Partisan Aggression
One of the central insights of the netroots left has been that fighting against Rove-style tactics means being as forceful and aggressive as the political right. Arguing about process — hey, Tom DeLay, how dare you redraw congressional boundaries! — makes you seem weak. Redrawing boundaries yourself is a more appropriate response to a ruthless political machine. So we’ve seen more hardball tactics from the political left, and it’s tended to work pretty well. Accuse pro-trade Republicans of destroying the lives of American workers, accuse John McCain of wanting to continue the Iraq War for a century, etc. This is powerful, effective stuff. The problem is that Republicans can always go further — e.g., John McCain’s misleading ad concerning Barack Obama’s supposed vote for sex ed for kindergarteners.
First, a broader point: Republicans are more in tune with the id of the American swing voter. Second, a point regarding McCain, ostensibly the kind of person who would not run such an ad: I am almost certain that he wouldn’t have run such an ad against Hillary Clinton. My sense is that McCain is convinced that defeating Barack Obama is of vital importance for the country, and that he is willing to be as ruthless as necessary.
I’ll also note that the Republicans really have been running a mostly substance-free campaign. On one level, it is obvious that they’d do so: since Republicans tend to be hostile to activist government, it makes sense that they’d highlight the dangers of government activism, not offer up their own crazy schemes. As someone who is sympathetic to certain kinds of conservative government activism, and as someone who believes that the economic and security climate demands innovative, sweeping reforms to key government institutions, I think this is very disappointing.
Worse yet, the substance-free approach works pretty well. Both sides are promising essentially undeliverable outcomes. But the Democrats vividly describe their proposals, which makes them vulnerable to attack but also lends their program more in the way of surface plausibility, though that of course is being attenuated over the course of the campaign. Republicans, in contrast, have offered a jury-rigged series of plans and proposals that don’t even cohere thematically.
All this is to say that the Republican campaign has been sorely disappointing to me in a lot of important way. But perhaps “disappointing” isn’t the right word. My expectations are very low. As someone who advocates changing the party in a lot of respects, I have an ambivalent relationship with the party as it is — I sense that it includes lots of people who share my instincts and preferences. For example, when McCain talked about the definition of “rich,” I thought it wasn’t trivial that he looked at the non-economic dimension of the question. In doing so, he connected with his audience and at the same time invited the ridicule of frank materialists. At the same time, I recognize that parties change and evolve in response to constituencies, long-term demographic shifts, unpredictable events, etc. While I do think the party I’d like to see is in some sense closer at hand than it was in, say, 2004, it’s still very far away.
Extreme self-righteousness is being deployed by both sides. Both sides are convinced of their moral superiority. I’ve been criticized for this stance, mainly because lots of voices on the center-left are incapable of recognizing the seriousness of their own mischaracterizations. Which is understandable. After two terms of President Bush, there is a profound sense of victimhood on the part of partisan Democrats, ranging from people I know who are eager to take the reins of power and keenly felt the defeats of 2000 and 2004 as a blow to their personal ambition to people who’ve had a visceral distaste for culturally conservative Americans that long predates the Bush Administration, rooted in personal experience of growing up in narrow-minded environments, etc., to people who have been radicalized by the perception that this White House has destroyed the country they dearly love, the lattermost being the most sympathetic group, if not always the most sensitive to context and the sweep history.
I hate elections. I remember watching the returns in 2004 and cringing the whole time — cringing when I thought Kerry was winning, cringing when I thought Bush was winning. Strangely enough, 2006 was probably the closest I had to an election I enjoyed. I wanted Michael Steele to win and George Allen to lose, and I got half of my wish, though I know a lot of my conservative friends think I was short-sighted. Webb struck me as an interesting, impressive figure who’d bring valuable experience to the Senate, whereas Allen struck me as overrated ex-governor and bullying bozo who, lest we forget, dissed a harmless South Asian kid. I was sad to see Mike DeWine lose in Ohio and I was particularly sad to see the brilliant Jim Talent lose in Missouri, and a lot of other decent Republicans bit the dust. And yet the Republican defeat that year did look like the wake-up call Republicans needed. This year, however, that desire to see Republicans humbled as part of the process of reform and reconstruction has been decidedly complicated by the fact that I’ve really lost faith in Barack Obama. A friend of mine recently said it was hardly surprising to see where we’ve both ended up in the campaign — he’s for Obama, I’m basically against him — but the truth is that I was enthusiastic about Obama earlier on, and I did emphatically want Bush to lose in 2004. I’m also not as enthusiastic about McCain as I’d hoped to be at this point, mainly because I think the nature of the domestic challenges we’ll face over the next four year demands a sustained level of interest in thorny economic issues and an ability to unite the country — I don’t think either candidate has either quality. Iraq and Afghanistan are my deciding issue, and even there I worry about backsliding and predictable crises to come.
