by Heidi Parent
09/16/04
Bush's Speech
Despite the laundry list of spending programs the President ticked off at the beginning, I thought his speech as a whole was outstanding. It hit all the right notes – joy, sadness, humor, passion, but above all, seriousness. He succeeded in reminding voters why he, and not John Kerry, should be President during this dangerous time in our nation's history. But more than that, he did a marvelous job explaining his foreign policy decisions and laid out his vision for the future. Something Kerry's speech, by contrast, sorely lacked.
In my opinion the most important, not to mention the most inspiring part came at the very end when the President began talking about America's responsibility to the rest of the world: “This young century will be liberty's century. By promoting liberty abroad, we will build a safer world. By encouraging liberty at home, we will build a more hopeful America. Like generations before us, we have a calling from beyond the stars to stand for freedom. This is the everlasting dream of America. And tonight, in this place, that dream is renewed. Now we go forward. Grateful for our freedom, faithful to our cause, and confident in the future of the greatest nation on earth."
I was particularly struck by these two lines: “This young century will be liberty's century” and “Like generations before us, we have a calling from beyond the stars to stand for freedom.” Besides their beautiful Reaganesque tone, these lines make it clear that the President understands completely the moral obligation America has to the rest of the world when it comes to promoting freedom and liberty.
And I'd like to hear John Kerry argue against this logic: “By promoting liberty abroad, we will build a safer world.” Did’ja get that Michael Moore and all you other anti-war morons? Liberty and freedom. That's why we're fighting the War on Terror.
Rudy and Arnold
Prior to the convention some questioned why these two “moderate” Republicans were included as speakers. But after hearing their speeches, all questions were answered.
Rudy's speech contained two lines that summarized the reason we needed to take action in Iraq better than anyone from the White House ever has: “In any plan to destroy global terrorism, removing Saddam Hussein needed to be accomplished” and, “The changes necessary in the Middle East involve encouraging accountable, lawful governments that can be role models.” (On the basis of these two lines alone I'd like to see Rudy take over as White House communications director.)
And in keeping with President Bush's theme of freedom and liberty, Arnold really spoke to the promise of America, what it meant to him as an immigrant, and what it continues to mean to people all over the world: “We are still the lamp lighting the world especially for those who struggle. No matter in what labor camp they slave no matter in what injustice they're trapped – they hear our call, they see our light, and they feel the pull of our freedom. They come here as I did because they believe. They believe in us. They come because their hearts say to them, as mine did, ‘If only I can get to America.’ Someone once wrote, ‘There are those who say that freedom is nothing but a dream.’ They are right. It's the American dream." Wait a minute, how can this be? To hear John Kerry tell it, the rest of the world despises America.
Politicizing 9/11?
Prior to the convention, many Democrats feared Republicans would, in their words, “exploit the tragedy of 9/11 for political gain." Which was their attempt to take the issue off the table by accusing the Republicans of dirty tricks before any dirty tricks had been done.
Now everyone fully expected 9/11 to be touched on during the convention. How could it not be? In addition to holding the convention in New York City and having Rudy Giuliani and George Pataki as speakers, it goes without saying that 9/11 was the defining moment of the Bush Presidency. But that said, how Republicans tackled the issue would be critical. Too much and it would have seemed exploitative; too little and the Democrats would have succeeded in removing the issue from the table.
In my mind, Republicans did it just right. From the family members who spoke, to the Bush video, they hit all the right notes. But perhaps the most eloquent line came from the President's speech: “The world saw that spirit three miles from here, when the people of this city faced peril together, and lifted a flag over the ruins, and defied the enemy with their courage. My fellow Americans, for as long as our country stands, people will look to the resurrection of New York City and they will say: Here buildings fell, and here a nation rose." A great reminder of how our country responded on that terrible day. And may I add, quite a humble reminder at that. (Are you listening Bill Clinton?)
Okay. Enough convention, let's move on to some Kerry thoughts…
John Kerry: Nancy Boy
John Kerry is threatening to sue television stations that air the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ads and demanding that bookstores stop selling John O’Neill’s book Unfit for Command. (And Bush is the one being compared to Hitler?) But at the same time he's bemoaning his critics, he is demanding that the President “Bring…it…on!" Now one would think that if a candidate is man enough to challenge his opponent to “bring it on” he would be man enough to handle it when he does.
And about that whining…
For the life of me, I don't get Kerry's strategy. In spite of the fact that no one at the Republican convention said Kerry was “unfit for command” or questioned his patriotism (in fact, his military service was at least twice applauded by the delegates), Kerry continues to whine about these phantom charges.
Now accusing your opponent of doing or saying something he didn't do or say is an age-old political strategy. But usually it is done in order to cast the accuser in the best light (i.e., I'm strong and nothing – not even these vicious attacks – will stop me!) In Kerry's case, however, his complaints come off as whiny, not to mention paranoid. Both of which only serve to reinforce the view that he is a weak leader. Voters want a President who will lead, not one who spends his time complaining about his critics. Especially when the criticisms never took place. So I'm at a loss to explain his strategy. That said, I hope he keeps it up.
Who needs consistency?
John Kerry has repeatedly criticized the President for going into Iraq without building an international coalition and without the backing of the UN. Now let's put aside the fact that these two criticisms are not true, Kerry implies that he would support the war if both had been accomplished. But alas, if we look at his record, it's clearly not the case. In the build up to the Gulf War, President George H.W. Bush had unanimous consent from the UN and built a large international coalition to oust Saddam’s forces from Kuwait. What was Kerry's position then? Well, he voted against the war, of course. Further proof that Kerry will do or say anything he needs to in order to advance his political career.
Talk about chutzpah
This one's too easy…
Kerry continually accuses President Bush of sending the troops into harm's way without the proper protection; body armor being his most oft mentioned piece of missing equipment. Again, despite the fact that this is not true, someone please remind me how Kerry voted on the $87 billion spending resolution to fund the troops? Oh that's right, he voted no. My goodness, does he really think voters don't get this?
What did he think it meant?
When is a vote to authorize the use of force in Iraq a vote to actually use it? Never, apparently. At least according to John Kerry. He repeatedly attempts to disavow his vote for the use of force by saying, in effect, "sure, I voted yes, but I didn't think the president would actually do it!" Which is sort of like handing your teenager the keys to your car and then saying, "well I didn't think you'd actually take it for a drive!"