30 Jul 2004 | noodlebrain said...

What inspired me was this subliminal message, never stated overtly but always clearly implied:

"I am not George Bush"

That's all I needed to hear, I'm thoroughly inspired. He's got my vote.

30 Jul 2004 | RS said...

Someone help me out here: go read the transcript of Kerrys speech yourself tell me something he said that inspired you.

"I don't want to claim that God is on our side.As Abraham Lincoln told us, I want to pray humbly that we are on God's side."

"That flag doesn't belong to any president.It doesn't belong to any ideology. It doesn't belong to any party.It belongs to all the American people."

Those were highlights for me.

30 Jul 2004 | matthew said...

I will be a commander in chief who will never mislead us into war. I will have a Vice President who will not conduct secret meetings with polluters to rewrite our environmental laws. I will have a Secretary of Defense who will listen to the best advice of our military leaders. And I will appoint an Attorney General who actually upholds the Constitution of the United States. I will immediately reform the intelligence system so policy is guided by facts, and facts are never distorted by politics. As President, I will not privatize Social Security. I will not cut benefits. And together, we will make sure that senior citizens never have to cut their pills in half because they can't afford life-saving medicine. First, new incentives to revitalize manufacturing. Second, investment in technology and innovation that will create the good-paying jobs of the future. Third, close the tax loopholes that reward companies for shipping our jobs overseas. Our plan will cut the deficit in half in four years by ending tax giveaways that are nothing more than corporate welfare and will make government live by the rule that every family has to follow: pay as you go. I will reduce the tax burden on small business. And I will roll back the tax cuts for the wealthiest individuals who make over $200,000 a year, so we can invest in job creation, health care and education. And our energy plan for a stronger America will invest in new technologies and alternative fuels and the cars of the future -- so that no young American in uniform will ever be held hostage to our dependence on oil from the Middle East. What if we have a president who believes in science, so we can unleash the wonders of discovery like stem cell research to treat illness and save millions of lives? Our best days are still to come.

30 Jul 2004 | Chris Moritz said...

You see that flag up there. We call her Old Glory. The stars and stripes forever. I fought under that flag, as did so many of you here and all across our country. That flag flew from the gun turret right behind my head. It was shot through and through and tattered, but it never ceased to wave in the wind. It draped the caskets of men I served with and friends I grew up with. For us, that flag is the most powerful symbol of who we are and what we believe in. Our strength. Our diversity. Our love of country. All that makes America both great and good.

That flag doesn't belong to any president. It doesn't belong to any ideology and it doesn't belong to any political party. It belongs to all the American people.

30 Jul 2004 | Bryan Haggerty said...

The best comment from Kerry came to today as he set off on his bus tour. In speaking of the history of Boston:

"One if by land, Two if by sea."

"They even had better intelligence then than we do now."

30 Jul 2004 | Byron said...

Ahh, I love it. The liberals now making the flag play after whining about all the arrogant flag waving nationalism after 9/11. Guess the flag really does get used by everyone.

30 Jul 2004 | Darrel said...

Kerry is very uninspiring. His best tactic would be to STFU until AFTER the election.

The more I hear Kerry speak, the more I'm likely to vote for Nader.

Anyone catch the Nader/Dean debate? A very sad debate as I realized that both were correct and both would have made better presidents that the two options we have now (at least in terms of enacting some actual changes in our system).

30 Jul 2004 | america 911 said...

As it has been ever since I can remember... the best people never make the race. I mean seriously... GW over McCain? Kerry over Kucinich or Dean? I also wish that TRUE Republicans would have entered their own candidate over the current propped up fascist figurehead. Seriously, just what the f is going on?!

30 Jul 2004 | Darrel said...

america:

I wonder what would have happend had McCain run on his own. THAT would have made for an interesting election.

30 Jul 2004 | Brian said...

"They even had better intelligence then than we do now."

That's good, coming from a guy who has consistently voted to cut intelligence budgets.

