WASHINGTON: US President George W. Bush's acceptance speech was big on domestic policy ideas and offered a stirring vision of spreading democracy, but failed to address the mistakes he has made and attract the sought-after moderate voter, according to leading US dailies.

Bush's long speech late on Thursday at the Republican national convention accepting his nomination for reelection on November 2 was considered long on generalities and lacking in details and, while making US security the linchpin of his reelection effort, offered no new insight on his methods.

"There was nothing in the speech... that suggested a new era of frankness from the White House, or hope that any of those fundamental problems would be approached with anything but the 'my way or the highway' attitude Mr Bush has used on issues like tax cuts and Iraq," said the New York Times.

"The chief difficulty with Mr Bush's speech wasn't so much what he put in, but what he left out: the missteps and difficulties that have marred his first term and will make many of the goals he cited difficult to obtain," said the Washington Post.

"Bush pledged to keep on being himself," wrote New York Times analyst Todd Purdum, "but polls show Americans have doubts about Mr. Bush's stubbornness, his truthfulness... and even the likeability that helped him so much last time."

"The president needs to speak to the large number of moderate voters who feel that things have been going in the wrong direction over the last four years, and convince them that he has the capacity to learn from mistakes and do better. On that count, his acceptance speech fell short," said the Times editorial.

On he domestic front, said the Post editorial, "his proposals were short on detail," and "while he did not even mention the deficits, (he) promised to make his reckless tax cuts permanent."

Similarly, in his foreign policy goals and his "stirring vision of spreading democracy in the Middle East... Bush left many blank spaces," said the Post.

Beside making "no acknowledgment of surprises encountered in the past three years" in Iraq, added the Washington daily, Bush "did not even mention two of the gravest dangers, the potential nuclear arsenals of Iran and North Korea, which have sharpened under Bush's watch."

The New York Times criticized Bush for presenting "half-finished initiatives" and "squishy generalities," but reserved its harshest barbs for Vice President Dick Cheney, who a day earlier derided Bush's Democratic rival John Kerry's calling for a "more sentitive war on terror."

"It was depressing to hear Dick Cheney," said the Times editorial. "But, worse, it signaled that Mr Cheney and the administration's other hit men will spend the next two months trying to sell their failed approach to foreign policy."-AFP