The Emperor has no uniform...Another US soldier died today in Iraq. For what? The "war on terrorism" is not the strength of the incredible shrinking _resident's White House, it is the SHAME of the incredibly shrinking _resident's White House...Give us Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mekong Delta) and Gen. Wesley Clark (D-NATO) together on the ticket. They will hurry from the right and the center to join us in the Electoral Uprising, and on the left, Michael Moore, Madonna and Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-Harlem), all Wesley Clark supporters, will drown out the-shell-of-a-man-formerly-known-as-Ralph-Nader...
E.J. Dionne, Jr.: The current president's standing on terrorism and security has been dented by the situation on the ground in Iraq, the early findings of the 9/11 commission and one book after another calling into question Bush's decision-making on the war. Kerry's approach also marks a break with the patterns of the past. Kerry is said by his advisers to believe that the Democrats made a crucial mistake in 2002 by largely ducking terrorism and foreign policy. Democrats thought they could win by trying to shift the focus of the election to domestic issues: the economy generally, and prescription drugs for the elderly and a patients' bill of rights in particular.
Support Our Troops, Show Up for Democracy in 2004: Defeat Bush (again!)
http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?itemid=16797
E.J. Dionne, Jr.
Washington Post Writers Group
04.20.04 Printer-friendly version
Email this item to a friend
Most e-mailed stories
The war candidate
Kerry reverses status quo, positions Dems as security party for 2004
WASHINGTON -- Here is the biggest surprise of the 2004 election so far: It is John Kerry who is eager to talk about terrorism and national security, and President Bush's campaign that is trying to quash a far-reaching debate on these issues.
It wasn't supposed to be this way, at least according to the conventions of presidential politics. Usually it's the Republicans who try to change the subject to foreign policy.
Ronald Reagan in 1984 and the first President Bush in 1988 both did exceptionally well among voters who said that international questions and toughness on defense were central to how they cast their ballots. Just a few months ago, George W. Bush was expected to have the same advantages on the same issues.
But the contours of the election have been altered by events, and by Kerry's reading of the 2002 midterm election results.
The current president's standing on terrorism and security has been dented by the situation on the ground in Iraq, the early findings of the 9/11 commission and one book after another calling into question Bush's decision-making on the war.
Kerry's approach also marks a break with the patterns of the past. Kerry is said by his advisers to believe that the Democrats made a crucial mistake in 2002 by largely ducking terrorism and foreign policy. Democrats thought they could win by trying to shift the focus of the election to domestic issues: the economy generally, and prescription drugs for the elderly and a patients' bill of rights in particular.
The strategy failed because the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 guaranteed that even among voters primarily concerned with bread-and-butter questions, terror and war loomed as genuine fears.
"Terrorism and national security are going to be the constant backdrop of the election," said one top Kerry adviser. While domestic issues will still be decisive for most voters, the aide said, Kerry recognizes "that a candidate needs to make clear he understands that the president's first job is to protect the nation."
In making his case against Bush, Kerry has several advantages over the 2002 Democrats. Because the course of the war in Iraq has been much more difficult than the administration predicted, voters outside the Republican base are more open to criticisms of the president than they were two years ago.
In 2002, by contrast, many Democrats -- especially those running in states that Bush carried in 2000 -- felt intimidated by the president's high standing in the polls and obligated to embrace his terrorism policies. This created a vicious cycle for Democrats and a virtuous cycle for Republicans. If even Democrats were saying that Bush's policies against terror were right, most voters had little basis for thinking otherwise.
Moreover, the argument two years ago was carried out on a highly general level -- whom could voters trust to be "tough" enough on terror? Bush's lieutenants had hoped the argument would stay on the same abstract plane this year.
But this election is now about the practical results of Bush's policies. When it came to Iraq, did the administration know what it was getting into and plan effectively? Was it honest with the public, and itself, about the costs of the enterprise? Was it mistaken in not seeking more international support in advance? Thanks to the findings of the 9/11 commission, parts of the public are also questioning whether Bush had effectively organized the government in advance to prevent attacks.
This creates middle ground on which Kerry can challenge specific judgments made by Bush without necessarily breaking with all of Bush's objectives.
Thus Kerry during his Sunday "Meet the Press" appearance: "Our diplomacy has been about as arrogant and ineffective as anything that I have ever seen. ... I think that I can fight a far more effective war on terror. I will build alliances and cooperation. I will make America safer."
Bush's campaign is trying to discredit any criticisms of the president. After Kerry spoke, Bush campaign chairman Marc Racicot said the Democrat had offered only "conditional support for the troops" by refusing to say if he'd vote for further financial support for the war if Bush requested it. Racicot also accused Kerry of demonstrating "a disturbing lack of judgment" and a failure to understand "the murderous ideology of our enemies."
The Bush campaign wants to recreate the dynamic of 2002 and render criticism of Bush's antiterror policies illegitimate and unpatriotic. Kerry wants Bush held accountable for the decisions he made. The side that wins this definitional war is likely to win the election. For more, please visit the E.J. Dionne, Jr. archives.
Because the course of the war in Iraq has been much more difficult than the admin-istration predicted, voters outside the Republican base are more open to criticisms of the president than they were two years ago.
(c) 2004, Washington Post Writers Group