What Kerry must do
Put simply, Bush did a pretty good job with his speech. I disagree with his content, and much like Arnold's it had some factual problems that have cropped up, but the delivery was good, and especially near the end it was nearly poetic. If I ranked the speeches given at both conventions, this would tie with Kerry's as the 2nd best speech, with Barrack Obama's keynote at the Democratic convention being the best. I'd rank Zell Miller's as the worst in terms of delivery and content, but the best in terms of helping the Democrats.
Now the conventions are over, and I believe the election will be decided largely on whether or not Kerry can convince enough of the population that he can fight the war on terror effectively and whether or not the Republicans can hurt Kerry enough. Even with Time's current poll showing a 11 point lead for the President, there is little reason (currently) to believe that this is any more than an outlier. (the other polls I've seen continue to show mixed results hovering in the 2-3% range of difference) Even taking the poll at its word, comparing against a Time poll from prior to either convention shows that basically 4% of Kerry's support from them have become undecideds. The race is fundamentally still much the same. I believe Bush is the front-runner, but a very vunerable one.
Kerry must be able to answer what he would have done in Iraq in a clear and concise way. I have done my best to give the answer I believe is his: that he believed that it is fundamentally correct for the President to have such authority to go to war, but that the war and especially its aftermath was not conducted correctly. (note: I go a bit further in my opinion, but I am trying to voice his opinion) He must be able to answer what he would do to fight the war on terror in the next 4 years in clear and unambiguous terms. I can't imagine he won't be asked this at a debate (assuming they happen). I assume and hope he'll be ready. The Republicans have been very effective in painting doubt about Kerry. Fair on unfair he must answer it. There is little Bush can do to help himself at this point. We all know him and have formed our opinions. His job approval is quite low for an incumbent. The dissatisfaction for his performance and for the war are both quite high. He can only hope that the public disapproves more of Kerry than of himself.
Once again, go Kerry go!
Now the conventions are over, and I believe the election will be decided largely on whether or not Kerry can convince enough of the population that he can fight the war on terror effectively and whether or not the Republicans can hurt Kerry enough. Even with Time's current poll showing a 11 point lead for the President, there is little reason (currently) to believe that this is any more than an outlier. (the other polls I've seen continue to show mixed results hovering in the 2-3% range of difference) Even taking the poll at its word, comparing against a Time poll from prior to either convention shows that basically 4% of Kerry's support from them have become undecideds. The race is fundamentally still much the same. I believe Bush is the front-runner, but a very vunerable one.
Kerry must be able to answer what he would have done in Iraq in a clear and concise way. I have done my best to give the answer I believe is his: that he believed that it is fundamentally correct for the President to have such authority to go to war, but that the war and especially its aftermath was not conducted correctly. (note: I go a bit further in my opinion, but I am trying to voice his opinion) He must be able to answer what he would do to fight the war on terror in the next 4 years in clear and unambiguous terms. I can't imagine he won't be asked this at a debate (assuming they happen). I assume and hope he'll be ready. The Republicans have been very effective in painting doubt about Kerry. Fair on unfair he must answer it. There is little Bush can do to help himself at this point. We all know him and have formed our opinions. His job approval is quite low for an incumbent. The dissatisfaction for his performance and for the war are both quite high. He can only hope that the public disapproves more of Kerry than of himself.
Once again, go Kerry go!
posted by Jim Casaburi at
2:02 AM
3 Comments:
Which speech are you referring to as the election winning speech? If you mean Bush's, I did cite it as a tie for the 2nd best speech of either convention in terms of delivery. As for Zell, I rank him poorly because his delivery was poor. If you wish for evidence of that, check out most op-eds written afterwards, the fact both Lara Bush and John McCain distanced themselves from Miller shortly thereafter. (if you can, catch a repeat of the Daily Show's interview with McCain on Thursday)
I rank Kerry's as good because he delivered well. Like Bush he largely rid himself of his usual poorer speaking qualities. He kept a good pace, and was quite animated, and had several good lines.
Now you're always so big on proof, please cite "COLD HARD PROOF" that Kerry FAKED his three purple hearts. I'm being very specific in my request here as I have asked you to be with me in citing evidence.
Your statement about him wanting to be a hero at war and then changing due to public opinion, is that an opinion, an educated opinion, a fact?
Please re-read his testimony (I have it quoted and linked in an earlier post on this site), and please point out exactly where he was lying. As for issues of protesting and testifying while POWs were being tortured, John McCain considers John Kerry to be a good friend... one would think that wouldn't be possible if McCain considered Kerry to be a traitor and a helper of John McCain torturers...
I'm just going to ignore the obligatory Clinton bash, it's not worth it.
By
Jim Casaburi, at 3:59 AM
The people in the Swift Boat group, served with vietnam the same way that George Bush (sr) served with John F. Kennedy. The doctor you cite has no signature anywhere on Kerry's medical papers, thus has no evidence to back up his claim. It's Kerry's word, and the standing records vs another person's. That's hardly conclusive fact. You admit the other ones are unverified. You are very big on facts and not opinions, yet you presented an *allgegation* as fact. You may not like my style of posting/etc, but I do try to differentiate between what is fact and opinion.
I didn't ask you if he changed opinion on the war, I asked if it's a fact that he changed due to public opinion. You also claim he betrayed his fellow soldiers, again, presenting an opinion as fact. Clearly many veterans disagree with that assesment and if you need some proof, the simple fact that many are with Kerry at campaign stops indicates that at the VERY least not all agree with your assesment.
You want evidence of non-liberals saying Zell Miller's speech was a bad idea? How about John McCain saying "I think it backfires," McCain said of Miller's rhetorical assault on Kerry. He added that it "makes Buchanan's speech look milquetoast."
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0409030259sep03,1,1523380.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed
How about “I don’t know that we share that point of view.” from Laura Bush less than 24 hours later.
http://www.newsletters.newsweek.msnbc.com/id/5897622/
Seriously, this stuff was pretty widely reported, you missed it all?
I watch the Daily Show because it's intentionally funny and unusually insightful. If you believe Fox News is the epitome of fine television, then you are free to spend your hours watching it.
You claim you can tell that I get my information about the Clinton administration by watching SNL... umm.. yeah. Once again, you have facts to back up that claim?
Keep in mind here, only one person in this conversation has resorted to ad hominem attacks in lieu of substatial debate, and that is not me. (I'll leave the readers to figure out the other party)
You claim we are not in the same league, and on that, I think we finally find common ground.
By
Jim Casaburi, at 9:50 AM
And for the record, I lived through the Clinton term, I remember it well. I also remember Rush Limbaugh in 1993 claiming quite clearly "Mark my words folks, you cannot tax yourself to prosperity". This was referrign to Clinton's 1993 budget which did raise taxes in an attempt to balance the budget. I think the following 7 years did sorta prove that somehow you COULD do exactly what Rush said one could not.
Also Darrell Hammond was nothing compared to Phil Hartman doing Clinton. That's the definitive SNL Clinton impersonation.
By
Jim Casaburi, at 9:54 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home