Category: Old Dish

This is the best assessment I’ve read so far. Money quote:

The responsibility of sending troops into danger should weigh on a commander in chief. But so must the responsibility of protecting the nation against a shadowy foe not easily deterred by traditional means. Mr. Kerry last night elided the charged question of whether, as president, he would have gone to war in Iraq. He offered not a word to celebrate the freeing of Afghans from the Taliban, or Iraqis from Saddam Hussein, and not a word about helping either nation toward democracy.

Noam Scheiber also homes in on the Cold War liberal rhetoric: tough abroad, liberal at home.

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.

Glenn takes me to task for a dumb kicker to a posting. He’s right. I take it back.

QUOTE OF THE DAY: “The time is now to resolve that the basis of a firm and principled foreign policy is one that takes the world as it is and seeks to change it by leadership and example; not by harangue, harassment or wishful thinking. The time is now to say that while we shall seek new friendships and expand and improve others, we shall not do so by breaking our word or casting aside old friends and allies.” – Ronald Reagan, in his nomination speech in 1980. Doesn’t it sound a lot like what you’re hearing in Boston?

Pakistan gets a major al Qaeda figure the day of Kerry’s speech. No I don’t believe the conspiracy theories, but it doesn’t help that TNR’s John Judis predicted something quite close to this.

I’ve received many emails on the following lines:

To believe that the Dems have suddenly adopted a strong defense and foreign policy posture is beyond absurd. Nothing could matter less than what Kerry has to say tonight in his infomercial, er, speech regarding the War on Terror. His own history, recent and ancient, belies his own sudden conversion, and his own party would become ungovernable should he have to actually lead us in War. This is still the party of McGovern, Carter, and Dean…the adults, Lieberman and Gephardt (who might have warranted presidential consideration), were emphatically rejected in the primaries. A presidential win by Kerry will simply mark our own surrender, and no amount of phony posturing will change that.

It’s a legitimate position, but it essentially means that, whatever the Democrats say, they can never get the benefit of the doubt in this war. I think that’s blinkered. 9/11 changed a lot. It didn’t change the far left, who saw it as another reason to hate America. But it changed America, and the Democrats seem to me to be absorbing this fact. If you believe in this war as strongly as I do, then it seems to me it has to be a bipartisan affair at some point, just as the Cold War was for many years. Why should we simply dismiss out of hand a candidate’s declaration that he will fight it just as forcefully as Bush? why aren’t we open to a real debate about tactics and strategy? Isn’t that the strength of a democracy, rather than a dictatorship? Why this sneering at what appears to be an accommodation by the Democratic party to the perilous reality we live in? Why not a celebration? This is a defeat of the left, after all. Edwards said: “We are at war.” You cannot be clearer than that. I appreciate skepticism applied to this, given Kerry’s record. But he’s also a patriot and I hope he sees the dangers we face. And this war is not – and never should be – a device to win permanent Republican dominance in American politics. It’s a war to defend the American constitution and Western freedom. I’m happy to welcome anyone to that cause. Why aren’t so many Republicans?

My old friend, Rick Hertzberg, is a signed up member of the Kerry campaign, proud contributor and even wears Kerry-labeled shirts. He’s also a New Yorker writer:

