« July 2004 | Main | September 2004 »
August 31, 2004
What did he say? Part III
John McCain -- never a big fan of the president, delivered a solid speech Monday night, notable for its sober tone regarding the inevitability of the war thrust upon us, and for his slam on the repugnant propagandist Michael Moore, which drew raucous boos from the audience.
Moore has taken his paper, pens, sodas and Cheetos, and has announced he'll not return to the convention at all.
Thank you, my fellow Republicans, and thank you, Lindsey.
I'm truly grateful for the privilege of addressing you.
This week, millions of Americans, not all Republicans, will weigh our claim on their support for the two men who have led our country in these challenging times with moral courage and firm resolve.
So I begin with the words of a great American from the other party, given at his party's convention in the year I was born.
My purpose is not imitation, for I can't match his eloquence, but respect for the relevance in our time of his rousing summons to greatness of an earlier generation of Americans.
At a time of deep distress at home, as tyranny strangled the aspirations to liberty of millions, and as war clouds gathered in the East and West, Franklin Delano Roosevelt accepted his party's nomination by observing: "There is a mysterious cycle in human events. To some generations much is given. Of other generations much is expected. This generation of Americans has a rendezvous with destiny."
(APPLAUSE) The awful events of September 11, 2001, declared a war we were vaguely aware of, but hadn't really comprehended how near the threat was and how terrible were the plans of our enemies. It's a big thing, this war. It's a fight between a just regard for human dignity and a malevolent force that defiles an honorable religion by disputing God's love for every soul on earth. It's a fight between right and wrong, good and evil. (APPLAUSE)And my friends, should our enemies acquire for their arsenal the chemical, biological and nuclear weapons they seek, this war will become a much bigger thing.
So it is, whether we wished it or not, that we have come to the test of our generation, to our rendezvous with destiny. And much is expected of us.
We are engaged in a hard struggle against a cruel and determined adversary. Our enemies have made clear the danger they pose to our security and the very essence of our culture: liberty.
Only the most deluded of us could doubt the necessity of this war. Like all wars, this one will have its ups and downs. But we must fight. We must.
(APPLAUSE)
The sacrifices borne in our defense are not shared equally by all Americans. But all Americans must share a resolve to see this war through to a just end. We must not be complacent at moments of success, and we must not despair over setbacks.
We must learn from our mistakes, improve on our successes, and vanquish this unpardonable enemy.
(APPLAUSE)
If we do less, we will fail the one mission no American generation has ever failed: to provide to our children a stronger, better country than the one we were blessed to inherit.
You remember how we felt when the serenity of a bright September morning was destroyed by a savage atrocity so hostile to all human virtue we could scarcely imagine any human being capable of it.
We were united, first in sorrow and anger, then in recognition we were attacked not for a wrong we had done, but for who we are: a nation united in a kinship of ideals, committed to the notion that the people are sovereign, not governments, not armies, not a pitiless theocracy, not kings, mullahs or tyrants, but the people.
In that moment...
(APPLAUSE)
In that moment, we were not different races. We were not poor or rich. We were not Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative. We were not two countries. We were Americans.
(APPLAUSE)
All of us, despite the differences that enliven our politics, are united in the one big idea that freedom is our birthright and its defense is always our first responsibility. All other responsibilities come second. We must not lose sight of that as we debate among us who should bear the greatest responsibility for keeping us safe and free.
We must, whatever our disagreements, stick together in this great challenge of our time.
My friends in the Democratic Party -- and I'm fortunate to call many of them my friends -- assure us they share the conviction that winning the war against terrorism is our government's most important obligation. I don't doubt their sincerity.
They emphasize that military action alone won't protect us, that this war has many fronts: in courts, financial institutions, in the shadowy world of intelligence, and in diplomacy.
They stress that America needs the help of her friends to combat an evil that threatens us all, that our alliances are as important to victory as are our armies.
We agree.
And, as we've been a good friend to other countries in moments of shared perils, so we have good reason to expect their solidarity with us in this struggle.
(APPLAUSE)
That is what the president believes. And thanks to his efforts, we have received valuable assistance from many good friends around the globe, even if we have, at times, been disappointed with the reactions of some.
I don't doubt the sincerity of my Democratic friends. And they should not doubt ours.
(APPLAUSE)
Our president will work with all nations willing to help us defeat this scourge that afflicts us all.
War is an awful business. The lives of a nation's finest patriots are sacrificed. Innocent people suffer. Commerce is disrupted. Economies are damaged. Strategic interests shielded by years of statecraft are endangered as the demands of war and diplomacy conflict.
However just the cause, we should mourn for all that is lost when war claims its wages from us.
But there is no avoiding this war. We tried that, and our reluctance cost us dearly.
(APPLAUSE)
And while this war has many components, we can't make victory on the battlefield harder to achieve so that our diplomacy is easier to conduct.
This is not just an expression of strength. It is a measure of our wisdom.
That's why I commend to my country the re-election of President Bush, and the...
(APPLAUSE)
... and the steady, experienced, public-spirited man who serves as our vice president, Dick Cheney.
(APPLAUSE)
Four years ago, in Philadelphia, I spoke of my confidence that President Bush would accept the responsibilities that come with America's distinction as the world's only superpower.
I promised he would not let America "retreat behind empty threats, false promises and uncertain diplomacy," that he would "confidently defend our interests and values wherever they are threatened."
I knew -- I knew my confidence was well placed when I watched him stand on the rubble of the World Trade Center with his arm around a hero of September 11th and in our moment of mourning and anger, strengthen our unity and our resolve by promising to right this terrible wrong, and to stand up and fight for the values we hold dear.
(APPLAUSE)
He promised our enemies would soon hear from us. And so they did. So they did.
(APPLAUSE)
He ordered American forces to Afghanistan and took the fight to our enemies and away from our shores, seriously injuring al Qaeda and destroying the regime that gave them safe haven.
He worked effectively to secure the cooperation of Pakistan, a relationship that's critical to our success against al Qaeda.
He encouraged other friends to recognize the peril that terrorism posed for them and won their help in apprehending many of those who would attack us again and in helping to freeze the assets they used to fund their bloody work.
After years of failed diplomacy and limited military pressure to restrain Saddam Hussein, President Bush made the difficult decision to liberate Iraq.
(APPLAUSE)
Those who criticize that decision would have us believe that the choice was between a status quo that was well enough left alone and war. But there was no status quo to be left alone.
