Click HERE for
The Kerry/Edwards Files
-at-
The CouNTeRPuNcH Collection
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!
Can you or anyone here explain to me how Zogby can get out his poll about 5 min. after Kerry's speech?
Aw, shucks, I thought quidam was back.
I think Perky Katie has seen the writing on the wall after last night. It's over. W has won. She is in pre-election depression mode.
Presumably with a big enough group of people working for him, he can conduct hundreds of phone interviews within a few minutes, and use computers to immediately analyze the results. I'm not a Zogby fan but neither do I buy into the notion that some here suggest that he's totally in the Dem tank and presents truly phony data.
I'd like to think you're right, but while there's no doubt that Katie cares more about Hillary than she does about Kerry, I stil expect her dyed in the wool Dem instincts to manifest themselves over the course of the campaign. She'll be out there slugging away against W.
Still, assuming W does win, it will be fascinating to see Couric the next morning. Will she be in mourning black, or upbeat, because it will be the first day of Hillary's campaign?
Well, it's either that or like someone above stated...the fix is in. Katie always bats 169% for the dems, it's completely out of character for her to be so glum. This whole thing doesn't pass the smell test.
Thanks for the recap! I honestly don't know how you stomach The Perky One.
The salute reminds me of Benny Hill, only Hill looked like he knew he was intentionally looking dumb.
Two words, one date:
Frank Lautenberg.
October 9, 2004.
The turtle is on the fencepost.
_____________________________________________
Quiddam! Is that you?
What's with October 9, 2004 besides the usual October surprise?
Turtles everywhere!
The simple answer: I can't. Since starting these reports, I have, no joking, been put on Nexium!
bump
I agree with you whole heartedly! The word is out for Kerry to lose. Hillary sees fertile ground for her in 2008. I believe she sees an apportunity to stack up democrat wins in the House and Senate and then come in with a solid dem lock in 2008.
It would spoil all plans if Kerry wins this election. Ms. Hillery and Company cannot allow that to happen.
You know I watched Kerry's speech last night and kept thinking he was trying real hard to sound like a hawk. While I understand why Kerry's did so it seems like a bad idea for several reasons
1) nobody who has knows his record believes him
2) hawks are going to vote for Bush anyways
3) what does this do to his liberal, rabid anti-war base? I suspect Nader may be the one with the "bounce" last night.
4) no matter how hard he tries he still looks like an arrogant jerk
My wife does not pay attention to politics much and in the past has been the best "poll" in these things (thought Dean would go down eventually when he was way ahead, picked Kerry out of the lot, was undecided between Gore/Bush, etc) representing the average "independent voter". Her impressions were:
1) Hated Ter-ah-za. and I mean could not stand the woman at all. She described her as a "condesending, snobby, elitist, b*tch with an irritating eurotrash accent". Her strongest emotion of the convention was in reaction to Ter-ah-za. She also said she couldn't vote for a man who would find this woman attractive enough to marry. I tried to point out the money aspect but this did not impress her much in regards to Kerry's character
2) Thought Kerry's speech was "ok" but said quickly "so what, he did say how he was going to do any of it".
3) She also got sick of the constant Vietnam references at one point using the OpinionJounal/Michael Medved sarcastic "Did you know he was in Vietnam?" line.
4) She also though Kerry was an arrogant sissy boy and just didn't like him.
On the other hand she still likes (although not love) George W. Bush more than she did in 2000. My bet is Bush will win fairly easily, particularly after the Republican convention which this year has all the political star power.
But Clinton got that "huge" jump because Perot dropped out of the race DURING the dem convention that year.
Yep. Katie isn't allowed to go out there and give vent to her own feelings, obviously. For what she's paid, she could fake an orgasm over Kerry's canned speech last night.....she's the requisite blonde giggling newsie that every station has in abundance. I'd sure like to see a chainofcommand chart, especially the top box, wouldn't you?
Gov, thanks for your hard work. What an excellent analysis and comment this post is! Might I even say ...... pithy! ;-)
This morning I expected to see and read lots of gushing (to use Jhensy's phrase) from the libs and media. But Katie and Tim down on the dems, while Fox is chipper about them???? I've gotta go get another cup of coffee and adjust my perceptions, here!
Thanks for an excellent post and for passing along the interesting, and probably very telling, reactions from your wife. She sounds like a very insightful lady.
Yes, the world is most definitely on its head this morning. Then again, Brit Hume's stated and unstated reactions to Teresa's speech were absolutely priceless!
That and Katie is onboard the Clinton '08 bus and can't afford to see Kerry win in 2004....President Hillary and Press Sec. Katie?
Thanks for sharing your wife's perspective. I hope you're right.
I am beginning to think that Ter-AY-za is going to be a drag on their ticket. My anecdotal experience coincides with your wife's reaction - people just don't like her. Even my very liberal friends, really don't like her at all.
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.