Highlights of Sen. Kerry at the DNC

[Zhukov]

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

"let's never misuse for political purposes the most precious document in American history, the Constitution of the United States"

"I will be a commander in chief who will never mislead us into war."

"I will have a vice president who will not conduct secret meetings with polluters to rewrite our environmental laws."

"I will appoint an Attorney General who actually upholds the Constitution of the United States."

"I will immediately reform the intelligence system so policy is guided by facts, and facts are never distorted by politics."

"the United States of America never goes to war because we want to"

"Strength is more than tough words."

"Our purpose now is to reclaim democracy itself."

"the president who sits at that desk must be guided by principle"

"Values are not just words."

"I will restore trust and credibility to the White House."

"let's respect one another"

You first Senator.


-

 

[freeandfun1]

They are not going to get a bounce and I bet they lose supporters. The speech was bland, the convention was bland and the Democratic Party is bland.

As somebody pointed out today, this DNC Convention is much like the 1996 GOP Convention. They are "just going through the motions". The media big three hyped it up, but the public will see through their BS.

Frankly, after this convention, I feel more confident than ever that Bush/Cheney will win!

 

[Zhukov]

Can you say 'landslide'?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

"let's never misuse for political purposes the most precious document in American history, the Constitution of the United States"

"I will be a commander in chief who will never mislead us into war."

"I will have a vice president who will not conduct secret meetings with polluters to rewrite our environmental laws."

"I will appoint an Attorney General who actually upholds the Constitution of the United States."

"I will immediately reform the intelligence system so policy is guided by facts, and facts are never distorted by politics."

"the United States of America never goes to war because we want to"

"Strength is more than tough words."

"Our purpose now is to reclaim democracy itself."

"the president who sits at that desk must be guided by principle"

"Values are not just words."

"I will restore trust and credibility to the White House."




You first Senator.


-

Right. In one breath Kerry calls for respect but isn't respectful. He calls for an end to angry division but he only says things to inflame division. He was certainly no slouch at attacking Bush. It appears that Kerry wants to put the race on a personal level. Of course that would be much easier for him than to compare voting records.

This "Reinvention Convention" as Sean Hannity calls it, was such a sham. The Dems tried to sell themselves as patriotic, moral and unifying. They toned down their typical hate speech but it still came through loud and clear. Kerry really had nothing to sell but his war hero image and his promise to hand out goodies from the public coffers. Same old Democratic sales pitch.

It was hilarious how the Dems were trying to sell their connection to the military, patriotism, and support of the troops when all along they have been totally unsupportive in this area. They trotted out the generals and even Kerry's boat crew. They promised stuff for the military. Kerry was all for international help of course. I noticed that I did not hear a single patriotic song played. I guess Dems relate more to rap music and songs of the 60s.

A convention of lies with pretty red, white, and blue balloons...full of hot air just like the Democrats. Their fabrication should pop as quickly as the balloons.

 

[Avatar4321]

I still find it amazing that people can in one mouth call for unity while on the other hand praising diversity. Ive been thinking alot about that. That is one of the problems with the Democrats agenda. I mean dont get me wrong im glad we are all different but our differences arent what make us great. Its are unity despite our differences that make us great and Ive just been thinking praising whats different isnt going to build bridges. its going to separate us into groups that are going to fight over things. Its going to divide rather than unite. Anyway enough of my soap box.

Onto other topics. how many decades can Democrats promise Americans health care before they realize they have been promising it for decades and not delivering?

 

[Zhukov]

They toned down their typical hate speech but it still came through loud and clear.

And, if you noticed, nothing got nearly as much applause as the attacks and innuendos.

 

[Merlin1047]

I tried to watch it, but only got as far as "I'm John Kerry and I'm reporting for duty".

That bastard. Once again he shows his complete contempt not only for those who have genuinely served their country, but for the American voter as well. Somehow he thinks that his self-service in Viet Nam will fool anyone but the brainwashed fanatics who disguise their disdain for the military because they want to use kerry's "service" as part of his resume'.

