Most of what I know of Dubya I learned in the last four years. For some reason everytime I looked at the strategy used by 43, that old Kenny Rogers song "You got to know when to hold 'em" kept running through my head.
That artice Chris references set me to thinking. If Bush wanted to destroy Kerry what could he do. First of all he would not do it until Kerry had the nomination sewed up.
How could Bush destroy him? What if Kerry and the Democrats accused Bush of 5 bad things. And It went on until nearly everyone believed Kerry was telling the truth. Then what if Bush introduced evidence that convinced everyone Kerry was wrong or lying on those five issues. Kerry's credibility would be destroyed.
Bush said with no equivication in the inteview that he did all his training. He also said that all the records were gone. You know if the Records Existed proving bush did not train, Gore would have leaked them in 2000. As commander in Chief bet the farm Clinton had every Bush record that could be found in his office.
A few years ago I wanted to join the American Legion. I had to prove my active duty service. I do know that info is retained. But I doubt if all info is retained.
However if I had to prove when I trained, I would just look up the guys with whom I served. Bush is an extrovert. I am not. But if I had to prove service, I could find 15 guys I trained with to tesify that I trained when I was supposed to do so. I wonder if President Bush has that up his sleeve. It would be like him to let it build and then show Kerry is trying to lie to the public as 5 old National Guard buddies who haven't seen Dubya in 35 years go to the media in Alabama with pictures and memories of training with Dubya on those faitful dates.
The conventional wisdom is you must answer charges as soon as they are made. That is what every Dick Morris will tell you. Kerry has no doubt heard that stearling advice. But you only need to do that if the charges against you are true.....as in "I never had sex with that woman.. Ms Lewinski." If charges arent true and you can prove it, it might be better to let your opponents harp on the false charges. Especially if you have 200 million bucks to spend on ads that can prove your innocence. Doing ti after Kerry has the nomination using paid ads would bypass the news media and let Bush make the case Bush's way .. not the media's way. The more times your opponent accuses you, the more damage your proof of innocence will be to his credibility.
I also would bet that the Iraq situation will not be the deciding factor in the election. The war is a big deal to the left and the right... It is not a big deal to the center. The center is self centered. They vote on likability and how does an issue effect me. The war does not effect those in the center. We have a volunteer service. The ECONOMY does effect the center.
If Kerry keeps harping on Nam and and Iraq, he may not learn IT IS THE ECONOMY STUPID until it is too late.
Oh and how did Russert get the interview? First he had to ask someone in the White House. It was certainly not Bush directly. The first question out of the mouth of whom ever Russert asked is, "What do you want to ask him about?" Bet the farm that Bush knew in general what he was going to be asked before he agreed to the interview.
I would say Bush wanted to be hammered on Iraq, and Russert accomidated him.
One thing in Washington very little is exactly how it seems. And when a president does a one on one interview someone had to play ball to get the interview.
This was a big deal for Russert and Meet the Press. We just don't know what the deal was... I would bet there was a deal.
-PJ