Post by POA on May 14, 2004 19:58:27 GMT -5
No time to play the waiting game
John Kerry's hesitant response to the Abu Ghraib scandal has cost him a chance to inflict damage on George Bush, says Philip James
Friday May 14, 2004
If there is one aphorism to which US politicians must pay heed in a 600-channel, 24-hour-news universe, it is this: he who hesitates is lost. It is one John Kerry needs to wise up to if he is to stand a hope of puncturing the Bush administration.
When the Abu Ghraib abuse scandal first broke more than two weeks ago, the Kerry camp went into a huddle. They seemed to be wondering whether to say nothing, say something, or allow surrogates do it for them.
Initially, they chose the first course of action, before changing their minds, choosing the latter course, and then changing again to settle on the middle course. Now they are paying the price of faltering.
The CBS 60 Minutes II programme aired the now infamous photos on April 28. While the rest of the US press leapt on the story, the Kerry camp maintained a studious silence.
Even after George Bush had been forced to apologise on Arab television a week later, they waited another 24 hours before issuing a written statement denouncing the administration's response to the scandal.
Mr Kerry's first public comments on the Abu Ghraib affair came on May 11, a full two weeks after the story had broken. In his now trademark circumlocutory rhetoric he said: "This is something that comes out of an attitude about the rights of prisoners of war. It's an attitude that comes out of how we went there in the first place."
These comments, made between stops on the campaign trail in Kentucky, did not exactly nail the fiasco for its PR value. The Kerry camp remained reluctant to talk about Abu Ghraib, vainly insisting on keeping their candidate focused on the topic of healthcare costs. Meanwhile, the nation was transfixed by the department of defence hearings on Capitol Hill.
To be fair to Mr Kerry, the Abu Ghraib scandal presented him with something of a problem. He had to weigh the prospect of political advantage against the potential for political damage. He had to be careful not to appear to be unsupportive of the troops - or, worse, un-American.
His hesitation, however, has ended up producing the very result he feared the most.
When Mr Bush's challenger finally chose to come out on the issue with full force, his timing could not have been worse. He called for Donald Rumsfeld to resign on a nationally-televised radio phone-in show on the very morning that the US was absorbing the horrific images of Al-Qaida slaughtering Iraq hostage Nicholas Berg.
As a result, Mr Kerry looked as though he cared more about the civil rights of Iraqis than he did about the safety of his fellow citizens.
An eternity of second-guessing by the Kerry campaign may have turned the Abu Ghraib affair from a missed opportunity into an own goal. Unhappily for Mr Kerry, the scandal coincided with the biggest shake-up in his campaign since his first manager, Jim Jordan, was fired last November - a shake-up that could go some way to explaining why his timing was so off.
A bitter battle between his two key message-makers, Bob Shrum and Jim Margolis, was settled in Mr Shrum's favour at the beginning of May. At the same time, Andrei Cherny, Mr Kerry's chief speechwriter, was forced out along with Mr Margolis. It is difficult for a candidate to keep his eye on the ball when his top advisers are busy stabbing each other in the back.
This, however, does not absolve Mr Kerry from blame - a good candidate needs to be able to ignore the background noise of internecine strife within his own ranks.
What is more, he needs to rely on his own instincts rather than waiting to be told what to say, and when, on the campaign trail. Yes, take advice - but cut through the conflicting chatter with a swift decision, and stick to it.
The "stop-no-wait-yes, let's say something" approach of the last two weeks has cost Mr Kerry dear. He has yet to gain traction on any issue of interest to Americans, and Abu Ghraib was something he should have pounced on.
He could have made a very simple, effective case, tying the scandal to the Bush administration's go it alone Iraq policy and presenting the following conclusion: "The arrogance of this White House has made America less safe."
In the 24/7 news environment, you don't have 12 hours to decide how to take your shot, let alone 12 days. That's why Mr Kerry has not gained anything from Mr Bush's problems.
· Philip James is a former senior Democratic party strategist
