WTF is going on here? What exactly is going on in the minds of the Republicans who have been attacking Kerry for being "inconsistent" about whether he threw medals or ribbons away in a Vietnam protest? There's hardly been any other story in the conservative blogs this week, but I am totally mystified as to what people hope to achieve.

There are a number of reasons why this line of attack has me scratching my head:

1. The vast majority of people--including military and ex-military--aren't going to see medals vs. ribbons as an important difference . If you're going to attack someone for being "inconsistent," then it should be an important inconsistency. This is a bit like: "You said you had Cheerio's for breakfast, but was it really Oaty-O's?" "Well, it might have been the store brand. They were round and crunchy and made of oats." "So now you're saying maybe you didn't actually have Cheerio's for breakfast. The American People won't stand for this wishy-washy waffling!"

2. The broader effect is to keep reminding people that Kerry actually did fight in Vietnam, and was a highly decorated veteran, whereas both Bush and Cheney managed to avoid being drafted. I have no issue with what people did 30 years ago to avoid being killed in a pretty stupid war, but Kerry clearly has the moral high ground here. So why do Republicans insist on bringing up an issue which can only hurt them? Are they masochistic? Do they secretly hope to lose in November? This makes no sense!

3. At a time when Iraq is about as unpopular now as Vietnam was then , why does it make sense for Republicans to talk about Vietnam at all? Is this some sort of baby-boomer-last-gasp-angst? I've got news, folks: Anyone under the age of 45 doesn't really remember or care about Vietnam. For us, raising the issue is like a little history lesson. As in, "Oh yeah, last time we got into a big foreign war, it was a giant mess and a huge mistake. That was before my time, but remind me again what we're doing in Iraq?"

4. At the same time Republicans are busy reminding everyone that Kerry won three Purple Hearts (if the Kerry campaign kept bringing it up, it would seem boastful), they're also reinforcing the Democratic message that the Republicans don't fight fair. Of course, nobody fights fair, but if you're going to play into your opponent's hands, you might as well do it with an issue which matters.

Let's get real. If you want an issue to attack Kerry with, there are tons of others to choose from. How about the fact than Sony makes a robot with more charisma and soul? Or the fact that Kerry, Democrat And Man Of The People, married into a family fortune worth more than the entire Bush re-election warchest? But you don't go and attack your opponent right where he's strongest. That's lunacy! That's like the knight on horseback charging at full gallop....straight into the thickest part of the castle wall. The guys on the wall snicker, and send someone out to clean off the stain.

All this makes me think that the Republican strategists think they're pretty bad dudes, but in reality they're more like King Arthur and his knights in Monty Python's Quest for the Holy Grail. They simply don't realize how stupid they look to people outside the Washington D.C. echo-chamber.

[Postscript: Of course, you can run a really stupid campaign and still win. Kerry hasn't exactly covered himself in glory this week, either.]