It would be interesting, to say the least.

The thing is however gracefully it is put, it would be spun as an attempt to discredit him among the social conservatives, etc. I don't think the Democrats would suffer from that spin though, because as you say the social conservatives aren't going to vote for him or her anyway.

Also, it is clear that Rudy is not as committed to things like gay rights and abortion as he's being made out to be. He in fact probably doesn't care either way, especially about abortion, but went with what would be beneficial for someone trying to be mayor of NYC.

Didn't Kerry try this?

It was John Edwards. A mild mention of Mary Cheney was enough to bring on the storm of faux outrage -- against Edwards.

Would it be wrong? No. Would it work? Probably not.

Well, I'd agree that there's a good shot that he hasn't got any non-cynically driven opinions on abortion either way, but whatever he thinks about gay civil rights, he pretty clearly doesn't have any personal distaste for or moral opposition to gay people, and I get the impression that there's a voting bloc out there for whom that would be a problem.

(And yeah, Kerry tried this. I thought it was harmless, and the backlash centered on "You can't bring up someone's family!" So now we've got the same set up, but without the family issue, and with pictures of Rudy in drag.)

I think Lizard's statement was more smooth and stuck more to what is simply true than Edwards's. (Lizard for President!)

Also, I think it would be ok for a democrat to say all these things because they are true, and the states of affairs they describe would be very refreshing. It would really be nice if the Republicans ran someone who was not a anti-gay bigot.

My question is whether the religious right is likely to be motivated at all this election. If not, then there's no need for this. If so, I don't know for whom, and on what issue. I know Romney's trying to get them, and that they have operated somewhat under the radar, but still.

Not wrong at all. It would be similar to the codes that right-wingers use to talk to their rabid supporters, like "welfare queen" or "family values." But in this case, the code would not contribute to anyone's marginalization or demonization in public discourse, since the surface and coded meanings are both in favor of gay rights. The only people who would react to the coded message would be bigots, and the result of their reacting to the code would hopefully be fewer votes for the candidate who's less likely to support gay-friendly policies.

My question is whether the religious right is likely to be motivated at all this election. If not, then there's no need for this. If so, I don't know for whom, and on what issue.

My sense (and IANAPollster) is that the social conservative vote has a lot of overlap with the 'Kill 'em all' GWOBadness vote, and the latter group is Rudy's constituency, which is why I'm thinking that social conservativism based attacks could cripple him.

And just how motivated and resonant is the 'Kill 'em all" GWOBadness vote anyway?

Mostly, this post is motivated by personal loathing. While I don't want any Republican to win the election, if Rudy does I'm going to start a campaign of steady, committed drinking. So I'm a little worried about my ethical judgment in terms of tactics to use against him.

Let's assume for argument's sake that it works, and so it suppresses the anti-gay-bigot vote.

The only possible bad outcome then would be to return the anti-gay-bigot vote to power in the Republican primaries for the next election cycle. (Because if Giuliani gets the nomination, it means that the anti-gay-bigot vote has its lost power in the Republican primaries.)

I suspect, however, that the power of the anti-gay-bigot vote is waning anyway, so there's no risk of their return to power. In 2012, gay-baiting will no longer be an effective political tactic, as it was in 2004. (It remains to be seen how much power the anti-gay vote has in 2008.)

I don't have a problem with it except that I would rather see it phrased much more directly: "Y'all know he's totally cool with gay people and was pro-choice prior to this, right? You sure you still want to vote for him? I just want to make sure you're aware of your own hypocrisy on this if you do..."

But then, I favor the tactical outing of public figures who build their careers on homophobia, so I would favor some pretty aggressive stuff I'm sure many people would have very good reasons to find distasteful.

10: Surprisingly motivated, especially in the fearful suburbs. My dad is a member of both sets (social conservatives and Kill-'em-all) and loves Rudy, although my dad's quite anti-gay.

It wouldn't work coming from the Democratic nominee, or a member or his campaign or anyone even remotely associated with the party, or the left in general (read bloggers like Kos or Atrios), for reasons cited above. If you could jiu jitsu a social conservative leader into saying it, so much the better. But the social conservatives already hate Giuliani for his abortion non-stance. The question is whether they (social conservatives) will hold their collective nose and vote for him in Nov. 08. Ask your self if you will do the same for Hillary, and you have your answer.

