The Whiskey Bar bartender on Kerrys speech
Back to Main
July 30, 2004
Billmon: The Speech
Comments
After reading the Billmon synopsis.
Kerry doesn’t deliver the goods.
Bring ’em on. More Bush for 4 more years.
Posted by: Cloned Poster | Jul 30 2004 7:52 utc | 1
LA Times Editorial starts:
Over four days of the Democratic convention, we have come to suspect that John F. Kerry may have served in Vietnam.
Ouch!
Posted by: Bernhard | Jul 30 2004 8:23 utc | 2
The Guardians Larry Elliott says: “Pity the man who wins this election – Given the state of the economy, it would be better for Kerry if he lost”
If defining Kerry has dominated events in Boston this week, a more interesting question is whether this is an election worth winning. For those who believe any price is worth paying to get rid of Bush, the answer, of course, is a resounding yes. Yet 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.
Posted by: Bernhard | Jul 30 2004 10:07 utc | 3
Throughout the 4 days, it appeared that issues related to civil liberties/due process (patriot act) seemed to get most interest of the floor in the speeches. The delegates being very much political actors were more sensitive to this than issues of economic eglaritarianism such as universal health care. Unfortunately the patriot act has had too much bi-partisan participation and thus had to be avoided as an issue. Similar situation with the war. Except that the administration went beyond all expectations to gratuitously abuse the constitution and threatens to further damage it. And they made more than necessary mess of war and its aftermath.
The only reason why the Democrats are united and in good spirits about is because the Bush regime has fucked it up so completely that finer points of argument of policies and their reasons are not even necessary. Bush has managed not just to unite the opposition but to broaden the reasons to oppose to such an extent that differences within the opposition do not matter. The moments in the Kerry speach already being replayed on the tube are tight comprehensive attacks on the Bush administration and are quite brilliant.
Posted by: Anonymous | Jul 30 2004 11:16 utc | 4
Billmon disliked Kerry’s ‘reporting for duty’ salute opening … but it was a fantastic slap in the face of our current commander in chief who did NOT report for duty in order to work on a political campaign. I laughed out loud at the chutzpa. Good for Kerry.
Posted by: Anonymous | Jul 30 2004 11:51 utc | 5
Billmon disliked Kerry’s ‘reporting for duty’ salute opening … but it was a fantastic slap in the face of our current commander in chief who did NOT report for duty in order to work on a political campaign. I laughed out loud at the chutzpa. Good for Kerry.
Posted by: gylangirl | Jul 30 2004 11:52 utc | 6
I have read quite a few commentaries –okay, I admit — liberal commentaries– about the speech, and Billmon’s is far the most negative of all.
Posted by: pol | Jul 30 2004 14:30 utc | 7
Jeez, Billmon, lighten up. JK didn’t have to hit a walk-off homer (and he didn’t), but while you seem to feel he hit a bloop single at best, in my mind it was a solid RBI double. All he had to do was convince swing voters (and, yes, even moderate Republicans who are also having misgivings about Iraq (900+ dead Americans and nary a WMD), Abu Ghraib, loss of respect abroad, the ballooning deficit, jobs, health care) that he could be trusted with national security and the economy. And he did.
P.S. And didn’t Wesley Clark give a jim-dandy little speech!!
Posted by: SteveH | Jul 30 2004 14:35 utc | 8
Yeah, I thought the whole convention was a bitch slap to any Republican and/or pundit who wants to run with the spin that dems are weak vis a vis the miltary and/or do not take their daily dosage of patriotism seriously.
I think the dems did a good job talking to the people who get their news from sound bites, with the former republican general turned dem, with the parade of vets, with the constant reminders of Kerry’s service.
the themes were there for the commercial audience attention span. the themes weren’t for the “nuance” crowd.
Republicans use the code “most liberal” to also mean “against the military” all the time.
I think this convention meant stop that one. And I do think Republicans would look stupid trying to make that argument. All anyone has to do now is talk about all the military support at the convention (and beyond.)
Seems they were successful in making that attack look worthless.
