In Defense of Demon Sheep

February 6th, 2010 at 8:46 pm | 23 Comments |

| Print

Don’t listen to the aged, humorless stuffed shirts and prigs who populate the Big Media and the Blog Underground. Watch for yourself and realize that, without question, one of the most brilliant, witty and devastatingly effective political ads ever made was unveiled last week by California Senate candidate Carly Fiorina. I refer of course to that internet YouTube sensation known as the “Demon Sheep Attack Ad”!

The ad has created tremendous political buzz, while capturing the imagination of a generation of media-savvy Web surfers who expect politics to be both informative and entertaining. Yet, as NBC News reports:

it’s [still] rare for a political ad to become so popular that people want to see it over and over again; but there’s one online now that’s turned into a viral sensation.

Former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina launched an ad this week for her Senate run that features an eerie image of a sheep with red beady eyes. It’s supposed to portray her rival, Republican front-runner in the race, Tom Campbell.

The creature in the three-and-a-half minute ad has become known as the ‘demon sheep’; and, by Friday morning, the ad had amassed more than 375,000 views on YouTube.

This is not surprising. The Demon Sheep Attack Ad, after all, is informative, entertaining and compelling. Indeed, it self-consciously mocks itself while making a serious and substantive point about Campbell; and it does so with great wit and flair. The ad’s point is that Campbell is a FCINO (pronounced: Fuh Cheen Oh): a Fiscal Conservative in Name Only.

Now, I can’t speak to the merits of Fiorina’s case against Campbell. He may or may not be a FCINO; I don’t know. What I do know is that the charges against him, as depicted in the ad, are serious, substantive and worthy of political debate. Thus, Fiorina takes issue with Campbell’s public record as a former state budget director and former congressman.

Tom Campbell: ‘Fiscal genius.’ Who would remember that, as the Governor’s Chief Budget Officer, Campbell was the architect of our disastrous 2005 budget? A budget so bloated with increased ongoing spending commitments and borrowing that it literally set the stage for the recent decline of California.

That’s fiscally conservative, Tom?

Who would remember that was the Tom Campbell Budget? We would. A budget about which the respected, non-partisan California Legislative Analyst Office wrote, ‘multi-billion dollar operating deficits…will persist’ even in the best of times.

The ad then proceeds to flail and assail Campbell for other aspects of his public record, which also are worthy of political debate. These include Campbell’s alleged support for a variety of tax hikes, his criticism of the Bush tax cuts, his refusal to sign a “taxpayer protection pledge” (read: a pledge not to vote for any new taxes or tax hikes), and his abrupt switch from running for governor to suddenly running for senator.

Finally, the ad notes, Campbell has been in public life, as an elected or appointed official, for many years. Fiorina, by contrast, is not a career politician; she instead made her career in the private sector, where she rose to be CEO of Hewlett-Packard, a Fortune 20 company.

Again, I can’t speak to the merits of Fiorina’s case against Campbell. But quite clearly, her campaign is serious, substantive, and issues-based. She’s addressing the sum and substance of public policy; and so bully for her. That’s what American politics ought to be about: serious and substantive issues.

Fiorina’s political opponents, of course, have been quick to denounce her — and her Demon Sheep Attack Ad — as unserious. Campbell political consultant Patrick Ruffini, for instance, has been Twittering furiously to try and spin the ad as somehow a debacle for Fiorina.

100% of the people I know who have watched @CarlyforCA‘s video have laughed out loud.

And no, Carly, we’re not laughing with you. We’re laughing at you.

SFist: ‘Tom Cambpell must be thrilled right about now.’ http://bit.ly/c5rIUm

The last time a campaign put demon eyes in a commercial, it lost by 13 points.

#DemonSheep is proof-positive the adage ‘all attention is good attention’ has never been true. /via @NathanWurtzel

‘It is now Campbell’s web-savvy campaign that is attempting to use the ad to raise money for his Senate run.’ http://bit.ly/b8vjtP

How’d ‘all publicity is good publicity’ work out for John Edwards?

So anyone think @CarlyforCA’s chances went up in the last 24 hours?

