Redstate

Kerry has liabilities -- serious, ineffaceable liabilities -- up to his ears (a prominent one of which I wrote about yesterday, but this election will be about President Bush: his judgment, most of all.

How confident is the Republican Party of the soundness of Bush's judgment?

We know from at least one focus group that Miller's speech actually gave a boost for Bush (Frank Luntz's group on MSNBC). 11 of the 17 ended up saying that Miller made them think better of Bush and Cheney.

Here's where I think Miller's speech made a difference:

Conventions are always boring. All the speeches are canned and rehearsed. There's not much going on, nothing that might actually offend some obscure class of voter.

Miller completely broke that formula. He said what he thinks. He not only eviscerated Kerry, but his praise of Bush spoke directly to Jacksonian America. This was not a canned speech designed to placate everyone. This was a speech that was about standing for a certain set of principles and Miller wasn't going to budge on them one iota.

This was an honest speech. Miller was right to resist the attempts to water it down. This was a speech that reflected exactly what many of us feel - that Kerry represents a worldview that is at best skeptical and often hostile to America.

Miller also defined Kerry since Kerry has so far failed to adaquately define himself. He made his Senate voting record a campaign issue, which is going to hurt Kerry.

Moreover, he's given Bush the perfect setup. Bush doesn't have to go on the attack now. Miller's done that better than anyone. Now Bush can show what his vision is for the next four years. If he can show the kind of leadership and vision he did after September 11, this race will be over.

I don't think that Miller hurt Bush at all - the people who don't like that sort of thing are the ones who are already in the Kerry camp. Miller was speaking directly to those people who want a President with guts and explaining why Bush is that man and Kerry most certainly is not. It was a phenomenally effective speech, and in an age of bland artifice coming from the scripted conventions, it was also a breath of fresh air.

For what it's worth, I think that the Republicans are making the same mistake as the Democrats:  They are both making the case that their candidate is the best based on his controversial performance in a controversial war.  It didn't work for the Democrats; I doubt it will work for the Republicans.

Indeed, as I've written elsewhere (specifically w/r/t Miller and Cheney), "[y]ou wouldn't know it from these speechs, but a lot has happened since major combat operations ended in 2003, and not all of it was good. It was as if I had been transported to an alternate-reality December, 2002, where GreenPeace held 51 seats in the Senate and the Bush Administration was constantly being restricted in its efforts to wage war against Saddam by Fifth column obstructionists. Weird."  The only truly postive, forward-looking prime-time speeches at either convention have been Arnold's (RNC) and Obama's (DNC).  That's not good.*  Perhaps Bush will turn it around tonight.

von

*Though certain of the backward looking RNC speeches were brilliant -- McCain's, for example.

but you know, heres a counterargument for you. Given the synchronized characterization of Kerry not as someone who disagrees with Bush on how to defend the country, but someone who disagrees with Bush on whether to deend the country, Miller's speech was perfectly suited to its task: remind the conservative base, who truly believe Kerry is out to sell this nation to the Vietcong (or something), that election 2004 is an existential struggle.

Ironies abound here, many of which you wont agree with me on, but the basic strategy is:

1. smear Kerry prior to the convo in prep,
   
   
2. monday and tuesday, appeal to the swing voters
   
   
3. wednesday, excite the base
   
   
4. thursday, tie it all together .

you're absolutely right, it all hinges on how Bush makes the sale. One might legitimately have concern about whether he has the rhetorical skill;  but I think he will pull off a reasonably synthesis (which might be summarized: Bush = Freedom and God, Kerry = Slavery and Devil). If he succeeds, the average voter sees a nice guy who's a known quantity, saying the right things.

in Arkansas, Tennessee, West Virginia, and non-St.Louis Missouri. And as you note Luntz's focus groups indicates it is going to help everywhere.

Of course, there are those who believe that no one should ever be offended. Miller offended because to agree with his speech you actually have to believe in something.

Somehow we have gotten to the point where exposing the non-existent record of an empty suit is harmful. Personally, I'd rather that 100% of those people offended by Miller just vote for Kerry and be done with it rather than trying to mold the majority of the party into some twisted, shrunken version of itself.

the speech was many things, but portraying Kerry as a traitor does not count as honest.

Ownership Society is all the press'll be talking about tomorrow.

I'm sorry but this read about "every major speaker" is just off. I mean have we been watching the same covention?

Let's look at the major speakers:

McCain - Made the argument for Iraq that was the strongest so far. Unified the War on Terror to all fronts - therefore breaking the best Dem point - that the War in Iraq is not the War on Terror. Almost no mention (even subtlely) of Kerry.