30 Jul 2004 | Aaron Post said...

Why is it that his military service is something to behold and yet 8 years ago, when Bob Dole talked about his military service, it was dismissed by the Democratic Party/Mass Media? Did I miss something in the last 8 years? Does one war mean more than the other?

30 Jul 2004 | Darrel said...

"That's good, coming from a guy who has consistently voted to cut intelligence budgets."

As he should. It's not an issue of not enough intelligence, it's what they did with it once they had it.

"Does one war mean more than the other?"

It's the timing. Bush made war service an issue, as he's someone that has never served in combat while putting the US in a war that much of the world questions.

A war record really is only of interest when speaking on the issue of war.

30 Jul 2004 | Jeff said...

I cannot believe anybody with any intellectual trustworthiness would care about how good a speech is, or how "pumped" a candidate could make them feel.

Do we now WANT to believe? Is that what it's coming down to? At first we believed, at least until communication made the world smaller. Then we knew it was a sham. Yet we also acknowledge we can do nothing about it.

So now we're at the point where we fully admit it's a sham, but as long as we're "pumped", we'll vote for that guy?

Yuk.

I've decided that I will now only vote for the candidate that refuses to allow the State or Society to mandate a Human's value. Any candidate that suggests that it's the individual's, and only the individual's, right to determine the things he holds valuable will get my vote.

Both parties want to mandate value. They want to etch in stone what you and I are worth.

The Republicans will get all apologetic about human rights violations in Iraq by saying "this is a rare incident", rather than acknowledge that men who were innocent until proven guilty were treated as if they were convicted of their alleged guilt. Thus, they have mandated value.... that these prisoners are not worth the time and effort to discuss or acknowledge that we did something WRONG, regardless of what "they" do to us.

The Democrats will get all apologetic about their protectionist stance on the economy, suggesting that American workers are more valuable than Indians and people from Singapore. And they wish to prevent other individuals from hiring those Indian individuals. Thus, they wish to mandate value rather than allow people to do it on their own.

Too many mandates. Not enough freedom.

We Americans need to grow up.

30 Jul 2004 | Jon Livingston said...

Something just isn't right. Is this the same Democratic party that was against the Vietnam war? If it is they sure made a big deal about his time in service. I do appreciate the sacrifice Kerry made. Does that mean you are qualified to lead this country - don't think so.

I think the Spielberg movie said it all. Dramatically play up Vietnam (yet quietly mention you left because you didn't agree with the war), then skip completely over your flip-flop senate career. Why not tell the world what you've been doing since Vietnam?

While I'm at it - nothing like bashing Bush then at the end of the speech saying that the parties need to have a civilized conversation. Just because you don't say the President's name doesn't mean it's not bashing.

30 Jul 2004 | Darrel said...

The Democrats will get all apologetic about their protectionist stance on the economy, suggesting that American workers are more valuable than Indians and people from Singapore.

Though that could easily be spinned around to say that protecting the economy is because they DO think 3rd world employees are as valuable as Americans. Hence whether one is American or Indian, they should be making a living wage.

Not enough freedom.

Well, there is such a thing as too much freedom. ;o)

skip completely over your flip-flop senate career

I hate this 'flip-flop' term. Do not people grow, learn, change their values and opinions as they go through life? I'd be afraid to vote for someone that has NEVER changed their opinion of something. It shows that they are inflexible and not open to debate.

Why not tell the world what you've been doing since Vietnam?

Excellent question ;o)

30 Jul 2004 | Ritz said...

I think the ability to inspire and get people pumped is one of the best qualities a president can have.

I'm assuming a couple people that read SVN are in some way related to the web-development industry. Just a guess! We should know more than any that you can't do everything, even if you are expected to. So why should we expect a president that can solve all of our problems. There is no way one person could possibly grasp health-care, education, foriegn relations, blah blah blah.

The best thing that someone in a position like that can do is pick all the right people to get sh*t done, then make sure they get it done. Inspiration and leadership then play a role more important than any other.

