President Bush likes describing himself as a "war president." No wonder - as Commander-in-Chief, he enjoys a huge advantage in the campaign.
If Sen. Kerry has any edge, it’s that he fought in Vietnam while Bush ducked the war. So if you are Karl Rove or the Republican National Committee, your job is to counter that.
How? Well, you cannot change the facts but you can make the contrast less sharp. Dull it. Reduce its impact. Move it off center-stage.
The RNC is doing that, first, by suggesting that Kerry’s stand against the Vietnam War after he returned undermined the troops still in harm’s way. (As if bringing them home was not in the best way to save them.)
Secondly, it is raising questions about whether he really did throw away his medals.
I suspect they hope to fog and confuse the issue to the point where voters say, "Hey, that’s history. Who cares about Vietnam? Let’s talk about today’s issues."
That would effectively blunt the issue, taking off the table the contrast between Kerry’s meritorious service and Bush’s …well, Bush’s flight from the possibility of Vietnam combat, his use of his father’s influence to jump the line to enroll in the "champagne" unit of the Texas Air National Guard.
And the strategy seems to be working.
A few weeks ago, the Albuquerque Journal’s favorite Hispanic columnist, Texan Ruben Navarrette Jr., wrote a piece saying Vietnam era stuff is irrelevant.
Today, Trever’s Journal cartoon makes the same point. In doing so, it contrasts Kerry’s medals with Bush’s Guard attendance. No mention of George’s Vietnam-dodging.
Also today, in the AP report that Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D, NJ) called VP Cheney the "lead chickenhawk," there’s a reference to whether George W. fulfilled his Guard responsibilities. But no reference to the President’s evasion of Vietnam.
If I were Rove or the RNC, I’d be pleased.