Ed Driscoll.com Ed Driscoll.com
The Speech
By Ed Driscoll · July 30, 2004 11:18 AM · The Making of the President

Ed Driscoll, reporting for duty!

Sorry for the lack of commentary last night--I couldn't watch the speech last night on TV, but I did follow the real-time group commentary on InstaPundit and the Absolute-time blogging from Steve Green.

Without an obvious catchphrase from the speech--or the convention--the Kerry camp has been framed by the events that happened to it on the first and last days of the convention: the NASA clean-room bunnysuit photo-op flop and the "What the f@#k are you guys doing up there?" balloon drop gaffe.

(Indeed "What the f@#k are you guys doing up there?" could be a devastating obit to Kerry campaign if they don't get an explosive bounce from the convention.)

So here's a round-up of commentary from the Blogosphere.

James Lileks on Kerry and Vietnam:

"I defended this country as a young man, and I will defend it as President."

This really intrigues me. I agree that Vietnam was a defense of the United States, inasmuch as we were trying to blunt the advance of Communism. So: only Nixon can go to China. (Only Kirk can go to Chronos, for you Star Trek geeks.) Only Kerry can confirm that Vietnam was a just war. This completely upends conventional wisdom about the Vietnamese war, and requires a certain amount of historical amnesia. Why does this get glossed over? The illegitimacy of the Vietnam war (non-UN approved, after all) is a key doctrine of the Church of the Boomers; to say that service in Vietnam was done in defense of the United States is like announcing that Judas Ischariot was the most faithful of the disciples. Imagine if you were a preacher who attempted such a revision. Imagine your private thrill when everyone in the congregation nodded assent. The past was more malleable than you had ever expected.

JFK, you neo-conservative hawk you! So for the next three months or so, Vietnam was a just war, after 30 years of rhetoric to the contrary from the left--John Kerry's left?

But then, doesn't that mean that Kerry has just invalidated his Winter Soldier speech of 1971?

Orrin Judd writes that Vietnam traps Kerry in "in a weird political calculus":

A: The only thing he's ever done in his life, so far as we can tell, is serve honorably in Vietnam.

B: However, he thinks that war was evil and he a war criminal.

C: He thinks has to project a sufficiently powerful image that we'll hire him to fight this war.

D: However, he opposes it, almost equating it to Vietnam.

When you add all that up he's implicitly (sometimes explicitly) denigrating his own service to the cause of freedom and that of our current military, while asking to lead them (and us). No wonder he looked like Richard Nixon last night--this is one tortured dude.

Kerry's trying to portray himself as a hawk--but he glossed over his 20 years in the Senate. And I mean gloss: as Jim Geraghty writes, "In John Kerry’s speech last night, 73 of the 5343 words were about his Senate record: a total of 26 seconds."

Of course, it was in the Senate where Kerry's reputation as the definitive flip-flopper was born. Jonah Goldberg writes:

For most, a yes/no vote is like a light switch — only two possible positions. But for Kerry, everything has a dimmer knob. He rejects the notion that the bulb must be on or off. He thinks he can blend black and white into shades of gray — illuminating here, obscuring there.

This theme plays out over and over again in his biography, most famously in his record as both a decorated veteran and demagogic anti-war activist. He was for the Vietnam War before he was against it. In Kerry's world, squares can be circles, straight lines crooked, cats dogs. To borrow from the immortal Yogi Berra, when Kerry comes to a fork in the road, he takes it.

In many respects, such cognitive dissonance is a continuation of pre-9/11 political trends. The first George Bush said he had "more will than wallet." Bill Clinton promised a "third way" that "rejected the false choices" between right and left. And George W. Bush's uniting-not-dividing compassionate conservatism was more of a Republican version of Clintonian triangulation than a Republican alternative to it.

But Kerry's tactical gamble is bolder. His predecessors were all elected when the Cold War was ending or over, and a nation at peace can afford to roll the dice. Kerry is running during a war that some consider vital, some see as confusing and others dismiss as unnecessary. Kerry wants to win over all three groups by agreeing with all of them. He does this by talking in paragraphs of boring logical-loop-the-loop sentences that seem to be written in vanishing ink. But he's also trying to downplay the importance of the war. Kerry wants to "handle" the war on terrorism, not dedicate himself to it.

As Steve Green noted, Kerry's line that he won't attack until there is "A threat that is real and eminent" means:
So much for preemptive war -- a goddamn tragic necessity in the age of terror.

John Kerry isn't serious about this war. Iraq was a battle, not the war. He won't initiate any other battles; he'll only respond. He just said so.

Nobody who is serious about protecting the US today can vote for this guy.

It's one thing to hold your nose and vote for a candidate--but Kerry's election means that somebody is going to get screwed: either the leftwing anti-war types who'd rather have Dean or Nader, if they thought either guy was electable, or the people of the Middle East. If Kerry goes to war against a terrorist target--and like the speculation regarding LBJ and Vietnam, Kerry might feel very inclined to push the issue to prove he actually is a hawk, the Deaniacs and Naderites will be very, very angry with their man. But if he doesn't keep up the process of liberation that President Bush has started against the Axis of Evil, we return to the Neville Chamberlain-like Bill Clinton years, and await the next--and probably bigger--9/11.

Scott W. Johnson of Power Line concludes, "Despite its quicksilver shiftiness, Kerry's speech will come back to haunt him in the campaign".

And how.

Comments


Since 2002, News, Technology and Pop Culture, 24 Hours a Day, Live and in Stereo!

(And every Saturday on Sirius XM Satellite Radio.)

What They're Saying

"Just this week, the McCain camp released an ad that looked astonishingly similar to a parody ad created by blogger Ed Driscoll, which combined Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's famous '3 AM' ad with a second segment telling viewers that Mr. McCain also could be relied upon to respond to a crisis situation." --The Washington Times, September 5, 2008


Navigation
Weblog
Ed TV
Podcasts
Twitter Feed
Articles
Essays
Interviews
Links
About Me
FAQ
Photos

Home

Support the Site

Search

Archives
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002

Etcetera


Bookmark Me!

Blogroll Me!

Steal This Button!

Syndicate this site (XML)
Podcasts Feed

AddThis Feed Button

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

youtube_logo.gif

Our Podcasts' Apple iTunes Page

Powered by
Movable Type 3.35

Site design by
Sekimori

tumblr site counter
Copyright © 2002-2008 Edward B. Driscoll, Jr. All Rights Reserved