RNC @ MSG: The Main Event

President Bush delivered an acceptance speech Thursday night that was a "jack of all trades" and master of all as well.

The first portion was basically a "State-of-the-Union-ish" laundry list of second term domestic agenda items. It wasn't exciting, gripping, moving, or inspiring, but I don't think it was intended to be. Indeed, how could it have been? But it was necessary for Bush to do this, not just to provide positive reasons to vote for him as opposed to just against Senator Kerry, but also to fill the "vision" vacuum that the Boston Balker so foolishly refused to fill. And it was a masterstroke to frame his first term as a Phoenix-like climb back up from national calamity and the second as an opportunity to do great and necessary things.

And there are some nice ideas in that second term agenda.

First, he briefly reviewed his first term accomplishments:

I believe every child can learn and every school must teach - so we passed the most important federal education reform in history. Because we acted, children are making sustained progress in reading and math, America's schools are getting better, and nothing will hold us back.

I believe we have a moral responsibility to honor America's seniors - so I brought Republicans and Democrats together to strengthen Medicare. Now seniors are getting immediate help buying medicine. Soon every senior will be able to get prescription drug coverage and nothing will hold us back.

I wouldn't be so eager to take credit for these two boondoggles, myself, but the idea was and is to blunt Kerry's edge on these issues.

I believe in the energy and innovative spirit of America's workers, entrepreneurs, farmers and ranchers - so we unleashed that energy with the largest tax relief in a generation. Because we acted, our economy is growing again, and creating jobs and nothing will hold us back.

Amen. Putting the economic history of the past few years in perspective - the Clinton recession, exacerbated by 9/11, and how the Bush tax cuts have brought the economy back and on an upward trajectory - buries the fevered, petulant lib depictions of "the worst job record since Herbert Hoover." And if the only other comeback they can muster is the insult that the new jobs being created (144,000 more in August, with upward revisions for June's and July's totals, approaching two million in the past year) aren't "good" ones, that's one more indicator that their chances in this election are finished.

Next, he established the theme of the next four years.

The times in which we live and work are changing dramatically. The workers of our parents' generation typically had one job, one skill, one career - often with one company that provided health care and a pension. And most of those workers were men. Today, workers change jobs, even careers, many times during their lives, and in one of the most dramatic shifts our society has seen, two-thirds of all moms also work outside the home.

This changed world can be a time of great opportunity for all Americans to earn a better living, support your family, and have a rewarding career. And government must take your side. Many of our most fundamental systems - the tax code, health coverage, pension plans, worker training - were created for the world of yesterday, not tomorrow.We will transform these systems so that all citizens are equipped, prepared - and thus truly free - to make your own choices and pursue your own dreams.

You know those poll questions that ask respondents which candidate better "understands your problems"? The above two paragraphs should put this one in the bank alone. There was none of this in Kerry's Boston speech. He spent that hour - indeed, has spent this entire campaign - trying to conceal his past and what it suggests about what he would do with the future. Bush, by contrast, is an open book, and has trumped Kerry on "the vision thing" in a way that just makes so doggoned much sense that it cannot help but have a broad appeal. And the best part is that when the Dems take their inevitable lying potshots at it, it will reinforce that they are voices of the past, obsolete and being left behind on history's ashheap.

It's darn near Kennedyesque - JOHN Kennedyesque - when you think about it.

To create more jobs in America, America must be the best place in the world to do business. [my emphasis] To create jobs, my plan will encourage investment and expansion by restraining federal spending, reducing regulation and making tax relief permanent.

The first two are borderline-cliche, especially given this Administration's unwillingness to veto anything and the runaway deficits to which that reticence has contributed. But making tax cuts permanent is crucial. And you have to love the contrast between Kerry's demonization of "Benedict Arnold CEOs" and such and Bush's recognition that incentives, not coercion, are the way to boost the American labor market.

To create jobs, we will make our country less dependent on foreign sources of energy. To create jobs, we will expand trade and level the playing field to sell American goods and services across the globe. And we must protect small business owners and workers from the explosion of frivolous lawsuits that threaten jobs across America.

Note the linkage of various domestic issues - energy, trade, and particularly tort reform (boo-yeah!) - to job creation. Just outstanding.