Posted by: fauxreal | Jul 30 2004 14:38 utc | 9
Billmon should have put more emphasis on the war platform this party is running on. It looks like we are going to bog down the USA in another Cold War-type situtation w/ this phony War On Terrorism. The whole convention was too militaristic. Those of us who spoke out against the invasion, who joined in some of the largest protest rallies ever, are still being ignored. First the media ignores us, the President ignores us, Michael Moore avoids putting us in F-911, and the DNC clamps down on any opposition to the occupation or mention of peace in their platform. This whole thing stinks. The convention was even more manipulated than that crappy Van Halen tape (if that’s possible). It’s now obvious that all the talk of earlier Bush bashing being repressed was done to make Kerry look more like a leader when he got the opp to attack Bush himself. They censored speeches, which sends a message about what the thinkable thought and permissable topics are to be. This is soooo wrong. The people are the leaders. If Kerry was truly reporting for duty, the number one issue would be getting out of Iraq today. Polls show that the majority of the US public feels that the invasion and occupation were a mistake. This all could and should have been prevented. The anti-war movement has 3 months left to take a stand and force the issue. The only guarantee that there will not be a draft is to end the occupation now. Speak out. This is the message we need to send the Dems. Greg Palast knows this. Kerry did put some progressives and undecideds at ease w/ some of his comments on domestic issues, but if we buy their overriding insistance on waging the War of/on Terror, we don’t have a lot to hope for.
Posted by: b real | Jul 30 2004 14:42 utc | 10
gylangirl:
Kerry’s ‘reporting for duty’ salute opening … but it was a fantastic slap in the face of our current commander in chief
Yes it was.
The front page of my local paper has a picture of the salute and the line.
I’d call that seizing the initative.
The speech was aimed at the right side of Middle Class America’s shrinking abdomen.
Kerry positively nailed that target audience.
As such it was brilliant.
Econmy and Terror.
Terror and the Economy.
Kill Terrorists.
Grow Good Jobs.
Keep it simple stupid.
It played well in the pubs of Peoria.
All in all: a masterful stride towards the crown.
Posted by: koreyel | Jul 30 2004 15:08 utc | 11
Jeez, Billmon, lighten up. JK didn’t have to hit a walk-off homer (and he didn’t), but while you seem to feel he hit a bloop single at best, in my mind it was a solid RBI double.
While I suspect that Billmon would rather see Kerry win than Bush, he really doesn’t look at things as if he were a card-carrying member of the DNC.
Posted by: Romdinstler Jones | Jul 30 2004 15:43 utc | 12
It’s easy to be cynical and skeptical. I usually am pumped by what Palast writes but today I found David Corn’s Democratic Futures uplifting. There is so much else that needs to be changed after this regime.
Posted by: beq | Jul 30 2004 15:46 utc | 13
Personally the wife and I loved the speech, and having started as Dean-supporters, we wholeheartedly back Kerry now. Also, his service in Vietnam does mean something to me, and more so his stand afterwards. I don’t know about the undecideds, but I think the base is energized. And that’s just as important.
Posted by: Lupin | Jul 30 2004 15:53 utc | 14
I hesitate to even write at this point, but I’m up in the air about this whole thing. I watched Kerry’s speech last night, and had/have mixed feelings about it – one thing that cracks me up about the speech-giving process is that these guys never write their own speeches, yet they are given credit for them. Perhaps someone could enlighten me on the speech-writing process – perhaps the speech-giver has more input than I imagine. The whole process seems very artificial to me.
There is too much money in politics. Both Bush and Kerry are rich beyond belief. Bloomberg more or less walked away with the election in NY. I think the people that are leaning toward the pessimistic side of things find it hard to ignore that Kerry and his wife have loads of money, and it’s hard for me to TRULY believe that he’s on our side. Kerry will never again know what it’s like to live check to check (if he ever did – I’m not familiar with his childhood) – it’s easy to lose your perspective once you become rich. If you’ve always been rich, you’ve never had nor never will have the ability to look at things from the common person’s perspective.
As good as the speech was last night, the realist in me still thinks that a lot of it was bullsh*t. A lot of me thinks that most of what comes from the mouths of politicians is rubbish. Do most people believe that these people represent the concerns and views of the majority of middle-class America? I guess so. We eat it up.