Guiliani - Mostly about Presidential Leadership and the vision of freedom being actively taken to the world instead of the isolationist and apeasing viewpoints. He had a lot of fun at Kerry's expense, but the contrast was not the major segment of his speech

Arnold - The great optimistic vision speech of the convention. The Uniter. Attacks were subtle and driving at differences in vision and perspective. Not a hostile speech. I can't even remember him mentioning Kerry.

Laura Bush - She is the first lady. Attacking Democrats is beneath her.

So, the first two nights were mostly nothing to do with Kerry accept drawing contrasts - and that was done subtlely (outside of Rudy - who mostly did it humorously)

Now, last night is what you are REALLY talking about. And that attack was DEVESTATING. Kerry has been playing dress up as a moderate, reasonable defender of the US - i.e. I'm a warrior, but I'm smarter and more thoughtful than Bush.

Zell leveled that argument last night and I don't know how Kerry can recovery from it if Republicans stay on message.

Cheney seemed calm and reasonable following Zell (which belies the mean, sneaky old man image that the Left paints).

So, is this convention about Kerry? NO. It is about Bush. The message is that the Bush of 2004 is the same Bush of September/October 2001. His decisions and leadeship is just following through on what he told us as a nation on Sept. 20th, 2001. Kerry, and by extension the liberal Democrats, are not offering a consistent vision on how to lead. In fact, if you believe a member of their Old Guard, they are being opportunistic for personal political gain and breaking historical unity in times of War.

Did Republicans in one night do more damage to Kerry than all of the Left did to Bush in the last 7 months? Yes. Just like one small 527 did more damage to Kerry with a few hundred thousand dollars than all of George Soros' millions and the Billions of dollars in lies put out by the old Liberal Press.

The reason is that the truth is hundreds of times more potent than a lie. A small group shouting the truth from the rooftops is worth thousands shouting a lie in marches, protests, and signs.

The great lie that Bush took us to war for his own poltical interest instead of the security of the nation is what is being undone at this convention. The great truth that the Democratic party is a vehicle for the anti-American pacifism of the 60s, Carter, and G7 protester types is what is being brought to light.

And the truth... it is a powerful thing. This convention is about the truth - all sides of it.

Out of respect, I'm going to refrain from posting on RedState on directly political matters in the future.  

I've made no secret that I've been wavering against Bush (indeed, I've declared at least twice -- once on Tacitus.org and once on ObsidianWings -- that I can't vote for him, before reconsidering).  After last night's speeches, a review of the Platform on which Bush is running, Bush's performance in the aftermath of the Iraq war (i.e., his failure to plan for the aftermath), and Bush's deficit spending (and my belief, based on the last four years, that he lacks the capacity to make the hard choices necessary to bring the deficit in line), I cannot support this candidate for a second term.  I have not yet decided whether I will actually pull the level for Kerry.  (And, my Sully-like Hamletism aside, this time any retraction will be silent & between me and the voting machine.)

Targeted Republicans will continue to get my support and money.  (Sen. Lugar, from my home state, is a personal hero of mine; yes, yes, I know he's not running this time, but I felt compelled to mention this).  And, on philosophical matters, I probably won't be able to restrain myself.  But I will not be a troll on matters concerning the campaign.  Bush supporters deserve a forum to promote their man.  My input on campaign matters is not appropriate, and would (rightfully) be considered suspect.

Best of luck.  

...and I think this convention is a model for this type of campaign.

The main issue for this election is national security.  McCain, Rudy, Zell, and VP Cheney all made fantastic cases that Kerry is not to be trusted as Commander-in-Chief while making salient once agian the President's tremendous post 9/11 performance.

Kerry made the centerpiece of his campaign Vietnam in an effort to shore up his national security numbers.  The Swifties erased his gains and I wouldn't be surprised to see Bush up 70-30 on the national security question after this week.

Good thing Miller didn't portray Kerry as a traitor, then.  (Though he may have been-why is a sailor on duty in Paris meeting with the enemy while a war is going on?)  He explicitly said that he did not question Kerry's patriotism, just his judgment.

This was a speech that reflected exactly what many of us feel - that Kerry represents a worldview that is at best skeptical and often hostile to America.