(APPLAUSE)
The years of keeping Saddam in a box were coming to a close. The international consensus that he be kept isolated and unarmed had eroded to the point that many critics of military action had decided the time had come again to do business with Saddam, despite his near daily attacks on our pilots, and his refusal, until his last day in power, to allow the unrestricted inspection of his arsenal.
Our choice wasn't between a benign status quo and the bloodshed of war. It was between war and a graver threat. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.
(APPLAUSE)
Not our political opponents. And certainly -- and certainly not a disingenuous filmmaker who would have us believe...
AUDIENCE: Booo! Four more years! Four more years! Four more years!McCAIN: Please, please, my friends.
That line was so good, I'll use it again. Certainly not a disingenuous film maker...
(APPLAUSE)
... who would have us believe, my friends, who would have us believe that Saddam's Iraq was an oasis of peace, when in fact -- when in fact it was a place of indescribable cruelty, torture chambers, mass graves and prisons that destroyed the lives of the small children inside their walls.
(APPLAUSE)
Whether or not Saddam possessed the terrible weapons he once had and used, freed from international pressure and the threat of military action, he would have acquired them again.
My friends, the central security concern of our time is to keep such devastating weapons beyond the reach of terrorists who can't be dissuaded from using them by the threat of mutual destruction.
We couldn't afford the risk posed by an unconstrained Saddam in these dangerous times. By destroying his regime, we gave hope to people long oppressed, that if they have the courage to fight for it, they may live in peace and freedom.
(APPLAUSE)
Most importantly -- most importantly, our efforts may encourage the people of a region, that has never known peace or freedom or lasting stability, that they may someday possess these rights. I believe as strongly today as ever, the mission was necessary, achievable and noble.
(APPLAUSE)
For his determination to undertake it and for his unflagging resolve to see it through to a just end, President Bush deserves not only our support, but our admiration.
(APPLAUSE)
As the president rightly reminds us, we are safer now than we were on September 11th, but we're not yet safe. We are still closer to the beginning than the end of this fight.
We need a leader with the experience to make the tough decisions and the resolve to stick with them, a leader who will keep us moving forward even if it is easier to rest.
And this president will not rest until America is stronger and safer still...
(APPLAUSE)
... and this hateful iniquity is vanquished. He has been tested and has risen to the most important challenge of our time, and I salute him.
I salute his determination to make this world a better, safer, freer place. He has not wavered. He has not flinched from the hard choices. He will not yield. And neither will we.
(APPLAUSE)
I said earlier that the sacrifices in this war will not be shared equally by all Americans. The president is the first to observe, most of the sacrifices fall, as they have before, to the brave men and women of our armed forces. We may be good citizens, but make no mistake, they are the very best of us.
(APPLAUSE)
It's an honor to live in a country that is so well and so bravely defended by such patriots.
May God bless them, the living and the fallen, as he has blessed us with their service.
(APPLAUSE)
For their families, for their friends, for America, for mankind, they sacrifice to affirm that right makes might, that good triumphs over evil, that freedom is stronger than tyranny, and that love is greater than hate.
(APPLAUSE)It is left to us to keep their generous benefaction alive and our blessed, beautiful country worthy of their courage.
We should be thankful for the privilege.
Our nation's security doesn't depend on the heroism of every citizen. But we have to be worthy of the sacrifices made on our behalf.
We have to love our freedom not just for the material benefits it provides, not just for the autonomy it guarantees us, but for the goodness it makes possible.
We have to love it as much, if not as heroically, as the brave Americans who defend us at the risk, and often the cost, of their lives.
(APPLAUSE)
No American -- no American alive today will ever forget what happened on the morning of September 11th. That day was the moment when the pendulum of history swung toward a new era.
The opening chapter was tinged with great sadness and uncertainty.
It shook us from our complacency in the belief that the Cold War's end had ushered in a time of global tranquility.
But an absence of complacency should not provoke an absence of confidence. What our enemies have sought to destroy is beyond their reach. It cannot be taken from us. It can only be surrendered.
(APPLAUSE)
My friends, we are again met on the field of political competition with our fellow countrymen.
It's more than appropriate, it's necessary that even in times of crisis we have these contests and engage in spirited disagreement over the shape and course of our government.
We have nothing to fear from each other. We are arguing over the means to better secure our freedom and support the general welfare.
But it should remain an argument among friends who share an unshaken belief in our great cause and in the goodness of each other.
We are Americans first, Americans last, and Americans always.
(APPLAUSE)
Let us argue -- let us argue our differences, but remember we are not enemies, but comrades in a war against a real enemy, and take courage from the knowledge that our military superiority is matched only by the superiority of our ideals and our unconquerable love for them.
Our adversaries are weaker than us in arms and men, but weaker still in causes. They fight to express -- they fight to express a hatred for all that is good in humanity. We fight for love of freedom and justice, a love that is invincible.
Keep that faith. Keep your courage. Stick together. Stay strong. Do not yield. Do not flinch. Stand up. Stand up with our president and fight.
We're Americans. We're Americans, and we'll never surrender. They will.
Posted by Mike Lief at 11:00 PM | TrackBack
What did he say? Part II
For those of you without cable, you missed out on a terrific speech by Rudy Giuliani. I've posted the text, which is still pretty good, even without his spot-on delivery. He delivers a devastating blow to Kerry, while reminding us how well Pres. Bush connected with New Yorkers in the days after the terrorists killed thousands of their neighbors.
Thank you. Welcome to the capital of the world.
New York was the first capital of our great nation. It was here in 1789, in lower Manhattan, that George Washington took the oath of office as the first president of the United States.
And it was here in 2001, in the same lower Manhattan, that President George W. Bush stood amid the fallen towers of the World Trade Center, and he said to the barbaric terrorists who attacked us, "They will hear from us."
Well, they heard from us.
They heard from us in Afghanistan and we removed the Taliban.
They heard from us in Iraq, and we ended Saddam Hussein's reign of terror.
And we put him where he belongs, in jail.
They heard from us in Libya, and without firing a shot Gadhafi abandoned his weapons of mass destruction.
They are hearing from us in nations that are now more reluctant to sponsor terrorists or terrorism.
So long as George Bush is our president, is there any doubt they will continue to hear from us until we defeat global terrorism?
We owe that much and more to the loved ones and heroes that we lost on September 11.
