We were tickled (well no tpink) by the republican operatives comment that a long campaign actually benefits the Republicans, and explain that John Kerry benefited from a short campaign so that , in the operatives words "his negatives were never fully explored or understood"...,
Why one asks would one want to "explore the negatives" of a nominee? Especially a Republican one?
We on the Democratic side of the aisle wonder about this morbid fascination Republicans have had about "going negative". Perhaps they have forgotten about the "morning in America" of Ronnie Regean.
Constant exposure helps breed contempt and strips a way the mystery of the Presidency.
Romeny itis said wouldn't like aa long road of exposed efforts focusing on his constantly changing positions which leaves the public confused about where he actually stands, and leaving him with a massive credibiltygap by the end of the campaign that could never be fullyadressed inthe short July to November season.
Romney we were told in yeasterdays MSNBC blog was "avioding" scrutiny in Iowa by not choosing to capmpign there.
Perhaps he remebers only too well the lasttime whenhe spent $17,000 busing insupporter from across Iowa and paying for their dinners so thattheycould vote inthe straw poll held that night. And what happened waas that Mike Huckabee spent exaclyzero money at the same dinner and cam ewithin 80 votes of beating Romney.
Thes hock that Romney felt trickled down to his campaign, and Mike Huckabee , not Mitt Romeny was now the man to beat. And Huckbee's srength took ont herole of theg iant killer, paving the way to his defeat in South Carolina at the hands of John McCain. Romney clearly no fool, knows now the straw polls are probablynot worth the effort-and with delegate split 10 diiferent ways,itis unlikely anyone will get a majority worth talking about.
Some battles are better avioded....