Althouse: "The American people can look to me. They’re not going to find perfection..."

November 19, 2007

"The American people can look to me. They’re not going to find perfection..."

"... but they’re going to find somebody who has dealt with crisis almost on a regular basis and has had results."

Critique the new Giuliani ad:

I like the slipped-in "They’re not going to find perfection."

64 comments:

ricpic said...: Scrap the photo with Reagan. Looks awful in it. Otherwise, good.; 11/19/07, 9:12 AM
Simon said...: In all things, I think character is more important than perfection.; 11/19/07, 9:24 AM
Brent said...: People vote according to what they believe that they'll get from the person who becomes President.

Hillary voters, for example, want her because of her left-leaning, government-can-solve-most-of-your-big-problem, and pro-choice stands. National Security is really secondary to those voters. They hope she'll do well in that area, but there is no rational basis to prefer her in that arena over Rudy or McCain.

Rudy voters - especially with so many conservative Republicans holding their noses - obviously value National Security over everything else.

There are a few exceptions to above, but really only one of any size: people who vote the way they do because of peer pressure - they only think as far as their peer crowd thinks. Which pretty much includes every voter in New York City.; 11/19/07, 9:33 AM
Swifty Quick said...: The majority of voters out there when given the chance will opt for a glib tongue, plausible deniability, and --when it comes to character-- verisimilitude over the real thing any old day. I don't know where that leaves Rudy. In fact, I don't know where it leaves any of them. Hillary just can't pull it off anywhere near as well as Bill did.; 11/19/07, 9:38 AM
Brent said...: Simon,

I agree.; 11/19/07, 9:39 AM
MadisonMan said...: "... but they’re going to find somebody who has dealt with crisis almost on a regular basis and has had results."

Makes me think of a dissolving marriage.; 11/19/07, 9:55 AM
George M. Spencer said...: Leaves me cold. Not sure why.

I'm no Hillary fan, but she does have the fire.

However, both she and Rudy are both as forbidding as Bush.

My guess is that we'll pick someone warmer and folksy and freddy.; 11/19/07, 10:00 AM
Simon said...: MM, When are liberals going to get past the idea that Giuliani having been divorced is a dealbreaker for Republicans?; 11/19/07, 10:10 AM
MadisonMan said...: Simon, I was asked for a critique, and I said what the sentence made me think of. I really don't care what Republicans think of Giuliani, just as I'm sure Republicans don't care what I think of him.; 11/19/07, 10:12 AM
Simon said...: MM, I do care what you think. Not to put too fine a point on it, I want your vote, just as I want Ann's vote. The more the merrier.
Maybe that's a doomed exercise, but of course I want to know what's necessary to bring in as many people as possible, and then we'll argue about whether we're willing to make those sacrifices. If getting intelligent moderates and liberals who care about national security on board means nominating Rudy rather than Fred, I'm all for it.; 11/19/07, 10:59 AM
Anonymous said...: We're not going to find a whole lot of truth either.

As we get closer to the 2008 elections, people will be coming out of the woodworks with horrible stories and information about Rudy and his lack of any kind of "perfection."

P.S. Simon, I could care less about the divorces...it's the fact that the man would announce his last one at a press conference before telling his wife. That tells me plenty about the man.; 11/19/07, 10:59 AM
Richard Dolan said...: Rudy is offering candor, the willingness to tell voters the truth, to trump the disagreement on several issues he has with some conservative voters. The unspoken background of the ad (but suggested strongly by the references to the Reagan DOJ and the US Atty position) is Rudy's image as the upright prosecutor devoted to the courtroom obligation to speak the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. (He's not only the anti-Hillary, he's also the anti-Nifong.) He doesn't intend to hide from his less than socially conservative views on such issues as gay rights, gun control, or even his divorces (not that he could even if he wanted to). His pitch is that his candor on issues where he differs from conservative voters means that you can believe him when he says that there is more that unites him to Rep voters in the primaries, and all voters in the general (nat'l security, fiscal/econ/tax policy, judges, etc.); and that, overall, it's better to vote for someone who will level with you (and has a real chance to beat the Senatress).

