Dick Morris
Friday, June 14, 2002

Here's how the strategies in "Power Plays" help us understand what is happening as we face the 2004 elections.

There is nothing new in politics. Every move, every countermove, every strategy, every tactic has been used before. If we trace who succeeded and who failed at each strategy and why, we can better understand what the candidates and their strategists are up to and can better predict how it will turn out.

The first strategy I probe in my book is George W. Bush’s opening gambit – stand on principle.

He and his people grasp that, by occupying the high ground in the war on terror, events will flow their way, animating and reinforcing their campaign as it unfolds.

Remember three weeks ago when the Democrats pounced on Bush and Hillary shrilly demanded to know what he knew and when he knew it?

The very next day, the government issued a terror alert warning of imminent terror attacks over the Memorial Day period. Wag the dog? No way.

The warnings were undoubtedly real, but they cut the ground out from under the Democrats and shut them up.

It is an example of how standing on principle on the right ground gives you the edge.

Bush will stand up as the beacon warning the nation about the dangers of terror.

In daylight, when times are good, his beam may be hard to see. But when nighttime comes upon the land and our fears mount, his light will guide us to his camp and his candidacy to victory.

At Gettysburg, the Union forces occupied Little Round Top and realized that if they stayed there, the South could not prevail.

Bush has occupied the high ground in the war on terror and, unless he falters or voluntarily abandons it, he cannot be beaten.

Democrats Won't Make Gulf War Mistake

The second strategy – triangulate – offers a key insight into how the Democrats will try to counter Bush.

The most potent word in politics is "yes."

Political strategists for the opposing camp spend their waking hours preparing for "no."

They amass arguments and ammunition, allies and advisers, to meet the enemy attack that "no" represents. But when you answer "yes, I agree with you," they are disarmed.

Clinton used triangulation, following my advice, to hamstring the Republicans.

By agreeing with the GOP on welfare reform, the balanced budget, capital punishment and a host of conservative initiatives, he disarmed them.

Bush followed suit in 2000 by agreeing with the Democrats about poverty, education, compassion and an end to racism. Defanged, the Democrats didn't have much to run on.

Now the Democrats are meeting the Bush strategy of standing on principle in the war on terror by triangulating.

By backing Bush and letting him send the military where he wants, when he wants, they avoid the mistake they made in 1991 when they opposed Bush Sr.'s use of ground troops in Iraq.

If the Democrats avoid challenging Bush on terror, they will make his achievements inadmissible in the congressional contests of 2002 and the races will be fought on domestic issues where they have the edge – health care, social security, campaign finance reform and the like.

But if dissident Democrats yield to the temptation to challenge Bush over what he knew and when he knew it, they will blow their party's strategy and make the war on terror a partisan issue – which will kill the Democrats.

Editor's Note: Get Dick Morris' best-selling book,"Power Plays: Win or Lose – How History's Great Political Leaders Play the Game." You can get "Power Plays" Free or at a great price – just click here.

Read more on this subject in related Hot Topics:
Clinton Scandals
DNC
George W. Bush
Sen. Hillary Clinton
War on Terrorism

A product that might interest you:
If You Want to Know Politics ... Learn the Art of Political War