 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
||
 |
||||||||
Rudy Giuliani’s started running this attack ad against Barack Obama, making it clear that your sleeping children will be raped and beheaded by Muslims should the Illinois senator become president:
What? Oh, right. The ad actually comes from the Clinton campaign.
I’ve been making the argument for a little while now (btw: you can now read my old Atlantic piece on this for free, since they opened up their archives): the Democrats’ key to victory in 2008 is the interior West.
And, so, along comes some interesting polling data from Rasmussen out of Colorado. It should be clear to anyone watching the primary results that Obama is the strongest Democratic candidate in the interior West. But here are some numbers: He’d start out the race with a seven-point, 46-39 percent, advantage over John McCain. Hillary? She’d start down 14 points. 35-49 percent.
Just something for all those superdelegates to think about.
(via Sullivan)
A look at what’s wrong with superdelegates:
ABOUT half a million Democrats went to the polls on Saturday, in Louisiana, Nebraska and Washington state, handing decisive victories to Barack Obama. Some 14.6 million Democrats went to the polls Feb. 5 on Super Tuesday, including 1.7 million New Yorkers, and delivered a decision more evenly split between Obama and Hillary Clinton.
But maybe everyone should’ve just stayed home. In the end, the Democratic race may be decided not by the voters, but by 796 party powerbrokers: the superdelegates.
As a libertarian committed to the defeat of John McCain, I’ll be pissed if we’re left with Hillary Clinton as our last, best hope.
In my Post column today, I look at McCain’s continuing weakness with the base:
McCain’s strength, early on in the night, manifested itself most clearly in the northeast, where he racked up his first sound victories - that is, ones where he was able to break the 50-percent mark.
States like Connecticut, New Jersey, Illinois and New York gave the Arizona senator comfortable margins of victory over his nearest competitor in the region, Mitt Romney.
But these states don’t represent the heart of the Republican Party - they hardly ever end up painted red on election nights these days. They may represent delegates in the primary process, but they don’t tell us anything about the senator’s ability to rally the base.
In the southern states, which do make up the heart of the Republican Party, McCain found himself slogging it out with Evangelical candidate Mike Huckabee last night.
As of this writing, Arkansas had been called for Huckabee (the hometown boy, by a lot), as had Alabama, Georgia and Tennessee (by smaller margins).
The results down South once again showed McCain’s weakness with the base. In Georgia, for instance, exit polls found McCain losing conservatives (67 percent of the primary electorate) to Huckabee by 21 percent to 38 percent. In fact, McCain was third among conservatives, with Romney garnering 37 percent of their votes.
Frankly, I’m not sure this can be overcome. McCain had his chance to be conciliatory toward the right between Florida and February 5; instead, he chose to act his obnoxious, arrogant self, smirking his way through the Reagan Library debate and unveiling that appalling line about “patriotism, not profit.” McCain the underdog has its appeal (though, not to me). But McCain the frontrunner is just a disgusting spectacle.
For the first time in a long time, the GOP may actually nominate the less likable candidate this time around.
For Obama. Turnout in Brooklyn Heights? Light when I went (11-ish), but I heard it was rather heavy in the morning rush.
In my Post column this morning, I look at McCain’s win — a narrow one, once again without the conservative base, but enough:
THEY don’t like him. They re ally don’t like him. But he’s going to be their nominee.
John McCain has won yet another primary without carrying either self-identified conservatives or Republicans - at least according to the Florida exit polls, which show McCain losing self-identified Republicans by 31 percent to 33 percent for Mitt Romney. More, Romney scored a stunning 37 percent of self-described conservatives to McCain’s 27 percent.
But a win is a win - and there’s little that can stop the Straight Talk Express now.
McCain had been written off by the pundits (including me, many times, usually quite gleefully), but the media remains his base, his campaign treasure chest and his get-out-the-vote operation all wrapped up into one. His narrow victory will ring through the land as a landslide.
And, truth be told, while it’s underwhelming, it’s enough. It’s long been clear the winner of Florida would almost certainly go on to win the whole thing - and now McCain has, and he most likely will.
With Mike Huckabee staying in the race to split the conservative (and especially the southern Evangelical) vote, it’s hard to see where Romney could put together any significant number of primary victories on Feb. 5.
I also give a brief assessment of how he fares versus the two possible Dems. Short version: well against Hillary, poorly against Barack.
