Bravo.

Sleepy-time. More big twitchy brain tomorrow.

Haven't read it yet, but thanks...

How about we run YOU in '08.

Obviously, some of the specifics would be different between the two of us, but the sum of the thing is the same: I know who I trust to lead us through some of the tough decisions coming up, even while I know that I'm going to disagree with and speak against some of his policies.

It was a good night for the President.

Agreed w/ your summary. I am now on the Bush bandwagon. I found the last 15 minutes of his speech quite inspiring.

When Kerry came on...what a disaster...

Thanks for the blog - first time here.

Ken,

If nominated I will not run. If elected, I will not serve. I will, however, buy you a drink.

Again,toward your comparison of the two men,Bush would say "I believe...".In the part of Kerry hey-look-at-me response MSNBC aired,Kerry kept saying "you believe...".

Good wrap of a good speech.

I think it all goes back to how the 2 candidates got where they are.

The GOP begged Bush to run in 2000.

Kerry has planning on his run for over 3 decades.

Bush wants to be President because he loves his country. Kerry wants to be President because he loves John Kerry.

All else is secondary.

I like my short skirts on at least four-year-olds, Stephen.

GWB didn't really say anything that mattered to me tonight, but I'm not mainstream. He knocked it out of the park for most, though.

So let the Jon Benet groupies, all 50 plus percent of them, join with me and clap. And vote,...

...and demand a fully clad babe in 2008, if the bombs fall silent.

Psst! Someone please tell John Kerry and John Edwards that it's true - Bush/Cheney DIDN'T serve in Vietnam - but they've served almost 4 years in the war on terror. People also DON'T forget (and are sick of Kerry's saluting) that Kerry went to war and slimed his fellow vets when he returned. Checking his record at senate.gov - you can clearly see someone who does not understand threats to America. However, he does understand the urgency to fight to protect the mating habit of the two-toed leopard frog in the amazon, which I guess is ok. But when Islamic terrorists are taking over schools filled with children in Russia and we're catching (and not catching) terrorists crawling through the desert in Arizona - I care about recent history. And GWB may not have served 35 years ago - but he's been serving for 4 years (3 without further attack).

And the 'shrapnel in his body' thing - is getting very, very, very, very old. Not to belittle his service - but - the Swift Vets asked for an apology and they would stop running against him - he has flat out ignored their request - so I say - more power to them. He could have apologized at the American Legion - yet he pretended he's been for veterans instead - while ignoring 250 veterans who need to hear an apology. What a cocky, self-indulgent fool. I pray for my country that GWB wins because our world in Kerry's hands is sad.

The Democrats have been more consistently the party of reaction for some time now, and these most recent conventions continued the trend. Reaction in domestic policy is bad enough, but reaction in policy pertaining to the Persian Gulf, and the wider foreign policy arena, is completely untenable.

This isn't to say that formenting rapid change in the Persian Gulf and wider Islamic world is guaranteed to end happily. Far from it; I think the odds of a historically very bloody conflict is in the area of 50-50. However, attempting to hang on to the status quo, or even trying to manage a slow evolution, provides about a 90% chance of the same outcome. Ya' gotta play the hand that is dealt.

Thank you very much, Stephen, for your thoughtful and timely analysis. Apropos your wrap-up, I thought a key point Bush made was that our social saftey net (my words) was designed in the 1930's and has had add-ons glued on for the past seventy years, but its time to reform it for the 21st century. That's a bold thought for an incumbent to express.

Bravo...that's a great wrap up, and you did it on likker, too! :-)

Truthfully, though, this reads like an after-convention speech I could see someone like Ron Silver give. Well said.

Will Allen:

Like Stephen, you got the essence of tonight and the 100 or so days that preceded it.

This ain't a purty time. But when you scrape off all the purty words you know who talks straight (pardon the pun). We can fight tomorrow, and I hope with better odds than you claim.

In the meantime, let's make sure our potentially radium-enhanced hootenanny doesn't follow a domestic victory party.

Thanks, Stephen, Will et al. I'm too tanked, at this point, to do anything but read and hope. You have done great work with this blog.

