Terry McAuliffe came right out and said it and John Kerry alluded to it. The DNC position, from the mouth of McAuliffe, is that the service of those who choose to serve in the National Guard is somehow inferior to those who enlist in the active armed services. This has to come as a stinging slap in the face to the National Guard personnel who are deployed in Iraq at this very moment. From this one instance it is clear how the Democrats plan to wage their campaign against George W. Bush, the McAuliffe way.

McAuliffe, Chairman of the Democratic National Committee is an amazing fundraiser, this cannot be denied. To that effect he has done the Democratic Party well. But along with his fundraising prowess comes his habit of creating stories where there are none and making wild accusations for shock value. His assertion that George W. Bush "never served in our military and our country,” is so absurd that many will laugh it off but it sets the stage for lesser absurdities to pass the gate of rationale. It can be argued that McAuliffe "reached” for this one to help spotlight Kerry’s service years, as if Kerry’s repeated underscoring of his record hadn’t already achieved the goal.

The Internet rumormongers and innuendo-shoppers are enjoying their day in the sun with the story about President Bush being AWOL when ordered to report for duty in the Alabama Air National Guard. The fact of the matter is George W. Bush received an honorable discharge, albeit early, from the Texas Air National Guard and in order to qualify for an honorable discharge one has to fulfill the point obligations that are required, end of story, no ifs, ands or buts. An honorable discharge means that requirements were met and service was rendered. Of course none of this has anything to do with being the President of the United States but the DNC is going to try and persuade the public otherwise.

It is curious that military service wasn’t an important issue for McAuliffe back in 1992 when Bill Clinton was running against George H.W. Bush. In that match-up the war hero was the incumbent and the one with absolutely no military service was the challenger. Back then it didn’t matter that Bill Clinton actually did dodge the draft. In fact, it didn’t matter that he and his then girlfriend Hillary Rodham used to actively protest against the war and denounce the military while our service men and women were serving and dying in the fields of Vietnam. Back in 1992 it was about the need for change and military service didn’t matter in the selection of who would be the best choice for president. My, how times change for Mr. McAuliffe.

John Kerry. Meanwhile, has been very careful not to "officially” join the fray. He keeps saying things like this statement he made to Fox News:

"I’ve never made any judgments about any choice somebody made about avoiding the draft, about going to Canada, going to jail, being a conscientious objector, going into the National Guard. Those are choices people make.”

His statements teeter very close to the accusation but stops just short. He has consistently denied that he has asked others to act as surrogate in the spreading of these accusations although common sense mandates that he would reap any benefit, should there be any. But will there be any? History says there won’t be.

When the Gore camp alluded to military service as an issue in 2000 the tactic backfired. For all the effort that was put into the spin that George W. Bush went AWOL for a year there were no benefits. The American public understood that an honorable discharge is an honorable discharge, again no ifs, ands or buts. The American people too realized that the Vietnam Era was a different time with a different set of circumstances. In hindsight even John Kerry himself realized that it was an unjust war and thusly had the courage to speak out against it when the majority of the US population took a dim view of veterans denouncing their brethren. The fact that fate kept George W. Bush from fighting in a war that has been characterized as a war of Lyndon Johnson’s failed political ideology should be a bonus not a detriment.

Therein lays the "McAuliffe Gamble.” The question has to be asked, why would McAuliffe risk alienating the voters who serve or have served in the National Guard? He, more than anyone, should know that in a tight race every vote counts. One needs only to look at Florida in 2000 to understand the value of the single vote. Yet he maintains that serving in the National Guard is not being in the military and not serving your country, or at least he contends this in George W. Bush’s case, which would make his accusations selective. That wouldn’t be a first for McAuliffe.

One has to wonder if McAuliffe deep down hates those who serve our country. Let’s face it, the DNC and the Gore campaign tried to exclude absentee ballots from our military men and women from Florida in the 2000 recount. That action would have denied those serving of their most basic right under our Constitution. I am going to guess not but it does validate one thought about Terry McAuliffe and the Democratic Party, they will do and say anything, and I mean anything, to win. Even if it means besmirching the service of those who serve in our National Guard or trying to keep the votes of our service men and women from being counted at the polls.

That said it is a disturbing day when people in our great country even consider electing a nominee from an organization that would embrace the scorched earth tactics of Terry McAuliffe. The DNC and especially John Kerry should get rid of him before it is too late. The clock is ticking.

Frank Salvato is a political media consultant and the managing editor for The New Media Journal.us. He is a contributing writer for The Washington Dispatch, GOPUSA, OpinionEditorials, Men’s News Daily, Canada Free Press & AmericanDaily. His pieces are regularly featured in Townhall.com. He has appeared as a guest on The O’Reilly Factor, The Kevin Matthews Radio Show (Chicago) and The Brad Messer Radio Show (San Antonio). His pieces have been recognized by the Japan Center for Conflict Prevention and are occasionally featured in The Washington Times and The London Morning Paper as well as other national and international publications.