14:Are you in a position to try this argument on him?

I tried it weakly, bemusedly, a couple of months ago when he first expressed his bizarre and uninformed admiration for Rudy. I don't think he took it in. He probably needs to see the drag footage.

Analogy time: Say it's Hillary v. Rudy. Imagine Rudy says, "I'm very glad that the Democrat (sic) Party has decided to run a candidate who agrees with my positions about the needs for both very broad executive powers and extensive, ill-considered, use of military force against terrorists."

Other than possibly mischaracterizing Hillary's views, would there be a problem with this?

More: I know you said to ignore phrasing and yet that's what I leapt on. Yay for ignoring direction! Anarchy for all! At any rate what I'm really trying to say, I think - but find myself hesitating to say for some reason I can't quite describe - is also that I feel like there's a mealy-mouthedness to the sly allusion. I don't want a Democrat to stand up and make a very reasoned and extremely carefully worded statement like that and then put their hand to their forehead and look surprised when anyone reads it as "s/he called Rudy a gay-lover!" It's so fake. It's so obviously fake. It's so... RNC. I want an honest statement that directly addresses hypocrisy when it exists. The only way to claim any moral high ground on the topic of honesty or directness is to be honest and direct. The politics of gay-bashing aren't over and the Republican machine still relies on it. I doubt it will be as effective a few election cycles from now but it still is very, very effective. If a candidate wants to address that and shame some of the GWOB{adness,uttsex} voters out of voting for a candidate who's pretending to agree with them, great! But be honest when doing it.

As a side note, I realize this is naive of me but I can't let it go.

If my choices end up being Clinton and Giuliani, I'm going to develop a (more serious) drug habit.

20:

I just thinking the same thing.

18: To the extent that it's true, it wouldn't be wrong, and to the extent that it's false, Clinton could clarify.

19: The problem with getting less mealymouthed about it, is that it's hard to do without running into the "Respect mah authoritehbeliefs" Christians. I can't figure out how to directly allude to anti-homosexual bigots without making it clear that as a political force, they tend to be evangelical Christians, at which point you set off the chorus of "Oooo, mommy, the Democrat demonstrated that they hate God again. Why do Democrats hate God?" If you can write it more directly without bumping into that can of worms, it might work better.

Gray Davis did almost exactly this during the Republican primary last time around - but he bought ads saying "Dick Riordan supports women's right to have abortions." Riordan lost the primary to whats-his-name, who got killed in the general election. Of cours, Davis sucked and was an idiot so he got recalled in favor of Arnold, so it's not really clear how much it helped him.

I suspect that this is too clever by half to be useful in any way in a national election.

Would it be wrong?

Of course not. But it wouldn't be effective, either, because any damage it did to Giuliani's gay-hating base would be mitigated by the number of (uninformed) moderate-to-liberal voters who get to reinforce their impression of Giuliani as a safe, comfortable social liberal.

You don't win on this issue by portraying Giuliani as a moderate. What you need to do is point out that he has no genuine beliefs in this area at all: that he has gay friends but is allying himself with the party of gay-haters, that for most of his career he was adamantly pro-choice but is now promising to appoint "strict constructionists," etc.

I'm confused. Is Guiliani somehow worse than any of the other republican candidates? McCain? Romney? Brownback? Gingrich??

I think the moral of the story may be: if Clinton wins the Democratic nomination, it's drinking time. And not the happy kind of drinking, either. Doesn't really matter so much what happens on the Republican end.

What you need to do is point out that he has no genuine beliefs in this area at all: that he has gay friends but is allying himself with the party of gay-haters,

Oh, that is better: wait for something bigoted from a prominent Republican and then demand that Giuliani denounce him.

And of course that he's a complete fake as executive, manager and hero...Oh wait, that argument has been proven to be ineffective most of the time.

25: I don't know that he's much worse for the country, but I, personally, hate him from his tenure as mayor of NY and have no significant non-political feelings about the rest of the bunch.

if Rudy does I'm going to start a campaign of steady, committed drinking

I don't know if my liver can take another 4 years like the last seven.

I have no idea how effective this strategy would be, but it's worth noting that Rudy's been cool with his gay friends and constituents in the past and leave him to explain why his attitudes have changed if they have. I do share Pants' wish that this gets communicated a little more deftly than "Hey, guys! Look! It's Rudy in a dress!"

