PeterDavid.net

Well, I have to say Kerry did very well for himself. It was the most impressive speech I've seen him give.

I think Jon Stewart was right, though, that the DNC was basically a "product launch", no different than when Sony or Mercades would launch something. But as far as launches go, this was a good one.

I'd definately trust him with the role of Commander-In-Chief more than I would Dubya.

I am sure some posters will use this thread as an opportunity to compare and/or bash Kerry and Bush on this forum. (Yet again.)

I'm NOT going to do that. I'm going to give my opinion of Kerry's speech-- since that is what Peter asked us for. (Besides, how can you compare "Convention Kerry" and "Convention Bush" anyway... Since the President won't get his "at bat" for another 5 weeks?)

That stated, when Kerry brought up certain indisputable facts about the current state of affairs in the USA-- I actually found myself screaming, "Hell Yes!" and "Exactly!" at the TV.

In short, I felt the speech was thorough, pointed and well delivered.

I also believe Kerry's speech was extremely clear in delineating the philosophical differences separating the two parties.

His words also had the strange effect of making me angry again about issues I had forgotten I was really angry about. (Then I got angry at myself for forgetting that anger... Go figure.)

I certainly feel that the speech's substance will give a lot people-- regardless of their political allegiance-- a whole hell of lot to think about... If they choose to.

The low point? The large glob of spittle that clearly came flying from Kerry's mouth about two-thirds of the way through the speech.

If this happens to the man often, I suggest possibly erecting a salad bar like "sneeze guard" for the poor journalists asking questions at the debates.

Between Kerry's heretofore unknown saliva problem and Bush's almost uncontrollable sputtering whenever he is asked a question... Any debate between these two promises to be a very long, very wet night.

I felt Kerry did a good job. I really don't think I learnd anything new about Kerry. Most of what he said is stuff that I have heard before. However, I realize that he was trying to make a case to those who were turning on their TVs to see him for the first time.

I think he was shaky at first as well, but he did fall into a groove. The man sweat like a pig though and I was waiting for a drip to fall off his chin. I certainly can't hold sweating hard against anyone because Lord knows I would have passed out before I said a word. Only reason I bring it up is because it was noticable and there are people who make choices on who they will vote for just on looks alone.

Like I said before, though, it wasn't anything I haven't already heard. I felt the speech was more a list of hopes than policies.

The delegates loved it. I’m sure this speech will jazz the base. But there wasn’t enough vision for how to manage a post 9/11 world, and way too much ‘I won’t do what Bush did.’ I know some political adviser probably told him he had to contrast himself with Bush, but I don’t think he did much to move beyond the identity he had before this speech: The Not Bush Candidate.

I hate to admit it, but I thought the whole convention went pretty well. As a whole the Dems did a good job showing a little fire in their bellies without degenerating into the "Waah, waah, Bush is evil" script.

I think Obama was the strongest speaker, even moreso than Clinton. Everyone is used to Clinton selling iceboxes to Eskimos, but Obama came out of nowhere in such a short timethat he got extra points just for his rookie status in the big leagues.

I thought Kerry did a fine job, and if I were an undecided, I think he would have scored some points with me. He did spend a fair amount of time singing the "I'm not Bush" chorus, but, in his defense, he's not. A healthy difference in ideas should be what this is about. I want to hear what he thinks he has to offer that is different, and that would go double if I were dissatisfied with Bush. Of course, the areas where I am less than thrilled with Bush so far have been where he hasn't been conservative enough, so I doubt I would find satisfaction from Kerry.

The ones who liked it the least were probably the media, who were stuck in what has to have been one of the least media-worthy conventions ever. It says something when two of the big stories out of the convention are O'Reilly vs. Moore, and Ms. Heinz-Kerry's "shove it" comment.

I think my wife said it best:
"We weren't alive to hear Dr. King talk, but listening to Obama must have been something like hearing King."

Obama did a great job. I hope that he has a very long future in politics.

If I hadn't made up my mind to vote for Jack Sparrow, I might have been tempted.

"Ms. Heinz-Kerry's "shove it" comment" This bothered me for a couple of reasons. A- this woman might become the next first lady and had just finished a speech calling for civility. Shove it was a tad uncalled for, there were other ways to put the reporter in their place, such as No comment, I'm talking to important people, etc...

B- she said Unamerican and when called on it, she lied and said, "I didn't say that, now shove it."

Well, he certainly seemed fired up in this speech, and that alone made it a big improvement over his previous drowse-a-thons. And using Abraham Lincoln's words against the current incarnation of his Republican party was a clever touch. But there definitely were some problems.

First of all, John Kerry has got to let the crowd cheer and applaud. I cannot emphasize this enough. Genuine excitement at the venue filters through to us folks watching at home, so let it happen! Wait for the adulation to die down a little, and THEN proceed. And if you tell a joke, let the crowd laugh at it before plowing into the next section of your speech. These are very basic rules of public speaking. It shows that you're actually paying attention to your audience. Kerry should know this by now.

Secondly....enough nonsense about how we're the "can do people" and a "country of the future". Of course we're a country of the future. Time goes forward, not backward, doesn't it? Now if Bush were maniacally plotting to alter the laws of time, this might have some relevance. (Perhaps he's saving such transgressions for a second term.) But that obviously isn't the case, so it just comes across as meaningless. And the more meaningless stuff you frontload a speech with, the greater risk you run of losing your TV audience in the first five minutes.

Third, who is he trying to fool with this statement?

You don't value families by kicking kids out of after school programs and taking cops off our streets, so that Enron can get another tax break.

Fair enough, but does this really implicate the man you want it to? According to Citizens for Tax Justice(http://www.ctj.org/html/corp0402.htm), Enron paid no income taxes at all in four of the last five years of the Clinton Administration. Their corporate tax welfare benefits in that timespan totaled $1 billion dollars. Exactly which party is Kerry is railing against here?

I liked the talk of lessening our dependence on Middle Eastern oil. And I have no quarrel with putting American ingenuity to the task of harnessing alternate renewable sources to such purposes in the future. However, this line gave me pause:

And our energy plan for a stronger America will invest in new technologies and alternative fuels and the cars of the future -- so that no young American in uniform will ever be held hostage to our dependence on oil from the Middle East.

Now try to imagine Michael Moore saying the same thing. Not that hard, is it? By linking our dependence on oil to our armed forces, Kerry seems to be saying that the war in Iraq was indeed all about oil. It's nice that the loony left got a shout-out in his pseudo-hawkish speech, but that's exactly what this statment is: loony. If our interests in Iraq were truly centered around oil, we never would have invaded the place and spent billions of dollars on reconstruction and democratization efforts. We simply would have dropped sanctions against Saddam and resumed the purchase of his oil. It would have been a lot easier and a lot cheaper. And I think our high gasoline prices bear testament to that position.

Aside from that, I think his speech was successful in that it wasn't a failure. He didn't drop the ball, which is all he needed to do at this point. And he didn't look or sound too French, which is always a good thing.

But honestly, shouldn't we talking about the real star of the convention, Barack Obama?

-Dave O'Connell
http://jumpthecup.blogspot.com

As for the high and low points of the convention...

High point: Barack Obama. By a country mile. That was a brilliant speech, and it deserves all of the praise it's been receiving. What an electrifying moment! Now if only the Democrats would run their promising young stars for President instead of their wonky old men.

Low point: Robert Kennedy, Jr.'s speech late Wednesday afternoon. Have you ever seen a man try to cram a 30 minute enviro-doom speech into a ten-minute timeslot and stumble over his words and lose his voice while doing so? That, my friends, was the Robert Kennedy, Jr. Convention Speech Experience in a nutshell, with emphasis on the word "nut".

-Dave O'Connell
http://jumpthecup.blogspot.com

but that's exactly what this statment is: loony. If our interests in Iraq were truly centered around oil, we never would have invaded the place and spent billions of dollars on reconstruction and democratization efforts. We simply would have dropped sanctions against Saddam and resumed the purchase of his oil. It would have been a lot easier and a lot cheaper.

No, no, no. It's not about getting oil, it's about getting oil service contracts to Halliburton as payoff to all of Cheney's old cronies.

You gotta get the talking points right.

My question is this: How exactly is Kerry going to bring an unwilling France into Iraq? By being nicer? The only way I see the unwilling becoming willing is if we buy them off. Either way, we pay the bill. And if we are going to pay for it, I'd just as soon we run the program ourselves.

The Convention (what I saw of it) was rather dry. I missed the Obama speech, now I may have to go dig it up on CSPAN. Clinton again proved he could work a crowd like no one (and definitely showed the shortcomings of Bush and Kerry in that regard). I loved the line about Edwards being young, smart, charismatic ("Hey, I'm starting to get jealous"). At least from the media accounts and speech, Ms. Heinz-Kerry seems to have a bit of a chip on her shoulder. Edwards was a bit rough - I think he got the jitters. I really hope we never see the "reporting for duty" thing from Kerry ever again. That was a groaner. It reminded me of the Bush-Kerry parody running around the net (http://www.jibjab.com/thisland.html).

I listened to Russert yesterday and he was saying this was by far the most controlled convention he'd ever seen - at least until the Republican Convention in September.

First of all, John Kerry has got to let the crowd cheer and applaud. I cannot emphasize this enough.

Yes, but one of the criticisms that many had before the speech even started was that it would run at least an hour. The point was made that there would be a lot of people hearing Kerry for the first time and that he would need to make his points quickly before the channels were changed.