Ruffini and Team Campbell have reason to worry and reason to protesteth too much: because Fiorina’s Demon Sheep Attack Ad is devastatingly effective and highly amusing. Indeed, its serious and substantive message is delivered in an entertaining, over-the-top fashion. The ad depicts Campbell as a wolf in sheep’s clothing. A wolf, reports the Weekly Standard,

whose eyes glow red with the outdated technology of the original Terminator’s, and who wears Rockports as he crawls menacingly through the pastures of California. Can we afford to ignore that kind of threat?

You have to see the ad to fully appreciate its wit and brilliance; but suffice it to say that the ad leaves an indelible impression — to wit: that Tom Campbell is no fiscal conservative — and that impression is believable precisely because it is substantively based. The wit and humor just make the ad sing; they are the memorable poetry that accompanies the ad’s undeniably powerful prose.

Which is why Ruffini and Team Campbell are running scared and trying to discredit the ad — and Fiorina — as unserious and not substantive. If Tom’s a FCINO, they cry, then Carly’s a SCINO: a Serious Candidate in Name Only.

Nice try, but no cigar. No one watching this ad can deny its underlying seriousness and its substantive critique of Campbell’s record. Ruffini and Team Campbell may not want to rebut this critique — hell, for all I know it may be impossible to refute this critique! — but they must at least try: because this ad has legs, as they say. It is simply too powerful to ignore or belittle.

One of the Demon Sheep Attack Ad’s smartest and most endearing features is how it mocks the notion of GOP “purity,” even as it takes Campbell to task for abandoning fiscally conservative principles and policies. Thus, the ad begins with a woman’s mocking reference to:

Purity. Piety. Our fiscal conservative leaders. Men and women we admire. Aspire to be. Wholesome. Honorable. True believers. Men like Tom Campbell. Who would never lead us astray, his pedestal so high.

[THUNDER AND OMINOUS MUSIC PLAY, AND A NEW MALE VOICE INTONES:]

Leaving but one way to fall.

The mocking reference to “purity,” “piety,” and “true believers” is designed not only to ridicule the foolish and stupidly exclusionary notion of a GOP “purity” or litmus test,” which some Republican National Committee members had been pushing. The mocking reference also is designed to take the air and hubris out of Tom Campbell, who is something of a California GOP golden boy and so-called fiscal genius.

Indeed, Campbell has the perfect — and perfectly intimidating — resume: Harvard law degree, Supreme Court clerk for Byron White, Ph.D. in economics from Chicago under the tutelage of Milton Friedman, Federal Trade Commission official in the Reagan administration, Stanford law faculty, Dean of the Haas School of Business, Congressman, and of course, state budget director for Governor Schwarzenegger.

Campbell, moreover, projects an image of piety and wholesomeness. He seems sincere, honorable, and upright. And, given his seemingly stellar conservative economic credentials, it seems reasonable to believe Campbell’s a fiscal conservative.

That’s why, politically speaking, Fiorina has to take Campbell down a notch, so to speak. She has to puncture his balloon, his aura of supreme professional competence and achievement, if ever she is to have a chance of beating him for the GOP senate nomination. Fiorina has to show that just as California has fallen off of its once illustrious economic perch, so, too, has Campbell proven to be something other than what he promised the voters of California. Thus, the ad’s line: “Leaving but one way to fall.”

You can argue the merits of Fiorina’s case against Campbell — that’s a legitimate argument to have. However, you cannot deny that Fiorina and her team have produced a brilliant, witty, and devastatingly effective campaign ad — one that is now for the ages, and which, therefore, will long be remembered – and by both voters and pundits alike.

This doesn’t mean Fiorina will win the GOP senate nomination — she may or may not; who knows? But with this daring – and demonic! — campaign ad, she has given herself a serious fighting chance.


John R. Guardiano is a journalist and analyst in Arlington, Virginia. He has absolutely no connection whatsoever to any of the three California GOP senate candidates, nor their political consultants.

Recent Posts by John Guardiano



23 Comments so far ↓

  • ktward

    An altogether bizarre read, this column.

