Hugh Hewitt's take on phase 2 of the presidential race

[dude1394]

Hugh commenting on the state of the race after seeing Dubya's speech in missouri.. Hugh is always worth the read...He echoes my thoughts and the unseriousness of the current democrat party.

Hugh

July 30, 2004 Posted at 8:30 PM, Pacific

In his campaign stops today, President Bush ripped into John Kerry's non-record in the Senate, using a new stump speech in both Missouri and Michigan. Kerry's left almost no footprint on the Senate though he has spent 20 years there --like the kid at the 25th high school reunion who for the life of you you can't remember in even the smallest way. A cipher. A missing page in the yearbook. Now Kerry wants you to believe he can be an energetic president who will roll up accomplishment after accomplishment. It is hard to believe that an ineffective, way left senator can become an effective, activist, centrist president.

Bush also laid out the framework for his "ownership culture" and "responsibility first" themes for the fall. I watched the speech uninterrupted on a long plane ride, and thought to myself that the roll-out is beginning, and that it is an impressive debut of powerful themes. No happy talk and no minimization of the tasks ahead. Bush closes with a stern reminder of the battles ahead and the overarching issue of the war, but emphasizes that the domestic agenda is one of tailoring new laws to the new economy, which means individual ownership of health plans, retirement accounts, and small businesses. It is very progressive in the sense that personal liberty and autonomy are the most progressive of all goals. Kerrry's appeal to the cliches of the past felt shopworn opposite Bush's sweeping assessment of the many changes that must accompany the new economy.

The Kerry-Moore Democrats are now in a position vis-a-vis Bush as the European socialists were in the late '70s opposite Thatcher and her allies: They just are not serious, about anything. I suppose the Dems could win for the same reason that teenagers in horror films do stupid things like splitting up in the woods or going into the basement after the lights go out to see what is making the noise --voters can act irrationally. But a betting man wouldn't put his chips on that possibility.

A 40 state sweep for Bush seems much more likely. The economy is growing at a sustainable, healthy rate, so why mess with it? Iraq is making the transition to democratic ally in a dangerous region, though the terrorists are there in force, demonstrating daily why they cannot be allowed to nest anywhere. New and higher taxes on the former or retreat from the challenge of the latter would be disastrous. There's serious legislative work to be done and a war to be won. President Bush is focused on both, while John Kerry is focused on himself. I think last night was the high tide mark of the Kerry campaign, the political equivalent of the minutes before the launch of Pickett's Charge on July 3, 1863.

[Mavdog]

Hugh commenting on the state of the race after seeing Dubya's speech in missouri.. Hugh is always worth the read...He echoes my thoughts and the unseriousness of the current democrat party.

uh, "unseriousness"?

Hugh reminds me of Dorothy in Oz. only he's not clicking his heels together because he doesn't want to go home.

Home is where Bush and Kerry are pretty much even. I see the incumbent advatage tilting it Dubya's way at present, but to view a dead heat as "not serious" well, let's just say I doubt Rove feels the same.

[chumdawg]

Last night I watched Bush's speech in Springfield, MO. I was reminded why I, too, feel that in the end Bush will win this election handily.

In certain terms, the Dems had a very nice convention. In certain terms, Kerry's speech was an unqualified success. The video they rolled, the introductions by his daughters, and Kerry's rhetorical performance all answered some doubts that many Americans had about Kerry. They saw him as an aristocrat who could not connect with the common man. They saw him as an opportunistic politician who siezed Vietnam as his "horse to ride" to national prominence. And most importantly, they saw no reason not to view Kerry as just another liberal Democrat.

Kerry addressed these issues satisfactorily in his speech, but it still remains that all he accomplished was to (perhaps) assuage doubts that people had about him. His speech--and in many ways, the entire convention--was fought on the defensive. It seemed to have one goal: convince those who believe that Kerry is not as strong as Bush on war and terror that actually he just may be.

And that's the problem. Everyone knows that Bush is strong on war and terror. And now a lot of people probably think that Kerry *may* be. But they aren't permanently convinced. Once Bush regains the spotlight, the doubts about Kerry will return.

And so, realistically, the Democratic convention will have been an opportunity wasted. I'd say at least half of it was spent playing the Republicans at their own game: war and terror. And the other half? It didn't clearly define what exactly IS the Democrats' game.

Bush, on the contrary, spoke yesterday in much clearer terms. You didn't hear him talking about everything, and in the process talking about nothing. Rather, you saw him playing to his strengths. You saw him giving no ground, claiming instead that "we have turned the corner, and we're not turning back." You saw what you will see for the remainder of this campaign: the Republicans will refine their message to the three or four issues they are strongest on. The Democrats will spend most of their energy hoping to be seen as equally strong, and there won't be enough left to play up any strengths of their own.

The one lesson from this week is this: this campaign is being waged on Republican ground. And that will prove to be a very difficult task for the Democrats.

[dude1394]

Originally posted by: Mavdog

uh, "unseriousness"?

Hugh reminds me of Dorothy in Oz. only he's not clicking his heels together because he doesn't want to go home.

Home is where Bush and Kerry are pretty much even. I see the incumbent advatage tilting it Dubya's way at present, but to view a dead heat as "not serious" well, let's just say I doubt Rove feels the same.

Yup very unserious party. I've voted for carter, perot and now would never vote for a democrat until they finally throw off the party of power at any cost. They are not a serious party right now. If you think so great, but I can't think of much that the party even stands for.

- Balanced budget?? Don't kid yourself.
- Good education for all?? Not unless it's giving more money to the NEA?
- Social Security solvency? Only if they can continue to control it.
- Partial Birth Abortion ban? Nope
- Vouchers for inner city school? Nah, those folks don't need 'em, who give a rats ass.

The party is a joke, it has been since clinton. Again, I'm not happy about it, because there needs to be competition, I believe in it. But right now the dems are irresponsible where it counts. They've got nothing.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: dude1394
Yup very unserious party. I've voted for carter, perot and now would never vote for a democrat until they finally throw off the party of power at any cost. They are not a serious party right now. If you think so great, but I can't think of much that the party even stands for.

sure they are serious. more importantly, I don't believe there is such a word as "unseriousness"...[img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif[/img]

- Balanced budget?? Don't kid yourself.

don't look at history, cuz the last President to balance the budget was a democrat. In fact, the last 3 republican presidents didn't balance the budget once between them.

- Good education for all?? Not unless it's giving more money to the NEA?

teachers give money to the NEA, not the democrats or the government.

- Social Security solvency? Only if they can continue to control it.

yeah all those republican plans to cure SS. what, they haven't proposed one?

- Partial Birth Abortion ban? Nope

not important to many people. What is important is the spiraling costs of healthcare and insurance.

- Vouchers for inner city school? Nah, those folks don't need 'em, who give a rats ass.

there is absolutely no evidence vouchers will be a panacea for inner city schools. I wonder how you'd react if those school teachers who set up schools with these heralded vouchers joined the NEA...

The party is a joke, it has been since clinton. Again, I'm not happy about it, because there needs to be competition, I believe in it. But right now the dems are irresponsible where it counts. They've got nothing.

they have something, as many people who support the republican support the democrat, and it may put them in the WH this january.