So with the Democratic National Convention wrapped, what did you guys think? High points? Low points? Kerry’s speech?
Personally, I thought he did very well. With so much being attached to this speech in terms of do-or-die, he seemed a little shaky to start out, but slowly built up an impressive head of steam. By the end I thought he sounded pretty dámņëd good.
Although I still have to say I thought Comedy Central’s “John Kerry: He’s Not George W. Bush” was still the best commentary on the night.
PAD
• 
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, “Hëll 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 hëll 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
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 bìŧçh 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. ÐÃMN, 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, Ðìçk.
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
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 hëll 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 pìššëd 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 hëll. 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 hëll 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:
KRAD said:
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:
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. 🙂