This Election Is Over

Was it something Kerry said, or something he didn't say, that ended his hopes last night?

Something he didn't say, actually - In his big speech to the Democratic Convention, Kerry put a lot of effort into establishing his credibility on national security. However, he failed to address two critical points - what is our mission in Iraq, and who is our enemy in the war on terror.

These are not minor questions, but they were too tricky for Kerry to tackle.

The closest Kerry came to defining a mission in Iraq was this:

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, reduce the risk to American soldiers. That's the right way to get the job done and bring our troops home.

And what is the job, Senator? For most of the delegates, getting the troops home is the job; it is a fair guess that Kerry deliberately slid past this point rather than expose his own party to some hard truths. However, if he is not willing to lead his own party, how can we expect him to lead the nation? Is "the job" to create a stable Iraq, or a democratic Iraq? This speech would have been a good forum in which to say.

As to the nature of the war on terror, Kerry offered few insights:

We are a nation at war: a global war on terror against an enemy unlike we've ever known before.

Rather than describe the enemy, however, Mr. Kerry segued to health care. He later returned to the subject with this:

...then, with confidence and determination, 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.

Pretty clear, huh? We are freedom, and we are fighting fear.

The editorials of the NY Times and the Washington Post illustrate Mr. Kerry's dilemma, each criticizing his speech in their own fashion (and we will let you guess which is which):

He did not, however, provide a clear vision on Iraq. Voters needed to hear him say that he understands, in retrospect, that his vote to give President Bush Congressional support to invade was a mistake. It's clear now that Mr. Kerry isn't going to go there, and it's a shame.

How a long look backwards will help us is left unexplained.

Mr. Kerry was right to chide Mr. Bush for alienating allies unnecessarily. But what is "the job" in Iraq? He didn't say. Mr. Kerry could have spoken the difficult truth that U.S. troops will be needed in Iraq for a long time. He could have reaffirmed his commitment to completing the task of helping build democracy. Instead, he chose words that seemed designed to give the impression that he could engineer a quick and painless exit.

The WaPo editors have an especially brutal close:

But [Mr. Kerry] will be judged in part on how he chose to present himself last night, and on that score, while he may have been politically effective, he fell short of demonstrating the kind of leadership the nation needs.

MORE: Our Secret Spy was in Kerry's room cleaning up the trash, and found a draft of the speech! Here are a couple of seemingly sure-fire applause lines that were *not* delivered:

(1) I am a man of faith. But I will make this pledge to you tonight - I will never allow my faith to inform a decision I will make as your President!

And,

(2) My fellow citizens, our great country was attacked on Sept 11, 2001, and I will make you this solemn promise - never again. Never again. Never again will we allow the deaths of three thousand innocent Americans to distract us from our national debate on health care.

I don't know why he dropped them. Point (1) would have brought down the house.

UPDATE: Lawrence Kaplan at TNR - also brutal.

Comments

[J Mann]

My big gripe is that Kerry used the "thumb-fist" (that gesture where a politician pushes his fist forward, just over the podium level, with the thumb up about an inch) something like 50 times.

It is the worst of all speech gestures, worse than the point or the finger shake, and I blame Bill Clinton, who does it quite a bit.

[Forbes]

I think his speech made it clear that this election will be the 9/10 Democrats against the 9/11 Republicans. Nothing could be clearer. At the end of the day, his instincts led him to, and through, that speech. All I can say is, I hope this election is over, for he is the "cut and run" candidate, and is willing to "play defense" at home. He might as well put a bullseye target on the US, for such a posture plays into the terrorists hands. The Bushies still have their work cut out for them, but in my mind, the differences are clear.

Good coverage and commentary, Tom!

[TM]

Thanks very much. In tribute to Ted "Quagmire" Kennedy, we are calling them the "cut and swim" Democrats.

[lyle]

Mr Kerry emphasized 'Integrity', which I believe will be a powerful selling point for the Kerry-Edwards ticket.

Two lawyers: one who made his fortune by marrying heiresses, and the other who got rich peddling junk science to semiliterate juries.

