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.

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

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!

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

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

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.

Regards,
John

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.

* 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

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?”