The families of some of those we lost on September 11 are here with us. To them, and to all those families affected by September 11, we recognize the sacrifices your loved ones made. We recognize the sacrifices that you're making. You are in our prayers, and we are in your debt.
This is the first Republican convention ever held here in New York City.
I've never seen so many Republicans in New York City. It's great.
I finally feel at home.
And you know something? Mayor Bloomberg, Governor Pataki, all of you that worked so hard in bringing this convention to New York, our president and the party that decided they'd have it here, above and beyond everything else, it's a statement, it's a strong statement that New York City and America are open for business, and we are stronger than ever.
New York. New York. New York.
AUDIENCE: New York. New York. New York.
GIULIANI: This is getting to be like a Yankee game. I don't know. Watch out.
You know, we're just not going to let the terrorists determine where we have political conventions, where we go, how we travel. We're Americans, the land of the free and the home of the brave.
AUDIENCE: USA. USA. USA.
GIULIANI: From the first Republican president, Abraham Lincoln, to President George W. Bush, our party's great contribution is to expand freedom in our own land and all over the world.
And our party is at its best when we make certain that we have a powerful national defense in a still very, very dangerous world.
I don't believe that we're right about everything, and Democrats are wrong. They're wrong about most things.
But seriously, neither party has a monopoly on virtue.
We don't have all the right ideas. They don't have all the wrong ideas.
But I do believe there are times in history when our ideas are more necessary and more important and critical, and this is one of those times when we are facing war and danger.
There are times when leadership is the most important.
On September 11, this city and our nation faced the worst attack in our history. On that day, we had to confront reality.
For me, when I arrived there and I stood below the north tower and I looked up, and seeing the flames of hell emanating from those buildings, and realizing that what I was actually seeing was a human being on the 101st, 102nd floor, that was jumping out of the building, I stood there, it probably took five or six seconds, it seemed to me that it took 20 or 30 minutes, and I was stunned.
And I realized, in that moment, in that instant, I realized we were facing something that we have never, ever faced before.
We had never been confronted with anything like this before. We had to concentrate all of our energy and our faith and our hope to get through those first hours and days. And we needed all the help that we could get and all the support that we could get.
And I will always remember that moment as we escaped the building that we were trapped in at 75 Barclay Street, and I realized that things outside might actually be worse than inside the building.
We did the best we could to communicate a message of calm and hope, as we stood on the pavement watching a cloud come through the cavernous streets of lower Manhattan.
Our people were so brave in their response.
At the time, we believed that we would be attacked many more times that day and in the days that followed. Without really thinking, based on just emotion, spontaneous, I grabbed the arm of then-Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik, and I said to him, "Bernie, thank God George Bush is our president."
I say it again tonight. I say it again tonight:
Thank God that George Bush is our president, and thank God that Dick Cheney, a man with his experience and his knowledge and his strength and his background, is our vice president.
On September 11, George Bush had been president less than eight months. The new president, the vice president, the new administration were faced with the worst crisis in our history virtually at the beginning of their administration.
President Bush's response in keeping us unified, in turning around the ship of state from being solely on defense against terrorism to being on offense as well and for his holding us together for that and then his determined effort to defeat global terrorism, no matter what happens in this election, President George W. Bush already has earned a place in history as a great American president.
But you and I, we're not going to wait for history to present the correct view of our president. Let us write our own history. We need George Bush now more than ever.
The horror, the shock and the devastation of those attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon and over the skies of Pennsylvania lifted a cloud from our eyes.
We stood face to face with those people and forces who hijacked not just airplanes, but a great religion and turned it into a creed of terrorism dedicated to killing us and eradicating us and our way of life.
Terrorism did not start on September 11, 2001. It started a long time ago. And it had been festering for many years.
And the world had created a response to it that allowed it to succeed. The attack on the Israeli team at the Munich Olympics was in 1972. That's a long time ago.
That's not yesterday.
And the pattern began early. The three surviving terrorists were arrested. And then within just three months, the terrorists who slaughtered the Israeli athletes were released by the German government -- set free.
AUDIENCE: Boooo.
GIULIANI: Action like this became the rule, not the exception. Terrorists came to learn time after time that they could attack, that they could slaughter innocent people and not face any consequences.
In 1985, terrorists attacked the Achille Lauro. And they murdered an American citizen who was in a wheelchair, Leon Klinghoffer. They marked him for murder solely because he was Jewish.
Some of those terrorists were released, and some of the remaining terrorists -- they were allowed to escape by the Italian government because of fear of reprisals from the terrorists.
So terrorists learned they could intimidate the world community, and too often the response, particularly in Europe, would be accommodation, appeasement and compromise.
AUDIENCE: Boooo.
GIULIANI: And worse, they also learned that their cause would be taken more seriously almost in direct proportion to the horror of their attack.
Terrorist acts became like a ticket to the international bargaining table. How else to explain Yasser Arafat winning the Nobel Peace Prize while he was supporting a plague of terrorism in the Middle East and undermining any chance of peace?
Before September 11, we were living with an unrealistic view of our world, much like observing Europe appease Hitler or trying to accommodate the Soviet Union through the use of mutually assured destruction.
President Bush decided that we could no longer be just on defense against global terrorism, we must also be on offense.
On September 20, 2001, President Bush stood before a joint session of Congress, a still grieving and shocked nation and a confused world, and he changed the direction of our ship of state.
He dedicated America, under his leadership, to destroying global terrorism.
The president announced the Bush Doctrine, when he said, "Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated. Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists."
And since September 11, President Bush has remained rock solid.
It doesn't matter to him how he is demonized. It doesn't matter what the media does to ridicule him or misinterpret him or defeat him.
They ridiculed Winston Churchill. They belittled Ronald Reagan. But like President Bush, they were optimists. Leaders need to be optimists. Their vision is beyond the present, and it's set on a future of real peace and security.
Some call it stubbornness. I call it principled leadership.
President Bush has the courage of his convictions.
In choosing a president, we really don't choose just a Republican or Democrat, a conservative or a liberal. We choose a leader.
And in times of war and danger, as we're now in, Americans should put leadership at the core of their decision.
There are many qualities that make a great leader. But having strong beliefs, being able to stick with them through popular and unpopular times, is the most important characteristic of a great leader.
One of my heroes, Winston Churchill, saw the dangers of Hitler while his opponents characterized him as a warmongering gadfly.
Another one of my heroes, Ronald Reagan, saw and described the Soviet Union as "the evil empire," while world opinion accepted it as inevitable and even belittled Ronald Reagan's intelligence.
