To hear the Bush campaign tell it, they’d be absolutely thrilled to make the remaining six weeks of the campaign a debate over Iraq.
White House communications director Dan Bartlett said that when the public compares Bush and Kerry on Iraq, they consistently put their faith in the president. As such, Bartlett said, the White House welcomes any attacks Kerry plans to launch. “We believe each day that we’re debating the war and debating Iraq, it’s an advantage to us,” he said.
We’ll find out in 43 days, but I think Bartlett is wrong. Indeed, he has it backwards. In fact, I’d bet he knows he’s wrong and is doing his best to bluff out of a bad situation.
Bush not only has orchestrated the biggest international debacle in generations, he refuses to admit there’s even a problem. If Bartlett thinks a more forceful and detailed discussion of this failure is “an advantage” for Bush, then he’s living in the same fantasy world of spin as the rest of the White House.
The American Prospect’s Michael Tomasky and the Washington Monthly’s Kevin Drum had an interesting pseudo-exchange last week, debating the merits of the issues debate in this campaign. Tomasky said the public is with Kerry on most areas of public policy, particularly on the domestic front.
The problem begins with the fact that majorities of the public tend to agree with Democrats on the issues. This isn’t universally true, of course, but it’s true with regard to more issues (perhaps many more issues) than not. On health care, the environment, investment, education, just about everything except national defense, majorities lean toward the Democratic position.
That’s all true, of course, but as Drum noted, the campaign is driven right now by a focus on national security, on which the public — mistakenly — trusts Bush.
It’s all about 9/11, Iraq, terrorism, and national security, baby. This election is going to be won on that issue, and Kerry needs to convince the country that he can handle it better than Bush. And really, considering the botch Bush has made of national security, that shouldn’t be all that hard.
Bottom line: Republicans aren’t avoiding the issues. It’s just that their signature issue happens to be the one people care most about this year. Democrats had better figure that out pronto.
As luck would have it, they have.
Time will tell if it’s too late or not, but John Kerry, whom the public generally backs on domestic issues anyway, is using the remaining six weeks to go directly after Bush’s perceived strength. Iraq is a disaster of historical proportions — and Kerry will be telling everyone about that between now and Election Day.
Kerry is betting that the hard truths of Iraq will undercut Bush’s soft-focus picture of a liberated nation, and ultimately the president’s image as a war leader.
Of course it will. If Iraq is on voters’ minds and Kerry wants to emphasize health care, it sounds like he’s ceding national security ground to Bush. For voters who consider heath care their top issue, Kerry should already be in a strong position. The focus should be on voters who are prepared to back Bush because they consider him trustworthy on national security.
Those who’d prefer to see Kerry stay away from Iraq as a campaign issue argue that the public already trusts the president on Iraq, common sense not withstanding. But that’s not terribly persuasive — they’ll continue to trust him unless we explain why they shouldn’t.
BC04 will no doubt respond with “Kerry backed the war resolution! Kerry’s position is based on nuance and requires thought!” But it’s not that complicated to cut through the nonsense, especially in talking to a nation that’s skeptical about war in the first place.
Consider a silly allegory: John helps George buy a new car, trusting that George knows how to be a responsible driver. George proceeds to drive like a lunatic and wraps the car around a tree. Who deserves the blame? John for loaning George some money or George for the devastation? George says, “But John loaned me the money! Now he regrets it! I’ve caught him being inconsistent!” To which John should reply, “Uh, George, you drove a car into a tree. It’s time you accepted responsibility for that.”
I think we know how George would prefer this argument goes — and if John avoids the subject, George’s nonsense wins by default.
Bush sent us to war under false pretenses and has screwed up every possible aspect of the war since. He can scream “flip-flopper” until he’s blue, but that doesn’t change the circumstances in Iraq or justify a dramatic failure of leadership.
This is Kerry’s test. If he passes, he becomes president.
Where Kerry was cautious about treading into the Iraq minefield, he’s now become much more gung-ho. Kerry’s aides say their candidate was galvanized by the Swift Boat vets’ attacks on his character, by Dick Cheney’s suggestion that he would weaken American defenses — and especially the vitriolic speech by the Democratic turncoat Zell Miller at the GOP convention.
“He just is furious that there is this Orwellian world out there now where Bush is seen as strong on terrorism and strong on the war in Iraq when he’s screwed both of them up fairly well,” said one Kerry confidant. Other senior aides see Kerry’s aggressive position on Iraq as a natural response to the Republican attacks. “They lied about John Kerry and tried to tell people he was unfit to be president,” said one. “That more or less mandates a demonstration of strength from here to the election, and that’s what they’re going to get.”
It started today with a forceful speech in New York. If the Bush campaign is genuinely pleased to have the campaign come down to a debate over Iraq, then they haven’t seen the powerful case Kerry laid out this morning.
In other words, BC04, be careful what you wish for.