The first day of the convention is kicking off, and watching it today, something seemed to be clarified for me a bit. This campaign over the past few months has been largely about Vietnam: Where you were during it, What you did in it, and what you were afterwards. As John McCain gave a solid, quiet speech about the War on Terror, it became a bit clearer for me why Republicans have been so much better at appearing strong on terror, rightly or wrongly.
The Vietnam connection is the largest part of it. Because I personally look back at Vietnam as a failed war, and an example of the worst kind of American military might being used to promote our own self-interest, it has been hard for me to understand why people don't view it the same way. But many, many do, I suppose, and for them, the people that came back and protested were the worst sort of people for forsaking their brothers in arms still dying in the war.
John Kerry was one of these people. Let us leave aside the issues of what happened in the war and what George W. Bush was doing at the same time. The part of this that keeps Vietnam in the forefront of this election is that John Kerry came back an Antiwar protester and George W. never did.
What the Republicans have been so skillfully accomplishing is equating John Kerry's antiwar rhetoric in the 60's and 70's and turning it into the issue of "John Kerry wants to stand idly by and let terrorists run rampant."
And the Democrats have been unable to combat it. They've been unable to really get the message out that they want to go after terrorists as much as the Republicans, we just wanted it done a different way than the route this president has taken.
This is the central issue in the minds of the American voters. Not supposed flip-flopping, not failed and misleading intelligence. It isn't war medals and it isn't 7 minutes in a Florida classroom. It is about who the people perceiving that one candidate is strong on terror, and one is not.
I thought it was an interesting argument that Rudy Giuliani made that there are times when it is more important to stress Republican ideals than Democratic ideals. It is a simple statement, but with interesting implications. It is almost as if he is saying that if you want to be cared for, trust a Democrat, but if you want someone to kick ass, that is a Republican, and now is a time for kicking ass. I have huge problems with that, but it is an interesting argument.
Giuliani's speech was rousing, and he is a good model to stand up in front of a national audience, because we all saw him act with such great calmness and decisive action. That is something that can never be taken away with him, and he was able to feed off of that and channel it into his speech. This was as inspiring a speech to his audience as Barack Obama's was to mine.
And I will say this, there was some red meat in Giuliani's speech, and that can't really be said for the Democratic convention.
It is clear that the war drum will be the central message of this convention, if Day 1 is any indication. John McCain is the perfect person to be leading this effort off, and he was effective to that end, and Dems are going to have to find a way to show, in the remaining 60 days, that they are just as fevered in their desire to stop terror as Republicans.
And they need to do it quickly.
----------
A few side notes. I'm not sure that giving Michael Moore any inch of the spotlight in your own convention is sound political strategy. The movie is starting to fade away a bit, and all McCain did is to give him another day of his name in the news and his face on talk shows. That one line (or the same line twice, as McCain joked that it got such a good response from the Conservative crowd that he wanted to use it again) shows me just how worried the Republicans really are about Fahrenheit 9/11.
It is strange to me the method that the convention is taking of bringing in popular Republicans (i.e. George H.W., Dick Cheney), announcing them to the audience, and then just having them sit in their box seats. I suppose it is an attempt to show the pedigree of the President. I actually read today that a British historian has been able to trace the amount of royalty in the lineage of each candidate, and that John Kerry has more. This is uninteresting except that every single one of the previous presidents this country has had, have more royalty in their bloodline than the person they were running against. I'm don't think that is the reason they seem to have H.W. sitting by watching the proceedings like an elder statesman, but it is interesting.
Next time you want to have someone sing Amazing Grace on a national stage, you might wanna have the guy be able to hold his key during the song. That third stanza was a freak show. The former music major in me cringed while simultaneously imagining I was in recital lab and I could feel vastly superior to the person on stage.
Hey, listen. I was wondering... do you think that you could mention just once about the time when George Bush stood up at Ground Zero and said "I can hear you, and soon the people who did this will hear us"? Because I really like that story, and I just wish that someone would mention it once. Seriously. Think that is the image that they want voters to have when standing at the polls at all and not 7 minutes in Florida?
I do not for ONE SECOND believe that in the middle of the 9/11 attacks, as Rudy Giuliani is trying to find safety, he turned to his police commissioner and said "Thank God, George Bush is our President," and if you do, then I absolutely want you to vote for Bush, if only so I can make sure that I am distanced that much further from you.
Recent Comments