Another drag on our economy is the current tax code, which is a complicated mess -- filled with special interest loopholes, saddling our people with more than six billion hours of paperwork and headache every year. The American people deserve - and our economic future demands - a simpler, fairer, pro-growth system. In a new term, I will lead a bipartisan effort to reform and simplify the federal tax code.

This one sounds sort of cliched as well. But it worked for Ronald Reagan, who actually managed to pull it off. And it never hurts to run against the IRS, even if they happen work for you. Sure isn't something John Kerry could ever do.

After allusions to expanded job training, higher education funding, and Jack Kemp's old idea of what the President redubbed "American opportunity" zones - yep, "big government conservatism" - came another choice domestic policy nugget.

As I've traveled the country, I've met many workers and small business owners who have told me they are worried they cannot afford health care. More than half of the uninsured are small business employees and their families. In a new term, we must allow small firms to join together to purchase insurance at the discounts available to big companies. We will offer a tax credit to encourage small businesses and their employees to set up health savings accounts, and provide direct help for low-income Americans to purchase them. These accounts give workers the security of insurance against major illness, the opportunity to save tax-free for routine health expenses and the freedom of knowing you can take your account with you whenever you change jobs.

Medical savings accounts. Health care portability. Reducing the third-party payment nature of the existing system. Real "health security". Hoo-rah!

As I have traveled our country, I have met too many good doctors, especially ob-gyn , who are being forced out of practice because of the high cost of lawsuits. To make health care more affordable and accessible, we must pass medical liability reform now. And in all we do to improve health care in America, we will make sure that health decisions are made by doctors and patients, not by bureaucrats in Washington, D.C.

Two mentions of tort reform and here, how it drives up health care costs. Excellent.

Bet that took the hold out of Opie's hair gel...

In this time of change, government must take the side of working families. In a new term, we will change outdated labor laws to offer comp time and flex time. Our laws should never stand in the way of a more family friendly workplace.

Already got a leg up on this, much to Big Labor's consternation. And again, if it was a good idea under Bill Clinton, how can it not be under George W. Bush?

Skipping over the "seven million more affordable homes" "goal" (which will be more a function of long term interest rates than anything else), he arrived at the crown jewel of the "ownership" platform.

In an ownership society, more people will own their health plans and have the confidence of owning a piece of their retirement. We will always keep the promise of Social Security for our older workers. With the huge Baby Boom generation approaching retirement, many of our children and grandchildren understandably worry whether Social Security will be there when they need it. We must strengthen Social Security by allowing younger workers to save some of their taxes in a personal account - a nest egg you can call your own and government can never take away.

Retirement security! Ending the rip-off of every American under the age of forty, and laying the foundation for avoiding actuarial doomsday for the government and the economy itself. Finally doing something about this increasingly looming collapse while there is still, perhaps, time to avert it.

True, Bush didn't get to this in the first term, but he has had an awful lot on his plate. But these proposals illustrate that he is seeking the very thing that can enable him to not only "get to" them, but actually get them enacted: a mandate. And, judging by what he managed to get accomplished in his first term, operating in the wake of a disputed, photo-finish, skin-of-the-teeth victory, I for one will not bet against him if he can win resoundingly this time - as it is looking increasingly likely that he will.

The reason for that came in the second half of the speech, which shifted gears to the eloquent, the lyrical, the - well, "exciting, gripping, moving, and inspiring." It covered all those bases and more.

Gentle, good-natured, but still stiff (because true) shots at Lurch:

My opponent's policies are dramatically different from ours. Senator Kerry opposed Medicare reform and health savings accounts. After supporting my education reforms, he now wants to dilute them. He opposes legal and medical liability reform. He opposed reducing the marriage penalty, opposed doubling the child credit and opposed lowering income taxes for all who pay them. To be fair, there are some things my opponent is for - he's proposed more than two trillion dollars in new federal spending so far, and that's a lot, even for a senator from Massachusetts. [hee hee!] To pay for that spending, he is running on a platform of increasing taxes - and that's the kind of promise a politician usually keeps. [Ouch!]

"His policies of tax and spend - of expanding government rather than expanding opportunity - are the policies of the past. We are on the path to the future - and we are not turning back.

There's that theme again.

"To be fair," Bush is also proposing to "expand government" as well. Just in a different, more politically appealing way. But he decided a long time ago that "small-government" conservatism was no longer politically saleable. I don't buy that, but as the saying goes, it's the only game in town.