    Amidst all kinds of rhetorical, hyperbolic flourish (though apparently he ran short on said flourish*), Guardiano’s trying to argue the cut and caliber of Fiorina’s ad because it’s getting a lot of YouTube hits.

    Seriously? Dude. It’s YouTube. The iColiseum of our times. Hits are just as likely to be generated by nothing more than a whiff of spectacle.

    Guardiano readily admits he “…can’t speak to the merits of Fiorina’s case against Campbell.”, but then spends the rest of the column incongruously arguing the ad’s “substantive” chops. He’s not interested in whether or not the ad’s oblique accusations have any basis in fact, just whether or not Fiorina can “…knock Campbell down a notch…” with an arguably catchy (kitschy?) but neon negative ad. Thin campaign ice, that; if Campbell’s a bona fide political Golden Boy (so says JG), then Carly’ll likely have some splainin’ to do to serious CA voters who don’t like the taste of negative nonsense. Could seriously end up biting her in the campaign bee-hind.

    And hey, I like to mock RINO drama as much as the next person, but FCINO? Lame. Immediately evidenced by the fact that even JG knew he needed to spell out the pronunciation. (Comes under the same kill-the-laugh category as having to explain a joke.)

    Sigh. This column offered no credible perspective on either candidate, nor any insightful campaign analysis. And it occurred to me that Guardiano really should have considered engaging in some fact-checking on Fiorina’s ad, he being a [cough] journalist and all. Bottom line, this was nothing more than a shining example of the kind of absurd, self-indulgent punditry that annoys conscientious voters of all ideological color.

    (*”…brilliant, witty, and devastatingly effective…”. Well, since he keeps repeating it, it must be true. Especially the “devastatingly effective” part.)

    p.s. I just this second watched said brilliant, witty ad. It’s as inane as this column, IMH media-savvy-web-surfing O. (That’s one low ‘wit’ bar you got there, JG.)

  • John Guardiano

    KTWard,
    Thanks for your note/comment, which I appreciate. A couple of thoughts:

    Re the alleged dangers of so-called “negative” political ads: I sincerely hope we haven’t become a complete nation of wusses — unable and unwilling to critically discuss and analyzes our politics through vigorous and hard-hitting commentary and yes, “negative” or critical analysis in the form of campaign ads.

    I sincerely hope that our politics hasn’t descended to the point where it must be all inane pieties and touchy-feely sentiment a la “Barney. (“I love you! You love me!” Ugh! Please save us from such pap!)

    I think the American people appreciate and respect candidates who are willing and able to substantively and critically discuss the issues and their opponents’ stances on those issues. And whether you like or dislike the Demon Sheep Attack Ad — and I clearly like the ad — you have to admit that Carly Fiorina and her team have substantively and critically engaged the debate. Isn’t that a good thing for our politics?

    2) Re the merits and substance of the ad: I am arguing that the ad is substantive, which it quite clearly is, not whether that substance is completely fair or accurate. The Campbell campaign, of course, has a different perspective. They think that Campbell is a fiscal conservative, not a FCINO. Fine. Good. That’s why we have political campaigns: to thrash and hash all this out.

    I don’t know who’s right; but I do know that California and the country are better off because the senate candidates there are discussing bona fide substantive issues — and for that we can thank, in large part, Carly Fiorina and her Demon Sheep Attack Ad. The ad is entertaining, yes, but also informative and issues-based.

    Regards,
    John

  • sinz54

    One thing that’s clearly wrong with the ad is that it’s much too long to run as a TV commercial.

    To see it on the Internet, you must decide to surf to YouTube for yourself. If you don’t actively do so, you won’t see it. That limits its exposure.

  • John Guardiano

    Sinz54,
    Yes, the ad is long; but the ad is geared toward political activists and the politically engaged. These are precisely the type of people who vote in off-year primary elections; and they are precisely the type of people who will proactively surf the Web for the ad and take the time to watch it.

    Moreover, length is required precisely because the ad is substantive and serious-minded. It takes more than a mere sound bite, after all, to seriously assess and analyze your opponent’s public record as an elected and appointed official.

