Redstate

By Adam C Posted in Elections — Comments (0) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

From Howard Kurtz's Media Notes, here is a round up of major print media and some commentators. It's long and full of excerpts. Overall, generally positive review with some questinos about overplaying 9/11. I would call most of the commentary fair.

Best visual moment: When McCain said "and certainly not a disingenuous filmmaker" and the cameras cut to a laughing Michael Moore, sitting in the press section in his bizarre role as USA Today columnist. As the crowd chanted "four more years," Moore mouthed "two more months."



McCain later chided Moore again on MSNBC, while admitting he hasn't seen "Fahrenheit 9/11," and ducked a question on whether he might run in 2008.



The McCain-Giuliani combination got rave reviews from the talking heads. It was by turns "inspirational," "hopeful," "positive," "negative" and "funny," said Brit Hume.



"A very impressive performance by Rudy Giuliani and a powerful attack on Senator Kerry," said his Fox colleague Bill Kristol.



"It brings tears to your eyes," said Fred Barnes.



"A very powerful and effective political night for the Republicans," said Tim Russert.



"Rudy Giuliani had a terrific relationship with this crowd, more than just home-field advantage," said Brian Williams.



There were a couple of notes of caution. Judy Woodruff observed that at one point the speech "moved into the territory of character criticism" of Kerry. And Candy Crowley said it would be "awfully tough" for the other side to "criticize Giuliani for talking about 9/11."



"A major show of strength," said Time's Joe Klein, "but not much nuance and not much detail."



One other observation. If John Kerry had said of the war on terror, "I don't think you can win it"--as the president told Matt Lauer--wouldn't the conservative media machine be going absolutely nuts? Of course we all know what Bush meant--that the fight will go on and on--but the incident demonstrates that the Democrats lack a left-wing noise machine with anything approaching the same volume.



"Less than four miles from the site of the attack that horrified a city, unified a nation and transformed George W. Bush's presidency," says the New York Times, "speaker after speaker at the Republican National Convention yesterday summoned the still-raw memories of Sept. 11 in service of a single, overriding theme: the nation will be safer if Mr. Bush wins four more years.



"There is only the finest of lines between invoking a disaster in which all New Yorkers , and all Americans, regardless of party, felt such a devastating stake, and exploiting it for partisan advantage. From morning to night, the Republicans strode proudly, even defiantly, right up to that line - if not over it - and the delegates responded with roaring approval."



USA Today also questions whether the Repubs hit the hot button too hard:



"Revisiting the past is risky. A defining episode from years or decades ago can color the perception of an entire convention, as Kerry learned when he relied on his Vietnam service to convey character and leadership qualities. He and others discussed other subjects, including Kerry's own detailed explanation of his health care plan. But does anyone remember anything else about that convention?



"Too much focus on the past can also invite attacks on just the strength the candidate is trying to highlight. That's what has happened to Kerry on his Vietnam service and later anti-war activism. A convention about 9/11 could intensify criticism of Bush's policies on Iraq and terrorism."



So much for the moderates, says the Los Angeles Times:



"When former New York Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) were named to headline the Republican National Convention's opening night, most analysts in both parties took it as evidence that President Bush's campaign wanted the gathering to project a message of moderation.



"But in their speeches Monday night, Giuliani and McCain signaled that the real mission for the Bush campaign this week was to send a message of strength. In their emphasis on Bush's determination and resolve, they dramatized how heavily the GOP was betting that many voters uneasy about the president's policy direction would support him for reelection if they believed he could set a steadier course in a turbulent time than his rival, Democrat John F. Kerry."



The Washington Post sees a back-to-the-future strategy:



"One month after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, a poll showed that 92 percent of Americans approved of the way President Bush was handling the problem of terrorism. Almost two years later, after the surrender of Baghdad, that number stood at 79 percent.



"The speakers who opened the Republican National Convention Monday night -- led by Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) and former New York mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani -- launched a concerted effort to convince Americans that what they thought of Bush then remains the way they should think of him now.



"The aim was to restore the luster of Bush's credentials on national security despite the scuffs these have taken from the problems of the Iraq occupation and handover."



New York Daily News columnist Michael Goodwin hails the former hizzoner:



"That was no ordinary speech Rudy Giuliani gave the faithful last night. It was the essence of the Republican case, both for George W. Bush and against John Kerry.



"That it was delivered in such a rollicking, emotional fashion, replete with flashes of humor and sharp elbows, made it all the more forceful.



"And that it was Giuliani who delivered it removed any doubts that he is the designated rising star in the GOP. . . . Our former mayor performed his crucial assignment in dramatic New York style. As a colleague noted, this was the first time that a Republican convention was commanded by a man who talked with his hands!"



But Slate's William Saletan accuses the ex-mayor of rhetorical trickery:



"Giuliani equates the plotters of 9/11 with the butchers of Iraq. He recalls Bush's vow that the terrorists who attacked America would 'hear from us.'



'They heard from us in Iraq,' says Giuliani. To get around the absence of WMD, he adds that Saddam 'was himself a weapon of mass destruction.' Please. There's nothing less suitable for strained metaphors than weapons of mass destruction. They're horribly literal. Don't insult the gravity of these weapons by suggesting that even if the country you invaded didn't have them, the guy who ran the country is sort of like one of them.



"The twist Giuliani adds to McCain's argument is an obsessive repetition of two opposing concepts. Giuliani calls them 'offense' and 'defense.' Defense is what lily-livered liberals advocate: waiting for terrorists to attack us. Offense is what Bush is doing: hitting the terrorists before they can hit us. The offense/defense metaphor treats the use of force as a football game, in which the enemy is clear, and every attack we launch is an advance. This eliminates the salient complication of reality: Al-Qaida and Saddam were distinct adversaries, and attacking the latter wasn't necessarily an advance against the former."



The Washington Times totes up some slips by the candidate:



"President Bush, who had hoped for a triumphant, gaffe-free entrance to the Republican National Convention, instead has spent the past few days giving rhetorical ammunition to Sen. John Kerry. In an interview aired yesterday on NBC's 'Today' show, Mr. Bush said of the war against terrorism: 'I don't think you can win it.' In other recent interviews, he called Operation Iraqi Freedom a 'catastrophic success' and his postwar plan a 'miscalculation.'



"Mr. Kerry's campaign has seized on the statements with a zeal not seen since Republicans savaged the Democratic candidate's call for a 'more sensitive war on terror.' The Massachusetts senator forced the White House and the Bush campaign to spend much of yesterday doing damage control."