Stephen,

Great basketball analogy, and I agree, but sooooo 2003.

A couple of thoughts:

Kerry's first daughter gave a horrible speech, so much so that I felt uncomfortable for her. Not even counting her professed familiarity with her Dad's 6 foot 4 inch body.

Alexandra (of Cannes fame) gave a stirring, and seemingly sincere, speech and I was impressed.

Max Cleland is officially the mascot of the Kerry campaign. Good thing he is in a wheel chair or Kerry would be saying "Max who?"

Kerry's main message was "Government is THE cure for what ails you." If you are sad, we are coming to help. Even if you are happy, we'll fix that too (rich people).

Kerry to Bush: No more name calling, dickhead.

But overall, not bad...for Kerry.

But none of this matters. Bush will win, and Kerry will get divorced.

Oxblog, I believe, covered it from there. No note of the audience reaction.

Bush in a landslide.

Winter Soldier.

In the 1700's, mankind began to develop a model of governance based not on inherited titles, but on simple human liberty.

America, the first to step into this model has been challenged throught its life to maintain its democracy from threats from outside, and from within.

Since the time of our beginning, mankind has had two major world wars where the very definition of human liberty was threatened. The first half of the last century, the facists -who believed that the state was more important than the individual. The last half, the soviets, who believed that ideology was more important than the individual.

Now, in the first half of this century we face another threat to human liberty. The jihadis, who believe that religious piety is more important than the individual.

There are can be no more compromise with the jihadis than there was with the Soviets or the Fascists. We cannot engage in a 'cold war' with an enemy who's stated desire it is to die in their efforts to win the war. They do not want to live. This is not a border dispute or a trade negotiation. The jihadis do not want a better world or a world partitioned into "ours and theirs". Their philosophy is such that any joy, any happiness in life itself is an affront to the greater afterlife under allah.

For human rights, womens rights, for gay rights, all the rights we in live within to survive in its home here in the western worlds traditions, we must fight, and we must win. There is no glasnost, no summit to attend to allow us to live "side by side" in peace. We must fight fast and furious.
Our enemies, armed with no more resources than the average neighborhood drug lord has at hand, can create conditions which will result in the deaths of thousands.

I'm often told " war is not the answer" by my lefty friends. I respond "it is, if genocide and slavery is the question". I have a daughter, I know exactly what we are fighting for, we are fighting for a world that does not look at her as someones property.

To back up what Stephen said about 'if not being a time of war, id be looking at John Kerry". I can say the same. Bush, despite all the spittle covered invectives by moveon.org is not a conservative. By anyones measure, hes barely a Republican. But that is not the question. The question is "what do we - the american people - need to do to win the war". And when I say win, I mean "win" not the way Truman meant win, or Nixon, but the way Grant and both Roosevelts meant "win".

I cannot see how engaging in a Civil War at home helps us engage in the greater war abroad. Kerry and the democrats have decided that Civil War is the first step towards winning the broader war. I cannot support this.

I cannot support a party that believes believes that Michael Moore is a great patriot,while giving scant attention to the sacrifice of Pat Tillman.

I cannot support a party who supports Al Sharpton. Al is often funny, but Im not in a laughing mood. We are at war...

I cannot support a party who just held a convention and did not once recognize the liberation of 5 million people within Afghanistan. many of those who did the liberating were democrats. Yet, despite that, it was as if Afghanistan became a plot point in a marx brothers movie.

I cannot support a party who looks upon the average Iraqi as if they were victimized only by the US Army,as if Iraq was the disneyland of the middle east until we arrived.

I cannot support a party who looks upon France with its long sordid history of abuse of human rights throughout the middle east as the arbiter of our power around the world.

I cannot support a party who believes believes that we invaded afghanistan so halliburton could make a pipeline.

I go to bed every night praying I dont wake up to what I saw on 9/11. I got bed wishing that the next day would be like it was on 9/10.

