The Party of 35 Years Ago

There is one thing that this election season has made absolutely clear: the Democratic Party is hopelessly mired in a time warp with a focal point of about 35 years ago.

The 60's liberals in the leadership of the Democratic Party, including their standard bearer John Kerry, have had their entire worldview shaped by the Vietnam War. They didn't learn the right lessons from it and they can't let go of it.

There is less than two months to go until a Presidential election and their candidate, who they raced to in a primary season coronation because he was the "electable" candidate, is flagging in the polls. States that were considered too close to call, or battleground states, are settling into the Bush column. They watched their opponent, the sitting President of the United States, wind up an enormously successful party convention with a riveting speech that laid out an agenda for a second term centered on the War on Terror overseas and the "Ownership Society" at home.

So what do the Democrats want to talk about? Vietnam. Vietnam. Vietnam. 35 years ago. They have a solid 4 talking point plan:

1. Praise John Kerry's service as a war hero. John Kerry at the convention: "I'm John Kerry - reporting for duty".

2. Praise John Kerry's conviction as a war protestor.

3. Attack Dick Cheney's military status during the Vietnam War. "I guess I'll let the voter's decide whether 5 deferrments makes you more qualified than two tours of duty".

4. Attack, for the 4th time, George Bush's service in the National Guard. Accuse him of getting special favors. Accuse him of being AWOL.

There are many problems with this approach. I'll just point out three.

1. George Bush's status 35 years ago is irrelevant. As people pointed out on talking head shows this week, the time to bring this all up (and they did) was 4 years ago. Britt Hume nailed it today on Fox News Sunday when he observed that the only reason you examine a candidate's military service is to predict what kind of Commander-in-Chief he might potentially make. We don't need to guess with Bush - he's already been Commander-in-Chief for 4 years. You either like his record and will vote for him or you don't like it and you won't. You don't have to read 35 year old memos like tea leaves to divine how he might act. As he said in his convention - "You know where I stand".

2. John Kerry - who still has to prove his ablity to act in an Executive office - his record of 35 years ago is relevant as a predictor of command behavior and is not favorable. He challenged America to ask his "band of brother" about his heroism and 254 of his fellow Swiftboat Veterans stepped up and labelled him unfit for command. And the more times they replay his antiwar testimony from 1971, the harder it is to spin his Jane Fonda-ish treason into a heroic act of conscience with most viewers.

3. This tactic is forcing a schizophrenia on Kerry's supporters who have to argue simultaneously that:

a. of course John Kerry is a war hero and being a war hero for 4 months in Vietnam is so noble that it trumps everything including Kerry's own 20 year Senate career and

b. of course John Kerry was telling the truth when he testified that American soldiers, including himself, committed war crimes on a daily basis at all levels of command and that our country sent the "army of Gengis Khan" to rape and pillage the countryside in a losing effort for a dishonorable cause.

Which is it? And how do you make both arguments without your head spinning on your shoulders?

So, Democrats. Keep going. Keep refighting the Vietnam War. Stay locked in a time warp 35 years ago. And I'll keep watching Bush's poll numbers climb and watch more blue states (Dem) change to red states (Rep) on the electoral college map.