Posted on 07/30/2004 4:55:36 AM PDT by governsleastgovernsbest
Let's get some things out of the way. Kerry did OK last night. Yes, I was on the live thread, gleefully taking shots along with my fellow FReepers. But in the light of day, let's admit that it perhaps somewhat exceeded admittedly low expectations. It certainly wasn't a bomb. In contrast, Edwards' effort suffers in hindsight and has already disappeared with nary a trace into the sands of history.
The good news? This was no home run, and Kerry gets no big momentum coming out of the convention. Want momentum? Can you remember back to the '92 convention when Clinton and Gore immediately set out on a cross-country bus trip? Between the Dem convention and that bus trip, the election was effectively over.
In contrast, this morning Katie Couric was sitting down by the water in Boston, talking about Kerry and Edwards departing from there for a trip, and the first thought that crossed my mind was a sophomoric notion of them taking a cruise for a long romantic weekend on Nantucket. Eventually the camera did show a rather forlorn look at a bus, but by then it was too late.
OK, back to The Today Show coverage. Similar to yesterday's show, there was a strong sense of Today going through the liberal motions but not really having its heart in it. Again compare and contrast with the uncontainable paroxysms of excitement on the part of Katie & Co. in 1992.
For starters, I was positive Today would open the show with Kerry's "reporting for duty" salute. But no, they showed the much-less-inspiring clip of Kerry simply stating that he accepted the nomination.
Then Katie asked a rather skeptical question of the audience: did John Kerry "somehow" convince the people that he deserves to be President? "Somehow?" Can you imagine Katie ever posing a similar question back in the day about Bill Clinton? Neither can I.
Today then showed a number of clips from Kerry's speech. Perhaps Kerry's most fraudulent line: "I'll appoint an Attorney General who will uphold the Constitution."
We all know what that means in Dem-speak: "we hate John Ashcroft and we oppose the Patriot Act." There's only one problem. Kerry voted for the Patriot Act. He still supports it, as did every senior Dem official, including Clinton AG Janet Reno, who testified at the 9/11 Commission.
So there is no doubt that for all his cheap applause line, if elected Kerry would appoint an AG who also supports the Patriot Act. His line was a lie. It played to Dems' visceral hatred of John Ashcroft and the Patriot Act, rather than pointing to any real policy difference between himself and W.
Then it was on to a Katie interview of Tim Russert, who to his credit was remarkably bushy-tailed after having surely pulled an all-nighter.
Russert didn't give Kerry a grade, but his comments were the verbal equivalent of a 'B.' Katie referred to her conversation with Tim of yesterday, in which they agreed Kerry needed to "humanize himself" (how incredibly insulting when you think of it), and also needed to give specifics. Did he succeed, she asked?
Russert: "Clearly he gave of himself. He talked about where he came from (funny, I don't remember him waxing sentimental about his Swiss boarding school) and who he was. A good first step on specificity. Overall the Dems and Republicans I have talked to agreed he showed he had the toughness and passion to be a formidable candidate."
They continued: "Kerry had the guts to take on issues of the flag, values, patriotism, defense. These are normally Republican issues, but Kerry said 'not so fast.' He showed that Dems weren't afraid to talk about these issues and offer different solutions."
Katie: "Was he speaking to the choir or was he speaking to independent voters in swing states?"
Russert: "Both. He needed to galvanize his own base. But on health care, repealing tax cuts for highest earners and spending on health care and education he was speaking to swing voters, above all to women."
Katie: "Did he say anything that really stood out about Iraq or economy?"
Russert: "No. He did say people criticize me because I see the complexities. That's his way of responding to the criticism about flip-flopping. But whatever people say about Iraq, what happens on the ground there is what will really matter."
Katie: "How much of a convention bounce will he get?"
Russert: "Clinton got 16 points, Dukakis 17, Gore 8. But this electorate is deeply divided. I expect him to be ahead by 4-5 points by the weekend."
Pitching her next interview, with Demcon chairman Bill Richardson, Katie revealed more of her lack of Dem team spirit. She said "How are Dem operatives feeling about the convention?"
