Forums dot lukpac.org

Zell last night:

Twenty years of votes can tell you much more about a man than 20 weeks of campaign rhetoric.

Campaign talk tells people who you want them to think you are. How you vote tells people who you really are deep inside.

Senator Kerry has made it clear that he would use military force only if approved by the United Nations.

Kerry would let Paris decide when America needs defending. I want Bush to decide.

John Kerry, who says he doesn't like outsourcing, wants to outsource our national security. That's the most dangerous outsourcing of all. This politician wants to be leader of the free world. Free for how long?

For more than 20 years, on every one of the great issues of freedom and security, John Kerry has been more wrong, more weak and more wobbly than any other national figure.

As a war protester, Kerry blamed our military.

As a senator, he voted to weaken our military. And nothing shows that more sadly and more clearly than his vote this year to deny protective armor for our troops in harm's way, far away.

George W. Bush understands that we need new strategies to meet new threats.

John Kerry wants to refight yesterday's war. President Bush believes we have to fight today's war and be ready for tomorrow's challenges. President Bush is committed to providing the kind of forces it takes to root out terrorists, no matter what spider hole they may hide in or what rock they crawl under.

George W. Bush wants to grab terrorists by the throat and not let them go to get a better grip.

From John Kerry, they get a "yes/no/maybe" bowl of mush that can only encourage our enemies and confuse our friends.

Zell's web site:

My job tonight is an easy one: to present to you one of this nation's authentic heroes, one of this party's best-known and greatest leaders – and a good friend.

He was once a lieutenant governor – but he didn't stay in that office 16 years, like someone else I know. It just took two years before the people of Massachusetts moved him into the United States Senate in 1984.

In his 16 years in the Senate, John Kerry has fought against government waste and worked hard to bring some accountability to Washington.

Early in his Senate career in 1986, John signed on to the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Deficit Reduction Bill, and he fought for balanced budgets before it was considered politically correct for Democrats to do so.

John has worked to strengthen our military, reform public education, boost the economy and protect the environment. Business Week magazine named him one of the top pro-technology legislators and made him a member of its "Digital Dozen."

John was re-elected in 1990 and again in 1996 – when he defeated popular Republican Governor William Weld in the most closely watched Senate race in the country.

John is a graduate of Yale University and was a gunboat officer in the Navy. He received a Silver Star, Bronze Star and three awards of the Purple Heart for combat duty in Vietnam. He later co-founded the Vietnam Veterans of America.

He is married to Teresa Heinz and they have two daughters.

As many of you know, I have great affection – some might say an obsession – for my two Labrador retrievers, Gus and Woodrow. It turns out John is a fellow dog lover, too, and he better be. His German Shepherd, Kim, is about to have puppies. And I just want him to know … Gus and Woodrow had nothing to do with that.

Ladies and Gentlemen, please welcome Senator John Kerry.

That's too funny.

"As a senator, he voted to weaken our military." "John has worked to strengthen our military"

From the National Review:

Zell Miller? What a speech. Genuine emotion is rare enough in politics, but anger? Righteous anger? Zell Miller stands in a line that runs all the way back to Jeremiah -- but of which we see almost nothing in today's Oprahfied context. And once again, the contrast with the Democratic convention could hardly have proven any sharper: Whereas the Democrats suppressed any display of anger in Boston, in the Republicans, the milquetoasts of American politics, went right ahead and cut loose in New York, cheering Miller with gorgeous abandon. . . . Political prose just don't get any hotter -- or more memorable -- than this.

So what was the big complaint Republicans and the media had about Dean? I can't seem to remember. There was something. They were all very worried about some aspect of his character. It's not coming to me right now. Crap. Well, whatever it was, I'm sure it was in no way inconsistent with their praising of Miller's anger. I mean, that would be... I dunno, flip-flopping or something like that.

Ryan

It's okay for Republicans to be angry. Only Democrats are crazy when they are.

GOP Prism Distorts Some Kerry Positions

By Glenn Kessler and Dan Morgan
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, September 3, 2004; Page A01

Speakers at this week's Republican convention have relentlessly attacked John F. Kerry for statements he has made and votes he has taken in his long political career, but a number of their specific claims -- such as his votes on military programs -- are at best selective and in many cases stripped of their context, according to a review of the documentation provided by the Bush campaign.

As a senator, Kerry has long been skeptical of big-ticket weapons systems, especially when measured against rising budget deficits, and to some extent he opened himself to this line of attack when he chose to largely skip over his Senate career during his acceptance speech at the Democratic convention last month. But the barrage by Republicans at their own convention has often misportrayed statements or votes that are years, if not decades, old.

