I just watched Kerry make his midnight speech in Ohio. A bit petty when compared to Bush’s acceptance speech tonight.
It was worse than that; it was a mistake. He called focus back to the Vietnam issue - you’d think he would want to laser the focus on what he perceives as Bush’s weaknesses. Instead, he attacks Cheney’s criticisms of his votes on weapons systems and security items by criticizing his deferrments in Vietnam. Not only not smart for focusing on Vietnam, but it allows one to point out that Kerry applied for, but did not receive, a deferrment to study in France, before he signed up for the Navy.
No wonder he wants to “shake up” his campaign staff.
Kerry’s lack of logic is becoming more evident every time he opens his mouth. Thankfully, men like Zell Miller ably articulate the problems with the Democratic party of today. As a thirty year Democrat, I hope this wakes up the voters to understand that the party has been hijacked by the far left, and the only way to bring us back to the center is to vote for W. I would also like to thank the UL’s on this site for helping me see that these people have no game, except name calling and petty baiting, with no basis in facts. Many of these people remind me of the spoiled, subsidized children I went to college with many years ago. Bush by ten points!!
Another take on the Kerry speech, from Jim Geraghty, former writer for the Boston Globe and current election blogger for the National Review:
JOHN KERRY STEPS IN IT [09/03 01:13 AM]
At midnight, John Kerry set out to counter the rumors of a campaign in disarray and a sense of sinking poll numbers and lost momentum by . . . attacking George W. Bush. As the New York Times put it:
[Begin NYT excerpt] Senator John Kerry lashed back at President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney tonight, saying that he would not remain quiet while his patriotism was being questioned by men who had not served in Vietnam and who had "misled the nation into Iraq."
"We all saw the anger and distortion of the Republican Convention," Mr. Kerry said in excerpts of remarks, issued by his campaign, that he was to make later tonight in Ohio.
"For the past week, they attacked my patriotism and my fitness to serve as commander in chief,'' Mr. Kerry said. ``Well, here's my answer. I'm not going to have my commitment to defend this country questioned by those who refused to serve when they could have and by those who have misled the nation into Iraq."
Opposing candidates typically avoid speechmaking during the other's conventions, but Senator Kerry, who has made his wartime service in Vietnam a cornerstone of his campaign, has been stung by a series of attack ads by a veterans group, as well as by the oratory at this week's Republican convention.
Some supporters have urged Mr. Kerry to become both more prompt and combative in answering opponents' attacks, but it was not known whether Mr. Kerry's remarks tonight signaled a new strategy or were simply motivated by personal pique at the harshness of some of the Republican speeches.
What did seem clear is that the senator's comments, prepared for delivery at a midnight rally in Springfield, Ohio, represented a new, more heated phase of the campaign. [End NYT excerpt]
Was this really Kerry’s problem? Not enough “heat”? Not enough attacks on Bush? Not enough focus by Kerry on the Vietnam years?
Kerry has ? if you’ll pardon the expression ? gotten stuck in a quagmire. He, and a good chunk of the Democratic party, honestly and totally believed that the best way to prove that he has the best policies to fight the War on Terror is to remind people he fought in Vietnam. To many ears, that sounds like a non sequitur. Military service can be a plus in a presidential candidate, but Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and Ronald Reagan had little or no military experience and they all did pretty well leading the U.S. during a war.
But Kerry has focused on his Vietnam years almost exclusively, and waved his thrown and apparently re-collected medals around like a magic talisman to ward off all criticisms.
Now the Swift Boat Vets appear, and do a number on Kerry’s Vietnam record. It jabs Kerry on a key element of his self-image, and he’s responding clumsily and angrily. But getting down and dirty himself with the Swifties and attacking Dick Cheney for taking too many deferments in the 1960s and 1970s will do nothing to help him win over undecided voters and independents.
Kerry has almost forgotten that he’s running against an incumbent. Bush and Cheney are known quantities to the voters. There are some parts they like, and plenty parts they don’t like. Kerry doesn’t need to talk about that any more ? he needs to talk about himself, and more than his four months in 1968 and 1969.