I’m happy enough to take my lumps on Giuliani. Forced to guess, I would have guessed he’d be the nominee, up until roughly December (after that, I wouldn’t have guessed, and still won’t).
However, the idea that I somehow thought he was inevitable is just ridiculous. While I thought it possible, perhaps even likely, that Giuliani could overcome being a pro-choice former mayor of New York City, it was never even close to inevitable or safe. There was always at least one other very plausible way for this election to go other than toward a Rudy victory: Romney could have knocked down Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina right off the bat, game over. Now, that didn’t happen, either, ultimately. But it was certainly a very easy way Rudy could have lost, and that was apparent to anyone following the campaign all through 2007. The hope for Rudy was a divided outcome in the early states. It turns out that even with that he couldn’t do it.
Again, willing to take my lumps. But c’mon.
Also, the GOP isn’t on a tear against immigrants? I seem to remember something about a giant wall. And, then, why exactly did the GOP lose roughly 15 points with Hispanic voters between 2004 and 2006? Must have been all that welcoming rhetoric toward Latinos. As for the word “bigot,” which I’ve used repeatedly to describe one side of the immigration debate, I know it’s not particularly soothing, but I’m not a politician and I don’t give a damn about protecting people’s feelings. I’ve spent enough time around the Republican base to feel quite comfortable with my word choice.
I expected the idea to be brought up that I’m just disappointed with Giuliani because he’s losing. I’d only note that, despite the perception that I’m some big Giuliani booster (I’ve never endorsed. I’m not sure that’s something I have any interest in doing.), I’ve been highly critical of the Giuliani campaign since at least last spring when he flip-flopped on civil unions. I’ve also been critical of his immigration pandering and his ugly War on Terror mongering. I was a believer in the late-state strategy; maybe that seems foolish now, but as I argued in today’s column, it was, at the very least, the best strategy available.
As to the usual charge that any argument for a socially moderate, fiscally conservative GOP (or GOP candidate) is just asking for a candidate who pleases me — well, yes, that is what most people in politics are after. The specific argument as re Rudy, however, is that he wasn’t going to win the Pat Buchanan / Mike Huckabee / Mitt Romney (version 2.0) part of the GOP base. He had to be the moderate-acceptable-to-die-hards. That is, he had to be McCain, but better (I’d argue much better, given my antipathy for McCain).
How that boils down to “He alienated Ryan Sager,” in Ramesh’s words, is beyond me. McCain’s alienated me, too, but he might actually win. Maybe Rudy could never have knocked off McCain in New Hampshire — they just love the old coot too much up there in the Granite State. But he certainly did himself no favors by failing to even fight for the ground that ought to have been his.
In today’s New York Post, I look at why Rudy Giuliani ran a campaign that deserves to lose:
TOMORROW in Florida, Rudy Giuliani will make what is expected to be his last stand of the ‘08 race. What went wrong?
As an early (2006) believer in his capacity to become this race’s frontrunner, I’d have to say that he’s run a campaign that deserves to lose.
While he focused strategically on Florida and the Feb. 5 states, he undermined this by pitching his campaign thematically to Iowa and other parts of the GOP least likely to vote for him.
My conclusion: The best thing Giuliani can do now is to bow out gracefully should he come up with anything less than a win tomorrow. He had his chance and wasted it: The least he can do now is stop wasting our time.
I’m no Clinton hater. For all his faults, Bill Clinton was a better conservative president than George W. Bush (though, yes, that has a lot to do with the Republican Congress).
But what a disgusting campaign Bill and Hillary are running against Barack Obama, with Bill today comparing Obama’s win in South Carolina to Jesse Jackson winning the Palmetto State twice. From now on, I guess, it will be “black candidate, black candidate, black candidate.”
Depressing because it will probably be effective.
My Post column today looks at the emerging one-on-one race between John McCain and Mitt Romney:
BARRING a longshot comeback by Rudy Giuliani in Florida on Jan. 29, GOP voters now face a choice between the guy they’re not sure they like, vs. the guy they’re sure they dislike - that is, a choice between conservative chameleon Mitt Romney and professional maverick John McCain.
There’s already no love lost between Romney and McCain. Their hate for each other is so pure it could wash away sin. But things are only likely to get uglier and more heated from here on in.
[W]hat utterly opposite candidacies the two men represent. The man who will say anything to please, versus the man who says anything he pleases.
