Posted on 09/03/2004 8:02:08 AM PDT by nikos1121
UNTIL President Bush began his speech on the final night of the Republican National Convention, the goal of the United States' anti-terror policy was perceived by a largely supportive public as a bid to assure safety. With a rhetorical flourish worthy of the great speeches of all time, George W. Bush has transformed the war into a battle for liberty.
In a speech that was at once eloquent and substantive, sensitive and dynamic, profound and familiar, Bush has risen to a level few presidents have ever reached.
Sometimes a strategist just has to sit back and gasp. Occasionally, a seasoned political observer needs to realize that he has seen something extraordinary. Tonight, Bush made me feel like that.
The speech satisfied every single political need. He contrasted with Kerry without appearing negative. He demonstrated emotion without pandering. He rose to a level of substantive specificity without becoming wonkish.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
Dick Morris is not trustworthy -- even when I agree with him! LOL
Bump.
But this was really a good article... I think summed it up for the Independents and some swing democrats...
I'm not sure whether it is either, but it certainly feels good supporting President Bush.
He was certain a week and a half ago that Kerry's going to beat Bush.
Morris has a brilliant intellect.
Nice article.
But a misleading headline, IMO. If Bush is remembered in history, it will be because a historical legacy is not important to him. Saving civilization, the USA and liberty are his concerns. The opposite of WJC.
Great analysis. Bush pulled a 'Clinton' with his speech last night.
What a putz.
One of the best political minds ever. No core, no ideology, just what it takes to win.
Comes with the territory. Chief Exec of the USA is going to be a part of history no matter what. Even if he never showed up to work and had his paycheck electronically deposited he would still get the blame for every thing that happened during his watch and the era of his years as Chief Exec would be named for him.
I remember when Morris insisted over and over that Hillary would never win in her Senate race.
Sure. But remember Bill Clinton and his famous desire to leave a "legacy?" I'm trying to say that W may go down in history as a great leader instead of Clinton precisely because being "remembered" or being well thought of are not as important to W. For instance, the guy risked his presidency on the Iraq war, something Clinton would never have done.
I kind of think that while Clinton is the ultimate politician, W is the visionary.
I don't believe that Clinton was particularly concerned about not having a major event during his stewardship, and so not having a legacy. There is a lot to be said in favor of having a quiet 4 or 8 years. Probably not many Chief Execs would want to have a war during their term. Of the two things I would do my first day behind the desk in the Oval Office, neither would involve war, I would hope, and neither would be of interest to most people although both would affect them greatly.
Yeah, quiet years would be lovely.
What two things would you do?
One is in the tagline. The other is to extinguish all public access easements.
Not true. Clinton has openly and publicly lamented that September 11th did NOT occur on his "watch". He was, is, and always will be "possessed" that his legacy is Monica Lewinsky. How pathetic.......
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.