Posted on 07/26/2004 9:44:01 PM PDT by Pokey78
I'm still somewhat in shock at the first night of the Democratic Convention. I kept thinking i was at a Republican convention. Tightly scripted, elegantly choreographed, seamlessly on the centrist message of war, unity, maturity and judgment. Foreign policy was front and center; faith was showcased; military service was held up as the ideal; prudent leadership was touted in a time of "peril," in Hillary's word. I wonder if they can keep this up. But I'm amazed they've tried. I've been writing for months now that Kerry's most effective message would be that he'd conduct the war on terror with more allies and more wisdom than Bush. But I never actually believed he'd be canny enough to do exactly that. But he has! If the first night is any indicator, the Democrats have played the smartest, strongest card of the campaign so far. First off, they put 9/11 front and foremost, insisting that this is their catastrophe too, and the center of their concerns as well. A vital move. And it was done movingly and well. I had a catch in my throat as "Amazing Grace" struck up, and another as I absorbed the fact that a Muslim-American and a Jewish-American had just joined in tribute to the murdered. Ironic, isn't it, that the Republican convention was placed in New York in early September precisely to evoke memories of 9/11, and yet, by coming first, the Democrats may have dented that advantage with their innovative commemmoration. And the 9/11 set-piece dealt with a deeper problem as well. It is a feature of incumbency during moments and periods of trauma that the president inevitably becomes associated with the national expressions of grief, determination, unity. By the same token, the opposition, especially one that comes to question the conduct of the war, may come to find itself disassociated. Last night, the Democrats did all they could to erase and undo that impression. Rhetorically, at least, they were saying: this is our war too. But we can pursue it more wisely and effectively than the well-meaning hothead now in office. And there was a subtler message as well. Remember when we were one as a nation? Do you really think that president Bush is capable of bringing any of us together again? Of course, some Democrats are responsible for exactly that polarization. But it's nevertheless a smart move to portray themselves as a unifying future compared to the divisive past.
THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY: The cultural signals were superbly done as well. Kerry's former boatmate touched on faith and courage and the military, as well as implicitly evoking Kerry as a unifying figure. I lost count of the number of times John Kerry's possibly future title was described as "commander-in-chief." We were constantly reminded that Kerry would attack in his aluminum boat, rather than be merely defensive. Jimmy Carter's speech was one of the best I've ever heard from him; and the genius of it was that Carter went against type. He re-introduced himself as a navy veteran, and was most effective mentioning those presidents who had actually been in the military: Eisenhower and Truman, under whom Carter served. Now listen to this passage:
Today -- today our Democratic Party is led by another former naval officer, one who volunteered for military service. He showed up when assigned to duty -- and he served with honor and distinction. He also knows the horrors of war and the responsibilities of leadership. And I am confident that next January he would restore the judgment and maturity to our government that nowadays is sorely lacking.
Kerry showed up. Kerry is as tough as Bush - but with "judgment and maturity." And in case you didn't get the message: "The biggest reason to make John Kerry president is even more important. It is to safeguard the security of our nation." From a former president, that's tough stuff; and Carter delivered an attack-speech that was all the more effective for being measured and often damning by mere inference. Less, someone has finally figured out, is more. (Of course, I'm leaving aside here the sheer chutzpah of Jimmy Carter giving anyone lessons on defending this country, or, for that matter, fighting the war on terror. My point is merely that Carter sketched exactly the centrist-conservative narrative that the campaign is obviously trying to portray. And it worked.)
TO THE RIGHT OF BUSH: For the Democrats to run to the right of Bush on the war - while leaving behind the question of whether the war in Iraq was right or not - is their only hope of victory, but also, oddly enough, the most direct path to victory. They also evoked the anxiety many Americans have that, in a time of war, they are so reviled around the world. Americans are prepared to fight alone, but they'd prefer not to. Carter spoke to those anxieties:
After 9/11, America stood proud, wounded but determined and united. A cowardly attack on innocent civilians brought us an unprecedented level of cooperation and understanding around the world. But in just 34 months we have watched with deep concern as all this good will has been squandered by a virtually unbroken series of mistakes and miscalculations.