It also takes a skeptical look at McCain’s supposed big win in South Carolina.
A Cornerite notices what I’ve been noticing: Immigration, despite the hype, has been essentially a non-issue in this GOP campaign once votes are cast.
See Cloverfield:
I say this not just because my friend from receSs T.J. Miller is in it — and is the funniest part of it by far as the camera man, Hud.
I say it because it’s an amazing, genre-reinventing film with (spoiler alert) a giant lizard in it.
If there’s any justice in this world, it will kick “The Bucket List” ‘ s ass.
Julian Sanchez and David Weigel take a look into who wrote Ron Paul’s notorious newsletters: Llewellyn Rockwell, Jr., along with assorted others.
It’s long been an open secret in the libertarian movement, but they seem to have nailed it down as best as possible with the main actors denying it in the face of all evidence.
The biggest surprise to me is how much money Paul was making off all of this. So, to those like Andrew Sullivan who seem to want to just forgive and forget, I’d ask: Would you give Hillary Clinton the same kind of pass if she made almost $1 million a year off of selling vile racist, anti-Semitic, and homophobic pamphlets and didn’t think the public was even owed a full accounting of this shameful chapter of her career? Wouldn’t you think she maybe even should give that money back somehow, either to the newsletters’ vile subscribers, or, better yet, to charity? Can any serious political actor keep company with respectable folk after something like this?
Can anyone really look at all of this and say, without equivocation, “Paul is not a racist”? Really?
The evidence really seems to point the other way, especially given how close Paul still is to Rockwell.
My column from this morning’s Post:
January 16, 2008 — ‘WELL, my friends, for a minute there in New Hampshire I thought this campaign might be getting easier,” John McCain started off, as he conceded to Mitt Romney last night.
They were pretty much the only words the Arizona senator managed to get out of his mouth before Romney ran him over by starting his victory speech - contrary to convention - before his opponent could even spend a few seconds on national TV brushing off the dust of ignominious defeat.
Mitt’s message: Mac is most definitely not back.
…
Perhaps Romney’s personality just appeals more to Republicans than does the sometimes cantankerous McCain’s. But Romney also had something of a revival on the campaign trail in Michigan. Talking about the woes of the auto industry, and what he promised to do to make them go away, Romney seemed passionate and animated and genuine in a way that he hadn’t before in the campaign.
Of course, a marginally more sincere Romney — one still lying to Michiganders that they’re auto industry can come back — may yet be someone for whom few of us will wish to vote. But it’s a welcome departure from the utterly horror-show-like Mitt of 2007.
Mike Huckabee wins Iowa; John McCain wins New Hampshire; Mitt Romney wins Michigan. Now, if only Fred Thompson can win South Carolina on Saturday and Rudy Giuliani can win Florida on January 29, we’ll finally have a real race on our hands.
My take in the N.Y. Post in the morning.
Here’s Huckabee this evening on the need for consitutional amendments on abortion and gay marriage:
“[Some of my opponents] do not want to change the Constitution, but I believe it’s a lot easier to change the constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God, and that’s what we need to do is to amend the Constitution so it’s in God’s standards rather than try to change God’s standards.”
Anyone who doubts that this guy’s a borderline psychotic theocon, please raise your hand.
UPDATE: Of course, K. Lo. has no problem with God’s standards being enforced on tens of millions of secular Americans and the other tens of millions of Christians and Jews who don’t agree that Huckabee and the Religious Right know God’s mind as well as they think they do.
My column, from this morning’s Post:
IT looks like this year’s primaries have put “pander bears” on the endangered-species list.
Bay State Sen. Paul Tsongas coined the phrase in 1992 to describe his Democratic primary opponent, Bill Clinton. But it’s the Republican electorate that’s punishing the fakes and frauds this year.
Just look at the Iowa and New Hampshire contests. Throughout 2007, the conventional wisdom was that the GOP base would run riot over illegal immigration. The pitchforks were being sharpened, the torches lit - the GOP candidates would have to “out-Tancredo [Rep. Tom] Tancredo,” as the nativist firebrand himself put it at a debate in late November.
As I wrote about recently here, immigration didn’t turn out to be the issue it was cracked up to be. But a lot of other types of pandering have hurt the GOP candidates this cycle as well.
Has anyone started refering to the Bill and Hillary road show as the Dynastic Duo?