Kerry has 60 days to turn his campaign around. He’s got to get off the Vietnam issue, and off deferments, and Cambodia, and Vietnam Veterans against the War, and comparisons of U.S. forces to Genghis (or “Jen-jis”, as the young Kerry preferred to pronounce it) Khan. The only way to do that is to do the sit-down interview with Tim Russert, or Brit Hume. (Or, ahem, National Review.) Kerry has to show he can take their best shots, answer the questions as best he can, and build upon his earlier comment that his 1971 testimony reflected “an angry young man.” He’s got to reach out to veterans, acknowledge the pain his antiwar protests and activities caused, and say it’s time for the nation to move on to the future.
After that, Kerry has to leave the attacks on Bush to MoveOn.org, the Media Fund, and all the other 527s. John Edwards can do some, too. Kerry has to stop his “I have a secret plan that I won’t show you” stuff (not the first noun that comes to mind) and start putting out solid, fairly detailed plans on Iraq, al Qaeda, dealing with globalization, etc. The details don’t have to be perfect, but they have to have a little daring or imagination to them. Kerry and the Democrats are convinced their man is smarter than the president; it’s time for him to start sounding like it.
This election is still winnable for Kerry, but an extraordinarily solid GOP convention just made his task much harder.
John Kerry just does not get it. And all he is doing is making these Vietnam Vets more and more mad. And more against him. And more and more resolved and determined, and will NOT give up this fight, To get their message out… Just wait this huge rally to occur in Washington DC. In two weeks. John Kerry can bring out all the heavy guns from the Clinton Presidency. But these vets, former pow’s. and so many others, are going to even raise their voices even louder. And he refuses to talk about it. Refuses to apologize, or have his records released. But yet he keeps bringing up the Vietnam War time and time again. And opening up these old wounds more and more.
80% OF VIETNAM VETS REJECTING KERRY
VIETNAM VETERANS FOR ACADEMIC REFORM
Leonard Magruder - Founder/President
Former professor of psychology - Suffolk College , N.Y.
Member: National Association of Scholars
80% OF VIETNAM VETS REJECTING KERRY. MEDIA DESPERATELY COVERING THIS UP, THEY KNOW WHAT IT MEANS - TOTAL REPUDIATION OF THE LIES OF THE 60’S WAR PROTESTS, OF WHICH KERRY WAS A LEADER.
A WAVE IS RISING
by Leonard Magruder
http://www.vnsfvetakerry.com/Recent%20Postings.htm#80%%20OF%20VIETNAM%20VETS%20REJECTING%20KERRY
And this is on one website:
KERRY HAS MADE VIETNAM THE CENTER OF HIS PLATFORM, NOW THAT IT HAS COME BACK TO BITE HIM IN THE ASS, HE REFUSES TO TALK ABOUT IT. HE CLAIMS BUSH IS BEHIND IT AND HIS ATTACK DOGS ARE ATTACKING THE VETERANS TO DESTROY THEM INDIVIDUALLY. FORGET IT, BUSH HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS CAMPAIGN BY VETERANS AGAINST KERRY. THIS IS OUR BATTLE, WE’VE WAITED 30+ YEARS TO CONFRONT HIM TO MAKE SURE THE WORLD KNOWS HIM. OUR COMMENT TO GEORGE BUSH, JOHN McCAIN, JOHN GLENN AND THE REST WHO WANTS THIS TO GO AWAY, “BUTT OUT!” YOU HEAR THE POLITICIANS USING THE PHRASE “FOG OF WAR” AS AN EXCUSE NOT TO LOOK AT KERRY IN VIETNAM. THE FOG DOES NOT ALWAYS OBSCURE AS IT CAN BE PIERCED TO LAY BARE THE DEEDS OF JOHN KERRY. THERE IS A GREAT CHARACTER FLAW LYING THERE FOR ALL TO SEE. THE ATTACKS AGAINST THE VETERANS MAY REVEAL SOME FAULTS; HOWEVER, THESE VALOROUS MEN ARE NOT RUNNING FOR THE HIGHEST OFFICE OF THE LAND. KERRY IS WHAT HE IS TODAY AS HE WAS BACK ON THE GROUND IN VIETNAM. I