Rove to Kerry: Go for the Kill (While Fixing Your Flip Flops)

John,

The second major event that has branded you as a flip-flopper (to review the first event, click here) was when you said that knowing what you know today, you'd still vote for the authority to go to war.

I know, I know, this was supposed to be about you not flip-flopping. It doesn't matter. The fact is, they turned it against you.

You need to not only turn this around in your favor, but you need to go for the kill within the speech defending your statement. Remember: Americans are more accepting of an attack if it's in the context of an explanation. Let's kill two birds with one stone here: Let's clarify your position on the vote for authorization, and at the same time, introduce a devastating character attack on "W:"

"Let's stop this flip-flop spin right here, right now: I voted for the authorization to go to war because I believe that the President of the United States needs to have the authority to do what needs to be done to protect America. I would vote for authorization again today because I will want this same authorization when I'm President."

[OK. Flip-flop fixed. Now go in with the kill. The "kill" in this case is an overarching indictment on W's character. And, as you'll see, we're weaving in some unseemly aspects of his personal history to make the point that much stronger...]

"However, it seems that this President has a history of abuse: He abused my authorization to go to war by going too quickly, too recklessly, too unprepared, too alone, too resented by the world, and too cock-sure that he could never make a mistake. He abused the relationships with our allies, and he abused the trust that America gave him after 9/11.

I am running for President because this George Bush abused my authorization and lost the people's trust in his ability to lead us to peace and prosperity. President Bush, you had every opportunity to keep America's trust after 9/11, but if you abuse it, you lose it."

Yes, we're going for the jugular here: we're using the word "abuse" intentionally because it not-so-subtly ties into W's history of alcohol abuse. It's the same thing he's doing to you with the flip-flopping label. If everything you do is flip-flopping, then everything he does is abusive. Seems only fair to me. Hey, this is Kerry's Karl Rove, not Kerry's Dick Gephardt.

Will it be effective? Absolutely. If people start seeing "W" as a President with a history of abuse and see all of his foreign policy maneuvers through the lens of a long-term pattern of abuse (alcohol...power... it's all part of the pattern), then everything he does is seen through this new, very unbefitting-a-President filter.

This kind of messaging could change the entire dynamic of the race, John. Consider this very carefully.

And remember, all of this attacking of W's character is built into a defending of your character. So, none of this will be seen as an outright attack. It will be seen as a man who is defending his honor and integrity, and Americans like that in a leader. Especially these days.