The New Yorker commentator Hendrick Hertzberg, who has given $900 to John Kerry’s presidential bid — earning him a spot in a report on political donations by journalists released last week by a freelance watchdog and a mild scolding from one media ethicist — arrived at his pre-assigned spot wearing running sneakers, jeans, and a denim shirt embroidered with the Kerry campaign logo. After venturing onto the convention floor, he returned around 10:35, midway through Edwards’s address, looking slightly overheated but nonetheless elated, like a fan leaving a concert by his favorite band. He had taken off the Kerry button-down, revealing a nonpartisan T-shirt underneath, and was carrying two of the rectangular Edwards placards that had been distributed to delegates and assorted convention-goers. Hertzberg placed them on the writing stand and disappeared again into the crowd, presumably with plans to retrieve his booty before repairing to his hotel. (Conventioneer has heard that New Yorker staffers are staying at the Fairmont Copley Plaza’s new Gold Floor, which features its own concierge, a private lounge with working fireplace, and a butler’s pantry stocked with self-serve snacks. Conventioneer relishes this bit of gossip the way others might word of Ben Affleck’s rumored lodging at the Charles.)
Hertzberg, a former Carter speechwriter who makes no secret of his liberal leanings in his “Talk of the Town” commentaries, has defended his donations to Kerry as a perfectly reasonable extension of the positions he takes as an opinion writer. But to Conventioneer, the Kerry shirt seemed a bit much.

Look, he’s not Sid. Or Frum, on the other side.

And no right to sexual privacy either. It simply strikes me as amazing that the government can dictate how you pleasure yourself in your own home. Lawrence vs Texas doesn’t seem to be having much of an impact in the South. Surprise, surprise.

“I’m a social libertarian, fiscally conservative, hawk — an eagle, in your lexicon. In the past, I’ve been willing to give Democrats a chance. I voted for Clinton in 1992, although I soon regretted it. Since 9/11, I’ve morphed into a one-issue voter — the war on terrorism, at home and abroad. And until recently, my efforts to be open to John Kerry ran aground whenever I considered who the terrorists would rather see elected. And my anxiety only intensified after recent reports on pre-election terrorism attacks. Surely the terrorists’ rationale for such attacks would be to help elect Kerry, a la Spain. I’m not sure American voters would react the way Spaniards did, but the terrorists may not appreciate the resolve of the American heartland.
But if the terrorists were listening to Edwards last night, and Obama the night before, they may be second-guessing their plans. If the Kerry camp’s war rhetoric is in earnest (and there are good reasons to doubt it), then the terrorists may not get the easier ride they were strategizing for.
What I see happening is an emerging consensus around winning the war on terror and achieving a successful outcome in Iraq. The parties are jockeying to be seen as tougher and more hawkish. For me, there’s only goodness in that.
And If Kerry wins, then the Democrats will have to assume responsibility and accountability for protecting Americans from terror. And God forbid if another attack occurs on Kerry’s watch, the American public’s call for a tough response (and yes, retribution) will force the Democrat to take an even more hawkish stance. They’ll have to — to protect their power base, the Kerry administration.
And a Kerry administration paired with Republican control in either house of Congress would result in fiscal deadlock, which ain’t all bad either.
There’s a long way to go between now and the election, but my mind is again opening to the Dems.” I couldn’t put it better myself. I have long dreamed that the Democrats might get serious again about national security. That issue – and spending – kept me from them for a long time. But with the GOP spending like LBJ-Dems, and Kerry sounding very tough on the war, I’m open to persuasion. Tonight’s speech will be critical. Stay tuned.

Dan Drezner concurs with my assessment of what’s going on in Boston:

“America’s armed forces need better equipment, better training, and better pay,” Bush said in his 2000 convention speech. If that line sounds familiar, it’s because just about every major Democratic speaker this week has said almost exactly the same thing. Who would have thought that the man many believe to be the most conservative president in modern history could be outflanked from the right? And by the so-called most liberal man in the Senate.

No wonder Frumpy is so grumpy.

David Frum is getting grumpier by the day (Advantage Kerry!). But I was struck by one line in his most recent diary. Here it is:

It’s never good to see a former chairman of the joint chiefs endorsing a Democrat.

Why not? I thought Frum wanted the Democrats to become more serious about national defense and terrorism. If the candidate can persuade a bunch of former generals that he is the best choice in the war, and if the convention goes out of its way to restore the Democrats’ commitment to national security in a way not seen in decades, why is that a bad thing? Oh, I forgot. All that matters is Republican partisanship. Whatever their record. Whatever they stand for. Whoever their opponents are.