53 Comments

1. Chrees:

Miller during his speech reminded me of a lover scorned, both figuratively and literally.

Miller’s speech has become the Rorschach test of the convention.

Sep 2, 2004 - 3:22 pm 2. ambisinistral:

I’ve been waiting for your impression of Miller’s speech. I thought it was a great, great piece of oration (speech just doesn’t seem to be the right word). Of course, as a Democrat disgusted with the party, he was pretty much preaching to the choir as far as I’m concerned.

Sep 2, 2004 - 3:23 pm 3. Stephen_M:

I thought sitting hours on end next to a chattering radio/TV guy had been wearing you out. Motormouths irk me. Anyway Zell was strong so natch the Dems and MSM will attempt to slice and dice him, call him crazy and scary and fascistic.

Sep 2, 2004 - 3:26 pm 4. lindenen:

“I think a lot of the negative reaction comes from the general lack of (or fear of) honesty in polite society. You’re not supposed to say what you think. You’re supposed to mask it.”

You’re exactly correct. This has to change though. We have too many challenges awaiting us in the next decade to mask the truth. America would be better off if more people would throw self-censorship to the wolves.

Sep 2, 2004 - 3:36 pm 5. DennisThePeasant:

A great red-meat political speech by Zell Miller. And for those who don’t know much about him, please understand that what you saw last night was great theatre. Zell Miller is an extremely sophisticated politician…the anger he showed may have been genuine, but the manner in which he showed it was completely calculated. He wanted to make an impression, and to raise the stakes, with the old Reagan Democrat crowd…to remind them that their being shut out of the Democratic Party is not a recent phenomenon.

Beyond that, I found two things to be absolutely amazing.

First, I find it absolutely astonishing about Zell Miller’s speech isn’t the speech itself, it’s the fact that the Kerry campaign, as with the Swift Boaters’, managed to be completely unprepared to contest Miller last night…and just as with the Swift Boaters’, despite having ample time and warning as to what was to be expected. Kerry’s people knew what was coming, and yet couldn’t manage to get a Talking Head to MSNBC, CNN or any other potentially sympathetic MSM outlet for the post-speech interviews Miller gave. So Miller had the evening completely to himself.

Second, it is becoming really apparent that the pro-Kerry portions of the MSM and the blogosphere simply don’t have the energy, intellect or knowledge to understand the challenges Kerry faces…they are every bit as clueless as the Kerry people. Examples:

Chris Matthews: His extended meltdown continues, and it is on the verge of being painful to watch. Is it any wonder Tip O’Neil couldn’t find his ass with his own two hands and a mirror held by Chris? Did Chris really think that the majority of his audience (all 12 of them, it would seem from the ratings) was unaware that Miller addressed the 1992 Democratic convention and was the personification throughout the late 80s and much of the 90s of the ‘New Democrat’ that was going to win back the South from the Republicans? Does he really think trying to tag Miller as a racist, at this juncture, is really going to play in the South, with Reagan Democrats, or anyone aware of the life of Robert Byrd?

CNN: Not quite as dumb as Matthews, but their impact for Kerry is muted by the fact that both CNN viewers were in the kitchen fixing a sandwich when they interviewed Miller. Their angle, try to equate Dick Cheney’s voting record on defense with that of John Kerry. But hey, isn’t Dick Cheney this big, evil war-mongering kinda guy? I mean, at least that was what Aaron, Wolfie and Judy were saying last week. What gives, guys? Is John Kerry a big, evil war-mongering kinda guy, too? Or were you just blowing bullshit about Cheney?

Josh Marshall: It appears Josh is now ready for the Big Time. Last night’s post was the stuff New York Times reporters are made of. He didn’t really listen to Miller’s speech, but caught enough via snatches here and there to satisfy himself that Andrew Sullivan’s verdit of lies, lies, and more lies had the unmistakable ring of pure truth. Gee Josh, don’t put yourself out on our account…

Andrew Sullivan: Andrew’s decline into a netherworld of self-contradictory silliness accelerated last night. He started channelling Tweety Bird…”I tought I taw a Dixiecrat…Oooh! I did, I did see a Dixiecrat.” Sully conceeds Miller each and every point on national defense, but then explains that it doesn’t matter because Miller was so angry it scared him. And because Miller was scary, he must also have been lying (what about isn’t particularly clear, given what Miller actually said). This from the Andrew Sullivan who spent the first two years after 9/11 bitching about the fact that nothing mattered but the War on Terror. Now it seems everything but the War on Terror matters…”Oh, yes, George W. will keep us safe, but he’s so, well, unstylish…I’ve got to go with that dear John Kerry.” Thanks, Sully, for giving us the Carson Cressley version of today’s foreign policy challenges.