If not, may I suggest it?
Over at her Dynamist blog, Virginia Postrel takes some time out to bitch slap Reason — the magazine she used to edit — for trying to use Ron Paul as a symbol of libertarianism rising, while ignoring his dark side:
I did not mean to criticize the essentially apolitical people like him and his wife [Ron Paul supporters] who heard some good things from Paul and decided to support him. …
I do fault my friends at Reason, who are much cooler than I’ll ever be and who, scornful of the earnestness that takes politics seriously, apparently didn’t do their homework before embracing Paul as the latest indicator of libertarian cachet. For starters, they might have asked my old boss Bob Poole about Ron Paul; I remember a board member complaining about Paul’s newsletters back in the early ’90s. Besides, people as cosmopolitan as Nick Gillespie and Matt Welch should be able to detect something awry in Paul’s populist appeals. (Note that by “cosmopolitan” I do not mean “Jewish.” I mean cosmopolitan.) I suspect they did but decided it was more useful to spin things their way than to take Paul’s record and ideas seriously. As for Andrew Sullivan, his political infatuations are not his strong point as a commentator.
For my own part, I’ve been more than skeptical of the Ron Paul phenomenon from the beginning — and have argued that it has next to nothing to do with libertarianism and everything to do with anti-war populism mixed with conspiracy theory-ism — but I’ve also, like Virginia, probably not invested enough energy in sounding the alarm.
Like Virginia, I disagree with Ron Paul on the war and on immigration, and I’ve never considered him the “face of libertarianism.” To many people, though, that’s probably exactly what he is. It’s a shame so many had to be taken in and that his bat-shittery will tarnish the name of an otherwise respectable strain of political philosophy.
So, to those who were taken in, some words of advice going forward. Now, perhaps I’m just ultra-sensitive to this stuff as a Jew, but when you hear a lot of talk from a group of people about “international bankers”: RUN THE OTHER FUCKING DIRECTION!!!
This was all more than foreseeable and foreseen.
On the Dem side, I’ll take comfort in numbers and having been wrong along with everyone else. It seems like all of this even took the Hillary folks by surprise. I haven’t heard a satisfactory explanation for what happened yet. So…
The Republicans
I got the order roughly right here (Rudy did finally nudge by Paul — woo-hoo!). But the magnitude wrong. A McCain blowout.
I do enjoy watching Mitt Romney fade from the stage — repugnant, principle-less little toad that he is. But I’m not about to climb aboard the McCain-is-the-frontrunner bandwagon. The press may want to crown him, but the base is going to have other ideas nationwide. Frankly, I give the once-implausible-seeming Huck a better chance at the nomination than McCain. Rudy still has a shot, I think, but will need to reboot his campaign and make a big splash between now and Florida. The question is when do Romney and Fred drop out. Thompson has zero justification for remaining in at this point; Romney has cash and a chance in Michigan, but should likewise step aside.
Let the chips fall where they may, I say at this point. I sort of have no dog and three dogs in this primary. A Huckabee win would prove every warning I gave in my book prescient. A Giuliani win, I think, would still be best for moving the party past the Bush era. A McCain win might be the best thing to keep the existing coalition together and put off tough decisions to another year (though, God help us as to what sorts of judges we would get out of McCain paired with a Democratic Senate, should he win the general).
At least one prediction from way back has come true: With open primaries on both sides, this is the most chaotic, exciting election imaginable. It also makes me reel just trying to game out the thousands of plausible scenarios moving forward.
I’ve said it a few times over the years, and it’s looking to me truer than ever tonight: Immigration is an entirely phantom issue in American politics; it’s always supposed to be the 800-pound gorilla, yet it never ends up deciding (or even strongly influencing) elections.
In a general election, it’s easy to see why this is: both parties are split in half on the issue, so nobody talks about it during the general.
In the GOP primary this year, however, it’s looked at times like it could be decisive. The GOP base is running riot over immigration, we’re told. So, why exactly are the two winners of Iowa and New Hampshire — the only winners the GOP race has so far — the two “worst” candidates, at least so far as the Lou Dobbs set is concerned? Mike Huckabee, he of “compassion” toward immigrants, runs away with Iowa. John McCain, he of “comprehensive immigration reform,” runs away with New Hampshire. Both candidates beat the tar out of “tough on immigration” (at least this week) Mitt Romney. (OK, Romney won Wyoming. Show of hands for who cares.)