Did I see that in Kerry... Negative...

30 Jul 2004 | Aaron Post said...

It's the timing. Bush made war service an issue, as he's someone that has never served in combat while putting the US in a war that much of the world questions.

Is that why Clinton did nothing for eight years while we were attacked (more than once), because he has never served in combat?

So war is only an issue when we are at war? Not to help prevent it (which could have been done).

30 Jul 2004 | Aaron Post said...

It's the timing. Bush made war service an issue, as he's someone that has never served in combat while putting the US in a war that much of the world questions. oops

30 Jul 2004 | Ed said...

is it me or is "Deep Throat" a bit too pessimistic. what we need is a commentator who looks towards the future, not towards the past..."

seriously though, I read the transcript of Kerry's speech as he was giving it (via Drudge's tasteless little "embargo braking"). I thought the speech was great. Not "Bill Clinton's speech great" but very persuasive, honest and to the point. I think what really threw it off for me was Kerry's presentation. He just sucks as a public speaker (or at least he did last night). He didn't pause enough to let the crowd enjoy the speech, he rushed through it, repeated the first two words in each paragraph four times and gave the speech as one would to a crowded auditorium, voice all booming (but he needed to cut the theatrics and talk directly into the camera). but he didn't and so i'd say it was a wasted opportunity to connect with a large group of people who probably will uneasily vote for GeeDub, just because family members have hounded it into their brains, that it's the right thing to do.

Now with that said, did you guys catch Bush's speech this morning? oh my god. He stutters like Dustin Hoffman in Rainman. and the lies coming out of his mouth were insane. bald-faced lies (just one example? The No Child Left Behind Act). It's great when a president can get up there, be the worst public speaker in history, say nothing but lies and still his constituency doesn't bat an eyelash. Two words: Brainwashed Masses. Even the most die hard of us liberals would say that Kerry had trouble connecting, why can't Republicans still like and vote for Bush and simultaneously own up to the cracks in his armor?

30 Jul 2004 | Darrel said...

So war is only an issue when we are at war?

Apparently. I don't think it should be, of course...just that it appears to be.

31 Jul 2004 | Aaron said...

Ed, I have no problem saying Bush is unable to speak clearly. I have a hard time understanding him especially when it comes time to answer a simple question. I focus on what Bush did for the State of Texas (turned it around) and what he has done for the nation, all of which has been talked about. On the other hand, I have no reference for Kerry? No one is talking about his success as a congressman or senator, its all about his military record. Its like he did something great by serving our country, then nothing since? I watched the Democratic convention hoping to learn about Kerry, instead I heard about his military service(and the bashing of Bush). Which he should be proud his military record, but is there more? And if so, where is it?

the lies coming out of his mouth were insane - Did you see the line by line in the New York Times or Wall Street (can't remember) about the incorrect items (lies) in Clintons speech? Lets face it, all of these guys have a problem telling the truth.

Probably because YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH, just kidding

31 Jul 2004 | SH said...

I cannot believe anybody with any intellectual trustworthiness would care about how good a speech is, or how "pumped" a candidate could make them feel.

Who are you quoting, Jeff? No one said anything, as far as I can tell, about Schwarzenegger. The point is about inspiration, something a politician should have a great focus on if he's trying to win people's votes. He's not giving a pep talk to a football team, he's soliciting himself for *votes.* This was Kerry's opportunity (and yes, he'll have more) to inspire the nation to think like he does, to convince them to see things his way. Instead he talks about bringing home the troops and then brags about his time in Veitnam, and SATLUTES the crowd?

Here's another great write up about it from Thomas Oliphant...who, judging by his words, very well might be our mystery piss tongue.

31 Jul 2004 | ~bc said...

skip completely over your flip-flop senate career. What has he been doing

It's all public record. Look it up. Hell, he gave a laundry list of things he would change, and thus, assume he's going to go in that direction. Also, there's his website. It'll go into specifics.

