard way, toppling a city and controlling a country are two different things. So the common sense here is that victories are declared when the other forces are defeated and we can leave the place alone.

As for the John Ashcroft remark, John Kerry can be forgiven because the bill was imposed on him and his colleagues with no time to review it and the country screaming for new anti-terror laws. Unfortunately, John Ashcroft and his people decided to frontload it with tons of provisions that had less to do with fighting terrorists and more to do with giving powers to law enforcement officials sometimes far beyond what even the literal letter of the fourth amendment would permit. In the end, even if Kerry’s support had been given with full knowledge of its content, you remain with one problem.

It’s become a favorite rhetorical device of your party to change the subject of whose responsible for something by saying the opponent or somebody else agreed with them. Whether or not Kerry agreed with full knowledge at the time of the vote on the PATRIOT act, that doesn’t make provisions for extensive searches without sufficient warrant or probable cause and less unconstitutional. Neither does an argument from popularity or whatever hold up for the WMD questions.

P.S. In the future, make your commentary, and then link to the article. Otherwise you’re just about committing plagiarism

His senate voting records are publicly available. Just beacuse he hasnt hyped out anything from his resume doesnt mean that he didnt do anything. If he were to go through his extensive history of voting records making sounds bites that read “John Kerry supported… ” and “John Kerry oppossed….” it would go on for a long time. The testament that his 20 year senate record is so strong is that republicans havent been able to find anything there to attack him on. Before you say that there isnt anything there, I encourage you to first read through it. This has some summaries http://www.issues2000.org/John_Kerry.htm
But to attack him based on the fact that he didnt hype anything up is simply ludacris. Please make a year by year comparison of what George Bush and John Kerry did with their lives, and make sure to include on Bushes list
charged with DUI/DWI
failed businesses (Arbusto, Spectrum Oil, Harken energy)
failed run for congress
governor of Texas (which we havent heard much about if you ask me)
President US 2000-2004
- record deficit, record job loss, nation more divided than ever before, war in Iraq (Daddy’s war), war in Afghanistan (the real war on terror), bigger government, increased domestic government spending (aka throwing money at the problem) with no results

So now please make a John kerry list for me.

The Senate report (or whatever report since I know i’m getting them all mixed together) specifically quoted Tenet as saying it was a “slam dunk” that Saddam had WMD’s.

Actually, it was Woodward’s book. I thought you guys had completely debunked it. Or did you just debunk everything but that part. :)

In any case, as described in the book, the whole conversation went like this, McLaughlin presented the intelligence on Iraq WMDs to Bush and…

“Nice try,” Bush said. “I don’t think this is quite — it’s not something that Joe Public would understand or would gain a lot of confidence from.”

Card was also underwhelmed. The presentation was a flop. In terms of marketing, the examples didn’t work, the charts didn’t work, the photos were not gripping, the intercepts were less than compelling.

Bush turned to Tenet. “I’ve been told all this intelligence about having WMD and this is the best we’ve got?”

From one end of the couches in the Oval Office, Tenet rose up, threw his arms in the air. “It’s a slam dunk case!” the DCI said.

Not quite a “no doubt” moment, was it joe? How do you reconcile that with, “Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.”

He’s a liar.

But 4 months in Viet Nam 30 years ago has little to do with being president.

Haha! That’s not what I was hearing from Republicans in ‘88 and ‘92. Back then it was all about the brave sacrifice of GHW way back in WWII.

I think your observations about Kerry’s speech are just wishful thinking. The last time I checked the polls, over 50% of the voters are behind Kerry, not Bush. On a state by state poll, Kerry is leading in enough states to win the election. An unbiased website that uses the consensus of all the polls can be found at:

http://www.electoral-vote.com/

The voters in this country are too smart to fall for nonrelevent arguments as to who is more popular. That is not what makes them vote for one candidate over another.

If you want Bush to regain the lead over Kerry, more compelling and effective arguments as to why he should remain President must be made very soon and before the Republican Convention takes place.

> Only 3 sentences for 20 years of service!

Gimme a break. In Bush’s 2000 acceptance speech (a speech which, by the way, makes no mention of terrorism or weapons of mass destruction), he barely said anything at all about what he has done with his life — probably because it would remind people of how little he had accomplished to prove his competance to be President. Bush’s resume includes 20 years not of service in the US Senate but of hard drinking, a unbroken string of failed businesses, and opportunities handed to him, not earned, simply because of his last name. His election to Governor of Texas, the first accomplishment of his professional life, is only mentioned in a short paragraph of generalizations about how he’ll be good at working with Democrats. That promise wasn’t kept!

