[crushkerry]

Rove isn't going to bring it up because of the reasons you mention. However, the press and grassroots orgs. like ours can do the job for him - leaving him "deniability". Also, the more fires it creates for them to put out the better.

But most importantly, this isn't something that was made up out of whole cloth. It's based in fact from the actual people who were there and comes from verifiable sources.

[XJarhead]

I still think it hurts more than it helps. You win elections by convincing the swing voters, and those folks simply are not going to buy into blaming Kerry because a group he was affiliated with contemplated killing senators, and he argued against it. What it does is discredit the other, more plausible grounds we have on which to attack him.

Heck, he could turn the whole thing around and claim that he stayed involved precisely to stop such irresponsible behavior. And then he'll say "it didn't happen, did it", which would only "confirm" the wisdom of him acting as a "moderating influence".

Try bouncing this off a swing voter, not a Freeper, and see how far it gets. That was part of the problem with Clinton. Some of the attacks were so over the top that they prevented the good ones from sticking. It became "that's just those nasty Republicans again".

I think his testimony before Congress in 1971 is a great avenue because it shoes that he gave sworn testimony without having any personal knowledge of the underlying facts. He misled Congress and the American people. And gee, where have we heard that charge before?