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!
Press Sec. Katie- egads! Now there's a frightening thought.
I listened to Imus and Brokow swoon over Kerry's speech this morning...Brokow spoke of his mom calling friends in N(or S)Dakota to discuss Terezaah's speech..so involved is she in this thrilling dem convention..Brokow is a news anchor and his dem bias was in full bloom.
...Kerry's delivery was much better than normal(in the clips I've heard)..His lip licking, droning delivery leaves me running for the remote normally...His hypocrisy about Vietnam and the current military is sickening!..Hold your children close if this jerk wins...
God bless America..give us four more years!
Bush/ Cheney ...04
Hey! Thanks! I couldn't figure out what was meant...especially the turtle on the fence post thing.
As far as Hillary replacing Kerry, as Lautenberg replaced the disgraced Torricelli, I certainly HOPE it's too late!
He is still a registered Freeper, so we can always hope.
Good point. Perot exited suddenly and virtually without explanation on, what, the eve of Clinton's acceptance speech?
And then later, when Clinton's numbers started flagging, Perot reentered the race. The Clinton admin. is a product of Ross Perot.
The job here for the democratic insiders is simple...put Kerry within 3 states of winning, and simply burn up cash reserve. Hillery has all insiders on her payroll, and this situation is hers to lose. My guess is that Hillery wants Mrs Kerry on good terms and will ensure John comes close. Hillery needs the big cash in 2008. This is the game afoot.
The reason things could be changed in New Jersey concerning that race is because of the election rules in that state.
It doesn't work in most states. Kerry, in accepting the nomination, has sealed his fate to being the candidate on the ballot across the country.
Hillary, if she really truely is going to sabotage Kerry for her run in 2008, wouldn't be acting quite yet anyways. She's shrewd enough to realize the last three weeks of the campaign is when Kerry should be put out to pasture, like how Gore's people tried to do to GWB by the last minute DUI story.
However, people are starting to see the fact Kerry's peaked, and it is only downhill from here. Assuming 8 pct of undecideds like Zogby claims, Kerry's support will erode 4 points and Bush will be up 6 points after the Republican convention, I predict.
From your lips to Zogby's ears.
The reason they hate John Ashcroft is not because of the Patriot Act. It is because he is a committed Christian from Missouri who does not pay Democrat tribute money, endorse homosexuality, lobby for abortiion, etc.
He also did not have a Waco experience as did Janet Reno to bond him with the liberals who hate people that own weapons.
I'm sure some of the issues you mentioned also figure into the left's hatred of Ashcroft. But my sense is that most of their hatred stems from their view of him as the Bush administration official most closely associated with the Patriot Act.
I have asked Ashcroft haters why and they all babble about abortion and judges and Roe vs Wade. I think they hate him because he is the son of a Pentecostal preacher,,it is religious hatred pure and simple in my opinion.
GW has let the military win this war and are pretty much there. The operation is in mostly mop up mode and as the casualties decrease the overall victory will become more apparent.
His speech was well delivered, but was all style and no substance. His only bounce of the weak is going to be at Fenway Park.
Pray for W and The Troops
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.