If you're a worried undecided voter, you may not agree with all that. But you'll be troubled by enough of it to consider Kerry. And then there was the gut-punch: the indirect use of Bush's dubious National Guard service. In fact, the way in which the Democrats used the service record of Kerry against Bush was straight out of the Republican playbook. It's a pretty low blow, and Carter delivered it with a deep thud. When you describe someone as weak on defense and a draft-dodger, you're usually a Republican. But not this time.
CLINTON AT HIS BEST: Carter's was the better speech, but Clinton was magnificent. I think he was better last night than at either of his own conventions and certainly better than any of his SOTUs. He performed a brilliant rhetorical trick: he deployed the usual canards used against him to buttress Kerry. Rather than attack the wealthy as recjpients of tax cuts, he attacked himself as a now-wealthy man. And then the coup de grace: he put himself and Bush in the same camp as draft-dodgers, in stark comparison to the patriotic Kerry! My jaw was on the floor at that point in a mixture of admiration and horror. But it was mighty effective. And the way in which he described the cost of the tax cut in terms of squandered attempts to improve homeland defense was another smart move. Use the Republican tax cut issue against the Republican security issue. Wedge against them for once. If the constitution didn't prevent it, the man would still be president. After last night's speech, you can see why.
THE PANS: Yes, there were some duds. Whose great idea was it to have Glenn Close as a speaker? She's an actress! And she even flubbed her lines. Oh and Tammy Baldwyn and Barbara Mikulski make the dullest femme and butch act I've ever seen. Hillary was pedestrian, as always.
Gay marriage. That is the only thing that matters to Andrew Sullivan. He is a very dishonest person.
I didn't know Sullivan was a switch hitter.
Have some more kool-aid, Andrew.
You're right. But he has already damaged our party and suckered some of our key people. His work is done in the GOP party. I wonder if the Washington Times is still carrying his column. I wrote them at the time telling them it was a mistake and that he was a faker. Did they listen? Nope. I hope they've learned something from this.
Sullivan really is shameless. Can't wait for the election to occur so I can read about Sullivan pissing and moaning about what morons Americans are for having re-elected Bush.
I don't mind a James Carville or even a Barney Frank. You know their agenda and where they are coming from. I can't stand phonies like Andrew Sullivan.
Yes, it was slick. But, you have to wonder whether anyone believed a word of it. They asked America to suspend their intuition that the left hates the military. AND I've already forgotten what Beelzebubba said.
You better believe they believed it. It's word for word what they want to hear.
I agree with you, gay marriage is the only reason Andrew supports Kerry.
I couldn't get through the whole article. I got as far as "Carter gave the greatest speech..." Andrew's all "starry eyed", and just beside himself!
I don't even read him anymore.
This was the funniest column by anyone yet. Andy must be getting some great action to be typing these fanciful observations.
Ok. Put them both in a corral, have them put on leather gloves and duke it out. We'll see who's 'tough'.
Sullivan nails it, really. It was a very, very good night for the Democrats. Very professional, very choreographed, very slick. Very effective.
Made me wonder where the people behind tonight have been all campaign. They haven't been working for Kerry, that's for sure.
We'll see how tomorrow night goes, with Democrats who are actually in office.
Some??? Can you name even one RAT who ISN'T?
Besides Zell Miller.
I believe that justice would be served if Andrew Sullivan and David Brock became a team for life.
That's a lot of writing to just say Kerry's smart because he agrees with me.
The Kerry campaign actually has some clue of how to win.
We will need to fight back hard.
Can Kerry keep his base and still morph into John Wayne?
John Kerry and the Democrats argue that we should never have done what we have done, without the United Nations, and our "allies" by our side. This means that the U.N, France, Germany, and Russia will define U.S foreign policy under President Kerry.
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.