And all this came on the heels of Terry McAuliffe giving a press conference where he claimed the only reason Miller was doing this was to prop up sales of his book.

Do any of the people every step out of the confines of The Beltway, Manhattan and Hollywood? Just what part of the stunning success of derailing the Swift Boaters’ by calling them liars and partisan whores made any of the above brain surgeons think that doing the same to Zell Miller was going to work?

Oy.

Sep 2, 2004 - 3:59 pm 6. so it begins:

Thanks for fillin’ us in, Roger! Welcome back!

Sep 2, 2004 - 4:03 pm 7. ArtbyRuth:

I think your blog is the most depressing one out there during this convention.

I honestly thought you would be slightly more interested in what was going on inside the RNC, but the way you write about it makes it sound like you are describing your dentist’s office and the people in the waiting room.

I am very disappointed because I usually enjoy your daily blog. It seems that as a Liberal, you truly are out of place at the RNC even though you are supporting Bush.

Sep 2, 2004 - 4:04 pm 8. RogerA:

I think Miller’s speech was fantastic. It was the difference between honesty and nuance. The part about soldiers and rights and the flag touched this old veteran’s heart. I dont think there will be many undecided veterans out there after last night. And somewhat off this point, Andrew Sullivan’s comments re the Miller speech said a whole lot more about his elitism than did Miller’s say about crackers (and I was born and raised a Florida Cracker) I lost a whole lot of respect for Sullivan this morning after reading his drivel.

Sep 2, 2004 - 4:04 pm 9. dougf:

Roger glad you are back,and glad that you had a fine evening out last night.NO CONDOLENCES but hope you have a great last night in NYC.I would love to be at this convention as it has been VERY well done,and actually enjoyable to watch from at home.

Zell Miller is my new hero.When he came on,it took me a full minute to adjust my thinking.I am used to calculated PAP and insincere pretend emotions from politicians,and Zell just blew me away.

The say that he is too ‘hot’for our culture but I disagree.I feel that if we had more HONEST speeches and less manipulation more people would get involved in politics and actually give a damm.

I thought his was the best speech I have ever heard.Maybe not the fairest but fair enough and it held my attention from start to finish.

I think he drove a stake thru the heart of the Democratic Party and I had that confirmed today by watching CNN.The stereo scumbags(Begala&Carville)did not say that Miller was an evil traitor.They said he was misled by the VRWC into being a pawn for their plots.In other words a good man misused by the Republicans.

I wondered why they were taking this line until I realised that these amoral clowns are always ‘poll driven’.Either internal polls or just their gut feeling has convinced them that the ‘people’ liked what Miller said and more importantly they liked him.

An honest man needs nothing to protect him but the truth and Miller looks bulletproof to me.

Sep 2, 2004 - 4:09 pm 10. Rick Ballard:

“America would be better off if more people would throw self-censorship to the wolves.”

I might agree had you said “Any American with a grasp of logic and rhetoric would be better to throw self-censorship to the wolves”. Saying what you think when you can’t actually think isn’t actually lighting a candle to vanquish the darkness. This not directed at all to you, lindenen, but for many, silence really is the best mask for their intellectual limitations.

What I found fascinating about Zell’s delivery was the manner in which he deliberatly bulled through the applause. There aren’t any clips available of the delegates giving extended standing ovations to Zell’s smack down lines. He took some potential negative spin away from the MSM chumps.

Sep 2, 2004 - 4:19 pm 11. DEagle:

ArtbyRuth,

Interesting comment… I have been feeling the same way lately. I usually really enjoy reading this blog site, but lately have been feeling a bit depressed afterward. Come on Roger, pick it up a bit…

Sep 2, 2004 - 4:21 pm 12. penwil:

I had the same reaction you did, dougf. For the first couple of minutes my husband and I sat there literally dumbfounded, mouths agape, unable to believe he was actually daring to say the things we were hearing, but by the end of it we were jumping up and down and clapping and yelling, Yeah! at the TV. Finally there was somebody saying the things that have been boiling up inside of me for the last two years. The media has gone on and on about how angry the ABBers are, well I happen to think there are a whole lot of people like me who are just as angry at the Democrats. Hissing, snarling, pot throwing angry. That speech left me with the feeling that a geyser had just erupted in the middle of the election.

