The basic premise behind the "stale brand" argument is that: 1) Through President George W. Bush's incompetence, Vice-President Dick Cheney's lust for power, and Karl Rove's tactical brilliance but strategic incompetence, the republican's are no longer trusted by the public and 2) that current republicans are married at the hip to a failed war policy and have no leader to unite the factions and no ideas to inspire the masses. In view of this argument, it is worthwhile to assess what President Bush's real mistake has been.
Briefly, it has been his failure to realize that modern warfare is always a two front war. One front in the field, the other in the media of back home. A little historical perspective:
The lead up to the 2004 general election set the stage for all that transpired politically since. The Democrats decided to rhetorically attack the war in Iraq as a mistake. To do so, they needed to separate the Iraq from the wider global war on terror. Senator John Kerry (D - Massachusetts), the Democrat's nominee was a major cog in the wheel. Consider the following from his acceptance speech at the 2994 convention:
I will be a commander in chief who will never mislead us into war. I will have a vice president who will not conduct secret meetings with polluters to rewrite our environmental laws. I will have a secretary of defense who will listen to the best advice of the military leaders. And I will appoint an attorney general who will uphold the Constitution of the United States. ...
My fellow Americans, the world tonight is very different from the world of four years ago. But I believe the American people are more than equal to the challenge. Remember the hours after September 11th when we came together as one to answer the attack against our homeland. We drew strength when our firefighters ran up stairs and risked their lives so that others might live; when rescuers rushed into smoke and fire at the Pentagon; when the men and women of Flight 93 sacrificed themselves to save our nation's Capitol; when flags were hanging from front porches all across America, and strangers became friends. It was the worst day we have ever seen, but it brought out the best in all of us. I am proud that after September 11th all our people rallied to President Bush's call for unity to meet the danger.
There were no Democrats. There were no Republicans. There were only Americans. And how we wish it had stayed that way. Saying there are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq doesn't make it so. Saying we can fight a war on the cheap doesn't make it so. And proclaiming "Mission accomplished" certainly doesn't make it so.
As president, I will ask the hard questions and demand hard evidence. I will immediately reform the intelligence system, so policy is guided by facts and facts are never distorted by politics.
And as president, I will bring back this nation's time-honored tradition: The United States of America never goes to war because we want to; we only go to war because we have to. That is the standard of our nation. Let there be no mistake: I will never hesitate to use force when it is required. Any attack will be met with a swift and a certain response.
I will never give any nation or any institution a veto over our national security.
And I will build a stronger military. We will add 40,000 active duty troops, not in Iraq, but to strengthen American forces that are now overstretched, overextended and under pressure. We will double our Special Forces to conduct terrorist operations, anti-terrorist operations, and we will provide our troops with the newest weapons and technology to save their lives and win the battle. And we will end the backdoor draft of the National Guard and reservists. To all who serve in our armed forces today, I say: Help is on the way.
As president, I will fight a smarter, more effective war on terror. We will deploy every tool in our arsenal: our economic as well as our military might, our principles as well as our firepower. In these dangerous days, there is a right way and a wrong way to be strong. Strength is more than tough words.
It is interesting the Senator Kerry never uttered the word Afghanistan. But, his meaning was clear. We were all united in the war on terror until the incompetent President (mis)led us into this mistaken adventure in Iraq. Senator's Kerry value proposition: vote Kerry and I'll fix this mistake, I'll get us out of Iraq, add 40K troops, and kick serious terrorists forces using our newly doubled special forces units.
In fact, I deduced at the time, and still firmly believe, that the 2004 Democratic Party convention was a four day argument that Iraq was both not part of, and a distraction from, the wider war on terror. After the Junior Senator from Massachusetts was sent back to the Senate, the Democrats did not cease the argument. They ramped it up and kept hammering the public with the same ideas over and over. It is I suppose always easier to criticize than to cook.
President Bushes reelection campaign was never able to forcefully parry this rhetoric to the detriment of the GOP in the 2006 midterms and the current concern over the state of the GOP's brand. The GOP convention in 2004 was largely off-point. The only effective rebuttal of the Democratic Party theme was given by Rudy Giuliani (R = New York). Read the speech here
The President's re-election campaign made only the most feeble attempts to deal with the war issue. Rather, under the leadership of Karl Rove the re-election campaign focused on "the ground war" and raising questions about Senator Kerry's suitability to be serve as Commander-in-chief. That these were effective is not a defense of the inattention paid to the importance of influencing public opinion during a time of war.
Of course, the only popular wars are 1) the one just about to start or 2) the one just ending with the patriotic forces victorious. Lincoln, of course, faced the same situation during the Civil War. At the time, Lincoln deduced that the only course that would save his Presidency and policies was a victory over the Confederate forces. In Lincoln's time, battles were fought on a rather discrete basis over a period of a few days.
President Bush seems to have tried to follow Lincoln's precedent. Regrettably, the current war is asymmetric. There are no real battles, save for the large thrusts to clean out Ramadi and Fallujah, only skirmishes. Winning a skirmish doesn't exactly thrill the people at home. Instead, the public was treated to an incessant stream of daily obituaries for the troops who gave the last measure of devotion for their country. But, amidst this death there were few victories reported by the media, nor even a hint of it. In this type of warfare the executive cannot rely on battlefield exploits to influence public opinion. That must be done directly, constantly, and personally by the executive. Whenever President Bush spoke about the war he was effective, but his speeches were far too few.
In this vacuum, the public only heard the voice of the left. The war in Iraq began to be perceived as one in which are troops were serving only as targets.
So the Republican brand is left with the remains. A war that a large majority of the population were for, the Congress voted in favor of, that was successful in ending the regime of a principal sponsor of terror and eliminating the uncertainty surrounding that sponsor's WMD programs, has been cast as a failure.
But I expect that most Republicans who seek election will be too timid to face public opinion on this issue. Senator McCain seems willing to try. It is not too late for the President to engage public opinion on the war on terror and Iraq specifically. But, I doubt he has the intention to do so. Instead, we are all held hostage to President Bush's big mistake... and the only option is to pray for immediate and ultimate victory in Iraq.