    Regards,
    John

  • oldgal

    When I saw the ad my first impression was amateurish until I realized it would give amateurs, many of whom put out excellent work, a bad name. This from an ex-CEO of a high tech company? This speaks to the incompetence that got her fired.

    There are several topics for serious debate raised in your post, however. At one time conservatism meant balancing the budget. The current “no-taxes” mantra in reality is causing the country to leverage taxes to use other countries money to run the country – the same type of leveraging that led to the financial collapse, as well as, smoke and mirrors fees and creative bookkeeping to balance the budget.

    I would also like to hear a serious debate about elected representatives who take an oath to an individual that supercedes the oath they take to the people of the state they represent.

  • sinz54

    oldgal: At one time conservatism meant balancing the budget.
    And that’s why conservatism never won any elections at that time.

    Americans don’t like to vote for accountants in green eyeshades poring over budgets to cut things. They like optimism, onward and upward, growth and opportunity.

    Conservatives started winning when they jettisoned the belt-tightening message and adopted the pro-growth message.

    The error that conservatives made, was that they assumed that cutting taxes (and thus stimulating the economy) would eventually force the Federal Government to tighten its belt to avoid big deficits. As we’ve seen, that hasn’t happened. Taxes have been cut, but the Federal budget continues to rise.

    The best message for the future would be a combination of tax cuts AND cuts in spending.

    I would also like to hear a serious debate about elected representatives who take an oath to an individual that supercedes the oath they take to the people of the state they represent.
    I have no idea what you’re talking about here. Can you elaborate?

  • PracticalGirl

    John,

    You are truly a lone wolf on your analysis, and you left our something that makes this ad effective-for Campbell, and a problem with most attack ads in general:

    Campbell’s name was repeated over and over, even on screen. Not a bad thing to get your opponent to pay for name recognition, especially when it puts your opponent in the “nutbag” category. Fiorina’s name, meanwhile, gets thrown around as being a nut. Nobody’s talking about how brilliant she is, just how crazy.

  • John Guardiano

    PracticalGirl,
    You may be right about how Fiorina’s ad is being depicted; but why do you unthinkingly accept the political spin that is being put forth by the Campbell campaign and the know-nothing Big Media? Why not address the sum and substance of the Demon Sheep Attack Ad? That sum and substance is real and significant.

    Calling the ad, the campaign and Fiorina a “nuts” or “nutbags” is mindless and unthinking. You should know better — and do better! Indeed, name calling is the last refugee of a mindless scoundrel : )

    As for the ad promoting Campbell’s name, well, that is a non-issue. Campbell already is well known – in fact, very well known — because he is a career politician who has been in appointed and elected office for many years.

    No, Fiorina has to take the fight to Campbell; and she’s done that with this ad. It is now incumbent upon the Campbell campaign to defend his record and to address the substantive public-policy points raised by Fiorina. And it is incumbent upon the media and voters to ensure that all three California GOP senate campaigns address substantive public-policy issues.

    As for being a lone wolf, that’s true! I’m proud of that, and I embrace it. I’ve never followed the crowd; I’ve always charted my own course and been the better for it. You should do the same!

    Regards,
    John

  • PracticalGirl

    John,

    I don’t accept the spin of Campbell or big media, John. I’m simply pointing out how this played out “on the ground”. I am fully capable, as are the millions who have played “viral roulette” with this ad, of judging for myself.

    Perhaps the Campbell camp will address the “concerns” put forth by this ad. But I contend, and it has played out thusly, that most people don’t have a clue what those “concerns” are, beyond Campbell is on a pedestal. That’s the point: This ad was so comically misguided that most people who see it took nothing substantive away from this. If the Campbell campain addresses anything, it will be in a positive light that takes “concerns” and spins them into “pluses”., without ever addressing Fiorina herself, and certainly without naming her. It’s the nature of campaigns, and Fiorina, with this childish appproach, did nothing to raise the level of discourse to a serious charge in the minds of those who saw this. In that sense, she wasted her money. Her attempt to “brand” Campbell fell flat, and her message, not Campbell’s, is muddied in the process. Marketing 101…

    BTW, (and a bit toungue-in-cheek) Fiorina has also been mocked for her attempt to “rename” the state “Carlyfornia”. That one, had the campaign been smart, could have had legs. Especially if she’d gotten the eventual support of the Governator, who naturally pronounces the state name very similar. :)

  • sinz54

    Guardino: Why not address the sum and substance of the Demon Sheep Attack Ad? That sum and substance is real and significant.
    Agreed.

