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!
Of course, of course....
They've got their orders.
Two words, one date:
Frank Lautenberg.
October 9, 2004.
The turtle is on the fencepost.
The nitwits on Fox & Friends this morning seem to be giving Kerry a good review. I seem to notice a trend here...Ever since people started threatening lawsuits against Fox for not being "fair and balanced" enough, they've started running off at the mouth in favor of the Dems.
She cannot wait until 2008.
And she won't.
Katie is not changing her tune because she's losing market share. She's a Klintoon sycophant and bosom buddy with Hillary.
NYTimes not real favorable.
Washington Post, same.
Boston Globe, didn't care for it either.
Some major league liberal media didn't drink the kool-aide (or they are marching to the beat of a different drum{mer} named Clinton.)
The speech was a meandering mush of old liberal applause lines with occasional cleverness.
Corizine on FoxNews trying to explain that Kerry has 'plans.'
lol.
He admits that Kerry needs to work on developing some of the details.
[Hey, Corizine, he has not details; it is smoke and mirrors; he's hoodwinking everyone; he's an empty-suit full of rhetoric.]
Thanks, Doc, for your kind words. By the way, I sent your diagnosis of Teresa to my liberal sis in Mass, but so far she hasn't acknowledged the obvious - that "Mama T" was sedated.
"Is the media in the tank for PIAPS?"
I think that would be a safe bet.
As for Hamster Breath, all I can say is you can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.
It's early for me. Please explain.
Judging by the editorials this morning as well as by the comments on this thread, a theme seems to be clearly emerging. The country has digested the Demcon and the Kerry speech and emitted a mild 'eh.'
Jim presumably is suggesting that Hillary will replace Kerry, as Lautenberg replaced the disgraced Torricelli. I find that very hard to imagine at this late date.
As for the turtle on the fence post, that's an old Hillary line she learned in Arkansas. If you see a turtle on a fence post, someone put it there. Translation: some things clearly show the hand of someone else at work. Not sure exactly what Jim Noble means by that in this context.
Couric is too dishonest to ask him the tough questions, specifically Kerry's "Pearl Harbor Policy" regarding terrorism.
But we can be sure Kerry would "retaliate" against anyone who destroys our cities with WMDs. Gee - glad we got that out of the way....
I tuned back in to Today at the very end of the 8-8:30 AM half hour and who was Katie interviewing? None other than Kerry and Edwards!!! But once again it was listless. They look worn and tired and Katie lacked any spark. Once again all concerned were going through the motions and the chemistry between the Johns was lacking. Where has the love gone?
Can you imagine having to cover the kerry campaign from "sea to shining sea"????? I'll bet those poor reporters are wishing for the good old days when albore was the candidate!
At least he kept changing personaltites.
We'll know Kerry is in deep trouble when we hear about him brining in the wardrobe consultants. "No, really, Senator. The deep sea diving tank suit is a good look for you."
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.