Candor, like every other virtue, comes with limits, and you may not think that he is being particularly candid on the issues that matter to you. But it's an approach that has the potential to make a lot of people see Rudy as the opposite of the Senatress (and maybe Romney to boot). It's an ad that has both the primaries and the general election in mind. I thought it was quite effective given the purpose, the audience and the opposition -- even down to the tinkly music, which in other contexts would be very annoying.; 11/19/07, 11:09 AM
Roost on the Moon said...: Simon, I can't speak for all liberals, but some of us may have picked up that idea from reading stuff like this:

I have to admit that it would be quite amusing...for him to exposed as the fraud he is not only on an intellectual but personal level.; 11/19/07, 11:19 AM
MadisonMan said...: Sorry Simon, national Republican candidates lost my vote when they went on an orgy of spending when they were in power. Absolutely disgusting. Contrast that to the responsible spending during Clinton's reign. You can argue that Clinton's budget was partly due to Republicans, but if that's so, why did they abandon all sense of moral decency for future generations when they had complete power? As I say, absolutely disgusting. Good riddance to bad rubbish when they were booted out.; 11/19/07, 11:19 AM
Simon said...: Roost, you're mistaken if you think my hostility to Obama is even primarily driven by partisan concerns. I thought I'd made the reasons for my hostility quite clear.

MM, believe me, I can understand that instinct. Perhaps I'm giving away too much here, but honestly the only bad thing about what happened to us in the U.S. House last fall was that we didn't lose bigger - there's more deadwood that could have been cut away. Nevertheless, I'm not asking you to support those folks, or anyone associated with that orgy. I'm not even asking for you to vote against Tammy. ;) None of the leading GOP candidates for President - certainly not Romney or Giuliani - were involved in that, none of them have given any reason to think they would have let it happen on their watch, and I think all three have given substantial reason to believe that they are fiscal conservatives. The apostates ought to be punished, of course, but that doesn't mean we're all heretics now. I don't disagree with anything you've said, but I don't think that the criticism leads to the conclusion that you shouldn't look at Giuliani, Romney or whomever.

Richard, I think Senatrix would carry more apt connotations.; 11/19/07, 11:36 AM
Cedarford said...: Pity that this tactic "I'm not perfect, but I am a leader who gets things done, accept me, warts and all..." approach was last done successfully by Nixon in 1972.

I liked Arnold's apologia better:

"I did a lot of wild and crazy idiot things ven I wuss younger because it was fun and I loved Cawleefornya."

Rudy had best come up with something other than being Bush- Plus on "evildoers", with extra warts. Give him points like Nixon for recognizing he is a polarizing figure who gets things done - but like McCain and Hillary and Thompson - he rides name recognition as his greatest strength. Guy has a lot of past scandals, which go beyond Kerik and his personal life to include lobbying for certain anti-terrorist groups he had financial ties to and indicting people he had no case on, just for the publicity value.

As Romney and Huckabee get more people to see what they are about - their primary votes go up. Thompson's go down. McCain - slightly. So far Rudy, like Hillary keeps a big lead nationally, but a lead that is or is being wiped out in the early primary states that have issues with both New Yorkers.; 11/19/07, 11:40 AM
Roost on the Moon said...: Regarding the ad, it's very good. The delivery on the 'perfection' line is very dignified. His eyes say "Sure I have regrets, but thats none of your business".

Much better than Thompson's goofy Wilford Brimley routine or Tancredo's shameful garbage.; 11/19/07, 11:50 AM
Anonymous said...: Rudy's a fraud and there are plenty of people who were in New York before, during and after 9/11 that will expose him for what he is.

As time goes on I think McCain will move into the cat bird's seat and Rudy will disappear into the corporate and Fox News world.

I'm not a huge McCain fan, but at least the man has some inherent integrity attached to his public persona...and I could live with him as President.; 11/19/07, 12:09 PM
reader_iam said...: "No" to Romney and Huckabee.; 11/19/07, 12:10 PM
reader_iam said...: That's not to say "yes" to anyone else, at this point, of course.; 11/19/07, 12:12 PM
reader_iam said...: Simon--did you catch Huckabee's statement related to federalism and moral issues yesterday?; 11/19/07, 12:16 PM
Simon said...: Cedarford said:
"So far Rudy, like Hillary keeps a big lead nationally, but a lead that is or is being wiped out in the early primary states that have issues with both New Yorkers."