Overall, I wish I could sit this one out.
Reihan –
I always enjoy reading you, even though we are reasonably far apart ideologically (I am in the wonky center-left, in the Kevin Drum mold). I am totally in the tank for Obama—I have been longing for a charismatic, intellectual, politically-accomplished, non-dogmatic liberal to take the presidency. After a lifetime of seeing my candidate not even make it to the primaries (John Anderson, Paul Tsongas, Bob Kerry, etc.), it is gratifying, to me, to see someone have a shot at the office who not only has a broad and encompassing mind, but has the charisma and political instincts to have a positive imprint on the policy and culture of this country.
In my view of things, John McCain encompasses pretty much the complete opposite of the characteristics I find attractive in Obama. But intellectuals being what they are, I really want to understand the viewpoints of those I respect.
Towards that end, I would really appreciate it if you would do a post laying out your reasons for you increasing disaffection for Obama.
— Osama Von McIntyre · Sep 11, 05:10 PM · #
“Second, a point regarding McCain, ostensibly the kind of person who would not run such an ad: I am almost certain that he wouldn’t have run such an ad against Hillary Clinton. My sense is that McCain is convinced that defeating Barack Obama is of vital importance for the country, and that he is willing to be as ruthless as necessary.”
This has all the flavor and texture and aroma of a rationalization.
On the other hand, the rest was pretty good and honest (in my opinion, for what it is worth). I would like to know why you have lost faith Obama, and—if Iraq and Afganistan are your main issue—what exactly would you like to see from a commander-in-chief. Probably those two questions are connected, huh?
I have been reading TAS for awhile now, and it seems like you have, via some very ambiguously worded posts (I haven’t read your book, sorry), staked out some kind of ambiguous claim as a new kind of conservative reformer (change we can believe in!). Now that this election is here, it seems like that claim is more ambiguous than ever. I can remember after reading one of your artfull but obscure statements on something or other writing: “what kind of conservative are you?” I’m still wondering. Just out of curisoity. What kind of conservative are you and what does that mean in the context of national elections. How does supporting McCain/Palin further your agenda?
And another thing: How do you—and 99% of conservative professional punditry—reconcile your elitest, cosmopolitan, liberal lifestyles with your love and promotion of the traditional, rural, conservative christian, redneck, nascar-loving, hunting, fishing, anti-intellectual, anti-immigation, anti-gay, proletariat? It seems a combination of politcal expediency, and the kind of romantacisim of the peasants that communism promoted. I mean, I read the corner (sometimes, after first bracing myself with aclcohol) and you would think that they were all living in oaklahoma and worked in oil fields and home schooled their kids even though they only had a GED and had yard signs that said God Hates Fags. They are always going on and on about “real americans.” But by their definition, they are not real americans, you are not a real american, I am not a real american.
Is there a conservativism where you can go to college, live in the city, shop at whole foods, listen to Jazz, and drink wine? Obviously there is because everyone in charge of conservativism does these things, but it is a secret or something.
— cw · Sep 11, 05:33 PM · #
In fairness to Reihan, I think that the underlying issue (not primarily his disdain for Obama, but more his reluctant support of McCain), are Reihan’s foreign policy views, which, though in my mind both horribly misguided and at the same time naive (in his belief that they are shared at any level by Senator “blow up the world” McCain), are sincere and, to the extent that (self described) neocon views ever merit this appellation, based upon a desire for a better world.
— LarryM · Sep 11, 05:35 PM · #
“In my view of things, John McCain encompasses pretty much the complete opposite of the characteristics I find attractive in Obama.”
This is the nugget, I think. At root, the major divide for me is that Obama is serious and McCain isn’t. Reihan, you have basically conceded this in the post, so my question is: how can you, in good conscience, vote for McCain, who clearly doesn’t care a fig about actually governing?
