MANDATE MAN:

'Change' Is Vital Election Theme for Bush, Kerry: The president frames himself as the candidate of new ideas, a departure for an incumbent. It's an attempt to relate to voters' anxieties. (Ronald Brownstein, September 12, 2004, LA Times)

After nearly four years in office, President Bush has settled on a surprising new identity for his campaign's stretch run: he is selling himself as the candidate of change.

On issues from Social Security and healthcare to national defense, Bush now presents his agenda as a response to "changing times" and a "changed world." He also accuses his Democratic rival, Sen. John F. Kerry, of pursuing "the policies of the past."

Bush is relying more on this argument even as Kerry amplifies his efforts to portray the president's proposed second-term agenda as "more of the same," and his own proposals as a sharp change in the country's direction. [...]

Bush is pursuing a broader and more ambitious agenda — at home and abroad — than Clinton ran on in 1996. That may give Bush more evidence for his claim to represent change — but also provide more targets for Kerry to assail than Dole could find with Clinton.

One senior GOP strategist familiar with White House thinking said Bush was emphasizing the "change" argument less to create a contrast with Kerry than to signal to voters that he understood their anxieties and wanted a mandate for his proposals in a second term.

"This is not a frame that is being discussed because of Kerry," the strategist said. In private, "Bush has said the American people want to know that 'I understand what the country is going through and I have an idea of how to deal with it.' "

The strategy is first of all based on the truth, because Mr. Bush is a revolutionary figure and much of the revolution remains to be carried out. But it is made easier by the reactionary nature of today's Democratic Party and the complete failure of the Kerry campaign to lay out any ideas for the Senator to run on. They expected an election against a president who would be in the 30's in opinion polls so no agenda would be needed. They were terribly wrong.

MORE:
There's another story in the LA Times today that reads almost like a parody of the Kerry campaign, Divide in Democrat's camp: Party advisors' discussion on how to forge a 'new direction' for the candidate leads to mixed messages and lost momentum. (Matea Gold and Mark Z. Barabak, September 12, 2004, LA Times)

Even as he fights to regain momentum in the presidential race, Sen. John F. Kerry faces a debate among advisors over the tone and content of his message, according to insiders and other Democrats familiar with the campaign's discussions.

One continued disagreement is over how sharply the Democratic presidential nominee — as opposed to campaign surrogates — should attack President Bush. Also in dispute is how much change would be too much for Kerry to advocate in these anxious times.

In one compromise, Kerry has taken to using words "new direction" rather than "change."

Although Kerry strategists agree the Massachusetts senator needs to be more aggressive, they remain divided over how best to communicate his critique of Bush. That lack of consensus, some Democrats say, has exacerbated Kerry's inconsistency on the campaign trail, undermining his ability to drive home his central arguments that Bush has neglected middle-class Americans and made the country less safe through his policies in Iraq.

While opinion polls have shown Bush politically vulnerable on the economy and the war, the surveys also have found that Kerry is an unknown quantity to many voters who have little sense of where he would take the country as president.

If you're afraid to even use the word change you aren't the candidate of change. One dramatic way to jump start the campaign without having to propose even one idea would be for him to finally do the right thing and give up his Senate seat to foces full-bore on winning the presidency.

Posted by Orrin Judd at September 12, 2004 8:32 AM