I said earlier today, he has a sniper like approach. He picks a target, say an issue or a campaign stop, hits hard and fast, one shot one kill. Like the snipper, while all the noise is going on around him, he sneaks in and you don’t realize he is there until the morning after the election when he has won by 20 points.
Look, guys, before everyone decides that . . . what conventional experts would call poor campaigning . . . is actually a shrewd decision to be different, don’t you think you should ask why?
What is the reason he thinks that the only, or even best, path to victory would be to pursue a program that has Never Led Any One In History To Victory?
What is the desperate reality that leads him to pursue a path that no political advisor would ever advise? What leads him to think that, on the basis of one term in the Senate, he knows better than those advisors how to win the presidency? The people who worked on the Bush campaign(s) and achieved victory and won the presidency . . . do you think his behavior is what they would recommend?