DON’T THINK THE AMERICAN VOTERS WILL CONTINUE TO ALLOWS THE ATTACKS ON THESE HONORABLE VETERANS TO CONTINUE WITHOUT FURTHER NEGATIVE REPERCUSSIONS TO HIS CANDIDACY, ESPECIALLY WHEN IT IS KERRY WHO HAS SERIOUS ETHICAL ISSUES. WHY DOES VIETNAM MATTER? IT MATTERS BECAUSE IT SHOWS THE CORE OF JOHN KERRY. THE SWIFT BOAT VETERANS ARE NOT THE ONLY VETERANS AGAINST KERRY, ON THIS WEB SITE, THERE ARE SOME 3,000+ VETERANS WHO HAVE SIGNED UP TO OPPOSE HIM, THEY HOLD HIM IN ABSOLUTE CONTEMPT. KERRY PUT OUT THE ORDERS TO SIGN UP 1 MILLION VETERANS TO SUPPORT HIM; HOWEVER, HE HAS 2,000 (AND THOSE MUST BE QUESTIONED) OR LESS AND BUSH HAS 10,000+
Joe
Oh by the way…
Kerry medal complaint reaches Navy secretary
Probe request comes as ex-chief Lehman calls Silver Star citation ‘complete mystery’
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40272
I saw it and then shut it off in the middle of it. I just thought it was just stuff that the REPUBLICAN party did right in speech making that the democrates copied.
The full text of Kerry’s remarks does not appear to be available, but here is a link to excerpts:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-09-02-kerry-excerpts_x.htm
Another take on Kerry’s speech:
http://www.poliblogger.com/index.php?p=4560
Kerry?s Midnight Run
By Steven Taylor @ 11:00 pm
Kerry is speaking now. He is trying way too hard to be funny. He has cracked three or four lame jokes in a row.
Fox is giving him no love, breaking for commerical. MSNBC is sticking with him.
I have to agree with Mort Kondrake?s assessment of Kerry?s speech based on advanced text: petty. Plus: more of the ?we will do better via magic dust? types of statements.
And clearly Kerry didn?t get my memo (neither did Edwards).
In all seriousness, and from an analyticl point of view: I don?t think that vague promises about health care and jobs are sufficient to trump the security argument that the Republicans have made.
And here we go again: his services in Viet Nam is supposed to be all that you need to know about Kerry?s ability to be CinC. Would someone please tell him that that isn?t really an argument. That, and of course saying ?Halliburton? a lot. Not much of an argument either.
He looks a tad small tonight in comparison to the last four nights of convention. Indeed, it reminds me of the opposition response whenever the President gives a SOTU?a boring little speech that no one really watches.
Steyn is a funny guy - and insightful.
http://www.suntimes.com/output/steyn/cst-edt-steyn05.html
Kerry’s showing he just can’t take the heat
September 5, 2004
BY MARK STEYN SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST
Both candidates gave speeches late on Thursday night. George W. Bush was more or less expected to. John Kerry didn’t have to, but reported for duty even though nobody wanted him to. Unnerved by sagging numbers, he decided to start the post-Labor Day phase of the campaign three days before Labor Day. The way things are going, Democrats seem likely to be launching the post-election catastrophic-defeat vicious-recriminations phase of the campaign round about Sept. 12.
At any rate, less than 60 minutes after President Bush gave a sober, graceful, droll and moving address, Kerry decided to hit back. In the midnight hour, he climbed out of his political coffin, and before his thousands of aides could grab the garlic from Teresa’s kitchen and start waving it at him, he found himself in front of an audience and started giving a speech. As in Vietnam, he was in no mood to take prisoners: ‘‘I have five words for Americans,’’ he thundered. ‘‘This is your wake up call!’’