But the war is not over, its barely getting started, and I'm struck with the understanding that the roughest battle in WWII wasnt Stalingrad, Pearl harbor or midway. The hardest battle in WWII was just convincing the worlds free people that the war needed to be fought.

we are at war, and we can lose

My grandfather hated FDR, but when war visited his generation, he put it aside. You cannot win a war by fighting amongst yourselves. We must do the same. We must learn that the most important thing in the world is not ourselves, but the world we leave behind. If we fail in this war, all the programs that John Kerry wants to give us will count for nothing. If we win, then he seriously shorted what might be.

A great man once said Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country. He was right,and he was a Democrat. He was a democrat at a time when Democrats believed that America should win the cold war. If he were running today, he might get my vote.

Who knows about the future, but for me, for now, I'm sticking with the man.

Stephen: I was on the floor (as a guest) in 1996 to see Dole's acceptance speech. I was very skeptical going in that Dole could beat Clinton. Dole is certainly no orator, but the San Diego Convention Center was electric in response to his speech. Walking from the site with thousands of partisan delegates, the positive vibe was overwhelming, and I thought 'You know, Dole's gonna win this thing.' A few days later I returned to my skepticism. The energy in a convention is unreal (and oftimes surreal). Any reliable analysis of 'effect on electorate' of an acceptance speech must be undertaken from the living room couch in front of a television set.

Let's go with a cycling analogy instead.

After the 11th Stage of the Tour de France, Lance Armstrong trailed the leader, Thomas Voeckler, by 9 minutes 35 seconds. More than half the race was over, as the Tour is 20 stages.

Cycling pundits around the world were praising Voeckler as the next Tour winner. After all, he had this incredible lead.

Right?

I'll give the Kerry supporters a few days to think that over.

I remember Slate's Saletan making exactly the same electrically heated bread statement regarding Bush 4 years ago. The reality is that nobody can predict the future, or, when things are this close, even make very educated guesses. People with an ounce of sense, or any check on their ego, refrain from doing so in cicumstances such as these. Yes, yes, roughly half the predictors will crow the first week in November, but they'll be no more sensible than the roosters who are convinced that they caused the sun to rise.

I know you don't want to hear it, but Bush is toast.

We will retake the house and senate!

Schwarzenegger will never win!

Quagmire!

There are no coilation forces in Baghdad!

I think I'm detecting a theme... oh yes, denial.

The speech was a failed attempt at triangulation on the issues of war and terrorism. Every time the senator would sound like he was at the GOP convention, some bizarre phrase like "back door draft" would bring the listener back to reality.

The delivery was pretty good but not great. Like George W. Bush at the 2000 debates, the bar had been lowered for Kerry because he is so "nuanced" (when did "nuance" and "deception" become synonyms?). The fact Kerry could stand and speed through a speech led some to think he really broke through tonight. The reality is much different. Who will win this November? No one really knows now, as you wrote, and the events on the ground will make this an election that can't be predicted very far out. All things being even, though, I wouldn't bet the milk money on Kerry. Tonight's yeoman performance, against a backdrop of a very dull convention, means things will be tied again very soon...not a good position for the challenger.

Coalition, rather. D'oh.

Kerry's basic sttement was that he would wait for bad guys to murder more Americans before he did anything about it; that he wuldn't do anything about he if he couldn't keep the French happy and involve the UN, and that America was best kept strong through a program of ultra-high taxation and shamelessly pandering to every minority group available... and that this would earn us respect abroad, amke us stronger at home, and defeat terrorism.

Thanks, John.

BTW: Am I the only one who gets mental images of Elian Gonzales getting kidnapped at gunpoint or of the tanks going in at Waco when kerry uses the phrase, "Strong at Home"?

...three, THREE typos. Jeez. Sorry, normally I'm more coherent.

Frank Martin, you should post more often. This is some of the best stuff I have seen in a while. I couldn't agree more. Bush had a big following going into 2000 and some of them have fallen away (including my sister who was a rabid supporter) and they have "cooled" their enthusiasm. I fear his BS stances on immigration, Medicare and some other choice tidbits may be his greatest liability. His assets however far outweigh them and this is what we need to build upon.