I won't comment on Kerry's speech because I didn't see it. :( Had a minor emergency and had to take a pet to the vet. All cool now.

I did see Edward's speech the ight before, and I was impressed. It was the first one I have heard him make, and it was one of the best speeches I have heard. And I almost laughed when the signs in the audience came out. Man, that was well coordinated!

But as I heard somebody else say, the party conventions are nothing more than infomercials.

So PAD, do you still think the Democrats don't have a chance of winning the election?

Hi all.

I have been a life long Republican and this is the first time I have ever been conflicted in my vote - I just don't believe in our current President. I watched the DNC with an open mind becuase I am trying to justify a vote for Kerry/Edwards and I am still not convinced. While Kerry's speach sounded great - I am just not convinced in him and Edwards.

For me one of the biggest issues and probably the ultimate reason I would vote for Kerry is an issues that gets little to no play in the media but is so incredibly important to this country and that is the Supreme Court. Currently there are 3 or 4 justices that are looking to retire including out current Chief Justice. While I have generally voted Republican for legislative and executive candidates, I have always strongly favored a more centrist Supereme Court. And without going through a long diatribe, I think Kerry would post the more Centrist jursits to the Court. This is an issue that has implications not just for one or two terms of a President, but for two, three or even four generations.

Also if Kerry wins - it minimizes the chance of that carpetbagging bitch from Arkansas (Hilary Clinton) from running on 08 (still can't figure out how generally intelligent New Yorkers voted for her).

Personally I would love it if Giuliani Ran in 08 - then for the first time in 4 administrations (Clinton 1 & 2, Bush Jr 1 and who ever wins this Election) we would have a truly presidential Presidnet.

High points, in roughly chronological order:

1) Rev. David Alston. Unless you were watching a LOT of convention coverage (i.e. C-Span or something akin) you missed this one. He was one of Kerry's shipmates in Vietnam, and spoke absolutely beautifully. I'd like to run him for something, personally.

2) Bill Clinton. One of his best speeches, and he's had quite a few. Love him or hate him, you can't deny that he's got the oratory thing down pretty well.

3) Barack Obama. DAMN, this was good. I really do wonder if we saw the early stages of America's first black president.

Edwards' speech was fine, but not on the level of what the hype had led us to expect.

Kerry's speech was pretty good -- he's not a Clinton or an Obama and never will be, but I thought he made a good case. (Granted, I'm a smidge biased.) The biggest problem he had as a speaker last night -- he steps on his applause lines. A lot. It drove me nuts. (He got a lot better at that about halfway through, so I'm wondering if he had an eye firmly fixed on the clock for the early bits.)

I also thought that all of the kids -- Cate Edwards, Chris and Andre Heinz, Vanessa and Alex Kerry -- came off very, very well. I don't know if the GOP convention was planning to have the Bush twins speak, but at this point if they don't they risk an offspring gap. :-)

TWL

Oh, and about Teresa Heinz Kerry's "shove it" comment:

You might want to examine the context of that a bit more. Seems the reporter on the receiving end of said comment was from the PIttsburgh Tribune-Review, a paper wholly owned by Richard Mellon Scaife. Scaife runs a number of foundations which are deeply, deeply devoted to smearing anyone not on the far right, and those foundations in particular have frequently publicized unsourced items about alleged Kerry affairs and accusations that Teresa's foundations were sponsoring terrorism.

Given that, I don't know that I blame her for being a little less than cheerful.

And surfer_nick -- I agree with you that the Supreme Court is a big issue in this election, and that it should be part of the discussion for the electorate.

TWL

Highlights:

Barack Obama: the guy's got a lot of charisma. If this country could ever elect a black president, it will be him.

Al Sharpton: Al's not my favorite guy in the world -- far from it. But that speech was a barn-burner ("We're gonna ride that donkey!"): I laughed, I cried, it had a beat, and you could dance to it. I give it a 60, Dick.

Kerry's speech: It got off to a very shaky start ("reporting for duty!": Another whack at the "swiftboat commander" bell? A cheesy attempt at a joke?), but man, oh man, did he get rolling. And once rolling, he really took off. I honestly think he showed more emotion, more passion, in those 40-odd minutes than in the last 8 months combined. Where’s this guy been? Let’s see some more of him. The only hollow note was the “Hey George, let’s play nice.” You know what? F&ck ‘em. If it had been me, I would have used Obama’s idea (“tomorrow the spin-meisters will start talking”) and used it as a platform to throw one of Bush’s biggest gaffes right back in his face (“bring it on!”). We all know this is going to be a negative campaign. Don’t pussyfoot around it: Embrace it.

High-lights/Lowlights
Bill Clinton: You know, you forget how good a speaker he is until he starts speaking. At this point though, it just makes me sad. Sad for his mistakes, and sad for the effort and energy the right expended in trying to destroy him. To paraphrase the old chestnut: He can’t be stopped, you can only hope to contain him. And the energy they spent trying to stop him would have been better spent elsewhere, I think. So, good speech, bad memories.

Theresa Heinz: To be honest, I only watched her to see if she was going to pop off (and yes, I am ashamed). I was surprised by what a terrific speech she gave. Engaging, entertaining, and smart. However, since no one was watching it, all they’ll see are the least attractive sound bites on Fox News (the multi-lingual greeting should really set the “black helicopter” crowd off). So, good speech, anticipation of bad fallout.

Low-lights
Ron Reagan, Jr.: This just made me queasy. He was using the DNC to get a little attention for his pet project, and the DNC was using his to stick a finger in the RNC’s eye (“Neener, neener, neener: We got a Reagan! You-ou didn’t!”). Ultimately, I think all he’s done is make embryonic stem-cell research a Democratic issue (as opposed to a non-partisan issue), and thereby doomed it to the status of political football. Bad move all the way around.

Dennis Kucinich: Yeesh. I know it’s important that all the primary candidates get up there and get behind the nominee. But I would have been fine with a written statement. That was just, well, creepy.

The delegate vote: OK, not only is the vote pointless anymore, it’s tedious (“The great state of Blahblah, the yaddayadda state! The home of Blah Deblah and congressman Yadda Yah…”), but the woman that ran it looked like a blissed out Katherine Harris. That was just freakish.

Oddly, while C-Span 1 was running Kerry’s speech (and the aftermath) C-Span 2 was running GWB’s 2000 acceptance speech. Five minutes of his vacuous smirking was enough to make me realize that – if they REALLY wanted to fire up the delegates -- they should have simply have played his speech. Talk about red meat. The guy is just a nincompoop, plain and simple.

You really didn't like Kucinich's speech? Hmm -- I thought it was a bit of a barn-burner, myself. I was very pleasantly surprised. (Sounds like I would've been for Sharpton, too, but I missed that one.)

Totally agreed on the delegate vote. Sheesh.

TWL

Just a further comment on Heinz-Kerry's "shove it," comment: the context that is also missing is that (reportedly) the phrase that she used was "un-American traits," whereas the reporter asked what she meant by "un-American activities." Now, maybe some would dismiss this as an honest mistake, or playing semantic games...but my guess is that the reproter, in his continuing quest to embarrass this woman, was trying to bait her into expanding into a soundbite linking her with Joe McCarthy. And that would've been a fun news cycle, Hmmm?

Also on last night's Daily Show, I think the best single line to describe the convention (and it could be applied to any political convention) was Steven Coulber's "This is too fake even for a fake news show".

But "John Kerry: He's Not George W. Bush" was comedy gold.

"So PAD, do you still think the Democrats don't have a chance of winning the election?"

Yeah, I still think that.

Because as much as the Dems say they want a positive campaign, we know perfectly well the GOP isn't going to do it. The attack ads will continue. And Bush, who claimed that we shouldn't be involved in nation building two years before plunging us into war, is going to continue to try and sell Kerry as being indecisive. And he's going to continue to attack Kerry's war record even though, quite simply, Kerry was under enemy fire and Bush wasn't, so where the hell does AWOL boy get off?

And the problem with the unrelenting attacks is that there's no way to defend against them effectively. Because it goes like this:

"Kerry humps sheep."

To which Kerry responds, "Anyone who claims John Kerry humps sheep is a liar."

But the denial doesn't matter because the public hears "humps sheep" twice and the denial once. So it's the accusation that sticks in their mind.

The Dem's attempts to avoid going negative is simply an old debating technique of not repeating your accuser's lies, but instead speaking around them so as not to reinforce them. By taking the high road, Kerry hopes not to have to make that oral reinforcement. It's a nice notion. It won't work. The GOP won't play it that way. They'll continue with the negatives and the slams and the lies, and Kerry will have to do one of two things. Either he rises above them, in which case they remain unanswered and they stick. Or he responds to them and, in doing so, repeats them and they stick.

As good as Kerry's speech and presentation were, my guess is that the vast majority of swing voters didn't bother to tune in. The fact that they haven't made any decision indicates to me that they aren't all that engaged in political discourse in the first place, and probably won't vote at all. Between Nader as spoiler, the RAM (Republic Attack Machine), and the new computerized voting machines with no paper trail that Bush's friends are manufacturing, no, I don't see Kerry winning.

Bottom line, Bush has put into place exactly what he wanted: America on war footing, and Americans don't generally like to change Commanders in Chief while at war. He learned the lessons of Bush Senior and the lessons of the politics of fear, and the fact that the current polling is as close as it is shows he learned them well.

