You Can't Tell the "Cut-and-Runners" Without a Scorecard

Even as Bush (wonder if Cheney went along with this one) announces an agreement "in principle" with the Iraqis to withdraw American forces by some given date (2010? 2011? 2012? it's not quite clear, but by some sure date [1], McCain proclaims over and over again that while the "surge has worked," unlike the policy of his lily-livered, politically opportunist, unpatriotic opponent, his approach will have the U.S. staying in Iraq until "victory is achieved." (Except that McCain too might order a withdrawal, of some sort, at some time not exactly certain but certainly not uncertain, but certainly in less than 100 years, too). The little details of how exactly "victory " is to be defined and how much it, whatever it is, will cost in American lives and borrowed money, is left unstated by the McCain campaign.
 
One does have to wonder whatever happened to the Bush claim that ANY timeline for withdrawal would be "letting down our troops," and that anybody advocating such a policy was un-American, a traitor, or worse. Is he in fact doing just that now, or do we have a new definition of "supporting our troops," right up until the last man or woman is killed some many months from now as the withdrawal proceeds ever so slowly. Furthermore, will McCain now go after Bush for "scoring political points while losing a war"? Nevertheless, as I said a couple of weeks ago [1], the Surge seems to have worked for Bush/McCain at least politically, at least up to now.

He Who Controls the Agenda Wins the Election

He who controls the agenda wins elections. From FDR through Lyndon Johnson before he got trapped in Vietnam, the Democrats knew this very well, and except for the Eisenhower years, they won consistently. They focused on the substantive issues. Goldwater was the first modern Republican who recognized that one could never win by going after programs. What was needed was going after what paid for the programs -- taxes. Lee Atwater added the first modern Republican fillip beyond forgetting policy and going beyond "taxes": attack the person directly and personally (as in "Willie Horton" and "Swift Boats").

And so we come to McCain. He cannot win on the issues and his new campaign manager, "Swift Boat Bullet" Steve Schmidt knows this very well. He also knows how to get control of the agenda not only through the use of personal attack, but also in how to get the media to focus on the attacks, what the Obama campaign's response to them is, then what the McCain campaign's response to the response is, which leaves the real issues, well-known to BuzzFlash readers, in the dust. As long as McCain can keep the agenda on Obama's person, he has a very good chance of winning.

And so, what can Obama do? Briefly here (and many others are considering this central question, to be sure), stay on the issues. But to be effective, he must immediately go on the attack mode on them, not simply present, Clinton-like, a series of position papers. Further, he must follow a prime Rovian principle: aim your attack at your opponent's strength. The prime example: Attack on defense (as I suggested, among other times and places, on these pages back in 2006 [1]).

The Bin Laden Bridge

An Osama bin Laden brother, one Sheik Tarek bin Laden, recently announced plans to build a very long bridge between two of the most uninhabited places on Earth, those elements of Yemen and Djibouti that form the edges of the Bab al-Mandib (Strait of Tears --- no joke) (Bloomfield, S., "Bin Laden Brother Unveils Plan," The Independent [UK], 13 August 2008, p. 27).

Mr. Bloomfield tells us that: "The main contractors are a firm called L3 Communications, a company which styles itself as offering ‘global security and engineering solutions.' It is also one of America's largest defence contractors and its senior staff includes retired military official and Republican businessmen. [It] seems to be running the show. Experts lined up to answer questions . . . has close American ties. He previously worked for another US defence contractor, DynCorp."

Golly gee, just to be polite and to show concern for the Sheik's family, don't you think that one of those "former Bush Administration officials" might ask him, "so, Sheik, how's the family? I hear that Osama is on kidney dialysis. Is it still working OK? You know, there have been some great new developments in managing kidney failure. If you could just tell us where he is, we're sure that we could make him a lot more comfortable."

And oh yes. One wonders of this Sheik is one of those 18 was it, bin Ladens, who were flown out of the U.S. the day after the 9/11 attacks, before the FBI could get around to interviewing them.

Steven Jonas, MD, MPH is a Professor of Preventive Medicine at Stony Brook University (NY), a weekly Contributing Author for the Web zine TPJmagazine.us [2]; a Special Contributing Editor for Cyrano's Journal Online; and a Contributing Columnist for the Project for the Old American Century.

Technorati Tags: Steven Jonas [8] Bush [9] Cheney. Iraq [10] Obama [11] cut and run [12] McCain [13]