Put a second way: You might think Obama is offering pie-in-the-sky things or even that he’s wrong, but how is that not still better than McCain’s offer of complete incoherence?
— Ryan · Sep 11, 05:40 PM · #
LarryM
I think you are right, but I would like to hear the reasoning. I’ve watched his videos, I think he owns me this much.
— cw · Sep 11, 05:40 PM · #
Reihan, there’s plenty of good points in this post, but you almost lost me right at the start where you suggested that hardball tactics from the political left were a response to Karl Rove. Bill Clinton was claiming small government conservatives were destroying the lives of the poor all the way back in 1995. The pre-Clinton years were early enough in my life that I’m happy to concede for the sake of argument that Clinton was the beginning of left hard-ballism, but it simply isn’t true that it started after Bush was elected.
What’s changed is the level of outrage and anger on the left (the right got angrier starting in the 90s), not the tactics.
— Alex · Sep 11, 06:04 PM · #
On the more general point, anyone with a commitment to the details of public policy certainly ought to hate watching elections. Normal voters can’t possibly evaluate the policy proposals on any truly complex issue – they don’t have the necessary information or background. Which means politicians will usually avoid focusing their campaign or the broader debate on policy details, and when one doesn’t you have to watch the wonk-candidate getting obliterated.
What discussion of policy details there is tends to be tainted by simplistic nonsense and undeliverable promises – which is always nice to watch. And you get to enjoy partisans tie themselves in knots defending every policy put forth by their candidate, despite the impossibility that one candidate is always right and the other is always wrong. What’s not to like?
— Alex · Sep 11, 06:22 PM · #
So as I’ve discussed elsewhere I have other priorities this election season and am faintly for Obama — but I think the Iraq/Afghanistan considerations, if those dominated (and I considered no other foreign affairs), would put me firmly on McCain’s camp — even though apparently O.v.MacI and I have pretty much backed the same cadidates our whole lives (I bet you were a Bradley man too, eh? Tsongas, ahhhhhh – I like Kerry because of transference, I admit that.)
In Iraq — for a while it looked like the positions were converging. But al-Maliki may be looking for an excuse to squash an ethnic minority (and, wonderfully, one which didn’t vote in the elections empowering him). For some reason we’ve heard, say, Freddie tell us that al-Maliki’s desire produces some kind of first principles democratic mandate to withdraw. It doesn’t. I am willing to keep troops in place if their presence prevents ethnic cleansing or at least reduces the accompanying violence. I think, mind you, that there’s policy options that can prevent that while still achieving a substantial drawdown — but Obama, and certainly his supporters, seem eager enough to take al-Maliki’s demand at face value, that if elected I think there’s a very real chance that we’ll pull out in a manner that facilitates some hideous stuff in Iraq. So I give Iraq to McCain.
In Afghanistan — I’m just not sure you can surge in enough troops. I don’t like either guy a lot on this. Obama has been more belligerent towards Pakistan, and while his proponents seem to be cheering that Bush is beginning to adopt Obama’s cavalier attitude about pursuing Taliban into Pakistani territory — well, that Bush is willing to do it now, too, doesn’t make it not appallingly stupid (surprise). I’d rather not piss off the Pakistani army. For all y’all call McCain a warmonger, Obama’s been the more hawkish there. And that would be the most foolish of fights to pick.
In the rest of the world: I thought McCain’s response on Georgia was foolish. I though Obama’s inital response, portioning blame between Georgians and Russians, was foolish. That he has moved from his original foolish psition to McCain’s does not enrapture me.
These aren’t the items I’m voting on. But I find Reihan’s stance understandable and not unwise.
— Sanjay · Sep 11, 06:26 PM · #
cw,
Reihan is frustratingly elliptical at times, but when he calls himself a neocon, I think we can take him at his word. Clearly, he is of the strain of Neocon that believes that we are on a crusade to bring freedom and democracy to the world, and he is of the less bloodthirsty wing of the neocons (I think he occupies that wing with three other people), but, to the extent that he has any skepticism at all of the grand neocon plan to remake the middle east first and the world later, it is skepticism born of doubts about efficacy, as opposed to doubts about whether it is a good idea in the abstract.
