Why Kerry Will Lose II

John Kerry and the Democrats lost this election two years ago. In the summer and fall of 2002, the Bush administration started making its big push for a war in Iraq. They started relentless propaganda about the mountain of intelligence data proving that Baathist Iraq was a major threat to American security. They started fanning the misunderstanding that Hussein was somehow involved in the 9/11 attacks. Facing a mid-term election, the Democrats made the tactical decision to essentially go along with the administration. They did not challenge claims about intelligence, though some prominent senators knew it was exaggerated. They did not attempt to correct the administrations misdirection associating Hussein with 9/11. When the vote to authorize action came up before the election, most Democrats voted for it.

Now, the party must pay the price for that cowardly decision. By acquiescing to the president in 2002, they ceded the dominant issue in American politics to the president. They allowed him to frame the debate in ways that benefitted him. By the time Democrats began challenging the president on the intelligence data, the belief that the data was what Bush said it was was deeply entrenched in the American psyche. The connection between Iraq and the so-called war on terror was firmly established. By allowing the president to frame Iraq his way, the Democrats handed Iraq to the president as an issue.

Iraq is a losing proposition for the Democrats because it's Bush's. As long as the debate is dominated by Iraq, and the Democrats have even encouraged this for some bizarre reason, Bush will win. Is it any coincidence that in the week where we see multiple terrorist acts in Russia and Israel (none by our actual enemy, al Qaeda), Bush surges ahead in the polls.

I've described Kerry's campaign as reminiscent of Bob Dole's 1996 quixotic quest against Clinton. This is another parallel. In 1996, Clinton's strength was the economy. He was vulnerable elsewhere, but on the economy he was solid. So what was Dole's strategy? Attack Clinton on the economy. Not only that but Dole, an avowed critic of Reaganomics, promoted a return to Reaganomics. That strategy gave Clinton what was probably the easiest campaign of his career. In 2004, the Democrats decide to challenge Bush on his strongest issue. To do so, they decide on a guy who a generation served as a low-level officer in the military and received some combat decorations. (Somehow this makes him qualified to be commander-in-chief, from the same party that argued the exact opposite when Clinton was running.) Now, Kerry must constantly defend his military record while Bush cruises to easy victory.

The Democratic party leadership made the incompetent, irresponsible decision in 2002 to fold to Bush on Iraq, handing him the issue. Two years later, by deciding to fight the campaign on Bush's strength, they have stupidly sentenced this country to another four years of Bush. Thanks. Can the party please get some new leadership?