Is that five words? Or is it six? Well, it’s all very nuanced, according to whether you hyphenate the ‘‘wake-up.’’ Maybe he should have said, ‘‘I have four words plus a common hyphenated expression for Americans.’’ I’d suggest the rewrite to him personally, but I don’t want him to stare huffily at me and drone, “How dare you attack my patriotism.”
By about nine words into John Kerry’s wake up call, I was sound asleep again. But this was what he told Ohio’s brave band of chronic insomniacs:
‘‘For the past week, they attacked my patriotism and my fitness to serve as commander in chief. Well, here’s my answer. I’m not going to have my commitment to defend this country questioned by those who refused to serve.’’
Oh, dear . . . growing drowsy again . . . losing the will to type . . . what’s he saying now?
‘‘Two tours of duty’’
Ah, yes. As usual, he has four words for Americans: I served in Vietnam. Or five words if you spell it Viet Nam.
So we have one candidate running on a platform of ambitious reforms for an ‘‘ownership society’’ at home and a pledge to hunt down America’s enemies abroad. And we have another candidate running on the platform that no one has the right to say anything mean about him.
And for this the senator broke the eminently civilized tradition that each candidate lets the other guy have his convention week to himself? Maybe they need to start scheduling those Kerry campaign shakeups twice a week.
There was an old joke back in the Cold War:
Proud American to Russian guy: ‘‘In my country every one of us has the right to criticize our president.’’
Russian guy: ‘‘Same here. In my country every one of us has the right to criticize your president.’’
That seems to be the way John Kerry likes it. Americans should be free to call Bush a moron, a liar, a fraud, a deserter, an agent of the House of Saud, a mass murderer, a mass rapist (according to the speaker at a National Organization for Women rally last week) and the new Hitler (according to just about everyone). But how dare anyone be so impertinent as to insult John Kerry! No one has the right to insult Kerry, except possibly Teresa, and only on the day she gives him his allowance.
Several distinguished analysts have suggested that the best rationale for a Kerry presidency is that it would be a ‘‘return to normalcy’’ – a quiet life after the epic pages of history George W. Bush has been writing these last three years. Even if a ‘‘return to normalcy’’ were an option, I doubt whether John Kerry would qualify. As we saw in those two Thursday speeches, Bush takes the war seriously but he doesn’t take himself seriously – self-deprecating jokes are obligatory these days, but try to imagine Kerry doing the equivalent of Bush’s gags about mangled English and swaggering. The president is comfortable in his own skin, which is why he shrugs off the Hitler stuff. By contrast, Kerry doesn’t take the war seriously because he’s so busy taking himself seriously. If ‘‘return to normalcy’’ means four years of a grimly humorless, touchy, self-regarding Kerry presidency, I’ll take the war.
That’s surely why Kerry is running his kamikaze kandidacy on biography rather than any grand themes. Senator Kerrikaze is running for president because he thinks he should be president – who needs a platform? One of the most revealing aspects of the campaign this last week were the interviews given by his various surrogates. Terry McAuliffe, the Democratic National Committee chairman, went on Hugh Hewitt’s radio show and was asked about the swift boat veterans’ ads, and he laughed and blustered and stalled and floundered. That sounded weird. This thing’s been going on a month now, and the Kerry campaign still hasn’t come up with a form of words to deflect questions about it. If they had an agreed spin, McAuliffe and Co. would be out using it. But the seared senator feels it’s lese majeste even to question him. He can talk about Vietnam 24/7, but nobody else is allowed to bring it up.
Sorry, man, that’s not the way it works. And if he thinks it does, he’s even further removed from the realities of democratic politics than he was from the interior of Cambodia. Instead of those military records the swift boat vets are calling for, I’d be more interested in seeing his medical ones.
As for Bush, to be sure at one level his convention was a ‘‘soft-focus infomercial,’’ just as Kerry’s was. But the infomercial came into sharp focus just often enough to clarify, piercingly, the differences between the parties. On opening night in Boston, the Democrats staged a tasteful, teary candlelight remembrance of those who died on 9/11. On opening night in New York, the Republicans put up one speaker after another – John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, Ron Silver – resolved that those thousands of innocents shall not have died in vain.