I think that the case can be made that Kerry has a worldview that is 'skeptical and often hostile to' America's political leadership in the Vietnam War.  I don't think Kerry has ever been critical of 'America'.  So, here's my question

Why is it that Republicans distrust our government so deeply, but they will not countenance dissent when it comes to the wars our government chooses to fight. (Before you get too excited about that line, I'm for the Iraq War, I just think that the administration has screwed up the post-war situation so terribly to deserve to be re-hired for four years.)  So much of conservative beliefs center on the idea that the government cannot be counted on to make good decisions, and that when it lucks into making a good decision, government cannot be counted on to implement the decision in a competent way.  Why is it considered an affront to 'America' to question the wisdom of the Iraq War that our political leaders decided we should wage (and again, which I support)?  Why does questioning the diplomacy efforts that led up to the war and the occupation* that followed mean that you are 'skeptical or hostile' about America?  Or don't support our troops?

*And yes, we are occupying Iraq right now.  The administration, itself, has called it that. First, we liberated.  Then, we occupy.  At some point down the road, we will leave.  

but he should have.

Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.

Seems to me that Kerry met the minimum requirements.

As I noted last night, there seemed to be an inherent paradox in his presentation. As a Democrat, he was supposed to symbolize the bipartisan rally around the Bush flag and represent a move above petty politics, yet he often aimed below the belt. He posed as a 9/11 politician, yet his rhetoric harkened back to 9/10.

Why is it that Republicans distrust our government so deeply, but they will not countenance dissent when it comes to the wars our government chooses to fight.

As in yesterday's post, I don't presume to speak for all conservatives. However, I think most of us believe the time to dissent on a subject as important as war is BEFORE the decision is made. Once the decision is made we are in it and we must win. Dissent during time of war, regardless of the relentless propaganda of the left, is never honorable and never helpful to anyone but the enemy.

So much of conservative beliefs center on the idea that the government cannot be counted on to make good decisions, and that when it lucks into making a good decision, government cannot be counted on to implement the decision in a competent way. To the extent that even a majority of conservaties subscribe to this belief, I think most of us would say that this is applies to government's penchant for trying to choose economic winners and losers and its repeated forays into social engineering.

I liked Miller's speech. That "spitball" line was great stuff. But I share Tacitus's worries.

Dissent during time of war, regardless of the relentless propaganda of the left, is never honorable and never helpful to anyone but the enemy.

I suspect that's a minority view among Americans, but I have no data one way or another, just my gut.  I'd love to see a survey question on it, just to see if it's even a majority view among self-identified conservatives or republicans.  Regardless, that was the overall impression I took away from Zell's speech, and I appreciate your response.

Over the last two years, I've found my views of what liberals think and what conservatives think was remarkably wrong.  It's by asking questions like those above that I've learned more about what each side really thinks.

Thanks, again.

Dissent during time of war, regardless of the relentless propaganda of the left, is never honorable and never helpful to anyone but the enemy.

I suspect that's a minority view among Americans, but I have no data one way or another, just my gut.  I'd love to see a survey question on it, just to see if it's even a majority view among self-identified conservatives or republicans.  Regardless, that was the overall impression I took away from Zell's speech, and I appreciate your response.

Over the last two years, I've found my views of what liberals think and what conservatives think was remarkably wrong.  It's by asking questions like those above that I've learned more about what each side really thinks.

Thanks, again.

Streiff.  Not a response to what you wrote, Tac.

What else do you say about a reserve Navy officer who makes trips to France to talk with the enemy while his former comrads in arms are fighting in Vietnam?

Can you give me an example of how, once the elected government of your nation has decided to commit young soldiers to combat, that you can honorably dissent?

It seems to me that to say otherwise is a vote for something between anarchy and treason.

It doesn't mean that you have to agree. It doesn't mean you can't vote the government out of office. It does mean that you don't do anything that gives aid and comfort to the enemy.

I live along the northern border of Illinois and have an opportunity to listen in to radio stations in both the Chicago and Milwaukee markets.  I caught various portions of local talk on 3 different stations this morning, and heard somewhere between 15 and 20 callers.  Recognizing that a majority of such participants are conservative, I was still shocked that not one of them (at least a third were women) had even one single thing negative to say about Zell Miller's speech.  Most were quite excited, and almost all felt it was high time that someone made such a speech.

That is not the most democratic statement I've ever heard.  Opposition to on-going wars has a history back to the founding of this country.

How can you possibly 'vote the government out of office' when the party out of office is forbidden from declaring opposition to the war?

If you seriously propose this we essentially suspend the democratic process (for foreign policy, at least) until the ruling party sees fit to end the war.

Tacitus, you worry too much.  All the vitriol hurled at Bush over the past year makes Zell's perforance shrink to insignificance. Remember, this race more than any otehr in recent history is about turning out the base more than appealing to squishy undecideds. Miller came across as angry on TV, which I think resonates with the anger of the Swift Boat Vets and for nearly the same reason: Kerry and his Party trash talk America.