At the very least he fired up Bush’s base big time. But I’m willing to bet he went further, and woke up some people out there in the swing states who needed to be told in plain, blunt language what a disaster a Kerry presidency could mean to our lives, our country, our democracy, our future.

Sep 2, 2004 - 4:30 pm 13. TmjUtah:

Roger L. -

Nice post. But then again they all seem to be that way. Please do enjoy the city.

DtP -

Your observations pertaining to the tactical nonresponses of the Kerry campaign beg a few questions:

What’s the surprise? What can Kerry do regarding the Swift Vets? It’s question of credibility in that two testimonies are up in front of the jury and the jury will decide. Thanks to the work of bloggers, the timeline is pretty fairly public.

In Boston he presented his credentials for suitablility as commander in chief as consisting of four months in Vietnam, over thirty years a go. Period. Before that, he had a stonekiller campaign platform: “I’m not George Bush, and my running mate is attractive to critical female demographic sectors”.

Where’s the sketch of an outline for a policy agenda? Where’s the track record of executive excellence and principled leadership over almost three decades of public service?

There’s no there there. I have been hammering on the contention that this election, with this candidate, will bring a tipping point to the relationship between establishment media and the left side of the American political establishment. I stand by that in spades. Watching Chris Matthews get handled by Miller last night made images of the ten minutes of Jerry Springer I’ve ever exposed myself to surge back into my memory. I watched the speeches…then I read the newspapers. The ones that bothered to quote segments of either Sen. Miller or VP Cheney just did it to reinforce their editorial spin. The greatest names in American Journalism have been humping buckets for the DNC since the Dwarf Toss 2004 left the gate…but not even they can invest much more in the Kerry Show. Not if they intend to leave this campaign cycle with any credibility at all, at least. Who knows, maybe they all want to retire.

Sep 2, 2004 - 4:33 pm 14. Rick Z:

Miller’s speach was an exercise in the classic polemical oratory that has all but vanished from our culture. Instead we have been conditioned to routine lobotomization by focus-group tested pablum, and it may indeed be “too hot” for this post-McLuhan era.

For veterans (this election cycle’s key demographic, it seems) Miller spoke in the cadences, terminology and accent of every DI, master-chief, first shirt and gunny sergeant who we ever trusted our very lives with. It closed the sale for me…

Sep 2, 2004 - 4:43 pm 15. jdwill:

dougf, penwil, etal.

My wife and I were electrified with shock as it dawned on us that Zell Miller was going for broke. We wound up whooping.

If what we felt was wrong, I don’t wanna be right.

PS If you haven’t seen the followup interview of Zell Miller by Chris Matthews and the resulting smackdown of Matthews, then enjoy:

http://tiger.towson.edu/users/bstelt1/miller.wmv

If anyone finds a better video quality, please share.

Sep 2, 2004 - 4:44 pm 16. wyok:

I have read that Miller was scary and have read that all this talk of terrorism makes people scared. It seems to me that is the point. It is a scary world and, as a Democrat, it also makes me angry that they do not seem to acknowledge this. Why can’t I seem to find someone in my party to support this seemingly obvious truth. People should be scared and it will be an even scarier world if someone is elected who is not strongly committed to this fight. Look at Russia. Look at Nepal and Israel. Huge, awful things have happened here. They may happen again. They must be stopped. Why is that such a hard concept?

9/11 roused me from my complacency and I have had to look harder at all my ill-thought out opinions. I did not vote for Bush in the last election and his smirk does not warm my heart. But I am given no choice. At this time in history I need someone willing to fight — regardless of whether it is going well or not, and regardless of who, at the moment, thinks well of it. That is difficult for anyone, especially politicians.

Sep 2, 2004 - 4:44 pm 17. Barry Dauphin:

DtP

I second what you said about Andrew Sullivan. And he even seems to think France is joining the WoT. He should just stay in the hammock.

Sep 2, 2004 - 4:45 pm 18. Terrye:

Roger:

At least you are alive. I was afraid some mad protestor had done you in or something. Hope it all works out.

I have to say that I felt better after Zell Miller’s speech. I have been a Democrat all my life and that speech last night was the first time I have heard an honest Democrat from the national party speak out in a long time.

He is a Southern man and guys like Sully might think thats bad but then guys like Sully think Jim Crow played jazz and carpet baggers were luggage salesman. Nothing like regional snobbery to alienate a few more voters.

The truth is politicians have been turned into slick products, packaged for mass consumption by a media arrogant in its collective belief that it can control the national conversation.

Zell Miller just told them to go to hell. The Kerry people were taken by surprise again. They have no idea how the real world thinks, or talks or acts, or feels. I love the stuff about hate mongering, I would say the Democrats can dish it out but can not take it. Not even from their own.

