Democracts will have to stop letting Cheney frame the debate

One of the problems with being a liberal democrat (well, being any democrat) over the past 10 years is having to watch the supreme incompetence they tend to show in the political debate arena. John Kerry could have won in 2000, and fairly easily at that, if he'd been willing to actually aggressively attack Bush. He reduced his campaign motto to "War bad." which may bring in the left but is too simplistic when approaching the issue.

Cheney now has assumed the role of chief spokesman against President Obama's anti-terrorism policies. Cheney seems to have this image of himself as the only American tough enough to run foreign policy, a soldier willing to confront terrorists . The fact that he was desperate to avoid putting himself in any sort of danger during the Vietnam War (applying for five draft deferments), and his response to 9/11 was to hide in a bunker has not seemed to shake this delusion. He has never been either a professional soldier or a professional intelligence officer, yet has no problem overruling the opinions of either group if it conflicts with his bizarre neoconservative worldview. Maybe it's insecurity over the fact that he skipped over the chance to prove his actual toughness or courage that has shaped his public persona. As fun as it is to psychoanalyze Cheney, it is besides the point. Cheney is seeking to bring back a destructive national security philosophy that failed miserably when put into practice.

The Obama political team seems to be falling back on their usual strategy. I am guessing they WANT Cheney to take this role, just like they seemed to relish Rush Limbaugh's move to the forefront of the anti-Obama debate, because they can then run against polarizing, extreme right-wing, and unpopular among the mainstream figures. Makes sense, then, for them not to go too hard after Cheney right now, and wait until the next election cycle to frame the debate not between the respective democrats and republicans involved, but between an Obama worldview and a Cheney worldview. They used it successfully against former President Bush, and have started to use it against Rush Limbaugh. The problem with this strategy is this; undefended attacks tend to gain traction. Kerry probably lost because of the Swift Boat attacks, which he failed to respond to for months.

Will this strategy work? Maybe. The problem, however, is that political popularity is lost easily--but gained back almost as easily. This is, after all, a country where Richard Nixon was able to find public redemption of a sort. Cheney is steadily gaining in popularity, and by letting him frame the debate as a matter of will to do what it takes to protect Americans, his attacks could eventually help the Republicans push back to power.

The Obama political team also seems to be pursuing a similar strategy against Karl Rove, though this makes a little more sense. Despite his many flaws, Cheney at least has some experience and political capital to draw on, and ultimately is working towards something that he believes in. Rove is a political hack, smart but small-minded, thoroughly unprincipled, and a narcissist. His smugness in the aftermath of John McCain's loss in the election was remarkable. You could almost see the thoughts expressed in his face and in every word he said--"-I- could have won this." But responding to Rove with quiet dignity isn't going to work. Someone needs to go publicly and call him out on his words. Rove had no problem calling the Vice President of the United States a liar; are you telling me there isn't one prominent Democratic politician or commentator who can't just go on television and say flat out "Karl Rove is a liar. Why would you believe his words on anything?"

It's symptomatic of a general failure on the part of Democrats to learn that you sometimes have to fight. Voters tell pollsters they don't like negative attack ads. The only problem is, whether they like them or not, they work. President Obama's presidential campaign succeeded, and David Plouffe and David Axelrod did a very good job running it. But they benefitted from a disorganized McCain campaign, and even then made plenty of missteps. If it weren't for the financial meltdown there is a very good chance that McCain would have pulled through.

The Democrats need to start going after their oppponents, not just their opponents' ideas. They don't have to sink to Rove or Cheney's level of viciousness, but they have to publicly start portraying them as what they are--incompetent, unprincipled, politicians who have proven time and time again they can't be trusted.