Well, come on in the pool Stephen; the water's fine. I've got some home-brew in the 'fridge, or I might even try one of your martini's (As long as you make it with Tequila. ;^)

Can I get a link to a pretty girl in a short skirt? I mean come on, I come to this site for news AND entertainment.

Good analysis. I'm with you to a point.

However, I also think Kerry is the one running a shallow, stale and arrogant campaign. It's the arrogance that worries me and I think it's a thread that runs through/explains most of the stuff that's hit the press about him.

Brilliant analysis. Thank you.

Newsmax has an article by Estrich.

She's not happy, dems play too nice, now they're going to play dirty.

You nailed it, man.

I think Bush has given a lot of libertarians a reason to vote for him tonight.

He's about 5000 miles away from perfect, but he's a million miles closer than Kerry.

I underestimated him, and I underestimated his base.

You nailed it, man.

I think Bush has given a lot of libertarians a reason to vote for him tonight.

He's about 5000 miles away from perfect, but he's a million miles closer than Kerry.

I underestimated him, and I underestimated his base.

Well, let's see. I double posted and it didn't want to take a URL. So, now that I've established myself as a total dumbass, you can read my extended reaction by clicking my name.

No Child Left Behind is actually pretty (small l) libertarian in my estimation. Its real effect will be to shift money from the State Board of Education into the classrooms.

(I even say so on my blog.)

"He wants to shake things up on the domestic front. He wants to fight the good fight abroad. He’s betting he can change the status quo, even though he’s responsible for some of it."

Let's just hope you are right!

Wow, I wouldn't usually post here but your comments are as ineluctably stupid as those of a few socialists I know who think Bush will be such a disaster that revolution will bring about a utopian state if he is re-elected. You are,perhaps, some kind of libertarian--though you don't seem to realize that talking about rights is not the same thing as delivering them--but you are, without doubt, totally uniformed about who bush "really is"--whether he is comfortable in his own skin or not, I don't know but I do know exactly what his record is over the last four years and its not good for liberty or libertarians. Your comments, with their bizarre mixture of homosexual hysteria and girlish passion are not only laughable, they are kind of sickening. Learn some history, pay attention to the actual facts about this administration (its graft, its greed, its laws) and get a clue.

aimai

TO: Stephen Green
RE: The Nature of Fear

"For all its faults, for all its overtly- and overly-religious tones...." -- Stephen Green

Generally speaking, people fear that which they do not understand, e.g., the unknown always invokes fear.

Sure, there are other things which can invoke fear in people. Just as all those families packed into cars fleeing the coastline of Florida. But fear of the unknown is likely the most common cause of fear.

The question becomes, what is it you do not understand?

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Ask a question and you're ignorant for several minutes. Don't ask a question and you're ignorant for the rest of your life.]

P.S. We're ALL ignorant about something.

Well everyone else covered the "good analysis" and lack of conclusory statements....so I figure you could use a different type of stroke... on your striking good looks.... My goodness I have a schoolgirl crush.

George W. Bush...witty zen-master? It was the smoothest and most relaxed I've ever seen Bush. He began almost too slow, but there was virtually nothing in the way of mispronounciations or slip ups. His cleanest and best delivered speech by far. Who expected him to give the better speech of the two moninees?

The content was good. No surprises, nothing unexpected. That's not a bad thing though. He's not going to rely on shock value or gimmicks to get reelected.

It wasn't a home run, but all he needed to do was to get on base. I'd say it was a stand-up double down the line.

"America is the greatest force for good on this earth"
He should try telling that to the people of Rwanda.

As the info that Bush is on a high gets around, I think we'll see a turn around in anti-American rhetoric and behavior especially among Muslim countries.

They've been stone-walling waiting for us to come to our senses and get back to appeasement. Once they see that isn't going to happen, they'll start falling in line.

I'll say it again...

Kerry should write a thank you letter to Chechan Terrorist. If his stunt got any publicity, he'd have lost any chance might have he had.

The US attacked Rwanda???

