Posted and enhanced content compiled by the Bush/Cheney reelection campaign site. Excellent roundup with media comments that echo much of what I've seen in the blogosphere:
WHAT THEY'RE SAYING: On John Kerry's Acceptance Speech
New York Post: John Kerry "Doesn't Get It" When it Comes to the War on Terror. "Give John Forbes Kerry credit for being honest as he accepted the Democratic Party's nomination for president last night. Because in his 55 minutes at the mike, he was truthful about how he'd fight the War on Terror. He won't. 'The United States never goes to war because we want to,' Kerry said. 'We only go to war because we have to.' At best, this is a gross calumny: President Bush never 'wanted' war — and it is repugnant even to hint otherwise. At worst, it is telling evidence of a profound misunderstanding of America's proper place in a fractious world. . . . There is no greater concern that Americans have today than the War on Terror. Kerry showed last night that he doesn't understand this." (Editorial, "Kerry's Strategic Myopia," New York Post, 7/30/04)
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: Kerry Offered No Explanation Of "His Own Role In Sending U.S. Servicemen To War." "But Kerry did nothing in this speech to explain his own role in sending U.S. servicemen to war in Iraq. Both he and his vice presidential nominee, John Edwards, voted for the war resolution that allowed the president to commit to war." (Editorial, "Passion At Last For Kerry," Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 7/30/04)
Rocky Mountain News: Kerry Gave Few Answers. "What we had hoped to hear Thursday, however, was how Kerry's admirable record of valor and public service would make a difference in leading this nation in the struggle against terrorists that target the United States and the regimes that aid them. Unfortunately, we came away still unsure of the answer." (Editorial, "Kerry's Tough Talk Leaves Many Questions," Rocky Mountain News, 7/30/04)
The Washington Post: Kerry's Speech "A Disappointment." "In accepting the Democratic nomination last night, John F. Kerry spoke to a far more anxious America, one that has weathered a recession and, more important, entered what the nominee called 'a global war on terror against an enemy unlike we've ever known before.' Mr. Kerry therefore sought above all to make the case that he could be trusted to lead a nation at war, and rightly so; he and Mr. Bush must be judged first and foremost on those grounds. But on that basis, though Mr. Kerry spoke confidently and eloquently, his speech was in many respects a disappointment." (Editorial, "Missed Opportunity," The Washington Post, 7/30/04)
Article comments
1 - Mark Saleski
so much for the "liberal" media.
2 - David Flanagan
I think it goes to show that even liberals are walking away with questions regarding the speech.
David
3 - Mark Saleski
well, i think it shows that media pundits are walking away with questions.
that's about it.
4 - David Flanagan
Well, if pundits have such questions, the American public is likely to have them as well. The purpose of this speech, at least according to Democratic strategists, is to win over the increasingly smaller number of swing voters. But it was such a partisan speech, will it REALLY do that?
That of course is the most important question. Initially, some swing voters may be swayed, but as the campaign moves on and as Bush and Kerry begin their debates, I think Kerry is going to have to offer more than "tough words."
Thanks,
David
5 - Aaron, Duke De Mondo
as a resident of The Northern Ireland, i don't get to indulge much in international affairs such as this right here. Is there anywhere a man could read this speech?
6 - Distorted Angel
Duke, the NY Times has the full text of Kerry's speech, and I think they have full text of other major convention speeches as well.
So David, are you expecting the Republican convention to be full of non-partisan speeches?
7 - Aaron, Duke De Mondo
nice one angel. thanks
8 - jack e. jet
these are the very same papers that should be kicking themselves in the ass for being such wimps and pansies in being fearful of cheney and poony bush. they should have questioned this war. they should have questioned the wmd's. however, they were shaking in their press credintials for fear on not getting that "one on one" with laura.
the press sucks
bush sucks
cheney is satan.
i suck
peace,
jack e. jett
9 - JR
So David, are you expecting the Republican convention to be full of non-partisan speeches?
Well, I'm expecting David to find the Republican convention full of non-partisan speeches. :-)
10 - Shark
Jack Jett is right: The "press" should hang their heads in shame for the job they've done the last few years. They no longer have any legitimacy; everything they say and do is suspect.
*All "news" is marketing, all "marketing" is news.
Journalism is dead.
Long live ignorance, polls, and pundits.
*Shark's Universal Law #2