For instance:

• Kerry did not cast a series of votes against individual weapons systems, as Sen. Zell Miller (D-Ga.) suggested in a slashing convention speech in New York late Wednesday, but instead Kerry voted against a Pentagon spending package in 1990 as part of deliberations over restructuring and downsizing the military in the post-Cold War era.

• Both Vice President Cheney and Miller have said that Kerry would like to see U.S. troops deployed only at the direction of the United Nations, with Cheney noting that the remark had been made at the start of Kerry's political career. This refers to a statement made nearly 35 years ago, when Kerry gave an interview to the Harvard Crimson, 10 months after he had returned from the Vietnam War angry and disillusioned by his experiences there. (President Bush at the time was in the Air National Guard, about to earn his wings.)

• President Bush, Cheney and Miller faulted Kerry for voting against body armor for troops in Iraq. But much of the funding for body armor was added to the bill by House Democrats, not the administration, and Kerry's vote against the entire bill was rooted in a dispute with the administration over how to pay for $20 billion earmarked for reconstruction of Iraq.

In remarks prepared for delivery last night, Kerry denounced the Republican convention for its "anger and distortion" and criticized Cheney for avoiding the military draft during the Vietnam era.

Bush campaign spokesman Terry Holt defended the statements made by convention speakers, though he declined to address details beyond supplying the campaign's citations of votes. "Whether it was in the '70s, '80s or '90s, Sen. Kerry has demonstrated a general pattern of hostility to a strong national defense," Holt said.

Votes cast by lawmakers are often twisted by political opponents, and both political parties are adept at combing through legislative records to score political points. Former senator Robert J. Dole's voting record was frequently distorted by the Clinton campaign eight years ago -- as well as by his GOP rivals for the Republican nomination.

One document frequently cited by Republicans is a 350-word article in the Boston Globe, written when Kerry was lieutenant governor of Massachusetts and battling to win the Democratic nomination for senator in 1984 -- a period of soaring deficits in the wake of a huge defense buildup by President Ronald Reagan. Calling for a "strong defense," the article said, Kerry proposed to slow the rate of growth in defense spending by canceling 27 weapons systems, in part to reduce the deficit and also restore cuts Reagan had made in domestic programs.

While Cheney said Kerry opposed Reagan's "major defense initiatives," the campaign does not cite any votes against such defense programs while Reagan was president, relying instead on a campaign speech before he was elected senator.

Six years later, Kerry took part in a complex and serious debate in Congress over how to restructure the military after the Cold War.

Cheney, at the time defense secretary, had scolded Congress for keeping alive such programs as the F-14 and F-16 jet fighters that he wanted to eliminate. Miller said in his speech that Kerry had foolishly opposed both the weapons systems and would have left the military armed with "spitballs." During that same debate, President George H.W. Bush, the current president's father, proposed shutting down production of the B-2 bomber -- another weapons system cited by Miller -- and pledged to cut defense spending by 30 percent in eight years.

Though Miller recited a long list of weapons systems, Kerry did not vote against these specific weapons on the floor of the Senate during this period. Instead, he voted against an omnibus defense spending bill that would have funded all these programs; it is this vote that forms the crux of the GOP case that he "opposed" these programs.

On the Senate floor, Kerry cast his vote in terms of fiscal concerns, saying the defense bill did not "represent sound budgetary policy" in a time of "extreme budget austerity." Much like Bush's father, he singled out the B-2 bomber for specific attention, saying it is "one of the most costly, waste-ridden programs in a long history of waste, fraud and abuse scandals that have plagued Pentagon spending."

Asked why the campaign was attacking Kerry for having similar positions as Cheney, White House communications director Dan Bartlett responded: "I don't have the specifics of [when] then-Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney was in charge of the Pentagon, but I think we'd be more than willing to have a debate on whether Dick Cheney or John Kerry was stronger on defense."

Appearing on CNN, Miller said he had "gotten documentation on every single one of those votes that I talked about."

Cheney, in his own speech, skipped over that period, going directly from Kerry's vote against authorization for the first Persian Gulf War to the post-Sept. 11, 2001, period.

Republican documents also cite a long list of Kerry votes against various weapons systems, including the B-2 bomber. But Kerry's opposition in the 1990s often hinged on his concerns about the impact on the budget deficit of congressional efforts to add money for the plane.