Sep 2, 2004 - 5:02 pm 19. Solomon:

Miller’s speech, and many others are here:

http://www.2004nycgop.org/rewind/

Roger, I’m so glad to read you liked the speech. I damn well did, too, and I was beginning to think I was crazy with all the negative stuff I’ve been hearing. Maybe it’s just a chance for some of the bloggers who spin light right most of the time to shore up their ‘moderate and rational’ bona fides by trashing Zell’s stridency and nit-picking his sentences. Some people need a lesson in the difference between an effective political show and reading your Master’s Thesis aloud before a live audience a la Dick Cheney.

Miller spoke for all we ’second thoughts’ 9/11 Republicans (or is that Democrats?) who became sick, tired and disgusted with so many of our peers and their weak-kneed doubt and self-loathing. I can understand how Democrats who don’t get it on the WoT would be digusted by Miller, but that sure ain’t me. I’ve watched it twice and I just wish my wife were interested enough to watch it with me because I need to share this feeling with someone!

Sep 2, 2004 - 5:10 pm 20. Terrye:

Solomon:

They can say what they like, but from what I hear Miller was a hit with the focus groups.

I mean come on. Too negative?? We have been listening to Bush lied, Bushitler, Bush knew, Cheney and Halliburton day in and day out for what seems like forever and we are all supposed to blush at this speech?

Sep 2, 2004 - 5:28 pm 21. holdfast:

…and John Kerry can go to Zell! Seriously great speech from Zell last night. It’s too bad Cheney has already been nominated – Cheney at State and Zell for VP!! Dare to dream I guess. It’s too bad that for Sully a Southerner who sounds like a Southerner, and embodies all the positive values of the south (ern democrat) – love of country, military service and love of family, among others – must automatically be a rascist. He digs up some tenous connection to some old Jim Crow politician – like Bill Clinton didn’t get his start working for old Dixiecrats too, never mind that there’s only one Senator who is an open former member of the KKK. As Dennnis Miller likes to say “Byrd’s been so busy he’s burning the cross from both ends.”

Kerry’s been talking about “Bring it on” for a while now. The Swifites brought it a little, Cheney maybe a little – but now its IT’S BEEN BROUGHTEN!! (Not Another Teen Movie) and the Democrats are all scared by the nasty man with the strange accent. They’ve been spewing so much fake anger and real hate that they don’t recognize real anger brought on, not by hate, but by betrayal and disappointment. It seems that if you don’t have a real answer, just claim that it’s hate speech (are funny-looking, patrician gigolos from Boston a protected class?) and racism (are they a race/ well they’re an odd species).

Coming Attractions (according to the Spectator):

1) 60 Minutes to follow the “his daddy got him into the TANG line” – apparently they’ve got some substance there.

2) Somebody else ready to do an expose on what Kerry really did in Paris during the “Peace” Talks – where he met with both sides (VC and NV, and it probably does not invlolve the Lovre, escargots or the Musee d’Orsay.

Sep 2, 2004 - 5:50 pm 22. Jamie Irons:

DtP, TmjUtah, Penwil and Rick Z

Great posts!

Jamie Irons

Sep 2, 2004 - 5:59 pm 23. Charlie (Colorado):

This is not a plea for condolences – please don’t offer them.

I’m sure we all offer our sympathy none the less, like it or not.

Sep 2, 2004 - 5:59 pm 24. Charlie (Colorado):

…so natch the Dems and MSM will attempt to slice and dice him, call him crazy and scary and fascistic.

Don’t forget “racist” and a “hillbilly” and a “Nazi”.

Oh, and “Dixiecrat”, that’s another one.

Sep 2, 2004 - 6:00 pm 25. Terrye:

holdfast:

The Tang thing again? Jeez Marie. My brother in law was in the National Guard for years and nobody got him in. It is not as if it were a secret society or something. If his Dad wanted to do him a favor he would have gotten him stationed in Europe. Let’s see Gephardt was in St Louis in the Guard working as a clerk. Dean got a medical deferment for his back and went skiing…

Think 60 Minutes will explain how Kerry did not get court martialed? I wonder who fixed that for him…

Sep 2, 2004 - 6:09 pm 26. Charlie (Colorado):

1) 60 Minutes to follow the “his daddy got him into the TANG line” – apparently they’ve got some substance there.

yeah. The guy claims that he got George W into the TANG while he was Lt Gov.

The only problem being that George W enlisted before the guy became Lt Gov.