When I think of Kerry-Edwards, 'Integrity' is indeed the word that comes to mind.

[Bill Peschel]

Not my line, but they should rename this campaign "Dukakis: Reloaded"

[sym]

Just because you're not going to vote for him doesn't mean the election's over.

[TM]

Sym, my vote doesn't even count, since my state is deep blue. (Fortunately, neither side vexes me with their commercials).

And the WaPo I gleefully cite is quite clear that it is NOT over.

But if I prefaced each post with "IMHO", it would get a bit tiresome. Well, tiresome in a different way.

[Matt]

It wasn't that bad. I'm not a big fan of Kerry, but I think he did a good job. It's interesting how all the talking heads yesterday we're pretty unanimous that he did what he had to do, and now today the piling on begins.

He's not going to convince the W supporters, but I think he probably convinced some swing voters to have another look at him.

And besides--does anyone really listen to what candidates say, and if they do, do they really belive any of it? It was THEATRE, and it was good theatre.

[Byron]

David Brooks had it right about Kerry's speech on the News Hour tonight: Reading what seemed to be a good speech the day after is a "disillusioning experience". On the key issue, Iraq, Kerry was completely vacuous. The speech was a souffle: nice initial appearance but soon falling flat, flat, flat. He's toast.

[Matt]

I'd love it if someone could share a link to a good Bush speech. I've never heard one that didn't make my skin crawl....

[Byron]

For Matt:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/06/20040602.html

[Cecil Turner]

Matt,

That's not too difficult. Here's a good one that lays out the strategy for the war on terror. Best bit (condensed):

"First, we are using every available tool to dismantle, disrupt and destroy terrorists and their organizations."
"Secondly, we are denying terrorists places of sanctuary or support."
"Third, we are using all elements of our national power to deny terrorists the chemical, biological and nuclear weapons they seek. "
"Fourth and finally, we are denying the terrorists the ideological victories they seek by working for freedom and reform in the broader Middle East."

The State of the Union speech was also good (even with the infamous "16 words" still in it). Best bit:

"The world has waited 12 years for Iraq to disarm. America will not accept a serious and mounting threat to our country, and our friends and our allies. The United States will ask the U.N. Security Council to convene on February the 5th to consider the facts of Iraq's ongoing defiance of the world. Secretary of State Powell will present information and intelligence about Iraqi's legal -- Iraq's illegal weapons programs, its attempt to hide those weapons from inspectors, and its links to terrorist groups.

We will consult. But let there be no misunderstanding: If Saddam Hussein does not fully disarm, for the safety of our people and for the peace of the world, we will lead a coalition to disarm him."

Whether you agree with it or not, at least it's comprehensible. Compare that to:
"As President, I will ask hard questions and demand hard evidence. I will immediately reform the intelligence system so policy is guided by facts, and facts are never distorted by politics. And as President, I will bring back this nation's time-honored tradition: the United States of America never goes to war because we want to, we only go to war because we have to."

And this from a man who voted for the war (but against paying for it). It's fairly obvious he has no intention of taking a position on the most important issue of the day, and either has no strategy, or refuses to lay it out for the electorate. Cringeworthy enough for you?

[Byron]

Line too long. Trying again:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases
/2004/06/20040602.html

[Dotsero]

Try this:

http://tinyurl.com/2lnl8

[Matt]

OK, they DO read well. My problem, is ultimately, who is giving them and how effective his actions have been. I don't find Bush believable at all--it's all rhetoric (I'll admit the same is true of Kerry.)

When someone like Bill Kristol or Sully (sometimes) explains what he believes, there's a lot I don't agree with, but it's a well-thought out and argued position, which I respect. I just don't think there's a there there with Bush.

Even if you're going to vote for Bush, I can't believe anyone could get excited about him in the same way you could about, say, Reagan. This election is, as they usually are, about the lesser of two evils.

