|
|
Post by chrisfan on Jul 30, 2004 12:06:06 GMT -5
Was Kerry's convention speech any good then, folks? If 8% of Americans are undecided on voting intention (as claimed in my newspaper the other day), he's got to be seeking a bounce of 3-6% in the polls I'd have thought. No positive movement at all would be quite ominous, I'd have thought. Based on the pundit-speak today, it really depends on who you listen to. The TV people last night and this morning seemed to be wetting themselves in excitement over how well he did. Several newspapers today wrote that it fell short. Truly, whatever bounce he gets (and he should get a bounce) will not be due exclusively to his speech, but to the convention on a whole. You have to remeber that the "undecideds" are not made up of nearly as many political junkies who are just being very very careful in studying the issues and making up their minds, as they are people who could care less about the president right now, and are more concerned with seeing Spiderman 2 as many times as they can this Summer. So for those people, the decision will likely be made by who between Kerry and Bush chooses the best tie the weekend before the election. And, for the toughtful, study the issues undecideds, things will likely be cleared up after the debates more so than the conventions which are known to be staged spectacles. |
|
|
|
Post by JesusLooksLikeMe on Jul 30, 2004 12:09:20 GMT -5
"If defining Kerry has dominated events in Boston this week, a more interesting question is whether this is an election worth winning... one look at the state of the world's biggest economy suggests that this may be a good election for the Democrats to lose. The next four years could be tough for the US - very tough indeed - and it would be fitting if Bush were left to clear up the almighty mess he has created." Rest of article here:- www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1272402,00.html |
|
|
|
Post by JesusLooksLikeMe on Jul 30, 2004 12:11:46 GMT -5
I agree Chrisfan. The conventions these days are more about not making any perceived 'gaffes' that allow the media to tell the gullible public that so-and-so is doomed as a result. That's why all modern political conventions are so safe, micro-managed, and downright pointless.
|
|
|
|
Post by strat-0 on Jul 30, 2004 12:18:49 GMT -5
I agree with Mary's thoughts on the convention and on conventions in general; however, I thought Kerry came off better than he has thus far, streaming sweat notwithstanding. He still didn't lay out much in the way of specifics. It was a pretty good speech and delivered fairly well - I think he'll get a boost out of it.
I'm none too excited either. The bottm line for me is simple: Bush blew it. He had his chance and he blew it. IMHO.
|
|
|
|
Post by Proud on Jul 30, 2004 12:28:57 GMT -5
and now we know that "liberal" is not a dirty word.
|
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Jul 30, 2004 12:32:56 GMT -5
I agree with Mary's thoughts on the convention and on conventions in general; however, I thought Kerry came off better than he has thus far, streaming sweat notwithstanding. He still didn't lay out much in the way of specifics. It was a pretty good speech and delivered fairly well - I think he'll get a boost out of it. He'll definitely get a boost out of it, because it was a feel-good no-major-criticism event. Here was my big puzzle of his speech ... He said in there that he would not allow any country to have veto power over our national security. That sounds to me like he was saying that he would not allow the UN to determine our foreign policy. But isn't he criticizing Bush for taking just that approach? |
|
|
|
Post by rockysigman on Jul 30, 2004 12:44:40 GMT -5
He was responding to fears that, as a result of disagreeing with Bush's policies, that he would take the exact opposite approach and just roll over to other nation's demands. Yeah, in some ways it sounds like he was endorsing Bush's approach, but I think that that statement was meant less as a solid position and more as a disclaimer on his talk about getting back the respect of the rest of the world.
He was criticizing Bush by vowing to work in better faith with our allies than Bush did, but had to drop that other line in there about not giving any other nation veto power because he knew that that would be exactly the line that the Republican attack dogs would be using, so he was attempting to deflate it before they got the chance.
|
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Jul 30, 2004 12:46:45 GMT -5
He was criticizing Bush by vowing to work in better faith with our allies than Bush did, but had to drop that other line in there about not giving any other nation veto power because he knew that that would be exactly the line that the Republican attack dogs would be using, so he was attempting to deflate it before they got the chance. And in doing so, played RIGHT into the flip-flopper tag that the "Republican attack dogs" have put on him, playing right into their hand. |
|
|
|
Post by rockysigman on Jul 30, 2004 12:47:05 GMT -5
Oh, and I thought the speech was pretty good. Definately nothing to set the world on fire, but that was definately the best speech I've seen John Kerry give, hands down. He's much better dealing with people face to face (if you ever see him meeting people on Road to the White House on CSPAN or whatever, you can see that he's right in his element) but is mighty boring in the scripted speeches. I thought he was considerably better this time around than in the past, and to be honest, I think that that was the most important thing about that speech. Very few people watched the whole thing anyway, so if he'd gotten into detail about policy it would have just turned people off. What he needed to do with this speech was come across as a normal likeable guy, and I think he managed to do that pretty well.