PAD

Hmmmm...
See I think there is a chance. There is hope, to steal Edwards' line.
I'm not saying that the Democrats will win... but I do think there is a chance.
Funny, everyone talked about Kerry's speech... but I think Edwards was more convincing, and generally the better speaker.
But I also think that Al was a much better speaker (Sharpton, not Gore)... of course Al is a preacher, and he's good at what he does.
I was watching this on CSPAN, and I hated it because they suck at camera angles.
Everyone talks about taking the high road, and how that may not be a great idea.... does anyone realize that they coopted this from Edwards himself. And because of this, I heard more moderates and independants say that "If I were to vote for anyone, I'd vote for Edwards."
So I think there is hope.
Three months, on the other hand, is quite a long time.

Travis

PAD, you might want to take a page from Stephen Hawking here.

He had a rather famous bet with Kip Thorne and John Preskill (two Caltech profs) about a possible black hole candidate. He bet that it wasn't, despite believing otherwise. As he puts it, "that way, if all my research turned out to be wrong, I would at least have the satisfaction of winning the bet."

You should bet someone that Kerry loses, so that at least you'd get something out of the election if it goes badly. :-)

Me, I'm cautiously optimistic at the moment -- but as Travis said, three months is a long time in electoral politics. It's tough to read the tea leaves properly right now.

TWL

Kerry pretty much cemented my decision to vote for him last night. While i don't consider myself a liberal , Kerry's agenda sounded very appealing to me, especially his stance on environmental issues and his intentions to cut dependance on foreign oil. I think he's a good speaker and most importantly.... I'd feel much more comfortable with him representing our country than i would with Bush. I was supportive of Bush after 9-11 and "tried" to like him but i've had enough and don't think he's qualified to be president. It's time for a change.

High Point--Obama. hands down. A star is born. If he can deliver as a Senator he will be a formidable force.

Kerry's speach--as others have mentioned, the speaking through the applause lines was a major flaw. I guess Senators arn't used to speaking with any interruptions. At 40 minutes the speach was already too long so I guess he felt that he had to do it but it would have been far better to just, I don't know, shorten the speech! That said, it was perfectly adequate.

Clinton- If you like his stuff, this was the sort of stuff you like.

Low Points- Ron Reagan: Graverobber. Kucinich looked like a goof but he had a sort of nerdy likeability. Al Sharpton is a disgrace and I would hope that any Democrat would be as embarrassed to have him there as any republican ought to have been when Pat Buchanan was at theirs. A good speaker though, if you can get past the whole "He's evil" aspect.

Overall a good convention. They managed to keep the hardcore Bush Hating under wraps which was a very smart move. At this point I'd give Kerry just a hair under a coin flip's chance of pulling it off.

Well, honestly I thought it was a snoozefest. Yeah, there were some dynamic speakers (Obama especially) but there was nothing said that we didn't know before. Why are both political parties spending millions of dollars on a convention that has no relevance anymore? Everything was decided in the primaries, and there was no mention of party platform in any of the coverage I saw. All it provided was a chance to highlight the candidates and give others a chance to feel important by speaking there.

The party faithful were already on board, the undecided still have a chance to hear the other side, and the other party was only paying attention to find attack points. Sad, but it will be the same with the Republican convention next month.

The high point was O'Reilly vs Moore. Neither one running for office. That says something.

I thought Kerry did a fine job, and I hope Peter's wrong about the Democrats being unable to win.

I've already posted my own thoughts on my own bloggish corner of the web, so I won't repeat them here (besides, it's more of a Kerry vs. Bush thing, which Peter said he didn't want).

Oh, as a lifelong New Yorker, I voted for Hillary Rodham Clinton and was happy to do it. Her opponent was an idiot. And the idea of Rudolph Giuliani as president scares the pants off me. The many was a terrible mayor for most of his tenure -- the only time I was grateful for his presence was in mid-September 2001, during a period where you really want a fascist in charge....

---KRAD

Sharpton did a great job. Obama also reminded me of MLK. Kerry put forth his ideas about the things he wants to when he gets in office in a passionate and compassionate way. He let the American people (the few of us who tuned in) know he can smile. Whether he will be able to implement his policies or not depends on the make-up of Congress after the election. I do NOT want the current administration to continue along the path it is currently taking this country. Even if they win the election by a slim margin they will take it as a mandate. If you know someone who does not vote, try to talk them into registering. I have gotten a few people to do this, but it isn't enough. If you are truly happy with the way things are being run, of course you will vote republican. If you truly think things in the economy, environment, international relations, social security, and education can be done better, as outlined in Kerry's speech, please register and vote. I think things can be better.

Bush gave a good speech this afternoon. He hit on a lot of the things said by Kerry.

PAD, you claim that the "RAM" will turn this into a dirty campaign and that Kerry will have to defend himself? Hasn't the "DAM" been attacking Bush for a long time now? Isn't Bush who has to fend off claims that he didn't go to war for the wrong reasons? Doesn't he have to battle against many of the claims made by Mooore and others? Isn't Bush who has to fend off claims he went AWOL when John Kerry was in 'Nam for six months, collected 3 purple hearts(the number you need before the military sends you home), and then went home and protested the war? Nevermind the claims by the doctor who treated him claiming the last wound was little more than a scratch?

George Bush will bring up Kerry's horrible record in the senate and that will be dirty. He'll explain how Kerry was one of only 12 members of the senate to vote against funding for our troops. That of course will be dirty, and who is George Bush for questioning John Kerry. He was in vietnam 35 years ago.

I do NOT want the current administration to continue along the path it is currently taking this country. Even if they win the election by a slim margin they will take it as a mandate.

Like they did the last election. And THAT'S something folks can be legitimately pissed about, and should be taken seriously over, no matter what your political leanings.

George Bush will bring up Kerry's horrible record in the senate and that will be dirty. He'll explain how Kerry was one of only 12 members of the senate to vote against funding for our troops. That of course will be dirty

Mainly because it's shorn of context and spun like hell. But never mind the background and the facts; it makes for a good sound bite.

He'll explain how Kerry was one of only 12 members of the senate to vote against funding for our troops.
You know, everyone talks about the $87 billion as if it were going to support our troops.
Um.
No.
Maybe part of it was, but a good portion of it was to build infrastructure in Iraq. Firefighters, policemen, BRAND NEW power grids (instead of updating the old ones), etc.
Kerry said it best last night: we need to empower the firefighters, emts etc HERE, before building them elsewhere.
The $87 billion was the cost of "nation building" not supporting our troops.
And funny, if I'm wrong here, if the $87 billion were just SOLELY put into our armed forces, why would we have the issue of having to a "involuntary recall" of our retired military people? why are we stretched thin? $87 billion should provide for plenty of coverage.

Travis

Also, I believe that part of Kerry's reasoning for voting against the package was that he wanted to couple the funding with a suspension of the Bush tax cuts.

It may be debatable if what Kerry did in this vote was wise or not, but to paint this action as solely as a negative against Kerry >IS

Well, I still have hope. I have to because the thought of Bush in the white house for another four years makes me want to go into the fetal position.

But I have hope because I know a lot of people like surfer_nick. About half of the staunch republicans that I know will be voting democrat for the first time in their lives.

Pad:
And he's going to continue to attack Kerry's war record even though, quite simply, Kerry was under enemy fire and Bush wasn't, so where the hell does AWOL boy get off?

Well, with all due respect, Mr. D, Kerry is the one painting a target on his own war record.

Kerry wants to paint himself as a better war time president that Bush. He even went so far as to say last night that he's the only candidate who knows what it's like to actually fight in a war. Problem is, we lost that war. We cut and run in no small thanks to Kerry and his protests.

Another problem that Kerry has is his flip flopping. He paints this as an "unjust and immoral" war that we were "misled" into, but he still hopes that "we're on God's side". Well, if it's "unjust and immoral" can't we rule that out? In fact, seems to me that what he's saying is that the terrorists are right and we're wrong.

Makes me wonder what else Kerry is going to flip flop on, like say, Israel?

He paints this as an "unjust and immoral" war that we were "misled" into, but he still hopes that "we're on God's side". Well, if it's "unjust and immoral" can't we rule that out? In fact, seems to me that what he's saying is that the terrorists are right and we're wrong.

Geeeeezus... read into something will you?
Let me clear something up: this was in response of the current president believing that "God wants him to be President."
So instead of saying he knows God's mind, Kerry prays, like Abraham Lincoln... (you know, tall guy with a beard, top hat, civil war, all that stuff) he prays that we are on God's side. Kerry preceded this statement with the fact that he doesn't wear his religion on his sleeve, like someone we all know. It was a specific point.
It wasn't "flip-flopping"... In fact, you totally took it out of context.
If you want a good case of flip-flopping, take a certain president that receieved the largest donation ever to a political party for his first term campaign, flew around on a corporate jet (both the donation and jet were Enron's) and now says he doesn't know Ken Lay that much.

Travis

KRAD Posted:

"Oh, as a lifelong New Yorker, I voted for Hillary Rodham Clinton and was happy to do it. Her opponent was an idiot. And the idea of Rudolph Giuliani as president scares the pants off me. The many was a terrible mayor for most of his tenure -- the only time I was grateful for his presence was in mid-September 2001, during a period where you really want a fascist in charge...."

