Posted on 07/30/2004 10:22:11 AM PDT by RWR8189
New York Post: John Kerry "Doesn't Get It" When it Comes to the War on Terror. "Give John Forbes Kerry credit for being honest as he accepted the Democratic Party's nomination for president last night. Because in his 55 minutes at the mike, he was truthful about how he'd fight the War on Terror. He won't. 'The United States never goes to war because we want to,' Kerry said. 'We only go to war because we have to.' At best, this is a gross calumny: President Bush never 'wanted' war — and it is repugnant even to hint otherwise. At worst, it is telling evidence of a profound misunderstanding of America's proper place in a fractious world. . . . There is no greater concern that Americans have today than the War on Terror. Kerry showed last night that he doesn't understand this." (Editorial, "Kerry's Strategic Myopia," New York Post, 7/30/04)
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: Kerry Offered No Explanation Of "His Own Role In Sending U.S. Servicemen To War." "But Kerry did nothing in this speech to explain his own role in sending U.S. servicemen to war in Iraq. Both he and his vice presidential nominee, John Edwards, voted for the war resolution that allowed the president to commit to war." (Editorial, "Passion At Last For Kerry," Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 7/30/04)
Rocky Mountain News: Kerry Gave Few Answers. "What we had hoped to hear Thursday, however, was how Kerry's admirable record of valor and public service would make a difference in leading this nation in the struggle against terrorists that target the United States and the regimes that aid them. Unfortunately, we came away still unsure of the answer." (Editorial, "Kerry's Tough Talk Leaves Many Questions," Rocky Mountain News, 7/30/04)
The Washington Post: Kerry's Speech "A Disappointment." "In accepting the Democratic nomination last night, John F. Kerry spoke to a far more anxious America, one that has weathered a recession and, more important, entered what the nominee called 'a global war on terror against an enemy unlike we've ever known before.' Mr. Kerry therefore sought above all to make the case that he could be trusted to lead a nation at war, and rightly so; he and Mr. Bush must be judged first and foremost on those grounds. But on that basis, though Mr. Kerry spoke confidently and eloquently, his speech was in many respects a disappointment." (Editorial, "Missed Opportunity," The Washington Post, 7/30/04)
Balz: Kerry's Speech Only "Briefly Touched On Iraq." "There were notable omissions in Kerry's speech, however, that raise questions about the course he and his party have chosen for the campaign. Like other speakers during the four nights of the convention, Kerry only briefly touched on Iraq, the issue that has shaped and dominated this presidential campaign, divided the Democratic Party and at times bedeviled his own candidacy. At a time when many Americans are looking for an exit strategy and may wonder whether Kerry has a plan for Iraq that is different from Bush's, he offered only the assurance that he knows how to get it right." (Dan Balz, "A Challenge To The GOP On Values, Security," The Washington Post, 7/30/04)
Balz: Kerry "Appeared Willing To Cede The Battle Over Personality And Likeability To Bush." "Ultimately, however, he appeared willing to cede the battle over personality and likeability to Bush, believing those may be less significant in the minds of voters than they were four years ago." (Dan Balz, "A Challenge To The GOP On Values, Security," The Washington Post, 7/30/04)
The New York Times: Kerry Failed To "Provide A Clear Vision On Iraq." "He did not, however, provide a clear vision on Iraq. Voters needed to hear him say that he understands, in retrospect, that his vote to give President Bush Congressional support to invade was a mistake. It's clear now that Mr. Kerry isn't going to go there, and it's a shame." (Editorial, "John Kerry Speaks," The New York Times, 7/30/04)
USA Today: "Kerry Leaves Boston Still Not Having Formed In Voters' Minds An Image Of Where He'd Take The Nation On Its Most Urgent Issues." "Trouble is, Kerry leaves Boston still not having formed in voters' minds an image of where he'd take the nation on its most urgent issues: the war on terrorism and resolving the mess that is the U.S. situation in Iraq. So far, his policies sound a lot like those of President Bush." (Editorial, "Kerry's Challenge: Set His Own War-Time Course," USA Today, 7/30/04)
