Some of my thoughts on Arnold's speech can be found here. A protestor's story can be found here. Meanwhile, the Mets continue to spiral downward, reaching around the same depths as last year ... and it isn't just the fault of the rookies. Leiter (who is said to have a future in politics), Glavine, and Zeile was at the convention last night. Maybe, their losing ways will rub off?
---
I responded to a defense of the president's first term here, a defense that perhaps overcompensates because of a belief that William Saletan over at Slate exaggerated his failures. This may not be so, though it does put me off when supporters are this enthusiastic about something that I feel is at best a mixed bag, and even then you have to really believe in what the guy is doing. I don't say this out of pique, but because even many in the middle and right are none too copacetic about the President, which is a pretty big warning flag right there.
The defense in fact struck me a bit peculiar because it did not focus on what we really were promised four years ago. It is something of a fool's errand to try to determine why people voted a person into office, but I think a few things can be offered. Overall, Bush was going to bring decency back, make the office respectable again. And, it isn't just about Monica ... he spoke of being a "uniter, not a divider" (his service in Texas seemed to bode well), a "compassionate conservative," and had a crew (with Colin Powell to serve an important role) that would help compensate for any inexperience he had.
Let's put some things out of the way. The fact that the President mixes religion a bit too much with his politics is not too surprising ... Jesus is his model, remember? His domestic policies are questionable, and worthy of criticism (including his lack of follow through for his "No Children Left Behind" program), but honest people will note they weren't a total disaster (or TOO much different than a Republican Congress would allow President Gore).* In some sense, he did bring decency to the position. And, I think his "modest" foreign policy rhetoric (rejecting nation building etc.) was a bit of a sham (key people in his administration had their eyes on Iraq for years), but one can debate such matters.
You know how he broke his "promises," that is, what many voters felt his administration would be like? He was one of the biggest dividers in recent history -- his way or the highway. Under his watch, his administration and party did some indecent things, and outing Valerie Plame is just one of them. His foreign policy was far from modest long before 9/11. Colin Powell and his brand of modest conservatism was slammed aside. And, it turns out his administration's skills at execution left something to be desired. Let the number of people who left the administration serve as symbolic canaries in the mine shaft.
Did Kerry at a midnight rally last night provide useful counterprogramming? I wonder. Why in the hell did he challenge Cheney's Vietnam deferments and again, again, suggest that a core reason he is qualified to be in office is that he spent four months in Vietnam? I understand it must rile him that a bully like Cheney, a chickenhawk to boot, crudely said that he wasn't fit for office. Still, honestly, some months in Vietnam a president does not make.
Is that all you have John? It's getting pathetic. You have to emphasize your whole career ... there are hundreds of thousands of veterans, some who spent a lot longer in country. Oh, there was more, but unsurprisingly, this was a major focus of the soundbites we heard on the news. Then, we have all that the President did wrong. Lying to get us to war, not doing enough domestically, Halliburton, and so forth. And, how the Democrats will bring forth reforms in health care (Medicare Bill, anyone? compare as you must, but remember the other side have something to defend as well), the environment, education, and so on. Fine, but just to do lists. It won't get you elected.
There is some good things there. It is hard to knock down an icon, an ideal, a mirage, which is what the President is to many people. His acceptance speech was said to be thin gruel ["four more years, please, sir?"], but how many people actually care? The person who got rid of Saddam and seems pretty nice (his administration is rotten at its core, but many don't want to admit it, or think criticisms are just political or sour grapes).
And, the way to do so must include a replacement that in various ways serves a similar purpose. Someone likeable (is it really THAT hard to find someone more personable than Mondale, Dukakis, and Gore? How about Dukakis' lieutenant governor?), able to put forth some basic ideals, and can be trusted. Kerry can be trusted, but he isn't fully taking advantage of why this is so. He was in public service, more or less, from the late '60s on (with a break for law school and private practice), though you wouldn't know it. I think underlining all the flip flops of Bush ("they call me a flip flopper ... well, they should know") probably would be better than speaking about Cheney's war record. Do we want rebroadcasts of Kerry defending Clinton's ability to serve?
Some foolhardy sorts sneer at Zell Miller and the rest, and think these people surely won't win ... the voters know how empty and corrupt they all are. Not so fast ... they won once before, more or less. They speak of landslides, when the polls suggest it will be close to the end. Life isn't that fair boys and girls ... who knows what will occur (maybe the shadow knows), but I'd caution a bit more concern, a bit less optimism. Oh, optimism should be present, since the potential is there.
I just hope that it is properly used.
---
* I'm being a bit generous here, but truthfully, his domestic failures will not be the determining factor. There are exceptions to this general rule, especially if the party can put forth a good case. Also, his misguided fiscal policy surely must be underlined, though the urban legend view all too many Americans take of such matters is quite hard to overcome.