Huck, of course, looks set to win South Carolina next, a state where immigration should be extremely important. And then we’re essentially into a national campaign. And, so, just what exactly did any of the candidates who have pandered so relentlessly on immigration buy themselves (here’s looking at you, Rudy)? A tougher road to hoe should they make it to the general, is all.
So, as I’ve said before, I spit on immigration as an important political issue. Candidates ought to quit getting sucked into the nativist trap. Like Ron Paul supporters, nativists yell the loudest; but it doesn’t mean they decide elections.
Great article from Jamie Kirchick over at The New Republic, detailing the years of vile newsletters put out by Ron Paul, filled with racist, anti-Semitic, anti-gay, and conspiracy theory rantings.
I truly don’t understand the Paulites’ defense that Ron Paul bears no responsibility for any of this … just because. (Read the comments to the article — as usual for the Paul brigades, they’re unhinged.)
At least Andrew Sullivan may be waking up to the fact that the Ron Paul “revolution” is a front for something much uglier than opposition to the Iraq war and defense of the Constitution.
To be clear: It doesn’t matter one bit if Ron Paul wrote any of this. It went out under his name, it reflects the views of many of his supporters, and he’s at the very least tacitly endorsed all of it for years by not denouncing it. Ron Paul doesn’t get to be judged by a lower standard because he’s a fringe candidate anymore. If Hillary Clinton, Mike Huckabee, or anyone else had stuff like this under his name, it would be a career ender. That it’s not for Ron Paul shows exactly what his supporters are all about.
UPDATE (3:59 p.m.): Here’s a page with links to PDFs of the newsletters.
UPDATE II (4:02 p.m.): Ron Paul responds. He’s denounced the newsletters before, he says. Yup. And he waited about a decade after they were published under his name to do so. Ron Paul ain’t going to be president, so it doesn’t really matter. But if he runs a third-party campaign, it will be worth revisiting.
Some more predictions ahead of tonight:
Dem:
Obama - 44
Clinton - 32
Edwards - 15GOP:
McCain - 33
Romney - 32
Huckabee - 12
Paul - 10
Giuliani - 8
My reasoning?
Reports of high Dem turnout probably mean a blowout for Obama. On the GOP side, I think McCain is wounded by the Obama surge (sucking up all the Independents), while Romney’s been fighting hard the last five days. This is an embarrassing finish for Rudy, if it comes to pass, and it’s happening in a northeastern state. While I still think the late-state strategy was the smartest he could have pursued, he needed to invest in New Hampshire enough to place; he didn’t.
Mike Huckabee uses bizarre Evangelical code words.
My Post column this morning gives a breakdown of Iowa:
IOWA is one strange bag of corn. First off, only one candidate has ever won the Iowa caucus and gone on to win the presidency in the same year: George W. Bush. Second: Various candidates who don’t win the caucus are liable to find reason for cheer. On the GOP side last night, while Mike Huckabee certainly has plenty to celebrate, they were also cheering over at John McCain and Rudy Giuliani headquarters. This is a three-man race now - and a two-man race to see who will stop Huck.
From there, I go candidate by candidate.
A few points, though, that I didn’t have space to make:
* What a refutation of the McCain-Feingold-Media theory of American democracy — that it’s all about the money. Romney proved you can’t buy elections in America. It’s been proven a thousand times before, of course, but here’s a great reminder. What irony that Huckabee’s penniless victory will do so much to benefit Mr. Maverick.
* On Ron Paul: With 10% of the vote, a higher place than Rudy Giuliani in the Hawkeye State, and lots of cash in the bank, what possible criteria can justify excluding him from future debates? None, I’d say. Let the man in.
* Of course: Barack Obama winning is huge, not just for this primary, but for America. It’s been said before, but having a black candidate who’s not just “the black candidate” is an amazing moment in American history. For it to break out in rural, lily-white Iowa is all the more amazing. I confess I’m rooting for Obama to win the primary. As a registered Democrat, I expect to vote for him February 5. Honestly, his rhetoric is much better than his policy. But given the alternative of restoring the Clinton dynasty or — retch — voting for John Edwards, I’ll pick the hopemonger.