My opponent recently announced that he is the candidate of 'conservative values,' which must have come as a surprise to a lot of his supporters. Now, there are some problems with this claim. If you say the heart and soul of America is found in Hollywood, I'm afraid you are not the candidate of conservative values. If you voted against the bipartisan Defense of Marriage Act, which President Clinton signed, you are not the candidate of conservative values. If you gave a speech, as my opponent did, calling the Reagan presidency eight years of 'moral darkness,' then you may be a lot of things, but the candidate of conservative values is not one of them.

Bukkida-Bukkida-Bukkida-Bukkida-Bukkida...(think punching bag....)

Again, my opponent and I have different approaches. I proposed, and the Congress overwhelmingly passed, $87 billion in funding needed by our troops doing battle in Afghanistan and Iraq. My opponent and his running mate voted against this money for bullets, and fuel, and vehicles, and body armor. When asked to explain his vote, the Senator said, 'I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it.' Then he said he was 'proud' of that vote. Then, when pressed, he said it was a 'complicated' matter. There is nothing complicated about supporting our troops in combat.

Another oblique reference to Kerry's betrayal of his Vietnam "band of brothers" thirty-three years ago as much as of our troops overseas now. Makes you wonder whether, when this is all over, Kerry will challenge Howard Dean to a duel.

Our allies also know the historic importance of our work. About 40 nations stand beside us in Afghanistan, and some 30 in Iraq. And I deeply appreciate the courage and wise counsel of leaders like Prime Minister Howard, and President Kwasniewski, and Prime Minister Berlusconi - and, of course, Prime Minister Tony Blair. Again, my opponent takes a different approach. In the midst of war, he has called America's allies, quote, a 'coalition of the coerced and the bribed.' That would be nations like Great Britain, Poland, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Denmark, El Salvador, Australia, and others - allies that deserve the respect of all Americans, not the scorn of a politician.

Knockout. Total, complete knockout.

Brah-man wasn't the only target, either.

America has done this kind of work before - and there have always been doubters. In 1946, 18 months after the fall of Berlin to allied forces, a journalist wrote in the New York Times, 'Germany is ... a land in an acute stage of economic, political and moral crisis. European capitals are frightened. In every military headquarters, one meets alarmed officials doing their utmost to deal with the consequences of the occupation policy that they admit has failed.' Maybe that same person's still around, writing editorials.

GDub would never publicly admit it, but he must have enjoyed delivering that jab immensely.

A brief touching upon social issues:

Because family and work are sources of stability and dignity, I support welfare reform that strengthens family and requires work. Because a caring society will value its weakest members, we must make a place for the unborn child. Because religious charities provide a safety net of mercy and compassion, our government must never discriminate against them. Because the union of a man and woman deserves an honored place in our society, I support the protection of marriage against activist judges. And I will continue to appoint federal judges who know the difference between personal opinion and the strict interpretation of the law.

The latter is a message to Senate Republicans as much as Senate Democrats - "Get those obstructionists out of my way - whatever it takes.

And, of course, the core issue of our times, the war against Islamism.

This election will also determine how America responds to the continuing danger of terrorism - and you know where I stand.

Indeed we do. And anybody who didn't who watched this convention certainly knows by now.

The theme of this section was captured in this paragraph:

Three days after September 11th, I stood where Americans died, in the ruins of the Twin Towers. Workers in hard hats were shouting to me, 'Whatever it takes.' A fellow grabbed me by the arm and he said, 'Do not let me down.' Since that day, I wake up every morning thinking about how to better protect our country. I will never relent in defending America - whatever it takes.

That is Dubya's answer to each and every Democrat lie, smear, and cheap shot of the past two years. "I will never relent in defending America - whatever it takes." The imperative to do everything in his power to prevent another 9/11 or worse carries more weight than the possibility that intelligence on a terror regime's weapons of mass destruction might be inaccurate. If we go in and find that they were dismantled or hidden or shipped out of country, another old saying applies: "Better safe than sorry."

We simply do not, cannot, have that confidence in John Kerry - at whom this sentence was unmistakably directed:

So our mission in Afghanistan and Iraq is clear: We will help new leaders to train their armies, and move toward elections, and get on the path of stability and democracy as quickly as possible. And [only] then our troops will return home with the honor they have earned.