Maybe the more effective line of criticism here is the flip-flopper angle. That the shift of Rudy's opinions on issues of gay rights or reproductive choice is just more evidence of his shiftless lack of true beliefs on any issue (strasmangelo-pwned!), just like his friends the mobbed-up Bernie Kerik and the OJ-coddling Judith Regan.

Well, if you just really dislike him, "Giuliani likes gays" would probably work much better in the primary, which would be just as effective at making him not be president.

Yeah, but I don't have to worry about the ethical implications of bigots calling other Republicans out as not bigoted enough. If a Democrat does it, I have to worry.

But certainly, the best option is for him to crash and burn in the primaries.

I'm really not sure it would work, LB. If you read the rightie blogs, they're petulantly impermeable to any appeal to Rudy's tolerance of gay people.

Any praise for Rudy's gay-friendly ways ("gay-friendly" is way too much praise for the man who banned dancing, btw) should come from third parties, not the candidate. It would help if the media would start asking Rudy pointed questions about gay issues.

Not only would it not be wrong, but turning the Republicans' anti-gay pandering into a weapon against them would be delicious. Of course 6 and 19 are right; it would take skillful wording, in the right context, to actually pull this off. And 24 definitely might have a point.

25: Yes. Worse.

Yeah, but rightie blogs tend toward the schmibertarian who-gives-a-damn end of the spectrum; do you think they fairly represent social conservatives?

28: If you put any stake in the "character counts" philosophy of presidential fitness, then I think for sure that Rudy would be worse for the country than mere hypocrites like McCain or Romney. I wasn't even in New York while he was mayor, but followed the news close enough to see that he has a screw loose: he's a self-important hothead with major authoritarian tendencies. We just had one of those, and it didn't work out (and I wouldn't describe W as a hothead). If you've ever heard the radio ferret segment, I should think the point is made.

One good thing that might come of something like this even if it doesn't do Giuliani any harm is that if he WERE to become president (shudder) perhaps he'd be freed from the expectation that he's going to be tough on the homos.

Right -- get him out of the closet as tolerant, and defuse the issue nationally. Even if it didn't do him any harm, it'd do the rest of us some good.

JM is right. Don't put too much faith in the social conservatives fear of gay rights as a club against Giuliani. First of all, they get that he's in drag as a joke, part of a tv show or some other entertainment. Just like Uncle Miltie. Secondly, the "leadership thing" resonates. New York City was in serious trouble, and Giuliani is the one who is perceived as turning it around. And that was before 9/11. In my uninformed opinion all he has to do to get the nomination is not self destruct.

Where's Larry Flynt when you need him?

I don't know if my liver can take another 4 years like the last seven.

I've been doing this since before most people were born (Nixon's first election). Take vitamins, eat well, and drink a glass of water before going to bed.

Honestly, I think in the general election the best attack on Giuliani would be that we've seen what happens when you get a President more concerned with loyalty than competence, and electing a guy who fired a successful police commissioner because he was getting too much attention and replaced him with his mobbed-up felonious limo driver would be a bad idea. Is it remotely possible that Giuliani survives a year of serious dirt digging? He chickened out of a Senate race. (The question is then whether he would get the attention he merits, or if the news media is too committed to the "America's Mayor" storyline or gotcha shots of Rudy in drag.)

I don't understand 35. Among an unimpressive bunch, Rudy seems like one of least bad. That may be rather like saying having your kneecaps broken is less bad than having your cock sawed off, but it's true nonetheless. What am I missing?

All that is substantively true, and also, surely the fact that he looks like Death himself has got to cut against him at some point.

In 2000, Bush seemed like one of the least bad, and look how well that turned out.

42 to 40. To 41, the thing about Rudy is, regardless of his politics, he's a personally a bad man who's motivated by spite, bad temper, and self-aggrandizement. He will do substantively stupid things (like firing a very good police commissioner for getting too much good press, and not kowtowing hard enough) out of sheer nasty unpleasantness. I would despise him almost as much if I agreed with his politics -- I don't hate him as a Republican, I hate him as a human being.

41 - He's more personally authoritarian than any of the other GOP contenders. He will push and push and push the unitary executive theory, and relentlessly attack any aspect of the American government that he feels is getting in his way. It'll be like having Dick Cheney as president, only he's vastly more personally popular.