Sep 2, 2004 - 6:09 pm 27. Rick Ballard:

I find the change in Zell Miller’s past since he keynoted the ‘92 Dem convention to be simply amazing. A matter of perspective, I suppose.

Sep 2, 2004 - 6:11 pm 28. Fresh Air:

Charlie–

…plus does anyone really give a damn? Or would anyone even be surprised if it did turn out Bush had “connections”? He was the son of a congressman, after all. What kind of silver foot in his mouth was he born with anyway?

Scintillating stuff! I’m glad 60 Minutes remains so interested in the important stories of our day.

Sep 2, 2004 - 6:15 pm 29. Lola:

This speech just blew me away. I’m still thinking about it and it’ll soon be time to listen to Bush speak. I wish there were more politicians who spoke like this, and honestly. We’d be a lot better off if people just stopped trying to be too PC.

Sep 2, 2004 - 6:22 pm 30. ambisinistral:

Reports are that Bush’s speech tonight will discuss the WoT and then move onto the unveling of his domestic plans for the next four years.

I just saw Russert on TV talking, with pretty poorly hid glee, about how Kerry was going to have a midnight rally where he was going to really ‘take the gloves off’. From what Russert said this was going to be little more than dragging out tired fivw defferments and National Guard duty rhetoric. And who knows what sort of a pretzel he makes out of himself answering/dodging the Swifties.

So, Bush will push the debate forward and Kerry will still be flailing around in Vietnam. If so, Kerry will be behind in the decision loop yet again.

Sep 2, 2004 - 6:32 pm 31. Rick Ballard:

FA,

Don’t forget, this is 60 Minutes!! Hundreds if not a thousand people may see it – if no ‘Leave it to Beaver’ reruns are playing.

Sep 2, 2004 - 6:33 pm 32. DennisThePeasant:

Utah-

I do understand your point, and on a certain level you are 100% correct.

A huge part of John Kerry’s problem is the result of misunderstanding the nature of a leadership referendum. From the beginning, Kerry and the DNC looked at polling numbers and decided that they could win this election by turning it into a referendum on George W. Bush. As far as it goes, it is not a bad strategy, but it also not a complete strategy in and of itself. The problem is that for a referendum to succeed, you have to have a truly viable alternative in place. Kerry has assumed from the beginning that this was a given…and it is never a given.

For Kerry to turn the election into a referendum on George W. Bush, he had to be out front in establishing himself as being in command of the facts and the situation. What he needed to do, and has not, is to present a comprehensive alternative view of the WOT and foreign policy that had enough meat to show he understood the problem at hand, but not enough detail to get picked at for months. In essence he needed to do the same thing with the economy…and he has failed to do that, also.

Kerry’s initial strategy of trying to claim the problem was one of managerial competence has completely fallen flat because he failed to establish his own bona fides in that area. And, you don’t have to do that with decades of senatorial service…you can do it with a sophisticated set of policy positions articulated clearly and consistently. As one who makes his living selling the intangible of my own personal expertise and competence, I can tell you that simply stating that your competition sucks will not win you business…even if it is plain to all the competition really does suck. Most people will stick with familiarity, even if the are not satisfied with it, rather than gamble on an unknown that has failed to convince them that the risk is worth it.

Kerry and his people do not understand this…they think the concept that ‘Bush Sucks’ closes the deal for them. It doesn’t.

Beyond that, though, there is a simply issue of basic competence in managing a campaign. On the level I was addressing, it doesn’t really matter that Kerry’s campaign strategy is badly flawed…you have to have some warm bodies, briefed and ready to go, to counter your opponent’s message and reiterate your own. With all the hired talent and shakeups and whatever, the bottom line was that the Kerry campaign couldn’t have a dozen staffers at each MSM outlet last night with a coherent anti-Zell line. So the night was Zell Miller’s by default. That is simply gross incompetence at the most basic, practical level of campaign politics.

And I would add it is exactly similar to the demonstrated incompetence of the Kerry campaign in dealing with the Swift Boaters. That could have been and should have been dealt with weeks ago. So it wasn’t enough that this week you had (I’m going to butcher some spellings here) Guiliani, Schwartzenegger, Miller and Franks either sending out positive vibes or drilling Kerry a new orifice, you also had (at least here in Ohio) the Swift Boat ‘Winter Soldier’ ad running every night. Irrespective of whether Kerry is a schmuck and/or a mediocrity, at some point you have to ask yourself, to paraphrase Eugene McCarthy, if Kerry and his people are the ones you want handling snake control in Ireland.