    But everybody is laughing at the “demon sheep” imagery of the ad, not the substance of the ad. The imagery is what is being remembered and what is being talked about in the media, not the substance of the ad. And because it’s funny and irrelevant to the substance, it’s not working as an ad.

    The substance of the ad is powerful stuff. Why obfuscate it with irrelevant imagery about “demon sheep”? How about a more relevant image, like Tom Campbell standing next to a stack of dollar bills representing the government money he’s willing to spend?

  • John Guardiano

    PracticalGirl,
    I hear you, but how anyone could watch the Demon Sheep Attack Ad and not understand its criticisms of Campbell’s record simply defies comprehension! The ad, after all, literally spells out its concerns, which include Campbell’s tenure as state budget director, when the state was on a spending binge, and his support for various tax hikes.

    I think the complaints about the witty nature of the ad are all spin (from the Campbell campaign) and all nonsense (from the stuffed shirt prigs in the Big Media). The ad, quite literally, speaks for itself! It is clear and effective.

    Regards,
    John

  • John Guardiano

    Sinz54,
    How long have you known me?! : ) My name has an “a” at the end, right before the “n” and the “o”. It is “GuardiAno’. “Guardian” as in “Guardian angle,” but with an “o” at the end.

    The Big Media is discounting the sum and substance of the ad; but I assure you that politically engaged Republican Party activists are not; and they are the ones who will be voting in the California senate primary in June. These voters are politically savvy and sophisticated. They find the ad entertaining and witty — and substantive.

    Too bad the Big Media prigs just don’t get i; but then that’s par for the course, isn’t it?

    Regards,
    John

  • PracticalGirl

    Good God, John, are your really this dense? It is obvious that you are operating from a complete lack of knowledge of marketing, advertising and effective message delivery.

    This might have been intended as a serious indictment of Campbell’s record. But most people didn’t hear it, for the laughter in their heads and the room. Not laughter that allowed them to share the joke, but laughter at what a joke Fiorina and Co are for this misguided attempt.

    Humor and sarcasm, done right, is an excellent message delivery device. Done wrong, it’s entirely something else. And this cheesy piece of production went on and on to prove that this ad is, indeed, “something else”. We’ll agree to disagree.

  • ktward

    John. Dude.

    First, let slide the not infrequent misspelling-of-your-last-name thing; inconsequential typos are a petty point to make on a blog. She missed one little ‘a’. Get over it. As the credentialed writer here (!), your conspicuously repetitive hyperbolic vocab in the same dang column is a way worse assault on our collective blogging sensibilities. So give it a rest, k?

    Onward.

    There’s no accounting for comedic taste, natch, but I have indeed enjoyed more than a few chuckles over your histrionic insistence that, despite overwhelming witness to the contrary, Fiorina’s ad *is* witty/clever/entertaining. You make Colbert’s job way too easy.

    jg: “I assure you that politically engaged Republican Party activists … are the ones who will be voting in the California senate primary in June. These voters are politically savvy and sophisticated. They find the ad entertaining and witty …”.

    Whoa, I’m impressed. For a Beltway resident with–wait, what’s your disclosure above?–”…absolutely no connection whatsoever to any of the three California GOP senate candidates, nor their political consultants.”, you’ve remarkable insight into the satiric predilections of politically savvy and sophisticated CA GOP voters.

    Whatever you say.

    I’m sure you’re right: the only people who find Fiorina’s ad ridiculously lame in the Entertaining & Witty category are Campbell’s camp and those notoriously doltish “Big Media prigs”*. (Do you happen to have that roster handy? I lost mine.)