Sorry to sound so dark – why can’t we get a NORMAL person in politics? Why does money come into play so much? It galls me somewhat that we are encouraged to contribute to campaigns (and I have, to Kerry) when these guys are loaded already. Give me a break. Theresa is worth something like 500 million (unless I heard incorrectly the other day on NPR), and who knows what the Bush family is worth.
Don’t get me wrong, Kerry would be better than Bush, but the one theme that I think may be coming out of the last year or so in politics is that the whole process is jacked up. The worship of rich people. Disgusting.
My apologies for the rant. I usually just observe, but felt like saying something this morning.
Posted by: dc | Jul 30 2004 16:06 utc | 15
man – I just re-read that post of mine and it’s highly negative. I’m not trying to bring everyone down that’s feeling good right now – just my humble opinion about things.
Posted by: dc | Jul 30 2004 16:09 utc | 16
Clinton is an impossible act to follow. Not only does he give his audience a strong sense of his own convictions, and a strong sense that he understands the convictions of his audience, he also gives a brilliant and sustained analysis of the issues, rather in the spirit, say, of a Paul Krugman. He gives us the “pathos” and “ethos” of which the rhetoricians speak, along with a lucid (and amusing) overview–lucid and detailed. He speaks to the intelligence of everyone.
Clinton’s command of rhetoric puts everyone to shame, Kerry included, and Kerry seems to accept this fact, doing as his talents enable him to do. He gives us a strong sense of his own convictions–the sincerity of the man is not in doubt—and conveys, along the way, a welcome sense of outrage at the wrongs done to his constituents. I think he lacks a commanding overview, as does anyone who isn’t borne on the oratorical wings of a visitant from the angelic orders. If he goes for blood, early and often, he should do just fine.
Posted by: alabama | Jul 30 2004 16:37 utc | 17
Very good, Alabama. I hope you’re right. Sure do miss Bill.
Posted by: beq | Jul 30 2004 16:55 utc | 18
Don’t get me wrong, Kerry would be better than Bush, but the one theme that I think may be coming out of the last year or so in politics is that the whole process is jacked up. The worship of rich people. Disgusting.
My apologies for the rant. I usually just observe, but felt like saying something this morning.
Posted by: dc | July 30, 2004 12:06 PM
It’s a good thing Princess Diana is not on the ballot. She’d probably win.
Posted by: Anonymous | Jul 30 2004 17:55 utc | 19
I admit I didn’t watch Senator Kerry’s speech. As always, politicians and generals fight the last war. The 21st Century Democratic Ticket is running as the Anti-McGovern. Feel good America. We are the best. Wrap the flag around oneself. End the speeches on time.
The good thing about the Kerry ticket, as a Vietnam Veteran, is that he is highlighting his service and His Band of Brothers. At least, we are not fading away silently like Korean War Vets. But, due to individual rotations into fighting units, after the first year of combat, infantry platoons were composed either of Cherries or gaunt thousand yard Survivors. No Band. No Brothers.
Senator Kerry is correct that the Iraq War is being fought on the cheap. I heard this term about Vietnam years later. It is accurate. The USA is not spending the money or human lives necessary to win the Iraq War. What is disingenuous for Senator Kerry is not to point out it will take a million US, Iraqi and ally troops to pacify Iraq, genocide to end Sunni opposition, billions of dollars, and thousands more wounded and dead soldiers.
Posted by: Jim S | Jul 30 2004 18:03 utc | 20
Allow me to revise the last sentence in my earlier post, so as to clarify that my position should not be construed as one of cynicism : Kerry did put some progressives and undecideds at ease w/ some of his comments on domestic issues, but if we buy their overriding insistance on waging the War of/on Terror, we don’t have a lot to hope for from his campaign.