Hillary's agenda is not to benefit New York, but herself - why didn't she run in a state where she had ties (Arkansas, where she lived for decades, or from Illinois where she was born). Hillary's claim to want to serve the people of NY is spurious at best. While Lazio was junior in his career as a polition, he could hardly be considered an "idiot." He was a life long New Yorker and steped up to the plate when Giuliani had to drop out of the race.

Regarding former Mayor Giuliani - what he did for NY in his two terms in office was outstanding - crime was down significantly, development in NYC increased supstantially and his leadership both before and after and on 9/11 was an example that should be followed by others. Just take a look at Times Square - I remember wokring in the area during Dinkin's administration and never felt safe - at the end of Giuliani's administration, the entire area turned around. I would be proud to see him as President.

Sorry if I got off topic on the discussion of the DNC.

Kerry wants to paint himself as a better war time president that Bush. He even went so far as to say last night that he's the only candidate who knows what it's like to actually fight in a war. Problem is, we lost that war. We cut and run in no small thanks to Kerry and his protests.

Huh?

We lost Vietnam because of Kerry's protests?

Right. We "cut and run" (a phrase that's gotten well past tired) when just a little more effort could have given us ... well ... something more like what we've got in Iraq right now. And the only reason we cut and run was because Kerry decided to speak out.

Please, please, please tell me that's an argument the Bush campaign plans to use. I'll bring the marshmallows.

Another problem that Kerry has is his flip flopping. He paints this as an "unjust and immoral" war that we were "misled" into, but he still hopes that "we're on God's side".

Has he actually said Iraq is "unjust and immoral"? I've not heard it, and given a lot of the other statements he's made about Iraq (most of which I disagree with, BTW) I'd be extremely surprised if he'd spoken of it in that fashion.

The "we're on God's side" statement was not about Iraq. It was about US policy in general, and as others have pointed out was a rebuttal to the whole "God is on our side" rhetoric that Bush uses frequently. As an atheist, I tend to disagree with both versions, but I'm a whole lot happier with the first than the second.

TWL

James,

I certainly don't think the Democrats are without their own attack machine, and I certainly don't think either side is especially likely to take the high road in this election. I anticipate a very ugly, very messy fall on both sides.

I do, however, think there's a qualitative difference between analyzing what someone's said and done in proper context and distorting the sense of a speech or a vote solely for political gain. The biggest criticisms of Bush haven't been of the latter variety, at least IMO; many of the criticisms of Kerry have.

TWL

I am not a Kerry fan at all...But I have to say that his speech was much much better than I anticipated...maybe he learned a few things from watching Clinton the other night :) And Im only talking about the charisma, clarity and poise he showed up on stage. As for the things he (and Edwards) had to say...Well my initial thought was: hmm, is this a capitalist country, or a socialist? Stalin and Lenin would definitly vote for these two based on economic expectations.

Mike

Another problem that Kerry has is his flip flopping.

With all due respect, this is NOT an argument Bush supporters should be using. Given Bush's changing sentiments on nation building and the US role in Middle East peace, this argument impresses me not at all.

I thought it was very impressive, and showed Kerry as a man of substance, in contrast with Bush.

The one flub that made me wince is when he accidentally said "We will double our special forces to conduct terrorist operations" and then quickly corrected it to "anti-terrorist operations."

With a different perspective:

At lunch today, I happened to sit one table away from two older men (I'd guess in their 60s or 70s) who were talking rather vocally about the convention a lot. (No idea what their party affiliation was.)

They were really, really impressed by Kerry's speech -- even the salute at the start, which I thought was a little silly. They thought Edwards looked okay, but on the green side, and they wondered how he'd fare against Cheney in the debates. (They thought Kerry would crush Bush in the debates, on the other hand.)

They really, really didn't like Teresa: thought she was egotistical and way too abrasive. (Elizabeth Edwards, on the other hand, reminded them pleasantly of Tipper Gore.)

An interesting conversation, I thought.

TWL

If we can survive all the mud and b*s, of course it all comes down to the actual votes come election day, and that is where the real potential for danger lies.
It's been on the news the last couple of days that during the test run of Florida's new electronic voting machines during a local election, a "compute glitch" literally "ate" the ballots(!) losing them to electronic heaven.
Maybe we should send an advance team down and set the ground rules for "hanging" chads before November!

I almost forgot to mention my FAVORITE speaker at the convention!
From the CSPAN site:
Kids for Kerry
Representatives from Kids for Kerry, Boston chapter Nubia Smith Whitaker, age 12, will speak on their behalf

She was awesome! Twelve years old and speaking in front of all those delegates. She spoke a little fast, but smiled and and said her piece with confidence. Even my very pro-republican neighbor thought she was great.

Karen,

I missed Nubia, but Ilana Wexler (the founder of Kids for Kerry, who looked like she'd just stepped off the Boston production of "Annie") was absolutely fantastic. She had one of the biggest laughs of the convention, too.

(I also forgot to mention earlier how strong I thought Jimmy Carter's speech was. Clear, forthright, and IMO deeply impassioned.)

TWL

Tim,
Thanks for the correction. I copied and pasted from CSPAN's website because I had forgotten her name. I realized I got it wrong just now after seeing a quote from her speech.

"I think [Vice President Cheney] should be put in a timeout."
-- 12-year-old Ilana Wexler

I agree about Carter's speech. I think that's the most aggressive I've ever heard him speak.

http://www.twistedthoughts.com/DNC2/RUNDNC_1.jpg PAD, the tittle of this thread was also the cover of a local Boston mag. Click the link to see the cover.

Surfer_Nick said:

Personally I would love it if Giuliani Ran in 08 - then for the first time in 4 administrations (Clinton 1 & 2, Bush Jr 1 and who ever wins this Election) we would have a truly presidential Presidnet.

KRAD said:

And the idea of Rudolph Giuliani as president scares the pants off me. The many was a terrible mayor for most of his tenure -- the only time I was grateful for his presence was in mid-September 2001, during a period where you really want a fascist in charge....

New Year's 2003, when the Mayor's term expired, an acquaintance in New York posted on a newsgroup that he and a friend had repeated over and over "...those three magical words that, even in this dark season, can bring smiles to our lips and joy to our hearts: 'former mayor Giuliani'..."

DneColt said:

Bill Clinton: You know, you forget how good a speaker he is until he starts speaking. At this point though, it just makes me sad. Sad for his mistakes, and sad for the effort and energy the right expended in trying to destroy him. To paraphrase the old chestnut: He can?t be stopped, you can only hope to contain him. And the energy they spent trying to stop him would have been better spent elsewhere, I think. So, good speech, bad memories.

The day after Clinton spoke, a couple of far-right-wing radio commentators were saying that he could get re-elected by a landslide if it were legal for him to run...

Me: Another problem that Kerry has is his flip flopping.

Roger: With all due respect, this is NOT an argument Bush supporters should be using. Given Bush's changing sentiments on nation building and the US role in Middle East peace, this argument impresses me not at all.

Roger, what can I say, you're right, and I would fault the Dems for using that tactic if they want. It doesn't diminish Kerry's "flip-flopping" though.

Tim: We lost Vietnam because of Kerry's protests?

Nope, Never said that.

I said "We cut and run in no small thanks to Kerry and his protests."

I gave no direct reason for why we lost that war, in fact. But it was due largely to the fact that it was an unpopular war that Nixon finally ordered the pull out. Kerry's protest helped fuel that unpopularity.

I said "We cut and run in no small thanks to Kerry and his protests."

Yes, right after you said "we lost that war." In general, I consider it safe to assume that you want those thoughts connected if you put them together like that.

So, is "we cut and run" completely unrelated to this phantom reason we lost Vietnam, or were you in fact making a linkage there?

(I also assume that you intended to say "wouldn't fault the Dems" in your response to Roger rather than "would", since your sentence doesn't make much sense as written.)

TWL
who prefers nuance to breath-holding stubbornness, even if it makes some consider the former "flip-flopping"

You know, in regards to the flip-flop comments, I hope the Democrats come out and say something like, "We once thought the world was flat, but new information revealed the world is round. Rather than 'staying the course' and stubbornly insisting that the world is still flat, most thinking humans changed their minds. Kerry keeps learning, gets information on subjects he has an opinion on and when the new evidence contradicts his opinion, he changes his mind." Because I want a leader who will make decisions based on the latest developments and if warranted, will go in a different direction. By the way, there are quite a few websites out there that debunk the flip-flop issue. The republicans are taking things out of context, using false numbers, and slight-of-hand to make Kerry appear indecisive. Go to the FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting) website, a group dedicated to the non-partisan truth, before making up your mind.

Is it a carnival? Is it a circus? No, it's the Democratic Convention. Looked like Live Aid. :)

Between Nader as spoiler, the RAM (Republic Attack Machine), and the new computerized voting machines with no paper trail that Bush's friends are manufacturing, no, I don't see Kerry winning.

Democtatic Party officials tend to share this view, and it's the exact reason why they deserve to lose in November. Like in 2000, they're going blame everything but their own incomptence for their losses. Perhaps instead of trying to position themselves as ersatz Republicans, they ought to re-embrace the dreaded L-word that apparently must not be spoken. (That's 'liberal', by the way, not 'lesbian'. But if they want to move towards that too, I'm all in favor. Especially basketball lesbians. They're the best.) This is a party that is so gutless that they can hardly bear to utter the name of their opponent at their own convention. If they lose, it serves 'em right.