I remember a couple of days after Sept. 11 writing that weepy candlelight vigils were a cop-out: the issue wasn’t whether you were sad about the dead people but whether you wanted to do something about it. Three years on, the two conventions drew the same distinction. If you want passivity and wallowing in victim culture, the Dems will do. If you want to win this thing, Bush is the only guy running.
Kerry’s midnight address smacked of desperation. My advice to him would be to fire whoever gave him that lame idea. It was almost comical, and probably cost him a point or two in the polls…bad politics…very bad politics!
Friends,
Newsweek has G.W.B. up by 11%
With the double digit lead in the Time Poll, that makes two liberal polls in a row that have him losing badly.
I’ve been saying all along, John Kerry has been over-promoted. He was a poor choice for many reasons.
The Democrats need to be punished severly for allowing the left-wing loons to take over the party. If I was a Democrat, I’d be mad as hell.
May I reach my hand out to my Democratic leaning friends? Even if you still have misgivings about G.W.B., I think it is becoming increasingly clear that Kerry has no vision and a very “wobbly” record to run on.
Help us make it loud and clear to the Ted Kennedy’s, Nancy Pelosi’s, Terry McAullife’s, and AlGore’s that there needs to be a demonstratable move back to the center.
Two strong parties benefit the country. They force compromise and discourse.
JeffR
Jeff,
Makes me wonder, did the democrats even look at Kerry’s voting record before giving him the nomination?
Then again look at what they had to choose from? Gov. (Yeehaaa) Dean is even more liberal. They are just destined to lose this thing, as I have been stating for months!
I will make one more prediction: Unless someone in the democratic party pulls them toward the center more they are going to have a difficult time in the future as well.
Hey, why aren’t you guys praising him for sticking to a strategy even if it isn’t the right one? Isn’t this consistency something that you praise Bush about? 
I have never praised Bush for being consistent. You might be thinking of one of the many other Bush supporters.
The problem with Kerry is he is simply to liberal to be elected president. It’s really that simple.
I honestly believe that when the record he tried to hide at his convention becomes even more public he will even be in more trouble in the polls!
[quote]vroom wrote:
Hey, why aren’t you guys praising him for sticking to a strategy even if it isn’t the right one? Isn’t this consistency something that you praise Bush about? ;)[/quote]
I can only hope he does just that, vroom. I also hope that the left continues to concentrate on Bush’s National Guard service, and while they’re at it, they should continue to cry foul about W “lying” to the american people about WMD’s in Iraq.
rainjack,
By the time the left figures out that those two issues have already been played out the election will be over and Bush will be in his second term!
Kerry seems to do worse the more voters see of him – he should keep windsurfing, and perhaps his polls won’t erode futher.
Zeb abd JeffR both of you deserve the gold stars for your postings. I was searching on the interneet today on this very topic and found something interesting Which ties into what you said, and what is happening with the Democaratic Party today:
"…Slowly but surely we are weaving a world fabric of international security and growing prosperity.
We are aided by all who wish to live in freedom from fear–even by those who live today in fear under their own governments.
We are aided by all who want relief from lies and propaganda–those who desire truth and sincerity.
We are aided by all who desire self-government and a voice in deciding their own affairs.
We are aided by all who long for economic security–for the security and abundance that men in free societies can enjoy.
We are aided by all who desire freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom to live their own lives for useful ends.
Our allies are the millions who hunger and thirst after righteousness.
In due time, as our stability becomes manifest, as more and more nations come to know the benefits of democracy and to participate in growing abundance, I believe that those countries which now oppose us will abandon their delusions and join with the free nations of the world in a just settlement of international differences.
Events have brought our American democracy to new influence and new responsibilities. They will test our courage, our devotion to duty, and our concept of liberty.
But I say to all men, what we have achieved in liberty, we will surpass in greater liberty.
Steadfast in our faith in the Almighty, we will advance toward a world where man’s freedom is secure.