FDR was hated by many of the conservative bent and he made his share of blunders. I have read recently that many of his supposed best programs were a total waste of time and money. WPA, CCC and so on were boondoggles which did little good and only took resourses away from valuable enterprises - namely rebuilding the military. We got lucky on WWII and frankly we cannot afford to get caught with our pants down again. We need a strong, vital military and we need to aggressively pursue the scum (read that Jihadis) that inhabit this earth. They must be found, executed and sent to hell (without their complement of virgins) and their ilk wiped from the face of the earth.

I don't normally condemn an entire religion but, if you try to completely buy into Islam, Mohammed was not a guy you wanted to know or be known by. He was ruthless, cruel and his "justice" was final. The "unbelievers" or "infidels" must die was his mantra and to try to diminish that by telling us the BS that Islam is a religion of peace is doing civilization a disservice and ultimately will implement our distruction. Hey I call them as I see them and I call a spade a spade and I call somebody with a sworn religious hatred of all I hold near and dear something I and the civilized world needs to consider and act upon.

Regarding the Tour de France comment above:

Besides the fact that both are from Texas, and neither have a set of balls, George W. Bush is no Lance Armstrong.

If you were an Iraqi citizen that had listened to Kerry's speech, how would you feel right about now? Pretty shitty, I would think. "Nothing to see here, let's move along". Not one mention of anything good coming out of Iraq. I'll be curious to see how some of the Iraqi bloggers react to the speech. I also wonder how/if the Republican convention can highlight some Iraqis to show how much better off they are today than under Saddam.

44!!!!

Err...wait a sec...

Bush's intrade re-election stock went up over a point since yesterday. Very bad for Kerry.

As a said in a previous post.

Fake election? Fake campaign.

Stephen,

Jeralyn is obviously caught up in the excitement of the convention but all of the people Kerry needs for a win were not in attendance.

More likely outcome: a rough campaign is carried out and Bush wins by a surprisingly large margin. Not a blow-out, but larger than currently anticipated.

Just read a story that Bush is ahead in Missouri -- outside the margin of error -- and that Kerry is cutting back his advertising in the state.

It'll be a tough campaign, but I think (and hope) that Bush pulls it out.

I watched the conventioneers all week in town and they all look happy, floating even. I can understand that - for the faithful, this has got to be pretty heady stuff. And at the climax, they're bound to come out with a 'we're gonna win this attitude.' In that, the convention was a roaring success. Trouble is, that's not what the convention needed to do. It needed to reach out to swing voters, and to the extent it did last night, it was the heavy militarization of the moment. Oh, and his kids like him. It reminded me of Captain Queeg and his dog, and I suspect it will play just as well in Peoria.

Kerry enegerized the energized but I don't think it'll be contagious. The Bush folks ought to take a lesson from that and adjust accordingly.

Oh, and ...

(Even if the "analysis" consists mostly of martini-fueled quips?)

Are you talkin' to ME? ;)

The Democratic Convention was this week?? Shit, I missed it!!

If you were an Iraqi citizen that had listened to Kerry's speech, how would you feel right about now? Pretty shitty, I would think.

HA! How about the Brits, Aussies, and Poles (among others) who have troops in Iraq right now, hearing that the US is 'going it alone'?

Kerry just made an impression on 'em, and I doubt it was a good one.

Bush by 15. Easy.

Bush's intrade is climbing. Have we ever seen a negetive convention bounce?

aaron:

Dunno about historically, but I think this makes a certain amount of sense.

Look at it this way:

There's some percentage of war conservatives who are dismayed by Dubya (distinct from, say, economic conservatives, who may be equally dismayed, but for different reasons). There's some percentage of liberals who were unsure about Kerry regarding the war.

Both of these groups were wondering if Kerry would say something in his speech that would make it clear that the WAR on Terror would continue, that it wouldn't be a pull-out and it wouldn't become law enforcement-plus.

Both of those groups were probably trending neutral/unsure in polls and in markets.

Both of those groups found out last night that they really DON'T have another choice. You want the WAR to continue? Vote Dubya.

(Conversely, war conservatives who are happy w/ Dubya, liberals who are unhappy w/ the war were probably going to trend Kerry anyway, and last night's speech didn't push them away from their default choices.)

Every single discussion is about substance or delivery or both. Did he pull it off? Did he convince the undecideds that he was tough while showing that he is a real person?