"We are going to build B-2 bombers even though the Pentagon does not want the B-2 bombers, even though the Pentagon never submitted a request for the B-2 bombers," Kerry said during a budget debate in October 1995.

Kerry's vote last year against the administration's $87 billion proposal to fund troops in Iraq and pay for Iraqi reconstruction has also been the focus of Republican attacks. "My opponent and his running mate voted against this money for bullets, and fuel, and vehicles, and body armor," Bush said last night.

Kerry actually supported all those things, but as part of a different version of the bill opposed by the administration. At the time, many Republicans were uncomfortable with the administration's plans and the White House had to threaten a veto against the congressional version to bring reluctant lawmakers in line.

In a floor statement explaining his vote, Kerry said he favored the $67 billion for the troops on the ground -- "I support our troops in Iraq and their mission" -- but faulted the administration's $20 billion request for reconstruction. He complained that administration "has only given us a set of goals and vague timetables, not a detailed plan."

Yesterday, the State Department said that only $1 billion of that money has been spent in the 11 months since the bill was passed.

Researcher Madonna Lebling contributed to this report.

© 2004 The Washington Post Company

Miller on MSNBC:

Let me go now to the—go right now. We‘re going to joined right now as we speak, and stop speaking, with Zell Miller, the man who made the speech.

Senator, thank you. You have...

(BOOING)

MATTHEWS: Well, don‘t listen to them. Don‘t listen to those people.

We want to hear from you, Senator.

Senator, let me ask you.

MATTHEWS: I want to ask you about the most powerful line in your speech. And it had so many.

“No pair has been more wrong, more loudly, more often than the two Senators from Massachusetts, Ted Kennedy and John Kerry.”

Do you believe that John Kerry and Ted Kennedy really only believe in defending America with spitballs?

MILLER: Well, I certainly don‘t believe they want to defend America by putting the kind of armor and the kind of equipment that we have got to have out there for our troops. I mean, nothing could be clearer than that, than what John Kerry did when he voted against that $87 billion in appropriations, that would have provided protective armor for our troops and armored vehicles.

MATTHEWS: All right, let me ask you. Senator, you are the expert. Many times, as a conservative Republican, you have had to come out on the floor and obey party whips and vote against big appropriations passed by the Democrats when they were in power.

You weren‘t against feeding poor people. You weren‘t against Social Security. You weren‘t against a lot of programs that, because of the nature of parliamentary procedure and combat, you had to vote against the whole package. Didn‘t you many times vote against whole packages of spending, when you would have gladly gone for a smaller package?

MILLER: Well, I didn‘t make speeches about them and I didn‘t put them in my platform.

Right here is what John Kerry put out as far as his U.S. Senate platform, was, he was talking about he wanted to cancel the M.X. missile, the B-1 bomber, the anti-satellite system. This is not voting for something that was in a big bill.

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: Which of those systems was effective in either Afghanistan

or Iraq? The M.X. certainly wasn‘t, thank God, nor was the other

(CROSSTALK)

MILLER: Look, this is front and—wait, this is front and back, and it‘s two pages. I have got more documentation here than they have got in the New York Public Library and the Library of Congress.

MATTHEWS: OK.

MILLER: I knew you was going to be coming with all of that stuff.

And I knew that these people from the Kerry campaign would be coming with all this kind of stuff.

That‘s just baloney. Look at the record. A man‘s record is what he is.

MATTHEWS: I agree.

(CROSSTALK)

MILLER: A man‘s campaign rhetoric—what?

MATTHEWS: I‘m just asking you, Senator, do you mean to say—I know there‘s rhetoric in campaigns. I just want to know, do you mean to say that you really believe that John Kerry and Ted Kennedy do not believe in defending the country?

MILLER: Well, look at their votes.

MATTHEWS: I‘m just asking you to bottom-line it for me.

MILLER: Wait a minute. I said I didn‘t question their patriotism.

MATTHEWS: No. Do you believe that they don‘t believe in defending the country?

MILLER: I question their judgment.

What?

MATTHEWS: Do you believe they want to defend the country?

MILLER: Look, I applaud what John Kerry did as far as volunteering to go to Vietnam. I applaud what he did when he volunteered for combat. I admire that, and I respect that. And I acknowledge that. I have said that many, many times.

MATTHEWS: Right.

(CROSSTALK)

MILLER: But I think his record is atrocious.

MATTHEWS: Well, let me ask you, when Democrats come out, as they often do, liberal Democrats, and attack conservatives, and say they want to starve little kids, they want to get rid of education, they want to kill the old people...