    As for the ad’s ‘substantive’ value, real or strategically imagined, after this circus act I suspect Fiorina will find it exponentially more challenging to convince serious CA GOP voters that she’s a more seriously disposed candidate than golden-boy-demon-sheep and that other dude who’s promptly exploiting the acronym feeding frenzy.

    Particularly for politicians, it’s sooo not true that any publicity is good publicity. And it’s frustratingly pathetic when serious pols willingly sacrifice credibility for shock-and-awe media bites. ‘Campaigning for/by Dummies’ by Jerry Springer, on bookshelves now.

    *Is CSMonitor on that BMP list?
    http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/The-Vote/2010/0204/Carly-Fiorina-s-bizarre-political-ad-Tom-Campbell-as-demon-sheep

    http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/The-Vote/2010/0205/Method-to-the-madness-of-Carly-Fiorina-s-demon-sheep-campaign-ad

    The money quote:
    “Republican media consultant Fred Davis is the man who produced the [Demon Sheep] ad. He also made the 2008 John McCain “Celeb” ad, which compared Barack Obama with Paris Hilton in an attempt to turn Mr. Obama’s celebrity status against him.

    “That one was also widely covered, and many pros felt it was effective.

    “Would it be churlish to point out that McCain lost that election?”

  • John Guardiano

    ktward,
    You want to discuss the ad’s aesthetics and poetry; I want to discuss the ad’s substance and prose. Why not engage the very specific issues and public-policy questions that the ad explicitly raises? For example:

    * What if anything did Campbell do to control spending while he was serving as California’s state budget director?
    * Why does Campbell refuse to sign the taxpayer protection pledge which would guard against new taxes and new tax hikes?
    * How does Campbell intend to promote economic growth and full employment?

    These are the sorts of issues we should be discussing; but instead, you want to talk about the ad’s comedic subtext. This is politically convenient if, like you, you are a Campbell partisan; however, it is disingenuous and unfair to GOP primary voters in California.

    Regards,
    John

  • sinz54

    Wanna see a classic ad whose imagery really worked?

    The famous “daisy girl” ad from the LBJ campaign against Goldwater:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tf-MEdAPhYA
    (you may need to increase the sound volume on your speakers)

    It worked because a) the imagery was serious; b) the imagery was directly related to Goldwater’s policies; and c) it was short and went right to the point. None of which is true about the “demon sheep” ad.

    Now that was 46 years ago, long before today’s computer-driven SFX and video editing, back when most homes didn’t even have color TV yet.

    With all the new video tech, and all of Fiorina’s wealth, her “demon sheep” ad doesn’t come close to that LBJ ad of 1964.

  • John Guardiano

    Sinz54,
    Good, legit point, which adds to debate — touche. Daisy ad was classic and effective, albeit nasty and grossly unfair. DemonSheep, though, is more witty and entertaining!

    Regards,
    John

  • ktward

    “You want to discuss the ad’s aesthetics and poetry; I want to discuss the ad’s substance and prose.”

    Actually, what *I’m* discussing is your inexplicably defensive take on an ad that, as another journo put it, “is a cargo ship full of crazy.” (see CSM links above) Did you forget your own title? “In Defense of Demon Sheep.”

    So let’s set this record straight, shall we?

    1. I’m in Chicago. I’ve zero opinions on the CA GOP primary candidates, and I’ve offered the same number of opinions on their respective positions. That said, I’ve a few opinions about Fiorina’s ad and its potential consequence, but then that’s a Titanicly sized boat we share, no?

    2. You’ve stated repeatedly–for emphasis, I’m assuming–that this ad was brilliant, witty, and devastatingly effective. (with a few clevers and entertainings thrown about) It’s a bit disingenuous of you to now claim you weren’t *talking about* the ad’s aesthetics. Further, you’re rather egoistically asserting in the comment thread that the ‘savvy and sophisticated’ CA GOP voters agree with you. All I can say to that is, apparently, I’ve a much higher opinion of those voters en masse than do you.