Kerry suicide watch:

Last night in his fly-by-night midnight speech in Ohio: "If you think this country is headed in the right direction, and you're better off that you were four years ago, then you go vote for George W. Bush".

Yes, he actually said this. He stood up and said if you're doing well and are optimistic, go vote for the other guy. Sorry, we can do all the postulating and strategizing we want...this guy is done.

Oh yeah, and the economy added 144,000 jobs, dropping unemployment to 5.4%. Time to collect the belts and shoelaces from the Dems...

To be fair, I did once hear Kerry make a joke about his hair serving as a flotation device in case of emergency. But the line was given in his typical 'talking at you, not talking to you' delivery and immediately made me wonder how long a team of sitcom writers spent coming up with the line.

I want it noted that I wrote about last night's speech two days ago in the Laphamator note below and for the most part I was spot on. Time machine works well in my house.

I am a libertarian, and was more than a bit inspired by the speech, especially Bush's discussion of the entitlement and tax systems. He correctly pointed out that they do not address the realities of the post-industrial economy. I think that Bush's reforms would take things in the right direction, where they matter most. Abortion, gay marriage, and other social issues matter to me, but not nearly as much as the defense of economic liberty, which is the basis for all other liberty. No question that I will vote for Bush this time, and I have been on the fence, though leaning toward Bush.

To aimai: you must be unaware of the fundamental difference between how libertarians and leftists view rights. To a leftist, rights are the result of positive action by the state. To a libertarian, rights are negative, defined by limits to government action. Insofar as this is true, the Constitution is a libertarian document (e.g. "Congress shall make no law,").

Stephen: Good wrap-up. I agree with you on almost everything: I don't have much in common with the RNC, but I do feel welcome, and I think that they are trying to defend the country.

David: I liked your comparison between Libertarians and Liberals, and I agree 100%

For myself, I have always been a Libertarian in domestic policy and a JFK Democrat in foreign policy. Back then the DNC was the party with good ideas, sound principles, and a better informed. The DNC today is nothing like the DNC of old.

As a person who argues with Liberals and Conservatives, I find trying to change a Liberals mind almost impossible. They frequently make basic logic errors, they cannot seem to put two facts together, and when they find themselves in a corner, they just lash out in anger. It's terrible. With Conservatives, we can have an adult conversation, I can get them to see my point of view, and I can frequently get them to change their position.

There are a lot of things that I don't like about President Bush, but he gets my support. There are people who are trying to kill us and impose their fascist vision on the world. We can discuss about the budget or Social Security after the country is secure. Senator Kerry and the DNC are not prepared to defend the country. If he wins, I am convinced that his administration will deal with Islamic Fascists the way that President Carter did: America held hostage.

Finally, a man who is not afraid to admit he likes pretty girls in short skirts. Now that's my kinda guy ;)

Nice speech by Mr. Bush but how on earth can America pay for all that stuff? Unless its all just campaign talk I suppose.

Nice speech by Mr. Bush but how on earth is America going to pay for all that stuff? Unless its just campaign talk I suppose.

Stephen, although this is a moderate Republican gal (whom you still refuse to link ;), you have captured the very reasons that I think many libertarians are choosing Bush over Kerry (hmmm, that didn't come out wrong, did it?). I have several independent friends who have mirrored (although the reflection isn't as eloquent or good-looking- truthful ass-kissing won't work here, will it?) your exact thoughts.

"He wants to shake things up on the domestic front"?????

What speech did you listen to? Sullivan is right, Conservatism is dead.

TO: Jeff
RE: Doesn't It....

"Sullivan is right, Conservatism is dead." -- Jeff

...depend on how you define "conservatism"?

How DO you define it?

Regards,

Chuck(le)

Well done. There's no perfect solution here, but Bush is clearly the one who "get's it"

Someone needs to call Kerry and give him a clue on his whole VietNam thing:
That was then, this is now. You might have been heroic during your 4 months in country, but it doesn't make up for your reprehensible conduct once you returned.

Those who dwell on the past do so because they have no real vision for the future.