* Lastly, another big loser last night: Michael Bloomberg. Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee are the candidates who would create room for a Bloomy run on the Right. Clinton and Edwards are the ones who would create that space for him on the Left. Two of those four candidacies died last night: Edwards and Romney. Huckabee is essentially implausible as the nominee in the GOP. Clinton is in trouble. I actually don’t believe there’s space in the race for Bloomy no matter what (I get tired of saying it, but the third-party space in America exists in the Dobbs-Buchanan center, not in the Bloomy-centrist-journalist center), but a run just got a lot less likely.
I just made these predictions privately to a friend, so — what the heck — here they are for the record. Off the cuff, of course, and guaranteed to be wildly inaccurate:
Dem:
Obama - 38
Edwards - 33
Clinton - 27GOP:
Huckabee - 29
Romney - 27
Thompson - 13
McCain - 9
Paul - 6
Giuliani - 5
My reasoning?
On the Democratic side: I’m going largely by the expectations games being played by the Big Three candidates. The Hillary Dash to Downplay Iowa has been amazing to behold. And I can’t believe the Obama folks would risk sounding this over-confident if they didn’t have good internal data showing a very likely win. The Edwards folks seem to be downplaying Iowa a bit, too, which is just comical given how much time he’s invested there.
On the Republican side: My first instinct on the Republican side is to ask, “Who the $#@% knows!?” My second is to make some guesses and assumptions. Huck vs. Mitt is neck and neck, and anyone who claims any special knowledge here is lying — everyone has a 50% chance of being right. My guess is that anti-establishment Huck enthusiasm will edge out hyper-organized and hyper-funded Romney resignation. (Maybe that’s a phrase I should coin — Romney Resignation: the feeling one is overcome with after realizing whomever you really want to vote for can’t win or isn’t in the race.) As to the rest of the field, Thompson’s had his mini-boom, and he’s a natural fit with Iowa voters, so that could add up to a third-place finish. Some people will predict McCain in that role; it’s possible, but I don’t see Iowans going with him any more than they’d suddenly give a boost to Giuliani. As for Giuliani, I expect a very low place, almost certainly below Ron Paul. Ron Paul will under-perform his poll numbers, putting lie to the idea that pollsters are somehow missing the existence of a “Ron Paul Revolution.”
So, in only a matter of hours, I can be mocked for getting it wrong.
UPDATE (6:23 p.m.): Just one other note on McCain. I admit that right now he has the best chance of winning the nomination he’s had all year (though, I still believe that means he has a 1% chance instead of a 0% chance). If he does, though, it will be through sheer luck, having run one of the worst primary campaigns in the history of primary campaigns. Even in the last couple weeks, he’s made a huge blunder by visiting Iowa and raising expectations there. He could take third place tonight, and in that case it gets spun as a victory by a media dying to write the McCain Comeback story. But why take the risk when he’s already got a great shot at New Hampshire? Why risk a fourth place finish being seen as a loss? Just another unforced error.
UPDATE II (1:01 a.m.): OK, well, I was actually really close on the Democratic side, where I have little expertise; Edwards was just a hair ahead of Clinton, but Obama really did win that big. On the GOP side, I got the order right, but the magnitude way off. Huckabee didn’t just squeak it out by a point, he blew the doors off this mutha by almost 10 points. Also, Thompson and McCain were basically tied. Ron Paul got around 10% — proving, once and for all I hope, that his poll numbers are not missing some gigantic “revolution” — rather, they’re perfectly in line with the number of votes he actually got. So stop all the but-all-the-young-supporters-have-cell-phones-and-ron’s-going-to-be-the-next-president and-we’ll-take-back-this-country-from-the-Jews stuff. It’s over.
The only words to describe Rudy Giuliani’s latest ad:
Way to put to rest any fears that your campaign has little going for it other than blatant fear mongering.
UPDATE (1/3/08): In fairness to the Giuliani folks (or, at least, in equal unfairness to the McCain folks), this McCain ad uses similar footage of Islamic terrorists to go after Mitt Romney for his lack of foreign policy experience:
To be clear: It is, of course, more than defensible to run a campaign based on your strategy or experience as regards America’s response to terrorism. It is quite another thing to simply try to stoke fear in the electorate while making no argument whatsoever. By that measure, the McCain ad is at least trying to draw contrast with another candidate; the Giuliani ad is pure fear mongering. I don’t think either ad is particularly admirable — but since when is any campaign ad?
Recent Comments