Los Angeles Times: Kerry Needs To Further Explain His Position On Iraq. "By putting Iraq near the top of the speech, before jobs and the economy and healthcare, Kerry made it official that he is going to make opposition to the war his big issue. Possibly the best of many great lines in the speech was: 'I will be a commander in chief who will never mislead us into war.' Kerry voted for the war. Is he now prepared to say he was misled? If Iraq is going to be Topic A, he will need a smarter strategy of evasion, or more brutal frankness, than he has managed so far." (Editorial, "Kerry's Craft," Los Angeles Times, 7/30/04)
CNN Senior Analyst Jeff Greenfield: "In Terms Of Iraq – 'I Know What To Do With Iraq,' He Said -- Two-And-A-Half Sentences On What To Do." (CNN's "Newsnight With Aaron Brown," 7/29/04)
Jeff Jacoby Of The Boston Globe: Kerry "Didn't Close The Sale Last Night." "All in all, it was a pedestrian address, uninspiring, cliched, and humorless. It made sure to work in all the poll-tested buzzwords -- I counted 17 mentions of 'strong' and 'strength,' 28 of 'value' or 'values.' But buzzwords don't decide elections, and they aren't the key to a swing voter's heart. Kerry may yet prevail over George W. Bush, but he didn't close the sale last night." (Jeff Jacoby, Op-ed, "Buzzwords And Cheap Shots," The Boston Globe, 7/30/04)
St. Petersburg Times: "Thursday's Speech Did Not Entirely Clear Up Kerry's Frustrating Vagueness On Iraq." "But Thursday's speech did not entirely clear up Kerry's frustrating vagueness on Iraq. Kerry says the United States should go to war only when it has to, not when it wants to. He also promises to rebuild the international alliances the Bush administration has fractured. That's reassuring to hear, as far as it goes. But until voters have a surer understanding of Kerry's specific views on Iraq, they may not be satisfied with his broader promise that he 'will never hesitate to use force when it is required.'" (Editorial, "Strong Words," St. Petersburg Times, 7/30/04)
Nice to hear the mainstream print media take a couple of shots at Kerry.
However, here's another analysis of Kerry's speech from Ron Gunzberger, the ruler of http://www.politics1.com. BTW, Gunzberger is a liberal.
KERRY SCORES SOLID PERFORMANCE. Senator John Kerry's met -- and possibly exceeded -- expectations Thursday night when he delivered his well-crafted acceptance speech. Kerry personally edited the text, which his campaign acknowledged was largely written by consultant Bob Shrum. He also delivered it well, which was an accomplishment for a politician who had his campaign stump speeches sometimes lapse into long-winded, dry and pontificating "Senate-speak."
Some TV critics complained that the delivery was paced too quickly -- stepping on applause lines at various points -- although Kerry was working to stay within the tight time parameters fixed by the TV networks. The networks were clearly sensitive to the criticism of this, as some of their post speech coverage was devoted to repeatedly saying that the Kerry campaign knew -- or should have known -- that the networks would have actually continued to cover the speech live until the end even if Kerry went beyond the 11 pm Eastern cut-off time they previously gave the campaign.
Most interestingly, Kerry used his speech to make values and security -- two traditional GOP themes -- his central theme for the fall campaign. Overall, I'd give the speech (both delivery and content) a grade of somewhere between B+ and A-. Even most conservative pundits praised the content of the speech, although it was clear the Bush campaign would soon start attacking Kerry with claims that his record doesn't match this rhetoric for votes from Mid-America.
Trust me, the Washington Post's editorial this morning is WITHERING. Sure to be causing some dirty diapers in the Kerry camp today. It will have a lot more influence in the rest of the media than Ron Gunzberger, whoever that is. The Post reflects general liberal opinion, which is that Kerry's speech was underwhelming at best and at worst left several gaping holes that Bush will drive a tank through.
A search shows there is a Ron Gunzberger, son of a Suzanne Gunzberger of Broward/Palm Beach county.