To that end we will devote our strength, our resources, and our firmness of resolve. With God’s help, the future of mankind will be assured in a world of justice, harmony, and peace…"
and this quote:
"…We in this country, in this generation, are–by destiny rather than choice–the watchmen on the walls of world freedom. We ask, therefore, that we may be worthy of our power and responsibility, that we may exercise our strength with wisdom and restraint, and that we may achieve in our time and for all time the ancient vision of “peace on earth, good will toward men.” That must always be our goal, and the righteousness of our cause must always underlie our strength. For as was written long ago: ‘except the Lord keep the city, the watchman waketh but in vain.’
The first excerpt is from Harry Truman, during his 1948 Inaugural Address. The second, from John F. Kennedy, given in Dallas the day of his death.
Both timeless speeches that are relevent to America’s philosophies. Both ideas that have been abandoned by our current party leaders.
And this from another Democrat:
"…To answer the many questions, yes I am a lifelong Democrat, and yes, I do work for a Democrat in the Arizona Legislature.
I started this site after talking with a former college friend and classmate, Josh from BushBlog2004, about how I’ve just been dismayed at how my party swayed from the ideals I hold so dear. He set up the site at my request, and when I see a story in the news or on the internet that proves my point again, I bring it here to share with a small corner of the world. I’m an avowed Democrat, I voted for Clinton twice as well as Gore. If some of my fellow Democrats could get passed their absolute hatred, they would be surprised to see how central Bush’s agenda really is. Do I agree with the President on every issue? No - I’m pro-choice, and I’m not happy at many of the environmental restrictions that have been rolled back, and the fiscal mismanagement is reason to be angry. But are we better off with him at the helm, are we a safer nation because of his actions in Iraq and the war on Terror. You bet your ass we are. The next time you want to shout AWOL - remember that merely 12 years ago we were screaming at Republicans for attacking our candidate for avoiding the draft. The next time you want to scream about the War in Iraq being an act of unilateralism, remember how we backed our Democratic President for going to NATO, not the UN, to oust Milosevic in the Bosnia…"
Paul Matthews
contributing writer
April 30, 2004-- Sen. Zell Miller, D-Ga., has emerged as the voice of conservative and moderate Democrats all across the United States. Miller has made the brave, possibly politically suicidal move to openly support President George W. Bush for re-election.
In March, Miller declared, “National Democratic leaders today are moving further and further away from the principles that made our party great.”
As a proud Southern Democrat, I, for one, fully support Miller’s views. As a matter of fact, many Democrats who live between Los Angeles and Manhattan feel the same way. Why are so-called “blue-dog” Democrats supporting this great president? Though there are many reasons, they are all simple.
The new leaders of the Democratic party have shifted further to the left and have lacked leadership when the time has called for it. The president has been able to appeal to these types of Democrats due to his centrist opinions on the issues, the three most prominent ones being national security, the economy and social policy. …"
http://hullabaloo.tulane.org/story.php?sid=2605§ion=views&date=20040430
And these Moderate Dem for speaking out like Zell Miller did are being tarred and feathered, being called traitors to their own political party. But once again read those two quotes or read FDR’s 4 freedoms speech, and you will see why they are backing Bush, and not John Kerry. And the leadership of the Dem party cannot see any of this. And how their core values, and principles are being forgotten.
Joe
chucksmanjoe:
Good post!
The democratic party seems to have been captured by the liberal fringe. The radical feminists, The Al Sharptons, the militant homosexuals and the teachers unions bent on continuing the same old failing system have control of the democratic party.
If John Kennedy were alive today he would not believe what has happened to his beloved party. Abortion on demand for 14 year old girls? Homosexuals legally married? Over reliance on the UN for our own defense? Socialist medical care?
The party has drifted to the far left and I am not sure it will return. Those who doubt me need only read the democratic party platform!
That is one reason (and only one) why John Kerry will not be elected President.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
The problem with Kerry is he is simply to liberal to be elected president. It’s really that simple.
[/quote]
Funny, because it seems to me that many people think he’s showing too little spine by being too close to the center and failing to take the strong liberal stand against Bush.