Take this Bounce and Shove it!
Regarding Kerry's convention speech last week (you know, the one where he said he defended America in Vietnam after those 19 Vietcong hijackers crashed jets into . . . oops, never mind), Washington Post reporter David Broder wrote in a column Sunday that "preliminary indications are that it worked well, not just inside the FleetCenter and here in his hometown (in Boston), but with many in the national audience. The first feedback I heard was almost uniformly positive." (The feedback consisted of, 'Wow, he finally broke his silence about serving in Vietnam!)
Richard Cohen, another Post columnist, columnized Sunday that Kerry presented "a package that can only be called presidential. He came across as thoughtful and smart and experienced and, critically important, personally compelling." (No wonder the delegates loved his lengthy speech so much. You should've seen the standing ovation Kerry got when he said, "In closing . . . ")
Los Angeles Times reporter, Ronald Brownstein, declared the speech a terrific success, noting that Kerry, sounding "confident and combative," had "signaled his determination to fight the fall campaign on terrain that the White House has long assumed would belong to President Bush: Strength, integrity, values and the prosecution of the war on terror." Indeed, at the convention, Democrats packed the stage with retired generals and admirals, and, to show they're really strong on defense, not once did delegates call them 'War Pigs!' nor 'Baby Killers!' It was a remarkable show of restraint. (And, speak of restraint, did you see Teresa on Tuesday night? Pundits called her "warm," "spectacular," "likable," "sexy." For John Kerry, no doubt Teresa was love at first Billion.)
In his speech, Kerry vowed to "bring back this nation's time-honored tradition" that the U.S. "never goes to war because we want to, we only go to war because we have to," like Kerry did regarding Iraq. Kerry voted for war, not because he wanted to, but because he had to -- he had to avoid looking like Dukakis. Then he changed his mind and voted against it -- the funding, anyway. (Democrats want Bush to confess that taking down Saddam was a mistake, a crime of passion and plead temporary insanity to avoid impeachment.)
Doyle McManus, another L.A. Times reporter, declared Kerry's speech a terrific success. TV "ratings for his acceptance speech" were "strong"; Kerry got a "wave of generally positive news coverage" and the speech conveyed "a message that a Kerry administration would be strong on defense in the struggle against terrorism." (Kerry would be so strong against terror, al-Qaeda plans to disrupt our elections just to get that warmonger from Massachusetts elected to liven things up.) With the speech, "Kerry largely succeeded at the tasks he set for himself at the convention," wrote McManus.
Kerry so largely succeeded, he largely succeeded in giving Bush a 5 point bounce, a new USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup poll shows. (Gallup is deemed "the historic standard" in tracking convention bounces, noted Deborah Orin of the New York Post Monday.) Bush now leads Kerry among likely voters, 51%-47%. Kerry led Bush by 2 points before Kerry 'largely succeeded' in Boston last week. Kerry's speech was effective -- it improved voters' opinion of Bush as President, boosting their willingness to vote for Bush. Millions of voters were moved by Kerry's speech to vote for Bush. The convention gave Bush the biggest lift he could have hoped from a Democrat convention that 'largely succeeded.' Kerry emerged from his 'largely successful' convention with the party unified -- the Republican Party. According to Gallup, "a relatively high proportion of Americans (gave) Kerry's acceptance speech stellar reviews," which all but assured Bush's support would go up. Kerry's speech did seem to bring voters closer together -- closer together against Kerry. (Maybe they should've delayed Kerry's speech to 2 a.m. to limit viewership -- just a hunch.)
USA Today reports that "pollsters and strategists are puzzling over Kerry's failure" to produce any bounce for himself after "a convention that even critics acknowledge went almost precisely as planned." (Indeed, for example, Nielsen ratings showed high viewership during the first half of Kerry's speech, though the high viewership fell asleep during the second half.) Keen observers and campaign watchers have no idea why, after a week of Jimmy Carter, Al Sharton, Howard Dean and Ted Kennedy on primetime TV, no Bounce for Kerry has been found. Search crews have scoured polls for days but have failed to turn up any Bounce, the main rationale behind the convention. Experts insist that conventions have always had plenty of Bounce and urged patience. Eventually the Bounce will be found. Yet, questions continue to be raised: Did John Kerry lead his party into Boston based on lies that a Bounce will be found? Did Democrats go to convention on a false pretense? Or could the Bounce have been hidden? With Kerry's credibility at risk in the search for a Bounce, again, some hold out hope that a Bounce might yet be found.
