|Man Without Qualities|
Sunday, September 05, 2004
Perhaps more amazing than the thought that a man who has made, say, billions of dollars is really telling the world how to do it in a book costing the reader, say, $12 - after ordinary discounting - is the thought that a Presidential campaign is really telling the world its strategy for winning the election.
Why would any sensible campaign let such information out more than is absolutely necessary to effect the strategy? The benefits to the campaign from releasing such information is difficult to identify - but the potential costs are obvious and huge.
Does Macy's tell Gimbel's? Maybe Gimbel's told Macy's - or the media - too often. That might explain why there's no Gimbel's today.
Put another way: I don't believe that the Bush campaign told the Los Angeles Times (the Los Angeles Times!!!! Ronald Brownstein!!!) anything meaningful and/or reliable about the Bush-Cheney campaign strategy. Yes, the Republican campaign obviously wants Republicans to turn out - and just as obviously the Republicans are making efforts to make that happen. But why would the campaign share with Mr. Brownstein its true thinking on whether turnout or swing voters are more significant? There is no reason - I don't think the campaign did any such thing. And I think the Times is silly to think otherwise - and so is anyone who believes the Times' article.
Comments: Post a Comment