I’ve heard some interesting analysis of late concerning the Howard Dean campaign. A common theme permeates the recent media coverage of my favorite candidate: The opinion that anti-Bush voters in America won’t be enough to guarantee the general election for the former Governor of Vermont. Both liberals and conservatives alike have seized upon this idea in an attempt to stop the Dean “Tidal Wave.”

Some seem to believe Dean’s anti-war position is more a liability than an asset. (We’ll see what they think of this platform next November when – averaging a death-a-day between now and then – over 500 American lives will have been lost in Iraq.) They’re doing they’re damnedest to spin anti-war into anti-security. This is where I can see Dean’s opportunity to come in swinging.

Are Americans safer now than they were on September 11th, 2001? Do Americans have more or less confidence in the intelligence being used to protect our national security? Are Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney trusted by the American people as competent policy makers?

We’ve seen what a flap was caused by the recent revelation that Colin Powell wouldn’t stay on for another Bush term. When taken with the rest of the Bush cast - to include Ashcroft, Ridge, Wolfowitz, etc. – Powell is generally viewed as the most “likeable” character of the bunch; The rest of them either send chills down people’s spines, or make their skin crawl.

George W. Bush doesn’t secure our nation alone. His group of highly visible, highly recognizable, and highly fallible cronies “help” him. Bush’s approval rating might be holding strength now, but if those same poll respondents were asked to consider Bush Administration as a whole we’d see a very different picture. The personalities of this Administration have polarized the American public far more than any President alone has done in over 100-years. This is a significant factor to consider.

As the Dean is “soft-on-security because he is anti-war” cries grow in number and strength, his campaign may want to consider the following argument: Are George W. Bush and his Administration any better? National security is not only the President’s job. The Vice-President, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Homeland Security – and all their respective deputies – also have a large hand to play. Cheney, Rumsfeld, Meyers, Ridge and Ashcroft are well-known and rightfully mistrusted by the American people. This Administration is not soft-on-security, it’s incompetent-on-security. Dean would do well to emphasize this in his criticisms of the Administration.

While Bush remains “charming” and “well-liked” amongst a significant number of American voters, that popularity will diminish rapidly as those same voters are forced to consider their feelings for the President’s staff, and their advice to the President regarding policy. Can America afford another four years of Cheney? Rumsfeld? Ashcroft?

Howard Dean can beat Bush, but he needs to expand his argument to encompass the entire Bush Administration if he wants to take command of the security issue. Security and the economy are the two largest issues in America. They will make or break the winning campaign in 2004. This so-called anti-security spin is exactly the opportunity Dean needs to neutralize his opponents, and take the Oval Office.

Labels: 2004 election, activism, anti-war, Colin Powell, George W. Bush, howard dean