Redstate

By Pejman Yousefzadeh Posted in Elections — Comments (3) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

It appears that John Kerry is set to reject Bill Clinton's advice that he make this election one about "drawing contrasts with President Bush on job creation and health care policies." Instead, Kerry will make Iraq the central focus (for now) of his election year critique. Given the many ways in which Kerry has changed his position on the issue of Iraq, and given how his incoherence on the issue of Iraq has hurt him, it would seem somewhat strange that he is prepared to play to George W. Bush's strengths. And yet, the utterly Orwellian Newsweek article linked to above would have us believe otherwise:

After the summer's phony war over Vietnam medals and memos, the 2004 election has landed in the real-world battleground of Iraq. For Camp Kerry, it's a liberating feeling to engage in straight talk about Iraq, shaking off debate about the candidate's Senate votes. "I'm thrilled," said one of Kerry's longtime loyalists, "because it's the John Kerry I know and love." Kerry's gambit: to revive his campaign—trailing by anywhere between one and 13 points in new polls—by questioning Bush's credibility on the conflict, his management of postwar Iraq and the no-bid contracts won by his veep's old firm, Halliburton. 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.

Never mind the fact that just about anything Kerry says now about the issue can be compared to a contradictory statement that he has made in the past. Never mind as well that screaming "Halliburton" over and over again will do little to nothing to convince swing voters that Kerry has any kind of plan for the future when it comes to Iraq. The article asks us instead to go forth and uncritically accept the premise that this latest (and increasingly desperate) tack in campaign strategy presages a return to "the John Kerry [campaign loyalists] know and love." Apparently, this iteration of John Kerry does not include "debate about the candidate's Senate votes" which presumably would not cause the rest of us to "love" Kerry as much. Better instead to scream about "Halliburton" than to engage in any kind of substance, eh?

It's a bet that Kerry was unwilling to make until this month. Not so long ago, Kerry's strategists planned to spend the fall talking about the economy and health care, thinking they had proved their candidate's national-security credentials in Boston. They also planned to stay positive, shunning political attacks in the belief that slime could alienate swing voters. But that was before Kerry's August swoon, and an influx of fresh faces—a mix of Boston loyalists and Clintonites—at the top of the Democrat's team. Their main job is to keep Kerry on message and sharpen his attack on Bush. While Kerry will continue to hit at the Democrats' traditional pocketbook issues, his new strategists have embraced Clark's advice to tell it like it is. They also found a way to bring the war home, saying Bush's go-it-alone approach had cost billions of dollars that could have been spent on jobs, schools and health care. Kerry now intends to repeat and refine his critique through the rest of the campaign—spending, NEWSWEEK has learned, the closing week of the election on Bush's war.

Again, the concept of having John Kerry "tell it like it is" when he has had the chance to do precisely that so many times in the past, and failed to, is more than a little absurd. Notice as well the article's not-so-subtle implication that the Kerry campaign was more than willing to stay away from "slime" but those slimy Bushies--who caused Kerry's "August swoon," after all--just forced them into it. Is this an article being put out by a reputable news organization, or is it a campaign press release under the Newsweek banner? Have the "journalists" responsible for writing this nonsense forgotten about the millions of dollars of unanswered ads against the Bush Administration and against Republicans that were put out during the Democratic primary and caucus season? Have they forgotten about the slime that was put out--and still is being put out--by the likes of Soros and his many 527 offspring? Where was/is the tut-tutting about this slime?

The reaction from Camp Bush was gleeful. "Good," said one senior Bush aide. "We're glad he's talking about Iraq." It remains Exhibit A in the flip-flopping case against Kerry, built around his prewar nuances and his postwar votes. Moreover, the Bush campaign sees Kerry's attacks as a sign of weakness and as an attempt to shore up his base—a leftward tilt that could alienate "persuadables" in battleground states. Bush's advisers are confident that their candidate can win any contest of straight talk, pointing to a series of polls that give him a big lead on questions of honesty and consistency. And Bush is certainly bullish on the subject on the stump. "We'll help them get their elections, we'll get them on the path to stability and democracy as quickly as possible, and then our troops will return home with the honor they have earned," he told one rally in St. Cloud, Minn., last week. Yet back in Washington, Bush quietly receives considerably less glossy weekly national-security briefings on Iraq. In their candid moments, the president's aides concede they have struggled to convince voters about the mission in Iraq now that Saddam Hussein is sitting in jail. "Well, no, I don't think they know what it is," said one senior Bush strategist.

Yes, yes--publicly the Bush campaign is gleeful, while privately, there is concern. Again, never mind the many polls indicating the huge disparity between the percentage of Americans willing to trust Bush on Iraq and those willing to trust Kerry (Bush comes out well ahead, for those who haven't seen those polls). In Newsweek's Orwellian world, none of this matters.