President Bush sees world terrorism for the evil that it is.
John Kerry has no such clear, precise and consistent vision. This is not a personal criticism of John Kerry. I respect him for his service to our nation.
But it is important and critical to see the contrast in approach between the two men: President Bush, a leader who is willing to stick with difficult decisions even as public opinion shifts and goes back and forth; and John Kerry, whose record in elected office suggests a man who changes his position often, even on important issues.
Now, when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in 1990, John Kerry voted against the Persian Gulf War.
AUDIENCE: Boooo.
GIULIANI: Ah, but he must have heard your booing because -- because later he said he actually supported the war.
Then in 2002, as he was calculating his run for the presidency, he voted for the war in Iraq. And then just nine months later, he voted against an $87 billion supplemental budget to fund the war and support our troops.
AUDIENCE: Boooo.
GIULIANI: He even, at one point, declared himself as an antiwar candidate. And now he says he's pro-war candidate. At this rate, with 64 days left, he still has time to change his position four or five more times.
My point about John Kerry being inconsistent is best described in his own words, not mine. I quote John Kerry, "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it."
Maybe this explains John Edwards' need for two Americas.
One is where John Kerry can vote for something and another where he can vote against exactly the same thing.
Yes, people in public office at times change their minds, or they realized they're wrong. I have, others have, or circumstances change. But John Kerry has made it the rule to change his position, rather than the exception.
In October of 2003 he told an Arab-American Institute in Detroit that a security barrier separating Israel from the Palestinian Territories was a "barrier to peace." OK.
Then a few months later, he took exactly the opposite position. In an interview with the Jerusalem Post he said, "Israel's security fence is a legitimate act of self defense."
AUDIENCE: Boooo.
GIULIANI: The contrasts are dramatic. They involve very different views of how to deal with terrorism. President Bush will make certain that we are combating terrorism at the source, beyond our shores, so we don't have to confront it, or we reduce of confronting it here in New York City, or in Chicago or in Los Angeles or in Miami or in the rural areas of America.
That's what it means to play offense with terrorism, and not just defense.
John Kerry's record of inconsistent positions on combating terrorism gives us no confidence that he'll pursue such a determined, difficult course.
President Bush would not allow countries that appear to have ignored the lessons of history and failed for over 30 years to stand up to terrorists, he wouldn't allow them to stop us from doing what is necessary in the defense of our country.
He's not going to let them set the agenda. Under President Bush, America will lead, not follow.
Remember, just a few months ago, John Kerry kind of leaked out that claim that certain foreign leaders who opposed our removal of Saddam Hussein prefer him.
Well, to me, that raises the risk that he might well accommodate his position to their viewpoint.
It would not be the first time that John Kerry changed his mind about matters of war and peace.
I remember the days following September 11 when we were no longer Republicans or Democrats, but we were Americans. We were determined to do everything, everything that we could to help the victims, to rebuild our city and to disable our enemies.
I remember President Bush coming here on September 14, 2001, and lifting the morale of our rescue workers by talking with them and embracing them and staying with them much longer than was planned.
In fact, if you promise to keep this between us, because, I mean, I could get in trouble for this.
But I get in trouble all of the time. I was mayor of New York.
It is my opinion that when President Bush came here on September 14, 2001, the Secret Service was not really happy about his remaining in the area so long.
With buildings were still unstable, with fires raging below ground of 2,000 degrees or more, there was good reason for their concern.
Well, the president remained there. And talked to everyone, to the firefighters, to the police officers, the health care workers, the clergy. But the people that believe -- this is my opinion now from observing it -- that the people that spent the most time with him were our construction workers.
Now, New York construction workers are very special people. I'm sure this is true all over America where you come from, but I know the ones in New York really well.
And they were real heroes that day, like many others.
But I have to tell you, they're big. They are really big. They have arms that are bigger than my legs. And they have opinions that are bigger than their arms.
So every time the president would go up to one of them, they would hold his hand a little bit longer. And they would give him advice. I think like his Cabinet, Mr. Vice President, gives him advice.
They would like tell him in their own language exactly what he should do with the terrorists.
I can't repeat -- after all this is the Republican convention -- I can't repeat what they said, but one of them really got the president's attention. The president really bonded with him. They sort of hit it off. And the guy's giving him this long explanation of exactly what he should do. And when the man finished, President Bush said in a rather loud voice, "I agree."
At this point, all of the people kind of looked at this guy, all of his buddies. And can you imagine -- I mean, you're a construction worker, and all your buddies say -- and the president says, "I agree."
The guy went up in his own estimation from his 6 feet to about 6-10.
He lost total control of himself. Forgot who he was dealing with. He leaned over. He grabbed the president of the United States in this massive bear hug, and he started squeezing him.
And the Secret Service agent standing next to me, who wasn't happy about any of this, instead of running over and getting the president out of this grip, puts his finger in my face and he says to me, "If this guy hurts the president, Giuliani, you're finished."
I didn't know what to say. I was kind of shook when the -- and I said -- the only thing I could think of, and it's the moral of the story, I said, "But it would be out of love."
I also remember on that same day, as I'm sure Governor Pataki does, the heart-wrenching visit President Bush made to the families of our firefighters and our police officers at the Javits Center. I'm sure some of you remember it.
I remember receiving all the help and the assistance and support from the president, and even more than we asked for. For that, and for his personal support of me, I am eternally grateful to President Bush. He helped to get me through.
And I remember the support being bipartisan and actually standing hand in hand Republicans and Democrats, here in New York and all over the nation.
During a Boston Red Sox game in the seventh inning there was a sign that read, "Boston loves New York."
You're not going to see it now with a 4.5 game spread between the two teams.
And then one of the most remarkable experiences was, I was driving along and I saw a Chicago police officer directing traffic in the middle of Manhattan, sent here by Mayor Daley of Chicago, who was a good friend of ours, and is. And that's what I mean about no Democrats or Republicans.
Well, the guy is directing traffic. And I got out to thank him, and I did. And then I went back in my car and all of a sudden, I had this thought: "I wonder where he's sending these people."
I think some of them are still driving around the Bronx, but it was very reassuring to know how much support we had, and I thank all of you for it, because you all gave us support -- Republicans, Democrats, everyone.
And as we look beyond this election and realize that elections do accentuate our differences, let's make sure that we rekindle that spirit that we had, that we are one America. We are united to end the threat of global terrorism as one people.
