[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?

[thoughtomator]

If the meme is out there that Kerry might have voted to assassinate Senators, or even that he was involved with people who would, believe you me that's going to resonate with swing voters.

Anyone who, like you or me, is going to make a rational analysis of the issues that are important to them before casting their vote, is going to vote Bush here anyway.

There's a large mass of people who absorb every meme that's in the public consciousness, excrete the parts that are subliminally indigestable, and decide to vote based on what's left over. And there are plenty of people who purport to make rational decisions, but also are influenced to some degree by the political meme-stream.

That's why the Democrats have resorted to this constant stream of lies, to insert the Bush=liar and appeasement=safety memes, among others, into the political stream, and why, on any and all of their issues, substance and truth are not important. Just getting the idea repeated, Goebbels-style, is what is important to them.

[afraidfortherepublic]

And then he'll say "it didn't happen, did it", which would only "confirm" the wisdom of him acting as a "moderating influence".

Let's see, they "character assassinated" Senator John Tower in a confirmation hearing -- the only person ever nominated at Secretary of Defense who was not confirmed in the history of the Senate. Then he was killed in a plane crash not very long after. I suppose those are just isolated incidents, but it's sort of spooky, I think. I've forgotten the time-line and how much space there was between the "plot" and Tower's death.

[Bonaparte]

Heck, he could turn the whole thing around and claim that he stayed involved precisely to stop such irresponsible behavior.

It's too late for that. He already claimed that he wasn't even there at the Kansas City meeting, that he withdrew from VVAW. His spokesman has now had to admit that he was there, but if he was so intent on "staying involved" to "stop" the conspiracy, how is it that he would forgot something like that? Such a claim by Kerry would not be believable.

And then he'll say "it didn't happen, did it", which would only "confirm" the wisdom of him acting as a "moderating influence".

As has been pointed out on this thread and elsewhere, one of the intended victims of the conspiracy, Senator Stennis, was in fact shot. By whom is not known, but it would militate against any claim by Kerry that he somehow succeeded in being that "moderating influence." Quite a coincidence, that Stennis got shot not too long after the KC meeting, wouldn't you say?