Friday, July 30, 2004
Reporting for Duty
In keeping with the apparent central theme of his candidacy, Kerry referenced his service in Vietnam no fewer than nine times during his nomination acceptance speech last night -- and that's not counting the little "reporting for duty" salute he gave before he started speaking. Could have been a great drinking game. And if you included any time every other convention speaker mentioned Kerry's service, you'd have been in a weeklong incoherent drunken stupor.
This is odd/ironic/hypocritical for a whole host of reasons, not the least of which include:
1) The constant Vietnam praise comes from many of the same politicians and commentators who told us over and over and over again in 1992 that Clinton's draft dodging was in the past and "irrelevant," or even admirable.
2) Kerry is known more for protesting against the Vietnam war, and testifying for the "atrocities" he himself admits to participating in.
3) Only 2 of Kerry's 17 surviving Swift Boat commanders support Kerry's candidacy, while 11 others (including Republicans, Democrats, and Independents) consider him unfit for command.
Considering that these Swift Boat veterans' soon-to-be-released book is already #2 on amazon.com's sales charts, I have a feeling this last point may be more important to the election than people currently think. And since Kerry has spent the last six months relentlessly bragging about his Vietnam service, he won't be able to say "well, uh, that was thirty years ago!" if anything negative should surface.
(In fact, in the entire 45-minute acceptance speech, his entire twenty-year senate career was barely acknowledged, in a single short paragraph early on.)
So what else was in this address? Well, much like many of the other speeches this week, the Democrats 2004 plan seems to be trying to out-conservative the conservatives. Tons of talk on values, faith, quoting the bible, tough-guy rhetoric on the war, fiscal responsibility, middle class and small business tax cuts, etc. The last four days sounded more like a Republican convention than the G.O.P. did in 2000! (Read Kerry's 2004 convention address alongside Bush's 2000 convention address and tell me which one sounds more conservative and which one sounds more liberal.)
And yet, at least a little traditionally Democratic sentiment managed to seep through, with vague, general promises that government (not individuals) can solve any and every problem, Kerry continuing to see no conflict in positions such as promising higher wages for everyone, while simultaneously stopping jobs from going overseas.
Was it a great speech? The pundits seemed to think so. It was certainly the most animated I'd ever seen Kerry, though the well-rehearsed arm and hand gestures got a little grating after a while. In the end, I think Kerry did what he needed to do -- rally the Democratic base, while trying to attract independents and disaffected Republicans. With an election this close, however, next month's Republican convention, in terms of timing, is a huge advantage for Bush. The electorate has a pretty short attention span, and even if Kerry's numbers skyrocket in the next week (which they probably will), we can't forget that Dukakis was 15 points above Bush's father after the 1988 Democratic convention (and lost in a landslide), and Gore was 19 points above Bush himself after his convention in 2000, and essentially tied. And Kerry needs to be mindful of another factor -- every time he tries to sound more like a conservative, potential Nader-voters have another reason to believe that the two parties are the same, and vote for an alternative. At least Nader, though I disagree him on just about everything, remains steadfast in his convictions, doesn't change his mind every few minutes based on polls and focus groups, and has the integrity to stand up for his beliefs. If the race is close, Kerry's ninth-inning shift to the political center may push more people away than bring them on board.
(also posted on defeatjohnjohn.com)
In keeping with the apparent central theme of his candidacy, Kerry referenced his service in Vietnam no fewer than nine times during his nomination acceptance speech last night -- and that's not counting the little "reporting for duty" salute he gave before he started speaking. Could have been a great drinking game. And if you included any time every other convention speaker mentioned Kerry's service, you'd have been in a weeklong incoherent drunken stupor.
This is odd/ironic/hypocritical for a whole host of reasons, not the least of which include:
1) The constant Vietnam praise comes from many of the same politicians and commentators who told us over and over and over again in 1992 that Clinton's draft dodging was in the past and "irrelevant," or even admirable.
2) Kerry is known more for protesting against the Vietnam war, and testifying for the "atrocities" he himself admits to participating in.
3) Only 2 of Kerry's 17 surviving Swift Boat commanders support Kerry's candidacy, while 11 others (including Republicans, Democrats, and Independents) consider him unfit for command.
Considering that these Swift Boat veterans' soon-to-be-released book is already #2 on amazon.com's sales charts, I have a feeling this last point may be more important to the election than people currently think. And since Kerry has spent the last six months relentlessly bragging about his Vietnam service, he won't be able to say "well, uh, that was thirty years ago!" if anything negative should surface.
(In fact, in the entire 45-minute acceptance speech, his entire twenty-year senate career was barely acknowledged, in a single short paragraph early on.)
So what else was in this address? Well, much like many of the other speeches this week, the Democrats 2004 plan seems to be trying to out-conservative the conservatives. Tons of talk on values, faith, quoting the bible, tough-guy rhetoric on the war, fiscal responsibility, middle class and small business tax cuts, etc. The last four days sounded more like a Republican convention than the G.O.P. did in 2000! (Read Kerry's 2004 convention address alongside Bush's 2000 convention address and tell me which one sounds more conservative and which one sounds more liberal.)
And yet, at least a little traditionally Democratic sentiment managed to seep through, with vague, general promises that government (not individuals) can solve any and every problem, Kerry continuing to see no conflict in positions such as promising higher wages for everyone, while simultaneously stopping jobs from going overseas.
Was it a great speech? The pundits seemed to think so. It was certainly the most animated I'd ever seen Kerry, though the well-rehearsed arm and hand gestures got a little grating after a while. In the end, I think Kerry did what he needed to do -- rally the Democratic base, while trying to attract independents and disaffected Republicans. With an election this close, however, next month's Republican convention, in terms of timing, is a huge advantage for Bush. The electorate has a pretty short attention span, and even if Kerry's numbers skyrocket in the next week (which they probably will), we can't forget that Dukakis was 15 points above Bush's father after the 1988 Democratic convention (and lost in a landslide), and Gore was 19 points above Bush himself after his convention in 2000, and essentially tied. And Kerry needs to be mindful of another factor -- every time he tries to sound more like a conservative, potential Nader-voters have another reason to believe that the two parties are the same, and vote for an alternative. At least Nader, though I disagree him on just about everything, remains steadfast in his convictions, doesn't change his mind every few minutes based on polls and focus groups, and has the integrity to stand up for his beliefs. If the race is close, Kerry's ninth-inning shift to the political center may push more people away than bring them on board.
(also posted on defeatjohnjohn.com)