On MSNBC Joe Scarborough was arguing that "the pace was terrible and he did not wait for his applause like Clinton would have". Andrea Mitchell kept going on and on about "it's what he said not how he said it. Just like Kennedy in Berlin and Reagan at the wall". There's just one problem; Kennedy and Reagan deeply believed what they were saying.

Reality check...KERRY DOES NOT BELIEVE ANY OF THIS SHIT! And guess what, the terrorists dont believe it either.

Leads into my bit of punditry:

I started into an Alterman post on Kerry's speech. It's rather gushy, of course. He calls it a masterpiece. He makes some good points on the execution. Such as the subtle allusion to Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 by mentioning the Saudi Royal family. But the strategy is a failure. The non-choir see through Moore, or atleast take him with a grain of salt. The bravado with lack of content rings hollow. Swing voters will see his campaign as an attempt at manipulation. And an appeal without substance.

You may ask, then, how will Bush's apparent manipulation play with swing voters? Very differently, Bush's quietness, his slow play, are very different forms of manipulation. He isn't manipulating his audience, he's manipulating his opponents. Dems and the media.

A personal recollection from 1984:

Scene 1: The convention floor, immediately after Mondale's acceptance speech is thronged with deliriously joyful conventioneers. An ecstatic, weeping woman proclaims, "There's no way we can lose with this ticket, just NO WAY!"

Scene 2: Election Day

Reagan 59% 525 EV
Mondale 41% 13 EV

I must take issue with your "I don't trust Kerry to lead it". The chicken hawks have blown this war. As a liberal who supported the concept of this war (but not the timing) I can only hold the current administration in contempt. Again a bunch of armatures have waged what should have been a strategic win into a pile of crap. Rumsfeld et al are not fools, so the only reason I can think of for not to providing the required manpower to police Iraq afterward (both the secretary of the army and the army joint chief said so (and were fired)) was a political one. Let’s gamble so that we can hide the cost of this ill timed adventure and win the next election. Well Iraq will settle down in its own time, but the opportunity to leave behind significant bases and preferred contracts (to pay for the whole thing) is past. The delay of Iraqi stability induced by this domestic political spin doctoring reduces the effectiveness of a democratic Iraq influencing a revolution Iran by example and control of Syria by proximity. This administration has screwed up one of the most strategic geopolitical moves for the next 30 years, all because they prefer to cover their ass instead of serving their country. The country should feel betrayed they have been, if you are going to be “bold” and independent then at least do it right and stop covering your own ass first; their chicken shits, not chicken hawks.

I must take issue with your "I don't trust Kerry to lead it".

Go ahead. But you're going to have to convince me that Kerry means to fight it, otherwise there isn't going to be anything to lead.

Poor bobo doesn't have a clue what 'armature' means. Hint: despite the similarity in sound between 'armature', 'armchair', and 'amateur' an armature is not the same thing as an 'armchair general' or an 'amateur', either of which would make sense in context.

More important, bobo demonstrates for the 500th time that people who call supporters of the liberation of Iraq 'chickenhawks' are themselves without exception assholes.

I think you were a little hard on
the lady. She is obviously swept up in "being there."

I thought that the best blogging on the acceptance speech was
done from the live TV coverage. C-Span should hire bloggers.

As for the savior of hamsters (why didn't he reenact that on Super 8mm?), anyone can do one good show, but what he needed was his "Frampton Comes Alive."

I don't think he got it, and I expect some retooling of the campaign down the road.

Hey bobo,
Why don't you use an armature to remove the tin foil from your head? Chicken hawks are people who talk tough but don't take action. Just like you who "supported the concept of the war but not the timing". We should have spent five more years trying to talk the French into it...right? Isn't Bobo spanish for nut job?

It's really hard to believe that the democrats are this stupid. But they don't smile or laugh when they say these things. They take themselves seriously, which will be the death of them.

Almost two years ago I posted pictures of a genuine chickenhawk and of someone very like bobo. Warning: the latter is rather disgusting.

Posted by Frank Martin at July 29, 2004 11:33 PM - "In the 1700's, mankind began to develop a model of governance based not on inherited titles, but on simple human liberty........"