Now, what I think about all of this should be obvious from my prior posts – I think those neocons who were part of the Bush administration, along with most other top Bush officials, are war criminals and should face a little Nuremberg justice, but if I made my thinking fully explicit it would get me banned here pretty quickly. But I think it’s pretty clear from Reihan’s perspective that the fact that McCain seems to be more guided by the neocons than the realists is a feature not a bug.
But yes, it would be nice to hear Reahan to confront these issues somewhat less elliptically.
— LarryM · Sep 11, 07:25 PM · #
“First, a broader point: Republicans are more in tune with the id of the American swing voter.”
Translation: The American swing voter, at best, has a severe case of ADD and a particular vulnerability to sophism, and at worst, is unrepentantly and profoundly stupid.
Also, the above quote should read ““First, a broader point: Republicans are more in tune with the id of the American swing voter, in large part because of the abdication of the American corporate media from their essential role as a mediator in political truth-disputes.”
— ethan salto · Sep 11, 07:33 PM · #
Good post, I too would like to see some follows-ups as the election moves on. For whatever it is worth: I doubt McCain would have gone easier on Hillary. If I remember the Republican nominee debates, one of his major debating points was that he was the only one polling showed capable of beating Hillary – his campaign was “anything but Hillary” from the get-go.
Why do you find the Republican’s campaign extra distasteful? Because of the timing? This election on the GOP side doesn’t strike me as anything new, and frankly, pretty calm compared to elections past – no offense to her, but Palin’s speech was better when Pat Buchanan gave it back in 1992. (“Like many of you last month, I watched that giant masquerade ball at Madison Square Garden—where 20,000 radicals and liberals came dressed up as moderates and centrists—in the greatest single exhibition of cross-dressing in American political history.”) Nothing akin to Purple Heart band-aids either, but there is still time left.
I do wonder what TAS thinks of the culture wars vis-a-vie their own lives, not as a strategy or what this-or-that voter will think – it doesn’t strike me as a low cultural capital group here (often quite the opposite), nor does it strike me as a group that is really anchored to the conflicts of the 60s. (Perhaps because they weren’t born yet.)
— rortybomb · Sep 11, 07:34 PM · #
Overall, I wish I could sit this one out.
http://lhote.blogspot.com/2008/09/decision.html
I am a liberal for many reasons, and there are many reasons I support Barack Obama. But, like Reihan, my greatest concern is foreign policy, and I want desperately for my country to stop it’s imperial mission and to abandon imperial privilege. Usually, as soon as someone breathes the word “imperialism”, they’re ejected from the ranks of the serious, but I believe around here my position gladly does not expel me.
Reihan and I have very divergent views on foreign policy and, sadly, overlapping areas of sensitivity in that regard. Believe me when I say that my desire for my country to leave other countries alone is as heart-deep and meaningful to me as any belief I hold.
— Freddie · Sep 11, 07:39 PM · #
Reihan,
Your well-differentiated criteria for evaluating political trends is, I think, rare, and certainly, commendable.
Your point about the limits of the relevance of wealth to well-being is both true (at least somewhat) and, in the instant case, seemingly devoid of policy relevance. What on earth does Senator McCain propose to do to enhance the non-economic dimensions of individual and communal well-being? Absent support from the Republican ticket for GNP–style measures to improve suburban living options and whatnot—stipulating their wisdom for the sake of argument—why do you give McCain any credit whatever for sidestepping the significance of the very economic insecurity you write about?
— jason · Sep 11, 07:47 PM · #
Reihan, everyone writes about how brilliant you are, but your posts don’t even make sense. Please try to make some sense.
— brendan · Sep 11, 11:01 PM · #
“Overall, I wish I could sit this one out.”
That’s what I did during some of the elections of the past decade. I unsubscribed from political e-forums until the stupid elections were over. I like politics, but I don’t like electoral politics. Back when I was saying I wouldn’t vote for McCain any more than I would vote for Bush, I was also saying that I didn’t care who won, so long as whoever got into office was so badly damaged by the process that s/he couldn’t get anything done.
But now I’m wanting McCain/Palin to win. The way Palin is getting attacked for her inconsistency in opposing pork by the very people whose existence depends on pork makes me think we might be onto something good here. Maybe. And I hate that I’m getting drawn into electoral politics. It takes a lot more time out of the day than in some previous elections when I would tune it out for long periods.
— The Spokesrider · Sep 12, 01:30 AM · #
Sit it out – why not be content to put in a vote for common decency in light of the sex ed ad?