The Bush campaign is presumably afraid of a debate on Iraq.

Both sides see the Iraq debate as a test of character as much as a test of policy. But to Kerry, the war over the war has become personal, a chance to prove his mettle as a candidate and prove his point about the issues. 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."

Again, this is not a news report. This is a press release encouraging us to feel sorry for John Kerry, and to share his moral outrage at "Bush's Orwellian world." Given the tone and tenor of this article, this is a prime example of the pot calling the kettle black.

For the moment, Kerry's show of strength depends heavily on the news. Democrats seized on a pessimistic CIA forecast of civil war in Iraq, while the violence in Iraq continues to spike upward. The death toll among U.S. forces rose to 1,029, while last week's clashes with insurgents, along with a series of suicide bombs, left more than 250 civilians dead. While the Kerry campaign points to the spiraling violence, the White House is embracing Iraq's new government. Bush's aides have carefully choreographed a series of events this week with Ayad Allawi, believing the presence of the Iraqi prime minister will make it harder to attack Bush on Iraq. At the United Nations as well as in Washington, the Bush team hopes Allawi can convince voters that he has his own "very cohesive plan to take down the insurgents," according to one senior administration official. Kerry's aides scoff at the notion that Bush can maintain his sunny mood with Allawi by his side. "The White House has consistently tried to cover up what has gone on over there in Iraq," said Joe Lockhart, Kerry's new communications strategist and Clinton's former spokesman. "They're going to do 'Fantasy Island' and we're going to do reality TV."

Of course, no one can point to any examples of this "cover up." Has the White House sought to suppress casualty reports? Has it prevented news organizations from being able to report all of the things that have gone wrong (or all of the things the news organizations believe has gone wrong) in Iraq? We have a plethora of information to content the heart of any pessimist (even though the context for that information oftentimes gets lost in the shuffle). And out of the interests of fairness, couldn't Newsweek find a single Republican who was willing and able to call Joe Lockhart's nonsense for what it is?

If Kerry is more aggressive and focused on the trail, it's thanks to an almost entirely new team at the helm of his campaign. Chief among the new hands is John Sasso, the onetime campaign manager to Michael Dukakis, who has known Kerry for more than two decades and now travels aboard his campaign jet. Sasso helped shape Kerry's slogan about Bush ("W stands for wrong") and was instrumental in Kerry's attack on Bush for allowing the assault-weapons ban to end, Democratic sources say. They credit Sasso with instilling discipline in the often rambling candidate. "It's really about the candidate carrying himself with confidence and clarity," said one friend of Sasso and Kerry's. Sasso is "very calm, and that gives the candidate reassurance."

The Bush campaign engages in "slime." Kerry is "aggressive and focused" thanks to the decidedly unslimy John Sasso. How thoroughly amusing.

As Kerry and Bush prep themselves for their TV debates (the first is scheduled at the University of Miami next week), their advisers are gaming out how Kerry can appear stronger and more trustworthy as a war leader. His aides are mulling over how to exploit Kerry's height advantage over Bush. "He's going to hang there for the handshake with Bush," said one senior campaign adviser. "Keep him long enough for everyone to get the shot." Meanwhile both sides are already playing the expectations game—as two talented debaters poor-mouth their own skills while making the other out to be a latter-day Cicero. Bush's aides are intent on projecting the president as a likable leader, setting Kerry the challenge of looking like "a person people can feel comfortable with." Kerry's aides believe that their man stands to gain more from the TV debates after a tough summer of attacks. "People will get an idea of who John Kerry is, and that's so much better than the cartoon," said one senior adviser.

The shilling reaches unbelievable proportions in this passage. Kerry will outwit and outmaneuver the evil Bush by--wait for it!--showing that he is taller. Yes indeed. This must be the "liberating feeling to engage in straight talk about Iraq" that the Kerry campaign and this article celebrate. It certainly is more substantive than talking about silly things like "debate about the candidate's Senate votes." Far be it from the Kerry campaign to engage in any discussion about that.

Recall Evan Thomas's remark that "The media, I think, wants Kerry to win." It appears, at the very least that Thomas, as the assistant managing editor of Newsweek knows his organization quite well. Yes, I know that there have been critical stories of Kerry (after all, when one's campaign is floundering, there is little that the media can do to put a gloss on it unless said media openly reverts to Stalinist revisionism), and I know that there are--from time to time--nice stories about George W. Bush. But it is hardly surprising to see stories in the mainstream media that completely genuflect to one individual candidate. And when one sees such stories, it is hardly surprising to find out what kind of candidate the mainstream media genuflects towards. Reporters put their money where their mouthes are, after all.