|
|
|
|
Post by rockysigman on Jul 30, 2004 12:48:53 GMT -5
And in doing so, played RIGHT into the flip-flopper tag that the "Republican attack dogs" have put on him, playing right into their hand. Only if you're completely incapable of complex thought. That probably sounds harsh, but I honestly cannot see how that's a flipflop at all, unless you're looking for it to be, or unless you have no concept of the way that diplomatic relations work whatsoever. It wouldn't surprise me if they try to play it off tha way, but I can't imagine that anyone would really buy into it. It seems really obvious that you can consider the views of your allies without letting them run your policy. |
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Jul 30, 2004 12:50:14 GMT -5
Oh, and I thought the speech was pretty good. Definately nothing to set the world on fire, but that was definately the best speech I've seen John Kerry give, hands down. He's much better dealing with people face to face (if you ever see him meeting people on Road to the White House on CSPAN or whatever, you can see that he's right in his element) but is mighty boring in the scripted speeches. IT's funny ... I've heard the same thing said about some other guy who is running for president ...  |
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Jul 30, 2004 12:54:05 GMT -5
It wouldn't surprise me if they try to play it off tha way, but I can't imagine that anyone would really buy into it. It seems really obvious that you can consider the views of your allies without letting them run your policy. Yes, that is entirely possible, and that is just what Bush did. And Kerry is criticizing Bush for doing just that ... but then saying that he'd do the same. You can't have it both ways. Okay, so maybe it's not a flip flop. Maybe it's just hypocrisy. But he's been on record in the past as endorsing the UN as the source of foreign policy decisions. If you go back to that, it is a flip flop. If you write off the past record as changes in a post-9/11 world (which would be a very legitimate explanaiton) then you have some major hypocrisy here. It is either right or it is not right to go to the UN, try to get what you need, but be willingto act without the UN if necessary. It can't be right if you're a Democrat, but wrong if you're a Republican. |
|
|
|
Post by rockysigman on Jul 30, 2004 12:58:14 GMT -5
There's a difference between consulting other nations and considering their views (what Kerry is saying we need to do) and letting other nations decide our policy.
There's also a difference between consulting other nations (what you seem to be saying Bush has done?) and after they express disagreement over a policy, slinging harsh words at them and accusing them being equivilent to supporting terrorism (what a lot of the right did to France and Germany).
I think what Kerry is saying as a criticism of Bush is that its possible to disagree with other nations without severely damaging our relations with them for any period of time. We've had major policy differences with allied nations for the history of our country, but they're usually just that--differences of opinion--and other nations respect that so long as they are given respect in return.
|
|
|
|
Post by rockysigman on Jul 30, 2004 13:01:02 GMT -5
IT's funny ... I've heard the same thing said about some other guy who is running for president ... Nader?  |
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Jul 30, 2004 13:12:20 GMT -5
There's a difference between consulting other nations and considering their views (what Kerry is saying we need to do) and letting other nations decide our policy. There's also a difference between consulting other nations (what you seem to be saying Bush has done?) and after they express disagreement over a policy, slinging harsh words at them and accusing them being equivilent to supporting terrorism (what a lot of the right did to France and Germany). I think what Kerry is saying as a criticism of Bush is that its possible to disagree with other nations without severely damaging our relations with them for any period of time. We've had major policy differences with allied nations for the history of our country, but they're usually just that--differences of opinion--and other nations respect that so long as they are given respect in return. Rocky, don't mistake the reaction of the people of this country as Bush's words. I also question your assertion that our relations have been serverely damaged. Honestly, we will not know until one of us is facing a serious security issue in the fugure, and we see how each country reacts. Do the French (and the people of many countries) say warm glowing things about us on a daily basis? No. But does that mean that if we were under attack (or if they were under attack) right now, the other would not step up to the plate to help? Hell no! Now I'm not going to be small-minded enough to decide that you must just not understand how foreign relations work. I trust that you do. I just stronly question the sky is falling mentality that you seem to be accepting. |
|
