Losing a price war

It is axiomatic in business that you never start a price war with a competitor who has a cost advantage. If you do, and they engage, they will drive prices below your cost, perhaps long enough to run you right out of business. Common sense, eh? You would certainly think so.

On the political front, a similar concept applies. Never sling mud if there is a chance it can come back at you and stick on your face. And never, never falsely accuse your opponent of something you have provably done yourself. The truth will catch up with you every time.

Enter John Kerry. Here is a candidate who understands the adage, if you say it long enough and loud enough, people will tend to believe it. Hence, he and his fellow Leftists accuse President Bush of all manner of wrongdoing.

The corollary adage is, it ain't necessarily so. If one side presents facts and logic that support its story, then the other side is likely to lose. What goes around comes around.

Just the other day, Kerry blamed Bush for a 17% increase in Medicare premiums. He failed to mention the increase was scheduled by legislation passed in 1997, when Bush was in Texas. And the blowback is the fact that John Kerry was in the Senate and voted for that very same increase.

What goes around comes around.

Back in communist China's Cultural Revolution, it was a crime simply to be accused of a crime. That appears to be the mentality of today's Left. Bush is accused of being a slacker during his National Guard days. No actual evidence supports this theory, save a few forged documents proffered by CBS News. But Bush is certainly guilty of being accused, isn't he? So Dan Rather demands Bush answer the questions raised by the forged documents.

On the other hand, self-admitted, treasonous criminal activity by Kerry during those same years apparently carry no weight at all. Not to the Left, who make up Kerry's core supporters and who fully approve of his Vietnam-era anti-American behaviour.

So they escalate the price war.

You would think someone from Harvard would be capable of learning from experience, but his entire campaign speaks of another reality-- that John Kerry is a remedial case, who simply cannot think clearly. He started a political price war he cannot possibly win.

The accusations about Bush's military service drone on. Bush signed the now-famous form 180, authorizing release of all military records, waiving all privacy rights. John Kerry has never signed that form. Stubborn facts sometimes have to be hidden.

Bush is accused of being a "deserter", "AWOL", or a "coward". Based on what? Allegations from forged documents? In the meantime, Kerry himself has confessed to committing war crimes in Vietnam. He also admits meeting with the enemy, while still an officer in the United States Navy. That would be a federal crime, of course. Now weigh the two: unsubstantiated accusations of being a "slacker", versus self-admission of treasonous criminality.

The Swift Boat Vets, some 200 plus of them, provided eyewitness accounts that suggest John Kerry is something other than the war hero he pretends to be. Not one of their allegations have been disproven, of course. The Kerry camp simply accuses the Swifties of being liars. No factual rebuttal, just "liars". Meanwhile, American voters are increasingly agreeing with the Swifties, and Kerry's voter support continues to erode.

But this does not deter the Left. They insist on escalating the price war, despite increasing polling evidence this is costing them votes and gains them nothing. Voters clearly don't want a president who cannot overcome his obsession with a war we fought thirty years ago, but Kerry and his Left drone on.

What is it they call someone who keeps doing the same thing over and again, while expecting a different result?