[Nick Psaki]

Matt, no one would argue that President Bush is an orator. I think there is a striking difference between his style when speaking to a formal audience, and his style when speaking to a military audience. In the latter setting, he is powerful and effective. But which is more important to you: a good speech or a good leader? Bill Clinton gives good "talking head," but it goes nowhere. President Bush isn't eloquent, but he means what he says and he follows through on it.

You think there is no "there" with President Bush? On what basis do you reach that conclusion?

[Richard Meixner]

Matt,
I would venture that one has to be more than simply a good poker player to 'bluff' one's way through HBS or fighter training, even with well greased connections. If only there were some video...

[Cecil Turner]

Matt,

I'll readily admit his delivery leaves something to be desired. But that's mostly a matter of lack of oratorical skill (and a propensity for mangling words). There's very little variance between his words and actions. And if you assume he means what he says, Administration policies make sense--while if you try to ascribe ulterior motives, you're left with logical disconnects (e.g., if the war was about oil, it'd be far cheaper and easier to end sanctions and buy it). For all the claims of "Bush lied," the most common examples (e.g., the 16 words) end up proving Bush was telling the truth while his detractors were not. There's little doubt Slick Willie could give those speeches with a lot more panache . . . but you'd then have a legitimate concern over whether he meant any of it.

Personally, when I evaluate Administration policy, I first try to decide what the correct policy should be, and then compare it to what's being proposed. Bill Kristol's big complaint is that we need more troops in Iraq. Maybe it's because I went to the same schools as the Pentagon folks (I'm a retired officer), but my assessment matches theirs, not Bill's. Sully is overly concerned about short-term deficits that were primarily caused by the recession--IMHO he ought to be more concerned about promoting economic growth first, and fixing the deficit after the revenue source is restored. There is certainly room for debate on these (and many other) issues. But the current level of discourse appears to be accusing the other side is lying while proffering unrealistic promises, and having the chutzpah to claim it's the high road. As long as Kerry is characterizing Dick Cheney's perfectly sound energy proposals as "secret meetings with polluters to rewrite our environmental laws" and offering to replace it with "new technologies and alternative fuels and the cars of the future," he doesn't deserve to be taken seriously.

[TM]

Others have made this point, but it is taking it a while to sink in for me - Kerry was not shy about prasiing Vietnam veterans, including himself. I can't find any priase in his speech for the men and women risking their lives in Afghanistan and Iraq today.

The closest seems to be:

So tonight, in the city where America's freedom began, only a few blocks from where the sons and daughters of liberty gave birth to our nation, here tonight, on behalf of a new birth of freedom, on behalf of the middle class who deserve a champion, and those struggling to join it who deserve a fair shot, for the brave men and women in uniform who risk their lives every day and the families who pray for their return, for all those who believe our best days are ahead of us, with great faith in the American people, I accept your nomination for president of the United States.

All about John.

And this,later:

And on my first day in office, I will send a message to every man and woman in our armed forces: You will never be asked to fight a war without a plan to win the peace.

That is somewhat different from "Thank you and well done."

[Brian]

I don't think you realize just how important it was for Kerry, et al, but particularly Kerry, to strike the right image. Both he and his campaign advisors knew that they had a certain threshold to pass: they need to make him seem like he could be commander-in-chief. If nothing else, in the minds of the voters, that was achieved.

The policy information comes next. Over the course of the coming weeks, those bits will be revealed.

[TKls2myhrt]

While waiting for the speech to start, I caught Bill O’Reilly interviewing Dennis Kucinich, who gave a very strange answer to a question about Kerry’s ability to mend our relations with France. Bill O’Reilly asked how John Kerry could restore two decades of poor relations with France and Mr. Kucinich replied that in his twenty years in congress, John Kerry had developed negotiating skills and would be able to gain France as our ally. I burst out in laughter wondering what skills he could possibly have. Were they secret skills that he has been hiding and honing over these past years? If such skills actually exist, why would he have kept them to himself all these years? Why wait until you become president to reveal this talent? What is he, Spiderman? I haven't heard anyone talking about this interview, but I suppose it was overshadowed by the speech itself.