There’s an article up at counterpunch which offers a similiar observation, including this paragraph:
Anti-war views were by no means rare at the Convention. Even within the narrow spectrum of the Democratic Party, ninety percent of delegates oppose the war in Iraq (according to a recent CBS/NY Times poll). Their views were barely reflected in the choreographed speeches of their elite “representatives.” Outspoken anti-war Democrat Dennis Kucinich justified ignoring the divide: “we’re going to unite our party to elect John Kerry and then we’re going to continue the debate within the Democratic Party.” (PBS Interview) So, ninety percent of the party’s rank-and-file have to compromise their position on the war to comply with the 10 percent who are represented by the powerful elite of the party. Instead of the party taking a stand based on the majority sentiment, the crucial debate over war has been relegated to internal party discussion, where it will probably fizzle out. Those on the left who advocate blind support for Kerry hand responsibility for the debate over war and occupation to the Democratic Party, whose elites have more in common with Republicans than with their own rank-and-file.
Dennis’s statement sounds similar to John Conyer’s saying that he will pursue retroactive impeachment after the new administration takes office. It doesn’t address the fact that people are dying everyday, right now. There are three months left to force the issue. The DNC has had their spotlight, now it’s time to offer them a popular critique. It’s the war, stupids.
Posted by: b real | Jul 30 2004 18:13 utc | 21
“We’ll have to wait and see what story line emerges from the next-day media babble and how that in turn influences the polls. For what it’s worth, a journalist friend of mine called to tell me the reaction in his newsroom. Among those jaded jackels, at least, the conclusion seems to have been that Kerry did himself no harm with the speech, and probably did himself some good.”
Posted by billmon at 10:56 PM
Jesus Christ! You Guys. Could you give a little more grudgingly.
Abandon the destructive process and get with the re-construction. To quote from the convention program,…”America’s best days are ahead.”
Posted by: pb | Jul 30 2004 18:16 utc | 23
My favorite line from the speech:
Now I know there are those who criticize me for seeing complexities — and I do — because some issues just aren’t all that simple.
That was swift…
Essentially he planted a bomb under the one meme the repugs are trying to fly: flip-flopper.
Not only did he explode the idea… he spun the argument on its heels and said essentially: President Peckerword can’t do nuance, and is overwhelmed by complexity.
Very slick. Very sly.
The sort of ruse you’d expect from a swift boat skipper.
Posted by: koreyel | Jul 30 2004 19:17 utc | 24
Well I am glad I don’t hear these speeches but can read description and commentary by Billmon and others.
Kerry: We will be able to tell the terrorists: You will lose, and we will win. The future doesn’t belong to fear; it belongs to freedom.
Billmon: Terrorism is not considered to be the most important problem facing the nation today. The top problems are the economy and Iraq. More importantly, perhaps, is the fact that while Republicans place the greatest importance on terrorism as a campaign issue, Kerry’s core Democrats and the vitally important independents do not. The latter groups are more interested in domestic issues such as the economy and healthcare.
b real: Polls show that the majority of the US public feels that the invasion and occupation were a mistake.
dc: The worship of rich people. Disgusting.
Kerry on the war in Iraq is Bushian, with spades added. Btw, I thought a handover took place and the Iraqis came into possession of their land? Ah, never mind.
There is a reason that everyone accepts these kind of fake PR dodges. The reason is that ‘the economy’ and Iraq — read a failing economy and pre-emptive slaughter of non-threatening and innocent people — are intimately tied together, through the supposed ‘war on terror’.
For the next 15 years, the only important issue for voters in the US are foreign policy and energy. While Kerry may temporarily impress (minimum wage, taxes, health care, and say… gay marriage), and one should not fault him for the effort, as Bush is, or was, an absolute disaster on these issues, it matters little.
In the globalised world, the US can, within the present corporate and instituted take over, arrange taxes this way or that way, subsidise health care and social security more or less, legislate about clean air a little or a lot, repeal some parts of the Patriot act (doubtful), or not, etc. Small or even perhaps medium adjustments can be made, without, of course, touching the tax base, the military investments, the essential mind set.
If a large part US public feels the invasion and occupation of Iraq was a mistake, it will never be mentioned, never be taken into account — too bad for them. US leaders will quietly opine that these innocent caring people have their head stuck in the sand, and they will be right. Nothing will come of the objections, ever. Look at Wes Clark, too uppity and interested in personal glory, not subtle enough about his ties to Muslim terrorists, not clued in enough about the world, tainted for Israel; or Howard Dean, who was doomed because he ‘voted against’ the Iraq invasion..