Certainly President Bush will keep us focused on that goal. When President Bush announced his commitment to ending global terrorism, he understood, I understood, we all understood that it was critical to remove the pillars of support for the global terrorist movement.
In any plan to destroy global terrorism, removing Saddam Hussein needed to be removed.
Frankly, I believed then and I believe now that Saddam Hussein, who supported global terrorism, slaughtered thousands and thousands of his own people, permitted horrific atrocities against women, and used weapons of mass destruction -- he was himself a weapon of mass destruction.
But the reasons for removing Saddam Hussein were based on issues even broader than just the presence of weapons of mass destruction.
To liberate people, give them a chance for accountable, decent government and to rid the world of a pillar of support for global terrorism is nothing to be defensive about.
It's something for which all those involved, from President Bush to the brave men of our armed services, should be proud. They did something wonderful. They did something that history will give them great credit for.
President Bush has also focused us on the correct long-term answer for the violence and hatred emerging from the Middle East. The hatred and anger in the Middle East arises from the lack of accountable governments.
Rather than trying to grant more freedom, or create more income, or improve education and basic health care, these governments deflect their own failures by pointing to America and to Israel and to other external scapegoats.
But blaming these scapegoats does not improve the life of a single person in the Arab world.
It does not relieve the plight of even one woman in Iran.
It does not give a decent living to a single soul in Syria.
It doesn't stop the slaughter of African Christians in the Sudan.
The president understands that the changes necessary in the Middle East involve encouraging accountable, lawful, decent governments that can be role models and solve the problems of their own people.
This has been a very important part of the Bush doctrine and the president's vision for the future.
Have faith in the power of freedom. People who live in freedom always prevail over people who live in oppression.
That's the story of the Old Testament.
That's the story of World War II and the Cold War.
That's the story of the firefighters and police officers and rescue workers who courageously saved thousands of lives on September 11, 2001.
President Bush is the leader we need for the next four years because he can see beyond just today and tomorrow. He can see in the future. He has a vision of a peaceful Middle East and a safer world.
Don't be discouraged. Don't be cynical. We'll see an end to global terrorism. I can see it. I believe it. I know it will happen.
You know, right now, it may seem very difficult and a long way off. It may even seem idealistic to say that. But it may not be as far away and idealistic as it seems.
Look how quickly the Berlin Wall was torn down and the Iron Curtain ripped open and the Soviet Union disintegrated because of the power of the pent-up demand for freedom.
When it catches hold, there is nothing more powerful than freedom. Give it some hope, and it will overwhelm dictators and even defeat terrorists.
That is what we've done and must continue to do in Iraq. That's what the Republican Party, our party, does best, when we're at our best.
We extend freedom, and it's our mission. It's the long-term answer to ending global terrorism. Governments that are free and accountable.
We have won many battles in this war on terror, at home and abroad. But as President Bush told us way back on September 20, 2001, it will take a long-term determined effort to prevail.
The war on terrorism will not be won in a single battle. There will be no dramatic surrender. There will be no crumbling of a massive wall.
But we will know it. We'll know it as accountable governments continue to develop in countries like Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iraq.
We'll know it as terrorist attacks throughout the world decrease and then end and we save lives. And then, God willing, we'll all be able on a future anniversary of September 11 to return to Ground Zero, or to the Pentagon, or to Shanksville, Pennsylvania, and to say to our fallen brothers and sisters, to our heroes of the worst attack in our history and to our heroes who have sacrificed their lives in the war on terror, we will be able to say to them that we have done all that we could with our lives that were spared to make your sacrifices build a world of real peace and true freedom.
We will make certain, in the words of President Bush, that they have heard from us, that they've heard from us a message of peace through free, accountable, lawful and decent governments giving people hope for a future for themselves and their children.
God bless each one we have lost, every soul, every single person, here and abroad, and their families. God bless all those who are currently at risk and in harm's way defending our freedom. And God bless America.
Posted by Mike Lief at 10:44 PM | TrackBack
What did he say?
It's been difficult to find full transcripts of the speeches at the Republican National Convention -- at least it was tough to find that of actor Ron Silver.
Given the complete absence of network coverage of the opening night, I thought I'd give my friends the chance to read for themselves what a former 9/10 liberal sounds like after he becomes a 9/12 conservative.
I want to thank the President and the Republican Party for holding this event in my hometown, my father's hometown, my grandfather's and great grandfather's birthplace.
Just over 1,000 days ago, 2,605 of my neighbors were murdered at the World Trade Center -- men, women and children -- as they began their day on a brilliantly clear New York autumn morning, less than four miles from where I am now standing.
We will never forgive. Never forget. Never excuse!
At the end of World War II, General Douglas MacArthur, Supreme Allied Commander of the South Pacific, said:
"It is my earnest hope - indeed the hope of all mankind - that from this solemn occasion a better world shall emerge out of the blood and carnage of the past, a world found upon faith and understanding, a world dedicated to the dignity of man and the fulfillment of his most cherished wish for freedom, tolerance and justice."
The hope he expressed then remains relevant today.
We are again engaged in a war that will define the future of humankind. Responding to attacks on our soil, America has led a coalition of countries against extremists who want to destroy our way of life and our values.
This is a war we did not seek.
This is a war waged against us.
This is a war to which we had to respond.
History shows that we are not imperialists . . . but we are fighters for freedom and democracy.
Even though I am a well-recognized liberal on many issues confronting our society today, I find it ironic that many human rights advocates and outspoken members of my own entertainment community are often on the front lines to protest repression, for which I applaud them. . .
But they are usually the first ones to oppose any use of force to take care of these horrors that they catalogue repeatedly.
Under the unwavering leadership of President Bush, the cause of freedom and democracy is being advanced by the courageous men and women serving in our Armed Services.
The President is doing exactly the right thing.
That is why we need this President at this time!
I am grateful for the chance to speak tonight to express my support for our Commander-in-Chief, for our brave troops, and for the vital cause which they have undertaken.
General Dwight Eisenhower's statement of 60 years ago is true today . . .
"United in this determination and with unshakable faith in the cause for which we fight, we will, with God's help, go forward to our greatest victory."
Thank you.
Posted by Mike Lief at 10:32 PM | TrackBack
August 29, 2004
I was afor it, before I was agin' it.