In fact, Bush’s speech in 2000 is full of high-sounding policy promises — just like most acceptance speeches are — but with the exception of the tax cut, most of Bush’s promises are still unkept after four years in office.

The most ironic part of Bush’s 2000 speech:

A generation shaped by Vietnam must remember the lessons of Vietnam. When America uses force in the world, the cause must be just, the goal must be clear, and the victory must be overwhelming.

Does Iraq pass those three tests?

1) Sorta (the “cause” keeps changing anyway!).
2) No.
3) No.

When Bush speaks at the GOP convention this September, let’s all keep an eye out for platitudes like this, promises which he has no intention to keep.

-Cf

Joseph Briggs wrote,

It would be nice to know the projected costs of all of the new policies, which doesn’t sound cheap. He still has more to explain but that’s what the next couple of months are for.

Since you asked. You can link to the entire article but it is a subscription at www.washtimes.com and look for archives.

Washington Times
July 12, 2004
Don Lambro
Sen. John Kerry’s campaign proposals would result in $226 billion in higher spending in the first year of his presidency, including an additional $115 billion in social welfare, foreign aid, and environmental and energy costs, according to a study of his budgetary recommendations.

The study by the National Taxpayers Union Foundation (NTUF), which will be released later this week, finds that Mr. Kerry’s budget proposals, which he says would slash the deficit in half over four years, would increase spending well beyond his estimates.
>
>
>
Since he announced his presidential candidacy, Mr. Kerry has made 70 policy proposals that would affect spending, five of which would reduce spending.
>
>
“Overall, Senator Kerry proposes spending $770.6 billion over five years to fund his projects, while suggesting just $35.99 billion in budget cuts,” the study says.
>
>
“This leaves $734.62 billion unaccounted for and presumably passed on to American taxpayers in the form of increased taxes or suffocating debt,” the study said.

bush is a neo fascist who put in 4 years as governor of texass before he ran for pres, and lost. i’d say 4 months of running a swift boat beats 4 years as govnor of texas, ceremonial position and all, y’all. and you know, bush is really bad. he can’t read, he can’t write, he’s virtually illiterate. he got through yale as a legacy kid, took lots of drugs, but didn’t learn a darn thing. who are you all kidding?

Again,

Chill!

Why do you bash Bush in such a hateful fashion?

Why don’t you give reasons to vote for Kerry?
That would be much more effective. Wouldn’t you agree?

This hate speech is getting very old. But mighty poplular I might add.

And will most likely turn off a lot of people in the end.

MAW, The Washington Times is a notoriously right-wing rag. I’ll wait until Kerry actually releases his plan before I take a solid stance on it. Perhaps you should, also.

Why don’t you give reasons to vote for Kerry? That would be much more effective. Wouldn’t you agree?

Are you actually willing to consider Kerry yourself? Or is that just talk. Because if you’re serious, which issue in particular might persuade you to vote for Kerry?

MAW, The Washington Times is a notoriously right-wing rag. I’ll wait until Kerry actually releases his plan before I take a solid stance on it. Perhaps you should, also.

Just what I was thinking.

Of course they are right wing rags. Would you see this in a left wing rag? I think not.

AP,

You can wait to see his plan, but I really think you would be waiting a long time.

I did in fact vote for Clinton the first time. So it is not unlike me to vote for a Democrat. It is extremely rare though.

But in Kerry’s case, I just can’t see it.

See my post in David’s “Kerry Takes 5 Point Lead in Polls at 12:47AM (green section) for an in depth analysis of why I just could not vote for Kerry. Let me know what you think in that thread. I will check in the morning.

Good Posting.

Bottom line Kerry served although he did not have to , what did Bush and Cheney do ? Kerry’s speech was great , the usual political hog wash but great , Bush cannot even spit out a sentence without screwing up , ” the terrorists are determined to harm our country and so are we ” , yup , he is presidential material . You Sheeplicans are just plain desperate as there is not one success you can attribute to this administration , it has been a disater . Follow your leader and tell lie after lie and distortion after distortion , anything but the truth because the truth would sink your ship .