Post-Convention debate

The New Republic's Ryan Lizza writes up a new Democracy Corps post-convention memo in which James Carville and Stanley Greenberg argue that the message out of the Democratic Convention failed to connect some top domestic issues to the "Stronger at Home, Respected in the World" slogan. The implication being Kerry might have received a larger bounce had he played to issues like the economy and health care that polls show him consistently leading on.

Lizza says Kerry's renewed focus on the economy shows the campaign realizes they may have missed an opportunity to more effectively sell the Kerry message by spending so much time on removing Bush's advantage on security issues:

The shift in emphasis by Kerry suggests his campaign realizes that it may have missed an opportunity by making his convention almost entirely about strength and national security. Kerry's aides insist that there was no bounce available to him because of the polarized electorate, but other Democrats disagree. They point out that numerous polls show there is a majority for change in America. Whether one looks at the percentage who say the country is on the wrong track or the percentage who say Bush should not be re-elected, there are indeed enough voters looking for a new direction that Kerry should have had a bigger bounce.

However, while Democracy Corps may have a point, the fact is, if 2002 taught us anything, it's that Democrats need to articulate an alternative security policy, something Kerry has hammered at for months, particularly by saying, if he were President, he would immediately act to adopt all the recommendations made by the 9-11 Commission. Clearly, Bush's only real strength is his handling of 9-11 and he will seek to remind voters of his leadership on 9-11 every chance he gets - even if it means TV ads that are weird and creepy. Kerry leads on most every other issue, but it seems silly to think that his desire to address the economy is somehow a change in course. Economy and security are two top issues in this campaign. While Bush is content to focus like a laser on security, Kerry wants to bring other issues to the discussion that polls show Americans think are as important if not more so then security and the war in Iraq.

Most importantly however, for those who've watched Kerry from the start of his Presidential campaign last year, re-taking the security issue for Democrats is clearly his main rationale for running. Starting way back in 2002 with his criticism of the President's handling the battle in Tora Bora and continuing with his criticism of Bush's failure to adequately address port security and other important domestic security needs. For all those that insist they don't really think Kerry is driven by anything more than personal ambition, they need only look as far as the security issue. You can argue that perhaps he'd be better served by not making his campaign about the one issue Bush consistently leads on, but these issues form the backbone of his campaign. To argue that he shouldn't seek some advantage over Bush in this area would be to dismiss Kerry's rationale for running.

One last point, considering the singularity with which Bush will push the twin issues of terrorism and security and the chance that there will be another major attack before election day, it seems like only a fool would not seek to at least tie the President in these areas.