Saturday, July 31, 2004 What I learned about John Kerry last night John Kerry is the only politician who is sufficiently trusted by the American people to be given the "night watch". I found undisputable proof of this last night in the number of people around me who inadvertently fell asleep listening to his speech. Upon questioning, these sleepers were all willing to give Kerry the benefit of the doubt, acknowledging readily that the man had made the "speech of his life", and that he had "far exceeded expectations". The expectation must have been that Kerry's initial words would not have inspired the confidence in this potential Commander In Chief necessary for viewers to sleep peacefully.
By contrasts, I remember most of these viewers watching Bush's State Of The Union speech with eyes wide, biting their nails, almost terrified of what Bush might do or say next. Like Ann Coultier or Howard Stern, Bush tends to keep the listener transfixed, in anticipation of his next gaff. Kerry makes none of those attention-mongering gaffs, and is thus either dreadfully boring, or sufficiently trustworthy to be given the "night watch" over America.
Posted by Justin Sarma,
11:18 PM
-
Friday, July 30, 2004 Reaction to John Kerry's Speech First, it was not the speech I expected. It was much more liberal than I expected (but see below), and also much more pointed and on the attack: it was a bit harsher than the 'velvet glove' approach of the rest of the convention (but not much more so). I am half convinced the Kerry people edited the other convention speeches so as to leave it to Kerry to really rouse the crowd with new lines of attack (new for the convention that is). Moreover, at the beginning of the week, the pundits were saying that Kerry would have to answer questions about what he would do in Iraq. I thought it was surprising that he didn't say as much as Al Qaeda, and the failures of Bush on Homeland Security and being diverted from the war on terror.
The Democrats did a lot of interesting things this convention. One is that they re-introduced domestic issues to a surprising degree; they had generally liberal issues with more talk of 'responsibility' and other Clinton-type themes. They also constantly harped on 'John Kerry is a war veteran'. I am not sure I like this concept of electing a 'commander-in-chief' (well, what I REALLY do not like is the idea that we should not criticize the 'commander-in-chief' in time of war). On foreign policy, there was a constant emphasis on truth ("I will restore trust and credibility to the White House". I thought some of his lines on terms did not come across as too tough (not like John Edwards. I am thinking when Kerry said: "And then, with confidence and determination, we will be able to tell the terrorists: 'You will lose and we will win.') In terms of cultural themes, there was also an interesting dualism. The talk of patriotism was interesting and rousing to people like me, but my mom noted that it was the Vietnam protesters' notion of patriotism. I don't know how this speech will play to most people. I also really liked a similar line about religion, we don't say god is on our side, but as lincoln said we humbly pray that we are on God's side. So far the pundits seem to be loving it. My favorite moment of television was when Triumph the Comic Insult dog appeared on MSNBC and told Joe Scarborough (who had said that Kerry's deliver was too rushed): 'Joe, you just had to find some fault with Kerry. We know you hang more to the right than Marmaduke's pink thing.'
Anyway, there were a few moments I didn't like, like when Kerry said he "was born in the West Wing" of the hospital. What were his advisors thinking? Why perpetuate this notion that he has been thinking about being president since day one? But generally I think Kerry has been served well by his advisors, or as well as he could be. Another thing I didn't like was one of his foreign policy statements that said something like that the only reason we should ever go to war is when our nation's interests are threatened. You can abuse the notion of humanitarian war, as Bush has. But why take such a stark and basically realist position? I'm not saying smart people don't believe that position. I think realists are better than neoconservatives idealogues right now. But liberals seem to be adopting too much realist rhetoric in reacting to the conservative idealist hawks. Did we 'choose' to go to war in Kosovo? Or better yet, should we have 'chosen' to intervene in Rwanda (or Bosnia)? I suppose you could make the argument that when Kerry was talking about being forced to go to war rather than 'choosing' to go to war, he was also talking about American values; maybe you could append that stopping an ongoing genocide (which does not include Iraq in 2003) is an American value that forces us to act. But Kerry didn't say that, and would you buy it? Also, what is this 'help is on the way' crap? (someone said, i think it was a Cheney statement in 2000) But the pundits seem to be eating up Kerry's speech, so maybe keeping it simple (and vague) is a good strategy.
Posted by Timothy,
1:59 AM
-
The New Republic reported last month that the Bush Administration was pushing Pakistan to arrest terrorists during the Democratic convention, and guess what?
