No one seems to be writing opinion pieces quite the way I would, so I decided to do it myself.

The name? Taverns are places where one goes to discuss the interesting events and things in the world, so this is my tavern.

I will offer my views on politics, economics, and whatever else strikes my fancy.
I will occasionally publish the entire article from another journal for purposes of causing discussion.

Kerry denounces the MoveOn Ad against Bush's use of his father's friends to get an Air National Guard slot.

MoveOn has presented a hard-hitting advertisement that attacks Bush for his use of his fathers’ friends to get into a Texas Air National Guard pilot’s slot over many much better qualified candidates.
https://www.moveonpac.org/donate/swiftresponse.html

Now Kerry has denounced that ad. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/18/politics/campaign/18ads.html at the suggestion of John McCain.

A lot of people seem to think that Kerry is making a mistake by not acting as Bush has with the Swift Boat controversy. Bush has stated that he condemns the actions of the Swift Boat Liars, but he is not asking them to pull their attack ads. The argument of Kerry's critics is that negative ads work, and Kerry should take the battle to Bush.

I disagree.

Kerry’s action clearly differentiates him from Bush in a very positive manner.

Bush is desperate, and I think that his efforts to flail around attempting to attack Kerry has (slowly) had a more negative effect on himself than on Kerry. That's always a risk with a negative campaign, but I think that Kerry's responses are making it a lot more of a problem for Bush.

The question is how a politician shows that he is a better choice than an incumbent who states what sound like popular political goals, then either doesn’t try to accomplish them or is incompetent at doing so.

The answer is that you have to let the incumbent act. Then you have to let the results of his own actions become clear.

Only after that can you step in and translate for the people who haven't picked up on the failures of Bush's efforts.

Watch and learn. I think that Kerry's apparent failure to conduct an immediate, war-room type counter attack is driving the Bushies nuts. Bush’s great strength in this campaign, as it was in 2000, is his willingness to use negative attacks on Kerry.

Kerry is using Bush’s apparent strength against him. The Bush people know how to deal with a Clinton-type war-room immediate response, but they can't handle the judo approach that Kerry is using, letting Bush use his own efforts to defeat himself.

The result is that Bush and his people are getting more desperate and looking more shrill as the election gets closer. Kerry is largely getting them to defeat themselves. But that is what an election against an incumbent is all about.

I'm not completely certain, but I think that is what is happening here. It wouldn't have worked as well against Bush 41 because he was capable of subtlety. This crew relies a great deal more on brute force type attacks, so is more vulnerable to this type of opposition.