Which is why people should be repeating "Kerik Kerik Kerik" starting right now. I repeat -- he bent the rules to get his unqualified and mobbed-up driver made police commissioner, because he felt Kerik was a Giuliani guy. And then he tried to get him appointed Secretary of Homeland Security.

Rudy and McCain are also intensely authoritarian. They're probably less socially conservative and also less anti-tax anti-government, but they have the authoritarianism in spades and McCain is more hawkish than Bush.

That you can right a horrific paragraph about the awfulness of a Giuliani presidency does not surprise me. That you can't imagine an equally horrific paragraph to write about each other Republican candidate does.

And I don't really understand what 43's getting at.

Brock, I can't imagine writing something similarly awful about Gingrich, Romney, Huckabee, or Thompson. The Bush administration's two signature failures in my mind are the dismantling of the idea that the executive agencies of the federal government have any purpose other than partisan political gain, and the decision to ruin the American military and waste lives and treasure on a hapless foreign adventure. Giuliani would potentially ratchet up the former; McCain the latter. People with different sets of beliefs may come to different conclusions.

47: The thing is, I don't know anything about the other Republicans that indicates to me that they'd frivolously abuse state power in the service of personal unpleasantness. I know Rudy would, because he did for eight years while I watched.

The others might be just as bad, but I don't know it.

What 44 and 45 said. The short version is that Giuliani is, personally, a real asshole whose assholism is much more overt than Bush's when given a chance to shine.

I almost want to say that Giuliani is such an obvious asshole that once he starts getting a lot of national exposure he will seem much less attractive to people. I almost want to say it, but I won't, because in 2000 I often said that W was so obviously an incompetent dumbass that he couldn't be taken seriously as a candidate. So I don't say things like that anymore.

Baby Jeebus, why can't we have a candidate who will stay out of my bedroom and my wallet? Why must I always choose between the two? Please answer my prayer, Lord baby Jeebus, so cuddly and omnipotent.

Careful, TLL. I've seen a map that pointed that way but in the margin it read in flowering script Here There Be Schmibertarians.

And I don't really understand what 43's getting at.

Bush successfully sold himself as a mainstream "compassionate conservative" in 2000, with a history of relative moderation and compromise, and has proven to be arguably the worst president in American history and who has governed from the hard right 24/7. Just because Giuliani has made some vaguely socially liberal statements in the past (most of which he is now disavowing) doesn't make him somehow palatable.

Why must I always choose between the two?

Remind me which one of the two the Republicans stay out of?

54. I'm talking about the Republicans, Apo. Or at least I wish I were. I know that there are currently no candidates whom I support. I admire Gingrich's quick wit and genuine intellectual horsepower, but he has waaay to much baggage, both personally and politically. Thompson is the kind of guy, like Bush 2000, who people think they know, but really don't.

Mmm. I don't think it would be wrong, but I don't think it would work. If Guiliani gets through the primary, then the base will either hold its nose or stay home. They're not going to cross party lines to vote for a Democrat.

So the question is, how many would stay home? My sense is, not nearly enough, not with a GWoIcky and a court to pack. Pushing the pro-gay side of Guiliani may undermine him with the base. But it makes him more appealing to moderate types, Democrat and Republican. Here he is, swing voter: America's Mayor, tough on terror, experienced, turned New York City around (says the mythology)... and you know, he's pretty good on gays & abortion rights, too! Not like the crazily devout Bush (who is To Blame for the failure of our Great Plans.) He's the strong yet tastily moderate leader we need! You get the idea.

So the question is, how many would stay home?

There's a corollary question: what are the chances of a third-party evangelical candidate if Giuliani takes the nomination? As 2000 demonstrated, it doesn't take a Perot-sized showing to throw a serious wrench in the works.

I nominate apostropher to find God, start a mega-ministry and then run as our patsy candidate in order to throw the election. This is in part because I could maybe swing a cushy job on the campaign. There goes all my honesty talk, right out the window.

I nominate apostropher to find God,

In his other back pocket, the one without the Internet in it.

I nominate apostropher to find God

Most mornings, I can't even find my keys.

Sullivan, for once, makes himself useful by helpfully posting this quote from Giuliani to assist us Rudyphobes in making our point:

"Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do"

I bet Apostropher would make a great televangelist.

