In the mid-1980s, media critic Mark Crispin Miller wrote a scathing analysis of Ronald Reagan's media presence that compared his governing tactics to those suggested by Machiavelli in
The Prince. Among his more shrewd observations was his contention that Reagan always, always delegated the more controversial elements of his job to those in his cabinet. Reagan would be photo-opped with humble, self-effacing grins against backdrops that stressed his patriotic or populist character, while the dirty work of his administration -- tax cuts, funding cuts, gutting of the EPA etc. -- would be delegated to others, either to keen neophytes like David Stockman or brutal yes-men like James Watt.
Already, at the beginning of Bush's campaign, we can see him doing the same thing. (Indeed, he's being doing it for three and a half years.) Bush is able to keep above the fray, often abstaining from any but the most veiled references to the Kerry campaign. Bush appears at "official state functions," looking presidential, while it is left to Cheney, Condoleeza Rice, and Powell to wallow in the mire, taking the more ad hominum swipes at Kerry. In many instances, this situation provides an almost outrageously unfair advantage to the Bush campaign: how can Kerry possibly match Bush's photo-op with the returning troops of the 101st airborne?
My point here isn't to whine, but rather to rais the question of how Kerry might effectively counter the bully pulpit of the presidency. Should he sick other Dem leaders -- Daschle, Pelosi, et al. -- on the Repubs, or make use of erstwhile Dem prez candidates? We must commend Dean for his early and gutsy solidarity for the Kerry campaign, but many here have raised the question as to whether Dean occasionally does more harm than good -- like his inadvertant revision of Kerry's position on the Madrid bombing, for example.
In any case, what do people suggest Kerry do to work against Bush's incumbent advantage, especially keeping in mind the war chest Bush has at his disposal?