From my perch here in Virginia, the RNC is playing just fine in the hinterlands. Bush will sew it up with a strong finish and get an 8-10 point bouce. Betcha.

They're remarkably, and abnormally, down on Miller's speech.  I was watching the speech with my poker group.  Even the die-hard Democrat in the crowd was amused by Miller.  The Slate crowd likes to pretend that they're trimming sails between partisan shoals, but Miller just caught them broadside, and they're smarting.  

I don't know, my social circle is primarily masculine.  Maybe it was a disaster among the other half, and I'm just not hearing it.  I could always be suffering from Kael Syndrome...

defined as giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

The idea that you can lose the political contest on going to war and then dissent with troops in combat is just one of the most imbecilic concepts to come down the pike.

Paul hit the nail right on the head--do people trust Bush's judgment? The most surprising poll result of this election season is that so many respondents approve of President Bush's handling of terrorism.  This is surprising because the handling of terrorism is where Bush has made his most obvious and dangerous blunders.

In 2001, Bush ignored warnings of likely attacks by Al-Qaeda and admitted in Bob Woodward's book, "Bush at War", that he was not focused on terrorism before 9/11.

After 9/11, Bush invaded Afghanistan and removed the Taliban, a move widely supported in the U.S.  However, he did not finish the job and make that region stable.  Nearly 3 years later, Al-Qaeda leader bin Laden and Mullah Omar, the Taliban leader, are still at large.

Rather than continue to focus on pursuing Al-Qaeda and affiliated groups, who remain the most dangerous threat to the U.S., Bush instead decided to invade Iraq, which clearly had nothing to do with 9/11 and was not a supporter of Al-Qaeda's fundamentalist vision. He fired General Shinseki, the top Army general, for telling the truth about how many troops would be needed in Iraq.  Bush also fired economic advisor Laurence Lindsay for telling the truth about how much the Iraq war would cost, demonstrating that towing the (false) party line was more important to him than competence and truth.  

Now, even Bush admits that there are no WMD's in Iraq and no ties between Iraq and 9/11, the threats to the U.S. originally presented as the main reasons for going to war. (The only reason left, humanitarian concerns, was the one stated by Paul Wolfowitz, regarded as the architect of this Iraq policy, as not being sufficient to justify invasion.)  Yet, Bush claims that somehow we were right to invade anyway.

Among the many adverse consequences of the Iraqi invasion are the nearly one thousand dead and five thousand wounded American soldiers, the shame of the Abu Ghraib prison scandal, alienation from the U.S. of long-standing allies (as well as most of the rest of the world), the financial burden of more than 150 billion dollars (and counting), and the replacement of Afghanistan with Iraq as the primary haven for terrorists.  Any gains to the U.S. as a result of this invasion are not clear.

In a nutshell, Bush ignored the true grave threat of Al-Qaeda and massively overreacted to the non-threat of Iraq.  Imagine how different this country, the world, and Bush's re-election chances would be if he had been competent and done the opposite.

Dissent is treason.

I am clearly saying that once the decision has been made to enter into armed conflict the time for dissent is passed. Public dissent beyond that point is not only dishonorable, it borders on criminal.

You seem to be taking the position that no matter what decision the government makes that every citizen has a right to resist that decision and no duty whatsoever to the common goal.

Particularly with this: The great lie that Bush took us to war for his own political interest instead of the security of the nation is what is being undone at this convention. The great truth that the Democratic party is a vehicle for the anti-American pacifism of the 60s, Carter, and G7 protester types is what is being brought to light.

In the face of Michael Moore's lies, MoveOn, etc., passive policy-laden speeches are useless.  I see Zell as our response directly to the cult of F9111.  An especially brilliant ploy was getting a Democrat to do it.  And all the Democrats can do is cry about how Zell doesn't deserve to be a Democrat.  (Doesn't deserve to be part of the party that welcomes "Solidarity with the Iraqi Resistance"?)  And yet we have a (small) buffer because, you know, Zell's just a crazy Democrat ranting and raving.  He set the stage perfectly for Cheney to give a calm, rational speech - suddenly he's not so menacing after all - and, now that the air's clear, for the President to lay out his policy agenda tonight.  

No, I'm just opposed to treason ... defined as giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

A non-campaign issue, so I'll comment.  As you quote (numbers and emphasis are mine):

"Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in [1] levying war against them, or [2] in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort."