As for Nader, forget about him. Here's a guy who, due to his lack of ballot access, will be lucky to pick up the 1% that Pat Buchannan received in 2000. Do you remember Republicans anguishing over "The Buchannan Factor" in the last election? Of course not. I don't even recall them going after Perot in '92 and '96 the way the Democrats have gone after Nader in these last two elections. But 2.7 % of the vote in 2000 and it's all tears and hand-wringing among liberals. Wise up, Democrats. You've got to earn your votes just like everyone else. And if you can't earn enough votes, it's your fault for picking a charisma-free cipher like Kerry.

-Dave O'Connell

Karen says:

"Go to the FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting) website, a group dedicated to the non-partisan truth, before making up your mind."

In all, er, fairness, FAIR is about as devoted to non-partisanship as is Rush Limbaugh. It's the sort of place that criticises NPR for conservative bias!

That said, one should have both FAIR (http://www.fair.org) and MRC (http://www.mrc.org) on the old internet speed dial, to get examples of bias from both sides (but take what is said with a grain of salt--I've caught FAIR more than once using very selective quotes to make a point when the entire quote says something else. MRC ain't innocent on that point either).

Don't forget Spinsanity either (http://www.spinsanity.org) which, for my money, is probably the most nonpartisan of the 3.

Forgive the length of this post and I'm not certain how to use bold and italics so am quoting the posters I'm replying to.

I am republican and many of the comments made by Dubya in the past three years (I say three because the first year he had little to say) are the reasons I now part voting company with a dwindling majority of the GOP.

Kerry's speech was concise and energetic. He spoke of many of the reasons Americans are angry. The unemployment. Outsourcing of jobs. Unfunded educational mandates. The use of God as a quarterback on team Bush but first and foremost the very dangerous erosion of the rights of Americans based on fear tactics involving false patriotism and religion. American means both parties. Thats not exactly how he phrased it but thats when I jumped up and yelled, "YES!".

I am tired of my party questioning my loyalty if I disagree with Bush. I am tired of being called unpatriotic if I have questions with the war in Iraq. I am tired of being labeled Godless if I support the civil rights of gay couples to marry and decry the GOP house representatives attempts to remove the balance of power between branches of government by seeking to tamper with the judical branch's right to hear cases which may involve constitutionality.

I will vote for Kerry. I will campaign ferverently against GWB. I don't think our country can emerge from another four years of Bush/Cheney/Ashcroft manipulations and be the America that stands for freedom.

There are black and whites to issues, especially those presented as bills in congress where the rule of thumb is, if you can slip a pet project into a hot topic bill hard to vote down, then thats the way to get your money. Kerry was right. There are complexities.

"Dave O'Connell

Democtatic Party officials tend to share this view, and it's the exact reason why they deserve to lose in November. Like in 2000, they're going blame everything but their own incomptence for their losses. Perhaps instead of trying to position themselves as ersatz Republicans, they ought to re-embrace the dreaded L-word that apparently must not be spoken. (That's 'liberal', by the way"

The L word was used Thursday night by Kerry who said it was time to stop using it as a bad term and embrace it once more. I agree with him.

"Posted by Tim Lynch at July 30, 2004 05:01 PM They thought Edwards looked okay, but on the green side, and they wondered how he'd fare against Cheney in the debates."

Edwards is a brilliant trial lawyer, even by his opponents estimations. In a debate with Cheney he will be concise, clear and not easily shaken. I would look for Cheney to lose this one.

"Posted by James Tichy at July 30, 2004 01:54 PM Hasn't the "DAM" been attacking Bush for a long time now? Isn't Bush who has to fend off claims that he didn't go to war for the wrong reasons?Doesn't he have to battle against many of the claims made by Mooore and others? Isn't Bush who has to fend off claims he went AWOL George Bush will bring up Kerry's horrible record in the senate and that will be dirty. He'll explain how Kerry was one of only 12 members of the senate to vote against funding for our troops. That of course will be dirty, and who is George Bush for questioning John Kerry. He was in vietnam 35 years ago."

The questions being asked of Bush are less a plan of the Kerry campaign and more of an outcrying from the public and more information is revealed and we see that we were misled. The threat did not exist. Do you understand what ramifications are here? The threat did not exist. We went to war, a war we thought righteous and necessary to our defense, invested ourselves emotionally and economically only to find out that investment was based on a fraud. Hell yes I want answers from Bush.

"Posted by XPadre at July 30, 2004 11:10 AM Just a further comment on Heinz-Kerry's "shove it," comment: the context that is also missing is that (reportedly) the phrase that she used was "un-American traits," whereas the reporter asked what she meant by "un-American activities." Now, maybe some would dismiss this as an honest mistake, or playing semantic games...but my guess is that the reproter, in his continuing quest to embarrass this woman, was trying to bait her into expanding into a soundbite linking her with Joe McCarthy."

Exactly. McNickle is less a reporter and more of a political pawn. He has a long history with Teresa Heinz Kerry. She made several attempts to politely get rid of him but McNickle is like a dog with a bone. He did want clarification of anything, he wanted to bait her. If the worst she did was tell him to shove it, then I for one admire her control. You go, Teresa!

"Posted by DneColt at July 30, 2004 10:59 AM

Ron Reagan, Jr.: This just made me queasy. He was using the DNC to get a little attention for his pet project,"

Ron Jr was always much more liberal than his father but according to commentators on several of the news channels, there has been some sort of split between the Reagans and the Bushs. Both Nancy and Ron Jr turned down invitations to speak at the the GOP convention.

"Posted by jumpthecup at July 30, 2004 08:59 AM First of all, John Kerry has got to let the crowd cheer and applaud."

The networks had only agreed to air the conventions for a certain amount of time. He needed to get his message across within a certain time frame in order to reach the majority of the viewing public. Had he run over the 11 oclock hour the east coast would have lost stations to local news. Sad but true. You'd think the media would be more interested in showing the leaders of our country in dialogue with America.

PAD: "By taking the high road, Kerry hopes not to have to make that oral reinforcement. It's a nice notion. It won't work. The GOP won't play it that way. They'll continue with the negatives and the slams and the lies, and Kerry will have to do one of two things. Either he rises above them, in which case they remain unanswered and they stick. Or he responds to them and, in doing so, repeats them and they stick"

I agree that Kerry will not be able to run a campaign that remains entirely positive simply because the GOP won't allow it. He must go on the offensive and not remain in a passive defensive mode. The campaign must turn to be more about the Bush administration, their actions and their accountability. I think part of the problem with that premise is narrowing it down to a managable number.

Here's one republican vote that will be for Kerry and Edwards in November.

Catori says:

"Edwards is a brilliant trial lawyer, even by his opponents estimations. In a debate with Cheney he will be concise, clear and not easily shaken. I would look for Cheney to lose this one."

I'd lower my expectations if I were you. For one thing, it's a good strategy. For another, Edwards did not exactly come off as Clarence darrow in any of the primary debates and I once saw him get his ass handed to him by noted non-brilliant trial attorney Tim Russert. So it's by no means a slam dunk.

While it is encouraging to me that some people are thinking through the issues and deciding what politicians more closely represent their interests, there are so many that are loyal to their party, regardless of the impact on their lives. I have friends who tell me about many issues they disagree with on the current administrations policies, but refuse to entertain the notion of voting for Kerry. The notion of him being a flip-flopper or soft on defense scares them. How can the Democrats effectively counter these negative, and false, images? I'd like to hear from Republicans what their thoughts are about a campaign that demonizes the man opposing them, instead of tackling the issues. Do you agree with the way the campaign is being run, or would you rather have a more dignified and thoughtful campaign? Now, I'm not saying the Democrats haven't used their own slants on Bush. I'd like to see more of what both sides feel they can do FOR this country and less of what the opposition will do TO this country. I felt that the pundits on the major cable news networks were more interested in attacking the messengers than analyzing the speeches at the convention, and was very glad I watched mostly CSPAN for my coverage. At this point my 4 year old, who is looking over my shoulder, would like me to spell her name, so I ask your indulgence while I go completely off topic. MATTIE

Posted by Bill Mulligan at July 31, 2004 02:16 PM
Catori says:

"Edwards is a brilliant trial lawyer, even by his opponents estimations. In a debate with Cheney he will be concise, clear and not easily shaken. I would look for Cheney to lose this one."

I'd lower my expectations if I were you. For one thing, it's a good strategy. For another, Edwards did not exactly come off as Clarence darrow in any of the primary debates and I once saw him get his ass handed to him by noted non-brilliant trial attorney Tim Russert. So it's by no means a slam dunk.

****

He won't have to be Darrow. He's debating Cheney.

Catori -- Worry not about the length; it was well worth the read. Nice arguments.

And a cute statement I heard on the radio while buying groceries earlier today:

"Bill Clinton gave an arousing speech."

(Yes, they were being satirical. I thought it was amusing, anyway.)

TWL

One aspect that the Kerry campaign MUST learn to get a handle on is this goofy ass paranoia about seriously unimportant shit. 3 examples:

1- Kerry falls down while skiing, says that he never falls down and blames his security agent. Jesus! EVERYBODY falls down while skiing! You laugh it off or say something to the effect of "no guts no glory" or something, ANYTHING other that blame the guy who is supposed to throw himself in front of a bullet for you.

2- Kerry goes to NASA, puts on the protective Bunny Suit and is photographed smiling and posing. When the photos generate giggles, his staff panics and turns a 1 day story into a 3 day story by claiming that they were set up by, I don't know, Evil Bush-Loving Astronauts (EBLA).

