[Bleep] Modesty....

I’ve said many times by now that I think the Bushies erred by letting the other side pound Dubya into the ground for ten months before the Dem nominee was determined because it enabled them to significantly define him before he’d gotten out of the starting gate. Think of it as being handcuffed and bludgeoned repeatedly with a steel chair.

Since Super Tuesday the President has been campaigning and running TV and radio ads, primarily aimed at defining John Kerry, in turn, as a pandering liberal. These spots have been at least effective enough to keep Lurch from opening up any kind of lead. But as is the nature of negative advertising, they haven’t done much to elevate Mr. Bush.

So the question is threefold: where is the positive side setting forth what Bush will do in a second term; will we see such a positive side; and if we do, have the Bushies waited too long for it to have any measurable impact?

In light of that, an email to NRO’s “KerrySpot” explains a great deal:

The ABC News poll seems to confirm what is showing up in other polls: that Kerry's bump was small to non-existent. That's the good news. The bad news is that the president is behind by 2-5 points and that undecided voters nearly always break heavily against the incumbent. What's the problem here?

The ABC News poll lists six major issues that the voters cite as influencing their votes (as well as a few other issues). It's constructive to compare the leading issues with the TV ads run by the Bush campaign this year. (By my count, Bush has run about 22 ads total, according to his website).

1. The economy. Cited as the most important issue by 25% of voters. These voters break 60-33 Kerry. Number of ads run by the Bush campaign touting the Bush record: 1 out of 22. Although a few Bush ads mention the tax cuts and speak vaguely of economic growth, only one ad pushes the job creation record and the Bush boom ("Pessimism", which didn't run unit 4 June 2004!).

2. Iraq. Cited as most important issue by 23% of voters. These voters break 72-26 Kerry. They think we made a mistake in going into Iraq, and that the casualties mean the war isn't worth it. Number of Bush ads defending the decision to go to war in Iraq: 0 (as in zero). Bush's best ad of the whole campaign slams Kerry for voting against funding our troops — but that doesn't address the concerns of the Iraq issue voters.

3. Terrorism. Cited as most important issue by 20% of the voters. These voters break Bush 83-15. Number of ads run by Bush: 3-6 (depending upon how you count them).

4. Taxes. (ABC doesn't note the percent listing this as most important). These voters gave Bush a 6+ lead in trust before the convention, Kerry a 6+ lead after the convention. Number of ads run by Bush: 6. The Bush team pounded Kerry on his gas tax and other tax hikes.

5. Education. (Percentage not listed). Kerry has a 13-point lead in trust on this issue. Bush ads: 0. Incredible — what is the point of hiking education spending by 50+% and then not citing that as a major reason for re-election?

6. Health care. (Percentage not listed). Kerry has a 19-point lead in trust on this issue. Bush ads: 0. Okay, the Medicare drug plan has problems — but isn't it evidence that Bush cares about health care?

Conclusion: Pluralities of the American don't believe Bush's record deserves re-election. Part of the problem is that the Bush air war is not investing TV ads in defending his record. Of the six major issues, Bush ads have only addressed taxes and terrorism with any force. People don't think his record on the economy deserves re-election — but only one Bush ad pushes the Bush boom. People think Iraq isn't worth it — but only one Bush ad defends our war. People don't trust Bush on education — but Bush's 50% increase in education funding has never been set before the voters. Elections with an incumbent are largely referendums on the incumbent's record. If Bush's record hasn't convinced people to re-elect him, it might be because his campaign hasn't told them about his record.

August is the last month that Bush will be able to spend his own money: a heavy ad blitz on the Bush economic record would probably put him in the lead. [all italicized emphases mine]

In short, the Bush campaign has allowed the Democrats to hideously define the President. And only Kerry’s lack of a discernable post-convention bump offers hope that that definition can be overcome.

Adds the ‘spot’s Jim Geraghty:

[Karl] Rove appears to have had a clear strategy for the spring: Define Kerry and leave the second term agenda for later. Now that Kerry has been ‘defined,’ or has been unable to define himself as he wished, the Bush team has to close the deal with the electorate…Maybe we're on the cusp of a major Bush offensive, defending his record and laying out what Americans would get from another four years of George Bush in the White House.

All I can say is, we’d better be. Otherwise, “the fruit won’t fall far from the tree” after all.