Thursday, July 15 2004
A PLAN FOR THE JOHNS: I get accused all the time of being a full-blown Bush apologist with nary a bad word for the President. If it isn't already apparent to those of you who read this space regularly, I admit that since 9/11 I've become darn near a single issue voter (okay, dual issue) on national security and the War on Terror. I also admit that I tend to favor the President's approach to these issues more than his opponents.

But the Bush administration has made mistakes - a number of them, in fact. The problem with John Kerry and John Edwards is that instead of making reasonable arguments against the way Bush has waged the War on Terror they are trying, at the behest of a feverish base of antiwar Bush-haters led by a fat, filmmaking demagogue, to sell the public a version of events that turns reality on its head.

BUSH LIED!!!! is a little phrase full of outrage that fits nicely on the protest signs (right over the photoshopped picture of Bush with the Hitler mustache in the SS uniform). But most rational people understand at a gut level the charge isn't true, and in practice it feels more like Kerry & Edwards are two used car salesman trying to convince people that the VW Beetle they're selling is really a Porsche.

What Kerry & Edwards need is to make an effective critique of the war that rings absolutely true with voters, especially those in the middle.

The "Bush should have built a broader coalition" doesn't do it. Most voters recognize we already have a number of countries with us in Iraq anyway. Even worse, this argument always makes John Kerry look like he's pandering to Kofi Annan and Jacques Chirac.

The "Bush team mismanaged the occupation" doesn't get the job done either. People intuitively understand war is a messy, chaotic business, and that by any historical measure we've made a good amount of progress in Iraq over the last year and a half.

So what argument can effectively be made against Bush?

If I were advising Kerry & Edwards this is what I'd say: Bush is most vulnerable to a charge of negligent leadership, not for deciding to invade Iraq or for managing the occupation since, but for failing to take swift and aggressive measures to hold people accountable for the fact our intelligence on Iraq was faulty.

If what is in Bob Woodward's book Plan of Attack is true, I'd make the exchange between President Bush and George Tenet on Iraq's WMD's the centerpiece of the campaign:

"George, how confident are you?" the president asked Tenet.

"Don't worry, it's a slam-dunk," Tenet said.

The fact that George Bush chose not to fire Tenet, instead letting him stay on as DCI for more than two more years and then praising him in June of this year as having "done a superb job on behalf of the American people" is, to my mind, a rather devastating argument.

I don't care how nice of a guy Tenet is and I don't care how much the President liked him or valued his loyalty. Given what the public has learned about the quality of the intelligence information coming out of the CIA it's almost indefensible to have left Tenet in charge.

It's patently obvious that Bush isn't responsible for the CIA producing information that turned out to be sketchy in some cases and bogus in others. What he is responsible for, however, is kicking ass, taking names, and making sure it doesn't happen again. Americans understand that that's how it works. Even more importantly, it's what they want and what they expect in a leader.

Financial guru Jim Cramer made a similar point earlier this week explaining why he has decided to vote for Kerry over Bush:

He [Bush] had terrible intelligence and bad homework, stuff I fire people for regularly and always have.

The fact that not a single person has lost their job in the aftermath of both the worst terrorist attack and the worst intelligence failure in our country's history is where John Kerry and John Edwards could really hurt Bush. And they could do it by sounding like they wanted to be tougher and more competent in protecting the country from future attacks.

So that's what I would do if I were advising the Kerry campaign. I'd have signs made up that said "Slam-Dunk Bush in '04" and I'd have John Edwards saying at every possible opportunity that Bush is lucky Edwards wasn't still a practicing attorney because he'd take him to court and sue him for negligence for not firing Tenet - and he'd win.

I don't know if this strategy would lead to a Kerry victory or not, but it would certainly ring a lot more true with those in the middle and it would probably be a lot easier and more productive than what Kerry and Edwards are currently doing: trying to convince voters that night is day and black is white.

DITKA'S OUT: Democrats rejoice over the news. I don't know anything about Ditka's positions or his ability to articulate them, so it's hard to say whether would have made the race close or just made a total buffoon of himself. It sure would have been fun to watch, though.

Looks like the Illinois GOP is back to square one. - T. Bevan 7:30 am Link | Email | Send to a Friend