But what happened today seems to be extremely good timing combined with a strategy which has been building over the last several days by none other than John Kerry's campaign - and its ferocity and swiftness just may have performed a shock-and-awe against Rove and his minions.
The timing of course is the unleashing of Kerry's ire against the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and their fronting for the Bush campaign on the day Bush decided to take his 38th brush-clearing trip to Crawford to rest up for his convention.
The lead-up to this morning's seemingly sudden outburst can now be seen as a brilliant strategy, if Mr. Kerry would like to take credit for it: Making sure he was clean of any of the flotsam and jetsam that he was going to stick on Bush. That involved the most recent deed for which Kerry got flak from the faithful: the denouncing of the MoveOn ad which attacked the Swift Boat Liars Club.
Tuesday, 8/17/04:I admit I was perplexed by Kerry's stand here. Why would he condemn anyone who came to his defense - especially the good folks of MoveOn? It sure didn't look like he'd toot his own horn at that time.
In a campaign shadowed by the war on terror, the military records of Kerry and Bush emerged again as an issue after Republican Sen. John McCain called on Kerry to denounce an ad that accuses Bush of using family connections to avoid the Vietnam War.
McCain, a decorated Vietnam veteran with the reputation of a political maverick, had called on Bush two weeks ago to condemn an ad in which several veterans accused the Kerry of fabricating his war record.
The White House has declined to denounce that ad. Kerry, mindful of McCain's political clout, issued a conciliatory statement minutes after the Arizona senator told the Associated Press he wanted Kerry to condemn the anti-Bush ad.
"I agree with Senator McCain that the ad is inappropriate," Kerry said in a statement released by his campaign. "This should be a campaign of issues, not insults."
Well, today, we see the brilliance of the move. After giving Bush two days for his condemnation to marinate and respond in kind - a no-win situation for Bush if there ever was one - Kerry dealt the Bush campaign a charge which the administration now has to address...that the Swift Boat campaign is a Republican-financed attack group, condoned wholeheartedly by the White House. Their whimpers of "we acknowledge Mr. Kerry's military service" and "we don't like 527s" are not addressing the charges, and they're pitifully meager responses. Very unRovian if you ask me.
But whoa - Bush is on vacation. Looks like he's not going to get a lot of speechwriting or brush clearing done now, does it? Kerry laid down a speedbump in that little project.
_______________
That said, there's one other thing from early last week unexplained: the "voting for the war" imbroglio. Unexplained until now, that is - thanks to political comrade-in-arms and my good friend Jer.
You remember the story. Bush challenged Kerry to give a yes-or-no answer to whether he would vote for the Iraq war resolution knowing what we know now.
Monday, 8/9/04:Many, including this site, couldn't figure that one out for the lives of us. What was so wrong with saying "no"? Nothing. But Kerry's "nuanced" answer which included the "using power more effectively" and using war as a last resort was predictably ignored by Rove, Bush and Cheney. They ran with the "yes" answer, perversely saying that Kerry agreed with their own lousy deadly decision over Iraq.
Responding to President Bush's question with several of his own, Sen. John Kerry said Monday he would have voted to authorize the war in Iraq knowing what he does now, but added that he would have used the power more effectively than the current commander in chief.
The consensus was that Kerry had blown it. Robert Scheer said it. We said it. Other blogs said it. Everyone was saying it. And Bush claimed a victory.
But one thing Kerry didn't do was sway his support. His base still stuck with him. And Bush's base stuck with Bush. And this is where Jer's strategic thinking comes into play: It was a performance for the still-undecideds - and maybe, just maybe a well-tailored one at that.
Humor me by entertaining this scenario:Look, none of us are advocates of giving the Bush thugs a scintilla of ammo, and for a few days, this episode did. But in the long run, those of us on this side of the political spectrum - myself included - need to step back and see the phenomenon of swing voters this election year for what it is.
Assume the pundits, soothsayers, your in-laws and Kerry's campaign pollsters are right: The election is going to be decided by a relative handful of voters in the swing states.
The male voters in this group tend to be more ambivalent about the war; while they may question it, their patriotic instincts (or stubborn ignorance) won't allow them to come out and outright oppose it.
By contrast, the female voters in this group are less ambivalent; more of them oppose the war outright.
Do you suppose this might explain Kerry's recent 'waffling' on a campaign tour devoted largely to reaching those same (male) voters -- and why Teresa seems to have taken a much tougher anti-war stance (appealing to women) on the same trip? And could this hyper-targeted campaigning be the very reason Kerry is opening a lead in those crucial states?
What we think is irrelevant in such targeted campaigning. Rightly or wrongly, our votes are largely being taken for granted. Consider the above not in the light of your conscience and beliefs, but in the cold, hard light of electoral reality -- that's where the battle is being waged.
Scheer speaks well for more liberal blue state voters, but I'd argue he's suffering from myopia when it comes to the small percentage of swing voters who will decide the election -- and our future.
The fact that there are "swing voters" in the first place should send us all a signal that Bush, in almost four years, has not sold himself effectively to this section of America. They've seen what he can do, and they're still ambivalent about him. It's a giant hole in Bush's plan to get back in the White House, and he knows it. What all this also says is that these voters still need to learn who John Kerry is and what he brings to the table.
His carefully chosen - "nuanced" - words about Iraq are crafted for them. Not us Kerry voters. And certainly not Bush voters. For swing voters. And if Jer's theory has any traction, what Kerry's been saying this past month has planted the seeds of knowledge.
We do know this: what has happened in the last three days alone has rocketed the image of Kerry's bravery and resolve miles beyond that of the scared little man who sat frozen in a Florida classroom while America was under attack.
Between the two, who would YOU trust? I thought so.