So kerry joins the Navy, spends his time putting himself in for medals he didn't deserve, runs away and tries to sell himself as a war hero to voters. When that fails, he flips 180 degrees, becomes a war "protestor" and betrays his former comrades by concocting "atrocities". Worse, he invented these lies not in any genuine interest in protesting the war, but merely for cheap, sleazy politics. Now he suddenly portrays himself as the white knight who proudly served his country. Kerry attempts to lump himself in with those who served their country honorably. He wants to appropriate the mantle of respectability from those who rightfully earned it - the very people about whom he lied, who he villified and who he treated with contempt when it served his devious purposes to do so.

I have never flat-out hated a politician before now. But kerry is vermin of the most contemptible order. The only good thing I can think of is that if he should be elected and serves with the same dedication he showed the last time he "reported for duty", he will be president for only four months.

 

[UsaPride]

I tried to watch it, but only got as far as "I'm John Kerry and I'm reporting for duty".

I'm going on a limb here and thinking this is a slam against Bush since he "went AWOL and didn't report for duty". Just a guess though.

 

[Merlin1047]

I'm going on a limb here and thinking this is a slam against Bush since he "went AWOL and didn't report for duty". Just a guess though.

That may be part of it, but if you look at the number of times he bragged about hise so-called "service", I think this was the lead-in for that theme.

 

[5stringJeff]

I still find it hilarious that all the Democrats were running around in 1992 saying that military service has no bearing on one's qualification for the Presidency... and now in 2004 the exact same people are running around saying that because Kerry is a Vietnam vet, he's better qualified to be President.

 

[UsaPride]

That may be part of it, but if you look at the number of times he bragged about hise so-called "service", I think this was the lead-in for that theme.

Oh, I'm not denying that one bit! I'm with you there, but I'm just thinking that one comment, "reporting for duty", was a very well thought out choice of words to be a dig, as well.

 

[MtnBiker]

I tried to watch it, but only got as far as "I'm John Kerry and I'm reporting for duty".

He certainly was not speaking of his Senatoral Duties, how many votes has he missed?

When LBJ ran against JFK in the primaries he emphasized his commentment to his Senatoral duties and the fact that he had not missed a vote.

 

[JIHADTHIS]

Lifted from LGF:

Tonight, John F. Kerry said:

Any attack will be met with a swift and certain response.

Consider the implications of this statement.

He’s going to wait for the attack.

 

[Annie]

Lifted from LGF:

Tonight, John F. Kerry said:

Any attack will be met with a swift and certain response.

Consider the implications of this statement.

He’s going to wait for the attack.

Related and excerpted:

Lileks

Later tuned in to some highlights from the Kerry speech. He said he would respond if America was attacked. Well, duh. I take something else from this distinction: he will not attack if America is provoked.

"I defended this country as a young man, and I will defend it as President."

This really intrigues me. I agree that Vietnam was a defense of the United States, inasmuch as we were trying to blunt the advance of Communism. So: only Nixon can go to China. (Only Kirk can go to Chronos, for you Star Trek geeks.) Only Kerry can confirm that Vietnam was a just war. This completely upends conventional wisdom about the Vietnamese war, and requires a certain amount of historical amnesia. Why does this get glossed over? The illegitimacy of the Vietnam war (non-UN approved, after all) is a key doctrine of the Church of the Boomers; to say that service in Vietnam was done in defense of the United States is like announcing that Judas Ischariot was the most faithful of the disciples. Imagine if you were a preacher who attempted such a revision. Imagine your private thrill when everyone in the congregation nodded assent. The past was more malleable than you had ever expected.

"The future doesn't belong to fear; it belongs to freedom."

A passive platitude. Try this: “The future cannot belong to fear. It must belong to freedom.” Because that tells me you intend to shape history, not sit back on the couch and see how it all turns out. In any case, the two are not necessarily symmetrical; it is possible to be fearful and free, for a while. Ask the Brits in WW2. And just saying that the future belongs to freedom does not make it so, I fear. I think this is an appeal to those who believe that the administration has created a climate of fear so they can take away our freedoms. You know, the neocons who danced a jig of joy on 9/11 because they saw an excellent opportunity to subpoena library records.

And so on. All the stuff about restoring trust and credibility is nice, but note how no one is questioning the trust and credibility of the Brits, the French, the Russians and the UN, all of whom shared the same opinions about Iraqi capability. What it says to me is this: if John Kerry had been president after 9/11, he would have looked at all the intel about Iraq, studied its history, examined its strategic value, shaped up the nature of its leadership, and declined to depose Saddam.

