Terror War swallowing Kerry

A recent speech by former Clinton political consultant and now self-purported Bush loyalist Dick Morris has troubled me over the last couple of weeks. Now the scene where Bush is bouncing happily out of the RNC with the wind of his Terror War message behind his sails while Kerry is clearly on the run bears this out.

First know that I despise Dick Morris and found about half of these August 10 remarks before the Commonwealth Club of California to be a reactionary rant. However, part of what he said presents a simple, straightforward political theory of the 2004 US presidential election that is hard to dismiss. After hearing the speech twice, I have started to see a Morissian logic behind the RNC speakers' messages and also recent Bush media comments concerning the winability of the Terror War.

The Morris Theory says that any sort of intellectual arguments or nuances about what will move the most important voters are basically irrelevant to whether Bush or Kerry will win. Even if the political conversation tries to move into territory where Bush is portrayed as weak, stupid, a flip-flopper, or depraved in his conduct of the Terror War, this makes no difference because ANY discussion about the Terror War helps Bush and hurts Kerry.

Kerry can't win the Terror War argument in any terms. The metaphorical goose-stepping of the jingoist consensus Kerry simply cannot resist. Witness his pathetic cave-in when asked if, knowing what is known now about the cost in lives and treasure of the Iraq operation and failure of Bush's much-hyped weapons to materialize, Kerry would vote for war, Kerry said, "Yes".

It's just impossible for the challenger to take on Bush when he talks his nonsense about the Iraq conquest being "the right thing to do" because when considering how to handle a "madman" like Saddam Hussein, he will "choose to defend America every time". The Democrat just sees little space to make cogent the anti-war argument. And Kerry has very badly bungled the space he did have by throwing the peace movement out of his convention, ceding the peace field to Bush, and saluting like a play-acting boy.

Morris went on to say, "...the key question that will decide this election is, 'Are we at war, or are we at peace?' If there's a clear perception we're at war, I think Bush is going to win."

Having John McCain bring up (without actually naming) the movie Fahrenheit 9/11 made sense for the RNC in this regard because, "Everything that is said about terror helps George Bush. Michael Moore's movie helps George Bush, because of it's subject -- it's about 911...."

Bush's now-retracted notion that the Terror War cannot be won falls right into this context. A perception that Bush succeeded in the first term and that the Terror War is over or could be soon rolls votes to Kerry's side. Was it a mistake for Bush to release the statement he did a week ago Monday morning? I don't. It's calculated. Kerry and Edwards took the bait. Meanwhile, the Democrats took quite a hit several key-state polls.

As long as Edwards and Kerry each day are forced to take the bait by reacting to whatever Bush says about the Terror War, the Morris theory posits advantage Bush. If what Bush presents is somewhat controversial, all the better -- more Terror War coverage results. So far it's working for Bush.

I hope to God I'm wrong and Steve Gilliard is right that Bush’s real problems and troubled history will rise to bite him, but the Kerry slippage in key-state polls is undeniable. The numbers don't lie as much as we'd all like them to. Minnesota is trending Bush, for heavens sake. Dug-up allegations, like those in a new Kitty Kelley book, about cocaine and other character flaws have a way of bouncing off the Shrub, while the clear Terror War message he wanted from the RNC was the one that got out. Little else, including the protests, did. Those in the electorate who hate politics (most of 'em) will process in the heart those God and country messages while voting for the guy who they see sincerely promising to "defend America every time."

Kerry is the one whose base is at risk along the soft edges. I think the vile Pat Buchanan described the situation correctly on Bill Maher's HBO show when he said that Kerry's toast now unless he can come up with stunning victories in the debates.