Out of the fury of this year's presidential campaign, I will certainly remember the "Fahrenheit 9/11" footage of President Bush addressing very wealthy fund-raising dinner guests. Commenting that some people would characterize the attendees as the elite, he joked that, instead, "I call you my base!"

I remember it every time I ponder what prompts Bush's campaign to raise issues on which his own record is weak.

Why did Republicans go after Sen. John Kerry's legitimate war record, knowing that Bush's record could only embarrass him? Didn't they assume that information about the Bush record would become public discussion again?

Why did Bush make an issue out of terrorism, when so many anti-terrorism strategists, several former generals and military leaders have stated that his Iraq war has diverted attention and resources from our nation's security and made us more vulnerable to terrorism? Did he think his critics would stop saying it out loud?

Why does he promote his vision for education, when he has frozen Pell Grant funding amounts for students, when this year his budget requested $9.4 billion less for the No Child Left Behind Act than that law requires?Why did he talk about his tax plan when his tax plan has blatantly served the wealthiest citizens at the expense of the very middle class he's courting?

Why would he have fought funding for conservation programs, depleted the Superfund program that cleans up the worst toxic sites, fought air and water pollution regulations of every kind, cut funding for national parks, and then claim to protect the environment?

Overall, why would Bush raise issues that are sure to backfire if people look at the facts?

The cynical answer is that facts don't govern the outcome of the debate. The Bush campaign is deploying the marketing principle that if you repeat any message enough, people begin to perceive it as true. It doesn't have to be true, just be said persuasively and said over and over.

As much as we'd like to believe that campaign finance restrictions work, clearly, once again, deep pockets are dictating this election. Both candidates have raised an unholy amount of money for this year's campaign, exceeding half a billion dollars by the end of July.

When I read this week that baseball franchise owners are ginning up for Bush at $200,000 a shot, I didn't have to wonder where that money will go. It will pay for an earnest-sounding voice to take this president's factual record of working against the interests of the middle class and poor, against the environment, against children's education, and against our nation's security, and say in reassuring tones that this president is working for us in every way that he's not.

The brazenness of the false representations in the Bush campaign hit their peak with the creation of the Kerry "flip-flop" ads. But thanks to the repetition of that message over and over, it is not only their most cynical strategy, it may be their most effective.

Fortunately, the truth is not irrelevant. It just requires repeating more often than the phony claims in the Bush campaign. There are times when I'm furious with Kerry. Not for the positions he takes, but for the flak he has so far taken too willingly.

When Kerry speaks in Madison today, I hope to hear a more pointed and aggressive response to a president whose actual performance requires such extensive rewriting and reconstructing. But Kerry should learn from the Bush campaign that the key is repeating the message over and over.

At the end of July, Kerry's campaign had raised more than $300 million. The proper response to the Bush campaign's astonishing claims is for Kerry to hire a dulcet voice to start saying the truth about Bush, and then say it over and over and over.

Margaret Krome of Madison writes a semimonthly column for The Capital Times. E-mail: mkrome@inxpress.net

Copyright 2004 The Capital Times

###