I'm not one of those guys who claims that the Gallic presidential candidate is prone to flip-floppery, but . . . didja hear about his Florida campaign tour? The Miami Herald has the scoop:
John Kerry had just pumped up a huge crowd in downtown West Palm Beach, promising to make the state a battleground for his quest to oust President Bush, when a local television journalist posed the question that any candidate with Florida ambitions should expect:
What will you do about Cuba?
As the presumptive Democratic nominee, Kerry was ready with the bravado appropriate for a challenger who knows that every answer carries magnified importance in the state that put President Bush into office by just 537 votes.
''I'm pretty tough on Castro, because I think he's running one of the last vestiges of a Stalinist secret police government in the world,'' Kerry told WPLG-ABC 10 reporter Michael Putney in an interview to be aired at 11:30 this morning.
Then, reaching back eight years to one of the more significant efforts to toughen sanctions on the communist island, Kerry volunteered: ``And I voted for the Helms-Burton legislation to be tough on companies that deal with him.''
It seemed the correct answer in a year in which Democratic strategists think they can make a play for at least a portion of the important Cuban-American vote -- as they did in 1996 when more than three in 10 backed President Clinton's reelection after he signed the sanctions measure written by Sen. Jesse Helms and Rep. Dan Burton.
There is only one problem: Kerry voted against it.
Asked Friday to explain the discrepancy, Kerry aides said the senator cast one of the 22 nays that day in 1996 because he disagreed with some of the final technical aspects. But, said spokesman David Wade, Kerry supported the legislation in its purer form -- and voted for it months earlier.
The confusion illustrates a persistent problem for Kerry as Republicans exploit his 19-year voting history to paint the Massachusetts senator as a waffler on major foreign-affairs questions such as the Iraq war, Israel's security barrier and intelligence funding.
Flip flop? Prevarication? Or, as Edmund Blackadder once asked, "Contrafibulation?"
I'm afraid Kerry's just too nuanced pour moi.
Posted by Mike Lief at 12:40 AM | TrackBack
The words of John Kerry
John Kerry doesn't want you to read his book, "The New Soldier." Published in 1971, he has not authorized a reprint; used copies can be found on e-bay for more than $700. This is what the Democratic candidate had to say in his book:
We will not quickly join those who march on Veterans' Day waving small flags, calling to memory those thousands who died for the "greater glory of the United States." We will not accept the rhetoric. We will not readily join the American Legion and the Veterans of Foreign Wars - in fact, we will find it hard to join anything at all and when we do, we will demand relevancy such as other organizations have recently been unable to provide. We will not take solace from the creation of monuments or the naming of parks after a select few of the thousands of dead Americans and Vietnamese. We will not uphold traditions which decorously memorialize that which was base and grim.
It is from these things the New Soldier is asking America to turn. We are asking America to turn from false glory, hollow victory, fabricated foreign threats, fear which threatens us as a nation, shallow pride which feeds off fear, and mostly from the promises which have proven so deceiving these past ten years.
For many of us there is little to remember but the promises and, most poignantly, the loss of the symbols of those promises -- of John and Robert Kennedy, of Martin Luther King, Jr., of Medgar Evers, of Fred Hampton and Malcolm X, of Allison Krause, Sandy Scheuer, Jeffrey Miller, and William Schroeder from Kent State and Philip Gibbs and James Green from Jackson State; the loss, too, of friends, of Richard Pershing, Peter Johnson, Johnny White, Don Droz, and the other 53,000 Americans who have lost their lives in this degrading and immoral war. The promises of peace candidates who were not peacemakers; of civil rights laws which were not enforced; of educational and medical aid which was downgraded in priority below bombs and guns; of equal opportunity while Mexican-Americans and blacks were drafted in numbers disproportionate to their representation in this country and then made up casualties in even greater disproportion . . .
We were sent to Vietnam to kill Communism. But we found instead that we were killing women and children. We knew the saying "War is hell" and we knew also that wars take their toll in civilian casualties. In Vietnam, though, the "greatest soldiers in the world," better armed and better equipped than the opposition, unleashed the power of the greatest technology in the world against thatch huts and mud paths. In the process we created a nation of refugees, bomb craters, amputees, orphans, widows, and prostitutes, and we gave new meaning to the words of the Roman historian Tacitus: "Where they made a desert they called it peace."
The New Soldier has come back determined to make changes without making the world more unjust in the effort to make it just. We have come back determined that human will can control technology and that there is greater dignity and power in human spirit than we have yet been willing to grant ourselves. In Vietnam we made it particularly easy to deny that spirit. We extended an indifference which has too often been part of this country's history and made it easy for men to deal in abstractions. "Oriental human beings" -- "gooks" -- "body count" -- "Nape" -- "Waste 'em" -- "free-fire zone" -- "lf they're dead, they're VC" -- the abstractions took command from the commanders themselves and we realized too late that we were the prisoners of our own neglect and callowness.
By discussing crimes committed in war, the New Soldier is trying to break through the callowness and end the neglect. Regardless of whether crimes have been committed in other wars or even by the other side in this one, America must understand how our participation in Vietnam and the methods and motives used by American fighting men are part of a continuing national moral standard. As New Soldiers we are seeking to elevate that standard as well as to demonstrate where it has been part of a significant illusion. Individuals are trying, by denying themselves the luxury of forgetting about their acts, to spare others the agony of having to commit them at some time in the future . . .
I myself went into the service with very little awareness of the people in the streets. I accepted then and still accept the idea of service to one's country. But because of all that I saw in Vietnam, the treatment of civilians, the ravaging of their countryside, the needless, useless deaths, the deception and duplicity of our policy, I changed. Traditional assumptions and expectations simply were not enough. I still want to serve my country. I am still willing to pick up arms and defend it -- die for it, if necessary. Now, however, I will not go blindly because my government says that I must go. I will not go unless we can make real our promises of self-determination and justice at home. I will not go unless the threat is a real one and we all know it to be so. I will not go unless the people of this country decide for themselves that we must all of us go.
J.K.
Hard to believe some vets don't want him to be the Commander in Chief.
Of course, it's also hard to believe that a man who wrote, "We will not quickly join those who march on Veterans' Day waving small flags, calling to memory those thousands who died for the 'greater glory of the United States.' We will not accept the rhetoric. We will not readily join the American Legion and the Veterans of Foreign Wars," has the stones to speak at the VFW and American Legion and ask for their support, proclaiming himself "one of them."
Wretched.
Posted by Mike Lief at 12:17 AM | Comments (2)
August 25, 2004
Je suis un boxeur! Regardez-moi!