    3. Talk issues? Excellent idea! Would that your bloviated ditty above had actually focused on the campaign issues. But it didn’t. You didn’t. You talked about what, IYHO, makes this ad so … what was that again? Oh right. Brilliant, witty, devastatingly effective.

    What you apparently don’t GET–and what has placed a big ol’ ‘kick me’ sign on your journo back–is that, for a myriad of solid reasons pointed out in this thread, political campaigns not only don’t do ‘clever & witty’ well*, voters are understandably suspicious of candidates who are so conspicuously willing to sacrifice their long-term cred for the illusion of short-term media/ratings celeb.

    So, I’m thinking: anyone can have an off day, and perhaps this particular FF effort of yours reflects just that. I seriously, and sincerely, wanted to explore the depth and breadth of your overall perspective. Not only for journo competence, mind you, but for fresh, intriguing insight; I never ever use POV agreement as a measure. So I’ve spent precious spare time the last couple days reading up on your FF contributions.

    I think I understand Frum’s big-tent reasons for your presence here. So have at it, come what may and all that. And before I say what I’m going to say, know that I genuinely appreciate your military service. But dude. You’re wearing partisan blinders the size of serving platters. I’ve no doubt they serve you well over at ASpectator, but we voters are way more knowledgeable than your arguments give us credit for. And while I wouldn’t typically hold any writer’s neuroses against them, yours don’t play all that well in a blog sandbox. Just saying.

    *sinz quite nicely illustrates my very point, so I think you and I agree on this detail.

  • ktward

    Frum talks about the very “issues” to which you are, now, chomping at the bit to address:

    http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/02/08/frum.demon.sheep.fiorina/index.html

    Btw, after surfing red blogs I’ve largely found that they don’t at all *get* the ad’s mocking reference to ‘RINO’ism to which you allude.

    That shouldn’t be a surprise, now should it: http://hij.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/14/2/212

  • John Guardiano

    ktward,
    Telling me that everyone apparently disagrees with me, as you’ve done, is utterly irrelevant. So what? Am I supposed to change my mind and perspective because everyone else — or at least priggish bloggers and stuffed shirt journalists — doesn’t see what I see?

    I could care less if I’m a minority of even one! I don’t base my views or ideas on what is popular or commonplace; I base them on what is right and true. It’s not my fault if others lack my insight and perspicacity.

    You and the other critics of the ad make some legitimate points, which I will acknowledge. But in the final analysis, we simply disagree.

    But given everything that you’ve written, I have to wonder: Are your views about the ad genuine and heartfelt? Or are you simply following the crowd and what “everyone else” seems to think?

    Regards,
    John

  • Guardiano_supporter

    ktwooden,

    Oh, I think I spelled your name wrong LOL!

    Dude (to use your vernacular), you have a serious anger issue, lighten up! Your sarcasm also does little to impress anyone but yourself.

    I have thoroughly enjoyed and respected the several brilliant contributions of Mr. John Guardiano as have many fine, educated citizens of this country.

    While you may not agree with his political viewpoints or his sense-of-humor, (and its clear that is the case), you must learn to accept and respect that as part of a democracy, we are entitled to our own views and feelings.

    I happen to agree with Guardiano and let me tell you Dude, if there are any “writer’s neuroses” occurring here it appears to be with you, not veteran Guardiano.

    Thanks Mr. Guardiano, once again you have provided us with thought-provoking insight and obviously stirred up some healthy? controversy! Can’t wait to see your next contribution!

  • John Guardiano

    Hey Supporter! (whomever you are) –

    Thanks for your support; you are very kind. I don’t mind criticism. In fact, I welcome it; I really do. Sure some criticism is unfair and kind of annoying, but that goes with the territory I suppose. Working on some other posts, which I hope you like.

    Anyway, thanks.

    Best,
    John

  • ktward

    Dude! You have your very own moniker-ed supporter. How … sweet. (in the vernacular of my co-ed daughter: gag me.)

    I googled him and, wow, the only place he comes up is this very single blog thread.

    I’ll be looking for his particular thoughts on FF. Really.