No minor internal adjustments will change the grand scope. The US cannot sustain its present standrard of living, its fragile stability, its economy, within the present balance of power and trade, energy situation, and long-standing policies, without taking over good chunks of the ME.
Meaning — controlling as best as possible, with arms, invasions, carrots, sticks, blackmail, political murders, anything …
Therefore, ‘the war on terror’, a fabricated rationale for controlling essential resources, murder and hegemony to desperately maintain the status quo, and all it takes — some kind of draft, lies, more pre-emptive invasions, new and massive investments in military esoterics, and all the attendant deaths and misery, has to continue, as Cheney, Bush, Kerry and many others see it.
The rich in the US, who are worshipped because they have power, and part of the upper middle class (the subservient lot) will win ‘the war on terror.’ This they know, and many in the US and the world know it as well.
All the others will loose. Are loosing already today – smashed on the sidewalks in Iraq at 12, murdered in their office at 50 slumped over the computer with bacteriolgical analyses on the screen, blasted by a car bomb at 25 while wearing the US uniform complete with Kevlar vest…
Posted by: Blackie | Jul 30 2004 20:46 utc | 25
Just in case Billmon is reading…
Billmon, you captured (mirrored) my feelings after seeing the Kerry speech. When I saw the first statement “reporting for duty”, even I was aghast. What’s going on? Then Kerry did not get into rhythm for some time. And then he rushed through the applause lines. My feelings last night were not very different from you. I did like many parts of the speech though, and I think William Saletan of Slate has a good summary of those highlights. However, overall I was thinking, is that it? Did he blow it?
However, today I feel a lot better. I read your commentary and the comments, plus I have had the time to think about it. Here’s my current thoughts on why yesterday’s my fears were overblown.
– We all know about SCLM. Yes, I watched 3 plus hours per day of the convention, but how many persons were so devoted? How many undecideds were watching all the time? If most of the viewers watched only this one hour, they did not know that Vietnam was overdone, they did not know Obama was good, and I am not sure they even watched Clinton and Edwards, leave alone Dean and Sharpton. So if their only introduction to Kerry was in the one hour on Thursday, would they have had the same feeling you and I had?
– Second. I do not think anyone believes Kerry is another Clinton or Edwards in terms of his presentation (speech). People understand he has a speech handicap, but know he can deal with complex issues.
– Third, the speech gave him an opportunity to challenge Bush personally, and on issues. And I think he did a decent job.
– Fourth, By continuing over the applause, he demonstrated some understanding of the howard dean moment. He knows 99.9% of the audience is home. He knows the applause would not come in the way of them hearing him. He is sceptical about the networks coverage continuing after 8 PM PDT. So he goes for it. And maybe it is better to get into flow when not stopping for applause, than stopping for each line.
Does that make you feel better too?
Posted by: harry xing | Jul 30 2004 21:35 utc | 26
I watched Kerry’s speech last night, and had/have mixed feelings about it – one thing that cracks me up about the speech-giving process is that these guys never write their own speeches, yet they are given credit for them.
— dc @12:06 PM
I think I read yesterday that Kerry wrote his own speech with the help of one speechwriter. I wish I knew where I found that.
Posted by: Anonymous | Jul 30 2004 21:41 utc | 27
Having lived through most of the emotions expressed here (Nixon’s second victory, anyone?), I would just ask- what exactly do you think the president can do?
Kerry has put together a team of relatively honest centrists, and last night he answered my basic questions about where he’s going-
No war unless we’re attacked.
Renewable energy.
International engagement.
These are all positions Bush can’t take. In the real world none of them will be accomplished without a lot of other people than the president, and I wouldn’t have it any other way.
In case you didn’t notice, we just learned (again) that we would be safer if the Congress held on tightly to the power to declare war, and took as much time as they need to reach a decision. As piss-poor as the Senate Report on Intelligence may have been, it was still way ahead of what Bush got.
