"LOOK!! I STILL HAVE MY BOUNCE!"
Posted on 08/03/2004 5:49:20 AM PDT by OESY
As usual, the polls don't all agree, but the consensus seems to be shaping up that John Kerry either had no bounce at all from his convention or a very slight upward tick of only one to four points. It was one of the least successful conventions in recent history.
What happened?
Going in to the convention, Kerry had a critical policy choice to make: Use the four nights of his conclave to stress the domestic issues on which he has significant leads in the polls (health care, drug prices, wages, Social Security, Medicare, environment, the deficit and education), or try to strengthen his posture on the war-related issues on which Bush has an edge — terror, defense, homeland security and Iraq.
...
Bill Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards made ....
...
In that one night, Kerry gave all of the gains of the previous three days back to the Republicans. (Rasmussen's daily tracking poll actually has Kerry dropping two points in the aftermath of his Thursday speech).
Kerry compounded the problem by venturing no information about his public career in the Senate for the past two decades. He did nothing to refute three months of negative ads labeling him as an ultra-liberal, big spender. He did not tell us what the Kerry Bill was or the Kerry Amendment or the Kerry hearings. As far as we know, there wasn't any.
Voters don't want a lieutenant for president. They want a commander-in-chief. After all, why did Cleland lose despite his heroism? Why did draft dodger Clinton beat war hero Bob Kerrey in 1992 primaries? Why didn't Bob Dole win in 1996?
Voters want a president with brains, not just guts, and all they saw was a warrior telling his old tales on Thursday night. And it wasn't enough.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
For historical reference, the last presidential candidate to get no bounce after his party's convention was George McGovern, if that's any kind of omen.
What heroism?
Am I wrong, Cleland wasn't wounded in battle, was he?
How 'bout he lost his bounce when he threw that ball like a girl at Fenway? Or gave everybody a look at his childbearing hips? Or when Teraaaaiiizzzzah opened her mouth?? Or the NASA Teletubby photo-op? Is it possible for anyone to "jump the shark" so many times and still survive?
Ketchupboy lost his bounce when he decided to have a political view left of Leon Trotsky. As more and more people get over the anyone but Bush syndrome and take a hard look at the rats they are being turned off. I do think that if the rats would have run a moderate GWB would be in real trouble, they didn't. He isn't.
No, it was an accident. But I'd cut him a little slack. He went to 'nam with 2 legs and came back with one.
John F*ckin' chose to emphasize Vietnam since his 19 year Senate record would have left him open to being painted as a tax and spend liberal. It was the only choice he could realistically make. That's why he dropped the convention's early emphasis on domestic policy for one centered around national security. When he delivered his speech, the harmonious buildup to a common theme was destroyed. Hence the lack of a post-convention bounce. As Dick Morris assayed, the public saw an old warrior relating old tales. It just wasn't enough to take him where he hoped he would be.
He never had a bounce or otherwise.
I did get really tired of him talking about Vietnam. I can understand how he would mention his service. But, for everyone to talk about it and him to go on and on about it was too much.
"LOOK!! I STILL HAVE MY BOUNCE!"
Kerry's just an empty suit. He actually states on page nine of his "Our Plan For America" that Bush should have assembled a team instead of acting on Iraq. This guy would be worse than Carter on foreign policy.
Before his death six years ago, my father could have been considered an old warrior as he fought heroically in WWII. Yet he rarely shared any stories of his experiences, never attempted to capitalize on his service, and even though he was one, he would downplay any attempt to label him as a hero. Then again, my father was a gentleman - an honorable man.
You're right.
A bunny suit at that!
For those of us old enough to have served, or even those old enough to remember, the sheer hypocricy of anti-war protestor Kerry, who joined forces with Jane Fonda to slam our efforts in Vietnam, just doesn't wash. Now he brags about his 4-month "service" as if none of what came after never happened! If the war was such a mistake, and he and others like him were nothing but criminals and baby killers, how is it now something for him to be proud of? The disconnect is so obvious, yet I don't see the press asking hin to explain the contradiction.
"...my father was a gentleman - an honorable man."
Well see, there's the difference right there!
I didn't watch any of the Dem convention, but from reports I've heard after the fact, it seems the Kerry seriously miscalculated how conspicuous it would be to skip from 1971 immediately to 2003 in the biography he presented on stage.
Such a glaring omission is almost an invitation to probe the 32 years in between.