Of course, I would have preferred if he went into specifics, given more insight into his prosecutorial, and gov't career (which I am aware of but many are not) and let the crowd cheer, but both would take an overly long speech longer... and while the networks would have stayed with him, America would have tuned out... which is the problem of introducing yourself exclusively at a convention. I'm personally amazed that anyone doesn't know who they're voting for this year already, but those are the same people w/ the short attention spans, I suppose.

PS- people keep saying the speech reads better than it was delivered (due to the above circumstances) and I think its true, based on the outtakes above.

PPS- I think this whole "Deeper Throat" thing is silly. SVNs never had an anonymous poster before, why start the sillyness now? Own up to who you are!

31 Jul 2004 | miles said...

How anyone could vote for bush escapes me, ANYTHING has to be better than the current administration. Another four years of scaremongering, cowboy policies and bull-in-a-china-shop policy making will make the world a far more dangerous place than it is even now, and reduce america a top heavy paradise for the rich and connected.

Kerry is by no means a great choice, he was shifting around during his speech like he needed to go to the bathroom, and one look at clinton's speech shows you what someone with real charisma can do, but it's possible he will be a good president and at worst a competent one.

My choice for president, if I had one, would be colin powell without a hesitation, but I'm so disappointed that he hasn't spoken out against the administration, that he's done so much on their behalf that was so obviously the last thing he wanted to be doing... too many years obeying orders in the military to question the whitehouse maybe.

McCain/Powell for 08!

31 Jul 2004 | Bryan Haggerty said...

We're all mostly in the web development crowd. Why don't we take a look at both George Bush's and John Kerry's websites.

The Bush web site has a very negative tone with headlines like these: "Kerry's Extreme Makeover".

The Kerry web site is at least positive for the most part.

31 Jul 2004 | Jon Livingston said...

skip completely over your flip-flop senate career...

Darrel - I agree that "people grow, learn, change their values and opinions as they go through life". Leaning in the direction of the majority and not being firm in your beliefs is what I was referring to.

31 Jul 2004 | dmr said...

Any candidate that won't put education as #1 and health care as #2 is pretty weak in my mind. Nothing should superceed education—it's the foundation for our civilization and will improve all areas of society (including how the rest of the world views us).

No president will change America they way they all say. It's one guy, who throws a couple dozen other guys around in suits. Fuck the elected positions--regular people need to organize and get their needs addressed on their own terms; I thought that was what politics was about anyway.

These speeches are a strange feedback loop. The American people are supposed to drive the positions of elected officials, but this "center of the spectrum" stuff is weak. They want to play it safe, and we all lose with that one. No one running is a real person; career politicians are the anti-people of society. Can't we get some regular girls and guys in the mix?

31 Jul 2004 | Andrew said...

Some of those quotes are amazing when I read them but if I heard either canidate read them it would sound like crap...

01 Aug 2004 | Tim said...

It's not inspiring to hear our future president able, unlike our current president, to speak articulately five consecutive words without shocking.

01 Aug 2004 | Ian said...

The thing that always gets me is when the President and Presidential Candidates talk about the economy. My high school economics class alone has taught me that there really isnt all that much that the President can do to change the economy. Quite frankly Alan Greenspan and the Federal Reserve Board have more of an effect on the economy than the President does. Free market economies have natural upswings and downswings. Sure, the tax cuts aren't really helping to boost the economy upward and this war and the overspending arent helping either, but I find it hard to blame a President for a bad economy that really cant be controlled from that seat.

A little of topic, but I just thought I'd throw it out there.

01 Aug 2004 | LNJ said...

GREAT point, Ian, thanks.

Other than that, I don't like either choice and I like Nader's running mate, Peter Camajo a LOT. So, looks like I'll be voting 3rd party proudly.

02 Aug 2004 | Don Schenck said...

Jeff, you are a Libertarian -- don't know if you know that or not.