Recall in the 2000 Gore/Florida mess. There was an old hag in Palm Beach who was commissioner of Palm Beach who was awarding vote after vote to Gore in the recount scam. She awarded Gore 200 questionable votes in a two day period. Those counts were final. The old hag was Suzanne Gunzberger.
Why do I get the feeling all of this just fits together?
There will be no bounce from this "dead cat". In fact, we may expect a crater to open up in the approval/disapproval poll numbers.
Kerry has lost his antiwar crowd (to Nader) and sounds too much like he is saying only "Me too" to the positions now held by Bush.
The doleful crowd that didn't get their balloon drop ("Where are those f*****' balloons?") walked away, thinking, "We coulda had Howard Dean, the person we REALLY wanted."
Instead, we get the man who is an expert at administering CPR to hamsters. Kindly thing, but not much to do with running a country.
Gunzberger, that sounds like a nice Jewish name. I wonder if Mr. Gunzberger realizes John Kerry did not mention Israel once in his acceptance speech last night. Tells you where Jewish priority stand with John Kerry. Why because the majority of the left wing Democrat Party are Jew haters. This guy and his mom, if it is his mom, are just like most American Jews, fools!! Vote Bush!
Signed a supporter of the state of Israel
Interesting concept;
Kerry stated he would offer more middle class tax relief. Is this before or after President Bush's tax relief expires in 2 years? I think what he would do is let the tax relief expire then offer his own plan at a lesser amount than President Bush's was if he was elected.
Kerry, take the credit of other's achievements then blame everyone else for the rest.
Kerry's biggest problem is mistaking the American voter for the voter that has put him in the Senate from Massachusetts.
(Kerry: 'Durn! I read every word in the pitch-book and it didn't work. Maybe I should have repeated the whole thing.)
Kerry's biggest problem is mistaking the American voter for the voter that has put him in the Senate from Massachusetts.
Very encouraging fact.
They have realized and admitted that they are going to have to fight this out on OUR GROUND.
Bodes well for us.
Very perceptive point.
"Senator John Kerry's met -- and possibly exceeded -- expectations Thursday night when he delivered his well-crafted acceptance speech."
Not very high expectations for the Democratic Party's nominee for President.
Even the media is starting to think sKerry is a loser...
And the apparently newly-lobotomized crew at FOX all thought sKerry's speech was good or great, also! Okay, in the spirit of things, here's my take for describing it to the liberals you know:
Kerry's speech was just so inspiring (to what you don't have to share, lol)! Couldn't you feel his passion? (Close eyes and shiver dramatically). I know that just because he gave no real answers doesn't mean he can't lead; he's just keeping his options open (point sagely then stick your finger under your nose as if sniffing it). And that makeup person was SO cruel for not blotting his chin properly before his speech, don't you think? (Sigh indignantly). It's just not his fault! And I don't believe it for a second that he stole all his good lines from Bush and Cheney. Why, he has original slogans and ideas all the time, like. . .(wander off frowning and muttering occasionally, "no, not that one".).
OPEN LETTER TO KERRY FROM 204 YEARS AGO:
“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the Public Treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the Public Treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy always followed by dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been two-hundred years. These nations have progressed throught this sequence: From bondage to spiritual faith; from spiritual faith to great courage; from courage to abundance; from abundance to complacency; from complacency to apathy; from apathy to dependence; from dependence back again into bondage.”
—Alexander Fraser Tyler, 1700
Instead, he looked like he was standing on the foul line at the Fleet Center after getting fouled on a fast break, not at the podium of a political convention accepting its Presidential nomination.
I am feeling really good right now.
Flip-flop sweat pouring down his face.
This guy simply ain't gonna make it.
For a breath of fresh air, we watching President Bush's acceptance speech in 2000 on CSPAN2 after the sKerry coronation was thankfully over, and what a difference!
President Bush talked about important issues, played to his crowd, was confident, funny, honest, sincere, and looked heartbreakingly young in comparison to today. I turned to my husband and said that I ADORE this President and will do **everything** in my power to make sure he is re-elected.
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.