These guys act like they couldn’t manage a hotdog stand. And when you are trying to sell yourself as being ‘the competent one’, that is not a good thing.

Sep 2, 2004 - 6:33 pm 33. DennisThePeasant:

The other problem Kerry now faces is the simple fact that this convention has turned the campaign into a referendum on John Kerry.

All hail Karl Rove. This convention will be in the textbooks as an absolute classic and proves that conventions do matter.

Sep 2, 2004 - 6:37 pm 34. Matt Ward:

I listened to the link to the Matthews’ interview of Miller.

It seems to me that Miller didn’t really answer two points that Matthews brought up:

1. That several of the weapons systems that Kerry voted against were not supported by D. Cheney as SecDefense either.

2. That some of Kerry’s votes were votes against comprehensive bills rather than against specific weapons systems.

Miller did have a good point that Kerry publicly stated before his votes that he was going to ax these systems no matter what. Don’t know whether this is true, but I do know the liberal mindset tends to be “I can get rid of war by getting rid of weapons” so it’s believable. This goofy syllogism seems to be the liberal rationale for gun control as well.

I’m curious how people on this thread would respond to Matthews’ two arguments above which seem to weaken the argument that Kerry intentionally tried to emasculate our armed services.

Sep 2, 2004 - 6:40 pm 35. DennisThePeasant:

Ambi-

Well, Russert once again proves he is a moron.

If Kerry really does what is being reported, it will be the exact wrong thing to do:

1. If he’s angry and bitter and in attack mode, he’s going to look unpresidential.

2. If he’s going to get back into Bush’s service record, he is adopting a strategy that has already proved to be ineffective.

3. He will have left unanswered, still, the issue of the SBVFT.

4. He will have left Zell Miller’s complaints unanswered.

5. Given that he’s in the middle of a highly publized staff shakeup, he’s going to look like he’s flailing.

If Russert thinks John Kerry ragging on George Bush at midnight is going to turn this campaign around, Tim probably deserves to spend an eternity sipping bad latte with Josh Marshall and Andrew Sullivan.

Sep 2, 2004 - 6:45 pm 36. Charlie (Colorado):

Matt:

I’m curious how people on this thread would respond to Matthews’ two arguments above which seem to weaken the argument that Kerry intentionally tried to emasculate our armed services.

Matt, I dn’t have Cheney’s voting record easily at hand, but it’s easy to come up with, for example a Kerry position memo (pdf) in which he argues for canceling a whole lot of different projects. That was 1984, most of those systems are operational now and in use in Iraq and Afghanistan, and I’m pretty certain that the general Republican Party position, at least, was not to cancel all of those systems.

That happens to be much the same list Zell Miller used in his speech. I have no reason to suspect that’s coincidental.

Dennis:

If Russert thinks John Kerry ragging on George Bush at midnight is going to turn this campaign around, Tim probably deserves to spend an eternity sipping bad latte with Josh Marshall and Andrew Sullivan.

Jeez, Dennis, let’s not go overboard.

Sep 2, 2004 - 7:02 pm 37. Barry Dauphin:

Mark Shields was also trying to make the point about Cheney voting against some of the systems Kerry voted against. He must be channeling Chris Hardball. I suggest that this is very desparate on the Dems part. It’s not an issue of a few particular votes here and there. That consstitutes a small fraction of the data points one uses in evaluating a candidate (or assessing most any situation for that matter). In and of themselves, such votes are ambiguous.

But when you put the votes into a broader context, such as Kerry’s 1971 testimony, his previous desire for international permission, his not voting for the 87 billion, his vote against Gulf War I, his pandering to the Dean voters, his wanting a sensitive war on terror, etc. a pattern emerges. Contrast Cheney’s similar votes with his record as Sec Def and V.P. and you have a very different pattern. The logic about the votes used by Shields, etc. can be turned around onto them as well. Namely voting the same way on this or that issue by two people may be due to completely different reasons. Not all yes or no votes mean the same thing or are based upon the same principles. That’s why broader context is needed. Surely the nuanced Democrats ought to understand that.

The problem Shields & Matthews have is that Kerry’s voting pattern means exactly what Z. Miller said it means. Shields, Matthews & co. know it does and wish to hide from that fact. What Shields, Matthews et al are doing is the equivalent of trying to understand the economic impact of some policy using a static model instead of a dynamic model. They are hopelessly linear thinkers for situations which cannot be understood that way.

Sep 2, 2004 - 7:04 pm 38. DennisThePeasant:

I’m curious how people on this thread would respond to Matthews’ two arguments above which seem to weaken the argument that Kerry intentionally tried to emasculate our armed services.