3- Hands down winner for dumbest political story of the, well, ever: Laura Bush and Theresa Heinz Kerry are forced to send cookie recipes to Family Circle (all thanks to a remark by Hillary those many years ago). When word got back that some thought that Theresa's Pumpkin Spice Cookies were not all that good, Ms Kerry responded that not only did she NOT send that recipe but that whoever in her office DID was out to get her. "...I think somebody really made it on purpose to give a nasty recipe." she speculated.

When your opposition wants to portray you as out of touch, elitist and arrogant, you don't oblige by demonstrating these qualities on stuff that doesn't matter in even the most generous definition of the word "matter". Kerry seems to have yet to take command of his campaign; his staff is embarrassing him. And anyone seeking the presidency can ill afford this. Nest time this happens it may be over something important and then the press will declare that a pattern has emerged.

The bright spot for Democrats is that he has shown an ability in the past to jettison aides who have not performed up to snuff (And he'd best do it now while he leads the polls--if he does it later it may smack of desperation).

Bill,

Amazingly enough, I agree with virtually everything you just wrote. :-) I hadn't heard the last two stories, but assuming they're correct I agree -- let goofy stuff like that just roll off.

The one item I'd comment on:

he has shown an ability in the past to jettison aides who have not performed up to snuff (And he'd best do it now while he leads the polls--if he does it later it may smack of desperation).

I don't know if that last will be the case. He did a lot of jettisoning last fall while Dean was flat-out dominating all the news and Kerry was barely a blip. People then said it smacked of desperation -- but it seems to have worked, or at least not done any harm.

Just a data point.

TWL

Tim,

And I have to agree with you. Wow, where's Famine and Pestilance?

And you're right that it was widely seen as an act of desperation when Kerry turned his campaign upside down. And, quite frankly, it was. But it worked. I just suspect that what is survivable in a nominating campaign is not always survivable in a presidential one. McGovern was dead the second he pushed Eagleton off the ticket. When Dukakis gave Donna Brazile the old heave ho it put the campaign into a fatal funk. Once you are the nominee it becomes very very hard to make any changes before you look weak, the one thing a presidential candidate CAN'T be.

Kerry has the added disadvantage of having been portrayed as a flip flopper, making any changes, even needed ones, as potentially having the effect of playing into his opponent's hands. So there's a bit of a no-win here but I'd rather take a 1 or 2 day hit than keep a staff that has shown some serious lack of common sense lately.

And I have to agree with you. Wow, where's Famine and Pestilance?

Don't look at me -- I thought they were YOUR students this year. :-)

TWL

For those of you who missed key speeches and have cable on-demand, look under the news and info section for convention coverage. My husband is watching Barak Obama right now.

From Karen:
"I'd like to hear from Republicans what their thoughts are about a campaign that demonizes the man opposing them, instead of tackling the issues."

Oh, I don't know. Maybe by not demonizing your opponent during your party's nomination speech, then finish up that same speech by saying you want a clean campaign?

It's a political campaign. If a candidate wants to show they are a better choice than their opponent, they have to point out things that are "wrong" with the opponent. Negatives are required. All I ask for is that both parties stick to the facts, and if they make a claim they need to be able to produce proof.

And as for Kerry in the 'bunny suit'. It's called a clean suit, and it's used by everyone when going inot a clean room or a space where engineers are trying to keep things as sterile as possible. The only ones I've seen making any noise about it are Kerry's own people and pundits making fun of the people worried about the picture. Will it become Dukakis in the tank? No, not unless Kerry tries to use it showing he's a scientist/engineer working for NASA. It's a non-issue.

"Oh, I don't know. Maybe by not demonizing your opponent during your party's nomination speech, then finish up that same speech by saying you want a clean campaign?"

Well... on Kerry's part, I have to say he's been doing a good job of sticking to the issues, even when he was "demonizing" Bush, he's been very specific about the things that Bush has actually done in office, and not just going "Bush is a chimp!"

Bush took us to War in Iraq, caliming that Saddam had WMD's, could launch said WMD's at the US if he wanted to, and was involved in 9/11... all of which has been proven false. Kerry is allowed to attack on that.
The counrty, under Dubya, is $445 BILLION in the red this year, and the 4th year in a row in debt. Kerry is allowed to attack on that. Bush can scream the economy is better all he wants to, but the truth is, the numbers were just less worse than initial estimates, but being $445 Billion in debt is still a bad thing.

"Proclaiming 'Mission Accomplished!' doesn't make it so!" Was probably one of the best lines in the speech, and I think one of the more damning ones since it speaks to Dubya's credibility, or lack there of. Kerry can attack Bush on that.

Kerry going "Bush is stupid, he mispronounces words all the time!" is a bit low... though still not untrue.

Screaming "Bush is a chimp!" (which is arguable...), or "Bush humps sheep!" (hey, who knows what he gets up to on his ranch? Kidding!) just cause would be uncalled for... Calling Bush racist for skipping out on the NAACP as president would be demonizing him. Calling him a religious zealot would be demonizing him (implying is ok, though). Kerry has managed to stay away from that.

Of the two, thus far, Kerry has seemed the more sane, and even on the campaign trail thus far, and he's been sticking to the issues, and going after Dubya on the things he's done in the last four years.

Also, as for Kerry stepping on applause lines, he really had to do that in the beginning. When he went "I'm John Kerry... reporting for duty!" He kind of had to rush through it, and I think that short pause is what made that moment so... unfunny. besides, he knew he was under a serious time constraint, and wanted to get rolling quickly.

Bill Mulligan posted:
"I just suspect that what is survivable in a nominating campaign is not always survivable in a presidential one. McGovern was dead the second he pushed Eagleton off the ticket. When Dukakis gave Donna Brazile the old heave ho it put the campaign into a fatal funk. Once you are the nominee it becomes very very hard to make any changes before you look weak, the one thing a presidential candidate CAN'T be."

In fairness, McGovern didn't "push off" Eagleton; Eagleton withdrew. In 1972, the idea that someone would undergo psychiatric treatment for *anything* was viewed with mistrust, at the very least. A fairly decent brief can be found at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/frenzy/eagleton.htm.
The recap notes that Eagleton kept this information from McGovern, and that, more than anything else, is why now so many potential vice-presidential prospects are heavily scrutinized before the presumed presidential nominee makes a final decision. (While the people of Missouri seemed to feel Eagleton served them well in the Senate, the larger American voting public would have to have been given some incredible assurance that Eagleton posed no great risk, being just a heartbeat away from the Presidency.)

JeffGilmer,
Attacking Bush's policies are fair game. I am talking about the personal attacks. No one has to point out what is "wrong" with his opponent. They must point out what is wrong with his policies or the direction this country is headed. So, my question still stands. Instead of telling me that the Dems are doing the same, which I admitted in my original post though not on as large a scale, tell me why it is OK to demonize the man?

Like I said before...All I ask for is that both parties stick to the facts, and if they make a claim they need to be able to produce proof.

Using the opponents record, that's fair game. But, Kerry and his supporters seem to only want to use Kerry's record during the year he was in Vietnam, not the years he was in the Senate.

Joseph says:
"In fairness, McGovern didn't "push off" Eagleton; Eagleton withdrew."

the very brief you give states that "Under pressure from McGovern and many senior Democrats, Eagleton withdrew from the ticket..."

I don't think it's any secret that Eagleton was forced out (though I wonder--once nominated, CAn a person be truly "forced" to quit? If on Monday Kerry is caught with an hooker and Theresa leaves him and announces that she is voting for Bush, could the Democrats recind the nomination? (Note--I don't expect that to happen, I just pose a situation where the guy loses any and all chance of victory)

McGovern was probably hurt more by the waffle of claiming to be 1000% behind Eagleton just days before he opened the airlock door and gave him a shove.

Meanwhile...the USATODAY poll shows Kerry now losing in likely voters by 3 points...it appears as though the convention energized Republicans at least as much if not more than it did the Democats. Very odd. This will be an interesting election.

I loved how the 2 Johns kept refering to the 2 americas. I always thought there was one but apperantly there are 2. How 2 of the wealthiest men in the US have the nerve to say the rich are bad and we are going to tax them more was ridiculous. Kerry received a standing ovation when he told the delagates how he would increase taxes on the rich. Y'know, MOST of the wealthy people got rich by working hard. but we want to punish them for that & of course the poor will receive even more aid. In fact the poor in this country receive so much aid where they don't even need to go to work. (have more kids, get more money) 2 amerricas, rich bad, poor good.
People, not government should be creating jobs. But hey, why not let the 2 johns create more goverment programs so we can get more tax. Keep this up and you'll have less & less people willing to work because they'll get more on government welfare then on their jobs.

If you have a problem with athletes making millions & you think it's unfair, don't buy the products they endorse, don't watch the games they play. simple.

You have a problem with Tom Cruise making $20 M per picture don't see his movies. but to penalize these people because they have more money is ridiculous.

Kerry charged "Americans are playing by the rules while other groups of (other Americans) are writing the rules for themselves and leaving the rest of america out"

The truth is that people from other countries still come to the USA because this is the land of opportunity. ! America for people that work hard. but that's the problem. no one wants to work hard anymore.

http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=6908

The message should be about how if we work hard we can achieve our dreams, not these robin hood principles of taking from the rich & giving to the poor.