MILLER: I am not saying that. Wait a minute.

MATTHEWS: That kind of rhetoric is not educational, is it?

MILLER: Wait a minute.

Now, this is your program. And I am a guest on your program.

MATTHEWS: Yes, sir.

MILLER: And so I want to try to be as nice as I possibly can to you. I wish I was over there, where I could get a little closer up into your face.

MILLER: But I don‘t have to stand here and listen to that kind of stuff. I didn‘t say anything about not feeding poor kids. What are you doing?

MATTHEWS: No, I‘m saying that when you said tonight—I just want you to...

MILLER: Well, you are saying a bunch of baloney that didn‘t have

anything to do with what I said up there on the

(CROSSTALK)

MILLER: No, no.

MATTHEWS: OK. Do you believe now—do you believe, Senator, truthfully, that John Kerry wants to defend the country with spitballs? Do you believe that?

MILLER: That was a metaphor, wasn‘t it? Do you know what a metaphor is?

MATTHEWS: Well, what do you mean by a metaphor?

MILLER: Wait a minute. He certainly does not want to defend the country with the B-1 bomber or the B-2 bomber or the Harrier jet or the Apache helicopter or all those other things that I mentioned. And there were even more of them in here.

You‘ve got to quit taking these Democratic talking points and using what they are saying to you.

MATTHEWS: No, I am using your talking points and asking you if you really believe them.

MILLER: Well, use John Kerry‘s talking points from the—from what he has had to say on the floor of the Senate, where he talked about them being occupiers, where he put out this whenever he was running for the U.S. Senate about what he wanted to cancel. Cancel to me means to do away with.

MATTHEWS: Well, what did you mean by the following.

MILLER: I think we ought to cancel this interview.

MATTHEWS: Well, I don‘t mean...

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: Well, that would be my loss, Senator. That would be my loss.

Let me ask you about this, because I think you have a view on the role of reporters in the world. You have said and it has often been said so truthfully that it is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us the freedom of the press. Was there not...

MILLER: Do you believe that?

MATTHEWS: Well, of course it‘s true.

MILLER: Do you believe that?

MATTHEWS: But it‘s a statement that nobody would have challenged. Why did you make it? It seems like no one would deny what you said. So what‘s your point?

MILLER: Well, it evidently got a rise out of you.

MATTHEWS: Well, I think it‘s a

(CROSSTALK)

MILLER: Because you are a reporter.

MATTHEWS: That‘s right.

MILLER: You didn‘t have anything to do with freedom of the press.

MATTHEWS: Well, you could argue it was not nurses who defended the freedom of nursing. Why did you single out freedom of the press to say it was the soldiers that defended it and not the reporters? We all know that. Why did you say it?

MILLER: Well, because I thought it needed to be said at this particular time, because I wanted to come on...

MATTHEWS: Because you could get an applause line against the media at a conservative convention.

MILLER: No, I said it because it was—you‘re hopeless. I wish I was over there.

(CROSSTALK)

MILLER: In fact, I wish that we lived in—I wish we lived in the

day

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: I‘ve got to warn you, we are in a tough part of town over here.

MATTHEWS: But I do recommend you come over, because I like you.

Let me tell you this.

MILLER: Chris.

MATTHEWS: If a Republican Senator broke ranks and—all right, I‘m sorry.

A Republican Senator broke ranks and came over and spoke for the Democrats, would you respect him?

MILLER: Yes, of course I would.

MATTHEWS: Why?

MILLER: I have seen that happen from time to time. Look, I believe...

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: What does Jim Jeffords say to you?

MILLER: Wait a minute.

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: Jim Jeffords switched parties after getting elected.

MILLER: If you‘re going to ask a question...

MATTHEWS: Well, it‘s a tough question. It takes a few words.

MILLER: Get out of my face.

MILLER: If you are going to ask me a question, step back and let me answer.

(LAUGHTER)

MATTHEWS: Senator, please.

MILLER: You know, I wish we...

MILLER: I wish we lived in the day where you could challenge a person to a duel.

MILLER: Now, that would be pretty good.

Don‘t ask me—don‘t pull that...

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: Can you can come over? I need you, Senator. Please come over.

MILLER: Wait a minute. Don‘t pull that kind of stuff on me, like you did that young lady when you had her there, browbeating her to death. I am not her. I am not her.

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: Let me tell you, she was suggesting that John Kerry purposely shot himself to win a medal. And I was trying to correct the record.

