W's Big Night

The president did...alright, I guess...whatever.

Most of the speech was laundry-list style pabulum, neither inspired nor inspiring. There were a few stylistic culs-de-sac, e.g. Bush's ad hoc insertion of his old "soft bigotry of low expectations" slogan. (Btw, the delegates applauded that one heartily, not because it was a terribly applause-worthy line---in fact it was transparently artificial and poorly delivered---but because they have a good reflex for recognizing even retired Bush slogans.) Bush seems to think that the fact that he visited New York after 9/11 qualifies him for re-election. Er, sure. Thank God we sort-of/not-really elected Bush. We all know that a President Gore would have told New Yorkers to go fuck themselves.

Bush managed to relate a few touching anecdotes about meeting the relatives of 9/11 victims and wounded soldiers, and I was all set to give him credit for an effective emotional appeal, but then he fouled it all up by piously explaining how they all, inexplicably and miraculously, are able to set aside time to pray for him. Maybe that sort of thing plays well with swing voters. I found it stomach-turning. And of course, Bush fell back on coded gay-bashing and attacks on the integrity of judges.

The high point of the speech was its prolonged section on foreign policy. A lot of what he said wasn't true, but the rhetoric hit all the right notes and is more likely than anything else in the speech to help Bush's electoral chances. This section was marred by an anti-historical swipe at the New York Times, for printing an editorial decrying the failure of occupation policy in Germany in early 1946. Bush can get away with this because we are the United States of Amnesia, and nobody in a position to shape opinion is going to bother pointing out that the editorial was written before the implementation of the Marshall Plan, and was therefore correct both in substance and in spirit---and occupation policy changed accordingly.

Overall, a B/B+, and that takes into account Bush's steep curve as a remedial student. I can't see this speech, or the convention as a whole, moving the needles at all. Since my predictive capabilities in rugby are so finely-tuned, I'll hazard a prediction about the coming months of the campaign. The Swift Boat Veterans For "Truth" controversy produced an artificial swing in Bush's favor through August. As a result, he peaked too early. The Republican convention is not going to produce any significant bounce, and the momentum will shift back to Kerry in the coming weeks, in all likelihood permanently. The remaining X-factor is the debate series.

If you caught any of Kerry's and Edwards' instant-response campaign rally tonight, you'll have noticed that they both have taken off the kid gloves and are ready (finally!) to throw body punches. Kerry even referenced Dick Cheney's five deferments to stay out of Vietnam. [Um, just how did Clinton get out of Vietnam?--ed.] [Look, I've said many times that military service records are not even remotely credible as criteria for selecting presidents. But the Republicans have chosen to attack John Kerry's military record under disgraceful pretenses, while running a ticket of Vietnam service-avoiders, and that is indecent--F.] Kerry's delivery in particular wasn't terribly impressive, but this seems to be the clear signal of a new aggression in the campaign, and it's about fucking time. It's time, specifically, for Edwards to be a relentless attack dog.