Was pretty good as well. His delivery seemed almost quiet after Zell, whose delivery was a cross between a general and a Southern Baptist preacher.
Cheney just lays it out straight – you don’t get nuance and flip-flops from Dick Cheney.
You can find the text here – judge for yourself:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-09-01-cheney-text_x.htm
Not the most exciting man who ever spoke, but then again he isn’t tied to the trial lawyers association, good enough for me!
BB - I listened to Cheney’s speech Wednesday night, and I gleaned over the text of it.
Can you, or anyone else on here, tell me exactly where Cheney questioned Kerry’s qualifications to be CIC?
If Kerry is calling ‘compare and contrast’ personal attacks, how in the hell is he gonna make it for another 60 days?
[quote]rainjack wrote:
BB - I listened to Cheney’s speech Wednesday night, and I gleaned over the text of it.
Can you, or anyone else on here, tell me exactly where Cheney questioned Kerry’s qualifications to be CIC?
If Kerry is calling ‘compare and contrast’ personal attacks, how in the hell is he gonna make it for another 60 days?[/quote]
Here’s the text of Cheney’s criticism – any “questioning of Kerry’s commander-in-chief qualifications” must be viewed as implicit. Of course, Zell Miller was very explicit, but I doubt the Kerry team wants to call any more attention to that speech.
[Begin Cheney excerpt] The President’s opponent is an experienced senator. He speaks often of his service in Vietnam, and we honor him for it. But there is also a record of more than three decades since. And on the question of America’s role in the world, the differences between Senator Kerry and President Bush are the sharpest, and the stakes for the country are the highest. History has shown that a strong and purposeful America is vital to preserving freedom and keeping us safe ? yet time and again Senator Kerry has made the wrong call on national security. Senator Kerry began his political career by saying he would like to see our troops deployed “only at the directive of the United Nations.” During the 1980s, Senator Kerry opposed Ronald Reagan’s major defense initiatives that brought victory in the Cold War. In 1991, when Saddam Hussein occupied Kuwait and stood poised to dominate the Persian Gulf, Senator Kerry voted against Operation Desert Storm.
Even in this post-9/11 period, Senator Kerry doesn’t appear to understand how the world has changed. He talks about leading a “more sensitive war on terror,” as though Al Qaeda will be impressed with our softer side. He declared at the Democratic Convention that he will forcefully defend America ? after we have been attacked. My fellow Americans, we have already been attacked, and faced with an enemy who seeks the deadliest of weapons to use against us, we cannot wait for the next attack. We must do everything we can to prevent it ? and that includes the use of military force.
Senator Kerry denounces American action when other countries don’t approve ? as if the whole object of our foreign policy were to please a few persistent critics. In fact, in the global war on terror, as in Afghanistan and Iraq, President Bush has brought many allies to our side. But as the President has made very clear, there is a difference between leading a coalition of many, and submitting to the objections of a few. George W. Bush will never seek a permission slip to defend the American people.
Senator Kerry also takes a different view when it comes to supporting our military. Although he voted to authorize force against Saddam Hussein, he then decided he was opposed to the war, and voted against funding for our men and women in the field. He voted against body armor, ammunition, fuel, spare parts, armored vehicles, extra pay for hardship duty, and support for military families. Senator Kerry is campaigning for the position of commander in chief. Yet he does not seem to understand the first obligation of a commander in chief ? and that is to support American troops in combat.
In his years in Washington, John Kerry has been one of a hundred votes in the United States Senate ? and very fortunately on matters of national security, his views rarely prevailed. But the presidency is an entirely different proposition. A senator can be wrong for 20 years, without consequence to the nation. But a president ? a president ? always casts the deciding vote. And in this time of challenge, America needs ? and America has ? a president we can count on to get it right.
On Iraq, Senator Kerry has disagreed with many of his fellow Democrats. But Senator Kerry’s liveliest disagreement is with himself. His back-and- forth reflects a habit of indecision, and sends a message of confusion. And it is all part of a pattern. He has, in the last several years, been for the No Child Left Behind Act ? and against it. He has spoken in favor of the North American Free Trade Agreement ? and against it. He is for the Patriot Act ? and against it. Senator Kerry says he sees two Americas. It makes the whole thing mutual ? America sees two John Kerrys. [End Cheney excerpt]
Now, there is one part in which Cheney references being commander in chief and criticizes Kerry, but it is more in context of Kerry’s vote against money for Iraq than an actual critique of Kerry’s commander in chief qualifications. Here is that paragraph:
[Begin Cheney excerpt] Senator Kerry also takes a different view when it comes to supporting our military. Although he voted to authorize force against Saddam Hussein, he then decided he was opposed to the war, and voted against funding for our men and women in the field. He voted against body armor, ammunition, fuel, spare parts, armored vehicles, extra pay for hardship duty, and support for military families. Senator Kerry is campaigning for the position of commander in chief. Yet he does not seem to understand the first obligation of a commander in chief ? and that is to support American troops in combat. [End Cheney excerpt]
I agree with you that it’s stupid of Kerry to draw attention to this criticism, because it just offers another opportunity to point out Kerry’s vote against the $87 million.
Kerry really needs to build a case for himself – he’s not doing that right now.