"[G]iving aid and comfort" is an adjectival clause that modifies "in adhering to their enemies."  Accordingly, merely giving aid to the enemies of the United States is not, by itself,  treaon.  One can advocate a course of action that may directly or indirectly aid an enemy, and not be a traitor.  (As the Kerry did after the Vietnam war, many Republicans did during the action in the Balkans; etc.)

Traitor and treason are terms that the Founding Fathers understood well, and (correctly) defined narrowly.  True to our progenitors, we should do the same.

Is it possible for you to write a post without an ad hominem attack?

The point I made was that the logical conclusion to your principle is that democratic debate ends after the declaration of war.

So, if President McKinley, Johnson, or Bush misleads us into a war the opposition party cannot even make this point known because that would constitute dissent which is treason.

You seemed to argue with this formulation without particularly clarifying your position.  

Do you agree with this?  If not, maybe you'd like to explain further.  Maybe you can do that without being insulting.

with you analysis, although I am unclear on the precise significance of the phrase regarding adherence to the enemies of the United States.  I must imagine that the phrase refers to a class of potential actions broader than those of high-profile traitors, such as those who pass classified information to foreign powers.

   All the same, the burden of proof must rest on the shoulders of those who would dissent during a time of war, such is the importance of unity and resolve when the nation has been committed to armed conflict.  That is no more, and no less, than simple, patriotic, common sense.

are tending towards hypersensitivity where so-called negative campaigning is concerned.  Negative campaigning, whether in the form of Zell Miller's speech or television advertising, is simply one half of the political process, intended to render the positive agenda of a candidate all the more luminous and appealing by means of contrast with the baleful record and agenda of his opponent.  Think of it as one half of a dialectical whole: our agenda appears so sensible because theirs is so naive; their agenda appears foolhardy because ours appears so reasonable.  All successful campaigns aim to achieve that sort of synthesis, and I cannot recall a single  successful presidential campaign (at least since 1980, the first I remember) that did not proffer both a positive vision and a negative estimate of the opposition.  

  Reagan's promise of American renewal went along with his question, "Are you better off now than you were four years ago?" And so on....

although I am unclear on the precise significance of the phrase regarding adherence to the enemies of the United States.

As a practical matter, "adherence" devolves into "aid and comfort," plus overt act.  For instance, in Haupt v. United States, a father was convicted of treason for sheltering his son, a German sabteur, providing him a car, and getting him a job in a defense plant (I believe; there may be more).  The defense was that the father was not adhering to the enemy, but rather merely adhering to his son.  The charge of treason was upheld, and the focus, IIRC, was on the fact that acts directly aided the enemey -- the fact that they also, incidentally, aided the son was immaterial.  I believe that there's never been a case in which mere speech -- other than espionage* -- was considered treason.  (I'll accept correction on that point, of course.)

All the same, the burden of proof must rest on the shoulders of those who would dissent during a time of war, such is the importance of unity and resolve when the nation has been committed to armed conflict.  That is no more, and no less, than simple, patriotic, common sense.

Dissent, even during wartime, is not treason -- not in the Golden Age of Greece and not today.**  With all due respect, it's utterly foolish to urge otherwise.  

Whether it is wise to dissent during war time -- and how one should dissent -- is, of course, another matter.

von

*And I'm not even sure that espionage, by itself, has been considered treason.  The Rosenbergs weren't convicted of treason, for instance.

**Dissent against the King could be treason, of course, in England of the 1600s.  Of course, we were kinda rebelling against that sort of thing.

I am not suggesting that dissent in time of war be regarded as treason.  I am only suggesting that such times require a sense of national unity, of common purpose, and that dissent which is par for the course in peacetime, in the give and take of the democratic process, has a higher bar to clear in time of war if it is to be regarded as a contribution to the good of the nation rather than partisan sniping.  Not treason; not even necessarily  unpatriotic.  But partisan and factious - not the qualities we should emulate and admire in wartime discourse.

I'm trying not to be insulting tonight. It probably won't last, but here goes:

One may say, "We should not be involved in this war; elect this party, so that we can extricate ourselves."

One may say, "I, as a private citizen, believe that this war is wrong, and we should not be in it."

One may not, however, visit the enemy while under uniform and sua sponte try to negotiate without one's government's approval.

One may not accuse one's government of war crimes simply as a political expedient, without rational basis, to effect political change.

One may not revolt in the streets in a self-centered display of righteousness, that can only give aid and comfort to the enemy.

One may not accuse one's political opponent of self-serving treason in bringing the nation to war.

There is, in other words, a line. Kerry crossed it.