I suggested in the post below that Rudy’s flaking on the Iraq Study Group is the kind of thing that ends campaigns. And a number of readers have written in either to say that it’s not that big a deal, or that the press won’t touch it or that there are a bunch of other things that should do his candidacy greater damage.
Sure. But things that tank campaigns are seldom the things that are really that big a deal. It’s the little facts that puncture the premise of a candidate’s campaign. It is the the question that can’t quite be answered. The story that sticks.
So take Rudy. His whole campaign is about him as Mr. War on Terror. (He’s certainly not running on social policy since he disagrees with most of his constituency on those issues. ) But the upshot of this little story is that Rudy’s real priority is money. He literally doesn’t have time for finding a solution to the problem we face in Iraq. Couldn’t make the meetings.
Again, is it that big a deal? Certainly worse things have happened. Rudy was still in his buckraking phase. I guess the Iraq Study Group got on well enough without him. (After all, Rudy doesn’t really have any experience or knowledge about foreign policy.)
But how does Rudy respond if one of his opponents raises this in a debate after Rudy goes on one of his tough-guy-9/11 save-the-word-from-the-arabs tears?
I think this sticks to him like tar. Not because it’s the worst thing in the world. Not because it’s the most important thing about him or his campaign. But because it’s like bubble gum on the shoe of his signature issue. Pick your metaphor, a pin to his balloon. A can trailing after his car. Whatever. It will stick in people’s minds and it hits him where he’s supposed to be strongest. He cares so much about the Iraq War he couldn’t bother to reschedule a few rubber chicken speeches. It’s just a matter of which of his opponents throws the first gob.