It's true that the early primary states are regarded as posing dificulties for Giuliani, but as Kim Strassel pointed out recently, he's pursuing a strategy designed to compensate for that problem.; 11/19/07, 12:18 PM
Simon said...: Reader, I didn't - I'll look around to try and find them, but do you have a link, or what was the gist of it?; 11/19/07, 12:18 PM
reader_iam said...: I OT'd the link in a thread here yesterday; I'll go grab it.; 11/19/07, 12:20 PM
reader_iam said...: I'm sure there are other links, then and since, but here's the one I picked up yesterday.; 11/19/07, 12:23 PM
Anonymous said...: I heard Huckabee and his statement regarding abortion rights was ridiculous. He says we can't have 50 states with different laws, we need to overturn Roe v Wade.

Well, if he thinks that's going to happen without the Supreme Court stepping and making the decision for Americans, he's out of his mind.

Here's one the most recent polls regarding just that issue:

"On the issue of abortion, would you say you are more pro-life or more pro-choice?"

10/23-24/07

Pro-life 37%
Pro-choice 48%
Both/Mix 8%
Unsure 7%; 11/19/07, 12:27 PM
Anonymous said...: Huckabee fans:

1. Are you for teaching creationism in our public schools?

2. Do you believe in evolution?

3. Are you for a woman's choice?; 11/19/07, 12:29 PM
reader_iam said...: LOS: Just to forestall what you tend to want to do with regard to my opinions, and to bring you up to speed:

reader_iam said...

"No" to Romney and Huckabee.
12:10 PM

reader_iam said...

That's not to say "yes" to anyone else, at this point, of course.

12:12 PM; 11/19/07, 12:37 PM
Cedarford said...: It's true that the early primary states are regarded as posing dificulties for Giuliani, but as Kim Strassel pointed out recently, he's pursuing a strategy designed to compensate for that problem.

His strategy, and Hillary's, is to let years of MSM coverage at the Center of the Universe - NYC - drive the "they are the best nationally known, they are inevitable, just wait for the big important states!" strategy.

Not content with two New Yorkers, they also push Mayor Bloomberg to come in as an independent savior. Then tout their. essentially, name recognition MSM polls as showing only a New Yorker can defeat a fellow New Yorker.

While regional loyalties don't have as much of an impact as they once did...I don't see 2-3 New Yorkers as what America truly wants in a Fall Presidential campaign. And the MSM "rooting for the home team of Rudy, Hillary!, and Bloomberg" will be more difficult when actual voters signal who they prefer in locales peripheral to the Center of Our Universe.

And the MSM definitely prefers Hillary and Bloomberg over Rudy - so they are sitting on all Rudy's many scandals they have researched for 20 years --so they can have them all flare up after he is locked in as the nominee.; 11/19/07, 12:53 PM
Anonymous said...: reader,
I never said anything about YOU or your opinions.

I merely asked a question.

But, since you've jumped into the fray...do YOU believe in evolution, want creationism taught in public schools or believe in a woman's right to choose?

These are all reasonable questions that Americans will have to deal with regarding Huckabee.

Oh, and as far as I'm concerned, he is concerned, he appears to be a very nice and likable man and he's certainly welcome to his own opinions and beliefs, I just don't think they'll fly with a majority of America.; 11/19/07, 12:56 PM
DaLawGiver said...: Here's a hypothetical for you Lucy:

One of your relatives teaches creationism in public schools but also thinks that someday you may evolve into a human being.

This same relative is filmed murdering a bank teller who wouldn't cash his hot check.

He has thrown himself on the mercy of the court and you are the judge. Do you sentence him to life in prison where he will be Bruno's sex slave until he dies or do you give him the death sentence?

These are your only two choices, what do you do?; 11/19/07, 12:58 PM
Anonymous said...: cedarford,
When you and others blather on about MSM...exactly what do you mean?

Are you including Fox News?
The WSJ?
The Washington Times?
The Weekly Standard?
The National Review?
The American Spectator?
Conservative Digest?
The NY Post?
Rush Limbaugh?
Sean Hannity?
Bill O'Reilly?
Michael Savage?
Glenn Beck?
Laura Ingraham?

Or maybe you mean the hundreds of conservative blogs that compete with HuffPO, KOS and others?

Every one of the before mentioned have massive audiences via daily deliveries, nightly programming, cable and radio, in fact Fox News is rated #1.