Seems like McCain has presented us with a pretty basic moral/social test: watch the last 10 seconds of that ad and ask yourself, are these the standards I want to endorse?
-Steve, awaiting responses from conservatives who will hypocritically put aside their normal problems with moral equivalence and tell me why Obama’s done stuff that’s just as bad. Perhaps they would like to point out the dollar bill comment, and then try to convince everyone with a straight face that the last 10 seconds of that ad are anywhere in the same universe? I’m pre-laughing.
— Steve C · Sep 12, 02:05 AM · #
Also, all this hemming and hawing comes off like a dodge. McCain approved that message. That counts as an important and interesting basic issue in its own right, that’s not all that complicated. No need to talk around it with all this analysis and imply that all parties/candidates are the same, they’re not. Easy cynicism is a dodge.
McCain came out the other day and said he admires Jack Bauer – we all know what that’s code for. So are not-so-subtle signals that torture is ok, and ads making your opponent out to be a child molester, to be put on a scale and weighed against trade rhetoric?
— Steve C · Sep 12, 02:16 AM · #
look guys, its over.
insufficient vetting.
“Our national leaders are sending U.S. soldiers on a task that is from
God.”
exact words, somewhat cut up, tis true.
see the youtube.
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=i2ypVSYoEKA&feature=related
the difference is Palin is spouting this crapola her big self.
it isnt guilt by association like Wright.
I think its over.
How ‘bout chu Reihan?
— matoko_chan · Sep 12, 02:47 AM · #
“and then try to convince everyone with a straight face that the last 10 seconds of that ad are anywhere in the same universe?”
There are people who actually watch television campaign ads? It has been decades since I’ve seen one.
— The Spokesrider · Sep 12, 02:55 AM · #
If McCain is going to play it that way, maybe the Obama campaign should do an ad about the Federal Government’s bailout of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae that links it to the old S&L bailout and then link John McCain to the Keating 5:
http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2008/09/can-mccain-be-redefined-as-crook.html
— Norman Doering · Sep 12, 08:01 PM · #
@ Spokesrider:
Your reply to Steve is about as good as McCain’s on The View. When called on the fact that the ad is a lie, and he approved it, he perfunctorily denied it was a lie, without offering a shred of actual argument (how could he, after all? woulda just compounded the lie!). But his real answer was that if BO had just agreed to the town hall meetings he wouldn’t do it— conversational implicature is: he’s admitting it’s a lie, but asking us to believe that it doesn’t matter.
Steve focuses on the fact that it is a vicious lie, too, bespeaking actual depravity. What kind of person dishonestly portrays his political opponents as basically a child molester? Your response is to say it doesn’t matter because no one (no smart people, I guess— now who’s the elitist?) watches TV commercials. But that’s not the question. The question is, why is it OK to vote for a person who approves that message, and thereby telegraphs not only dishonesty, but even depravity?
Really, I want to know. Are thees the standards you are willing to endorse?
Lanier
— Lanier · Sep 12, 08:11 PM · #
how can someone who went to stuy under jinx perullo spout this stuff?
— sadaqat · Sep 12, 08:21 PM · #
Reihan:
Lurker here.
I enjoy reading your work. I am a libertarian. I have read your book.
In this election cycle you gave gone from fairly enthusiastic to ornery and defensive to mildly apologist and now, finally, escapist.
Even in this post, you start off trying to blame the left net-roots, but then in the middle it occurs to you that “you know what, who am I kidding? my people are running the sleaziest campaign since Bush in South Carolina 2000.” At this point you back off your earlier thesis, and then confess that the Republicans are “substance free” and then by the end, run away.
On one hand I dearly appreciate your self-reflection and honesty, but on the other I feel bad for you much in the same way that I feel bad for liberal Muslims who are aware of how destructive Islamism is, but persist on remaining Muslim. On one level I appreciate their commitment to their faith and on the other hand I wish they would have the audacity to say to their fellow believers, “I don’t care if you excommunicate me, I am going to say no more.”
And that’s really what I wish you were doing, instead of running away. I wish you’d man up. Get together with Douthat, Ponnuru (sp?) and Brooks and tell the GOP Establishment to f*ck off.
Initially they will ignore you and will continue with the death spiral they are already on.
Then later they will come to you and guys will be kingmakers.
