PhotoDude.com

Sun. Feb 08, 2004

Bush's High Stakes Strategy

Bush’s High Stakes Strategy – Yesterday’s hour chat with Bush didn’t break a lot of new ground (in fact, I thought Russert was oddly reserved). But the President did strongly confirm what everyone already suspected. As much as possible, the Bush campaign will try to make this a one issue election: National Security.

In many ways, they will ask us if we think we’ll be safer with the President who led us into Afghanistan and stood up to Saddam, or (pick your nominee) Another Massachusetts Liberal / Ambulance Chaser from Hicksville / Washed Up General / Angry Tax and Spend Liberal Who Burned $40 Million. They will do it around the clock, with feathers, and with sledgehammers.

They will do their best to make it seem like an uncontestable fact: ”George Bush has successfully protected this country from repeated threats of attack ever since 9/11, and there’s no way any of the Democrats can hold a candle to his experience in that most important arena. This is not the place or time for ’on-the-job’ training., or changing horses in the middle of a rough stream.”

It may even work. He could come out of the Republican Convention (in New York City, the week before September 11) draped in the flag, and 15 points up in the polls due to this strategy.

However, as safe as this approach might seem to be for the Bush campaign, I see it as a potentially high stakes strategy, if they push it too hard. By staking that claim long and loud, you may be ceding your destiny to the enemy. An enemy who, if they were smart, could make you look very foolish very quickly.

And I’m not talking about the Democrats.

I hesitate to write about this in any depth, but I hope others are thinking along these lines. Put aside the political personalities, or at least, your personal reference to them. Realize that Al Qaeda is an organization obsessed with personalities (theirs versus ours, Osama versus Bush) and symbolism, and in their warped world view, they would certainly see the electoral defeat of Bush as a victory for them … especially if they felt they had a hand in it. Please, no flames that I’m claiming a vote for a Democrat makes Osama smile, it’s not about the party. It’s about the Office. If Clinton had gone after Osama hard and heavy in 1998, he would be their Infidel #1. To them, Republican or Democrat truly makes no difference at all. It’s about defeating the symbol, the personality.

I’m saying that Bush needs to be careful about giving them the perception he’s put an electoral chip on his shoulder that Al Qaeda simply can’t resist knocking off. For starters, they need to put a cork in stuff like this and this.

Deep down, I don’t think Al Qaeda has the strategic smarts or flexibility for that kind of reaction. But this election year offers some ugly opportunities that need no further emphasis. Here, or from the Oval Office.