MILLER: You get in my face, I am going to get back in your face.

(CROSSTALK)

MILLER: The only reason you are doing it is because you are standing way over there in Herald Square.

MATTHEWS: Senator, Senator, can I speak softly to you? I would really like you to...

MILLER: What? No, no, no, because you won‘t give me a chance to answer. You ask these questions and then you just talk over what I am trying to answer, just like you did that woman the other day.

MATTHEWS: Well, Senator...

MILLER: I don‘t know why I even came on this program.

MATTHEWS: Well, I am glad you did.

MATTHEWS: Let me ask you this about John Kerry‘s war record.

MILLER: Well, are you going to shut up after you ask me?

MILLER: Or are you going to give me a chance to answer it?

MATTHEWS: Yes, sir.

MATTHEWS: I am going to give you a chance to answer.

You used very strong words tonight about the Democratic candidate, much stronger than you are using with me. And they will be remembered a lot longer than anything you say to me now. So I am not really worried about what you say now, except that this country was promised unity after the last election by the president that you are supporting. And he urged the country to come together. Do you think you helped that cause tonight?

MILLER: I think I helped the cause of trying to tell the American people why John Kerry is unfit for the presidency and why we need to keep George W. Bush in as the president, because it‘s the way that we can keep this nation more secure and my family more safe.

MATTHEWS: Did I ask you about your role in the Democratic Party, because you have caused such a hit tonight, because you are a man of the Democratic Party? Long before this election, you had to watch as a Southern conservative the nomination by your party of people like George McGovern, Fritz Mondale, Jimmy Carter, liberal after liberal after liberal, including Mike Dukakis, perhaps the most liberal of them all. What caused you to cross the aisle tonight?

MILLER: By coming to Washington and seeing firsthand what a mess it is and how far out the Senate Democrats are.

They are off the chart as far as being with the mainstream of America. I think the straw that broke the camel‘s back was the homeland security measure, when, time after time, John Kerry and the Democrats put collective bargaining above homeland security. That did it for me.

MATTHEWS: Well, that did it for Max Cleland as well, didn‘t it?

MILLER: It surely did. And probably Jean Carnahan.

And nobody is to blame, except—well, they are to blame because they voted that way. But who is really to blame is Tom Daschle for insisting that they do it 11 times over a four-months period. It was dumb.

MATTHEWS: And, well, you could argue that it was politically dumb of Max Cleland to support the labor unions in Georgia against what looked like the national interests. My question is, is it good for America to impugn that vote as a vote against the security of this country?

MILLER: That vote was not impugned. He did not get defeated because of that ad that you like to talk about. You can‘t vote with Tom Daschle 85 percent of the time and be expected to be able to be reelected in Georgia. You know that much about Georgia and the South.

MATTHEWS: Well, sir, I also know the—and I completely agree with the need to get reelected as a statesman. Jefferson said the first order of a statesman was to get elected.

I am just wondering if you think tonight‘s speech and advertisements that show people like Max Cleland standing next to Saddam Hussein are helping bring this country together?

MILLER: That didn‘t have anything to do with Max Cleland‘s defeat.

We have already—we have already beat that dog to death.

MATTHEWS: Well, maybe the war did that, too.

But thank you very much for coming here tonight. I hope we can have a more civil conversation in closer terms. I would love you to come tonight. In fact, you can meet with Joe Scarborough, who will probably be nicer to you.

MATTHEWS: But we will both try to get the truth out of the conversation.

And I feel bad that you are upset with me, Senator. I have never had this kind of a fight with you before.

MILLER: I know it.

MATTHEWS: I think you misheard me. But please come over tomorrow night. We‘ve got a convention ending.

And, by the way, you will help our ratings tremendously if you come over tomorrow night, because everybody thinks you are going to beat me up.

MATTHEWS: But since somebody tried to do that last night, I don‘t think it‘s going to be a surprise.

WATTS: Hey, Chris, can I say

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: J.C. Watts wants to talk to you, Senator.

MILLER: All right.

WATTS: Hey, Senator, this is J.C. Watts.

MILLER: Hey, J.C.

WATTS: You can put your feet under my dinner table any day of the week.

(LAUGHTER)

MILLER: Thank you. Thank you.

MATTHEWS: Well, I guess everybody loves the senator.

MILLER: Good to be with you.

MATTHEWS: Hey, it‘s great having you on. Let‘s be friends. Let‘s be friends.

MILLER: See you later.