Which one of these wouldn't be part of the MSM cabal you constantly refer to?

*Or are you merely referring to anything you don't want to hear?; 11/19/07, 1:05 PM
Anonymous said...: lawgiver,
Look, just because you don't believe in evolution, want creationism taught in our public schools, don't want to allow a woman the right to choose...don't take it out on me. (I bet you've been to the museum, too. Did you get to ride a dinosaur??)

A majority of Americans are with me on all three counts.

I think all three are viable and reasonable questions to ask of anyone running for President...and they WILL be asked.

*As for your creative writing skills...I suggest another vocation...or even a job.; 11/19/07, 1:11 PM
Simon said...: Reader, well, I have to disagree with him. The HLA is a shell game not a serious abortion policy (cf. SF, The geography of a failed amendment (explaining why the FMA is unratifiable)). I think only truly national issues ought to be dealt with at the national level, and although I can agree with Huckabee that abortion is the sort of issue that ought to qualify as such, we're not dealing with a national consensus flouted by a few outlyers. This is a bitterly-fought battle between deeply-held moral views, and on a pragmatic level what really worries me is that if even if the HLA could be proposed (still less ratified), it'd be the end of the United States; liberals wouldn't tolerate a national ban on abortion. They'll abrogate the Constitution before they submit to that. I think that all things considered, the best possible solution is the only realistic solution, which is also the solution presently in the Constitution: to the greatest extent possible, let the states decide and keep the national government out of it. As I've said before, "[a]bortion is always going to be a contentious issue involving profound and difficult moral questions. The choice is between having it be contentious and corrupting at the federal level or contentious and corrupting and the state level."I understand Huckabee's instinct, but like Paul's plan to balance the budget by abolishing the federal government, it's pie in the sky at a time we need practical solutions.; 11/19/07, 1:18 PM
DaLawGiver said...: Won't answer the question.

No guts.

Figured.; 11/19/07, 1:22 PM
Zachary Sire said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 11/19/07, 1:24 PM
Zachary Sire said...: This guy says the word "crisis" twice, which is unsettling. Why is it a good thing that he has dealt with crises "on a regular basis"? Do we really want someone who purports to have disaster follow him where ever he goes? Yikes.

Seems to me the guy was in the right (or wrong, depending on your position)place at the right (wrong) time. Walking around lower Manhattan with a mask on and giving press conferences isn't exactly amazing...I mean, wouldn't any mayor have done that?

And let's not forget that the only reason he was walking the streets is because he insisted, against all suggestions to the contrary, that his emergency operations office be located in one of the towers. Smart.

And don't even get me started on his Kerik connection. He's either corrupt and a crook and is doing a good job of fooling people (come on, Ann! You're too smart to fall for his crap.) or he is a horrible judge of character. Either way, not the makings of a good President.

But 9/11! Terror! Security!

Right.; 11/19/07, 1:28 PM
J. Cricket said...: It's the perfect ad: Rudy is, quite literally, IN THE DARK. How poetic.

And Althouse, come on -- if Hillary said "you won't find perfection" you would be howling, groaning, and otherwise objecting.

I love the fact that Rudy is so clearly in the dark, though. Haha.; 11/19/07, 1:31 PM
reader_iam said...: It's a pretty good ad for the target audience at which it's aimed.

Paining with a bit of a broad brush, I don't think the commenters here (and the "types" they represent, speaking from the POV of the ad-makers), whether on the left or right--or even in the center, for a specific reason or two--belong to that target audience.; 11/19/07, 1:39 PM
Hoosier Daddy said...: Huckabee fans:

1. Are you for teaching creationism in our public schools?

2. Do you believe in evolution?

3. Are you for a woman's choice?

Not a fan but I’ll add the following:

1)Nope
2)Nope
3)Yes. I think all women have the right to choose whether or not to get pregnant.; 11/19/07, 1:48 PM
Anonymous said...: Hoosier,
You really don't believe in evolution?; 11/19/07, 1:51 PM
Anonymous said...: Hoosier,
I forgot to ask: Why do you leave getting pregnant strictly up to the woman?

