[mburbank]

Yep. While equally cynical and desperate, this at very least has some tiny logic behind it.

The idea is that his bravery in the war is outweighed by his activism against it, ie. he did more damage to American Soldiers as a whole by protesting than good to any individual he might have saved.


Actually, I think it counts for him twice. He was patriotic enough to serve and brave enough to risk personal safety for a cause he didn't agree with. Then he was brave enough to stand up for his beliefs and try to bring the war to a close so more people wouldn't have to mke the same sacrafices.

All of that was a long time ago, and to me, not such a big issue now. I think that by insisting on examining Kerry's life in the seventies, the Republican's are shooting temselves in the foot. It invites comparison with a hard drinking frat boy who can't prove he competed his service in the national guard and then 'worked it out' with the army so he could quit early and go to business school. W would be far better served by comparing his adult self to Kerry's adult self. If I were a Republican strategist, I would try to mke the argument that W is growing as a person, while Kerry is shrinking. I don't buy that for an instant, but at least it's arguable.