As the days tick down toward a fateful and fiercely contested election, both parties have sharpened and simplified their messages to the masses. In each case, in fact, the partisans have reduced their electoral appeals to four words.

The Democrats tell the public: “Iraq is a mess.”

The Republicans insist: “We kept you safe.”

Both these messages count as powerful and persuasive because they’re both obviously true – and will win agreement from the vast majority of our fellow citizens. Yup, Iraq is a mess—even at a time of reduced US casualties and apparent political progress for the new Iraqi government, insurgent attacks are up and the cost of the war is crushing. And yes, President Bush and his GOP colleagues have kept the US homeland safe from terrorist attack, despite the deadly Islamo-Nazi strikes against some twenty other nations around the world.

So if both parties convey potent messages that produce widespread agreement, which one wins in November?

That depends, of course, on the way that each side responds to the other guy’s assault.

For the Democrats, the right way to hit back at the “we kept you safe” argument is to offer yet another four-word declaration: “We’ll keep you safer.” In order to make that case plausibly, however, they must explain what they will do that differs from the Republicans. This counts as a tall, almost impossible order, for two basic reasons:

First, when it comes to an appropriate strategy for Iraq and the War on Terror in general, Democratic candidates simply cannot agree with one another. That’s why party leaders must resort to unconvincing platitudes like calling for a “new direction” with no explanation on what that new direction might be.

Second, as much as the Dems would like to make this election all about Bush, they can’t vote him out of office. If they run too hard on foreign policy initiatives, even if they finally agree on some “new direction,” they’ll still face a tough time explaining how they’ll change our defense and diplomatic strategies from the House of Representatives or the Senate. Like it or not, the Constitution gives the President control of our military and our relations with the world, and the presidency isn’t on the ballot in 2006.

Meanwhile, how should Republicans respond to the core Democratic declaration, “Iraq is a mess”? The right answer --, as Karl Rove, Ken Mehlman and George W. Bush no doubt understand—is one final four word slogan: “They’d make it worse.”

While Democratic partisans may insist that Iraq couldn’t possibly get worse, the GOP must challenge the public to use its imagination. A precipitous US withdrawal could produce a powerful, hostile, truly fanatical government in Baghdad, in place of the current shaky but friendly authorities. Most Americans will reject the idea that concessions to terrorists will somehow discourage them. By highlighting Democratic weakness, division and confusion on the war on terror in general and Iraq in particular, the Republicans can make the case that a “new direction” could be more dangerous than a consistent commitment.

Finally, the GOP must understand the real thinking (and feeling) behind the overwhelming public disapproval of the current war. The solid majorities who dislike the way the President is conducting the battle in Iraq do not agree on a better approach – many (if not most) of these critics, believe that the Republicans haven’t been tough enough on our enemies. One of the consistent complaints from callers to my radio show is that “Bush is running a politically correct war” and refusing “to take the gloves off” in dealing with our enemies.

If the President managed to convey a new vigor and resolution in prosecuting this war – perhaps by increasing the number of troops and launching aggressive new strikes against our enemies – he could win back some of these doubters. In any event, stronger displays of toughness and determination could underline the indispensable answer (“They’d make it worse”) to the Democratic attack on the war (“Iraq is a mess.”)

While this election cycle will continue to turn on four word messages, by 2008 it’s likely that there will be only one word that matters to voters concerned with our Middle East policy: either “victory” or “defeat.”