MATTHEWS: Thank you.

Well, that was unexpected turn of events.

(LAUGHTER)

MATTHEWS: I simply wanted him to say again in the vernacular what he said on that stage. And I think we all agreed here, didn‘t we? Stick by me here.

lukpac wrote:It's okay for Republicans to be angry. Only Democrats are crazy when they are.

From the NY Times, regarding Kery's speech in Springfield, OH:

"The contrast between the president's hopeful, optimistic vision for the future that is laid out in his acceptance speech versus John Kerry's politics of anger and pessimism will be totally clear to the American people," Mr. Schmidt said.

More commentary on the Zell Miller speech...full article can be found here. Bolding mine.

"The only interesting speech coming out of the Republican's get-together so far was the one by Georgia Sen. Zell Miller, a turncoat Democrat, whose discourse included such extravagant flights of fancy he almost crashed into the rafters.

Three years ago, Miller looked up at the Democratic candidate and saw nothing not to like. Kerry was announced as 'one of the nation's authentic war heroes.' But Kerry's stock seems to have fallen - at least in the cracker senator's eyes. For this week, Miller saw nothing to like about Kerry. The Democrats' man 'would let Paris decide when American needs defending. I want Bush to decide.'

Sen. Miller seemed unaware or unconcerned that the U.S. Constitution puts the burden on Congress to decide when America needs defending. It alone has power to declare war...and to pay for it. But no one in the convention hall noticed or cared. The Grand Ol' Party that at least used to mention the Constitution a few times has forgotten about it. Forgotten, too, is all concern about a balanced budget, which used to come up from time to time at Republican conventions.

What was also missing was any mention of 'peace.' Typically, a political convention is an opportunity to promise 'peace and prosperity.' Both parties promised prosperity, but forgot peace. But neither judged the wedge of 'peace' voters big enough to try for a slice of it. Besides, the conventions are now designed - like TV itself - to avoid anything that might light up a brain scan. Mentioning peace could upset the voters, or the delegates, or the candidates themselves. America's 'War on Terror' may be a challenge for intellectuals - but it has been a big hit with the voters.

Terror is not, strictly speaking, something you can make war against. You need an enemy, not a method.

House-fraus in Germany, a country with tough gun-control laws, found that the best way to bump off their husbands was to hit them in the head with a heavy frying pan. Germany might have declared war on frying pans; it would have made as much sense.

Americans like to imagine themselves as if they were engaged in some heroic struggle; they long to bring the enemy to battle and annihilate him on primetime TV. Terrorists were so few and far between that the war party had to make do with Third World nations - Afghanistan and Iraq - as proxies for the wispy terrorists.

Mr. Kerry judged the public's mood correctly. The voters were practically foaming at the mouth for war. So he showed them pictures of himself as a young warrior - he is the only presidential candidate...and perhaps the only Homo sapiens below the rank of general...to ever re-enact battle scenes of himself while the war was still going on around him. Which just goes to show how farsighted the Democratic candidate is: He couldn't use the phony newsreel footage for another 35 years...until 'peace' disappeared finally from the convention promises.

But then came the Swiftees, and all of a sudden the campaign seemed to turn on how big a liar John Kerry is; Bush's whoppers were forgotten.

And now, the fever mounts. Americans appear to have decided to give war a chance. The election of 2004 seems little more than a contest of who can promise to make it most fun."

"The contrast between the president's hopeful, optimistic vision for the future that is laid out in his acceptance speech versus John Kerry's politics of anger and pessimism will be totally clear to the American people," Mr. Schmidt said.

Here's some of that optimism, from Unca Dick today:

This election comes at a crucial time in our history. It's an extraordinarily important choice we're going to make. Today we face an enemy every bit as intent on destroying us as the Axis powers were in World War II, and the Soviet Union was during the Cold War. This is not an enemy we can reason with, or negotiate with, or appease. To put it simply, this is an enemy that we must destroy. (Applause.) And with President George W. Bush as our Commander-in-Chief, that is exactly what we will do. (Applause.)

Dob wrote:Sen. Miller seemed unaware or unconcerned that the U.S. Constitution puts the burden on Congress to decide when America needs defending. It alone has power to declare war...and to pay for it. But no one in the convention hall noticed or cared. The Grand Ol' Party that at least used to mention the Constitution a few times has forgotten about it. Forgotten, too, is all concern about a balanced budget, which used to come up from time to time at Republican conventions.

"We will never seek a permission slip to defend America."

Unca Dick, 9/3/04