And I have to assume you don't include rape...do you?; 11/19/07, 1:53 PM
Peter Hoh said...: Back on topic, I don't like Giuliani, but I can recognize that this is an excellent ad for his campaign. He makes good use of the "I approve this message" tagline, as it gives him a chance to smile. It is, I think, the warmest smile I've seen him produce.

They did some digital manipulation on the photo
with Reagan. Missed it the first time through, but Giuliani and Reagan move to the left while the background moves right. Slick.; 11/19/07, 2:07 PM
Hoosier Daddy said...: You really don't believe in evolution?

No.

Hoosier,
I forgot to ask: Why do you leave getting pregnant strictly up to the woman?

Well it does take two to tango. Then again, due to the unfairness of Mother Nature, the women is the one stuck with the bill if she doesn't take precautions or insists that her partner does. Arguing who holds more or less reponsibility for conception is irrelevant. If one does not want to get knocked up, either abstain or use birth control. It really is that simple.

And I have to assume you don't include rape...do you?

Obviously not. I assume you don't think the majority of abortions are the result of rape either.; 11/19/07, 2:12 PM
MadisonMan said...: You really don't believe in evolution?

I think this is the wrong way to ask the question. You should ask: What facts do not support the theory of evolution? People can believe what they want -- but facts are facts. (I was gonna say facts are beyond belief :) ); 11/19/07, 2:19 PM
MadisonMan said...: And can I ask: What crisis occurred when Giuliani was #3 in the Reagan Justice Department? (I agree, the photo isn't great); 11/19/07, 2:31 PM
Simon said...: MM - Akron v. Reproductive Health Ctr., perhaps...; 11/19/07, 2:47 PM
Palladian said...: "You really don't believe in evolution?

No."

Well then don't ever go to the doctor again, or partake of modern medicine of any kind, because if you don't "believe" in evolution, then all of modern science is incorrect and those witch doctors with their drugs are going to kill you!

Any candidate that says they don't "believe" in "evolution" should be immediately disqualified as either an idiot or a liar.; 11/19/07, 2:51 PM
Anonymous said...: Rudy loves to position himself as sitting at the right hand of George W. Bush, especially in his self serving and constant reminders of how heroically he behaved after the 9/11 attack.

Well, when voting in 2008, whether you're for Rudy, McCain, Huckabee, Romney, Hillary, Obama or Edwards, keep the performance we've seen from the current administration thus far:

"ARE WE SAFER"

Appearing today with information provided by:

The Rand Corporation, Oklahoma City National Memorial Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism, the Department of Justice, the Counterterrorism White Paper, Department of Homeland Security, Department of Justice

Worldwide terrorist attacks:
2001 - 1,732
2006 - 6,659

Average daily insurgent attacks:
2003 - 16
2007 - 161

Gitomo:
Detained at Gitmo 2002 - 775
Number released - 470
Number ever tried - 0

Black Sites:
Detained - 100
Number charged or convicted - 0

Terrorism in America:
Convictions or guilty please - 261
Involved in terrorist activity - 2

Foreign Nationals Detained - 5,191
Number convicted of crimes - 0

Foreign Nationals Deported - 515
Number deemed terrorists - 0

Al Qaeda discovered in U.S.A. - 0

Estimated war cost:
2003 - 100-200 Billion

Actual Funding:
2007 - 413 Billion

Homeland Security:
2003 - 2007 - 236 Billion

Human Costs of Iraq War:
Soldiers Killed - 3,871
Soldiers Wounded - 28,489
Civilians Killed - 77-84,000; 11/19/07, 3:04 PM
Revenant said...: Sorry Simon, national Republican candidates lost my vote when they went on an orgy of spending when they were in power. Absolutely disgusting. Contrast that to the responsible spending during Clinton's reign.

Say what? Madison, it was the same guys! The people doing the "responsible spending" under Clinton were the same ones doing the "orgy of spending" under Bush!

Anyone who looks at the Bush Administration and thinks "Republicans spend too much money" has no memory of any years prior to 2001. The less here is that you get too much spending when the President and Congress are of the same party, that's all.; 11/19/07, 3:26 PM
Anonymous said...: Revenant said..."...it was the same guys! The people doing the "responsible spending" under Clinton were the same ones doing the "orgy of spending" under Bush!"

NOBODY spent money under Clinton like they have over the past 7 years.

