Defensive Bush

One thing I have noticed in all three debates is how defensive the president has been. He has focused more on hammering Kerry than on promoting himself. Not that he hasn't extolled his record of achievement. It just seems like his focus is more on the flaws of Kerry.

In the long run, maybe it won't matter in this election. But, it has always been my belief that, in a re-election campaign, an incumbent needs to run on what he or she has done. A re-election campaign is usually a referendum on the previous term of the incumbent. I also believe that, while negative campaigning has its place, the successful candidate will usually run on him- or her-self. Any candidate must always answer the question, "Why should I vote for you?" Note that the question is not, "Why should I not vote for your opponent?"

I fully believe this is one of the main reasons Al Gore lost the 2000 election, to the extent that he actually lost it. He offered little in his own case. He spent a lot of time talking about what was wrong with Bush, and too little about what was right with Gore. His campaign can be summarized with the word "risky": much of what Bush wanted to do was risky. Bush, on the other hand, hammered home his vision of what his presidency would be. The focus of his campaign was his agenda, the focus of Gore's was Bush's agenda.

In this election, at least in the debates, Bush seems to be following Gore's lead from 2000. He's doing a better job than Gore did of getting his own message out, but still he's following a questionable strategy.