In his interview to Rolling Stone, Ron Paul said:
since Giuliani is so anxious to go to war, somebody ought to ask him why he didn’t go when he was called up instead of ducking it like some of those other chicken hawks — he took, what, four deferrals?
As far as I know this is his first personal attack. I would not mind if he had gone negative, as long as the facts were true - in my opinion, nothing is wrong in spelling out the difference between you and your opponent. Of course, what Ron Paul said is true, but what purpose does the personal attack serve? Would Giuliani’s arguments have had more credence if he had gone to war?
The only good reason for going personal that I can think of is to get people’s attention. Especially if your opponent started a personal attack against you first. During their famous exchange, when Giuliani called Ron Paul “Absurd” on 9/11, it would have been very effective if Ron Paul had started his answer with the quote above. It would have provided an enormous boost to Paul’s arguments. You could be sure that nobody would have breathed during his answer, he would have been given plenty of time, the cameras would have stayed on him, and later on this moment would be played infinitely on different TV stations. It could have become a “Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine. Senator you are no Jack Kennedy!” moment.
But to waste it in a phone interview? And give Giuliani a chance to get prepared with his consultants and focus groups? Why?
1 response so far ↓
1 Lance Wilson // Nov 25, 2007 at 9:43 pm
Ron Paul, although it does hurt him “politically”, doesn’t honestly plan these things out
He says the truth off the cuff. So whatever truth comes to his mind he will say it, whether or not it is the “opportune” time
Leave a Comment