[Editor's Note: This afternoon, Pakistan's interior minister, Faisal Saleh Hayyat, announced that Pakistani forces had captured Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani, a Tanzanian Al Qaeda operative wanted in connection with the 1998 bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. The timing of this announcement should be of particular interest to readers of The New Republic. Earlier this month, John B. Judis, Spencer Ackerman, and Massoud Ansari broke the story of how the Bush administration was pressuring Pakistani officials to apprehend high-value targets (HVTs) in time for the November elections--and in particular, to coincide with the Democratic National Convention. Although the capture took place in central Pakistan "a few days back," the announcement came just hours before John Kerry will give his acceptance speech in Boston.]
Then, after you see that, remember that we noted in May and then The New Republic reported out extensively early this month, that this White House has been telling the Pakistanis for months that they wanted to see a big-time al Qaida leader -- hopefully bin Laden -- produced during the Democratic convention.
Reuters is reporting that the guy they've served up may be a Tanzanian involved in the 1998 African embassy bombings. So apparently they couldn't come up with bin Laden himself.
But here's the thing. I'm not going to be able to watch the television coverage of this throughout the day. But many of you will. So I'd be very, very curious to hear whether when, oh say, CNN goes on about how this al Qaida guy has been hauled in they will mention at all, or with any consistency, that one of the most respected political magazines in the United States reported just weeks ago on the pressure the administration has been placing on the Pakistanis to serve up an al Qaida bad guy on this day.
Will they make the obvious connection? Or will they just ignore it? This is just the latest, but perhaps the most blatant, example of how this administration has placed politics and, really, political dirty tricks above national security itself, and along the way persisted in defining political deviance down until tactics we used to associate with banana republics start to seem commonplace here.
And while we're at it, this is yet another example of how truly important it is that we democratize the Middle East. Because once we have, some of them will be able to come back here and redemocratize us.
Antiracism, antidiscrimination, elitism, vegetarianism, a concern for injustice, and feminism are just a few of the values I have appropriated from my classes.
Elitism?!? You go, John. Notice how that usually is not identified with the other values you claim to have appropriated. But this is what really gets me:
This brings me to a practical application of what I have learned. The College can, and should, ban speech that injures the quality of life and the total community environment of learning. Since we as individuals are, as political theorist Benhabib notes, situated among many webs of interlocution and various communities of language and socializing, we as individuals, and the College as an institutional authority, have the responsibility to censor and punish speech-acts, which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.
Huh? In Seyla Benhabib's book The Claims of Culture, Benhabib says she agrees with Charles Taylor that our selves are situated among many webs of interlocution. BUT Benhabib says that, from that fact, she does not think it follows that that the government should single out one of those indenties and it give specific institutional recognition and protection to it. At least in the context of society as a whole, Benhabib makes it clear that she is more interested in our identities being contested in the institutions of civil society, rather than through state enforcement. Granted, I haven't read everything Seyla Benhabib wrote, and she may in fact be in favor of 'speech codes.' But simply because we publically negotiate and contest our identities does not entail that the nearest institution should be empowered to regulate identity. Stevenson can make whatever argument he wants; I just don't think it's Benhabib's argument and I'd like him to tell me at least where he got it from.
Posted by Timothy,
6:53 PM
-
"Hope is on the Way" This slogan of Edwards didn't particularly thrill me. Any other democrats out there feel the same way?
Posted by Timothy,
6:50 PM
-
Tuesday, July 27, 2004 Beating the Evil Empire
You know it's a good sign when, the weekend before the DNC begins in Boston, the Red Sox make a thrilling comeback against the Yankees and take the 3-game series. Doesn't the Republican Convention happen in NYC? Hmmm...trivial, but glorious. Maybe Kerry and the Sox can both crush their Evil Empires this Fall? Let's hope so.
In honor of this victory, and the anticipated victory in November, I post this bit of Kerry charisma from "Rock the Vote" way back in last November (besides, this site needs content!):
KERRY: Let me tell you something. You know why I will be a great president of the United States? Because I've been a long suffering Red Sox fan. I know adversity.[...]
And I'll tell you what. Every single one of us ought to celebrate the Marlins beating the Yankees.
(APPLAUSE)
And the reason it's extra special is that's the first legitimate victory out of Florida since 2000.