Oblomov said: "To a libertarian, rights are negative, defined by limits to government action. Insofar as this is true, the Constitution is a libertarian document (e.g. "Congress shall make no law,")."

Thanks oblomov for a concise statement of the differences between Liberals and Libertarians view of government. It helped this intrigued but unclear political junkie understand where you guys a coming from.

Hungover but...did Kerry have a psychotic episode after Bush spoke last night? I mean, between the SBVT and Kerry's erratic behavior, Bush has needed to do little to look great in the last few weeks. Even Bush's journeyman acceptance speech, which Stephen nailed in his analysis, came across as poetry in contrast to Kerry's salute-fest.

GWB has been lucky in his enemies--much like his predecessor. Kerry has been most unfortunate in his.

I liked the Presidents speech excepting the several 'repeats' in almost the exact words he has made in several of his stump speeches, as well as going on too long.

I was ready to give him a third base hit when he made the statement "Stand by me", because I thought it was a great final statement to a long enough speech.

Then, as politicians too often do, he made it a second base hit instead by rambling ahead, stealing some of his own thunder Clintonesque style.

I think that Bush made clear that he believes equal protection doesn't apply to gays, religion and government should be in bed together, more American troops should be sent to die in Iraq, and that he's better than the Democrats at producing a litany of blank check promises without the funding to back them.

As a libertarian I was not convinced. Bush talked up this same sort of game in 2000. Tort reform, social security reform, an end to nation-building, and free trade. He gets elected and what happens? All of those proposals go nowhere.

He's a good speaker, but not a straight one. Still voting Michael Badnarik in '04.

Yours truly,
Nick

...send a message...

Why Bush will lose in three parts:

Part I:
Job Creation (in thousands):
Year Jobs
1993 2785
1994 3853
1995 2154
1996 2793
1997 3358
1998 3003
1999 3172
2000 1905
2001 -1782
2002 -563
2003 -61
2004 1440 (through August)
Notice that Clinton's worst year still beats Bush's next year. Argue the nuance of who's responsible if you wish but the numbers are horrible for Bush. Now if Kerry can communicate this effectively???

Part II:
Saddam Hussein, on who we spent 1000 dead soldiers, 6000 wounded, 13000 Iraqi civilians, and 200 billion dollars was a weak dictator that was no threat to anyone but his own people and was found cowering in a spider hole. He had no real connections to Al Qeada and attacking him caused us not to catch Osama bin Laden. Now if Kerry can communicate that????

Part III:
The deficit. $450 Billion this year. The debt is over 7 Trillion now. Too bad there's no Perot in the race to hit this home. Can Kerry communicate it? Personally I think he spends way too much time on Vietnam too.

One more thing. Kerry certainly is looking back 35 years too much and that is stupid. But Bush is doing the same thing basing everything on 9/11. I've yet to understand what was so impressive about his performance. People would have rallied around Carol Channing if she were our President. But I guess that is all he has. You guys have to know that the whole Iraq thing was a disaster and anything positive about it seems to be based on this idea of taking the fight to the enemy's backyard. But it's more like taking the fight to the enemy's neighbor's backyard, while the enemy continues to plan attacks.

Now perhaps we'll start a wave of democracy throughout the mid-east and I'll be proved wrong. But that is the 20 year plan at best. In the short term, we've made it worse. Fortunately, like Saddam, these terrorists are weak and no match for us. They got lucky on 9/11 and we'll continue to break up their funding and their planning. After the initial and necessary Afghan war, it's funny how the oft-scorned law enforcement aspect of the "war on terror" has been the successful part. Perhaps someday we'll find the capitol of Terrorland and make them sign a treaty. But until then, I'm glad the CIA and FBI are hunting these thugs and shutting down their operations.

> He could have apologized at the American Legion - yet he pretended he's been for veterans instead - while ignoring 250 veterans who need to hear an apology.

Kerry has said that he didn't say that other Swifties committed war crimes. He's said the other US troops are the ones that he accused of regularly committing atrocities.