John Harwood of the Wall Street Journal told Meet The Press Sunday that the reason Kerry didn't get the usual 6-7 point bounce is because voters have already made up their minds, and, anyway, these polls were taken "before the historical peak of these bounces," usually during the weekend, when "low information voters start "absorbing this information" (Honey, play back that convention tape one more time. That balloon-drop looked quite compelling), so expect Kerry to get the usual 6-7 point bounce. In other words, Kerry got no bounce because there aren't enough persuadable voters but, by Monday, Kerry will get a bounce because it's not like there aren't enough persuadable voters. It's not more complicated than that.
So, you'd think Bush would be basking in the glow of his post-convention bounce, resting on his laurels, right? Not a chance. Instead, he went right to work, on Monday endorsing creation of a post of National Intelligence Director and counterterrorism operations center, a move immediately denounced by Kerry as too little, too late. Kerry says he can fight a more effective war on terrorism because he served in Vietnam for four months. (In Vietnam, Kerry says he fought the war on communism and lost. So, to fight the war on terror and win -- who you gonna call? Trust me -- I'm your guy!)
On Monday, Kerry and the media angrily blasted Bush for not taking the threat of terror seriously enough, of not acting with sufficient urgency. More can be done, and must be done -- now! Call the Congress back and get the job done -- now! Ports, bridges, ships, buildings, infrastructure -- all should be secured . . . now! Hire more FBI -- now! The time to act is now, not later!
Frankly, I question the timing of this fearmongering by Kerry. I'm concerned that every time something happens that's not good for Kerry, he plays his 'trump card', which is fearmongering, and then out comes Howard Dean.
Kerry crowed that he endorsed the 9/11 Commission report as written before it was written. (Bush is a slowpoke! Bush is a slowpoke! Nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah, nyahhhh, nyah!)
Late Monday, Democrats and the media angrily blasted Bush for exaggerating the threat of terror, of pushing fear for political gain, of acting as if there was some sort of urgency when there wasn't. The Department of Homeland Security on Sunday raised the threat alert level for financial centers in New York, New Jersey and the nation's capital, a move condemned as political by Democrats. Howard Dean told CNN he questioned the timing, accusing Bush of holding back the new information behind the heightened alert in order to blunt Kerry's post-convention Bounce that hasn't been found, when the right thing to do was to share the information as soon as it was uncovered -- in mid-July -- so that Dean could then accuse Bush of trying to blunt Kerry's pre-convention Bounce that had also never been found. (Notice how we're not talking about Kerry's warm, charming personality nor about the very shy, very quiet Teresa? hmmmmmm?)
Kerry, campaigning in Michigan, told CNN that, by moving so fast and not "reaching out to other countries" in fighting terrorism, "Bush is actually encouraging the recruitment of terrorists." (Bush, in 30-second recruitment ad, with thick Texas twang, says: 'Join al-Qaeda, See the World.') So, lemme get this straight: By killing and capturing so many al-Qaeda, Bush has forced al-Qaeda to recruit more al-Qaeda, in order to replenish al-Qaeda that Bush has killed or captured, or risk running out of al-Qaeda, and Kerry says this is something we should worry about. (I'm melting in fear like marshmallows.) And just think how safe we would be today if only Bush had retaliated more gently after 9/11. (I bet you thought Democrats were Blame-America-Firsters, didn't ya?)
Dean says he's "concerned that every time something happens that's not good for President Bush, he plays his trump card, which is terrorism, and then out comes Tom Ridge" and Condi Rice and Colin Powell and Dick Cheney . . . Yeeeaaaarggggh! Dean's remark should do wonders to reinforce his image as even-tempered, always thoughtful and self-controlled.
Question: Why does Dean say these things? Only a CAT scan of the head can answer.
;-)
Anyway, that's...
My Two Cents...
"JohnHuang2"