Frank, Inspiring post. Sounds like you got an A+ for comprehension in American History. Thanks for connection the dots!

Frank's post would make a great newspaper OP-ED or Letter to Editor

Like most right wing nuts, the responses to my position have nothing to do with what I said rather something irrelevant such as a spelling error. Throw the skunk on the table to divert attention from the issue at hand. Your puerile responses remind me of a particularly bad corporate VP I knew, who when no one understood him he repeated himself, only louder, rather then rephrase the request-very Dilbert. None of the administration (oh if you look hard enough you might find one or two) have fought in the military, sorry GW playing fighter jock protecting the skies of Texas doesn’t cut the mustard. They are known in the colloquial English as the chicken hawks. In your god given wisdom please enlighten us as to why the current administration has screwed up the war…I’m waiting young man, so pull your thumb out of your well exercised ass and say something relevant. It is the moronic responses and the dumbing down of discourse that drives me and a great many others (on both sides of the isle) absolutely nuts (side bet to others what are the chances the good Dr. addresses his response to this?). I was curious to see what kind of response I would get to my position as usual a bunch of name calling and hormonal histrionics. This is a time for serious people not chest thumping pussies. Fini.

Sorry Bobo, it's hard to take you seriously. You're claim that you support the war, but not the timing, and that there's some major failure just doesn't make sense. It makes you seem like you're claiming to be something you're not. The closest thing I've noticed to a big failure was the problem with Iraqi police last year. For the timing, yeah, they took their sweet time, but I assume they were building the coalition. How do you go back start earlier?

sorry, during the year, not last year.

Poor 'bobo' demands that I say something relevant. After you, Alphonse. You haven't made an actual argument yet, and complain that I insulted you as if you had not adorned your own previous post with such words as 'chicken hawk', 'chicken shit', 'cover their ass', 'pile of crap', 'spin doctoring', 'screwed up', and so on.

Let me spell out very slowly and carefully why calling others 'chicken hawks' makes you an asshole: because prior military service has nothing to do with presidential warmaking skills. You might think that it would, and perhaps it should, but in fact it doesn't. As others have pointed out over and over, Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt were excellent wartime commanders-in-chief, despite their total lack of military experience. (And you can't defend FDR by pointing to his wheelchair. He didn't contract polio until he was almost 40 and had already served as Assistant Secretary of the Navy in wartime -- World War I. He could easily have served in the Phillipines instead of going to Harvard if he had wanted to.) On the other hand, the biggest screw-up in American military history was the Vietnam War. Opinions will differ as to which president (Johnson, Nixon, maybe Kennedy, maybe even Eisenhower) was most responsible for that massive failure, and what they all should have done instead (play to win, or get out sooner), but it doesn’t matter, because all four were veterans of World War II.

One reason I hold people who call Bush a 'chicken hawk' in contempt is that 98% of them are big fans of Bill Clinton, who really did dodge the draft. And they often say stupid things like "GW playing fighter jock" as if all he did was put together plastic scale models of fighters with airplane glue instead of, you know, flying actual jet fighters.

I also despise people who lie. I haven't repeated myself ever more loudly on this thread like a corporate Dilbert, have never claimed "god given wisdom", and I'm neither a nut, nor a "young man" (I'm 51), nor do I have a "well exercised ass", whether you mean that in the gymnastic or the sexual sense. You, 'bobo', are the kind of person who just makes shit up to insult people. You are therefore in no position to complain about other people's allegedly "moronic responses". You're semiliterate, too: not only do you not know what 'armature' means, you don't know the difference between 'their' and 'they're' and between 'isle' and 'aisle'. Those aren't spelling errors: the words are all spelled correctly, they just don't mean what you think they mean.

Finally, people who hide behind Yahoo while flinging insults like monkeys flinging poo are in no position to call others "chest thumping pussies". (Think I'm hiding behind my pseudonym? Just do a 'whois' on my domain name and you can get my full name, address, and telephone number.)

Dr. Weevil,

That was inspired. But You forgot to mention that the only people that finish a rant with "fini" are "chest thumping pussies".