In an unrelated issue to the convention, please check out this Kerry related sites:

http://www.swiftvets.com/

http://washingtontimes.com/national/20040729-111509-4130r.htm

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39707

Joe,

Why you keep insisting that taxes are equivalent to "punishment" is ... an interesting question.

You make the argument "if you feel X makes too much money, why not cease supporting them?"

Fine.

In turn -- if you think the government takes in too much tax money, stop using the services those taxes provide.

No more interstate highways.
No more calls to the police, the fire dept., etc.
No more public education of any kind. If you went to a state college, kindly send the diploma back.

Let's remember, folks -- "tax cuts" always imply service cuts. Before listening to anyone talking about how they're going to "give you back more of your money", ask them specifically what they plan to take from you in return and make you pay for out of pocket.

And Joe -- if the poor in this country "receive so much aid that they don't even need to work", why the hell are YOU bothering to stick with whatever job you have? Why not take the same free ride you think they've got?

TWL

"Posted by JeffGillmer at August 1, 2004 12:14 PM
But, Kerry and his supporters seem to only want to use Kerry's record during the year he was in Vietnam, not the years he was in the Senate."

I beg to differ. Kerry has no shame for his voting record but if it's going to be debated then let's debate the entire bill and why Kerry voted against it instead of relying only on the political spin put on it by campaign Bush, who once more said on Friday that there was no gray area. Issues were either black or white. He knows that's not so but it works in Bush's favor if he can make us believe it.

Bush will also avoid addressing his issue by sending his bulldog, Cheney, out to nip at the public's heels. That may very well be a fatal mistake as support for Cheney is at an all time low.

PAD wrote:

"As good as Kerry's speech and presentation were, my guess is that the vast majority of swing voters didn't bother to tune in."

I can't help but wonder if one of the reasons the majority of swing voters don't tune in stems from the fact that the major broadcast networks all but ignore the conventions these days.

I watched most of the convention Thursday night, when I got home from work. I caught the tail end of Wesley Clark's speech, then did some other stuff and came back for Kerry' s kids, his buddies from Vietnam and Kerry himself. All of which I saw on PBS. People watching the boadcast networks missed all but Kerry.

That makes no sense to me. There are only two conventions every four years. It hardly seems an inconvenience for the broadcast networks to give up a re-run, reality show crap or a movie for a few days every four years, in favor of something more important.

Yes, Kerry is the star attraction, as Bush will be later this month, but Wesley Clark might still run for president again. Shouldn't his comments be broadcast . Same with various Republicans who'll speak at their convention. And no, not everyone has cable. I had it for one year, to see the final season of Babylon 5, then I dropped it. I'm not about to pay to watch TV.

Speaking of which, if you're paying for cable, then why do cable channels have commercials? Broadcast channels do because that's how they make money, since viewers see them for "free", but that shouldn't apply to cable channels (and I don't mean ones like WGN, TBS, etc. that are actually local channels carried nationally via cable). Sci-Fi, for example can only be viewed if you pay to get it, yet it has commercials. Go figure.

But I di-- verge from the point. The point is the broadcast networks are failing to live up to their obligations to devoting a certain amount of time broadcasting information in the public interest. Again, the conventions take up something like eight days every four years.

By the way, did the broadcast networks carry Ron Reagan's speech or Barack Obama's? Just curious.

Rick

Addendum. I forgot to mention I also saw Madeleine Albright's speech, another one ignored by the networks.

Rick

Tim, I am for everyone paying their share of taxes, I am against increasing the taxes on the rich simply becase they have more money. Kerry said in an interview w/ George Stephanopoulos that he would not increase the tax on the middle class.
My point is he is looking to "punish" the rich, by raising their taxes because they have more money. as for yor comment of:

"if the poor in this country "receive so much aid that they don't even need to work", why the hell are YOU bothering to stick with whatever job you have? Why not take the same free ride you think they've got?"

Well, because my parents raised me well and taught me the values of hard work and not to abuse the system. I like the feeling of getting a paycheck that i earned and didn't have to receive any hand me downs from Uncle Sam.

Let's look at gov't programs for the poor:

Medicare, Foodstamps, Public Housing, WIC, School Lunch program, Welfare, in my home state of South Dakota they are excempt from paying taxes on all groceries. My God, the only thing the gov't doesn't give them is a new car. You may think that public housing isn't to appealing & i say beggars can't be choosers.

In this country people don't work because they don't want to. I just looked in my local paper & there are 332 jobs available. On the internet, there were 546 jobs. available for FT & PT, locally. Too proud to work @ McDonalds or Walmart, well then, thats too bad. There are plenty of other jobs in plenty of other fields. There are manager, sales, nursing, paralegals, mechanical, retail, etc, etc, etc.

They can open their own business if they don't like any of those other jobs. Things tough where they live, well then move elsewhere where things are better. Last I check, people are free in this country to move.

Joe V.

Tim, I am for everyone paying their share of taxes, I am against increasing the taxes on the rich simply becase they have more money. Kerry said in an interview w/ George Stephanopoulos that he would not increase the tax on the middle class. My point is he is looking to "punish" the rich, by raising their taxes because they have more money.

Hm. On the other hand, is the alternative to "punish" the middle class? After all the plan was to direct tax cuts towards the upper brackets in order to stimulate the economy, which would then provide higher wages and more jobs throughout the economy. This has not happened, as jobs have been lost and real income growth has stagnated. Perhaps a different strategy should be undertaken.

As far as government aid to the poor is concerned...let's also remember that you may or may not be able to live on what's available on government assistance; time after time, people vastly overestimate the amount of government aid that's actually given to an individual (sometimes by a factor or three or four). Moreover, many times people will compare the aid given in urban areas where the cost of living is high to areas where it is cheaper to live; no matter WHAT's given out, that kind of comparison is misleading.

Joe,

Roger has answered the "punish" question, so I'll just address a few other points.

I asked:

If the poor in this country "receive so much aid that they don't even need to work", why the hell are YOU bothering to stick with whatever job you have? Why not take the same free ride you think they've got?

You responded:

Well, because my parents raised me well and taught me the values of hard work and not to abuse the system.

Ah. This implies that anyone receiving government assistance did NOT learn the values of hard work. In other words, the poor are poor because they're lazy.

This nicely explains why you're a Bush supporter, as he expressed the same opinions as a student. It also hearkens back nicely to Nancy Reagan's "people are homeless because they want to be -- if they really had no place to live their friends would buy them a house, wouldn't they?"

Let me tell you a bit about the lessons MY parents taught.

They certainly passed along the values of hard work, both positively and negatively. My father was the first in his family to go to college, but also failed out his freshman year after realizing he didn't know how to work hard after coasting through HS. (He did in fact go back to Yale after doing some remedial work and merely graduated a bit late, unlike his freshman hall-mate, one Richard Cheney.)

They also taught me that helping others is important, and that compassion for those less fortunate is an integral part of being human. My mother is a social worker; I'm a teacher. With degrees in physics, could I have gone into industry and made a ton of money? Probably -- but I chose to take a position that would let me pass one what limited knowledge I had and thus produce more scientifically literate citizens. I'm never going to be rich (unless "Who Wants to be a Millionaire" comes back on the air and I get really lucky, anyway), but that's okay.

Then there's your list of aid programs:

Medicare, Foodstamps, Public Housing, WIC, School Lunch program, Welfare,

So let me be clear: you think these are bad things? You see no reason why any of them should be supported?

First -- as Roger points out, government assistance is often not enough to keep someone above bare subsistence level, if that. Effective as Reagan's "welfare queens in Cadillacs" image was politically, it bore no relationship whatsoever to reality and he bloody well knew it.

Second -- as I said, I'm a teacher. I can see firsthand how much a student's performance can vary based on the ups and downs of events in their lives (e.g. the loss of a pet, a parents' divorce, a house fire that puts them in friends' houses for weeks at a time). Going without proper meals is much, much worse.

Medicare is bad? Tell that to the non-wealthy elderly.

In this country people don't work because they don't want to.

I think you truly believe that, along with the "if there's nothing nearby for them they can just move" canard -- let's not forget that moving costs money, especially if you have a family. (I love some of the things you mentioned as jobs anyone should be able to take, though -- nursing? management? Most amusing.)

I am glad to hear that your parents taught you the benefits of hard work. Maybe next time they can work on compassion and some regard for humanity beyond drawing a paycheck.

TWL

Tim,
There is nothing wrong with helping the poor or needy get back on their feet, but when a person stays on such program for over one year at a time, there is a problem. There is a problem when women pop babies like the were candy so they simply get a bigger check. I've a dead beat relative that him & his family have been on foodstamps for the good part of 20 years. And I've seen plenty of people abuse the system. In my home town I see the same people begging for hand outs day in and day out. I will not have sypathy for any fucker that refuses to get better.

Since you insinuated that you are a more compassionate person then I, I assume that you are out every weekend at your local shelter serving food and taking food out, & that you open your home up for those less fortunate & that you are always ready to give $5 to every homeless person in your community.

As for you choosing to go to teaching, if a person chooses to go into a field like teaching, social worker, policeman, fireman,etc where you know you are not going to get rich,but instead help people, well great for them, I truly think it's commendable, but that was their decision to go to those fields.

