I'm still not doing well in linking the articles to the blogsite, but I will continue to try.

Both Mickey Kaus, liberal and Fred Barnes kind of neo-con, agree that the Bushies believe that the way to go against Kerry is not to call him a Massachusetts liberal but to show that his inconsistent Senate record these many years stands in contrast to Bush's firm leadership.

Barnes admits that the Bushies cannot call Kerry inconsistent and liberal at the same time. Kaus seems to running around like a chicken without a head.

Wish they saw it my way. Bush is not consistent because he is has a steadfast vision for leading this great democracy. Bush is steadfast because Bush doesn't believe he owes his subjects any point of view.

The way to attack Bush, it says here, is to portray him as THE MAN WHO WOULD BE KING.

I leave it to the professionals to figure out loudly one can say that without being shrill. However the argument remains compelling, and I will try to continue to make the argument as we go forward.

Besides the fact that I believe the argument to be factually true, it also works tactically, because I also still believe that the Democrats performance on national security issues around Iraq leaves a lot to be desired, especially when the Republicans make the argument in the Kerry-Bush head-to-head.

Focusing on the way Bush goes about his business (and once again, the question of touch is all) insulates you from that. It allows you to draw a line from Air National Guard, to his business dealings, to the Florida election, to the repeal of the Estate tax (can't be a king without an inheritance based nobility) and the lack of a call for national commitment in so-called wartime (if all your volunteers are coming from "red" states you can wind up creating a warrior class committed to king rather than country)