Yes, he's also confessed to committing a few himself, but if there's an apology for false accusations, he owes it to the folks he didn't serve with.

kj,

The problem with your argument is that in your efforts to blame Bush for the bad economy and clinging to 9/11, you fail to associate the two.

9/11 cost us about a trillion dollars, and hit in the middle of a recession. It also shut down the country for about a week, and decimated the entire travel industry.

Take away about half those job losses in 2001, and we have a net job gain under Bush. Furthermore, add more job losses that would be a result of more terrorist attacks and you see how critical and successful Bush's response to 9/11 was. Like the war in Iraq or not, we haven't had any other attacks, and al Qaeda is hurting bad. Even if he's alive, osama hasn't been seen in public since Tora Bora and the vast majority of his fortune is frozen in the bank.

What you and a lot of Democrats fail to realize is that without a safe environment in which to conduct business, there *is* no economy. Bush will win because Americans realize that, and recognize the ties between 9/11 and the economy.

I've talked to several democrats today who said that Bush is starting to seem more human to them, since seeing his speech last night. I'm sensing a pattern here.

TO: Helen
RE: Could Be

"I've talked to several democrats today who said that Bush is starting to seem more human to them, since seeing his speech last night. I'm sensing a pattern here." -- Helen

This would go far to explain that funny blurb on Drudge last Monday, the opening night of the RNC's party meeting.

It appeared for just a little while, to the effect that the major networks were not going to televise the convention.

Immediately under it was another blurb about the FCC being a bit 'upset' about that.

Letting the American public see the Republicans in action and their leaders speaking, gave them a bounce that could well destroy the Democrats chances for gaining ANY part of the government system. It portrayed them as human beings. Not as the monsters that the media, the academia and the Democratic apparatciks have been making them out to be all this time.

As my old colonel told this, then young, captain....

...there are two ways to exercise power. The first is to make decisions for people. The second is to withhold information from people with which they can make better decisions.

When I came back to Drudge to capture the information, the two blurbs were gone. Later, the major media showed everything of the RNC meeting, as they should have in the first place.

I'd like to get that information, if I could find it.

Regards,

Chuck(le)

This sounds like a Republican board more than a Libertarian. Truth is, Bush said all this in 2000, has had his party in charge of all branches of government, has had unprecented support since 9/11 and is spending the nation's money faster than any drunk Democrat ever has. If you're a Libertarian and vote Repub or Demo, you're gonna be dissapointed. Call it a wasted vote, but until we all quit voting the major parties nothing will change. All in all, there is no difference between our two major parties and if Bush really "gets it" then he would have done something by now.

W doesn't not have all branches of the government. If he did, I'd have had my judges.

Instead we have the Gang of 41 stopping what they want to stop, and it wasn't the budget.

Nice try, tho.

----

--1996 2793
1997 3358
1998 3003
1999 3172

---

Y2K and no more bricks and morter fallacy.

Remember Y2K?? A lot of people don't.

We're back to normal. And for the record - mfg. jobs in America peaked in 1998.

--
and that he's better than the Democrats at producing a litany of blank check promises without the funding to back them. --

He's not the one funding them, people like my husband fund them SBOs - those who will benefit from loosening laws, regs and the tax code.

And kj - there's a paper out there with some radical thinking by Poole on the St. Louis Federal Reserve site, IIRC, entitled, "A Perspective on US International Capital Flows."

Short and understandable.

Mike M,

You are exactly right. That is the problem with my argument, but let's face it, politics is not based on truth or the nuance of your answer. If Kerry can effectively communicate the job loss numbers, he has a major advantage. Bush does nuance horribly and does black/white very well. Arguing why the economy isn't doing as well as he'd like because of this, this, and that simply won't work for him. So instead he'll ignore it and lie about it.

My beef with Bush has little to do with the job numbers. That may very well be beyond his control. My beef is how he reacted to it, by targeting his tax cut to the wrong people for boosting the economy and not spending enough to help out the people hurt by the economy. Real people are hurt by his short-sighted use of government to help deserving people during tough times. But certainly I won't get much sympathy from libertarians on that view. What can I say, I think it is moral to help people who need it. Damn do-gooders.