We all chhose our lots in life. Most of the bums in this country choose to not make a better life for themselves. You fall down, get back up. use the aid given to help yourself. Laid off, look for another job, start your own business. Get in finacial debt and now the bank is going to foreclose on their home, well maybe they should have lived in their means as opposed to maxing every credit card that was at their disposable and now they have a debt they cant pay, or maybe they should have gotten a cheaper car.We all choose, & when someone chooses poorly, then there are consequences. I've got plenty of compassion and pitty, I just direct it in the right direction, at people that diserve that compassion and pity.

JV

One aspect that the Kerry campaign MUST learn to get a handle on is this goofy ass paranoia about seriously unimportant shit.

You mean, like the drive to get gay marriage banned in the Constitution?

The GOP has their "goofy ass paranoia" just like the Dems. :)

Joe,

I think we're primarily in "agree to disagree" territory here. So far as I can tell, we've got completely incompatible worldviews. Your words suggest that you think everyone on public assistance is out to screw the taxpayer, too lazy to find a job and nothing but a deadbeat.

I don't actually think you're that clueless and/or callous -- I don't know you well enough to make that call. You're probably a wonderful human being in person. But it's not coming across here -- here, you're sounding contemptuous of anyone who's fallen through the cracks and laying blame for poverty on the poor themselves.

I certainly agree with you that there are people who abuse the system. I do not think they are the majority or even a substantial fraction, any more than various stereotypes I could mention about Republicans accurately describe a majority of them. Given that, I do not think a system should be entirely scrapped because of the small fraction who abuse it. I think the number of people who cheat on their taxes is a hell of a lot bigger than the people who abuse public assistance programs, and some of them singlehandedly cost the government more revenue than they spend in aid.

If you think the system as a whole isn't working, I'd ask you to suggest an alternative. Poverty and homelessness are real problems -- the phrase "the working poor" used to be a rarity and now is commonplace. What exactly do you think should be done?

(I do find it interesting that so many people calling themselves conservatives are actually in favor of scrapping program after program wholesale. That's a lot more radical than it is conservative.)

If you care to offer constructive alternatives, I'm listening. If you'd rather offer bitterness towards "fuckers who refuse to get better", then I think we're done here.

TWL

Tim,
My suggestion would be this: Limit the amount of time a person can be on welfare at a given time(say 1 year), limit the amount of time a person can reapply for welfare (say another year after the previous welfare expired) which would force people to try to better themselves. Limit the amount of years a person can be on welfare (say a max of 3 years)(this does not include disability as that is from social security and is a whole other area) If a person knows that they are going to be a year without public assistance, they are more then likely try to find a job. WIC is the exeption because WIC is normally on the childs name.

Tim, I'm very passionate about this subject (like I was a few months ago when you and I agreed on the environment issue), It scares me when the Johns, were so adament about causing a wedge between the classes. Especially after a few night before Obama (whose speech I give an AAAAA++++) talked about only being one America.

Joe V.

Joe,
I knew a woman when I was in community college who got no support from the father of her children, but worked full-time while going to school full-time, in addition to caring for her 3 kids. I don't know how she managed to do it, but if it weren't for welfare she would not have been able to attend school so she could eventually get a job that would pay a living wage. A community college is 2 years of work full-time. By your reckoning with only a year on welfare, she would not have been able to better herself. There should be no arbitrary limits. Each case should be decided on it's own merits. Some people need more time than others. And for those who fall through the gaping holes in our present system, many only are asking for enough time to pull themselves out of their own holes.

Joe,

An interesting suggestion -- food for thought, to be sure, and undeniably a constructive suggestion. My thanks. (My gut feel is close to Karen's, which probably doesn't surprise you, but I certainly appreciate the fact that you suggested an alternative.)

I'm not particularly in favor of "driving a wedge between the classes" either, so we agree there. We just disagree on who's doing it. In my view, when someone gives the wealthiest 1% of the country a tax break by cutting services for the bottom 75%, that's absolutely creating such a wedge. Kerry/Edwards, IMO, are calling attention to it, not causing it.

Obviously, your mileage may vary -- and likely will.

TWL

Karen said: "I knew a woman when I was in community college who got no support from the father of her children"

A father or mother who does not take care of the children they bring to this world is to me one of the worst sins a person can commit and dead beat fathers should be castrated. One of the reasons I'm not such a strong anti abortion person if for cases like this. If it was up to me I would sick "the punisher" on those assholes.

Which is why I'm such an advocate of teaching abstenance to our children, to avoid scenarios like the one you mentioned above, Karen. I think that tv & movies have glorified having sex, but doesn't really focus on the cosequences of sex. 90% of the time the girl is left alone with the child.

Joe V.

Abstinence is all well and good, but studies show it doesn't work. We need sex ed that concentrates on birth control and methods to avoid contracting STD's. Telling the truth about these things do not encourage teenagers to have sex. They (if you can recall your teenage years) need no encouragement. Since teaching abstinence risks pregnancy and disease and teaching sex ed with all the info prevents these things, it is a no brainer to let it be taught. This would help more than trying to crack down on teenage fathers. Unless you happen to be a reilgious fundamentalist who won't listen to scientific findings.

What may be of interest are several studies working with inner city youth. It appears that a full range of sex education techniques, from abstinence to condom use, etc., was the most effective in cutting down on hazardous behavior AND in cutting down sexual activity.

Perhaps what may be occuring is that if you preach abstinence only, you lose credibility with the target audience. But if you preach abstinence along with behaviors such as condom use, contraception, etc., your word is taken more seriously.

Or it may be that the young 'uns are so grossed out by their elders talking so frankly about sex, that they simply don' wanna do it no more.....

Most conservatives are quite aware that people don't generally choose to be on welfare. It's the "generally" that bothers us. I live and work in a very poor county, one that has one of the highest teen pregnancy rates in the free world. I see poverty and the effects of poverty on a daily basis, with the teen pregnancy problem both a cause and effect of poverty. It would be a mistake not to realize that there is a second America. Many people in housing projects do not anticipate a future away from public assistance, they do not look for jobs, and they seem to spend most of their time picking up criminal charges to make me do more work. But it's not because they're lazy or evil; it's because they've never seen any alternatives. The young women are pregnant before they graduate from high school, which usually means they don't graduate from high school. They couldn't get jobs even if there were jobs to be found, which in this part of North Carolina is a big IF. Most of the people on welfare in this county are the children of people on welfare. They never had a chance.

Welfare reform is only going to work if it's coupled with educational reform. If we want to save the next generation we have to educate the hell out of them, and sex education probably has to be included in that. Ideologically, I'd prefer abstinence to be the primary vehicle, but over here in the real world, I work in juvenile court. Watch a 16 year old come in sometime, pregnant and asking to be emancipated (i.e. made a legal adult by court order) so she can get her own welfare check, and then tell me how much abstinence will do.

I would love a dramatic paradigm shift, to change welfare from a long-term to a short-term program like Joe V suggested, but we have to admit that the Great Society has so damaged the poor community that any such change would only pull the rug out from under millions of people who have no hope of fending for themselves. Welfare reformers have to keep in mind the possibility that they could create an even worse human disaster than the system already is.

PS: I have now come out in favor of stem cells and sex education and against the Iraq War (admittedly for different reasons than PAD came out against the Iraq war). I keep telling you people I'm a moderate but no one listens...

Abstinence is all well and good, but studies show it doesn't work. We need sex ed that concentrates on birth control and methods to avoid contracting STD's. Telling the truth about these things do not encourage teenagers to have sex. They (if you can recall your teenage years) need no encouragement.

Sex ed should focus on all abstinence as well as birth control. It's not an all or nothing deal, which is what frustrates me with both sides. I work for a networking company and was told at lunch one day that teaching abstinence is like saying that "the most secure computer is the one unplugged from the network - it's true but not realistic". It's a good analogy, but it misses the point that there are cases where network/power problems are severe enough you do just that! I'm all for sex ed, but it needs to include abstinence as part of it - just as a sanity check if nothing else.

As far as welfare goes, I have close relatives who went from being highly paid in the computer industry to being on welfare. Not because he lost his job, but because he got "burnt out". So, now he, his wife and kids are living on food stamps because he was stupid enough to quit a high paying job and is now happy living on government assistance. Is it the rule? Hardly. But I also see that abuse happens, too. The fact is that he is educated enough to do better, but is choosing not to.

I should have said teaching ONLY abstinence does not work. It was always a part of sex ed. But getting rid of the rest or losing your funding is immoral, in my opinion. Not allowing our youth to get all the facts so they can make informed decisions, what ever their age, is wrong. Ignorance is never bliss, it's just ignorance.

David, out of curiosity, wherebouts in North Carolina? Curious, since my former home county of Transylvania's supposed to have the highest unemployment rate in the state since the two main plant employers shut down a few years ago.

David Bjorlin wrote: "Welfare reform is only going to work if it's coupled with educational reform."

I agree, but would also add that welfare reform is only going to work if it's coupled with employment reform. There need to be jobs available that pay a living wage.

Earlier in this thread someone pointed out that there are many jobs available, citing the ads in the paper for places such as MacDonalds. People on welfare are condemned for not taking these jobs.

And yet, in many cases, it is far more responsible not to take such a job. If a person on welfare needs to earn, say, $20,000 a year to provide adequately for their family, then to take a job which provided only $10,000 a year would be the height of irresponsibility

When there are large numbers of people unable to earn enough to pay for adequate food, adequate housing, adequate health care, adequate education for their children, etc., it harms all of society. The money being spent by the government to help those who need assistance is a benefit not just to those who actually receive the assistance but to all of who live in this society.