Because Dubya's record on terrorism is so unassailable - which he nevertheless revisited, just to leave no possible doubt -he was able to open a personal window on what it's actually like to be commander-in-chief during a time of open-ended conflict. The loneliness of making agonizing decisions when you actually take your responsibilities seriously and even when you know they're the right ones. The knowledge that you are ordering fellow Americans into harm's way, and the certainty that some of them won't be coming back. And yes, feeling the pain of the families who have had to face just that outcome, and sharing in the joyous gratitude of the people we have freed.

The people we have freed won't forget either. Not long ago, seven Iraqi men came to see me in the Oval Office. They had 'X's branded into their foreheads, and their right hands had been cut off, by Saddam Hussein's secret police, the sadistic punishment for imaginary crimes. During our emotional visit one of the Iraqi men used his new prosthetic hand to slowly write out, in Arabic, a prayer for God to bless America. I am proud that our country remains the hope of the oppressed, and the greatest force for good on this Earth.

These four years have brought moments I could not foresee and will not forget. I have tried to comfort Americans who lost the most on September 11th - people who showed me a picture or told me a story, so I would know how much was taken from them. I have learned first-hand that ordering Americans into battle is the hardest decision, even when it is right. I have returned the salute of wounded soldiers, some with a very tough road ahead, who say they were just doing their job. I've held the children of the fallen, who are told their dad or mom is a hero, but would rather just have their dad or mom. And I have met with parents and wives and husbands who have received a folded flag, and said a final goodbye to a soldier they loved. I am awed that so many have used those meetings to say that I am in their prayers - to offer encouragement to me. Where does strength like that come from? How can people so burdened with sorrow also feel such pride? It is because they know their loved one was last seen doing good. Because they know that liberty was precious to the one they lost. And in those military families, I have seen the character of a great nation: decent, and idealistic, and strong.

This is a man who has been through the fire right along with the rest of us. Daunted by the cards history dealt him, humbled by the magnitude of the responsibilities he had to undertake, he found the strength within himself to do what needed to be done, to rise to the occasion in the tradition of Lincoln and Churchill, fighting and beating back the enemies without and enduring the seditious partisanship of opponents within. In that one 'graf he showed himself to be light-years above his small, petty, ignorant detractors, whose sniping is already rising acceleratingly through the octaves to a reedy squeak until it finally disappears beyond the public's hearing range and off its collective radar scope altogether.

And then, Bush did something that was both endearing, humorous, and something John Kerry couldn't do if his life depended on it: he took some shots at himself.

"You may have noticed I have a few flaws, too. People sometimes have to correct my English - I knew I had a problem when Arnold Schwarzenegger started doing it...Some folks look at me and see a certain swagger, which in Texas is called 'walking.'...Now and then I come across as a little too blunt - and for that we can all thank the white-haired lady sitting right up there.

One thing I have learned about the presidency is that whatever shortcomings you have, people are going to notice them - and whatever strengths you have, you're going to need them.

Can you imagine John Kerry saying anything remotely like this? Can anybody picture him coming down off of his white charger of hauteur and publicly displaying a shred of this degree of humility? Of this genuineness?

George W. Bush knows who and what he is and is perfectly comfortable with it. That's why, should things turn around and he loses, he'll be able to live with it and go on with his life. John Kerry, OTOH, is the hostage of his own overpowering ambition, and it is slowly eating his candidacy alive.

The President's address was breathtakingly summarized thusly:

The world saw that spirit three miles from here, when the people of this city faced peril together, and lifted a flag over the ruins, and defied the enemy with their courage. My fellow Americans, for as long as our country stands, people will look to the resurrection of New York City and they will say: Here buildings fell, and here a nation rose.

The proverbial cherry atop the sundae.

It's easy to get carried away in the immediate impact of such a speech - particularly if you are already a passionately partisan supporter of the speechifier. (Dick Morris' orgasmic raptures are a good example.) So I'm not going to blow my end result prediction of Bush 51%, Kerry 47% into a Dubyapalooza landslide.

But I will say this: after watching this convention, how it ramped up each night, and then soared into the ether with Mr. Bush's remarks, I don't think there's any realistic chance, short of an "act of God," that John Kerry is going to come back to win this election.