52. I was a registered Libertarian until I realized they were crazy. Also unelectable.

63: Ron Paul's running.

By now the whole "moderation" scam consists of persuading people that an authoritarian warmongering union-busting "fiscal conservative" is sort of OK because he's not a fanatical Christian homophobe. It's a vicious, brutal fraud. That kind of "half a loaf" would be deathly,

Also, in 58 "swing a cushy job" s/b "put the bite."

I bet Apostropher would make a great televangelist.

After Ultimate Fighting and its many variants, televangelists are my favorite late night TV fare.

64. As what? The only Republican Congressman who's actually perfomed an abortion?

Too long for a campaign button, perhaps.

It'll make an awesome graphic, though.

I admire Gingrich's quick wit and genuine intellectual horsepower, but he has waaay to much baggage, both personally and politically.

Really? I'm just the opposite. Newt's personal life doesn't appall me as much as his pretense of piety while living that life. Occasionally, I admire his sheer nerve and political cunning (which he has in spades). But I've never believed in the story of Gingrich the intellectual. His ideas usually sound like warmed-over Alvin Toffler or George Gilder. He's a classic American crank. A century ago, he'd have been pushing the Single Tax, or spelling reform, or an English-Speaking Union.

Back when Hitchens had a Nation column, he tracked down Gingrich's dissertation on King Leopold's rule of the Congo and wrote about it. According to Hitch, the dissertation was not insane. Hitch himself later proved to be insane, so I don't know what it all adds up to.

71. How about with the qualifier "for an elected politician"?

Gingrich does have an enormous head, so that's something.

71 - But there's a long American tradition of electing weirdo crank authors to Congress!

In keeping with some comments upthread, a lot of this strikes me as speculation on the part of Democrats on what the Republican base is looking for.

I, for one, have little idea what they're looking for. I can speculate, sure, but right now? What they're disaffected from, what they seek relief from, what they'd like to substitute for the Bush administration? I'd have to read more conservative blogs, or perhaps just more opinion polls.

Certainly I know generally, but in terms of their choices among Republican primary candidates? I know how those candidates play among the liberal crowd, but have no idea how they play among conservatives.

I'd have to read more conservative blogs

I doubt this would provide a good representation of Republican primary voters.

I doubt this would provide a good representation of Republican primary voters.

No doubt. Polls, then?

It's sort of pathetic, I just don't know any Republicans.

Hey! Maybe the mainstream media reports on this sort of thing!

78. It's sort of pathetic, I just don't know any Republicans.

And yet, they keep getting elected. Weird.

It does seem weird.

I blame Diebold.

Either Rudy Giuliani also has a gigantic head or the rest of his body has withered away. There's some cartoon character he keeps reminding me of---an evil scientist, I think---but I've never been able to nail down the referent.

82. Skeletor, He-man's nemesis.

Polls, then?

Still kinda far out for them to reflect much beyond name recognition. I suspect (without any evidence on which to base it) that large parts of both parties' primary voters won't really start tuning in until late fall or early winter. Back to the original topic, the most withering fire Giuliani will face is likely to come from other Republican candidates trying to knock him out of frontrunner status by denying he's genuinely conservative. I expect their primaries to be knives-out, nasty affairs until the field winnows significantly.

He looks a bit like Dr. Bunsen Honeydew.

82: Onion Head Monster?

LB's approach (not just hers) would be to promote a Republican primary win for their least-electable candidate.

I believe Cala noted up there that it would come down to Republican voters deciding to actually stay away from the polls altogether.

Question: what kept potential Democratic voters away from the polls for so long?

Provisional answer, based solely on anecdote: a conviction that the political process was corrupt, that there was little difference among candidates, that it just didn't make a difference.

I do believe this might be Hillary Clinton's approach. You don't want Republican voters coming to the polls in order to elect Anybody But Edwards. Say.

Sorry, this was not the original topic.

Skeletor, He-man's nemesis.

I think He-Man and Skeletor are married now.

There is a certain resemblence. Skeletor. Rudy. (Scroll down for image in both links.) Skeletor is much, much burlier, though.

Isn't there an evil jack-o'-lantern character?

It's been a really long time since America elected a bald president.

My main experience with Republicans is with Republican college students. My impression is that it is very easy to get them to stay away from the polls. In fact, I'm not sure many of them vote to begin with. They just say conservative things in class.