Just when you thought he couldn't look any goofier.
What a maroon.
Posted by Mike Lief at 10:58 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
Ouch!
Mackubin Thomas Owens, a professor of strategy and force planning at the Naval War College in Newport, R.I., also led a Marine infantry platoon in Vietnam in 1968-1969. He cuts to the chase in his article, "John Kerry's Two Vietnams."
"As a correspondent pointed out to me in an e-mail, each episode of the HBO series Band of Brothers, begins with a voiceover in which the narrator says of the World War II soldiers portrayed in the program: "I was not a hero, but I was surrounded by heroes." In contrast, what John Kerry is saying in essence about his "band of brothers" is that "in Vietnam, I was a hero, but I was surrounded by war criminals."
Posted by Mike Lief at 08:55 AM | TrackBack
August 24, 2004
Help me, I'm melting!
The Kerry meltdown continues apace, with surrogates for the elusive Gallic candidate sallying forth to proclaim the Swift Boat Vets a bunch of lying, partisan hacks, providing vitriolic cover for the Kerry campaign to quietly admit that, well, yeah, Kerry really wasn't in Cambodia when he said he was, and mebbe he really did fire the shot that won him the first Purple Heart, but, did we mention that THOSE SWIFT BOAT GUYS ARE LIARS! GEORGE BUSH, TOO!
The incomparable Mark Steyn writes,
How cocooned from reality do you have to be to think you can transform one of the most divisive periods in American history – in which you were largely responsible for much of the divisiveness – into a sappy, happy-clappy, soft-focus patriotic blur without anybody objecting? Most Vietnam veterans of my acquaintance loathe John Kerry, and, if he wasn't aware of that, he's too out of it to be President.
That can happen to rich guys, particularly touchy, thin-skinned rich guys who prefer to surround themselves with yes-men. Kerry was apparently infuriated by the cool reception he got from a veterans' audience last week. But why would he expect anything different?
And even if he'd never slimed his comrades, there's something ridiculous about a fellow with four months in Vietnam running as Ike, the Duke of Wellington and Alexander the Great rolled into one. On Sunday, after calling on the Senator to apologise to the 2.5 million veterans he slandered, Bob Dole couldn't resist chipping in his own view of Kerry's wounds.
"Here's, you know, a good guy, a good friend. I respect his record. But three Purple Hearts and never bled that I know of," he said. "I mean, they're all superficial wounds." Dole's right arm is withered and useless from wounds received in World War Two, and he never made a big hoo-ha about it in the '96 campaign.
But, more significantly, Dole prizes bipartisan Senatorial chumminess over almost everything, and my guess is he wouldn't be slamming Kerry if he weren't so revolted by the unseemly showboating of this campaign. If Vietnam vets loathe him, World War Two vets seem to think he's a buffoon. Short of reversing over the last 128-year-old Spanish-American War veteran in the retirement home parking lot, it's hard to see how Kerry could more comprehensively diminish his military support.
As they say in Gay Paree, "It is to cry."
Meanwhile, there's more top-notch writing over at PoliPundit, including an interesting piece on Kerry's actions while still an officer in the Naval Reserve.
And, lest you think I was just indulging in a little unfounded Kerry bashing about his supposed war wounds, there is this:
Kerry received a Purple Heart for wounds suffered on December 2nd, 1968. But an entry in Kerry's own journal written nine days later, he writes that, quote, he and his crew hadn't been shot at yet, unquote. Kerry's campaign has said it is possible his first Purple Heart was awarded for an unintentionally self-inflicted wound.
Ed Morrisey pointed the admission out, noting that the Kerry campaign was admitting yet another of the allegations from "Unfit for Command," the book by John O'Neill.
Posted by Mike Lief at 07:26 PM | TrackBack
August 11, 2004
Ditching the Boston Strangler
Have you seen Day By Day's latest on the Kerry Vietnam debacle? Why not?
The following account by one of Kerry's former COs puts an interesting spin on the meme that Kerry used his three Purple Hearts to get out of Vietnam.
It was published back in May in the American Thinker. Hat tip to Vodka Pundit.
Call sign: Boston strangler August 11th, 2004Thomas Wright was one of John F. Kerry's fellow Swift boat officers in Vietnam. Since Wright outranked Kerry, he was Kerry's sometime boat group Officer-in-Charge, so Wright had occasion to observe Kerry’s behavior and attitudes, and the circumstances surrounding his early departure from the war zone. The intervening years have not dimmed his memories.
When the Swift boats of Coastal Division 11 sailed into harm’s way from their Phu Quoc Island base of An Thoi, for missions along the rivers of Vietnam’s southwesternmost Kien Giang and An Xuyen provinces, they communicated by radio. When they did, boat captains adopted distinctive, often humorous call signs for identification purposes. Eldon Thompson was “Mary Poppins,” William Schachte was “Baccardi Charlie,” James T. Grace was “Twiggy,” and Tom Wright was “Dudley Do-Right.” When John Kerry radioed another Swift boat, he used the call sign, “Boston Strangler.”
Lieutenant Thomas W. Wright heard that call sign frequently. As OIC (Officer-in-Charge) of PCF-44, he operated with LT (j.g.) Kerry’s 94 Boat on a fairly regular basis. A 1966 graduate of the University of North Carolina’s NROTC program, Wright had served as communications officer aboard the destroyer USS Robert A. Owens before beginning Swift boat training in November 1967. He had already served for eight months with Qui Nhon’s Coastal Division 15 when the monsoon season forced its boats to be shifted to the more protected, and more challenging waters off An Thoi. He decided to extend his tour and follow his disciplined, veteran crew to the new base. As the relatively senior lieutenant there, he was the OTC, or Officer-in-Tactical Command for the majority of the 3-to-6-boat missions. On most of them he commanded 44 Boat.
The rivers and canals of Kien Giang and An Xuyen provinces were the targets of Commander, U.S. Naval Forces, Vietnam, Rear Adm. Elmo Zumwalt’s aggressive SEALORDS operations. Looking back after all these years, Tom Wright, now a retired Commander, recalls: “We planned missions locally to try to dominate the area and disrupt the enemy’s movements. We faced significant challenges every day, every night. We would respond to intelligence reports as appropriate. It took great imagination and determination to work effectively in the rivers, and we remained deployed until material damage and casualties reduced our effectiveness. We would then rotate back to An Thoi for repair and re-arming.”For Tom Wright and most other Swift boat officers, there were two commandments: 1. Protect the crews. 2. Win. As for Tom Wright’s 44 Boat; “we won every engagement, start to finish. I got the crew home; a few nicks, but we made it.”