But you gotta have the balls to do it bro. And you just threw in the towel.
Very disappointing.
— Jactitating Masticater · Sep 12, 09:39 PM · #
“The problem is that Republicans can always go further”
I would have written “the problem is that Republicans are always willing to go further”.
Now there’s some truth.
Or maybe that’s what you meant?
— William · Sep 12, 11:32 PM · #
Excellent post….I enjoy reading thoughtful posts from thoughtful people, even when I disagree. Self-reflection is not a quality you see a whole lot in public political life. I always wondered how so many McCain supporters (many of whom probably disliked him in 2000 and backed Bush) are so sure he’s the right man now. Anyway….
Like a previous responder, I’m also in the tank for Obama. The weird thing is when the run for the primaries first began some 20+ months ago, I was hoping Obama and McCain would win their parties’ nominations. I thought that would give us the best chance of the country having a real Left-Right debate on policy issues with 2 men who seemed pretty honorable and thoughtful. Honestly this time last year, I was thinking if McCain was up against any other Dem except Obama, that he’d might have gotten my vote in the general election, even though I’ve never voted for a Republican for President in my life. I always vote Dem or 3rd party.
I guess the lesson here is the polarization of the electorate combined with the horse race and news cycle-ization of political coverage in the media and tactics of campaigns, prevents a real honorable issue-oriented campaign from occuring. The candidate taking more than 10 seconds to explain his position loses. I was worried about a possible Hillary-Rudy matchup in the general election and how polarizing and bareknuckled that would be. It looks like it ended up that way anyway.
— JE · Sep 12, 11:47 PM · #
Spokesrider, one question.
If Palin can’t stand up to the American media, if she needs to be cossetted and protected from the press, how is she ever going to stand up to the porkfed monsters of congress, the malevolent and evil tyrants of the world, and the souless rapacious international presscore?
She could have told the press to step off visavis Bristol, she could have told Gibson flat out he was taking her out of context on the prayer.
She didnt.
She may not actually be weak but she sure comes off as more of a powderpuff than a pitbull.
— matoko_chan · Sep 13, 12:44 AM · #
The Republican publicity machine wants to make you afraid. From what your wrote – they’ve succeeded.
— Virginia-Liberal · Sep 13, 01:24 AM · #
I’m curious to know why Salam supposes that McCain wouldn’t use the same tactics against Clinton, if his campaign thought that they would be successful. This is the man who kissed the bottoms of `agents of intolerance’ when it became clear that such a step would be necessary for his only, last chance at the presidency; who flip-flopped, of all things, on torture. His response to being slimed by Dubya eight years ago was to hire the same scoundrels who slandered him. This isn’t to say that Obama has been even close to pure (e.g., repeatedly taking a quip about the definition for `rich’ and pretending that McCain meant it seriously, or misrepresenting McCain’s comment about staying in Iraq 100 years), but too many instances suggest that a once-honorable McCain has sold his soul this go-round.
— MW · Sep 13, 06:06 AM · #
Came here from Andrew Sullivan, and I agree with him that this is an interesting post. I have no idea what your opinions are otherwise, because I’ve never been here before. It sounds like you’re a Republican.
Well, I’m a Democrat, and I just want to say that if you were, too, you’d see alot of the following type of comment:
“Salam, huh? Is that some kind of Muslim name? You terrorists all just want to destroy America. Sarah Palin will take care of you and your kind once she’s in the White House with her shotgun.”
The texture of the Republican attacks on Obama is racist and hateful, from the top (John McCain) to the bottom (mouth-frothing blog commentors).
I remember Nelson Rockefeller. I remember John Lindsay. I remember a Republican Party where service did not mean bleeding the government dry by giving no-bid contracts to your buddies and screw everyone else.
How sad the Republican Party has come since it adopted the biggoted and bottom dwelling “Southern Strategy.” Starting with Atwater and continuing through Rove, you’ve sold your soul to the devil just to stay in power.
— Cal Gal · Sep 13, 08:25 PM · #
matoto_chan: “Spokesrider, one question. If Palin can’t stand up to the American media [etc etc]. She may not actually be weak but she sure comes off as more of a powderpuff than a pitbull.”
Exactly my concern. But there are several weeks to go in this campaign, so we’ll see how it all plays out. That’s what the process is good for.
— The Spokesrider · Sep 14, 01:18 AM · #