John Kerry has been calling on President Bush to condemn the 527 group that has been criticizing his Vietnam War service record. He probably didn't expect Bush to respond positively, but now Kerry has to deal with much more than he bargained for. Bush has raised him one. He asked Kerry today to join him in condemning and fighting against all 527 groups. The one quote I heard on CNN was that he said he meant all of them when a reporter asked if he meant to include Swift Boat Vets for Truth.
I think Kerry's words have now backfired. I don't expect Kerry to accept the offer, of course, since he's got far more 527s in service of his cause than Bush does, and they have far more money behind them. This will make him appear to be self-serving (which he probably will be) as well as not really being serious in his call to remove such forces as Swift Boat Vets for Truth from the campaign.
Yet if he joins Bush, he'll appear to be conceding to Bush rather than having the moral high ground that he wanted to be able to present himself as having. Not only that, but he'd have to give up all this free advertizing he's been encouraging this month through not running any ads for the whole month, not that there's a lot of it left, but George Soros and his empire have too much money ready to be spent on behalf of Kerry for him to want to lose it to save face here. As usual, Bush's poker playing skills have gained him the advantage in a situation that looked to some as potentially damaging.
One Hand Clapping has more, though he also has an extremely strange argument that this is all Bush's fault for not vetoing a bill that has restricted most such political speech but allowed only this thin sliver. If he had vetoed the bill, there wouldn't have been less of this. There would have been more of it, and not vetoing a bill that creates restrictions doesn't cause such speech to come into existence, nor does it count as creating the groups. It simply means his signature didn't force another version of the bill that could have been more repressive of political speech, as most conservatives would put it. So Sensing's argument is extremely strange in more than one way.