Former Sen. Max Cleland is the Democrats' designated hysteric about George Bush's National Guard service. A triple amputee and Vietnam veteran, Cleland is making the rounds on talk TV, basking in the affection of liberals who have suddenly become jock-sniffers for war veterans and working himself into a lather about President Bush's military service. Citing such renowned military experts as Molly Ivins, Cleland indignantly demands further investigation into Bush's service with the Texas Air National Guard. Bush's National Guard service is the most thoroughly investigated event since the Kennedy assassination. But the Democrats will accept only two possible conclusions to their baseless accusations: (1) Bush was "AWOL," or (2) the matter needs further investigation.
Thirty years ago, Bush was granted an honorable discharge from the National Guard, which would seem to put the matter to rest. But liberals want proof that Bush actually deserved his honorable discharge. (Since when did the party of Bill Clinton, Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd get so obsessed with honor?)
On "Hardball" Monday night, Cleland demanded to see Bush's pay stubs for the disputed period of time, May 1972 to May 1973. "If he was getting paid for his weekend warrior work," Cleland said, "he should have some pay stubs to show it."
The next day, the White House produced the pay stubs. This confirmed what has been confirmed 1 million times before: After taking the summer off, Bush reported for duty nine times between Nov. 29, 1972, and May 24, 1973 – more than enough times to fulfill his Guard duties. (And nine times more than Bill Clinton, Barney Frank or Chuck Schumer did during the same period.)
All this has been reported – with documentation – many times by many news organizations. George magazine had Bush's National Guard records 3 1/2 years ago.
All available evidence keeps confirming Bush's honorable service with the Guard, which leads liberals to conclude ... further investigation is needed! No evidence will ever be enough evidence. That Bush skipped out on his National Guard service is one of liberals' many nondisprovable beliefs, like global warming.
Cleland also expressed outrage that Bush left the National Guard nine months early in 1973 to go to Harvard Business School. On "Hardball," Cleland testily remarked: "I just know a whole lot of veterans who would have loved to have worked things out with the military and adjusted their tour of duty." (Cleland already knows one – Al Gore!)
When Bush left the National Guard in 1973 to go to business school, the war was over. It might as well have been 1986. Presidents Kennedy and Johnson had already lost the war, and President Nixon had ended it with the Paris peace accords in January. If Bush had demanded active combat, there was no war to send him to.
To put this in perspective, by 1973, John Kerry had already accused American soldiers of committing war crimes in Vietnam, thrown someone else's medals to the ground in an anti-war demonstration, and married his first heiress. Bill Clinton had just finished three years of law school and was about to embark upon a political career – which would include campaign events with Max Cleland.
Moreover, if we're going to start delving into exactly who did what back then, maybe Max Cleland should stop allowing Democrats to portray him as a war hero who lost his limbs taking enemy fire on the battlefields of Vietnam.
Cleland lost three limbs in an accident during a routine noncombat mission where he was about to drink beer with friends. He saw a grenade on the ground and picked it up. He could have done that at Fort Dix. In fact, Cleland could have dropped a grenade on his foot as a National Guardsman – or what Cleland sneeringly calls "weekend warriors." Luckily for Cleland's political career and current pomposity about Bush, he happened to do it while in Vietnam.
There is more than a whiff of dishonesty in how Cleland is presented to the American people. Terry McAuliffe goes around saying, "Max Cleland, a triple amputee who left three limbs on the battlefield of Vietnam," was thrown out of office because Republicans "had the audacity to call Max Cleland unpatriotic." Mr. Cleland, a word of advice: When a slimy weasel like Terry McAuliffe is vouching for your combat record, it's time to sound "retreat" on that subject.
Needless to say, no one ever challenged Cleland's "patriotism." His performance in the Senate was the issue, which should not have come as a bolt out of the blue inasmuch as he was running for re-election to the Senate. Sen. Cleland had refused to vote for the Homeland Security bill unless it was chock-full of pro-union perks that would have jeopardized national security. ("OH, MY GOD! A HIJACKED PLANE IS HEADED FOR THE WHITE HOUSE!" "Sorry, I'm on my break. Please call back in two hours.")
The good people of Georgia – who do not need lectures on admiring military service – gave Cleland one pass for being a Vietnam veteran. He didn't get a lifetime pass.
Indeed, if Cleland had dropped a grenade on himself at Fort Dix rather than in Vietnam, he would never have been a U.S. senator in the first place. Maybe he'd be the best pharmacist in Atlanta, but not a U.S. senator. He got into office on the basis of serving in Vietnam and was thrown out for his performance as a senator.
Cleland wore the uniform, he was in Vietnam, and he has shown courage by going on to lead a productive life. But he didn't "give his limbs for his country," or leave them "on the battlefield." There was no bravery involved in dropping a grenade on himself with no enemy troops in sight. That could have happened in the Texas National Guard – which Cleland denigrates while demanding his own sanctification.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.