Miles -- It's sad when our only motivation is "throw the bums out". I think that's the gist of the original post: Wouldn't it be great if Bush's replacement was inspiring, engaging ... someone who would overwhelmingly capture the public's heart and mind?

*sigh*

I VERY MUCH disdain the link between the 1984 ad and the picture of John Kerry saluting. That type of negative imagery has got to stop, by both sides. Kerry is 1984, Bush is Hitler ... both outrageous, assinine and sophomoric ideas. Grow up; again, BOTH sides.

Kerry did make one *incredibly great* political move: by asking President Bush directly to keep the campaign positive and about ideas. It's a shrewd move because the RNC has already spent millions on negative ads. Now, if they 86 the ads, they lose money. If they run the ads, they appear to be firing the first salvo in the "go negative" war.

Brilliant.

I beseech everyone: VOTE YOUR CONSCIENCE.

02 Aug 2004 | MH said...

"for every Clinton weve seen a weepy Ron Ron"

"Not "Bill Clinton's speech great" but very persuasive"

"one look at clinton's speech shows you what someone with real charisma can do"

Ah yes, the gold standard.... :P

02 Aug 2004 | Darrel said...

Leaning in the direction of the majority and not being firm in your beliefs is what I was referring to.

And that's valid. I haven't actually looked at the intracacies of the individual issues that Kerry voted on. A big part of all of this are the fact that none of the votes are really simple yay or nays...there's so much convoluted language in these bills/proposals--not to mention inane riders and such that it's fairly difficult to really tell what, specifically, a person was voting for.

Any candidate that won't put education as #1 and health care as #2 is pretty weak in my mind.

Couldn't agree more. Sad to say that I haven't heard much of either in this campaign. It's been mostly gay marriage and war records.

02 Aug 2004 | Don Schenck said...

I'd say our national defense is number one. But after that ... yeah ... health care and edumacation.

Those are good strategeries.

02 Aug 2004 | Darrel said...

our national defense

...against what?

;o)

02 Aug 2004 | Don Schenck said...

Rush Limbaugh, Michael Moore, and those pesky Swiss!

02 Aug 2004 | sloan said...

Until crap that is unrelated to a bill is prevented from being added to it a voting record is a difficult thing to critique. Have you looked at the add-ons to these bills? Its ridiculous!

Until we force our reps to remove ALL corporate and large institution influences through lobbying we will get the same crap.

The difference this election I think is that GW Bush and his group are not Repubilcans. They represent a group of religious zealouts that want to make this their america and to squash all opposing opinion. They are the most secretive administration ever and use fear at every turn to legitimize their decisions. Sounds exactly like how religions controlled people for centuries

One note. The article that was linked to about Ron Reagan is just completely wrong. Stem cell research has nothing to do with cloning people and adult stem cells are dramatically different than embryonic cells. The quotes saying otherwise were from a group dedicated to ending this type of research, why would you take their word for it?

02 Aug 2004 | Darrel said...

They represent a group of religious zealouts

Nah...they're just big-business zealots. They're just using the jesus-freak thing as a front to appeal to joe church-going six-pack.

03 Aug 2004 | sloan said...

Correction to my earlier post: Bush is a religious zealout. The rest are big-business zealouts (Halliburton does business in nations labeled as sponsors of terrorists yet OUR tax dollars go to them, whether it is technically legal or not to have a cayman island PO Box).

I guess I just do not understand how conservatives can support him when he isn't conservative: more spending, more government control, less individual rights, rescinding environmental laws. War isn't exactly a conservative mantra is it? Reckless tax cuts are not conservative are they? How does Bush = Conservative. I'm not trying to be a smart ass, I just really don't get it.

03 Aug 2004 | Don Schenck said...

Sloan -- your comment is *exactly* why this conservative is not supporting Bush.

Further, his reckless actions caused me to re-examine my political ideals. I've become a believer in the Third Way -- political progressive, fiscal conservative. Bill Clinton's domestic policies are a fair example.