Matt-

The answer is simple: it doesn’t matter.

If John Kerry and the Democrats allow this campaign to turn into a question of whether his voting record on defense has been macho enough, he loses the campaign. It doesn’t matter whether Kerry and Cheney are joined at the hip when it comes to defense votes. Nobody gives a shit, and quite rightfully so.

John Kerry has to articulate a sophisticated and realistic vision of how he will ensure our nation’s safety and win the War on Terror, and he has convince us that his vision is superior to that articulated by George W. Bush. That is all that matters. If Kerry does it, he wins. If he doesn’t, he loses.

Matthews and Sheilds are comparing Kerry and Cheney because Kerry has not given them what the need to compare Kerry and Bush…and that is the only comparison anyone cares about.

Sep 2, 2004 - 7:21 pm 39. DennisThePeasant:

Kerry is now out with criticism of Cheney’s five deferments and failure to serve in Viet Nam.

The man is clueless. Irrespective of the merits of his criticism, here are the problems with it:

1. It does not answer, in any way, shape or form, the substance of Cheney’s criticism on Kerry’s defense and foreign policy positions. Cheney goes unanswered and wins by default.

2. Kerry seems to have forgotten, and nearly all Democrats have, that they won the argument against avoidance of service in Viet Nam being a disqualifying act for a potential president during the 1992 election. This has been a non-issue for 12 years.

3. Nobody votes for or against a Vice Presidential candidate.

In other words, Kerry once again accomplishes absolutely nothing.

Sep 2, 2004 - 7:36 pm 40. Jamie Irons:

Rick Ballard

Don’t forget, this is 60 Minutes!! Hundreds if not a thousand people may see it – if no ‘Leave it to Beaver’ reruns are playing.

Man, you can be funny sometimes!

Jamie Irons

Sep 2, 2004 - 8:03 pm 41. Knucklehead:

I’m curious how people on this thread would respond to Matthews’ two arguments above which seem to weaken the argument that Kerry intentionally tried to emasculate our armed services.

1. That several of the weapons systems that Kerry voted against were not supported by D. Cheney as SecDefense either.

If Kerry relentlessly voted against weapons systems then surely some of those votes must have occassionally agreed with the opinion of whomever was SecDef at the time of the vote. Surely even SecDefs don’t support every weapons system.

I put this in the “even a stopped clock is correct twice a day” category.

What other “no” votes agreed with whomever was SecDef at the time?

2. That some of Kerry’s votes were votes against comprehensive bills rather than against specific weapons systems.

We’d need a lot more explanation from Kerry to make any analysis of what this means. If they were comprehensive bills what was his reason for voting against? (Could the reason have been the weapons systems?) What comprehensive bills did Kerry vote for? (Did they ever contain provisions for weapons systems?)

Sep 2, 2004 - 8:16 pm 42. jj:

The manner in which bills are bundled and amended in Congress makes it almost impossible to discern the reason why someone voted one way or the other, and conversely very easy to impugn those motives. You have to listen to what the candidate says.

Unfortunately, John Kerry has had the opportunity to state his position and has defaulted. Zell Miller took the opportunity to say all the things that Kerry should have said. He was very believable, very impressive and painfully hard to refute. You can make fun of him, and some have, but the voters who are still in the middle recognize him as the genuine article, and they will be swayed.

Miller is not a Republican and said later that he would “die a Democrat”. The way I heard it, he only spoke to two issues that separated him from other Democrats ñ national defense and personal character. As a pro-war Democrat, I agreed with almost everything I heard.

I happen also to think that John Kerry is an admirable and heroic individual. Not that it’s relevant, but I believe he was right and honorable twice by serving in Vietnam and speaking against it. He is, however, saddled with a schizophrenic party today that gives him no room to maneuver. He will lose because he cannot speak in favor of pursuing the Global War on Terror vigorously without getting stabbed in the back by the Left. Zell Miller has just poked Kerry in the chest and asked whether he is going to do the right thing.

Sep 2, 2004 - 8:58 pm 43. Terrye:

Matt:

I thought that Cheney was a draft dodger war monger chicken hawk.

And now the Kerry people are saying what? That he is as liberal as Kerry?

The point is cumulative and Kerry voted against just about everything and what is more he was damn proud of it, right up until the time he ran for president.

Sep 2, 2004 - 8:58 pm 44. Syl:

Re the Kerry vs Cheney senate votes, remember Kerry was doing this in the ’80’s during the height of the cold war and attempting to thwart Reagan at every turn.

