Have been, shockingly for me, off line for most of the day, but I just spent some time through the usual haunts, and see, at least IMO, much too much handwringing over the silly SwiftVets. The overreaction is predictable I suppose, but actually incredibly wrong in their assessment. Whatever effect, and in my view, at MOST, it is negligible electorally, will redound STRONGLY to Kerry's favor if properly understood and used.
First, the effect. Look folks, hate to tell you, but $500,000 don't buy you much ad time relatively in a national election. It's stronger effect has been in coverage, but while this has given the charges more exposure - the Swift Vets are not exactly rolling over everybody with this -the ads are basically characterized as smears and Bush's failure to condemn them has been given prominent play.
And there's the opportunity - and a Big One. Kerry can go strongly negative now whenever he wants - the spin will be fighting back and not Dukakis. Indeed, I must say,the overreaction and handwringing over the Kerry response really helps here. Kerry can be spun as showing gonads when he goes negative - No Dukakis here.
Now where to attack with red meat? AWOL? Naw, I wouldn't do that, seems to tit for tat. Besides, Kerry already ruled that out by condemning the Move On ad, the right play IMO. Move On of course should continue to run the ad.
So on what? Those who know me must have had an idea what I will suggest - and it now makes doubly sense given Kerry's problems persuasively explaining the IWR vote - yes Iraq and WoT.
Why Iraq? To push back on the issue that has hurt him some - the IWR/Sensitive/Complexity problem.
Clear the fog Kerry. Clarify your position and kick Bush in the balls at the same time.
Bush told the country that Iraq was a grave danger to our national security because (1) Iraq had WMD and (2) Relationships with Al Qaida. The rest of the jive won't and doesn't wash. Let's face it, Americans give 2 shits about democracy in Iraq, that's a Beltway talking point. Both were false. Say that Kerry. Strongly. Repeatedly. Accusatorily - it was Bush's fault that the "intelligence" was fucked up. These falsehoods led us to believe (not us kossacks, but Americans) that Iraq was part of the WoT (it is now, it wasn't then. That way you can be "strong" on Iraq, but still blame Bush for Iraq.)
And the coup de grace - the WoT. Bush fucked up the WoT since before 9/11 - he didn't do what the C-i-C was supposed to do, keep the country safe. Instead his national security team was fixated on the "threats of the 21st Century" - ballistic missiles?!?!? Yes missile defense. Remember what Condi's speech was supposed to be about on 9/11? Yep, missile defense. And here he goes again - talking missile defense.
Bush FAILED on 9/11, he failed in Iraq, and he is, most importantly, creating a failed agenda for the next 4 years. He was not serious about the WoT prior to 9/11. He was not serious about the WoT when he misled us into Iraq, He was not serious about the WoT when he botched the Iraqi occupation. He's not serious now when he talks about missile defense and bringing the troops home from Korea.
The country is less safe now than it was. And it was because of President Bush, who has failed at the most important job a President has - keeping us safe.
Now the's time. Right after the GOP Convention. Hammer this. Hard. And Repeatedly.