It's the old people who show up consistently for the polls. The real question is what will turn off Republican old people.

Abortion seems to do the trick for a lot of them.

But once they're old, it is too late to abort them.

Hmm, I guess I didn't really think that one all the way through.

#73. For an elected politician, Gingrich's enthusiasm with big ideas is charming. Glib, but charming. I cursed him in the House and I think he'd be a disastrous President, but I give him credit for at least paying lip-service to the notion that ideas are interesting. These days, of course, even Spaceman Newt is running as Father Newt. Gingrich is delivering the Graduation Speech at Liberty University this May because, according to the Rev. Jerry, "In recent years, Gingrich has dedicated much of his time to calling America back to our Christian heritage."

Also, I love Onion Head Monster.

There's some cartoon character he keeps reminding me of---an evil scientist, I think---but I've never been able to nail down the referent.

Frank Gorshin as The Riddler?

Maybe Scarecrow, from the Batman universe? I'm not finding a picture that truly convinces me.

Dr. Sivana.

The real question is what will turn off Republican old people.

Leaving off the deleted guffaw,

You mean what will keep them away from the polls?

Come on, we're all capable of thinking this through, if we think those voters are really significant (they are): a Democratic candidate they think they can live with.

Man, this sucks.

What do the Republican old people, and middle-aged people, want? God. As far as I know, the single unifying desideratum. Oh, and just: conservatism understood as a resistance to change.

97: Wrong candidate, wrong party.

Uther Penn Sapien?

What do the Republican old people, and middle-aged people, want?

Skittles.

Gingrich is as nasty a politician as there is. He's smarter by far than the average movement Republican, but he's venomous and dishonest. His plan this time around seem to be to out-nasty the rest of them

What do the Republican old people, and middle-aged people, want?

Matlock.

105 had me laughing out loud, drawing a lot of attention.

All kidding aside, Giuliani both looks and acts a lot like this comic book character. He's feisty, but untrustworthy.

Draft Andy Griffith!

You'd think I'm crazy if I said that I wish Bill Moyers would run for preznit.

I mean, not that he could win. He's not rolling in enough dough. But he's got the God in him. But he wouldn't be dropping enough bombs on people.

Oh well.

I know nothing of his personal politics but my understanding is that he has donated just shit-tons of money to the NC Democratic Party. Newsmeat shows only a few donations here and there, but there was a thousand buck gift to Kerry in June of '04.

I guess that's an over-serious response, but shit, why not? I'd vote for him. He can't be anymore frail and skeletal than his likely opponents.

110 to 108, that is.

What's the old movie, with Patricia Neal, where he's a dangerous demagogue?

A Face in the Crowd

A Face in the Crowd http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0050371/

110: Damn, I thought you were talking about Bill Moyers.

Missed it by that much.

he has donated just shit-tons of money to the NC Democratic Party

That's my understanding as well. Unfortunately, he's 80 years old and broke his hip last year, so he's decidedly more frail. All through the 80s and 90s, it was my fantasy that he and Dean Smith would up and run for NC's Senate seats, which they'd have won without even breaking a sweat.

For those of you who remember the difficulty I was having finding a Rabbi who would officiate a mixed Jewish-atheist Chinese wedding in Japan, well, problem solved.

It's obviously not morally wrong, in that it hurts basically nobody and helps all the people that will be better off if Giuliani doesn't become president (who number in the hundreds of millions, if not billions).

That particular angle on the attack, I think, is not the best way to put the basic attack to work, but I think it is, in the abstract, a very very devastating attack. I, personally, doubt that Giuliani can survive the primaries, even looking as good as he does now, with that attack meme working against him. And if he does get the nomination, the Democrats will be working that angle from sunup to sundown in some fairly sophisticated ways.

Some of those fly-by-night rabbis can burn you, though.

If the Democrats overplay the Giuliani sex criminal angle, the wise heads of Broderworld will come up with a unified line on hypocritical, judgmental Democrats, and the religious operative will whip up some kind of repentance and renewal narrative to shovel out to their flock. The information sources of the religious right are very restricted; that crowd won't even know what the Broder bots are saying, so a two-pronged attack might work very well.

On the other hand, there are signs that the Broder-Robertson axis is disintegrating. Time will tell.

117: Wow. I like that fantasy. Break a sweat? They'd have won without getting down off their own front porches.