From Andrew Sullivan, who seems to be looking for any excuse to vote for Kerry:
THE CANDIDATE: Well, I guess there was always going to be a reality check. The first and most obvious thing to say about Kerry's speech was that it was far too long. You have to believe that this was a conscious decision, and not an accident. The man couldn't edit it, or his advisers couldn't decide whose soaring rhetoric was better, or no one had the authority to remove the third that should have been removed to give the rest of it time to breathe, and the audience to respond. But perhaps the result was, in some ways, beneficial. Kerry rushed through this speech and so lost some of the deeply ponderous boredom of his usual speaking style. But the effect was still hurried, breathless and because he kept having to calm the crowd down, condescending. There were passages toward the end when he picked up and seemed to do better. But it was a B - performance, not as disastrous as Al Gore's rant in 2000, but nowhere near the level of the best. I mean, even Dole was better eight years ago. Some of it was so pompous and self-congratulatory I almost gagged. Can you believe he said this:
I was born in Colorado, in Fitzsimmons Army Hospital, when my dad was a pilot in World War II. Now, I'm not one to read into things, but guess which wing of the hospital the maternity ward was in? I'm not making this up. I was born in the West Wing!
One thought sprang into my mind immediately: what an arrogant jerk.
THE MESSAGE: This was also, it seems to me, a very liberal speech. Domestically, there was no problem the government couldn't help solve. There was support for protectionism, and for penalizing the drug companies. Government-funded research into stem cells was described as revolutionary. But private drug research that has cured millions and saved my own life must be throttled to placate constituencies like the AARP. There was no mention of welfare reform in his past; no mention of education reform; and no firm commitment to seeing the war through in Afghanistan and Iraq. This is obviously what worried me the most. His goal in Iraq is to bring the troops home. Three words: not good enough. Here's the passage about the war:
I know what we have to do in Iraq. We need a President who has the credibility to bring our allies to our side and share the burden, reduce the cost to American taxpayers, and reduce the risk to American soldiers. That's the right way to get the job done and bring our troops home.
Here is the reality: that won't happen until we have a president who restores America's respect and leadership -- so we don't have to go it alone in the world.
And we need to rebuild our alliances, so we can get the terrorists before they get us.
I defended this country as a young man and I will defend it as President. Let there be no mistake: I will never hesitate to use force when it is required. Any attack will be met with a swift and certain response. I will never give any nation or international institution a veto over our national security. And I will build a stronger American military.
No mention of democracy in Iraq or Afghanistan. No mention of the terrorist forces that are amassed there. No reference to the elections scheduled for January. No mention of Iran. And the whole point is about process - about how to wage a war, not whether it should be waged. This is a man who clearly wants the U.S. out of the region where our future is at stake, and who believes that simply by taking office, other powers can somehow pick up the slack. Memo to Kerry: no other powers can pick up the slack. They don't have the troops or the technology or the will. His strategy is pure defense. This sentence is his strongest threat: "Any attack will be met with a swift and certain response." So let's wait, shall we?
WHAT I LIKED: But it was an optimistic speech, even though it kept telling us that again and again. And it was not too divisive, although it had barbs directed at Enron and asserted that those who disagreed with him somehow didn't have a conscience. It was halfway between Al Gore's leftist address in 2000 and Bill Clinton in 1996. He was strongest in his invocation of patriotism and unity:
I want to address these next words directly to President George W. Bush: In the weeks ahead, let's be optimists, not just opponents. Let's build unity in the American family, not angry division. Let's honor this nation's diversity; let's respect one another; and let's never misuse for political purposes the most precious document in American history, the Constitution of the United States.
I'm glad that Kerry has decided to use the FMA against Bush, as he should. I also liked his view of religion:
I don't wear my own faith on my sleeve. But faith has given me values and hope to live by, from Vietnam to this day, from Sunday to Sunday. I don't want to claim that God is on our side. As Abraham Lincoln told us, I want to pray humbly that we are on God's side. And whatever our faith, one belief should bind us all: The measure of our character is our willingness to give of ourselves for others and for our country.
Beautiful. And important. The damage that president Bush has done to the delicate but vital boundary between religion and politics is one reason I cannot support him for another term. He is simply playing with a terrible fire with good intentions but fateful consequences.
THE IMPACT: I really don't know what the impact of this speech will be. I doubt it will help him much. I definitely liked Kerry less at the end of it than at the beginning. To me at least, he is a deeply unlikable guy: arrogant, dull, pompous, mannered, self-righteous. I suspect that the more he is front and center the more this will count against him. But I'm just one person and others may react differently. And politics shouldn't just be about likability. He certainly seems sane, and prudent and presidential. There will be time to judge his proposals against Bush's and to observe the progress of the war in the next few months. At some point both he and Bush will surely be asked what they will do about Iran. Their responses will be revealing (and probably indistinguishable). Until then, I think this convention has been a huge success, tempered by a bad candidate. They have found the right stance in general, but they may not have found the right general for the stance. Bush, in other words, may remain the luckiest man alive.