In the ’90’s AFTER the wall came down, Cheney backed some cutbacks in certain areas.

Two different times in history.

Context does make a difference.

Sep 2, 2004 - 9:04 pm 45. TmjUtah:

Dennis -

I’m darn glad I don’t disagree with you much. It would suck to end my days as a pelt tacked to the garage wall over the ‘Benz.

Crowded, too, I bet.

You can’t outsell the worst salesman in the world if you don’t have product. Too true.

I want to hear from Samuel. I didn’t watch Kerry’s Midnight Special but the look on the pundits faces both on FOX and MSNBC in the moments leading up to it made me decide to close the night happy with Bush’s speech. A fast scan (yes, mostly right-leaning) of blogs and media indicates that if it wasn’t a fullblown meltdown it certainly didn’t do him any good.

When multiple people across several different forums use the word “ramble”, it’s never good.

Y’all have a great night and a better tomorrow.

Sep 2, 2004 - 10:14 pm 46. Vexorg:

I think that Lileks put it best with his use of the term “Zellfire and brimstone”. And I thought that Guliani was ripping the Dems a new one…

And Roger, if I had to sit around listening to Sean Hannity for that long I’d probably get sick of it too, and I actually LIKE conservative talk radio. Fortunately up here in Seattle, we’re fortunate enough to have a couple of really good local guys on 570 KVI (Kirby Wilbur and John Carlson) that unfortunately I don’t get much chance to listen to because they don’t usually fit my schedule.

Sep 3, 2004 - 12:03 am 47. Vexorg:

Ack, mangled the link… If you’re reading this you probably already know where to find it, but here it is…

http://www.lileks.com/bleats/archive/04/0904/090304.html

Mods, feel free to burninate as appropriate.

Sep 3, 2004 - 12:05 am 48. vegetius:

Zell Miller’s speech was the most breath-taking, fire-breathing, testosterone-filled, scene since Al Pacino’s speech to the student assembly in “Scent of a Woman”. OOH AHH!!!

Sep 3, 2004 - 4:47 am 49. Catherine:

DtP

This from the Andrew Sullivan who spent the first two years after 9/11 bitching about the fact that nothing mattered but the War on Terror.

Andrew Sullivan is the Humpty Dumpty of political writers.

Terrye

Jeez Marie

Hey!

I always say it, Jeez Louise.

Is this an Indiana/Illinois thing?

Sep 3, 2004 - 8:54 am 50. Catherine:

Knucklehead

That some of Kerry’s votes were votes against comprehensive bills rather than against specific weapons systems.

We’d need a lot more explanation from Kerry to make any analysis of what this means.

I’m sure that’s true, and I’m assuming that’s one of the reasons Senators have a hard time getting elected president.

Somebody here will have an idea about this: how do Senators explain–or neutralize–tactical votes and normal Congressional horsetrading in a national campaign?

I don’t remember whether Dole had to deal with this, or, if so, how he did it.

Sep 3, 2004 - 9:00 am 51. Knucklehead:

Catherine,

I have no idea how they seperate out any explanation of what they vote for or against. This is one reason I believe we really could use a line-item veto for POTUS. The legislature is voting on something called “Some REALLY important thing that we just must spend $20B on” and buried in there are twenty more Sen. Byrd Bridges for W Va.

So did the guys who voted against the bill vote against the really important thing, or are they fighting against the preposterous pork portions, or are they just gettin’ dishin’ out some paybacks.

In the case of Kerry and weapons systems, however, it seems to me that unless he wasn’t relentlessly against weapons systems and, therefore, voted against these particular “comprehensive” bills for some other reason, he’d have some “for” votes for some comprehensive bills that also happened to contain some weapons systems stuff.

Sep 3, 2004 - 9:30 am 52. Astrogal:

Over on the Reason convention blog, Matt Welch did have some useful points in between hyperventilation episodes. Specifically: what is the appropriate level of criticism on foreign policy during a campaign season? (Especially in a war like this one, in which we don’t fight one nation and won’t have an official end to hostilities.) Is it going too far to ascribe liberty and freedom to soldiers when these are in fact rights guaranteed to us by the Constitution?

My point is that I naively would like to see reasoned, respectful debate on these points and the current climate doesn’t have much room for this.

Sep 3, 2004 - 9:54 am 53. Syl:

Astrogal

What’s the problem? Our revolution was fought with soldiers. We couldn’t have had that constitution without them.

If someone attacks us do you think it’s enough to show them our Constitution and that will make them stop?

Sep 3, 2004 - 10:25 am

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: