Up until July, Senator Kerry appeared to have a strategic advantage over President Bush….
But now it’s obvious: Kerry doesn’t have a strategy; Bush does.
Before August, the incumbent was the issue. Kerry’s vagueness could work for him because he didn’t have to explain what he would do if elected; he only had to plant questions in the electorate’s mind that questioned the President’s policies and credibility.
“Kerry’s Wager” appeared to be the underlying premise: bet on the existence of hidden dynamite within the voters that’ll set off explosions with your deft touch. Suspicion -- in the electorate’s mind -- is the secret weapon; it was created by the Bush Administration’s inability to explain the lost weapons of mass destruction (Bush hadn’t been forthright about the “real reason for the war”). Booby-trapped to this was a deeper angst in the voters’ souls: fear of a long war with an implacable foe. And rigged to that -- the deepest fear of all: we’re losing.
Along the way Democrats betrayed their one true love -- the one who would have given them an honest and satisfying campaign, ending with an honest and satisfying defeat -- and gambled instead on the tall lanky stranger (they didn’t really like) who promised something grand: a “win” based solely on his military record long ago. (They didn’t know much about him.)
Howard Dean was the boy next door. John F. Kerry was the handsome “Mister Gray” with the diamond cane -- haughty but smooth -- who rode into town on a carriage.
Well, all’s fair in love and war….
It turns out the general election voters know the difference between authentic commitment to victory and the mere claim of loyalty.
Still, the gimmick appeared to work for a while: from January to July while the missing WMDs were declared and the Abu Ghraib scandal raged, the Republicans and the President appeared before the nation exhausted, inarticulate, hesitant -- unable to explain their policies. Kerry’s voice seemed to rise and soar.
When the GOP convention arrived, however: Republicans attacked with a blast that broke like the first thud on a new battlefield. They were unanimous in their strategic formation. Their aim was true.
As Kerry supporter Peter Beinart (aka “TRB”) sadly explains in his 9/17/04 article “Character Acting” at New Republic Online:
“What…[Bush] wants, I suspect, is to make this election a referendum on ‘character’ -- the same issue that helped him so much in 2000. It's just that, after September 11, foreign policy is the easiest way to do that….[Bush] largely ignores the substance of Kerry's critiques of the Iraq war. Instead, he turns the variation in Kerry's critiques into an indictment of his opponent's character. Rather than asking voters to make a judgment on the wisdom of the war, Bush poses a choice between Kerry's ‘flip-flops’ and what he called last week in Johnstown, Pennsylvania, his ‘clear moral purpose.’”
What’s interesting is how every major speaker at the GOP convention followed this exact same strategy (look up the speeches).
Of course, one can question Beinart as to what extent the “substance of Kerry’s critiques” are clear and compelling -- I find them murky and ambiguous, myself -- but still, Kerry’s apparent “strategy” at his convention seemed obvious and sound (at the time): offer a policy view of Iraq that differed little from the President’s (getting the war, itself, off the table); attack the President because of what the missing WMDs and the “worsening” situation in Iraq says about Bush’s character, and create the space to talk about domestic issues.
But this approach was abandoned within days. The plans scattered at the sound of the GOP convention’s first shot.
If Kerry’s going to keep the war off the table and stress Bush’s “characterless” leadership -- then he must be disciplined in sticking to the Democratic convention strategy. OR: if he wants to bring the war to the table -- then Kerry’s “critiques” of the war have to be consistent and clear and contain a definite point of view (for or against).
Instead, Kerry ignored the original “convention” strategy -- and led with war critiques that are smoky in their equivocation. Kerry is trying to please ALL factions of the Democratic Party and anyone else out there who’ll listen. But the Democrats are divided on the war. He can’t please everybody. His pronouncements have become a blur. This isn’t a strategy.
In fact, we can now see that most likely: KERRY REALLY HAD NO GAME PLAN TO BEGIN WITH!
Karl Rove may be right when he said recently of Kerry: "The problem is not his staff, it's him."
Dick Morris makes this point in his New York Post column of 9/17/04 -- “Why Shakeup Won’t Save Kerry” -- where he says: “Kerry's basic problem is that he has no overview of how he's going to win. His consultants and staff confuse a pile of ammunition with a strategy.”
And Robert Novak notes in his Chicago Sun-Times article of 9/16/04 -- “Kerry’s Left Turn Scares Democrats” -- that Kerry’s campaign is throwing anything it can get its hands on helter-skelter at Bush without an organizing principle:
“Last Friday, Sen. Kerry abruptly returned to the safely buried gun control issue by decrying President Bush for permitting the assault weapons ban to end. On Saturday, he addressed the Congressional Black Caucus with a liberal harangue. On Sunday, Kerry rested. On Monday, Kerry was back boosting gun control, scolding Bush for letting the assault weapons ban expire at midnight. Only two explanations are possible….Kerry could be making a conscious, though counterproductive, decision to reassure his liberal base. Or, he could be trapped by the calendar of events -- talking gun control because a deadline had been reached and talking civil rights because the Black Caucus invited him. Democratic strategists are particularly concerned by the latter explanation, suggesting a mindless campaign….If John Kerry's course last weekend was determined by events that happened to be on the calendar, he has no victory plan.”
Kerry’s directionless chaos is swallowing him up.