And certainly we've been successful against Al Qaeda, but I would argue that we haven't been successful enough. The point of catching bin Laden isn't that he is some great mastermind coming up with spectacular terror ideas; he didn't even come up with the 9/11 plan. But instead, he serves as a huge symbol to people who hate us in the middle east. To them, Osama won this battle, partly because he got away and his organization lives on. INstead we should have found him and then declared his organization officially dead. To those in the middle east, Al Qeada seems quite strong and symbols matter in this game. We are losing the symbols battle quite badly.

Democrats and myself do understand that a safe environment is needed. You and conservatives fail to understand that reckless wars lead to less safety and wreck economies. Invading Iraq put us in more danger, not less. Even the Bush Administration knows this. Their goal is now long-term, with short-term consequences. Believe in that if you wish, but don't be naive enough to think that the Iraq war made us safer. Ask the soldiers in Iraq if they feel safer. Remember that they count too.

Mike, I agree with you, and I'd like to vote for Badnarik. I was actually planning on doing so, until he went on his psychotic isolationist rant.

Bring ALL of our troops from EVERY foreign country home? Are we going to hide under our collective covers too? WTF do you do for an economy when international economy and trade goes in the toilet? And his belief that this will do any good at all on how the world views the US? He seems to believe our foreign policy was amazingly one-sided, and started in a vacuum where we got to where we are based on some sort of whim; and that we can just take our ball and go home without offending anyone...

Sorry, I would have voted for Badnarik, but he seems even less rational than Bush. He's better on the economy, better on social issues, and completely unacceptable on foreign policy. If he even got up to average on foreign policy he'd have had my vote easy; unfortunately that isn't the case.

Robert

Democrats controlled the Senate the first two years of Bush's term. It wasn't until after the 2002 midterm elections that the economy started getting better.

Just like in Clinton's first term, he inherited a mild recovery from BushI, but it wasn't until after the midterm elections in 1994, giving the pubbies control of both houses, that the economy really took off.

Yes, the US IS the greatest force for good in the world.

Look at Rwanda, look at Bosnia, look at the Sudan.

Either the US will do something, or nothing will get done, because the US is the only country with balls and ability to do something.

Kerry has made jokes at his own expense. On the Daily Show he said "I've flip-flopped and flop-flipped, yes." When asked by I can't remember who in an interview "Do you think John Edwards might out-shing you?" he said "I certainly HOPE he does!"

All these comments are interesting and most I agree with except I think Bush hit one out of the park. Between the video narrated by Fred Thompson and the last part of the speech about the survivors of 9/11 and the soldiers, my eyes started to fill. And so did the President's. His face started to get that look that says you are fighting for control and that shows he is very deep and compassionate--but he our leader and he must make the hard choices, and it has to be almost unbearable at times. He is close to God and this is from whom he draws his strength. From Laura he draws his support. Like he said in a previous speech and I can't quote it accurately, I was given sight when I was blinded, felt Grace as it was offered, and had forgiveness when I needed it. Quite a man, don't misunderestimate him. :-))

I wrote about here...

But I don't think Bush gets a lot of things about ownership and liberty. Not only does that mean letting us make decisions, it means not watching over to make sure we make the right ones too.

Oh yeah - and the flat tax stuff he talked about... I'd almost believe him if he didn't riddle the rest of his speech with things tax incentives and breaks. No breaks. No incentives. Just a post card. "Hi Uncle Sam - Heard you need some money. Talk to you next year."

But I don't think Bush gets a lot of things about ownership and liberty. Not only does that mean letting us make decisions, it means not watching over to make sure we make the right ones too.

Well, I think he does, but unfortunately even the Republicans on Capitol Hill don't, and he needs their support to get anything done.

We didn't get the Nanny State in eight years, we won't get rid of it in eight years.

"Notice that Clinton's worst year still beats Bush's next year."

We thank Bill Gates, not Bill Clinton for that.

BTW, it wasthe DOJ federal case against MS in March, 2000 (to the day) tht started the slide and the stock market collapse.