"Operatives"? That's a pejorative normally reserved by Katie for RNC officials. Here she was using it on a Democrat. Surprising.
In any case, I suppose we should cut Richardson some slack. He surely had pulled an all-nighter, and probably had virtually no sleep the entire week. Still, it must be said that he was listless and couldn't generate any great enthusiasm, though, sure, he dutifully described Kerry's speech as "a home run."
Richardson went on to claim that "Kerry humanized himself (that phrase again - clearly even his most ardent supporters see him as a cyborg), established himself as a national security leader who can talk about values, energized the base, reached out to undecided voters who want positive solutions on jobs, homeland security, health care. His Vietnam service transcends many issues. Republicans can't say we're weak on defense when we have generals and swift boat veterans up there."
Huh? Because a few military guys and veterans stood up there, we can't look at Kerry's 20-year record and see it for what it is - an unrelenting effort to undermine the military and intelligence-gathering strength of the United States?
Katie closed with one last shot at . . . the Democrats! When Richardson claimed that in their response to the Kerry speech Republicans are being "so negative," Katie asked, "wouldn't you agree that you [Dems] haven't been totally positive?"
When Richardson insisted "we've been very positive, Katie snidely shot back: "that's the party line." Wow!
Today Show ping.
NO COMMENT!
Snotty Couric, like the dems, is suffering a drop in ratings. She's changing her tune because she's losing market share.
I am surprised by the liberal media response to Kerry and his speech. I was thinking there would be nothing but all that glitters is gold. Not to be.
Is the media in the tank for PIAPS?
MSNBC is leaving out the salute as well. I think Kerry has a problem with this "I will tell the truth" business. Was it true that our soldiers were committing atrocities in Nam.? Is it true that Bush lied to and misled the country. They spent so much time and noise on that lie that they have, dangerously I think, come to believe it.
Problem is, his best just isn't good enough. Especially for the snarling, rabid Leftists who dream of dragging Bush in chains behind their pickups.
Katie is just upset that it wasn't liberal ENOUGH!
Very interesting response from Katie -- I wonder what's up.
Thanks for the report!
I don't really buy into the notion that there is some kind of liberal media conspiracy to undermine Kerry in order to keep hope alive for Hillary in '08. I think it's more likely that, along with everyone else, it's hard for the media to gin up much enthusiasm for this guy.
And it wouldn't surprise me to learn that many Republicans are telling NBC to take a hike by not being eager to accept an invitation to appear on shows like Today. And you know how deeply hurt liberals feel when they are snubbed. They will do anything to win favor...but watch out. It's part of the Playbook, scripted in Hollywood (Spielberg maybe?).
But the media will be given permission to return to their normal way of doing business in 2008.
The Hitlery Rotten 2008 campaign has just bung. NY Times, Wash. Post., Boston Globe, CNN and Katie Couric trashing of Kerry's speech is just the beginning.
bung=begun
bung=Couric
Sorry. I couldn't resist.
5% points also compared to Clinton's huge jump is interesting, but partly explained by the breaking of the alphabet NEWs monopoly. There was no freerepublic then, and FOX News was not even a dream. Now, the nonsense gets debunked by real journalism. That's not fair for Democrats, but it's good for the country.
You were right the first time.
Tim Russert is being much too generous. John F*ckin' will get half that in terms of a bounce and it will be short-lived. I don't see him having won over swing voters when he hasn't even nailed down his own base. You're supposed to take care of the latter BEFORE the convention. And the country after the speech, still has no idea what Kerry believes in, other than in embracing the contradictory themes of hating Bush and expressing hope in America. Its fair to say I think, he did not close the sale with the American people and has his work cut out for him.
No one's gushing. Kerry needed gushing. I know all the pundits are tired after an all-nighter, but there's still no "wow!" comments.
It's a small victory for Kerry, basically relief that he didn't make any embarrassing gaffes. He needed more.
Expect the opposite for the Republican convention. Anything less than a twelve-point bump for Bush will be taken as evidence that his reelection is in free-fall.
You meant fuel-hybrid compact cars, right?
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.