Cheney: Dead on

Have people really forgotten how nasty presidential campaigns can be? I can’t help but laugh when people get so pissed off at off-the-cuff remarks by the Vice President taken out of context. Just so everyone sees them, here they are:

"If we make the wrong choice, then the danger is that we'll get hit again – that we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States – and then we'll fall back into the pre-9/11 mindset, if you will, that in fact these terrorist attacks are just criminal acts and that we're not really at war. I think that would be a terrible mistake for us."

Dick Cheney’s argument may seem extreme, but it’s not unprecedented. One of the most famous advertisements in U.S. political history employs a superheated version of the Cheney maxim. Here’s Lyndon Johnson’s ad which very graphically states that electing Republican Barry Goldwater will necessarily bring on multiple atomic explosions and nuclear winter. As a matter of degree, Cheney’s logic shoots spitballs compared to Lyndon Johnson’s.

CHENEY’S REMARKS

First thing to consider is what exactly is Cheney talking about? After reading the whole sentence – not the parsed media version – I think it’s clear Cheney is making an A+B=C argument. There are three elements:

1. Wrong choice – This obviously alludes to Kerry winning in November.
2. Hit again – a theoretical terrorist attack.
3. Fall back – after the theoretical attack, Cheney worries the U.S. under Kerry would fall back to pre-9/11 ideas about terrorism as a law enforcement problem rather than a military one.

He’s saying if you combine elements one and two, you get number three. He isn’t saying number one leads to number two. That interpretation fails to consider the "fall back" point he makes. Cheney makes this clear when you look at the last sentence: "I think that would be a terrible mistake for us." He’s referring to the "fall back."

HERE’S WHY THIS HAS BECOME A BIG DEAL:

1. It was sloppy. Cheney could have phrased it better. But if you look at what he’s been saying for the past few months, he’s made the A+B=C argument constantly. And it’s a valid argument, by the way. There’s nothing in Kerry that suggests to me that he would not backpedal and regard terrorism as a law enforcement problem, rather than a national security problem. Cheney has in effect been saying, Kerry is a 9/10 person. We’re 9/12 people. If this isn’t a valid point, I don’t know what this campaign could be about.
2. Kerry is behind and in trouble. I laugh when I hear Edwards tell us that the Cheney remark is a signal of desperation by the Bush campaign. Wrong.

It’s Kerry, not Bush, who is on the ropes. Here’s why: (A) After the convention Bush has opened up with the first real lead of the campaign. The Kerry plan of waiting for Bush to self-destruct won’t work (If it hasn’t by now, when will it?). (B) Kerry has allowed Bush to set the talking points every day. Think of a presidential race as a two-month long baseball series. You’re going to win some days, and lose some days. But in the election business, a big part of the thing is the day’s ballgame. The two candidates compete every day to control the message. Bush and Co. have been able to steer the national dialogue away from sensitive areas (economy, health care, etc.) and into more favorable waters (Iraq - go figure - and terrorism). As long as this is a foreign policy debate, Bush wins. Just look at the polls that show Bush has huge leads in perceived competency on foreign policy issues. (C) Kerry was a bad choice for the Dems. Why did the Democrats play with Howard Dean so long? Everyone knew he couldn’t win in the general, so why did the donkeys play around with that guy for so long? I’ll never know. Kerry arose from the fallout of Dean as an un-vetted, un-checked out, un-tested, and un-thought about candidate. He was the default. They didn’t bother to check his history (SBVfT or conflicts on Iraq or long and liberal senate career). He just rose from the Dean explosion like Luke Skywalker flying away from the Death Star. (D) Kerry has run an abysmal campaign. He’s made himself a big fat target of the age-old political attack: inconsistent voting record. He’s also run not on his two-decade Senate career, but rather on his 4-month tour of duty in Vietnam. Candidates can run on their biographies, but things like the Cambodia controversy really hurt Kerry. (E) And this is the biggest: He can’t nail down how he would deal with Iraq in a way that differs from Bush’s approach. It’s not enough to just say we needed more allies. When Kerry ADMITED he’d still support the war even knowing what he did about WMDs, he basically lost the Iraq issue. (F) The final reason why it is Kerry, not Bush, on the ropes: Kerry is the one bringing in old hands like Carville and Begala to try and inject life into the campaign. It’s Kerry who has pulled ad money out of Arizona, Colorado and Missouri, forfeiting them to Bush. It’s Kerry who has a dwindling number of battlegrounds to fight in. It’s Bush’s race right now, not Kerry’s.

And as a final side note, consider this: John Kerry’s job audition for President began when he basically clinched the nomination back in the spring. Since that time – and really, since the President turned to meet his opponent – Kerry has avoided conflict, obfuscated and caved in to pressure. When Bush challenged him on Iraq, Kerry admitted he’d do it the same way. When the Republicans challenged Kerry’s character (fighting words!) in Vietnam, Kerry ignored it hoping it would all pass over instead of fighting the charges. When Bush opened up the campaign’s first lead, Kerry reorganized his staff. He may be personally courageous, but during this campaign he’s flinched under fire. And don’t think Democrats don’t notice. The very things they hate about Bush – his self-assuredness and stark distinctions – are exactly what Democrats wish their candidate had.