|
Edited on Sun Sep-19-04 02:13 PM by Miss_Bevey
I think the winning strategy is all here. This guy was Bill Clinton's speech writer. 'Nuff said.
OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR
Bringing the Battle to the President
By PAUL GLASTRIS
Published: September 19, 2004
Washington — Senator John Kerry will lose the election unless he turns the issue of national security to his advantage. He began to do so, for the first time in weeks, with his speech on Thursday in Las Vegas, where he took President Bush to task for not being honest about the war in Iraq. In an earlier speech on the economy, he also tore into Mr. Bush's penchant for shifting blame to others.
This general strategy, of tracing the president's policy failings to his character flaws, is the right one. But to make it work, Mr. Kerry is going to have to show some character himself.
First, he must offer a forthright defense of his vote in 2002 to authorize the use of force in Iraq. But that defense will never be accepted unless he also accepts some responsibility for the consequences of his vote.
Indeed, he could create a "Richard Clarke moment" for himself by saying something like the following: "I voted to give my president the authority he needed to unite the world in confronting Iraq. He abused that authority. But I trusted him, and I now share responsibility for the failing situation in Iraq. As president, I will take responsibility for fixing it - and that, Mr. President, makes one of us."
Second, Mr. Kerry must offer a better plan for Iraq than Mr. Bush's. Mr. Kerry has recently set a goal of pulling American troops out of Iraq in four years. That's the right policy. But as presented, it sounds more like a plan for managing failure than for achieving success.
A better formulation would be along these lines: "History shows that no nation can win its freedom unless its people are willing to fight for it. The president is undermining the motivation of the Iraqi people by making an open-ended promise that America will fight their battles for them. We made that mistake in Vietnam; we must not make it now. America will equip and train the people of Iraq, but in the end, they are responsible for choosing their own destiny."
Third, Mr. Kerry must offer a better plan for fighting Al Qaeda. So far, he has put forth the worthy but rather airy promise that he will work more energetically with America's allies. The vagueness of that pledge only heightens the average voter's suspicions about the effectiveness of international organizations like the United Nations.
For the argument to work, Mr. Kerry must show that he understands the limits of existing international institutions and present a plan to create a new one. He could say something like this: "Fifty years ago, at the dawn of the cold war, America led our allies in the creation of a new institution to fight communism. That institution was NATO. While NATO remains vital to our security, the world today faces a new threat, and we need a new institution, a new alliance to fight the war against Al Qaeda and its allies. President Bush should have built that new alliance. He has failed. I will not."
John Kerry has begun to make the case that the president's adherence to failed policies shows not strength of character, but weakness. To turn that critique into victory, however, Mr. Kerry is going to have to show some character, too - by being honest as well as bold.
Paul Glastris, a former speechwriter for President Bill Clinton, is editor in chief of The Washington Monthly.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