Fine; I understand that position. I understand that he defended America by serving in Vietnam.

One question: did Vietnam attack America?

Ah! The Gulf of Tonkin incident and subsequent resolution made it seem as if they had. So he fell for that, as everyone did. He voted to wage war against Iraq because he fell for that, as everyone did. He's learned. Next time he needs hard proof, like a smoking crater in New York.

Make that another smoking crater in New York.

 

[Annie]

and look at his take:

Andrew Sullivan

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?

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.
- 207 AM

 

[dilloduck]

Good post--perhaps Kerry has never gotten over being "duped" into going to Viet Nam. MANY vets who were wounded in 'Nam stayed long after . He chose to take advantage of the situation and run. Realizing his lack of courage, he had to attack the war at home to try to recover some sense of honor.
I'm not fooled. He is still trying to prove his "bravery" to himself since he could not prove it there. How dangerous is it to have a president who has not resolved this issue within himself? Which Kerry will appear in the next crisis? The one who said "call me" or the one who said " I've had enough of this dangerous stuff. I'm going home."
I want a leader who has resolve in his heart and has proved it.

 

[smirkinjesus]

Hallelujah! We are free at last! There is no way Dubya and Vader can compete with the Sunshine Boys. Its too bad Gopers will benefit despite their best efforts to ruin their own lives.
I think Kerry's first Act should be the "De-Neconification & Responsible Debt Reduction Act."
Basically its not fair that me and my children have to pay for the disaster you guys created when you checked the box next to Bush's name in 2000. I suggest we need a neocon tax to teach you a lesson. A 1% income tax on all registered Republicans as of November 2000. Proceeds from the tax would be used exclusively to pay down Dubya's massive Debt to Clinton levels. Once the surplus is restored the tax would be repealed and you would be allowed to rejoin the American family. Duibya's $11 trillion dollar spending spree will be reversed. By the way you spend happy loons, what the heck did you buy for $11 trillion? A planet?

 

[5stringJeff]

Hallelujah! We are free at last! There is no way Dubya and Vader can compete with the Sunshine Boys. Its too bad Gopers will benefit despite their best efforts to ruin their own lives.
I think Kerry's first Act should be the "De-Neconification & Responsible Debt Reduction Act."
Basically its not fair that me and my children have to pay for the disaster you guys created when you checked the box next to Bush's name in 2000. I suggest we need a neocon tax to teach you a lesson. A 1% income tax on all registered Republicans as of November 2000. Proceeds from the tax would be used exclusively to pay down Dubya's massive Debt to Clinton levels. Once the surplus is restored the tax would be repealed and you would be allowed to rejoin the American family. Duibya's $11 trillion dollar spending spree will be reversed. By the way you spend happy loons, what the heck did you buy for $11 trillion? A planet?

$11 trillion?!? WTF are you talking about? Never mind...

 

[Annie]

 

[smirkinjesus]

$11 trillion?!? WTF are you talking about? Never mind...

IT WAS TEN Trillion IN 2003, NOW YOU GUYS HAVE A SWING GOING TO 11 trillion. GOOD JOB! And I'm no troll.

In context of our ten trillion dollar swing in projected US fiscal balance, we discussed how much $10T is in real terms. OK, it's a lot of money, but is it a big hairy deal? There's a lot of confusion out there.

Back when deficits were mere billions or tens of billions, Demon Debt was a stump speech staple. Republicans and Southern Demagogues played hard on voter naivete regarding public finance. They boomed out powerful -- but specious -- appeals to kitchen-table economics, and progressives were left struggling up the mass educational gradient.

As conservative economist Bruce Bartlett explains:"Republicans had a hard time explaining why spending is bad, so they seized on the deficit as a proxy" (NYT)

Now the tables are turned. Neo-quasi-pseudo-crypto-conservatives are buying votes with money drawn on the voter's own accounts, and covering their tracks with the usual "It's No Big Deal" arguments.

In the right circumstances, these argument aren't necessarily wrong. National debt is no big deal IF ... if it finances acquisition of long-lived productive assets ... if economic output grows faster than debt service ... IF we retain borrowing capacity to address expected and unexpected shocks to the system.