THE CANDIDATE: Well, I guess there was always going to be a reality check. The first and most obvious thing to say about Kerry's speech was that it was far too long. You have to believe that this was a conscious decision, and not an accident. The man couldn't edit it, or his advisers couldn't decide whose soaring rhetoric was better, or no one had the authority to remove the third that should have been removed to give the rest of it time to breathe, and the audience to respond. But perhaps the result was, in some ways, beneficial. Kerry rushed through this speech and so lost some of the deeply ponderous boredom of his usual speaking style. But the effect was still hurried, breathless and because he kept having to calm the crowd down, condescending. There were passages toward the end when he picked up and seemed to do better. But it was a B - performance, not as disastrous as Al Gore's rant in 2000, but nowhere near the level of the best. I mean, even Dole was better eight years ago. Some of it was so pompous and self-congratulatory I almost gagged. Can you believe he said this:
I was born in Colorado, in Fitzsimmons Army Hospital, when my dad was a pilot in World War II. Now, I'm not one to read into things, but guess which wing of the hospital the maternity ward was in? I'm not making this up. I was born in the West Wing!
One thought sprang into my mind immediately: what an arrogant jerk.
THE MESSAGE: This was also, it seems to me, a very liberal speech. Domestically, there was no problem the government couldn't help solve. There was support for protectionism, and for penalizing the drug companies. Government-funded research into stem cells was described as revolutionary. But private drug research that has cured millions and saved my own life must be throttled to placate constituencies like the AARP. There was no mention of welfare reform in his past; no mention of education reform; and no firm commitment to seeing the war through in Afghanistan and Iraq. This is obviously what worried me the most. His goal in Iraq is to bring the troops home. Three words: not good enough. Here's the passage about the war:
I know what we have to do in Iraq. We need a President who has the credibility to bring our allies to our side and share the burden, reduce the cost to American taxpayers, and reduce the risk to American soldiers. That's the right way to get the job done and bring our troops home.
Here is the reality: that won't happen until we have a president who restores America's respect and leadership -- so we don't have to go it alone in the world.
And we need to rebuild our alliances, so we can get the terrorists before they get us.
I defended this country as a young man and I will defend it as President. Let there be no mistake: I will never hesitate to use force when it is required. Any attack will be met with a swift and certain response. I will never give any nation or international institution a veto over our national security. And I will build a stronger American military.
No mention of democracy in Iraq or Afghanistan. No mention of the terrorist forces that are amassed there. No reference to the elections scheduled for January. No mention of Iran. And the whole point is about process - about how to wage a war, not whether it should be waged. This is a man who clearly wants the U.S. out of the region where our future is at stake, and who believes that simply by taking office, other powers can somehow pick up the slack. Memo to Kerry: no other powers can pick up the slack. They don't have the troops or the technology or the will. His strategy is pure defense. This sentence is his strongest threat: "Any attack will be met with a swift and certain response." So let's wait, shall we?
WHAT I LIKED: But it was an optimistic speech, even though it kept telling us that again and again. And it was not too divisive, although it had barbs directed at Enron and asserted that those who disagreed with him somehow didn't have a conscience. It was halfway between Al Gore's leftist address in 2000 and Bill Clinton in 1996. He was strongest in his invocation of patriotism and unity:
I want to address these next words directly to President George W. Bush: In the weeks ahead, let's be optimists, not just opponents. Let's build unity in the American family, not angry division. Let's honor this nation's diversity; let's respect one another; and let's never misuse for political purposes the most precious document in American history, the Constitution of the United States.
I'm glad that Kerry has decided to use the FMA against Bush, as he should. I also liked his view of religion:
I don't wear my own faith on my sleeve. But faith has given me values and hope to live by, from Vietnam to this day, from Sunday to Sunday. I don't want to claim that God is on our side. As Abraham Lincoln told us, I want to pray humbly that we are on God's side. And whatever our faith, one belief should bind us all: The measure of our character is our willingness to give of ourselves for others and for our country.
Beautiful. And important. The damage that president Bush has done to the delicate but vital boundary between religion and politics is one reason I cannot support him for another term. He is simply playing with a terrible fire with good intentions but fateful consequences.
THE IMPACT: I really don't know what the impact of this speech will be. I doubt it will help him much. I definitely liked Kerry less at the end of it than at the beginning. To me at least, he is a deeply unlikable guy: arrogant, dull, pompous, mannered, self-righteous. I suspect that the more he is front and center the more this will count against him. But I'm just one person and others may react differently. And politics shouldn't just be about likability. He certainly seems sane, and prudent and presidential. There will be time to judge his proposals against Bush's and to observe the progress of the war in the next few months. At some point both he and Bush will surely be asked what they will do about Iran. Their responses will be revealing (and probably indistinguishable). Until then, I think this convention has been a huge success, tempered by a bad candidate. They have found the right stance in general, but they may not have found the right general for the stance. Bush, in other words, may remain the luckiest man alive.