Now, considering how unaccustomed the American people are to overthrowing dictatorships, it might just be a good thing to kick the Bushies out before they formally become one. It’s going to be a lot easier to deal with a John Kerry who won office in an election than it has been to deal with Bush and his silent coup.
Posted by: serial catowner | Jul 30 2004 23:41 utc | 28
@SerialCatowner:
We’re with you on those thoughts.
Posted by: A Boy and His Dog | Jul 30 2004 23:58 utc | 29
Thanks to Billmon for this forum. I don’t have the time to read all the comments – but read enough to appreciate the range of opinion.
Anyway,
I liked the “Cathedral of Trees” reference by Kerry. It made me remember my childhood in Des Plaines, Illinois in the 50’s and 60’s before Dutch Elm disease took down every one of those magnificent trees. At that time, we could look down our block from the middle of the street and see the cathedral – all the neighbors were proud of it and we mourned when disaster hit. Now – going back, with the dense maples instead of the soaring elms – the street is much more intimate and maybe claustaphobic.
Had to put my two cents in. I thought the best speeches were in (in this order) Obama, Kerry, Clinton, Cleland. I was impatient and bored with Edwards – and though I was thrilled when he was annointed – now I feel I’ll get tired of the way-too-wide smile. We’re going to win in November!!!
Posted by: Anonymous | Jul 31 2004 1:21 utc | 30
I’m just an ole Nurseyman. What do I know.
But it’s quite possible that disease resistant
elms have already been planted all over Illinois.
In fact, I would bet the farm on it.
Posted by: Anonymous | Jul 31 2004 1:31 utc | 31
i think you heard that Kerry wrote his own speech on NPR yesterday,thats were i heard it.
Posted by: anna mist | Jul 31 2004 2:06 utc | 32
“What is disingenuous for Senator Kerry is not to point out it will take a million US, Iraqi and ally troops to pacify Iraq, genocide to end Sunni opposition, billions of dollars, and thousands more wounded and dead soldiers.”
Christ, did he really say that last night? Economy heading back down the crapper and he wants a million troops. How about trying about 550 thousand for 10,000 days and see what happens first, John.
As someone argued pretty strongly on Kevin Drum’s
site a while back, more troops don’t necessarily mean fewer casualties.
Posted by: JBL | Jul 31 2004 2:30 utc | 33
@Anna:
Check out Denny townsend’s
work in breeding and introducing disease
resistant elms. He works for the National
Arboretum. Check their website.
Morton Arboretum has also introduced a great
one. “Morton’s Glossy” AKA “TRiumph.”
Elms are Back!
Posted by: Anonymous | Jul 31 2004 2:43 utc | 35
While the Kerry speech didn’t capture me, like the Clinton, or the Sharpton, and most definitly like the Obama, it did I think, do the task it was intended to do.
Personally, I would have preferred a really good Jackson Pollack, but under the circumstances a competent Andrew Wyeth can serve also to inspire.
Under a summer sun, hopefully, these are the first cool raindrops hitting the hot blacktop, forshadowing a long awaited thunderstorm, to come.
Posted by: anna mist | Jul 31 2004 2:54 utc | 36
Under a summer sun, hopefully, these are the first cool raindrops hitting the hot blacktop, forshadowing a long awaited thunderstorm, to come.
Posted by: anna mist | July 30, 2004 10:54 PM
It would be nice to feel like “singin’ in the rain” again.
Posted by: pb | Aug 1 2004 18:02 utc | 40
FWIW, I talked to my parents this morning and they thought Kerry’s speech gave bush a big bitch slap and were very impressed.
I would describe my folks as the average under-informed, dem-leaning, retired, voter. They tend to get their news from the local stations and the major network news, ABC, NBC, CBS. Both had said that prior to the convention they weren’t sure what to make of Kerry but were definitely NOT going to vote for bush and didn’t vote for him in 2000.
They didn’t see any of the other speeches (network news) but tuned in to see Kerry’s and based off of that they are singing his praises. I haven’t heard them that enthusiastic about any candidate before.
Posted by: sukabi | Aug 1 2004 23:26 utc | 41