Today, to clear the air -- and to set the table for a "What Happens Next?" discussion -- we survey the No Big Deal arguments.


First, it's no big deal because we never have to pay it back. True, in a way.

An individual ages and dies. A business eventually fails, no matter how magnificently it succeeds. If one owes you money, you want money back in finite time. A nation, however, has perpetual assets and income streams. Creditors come and go, their IOU's paid with proceeds of new IOUs sold on the open market.

But ... but ... BUT ... borrowing capacity is limited, because lending capacity is limited ... because interest expense mounts up ... and because lenders will start imposing incrementally harsher terms long before the borrow-from-Peter-to-pay-Paul pyramid crashes. Nobody wants to be last in line when they run out of Free Lunch.


It's no big deal because we can handle the payments. True, for now. In a $10T economy, interest on a $10T debt is a bearable 4% tax burden on aggregate GDP. (The percentage rate burden on taxable income higher, since TI is a subset of GDP.)

But ... but ... BUT ... the current sweet spot is a fool's paradise. The global economy may recover -- in which case interest rates will rise markedly. Or the global economy may stay depressed -- in which case our revenue projections are unrealistic. (Tax receipts will fall below forecast ... debt will accumulate faster ... and the expected lending pools of surplus private assets may evaporate.)


It's no big deal because the economy will grow and leave the debt behind. That's the normal scheme of things. Economies grow ... it's their nature. It makes sense to live in houses and drive cars we haven't paid off yet. It makes sense to finance public works that deliver decades of useful life. Run up debt in a $10T economy, pay it back out of petty cash in a $100T economy.

But ... but ... BUT ... the debt today is growing faster than the economy, and it is structured to keep doing so. Economies don't grow that fast ... it's not their nature. The tax-cutters aren't done yet, they're not making the kind of public investments that facilitate economic growth, and the Baby Boomers are inching closer to retirement. [Remember, just three years ago we had plans to pay off the entire national debt to position ourselves for this predictable strain.] At some point a combination of lender reluctance and taxpayer resistance will stop the game.


[Did somebody say it's no big deal because the cuts will pay for themselves? Forget it. No if's, and's or but's. No legitimate model -- no matter how dynamic -- produces any such result. No reputable economist -- left, right, center or future -- states any such case. You probably thought they said it in Reagan's time, but -- as Laffer himself points out -- none ever did. It was all clever juxtaposition and parsing. You won't hear it now, except from political operatives who can't be held accountable. The dissonance is probably why they just moved the Council of Economic Advisors out of the White House.]


It's no big deal because we owe it to ourselves. True up to a point. For every dollar in national debt there's a corresponding dollar in US bonds or other IOUs. Somebody owns that IOU, and they get a dollar back -- with interest -- when it's paid off. But ... but ... BUT ...

(1) The somebody who holds the IOUs matching your $100K (average household) share of the fiscal fiasco is probably not you. You might have a few hundred dollars in savings bonds, or hold US debt indirectly via a money-market account. "Somebody" owns millions ... probably somebody who got rich(er) by virtue of unrealistically low, debt-subsidized taxe rates. Even if you own nada, you get taxed (for the rest of your life) to redeem all of somebody's IOUs.

Paying the piper means a massive tax-mediated net transfer of wealth from the many to the few.

(2) That somebody doesn't necessarily pay taxes anyway. Bonds are held extensively in tax-deferred or tax-exempt trusts, nonprofit endowments, insurance reserve accounts, pension plans, government agency accounts.

Paying the piper means taxpayers do all the giving ... but less than half the getting.

(3) Somebody isn't necessarily one of us. Foreigners save, lending us their surplus ... so American consumers can live beyond their means, corporations can leverage their earnings, and politicians can spend without taxing. Our economy -- bathed in a gentle rain of "free" money -- is less prosperous than it looks, to the tune of several hundred billion dollars a year. After a while it adds up.

Paying the piper means American taxpayers give, and foreign creditors get ... even the (shudder) French. Think of it as a Louisiana Purchase in reverse.


In a closing segment, we'll take a closer look at what happens at closing time. The party's almost over ... Anybody got change for a Quadrillion?