Working with call sign “Boston Strangler” became problematical. “I had a lot of trouble getting him to follow orders,” recalls Wright. “He had a different view of leadership and operations. Those of us with direct experience working with Kerry found him difficult and oriented towards his personal, rather than unit goals and objectives. I believed that overall responsibility rested squarely on the shoulders of the OIC or OTC in a free-fire zone. You had to be right (before opening fire). Kerry seemed to believe there were no rules in a free-fire zone and you were supposed to kill anyone. I didn’t see it that way.”
In Wright’s view, it was important that the enemy understood that Swift boats were a competent, effective force that could dominate his location. To do that, you also had to control the people and their actions; to have them accept Swift boat crews and their authority. You couldn’t achieve that by indiscriminate use of weapons in free fire zones.
It got to a point where Wright told his divisional commander he no longer wanted Kerry in his boat group, so he was re-assigned to another one. “I had an idea of his actions but didn’t have to be responsible for him.” Then Wright and like-minded boat officers took matters into their own hands. “When he got his third Purple Heart, three of us told him to leave. We knew how the system worked and we didn’t want him in Coastal Division 11. Kerry didn’t manipulate the system, we did.”
As for medals, Commander Wright holds strong views: “No one was recognized for completely overwhelming the enemy with skill, courage and bravery. No one wanted a Purple Heart because it meant we had made a mistake. We made sure our crews were recognized, but no one took pride in a Purple Heart. Everyone who served is equally important, regardless of rank or awards.
Posted by Mike Lief at 11:16 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
August 09, 2004
Protest Warriors strike back
The Protest Warriors showed up at Halliburton's headquarters in Dallas, in a counter-protest to the Moonbat Brigade of the Left.
Last Friday's Operation Halliburton Defense Force was an outstanding success. We caught the lefties off guard and distracted them to the point where they began to commit violent acts.
As we walked west on Beltline toward the group of protesters, we were flipped off three times as passing motorists mistook us for more terrorist-appeasing peaceniks. As we got a little closer we could hear the protesters cheering our arrival. I had asked the other ProtestWarriors to keep the lettering on their signs hidden until they saw me flip mine around.
Just as I arrived at the intersection I turned my sign around to face them and held it high and proud. The element of surprise was ours!
This seemed to work a little too well, because I was immediately confronted by a peace loving hippie who had apparently lapsed into an LSD rage, as he shoved me in front of an SUV moving at 40mph. I regained my stance on the grass, and as he began to apologize, "Hadi", their leader, asked him to leave and escorted him to his car.
There's more -- more photos and more tales of Moonbattery here.
Posted by Mike Lief at 07:36 AM | TrackBack
August 04, 2004
We few, we happy few . . . we band of brother
I know, many of you don't think what a man did more than thirty years ago is of any relevance today, felonious conduct aside.
On the other hand, Le Candidate Kerry has done nothing but campaign on his four months in Vietnam, while giving scant attention to his twenty years in the Senate, as well as his time as Michael Dukakis' lieutenant governor.
I think it's only fair to examine his claims relating to his service in Indochine, seeing as how he wants us to think of him as a swashbuckling war hero.
So, he prominently features his "Band of Brothers" -- or as he says, "Bande des Freres" -- at the DNC, and his campaign gives prominent play to the picture of Jacques standing with his fellow Swift Boat commanders, as the campaign brags about the support he's receiving from his former comrades in arms.
Well, of the 19 vets in the picture with Lt. Trois Coeurs Pourpres, how many are actually backing him in his campaign to be the next Commander in Chief?
Remember, Kerry says these guys know better than anyone else about his courage and leadership, 'cause they were "au Le Nam avec moi."
Hmmm, this doesn't look good. Only one of his fellow officers supports his bid for the White House? Well, what do the others think?
That's right. Of the surviving 13 veterans, one thinks John Kerry is fit to occupy the Oval Office. The remaining 12 have said they think Lt. Jacques is "unfit" to be the next president.
The vets have demanded that Kerry stop using the photo.
Ouch.
I know, the AnybodyButBush partisans are going to claim that this is a political hit job, but the problem is twofold: The candidate had chosen to make his military service the lynchpin of his candidacy; and he and his surrogates have reminded us ad nauseum that he was there, immunizing him from the criticism of those of us who did not serve in Vietnam.
Well, these fellas were there, too. And they served alongside Kerry -- albeit briefly (gotta run before the scab falls off!). And they've taken the measure of the man, and found him wanting.
Head on over to their web site; what they have to say has the ring of truth. They are men who have proven themselves in battle and believe one of their own has dishonored them and their fallen comrades.
Posted by Mike Lief at 04:51 PM | TrackBack
August 02, 2004
What a shock!
CNN: "Poll: No Bounce for Kerry"
USA Today: "Poll: No boost for Kerry after convention"
New York Times?
Los Angeles Times?
Helloooo?
Washington Post?
Well if you burrow down to this obscure page, you'll see that Kerry not only failed to get a bosst in the polls from his compelling convention speech, but Pres. Bush managed to take and hold a small lead. Funny how that's not on the front page.
Did you know this is the first time since the '72 Democratic Convention that they've failed to get a bump in the polls? Hmm, what ever happened to that candidate? Hey, that was George McGovern, running against the most hated president in modern history (until now), Tricky Dick Nixon.
So, what happened to the challenger, running against a "corrupt administration" in the midst of an unpopular war against an innocent people?
Nixon buried him. Landslide.
Food for thought.
UPDATE:
The USA Today article notes:
The survey showed Kerry losing 1 percentage point and Bush gaining 4 percentage points from a poll taken the week before the Boston convention. The change in support was within the poll's margin of error of +/–4 percentage points in the sample of 763 likely voters. But it was nonetheless surprising, the first time since the chaotic Democratic convention in 1972 that a candidate hasn't gained ground during his convention.
Instapundit has this to say:
But hey, Kerry's way ahead in this poll! "When asked who would be a better president, the journalists from outside the Beltway picked Mr. Kerry 3 to 1, and the ones from Washington favored him 12 to 1. Those results jibe with previous surveys over the past two decades showing that journalists tend to be Democrats, especially the ones based in Washington."Who knew?
Indeed.