Bush didn't veto a single spending bill during his first 7 years.; 11/19/07, 3:53 PM
Anonymous said...: Huckabee crowd: Ever read about Wayne Dumond?; 11/19/07, 4:02 PM
MadisonMan said...: Confidential to revenant: Look at the number of earmarks attached to spending bills. See how it skyrocketed when Republicans were in power?

Pigs at a trough, my friend, pigs at a trough.; 11/19/07, 4:22 PM
Simon said...: Luckyoldson said...
"Bush didn't veto a single spending bill during his first 7 years."

Right, and the consequence is that he now has absolutely zero credibility when he threatens to veto a bill for being too larded with pork.; 11/19/07, 4:27 PM
Anonymous said...: Simon,
Light a candle...we agree.; 11/19/07, 4:33 PM
Revenant said...: Look at the number of earmarks attached to spending bills. See how it skyrocketed when Republicans were in power?

They skyrocketed, period. They're still doing so now that the Democrats are in power. The reason for their increase in popularity is that the various reforms of the 1990s made other pork-dispensation tactics harder to use. What you're doing is a bit like blaming Bush for the fact that there's more internet crime in 2007 than there was in 1997.

Anyway, the simple fact of the matter is that Clinton demanded much higher spending than the Republican Congress was willing to pass. There's your "fiscal responsibility". Clinton didn't hold a rampant Republican Congress in check by vetoing its spending -- Congress simply refused to pass the requested spending bills in the first place.

There are four possible combinations for government between Congress and the Presidency. The one combination that actually held spending in check was a Republican Congress and a Democratic President. Your belief that a unified Democratic government will be fiscally responsible is without any basis in historical fact or common sense.; 11/19/07, 5:13 PM
Anonymous said...: rev,
So the reason we had a surplus when Clinton left office was because of the Republicans...and now, with a Republican majority during Bush's first 7 years...we have a massive debt, and no surplus.

And this is because "...Clinton demanded much higher spending than the Republican Congress was willing to pass"...but now spending is more under control??

Your head is tilted so far to the right I'm surprise you can even stand up.; 11/19/07, 5:30 PM
AlphaLiberal said...: Rudy Giuliani: "A noun, a verb and September 11."

September 11
September 11
September 11
September 11
September 11
September 11; 11/19/07, 8:45 PM
john marzan said...: "They’re not going to find perfection."

wait till the liberal MSM digs out his stuff from his messy personal life. especially from his last marriage with donna hannover.; 11/19/07, 10:45 PM
Revenant said...: wait till the liberal MSM digs out his stuff from his messy personal life

"Digs out"? What, like its been hidden until now? He announced his divorce at a press conference, for pity's sake.; 11/19/07, 10:53 PM
Nichevo said...: Luckyoldson said...

P.S. Simon, I could care less about the divorces...it's the fact that the man would announce his last one at a press conference before telling his wife. That tells me plenty about the man.

....

Why would you care, LOS? I mean - obviously it is a talking point you can use to beat the Republican over the head.

But in reality - I suppose you purport to regard this behavior as cruel, nasty, injurious? I don't think I will shock you, will I, if I note that you exhibit all these behaviors in galore, on this very website. Your vituperativeness dial goes easily to 11. I should rather think you would empathize and admire Giuliani for this reason. If it were Hillary!, you would probably say it showed her resolution in the face of the enemy, her toughness. How many people would cheer if she utterly dissed Bill at a press conference? I mean, besides Willey, Jones, Broaddrick, Lewinsky, Gracen, et al.

You may say, I suppose, that you see this as a weakness because others will object to it (if suitably reminded by such as you of course). But to say that you, personally, don't like it, seems hypocritical, or at least un-self-aware. And hypocrisy, and un-self-awareness, are reputedly mortal sins on your side of the aisle, much as divorcedness and gay-friendliness are supposed political poison on the right.

It tells you plenty about the man? Perhaps it should tell you about yourself. I haven't the faintest doubt that you would do just this sort of thing to win just one vote for your side in 2008. Especially if your spouse or significant other opposed your politics.

And you don't even know what the Giulianis went through, to arrive at such a state. Happily it does not stop your judging them, otherwise no doubt you would be heavy bored.

...Now really, do you think the above has been unfair? C'mon, LOS, be a big man, give us a "Touché."; 11/20/07, 12:38 PM
Trooper York said...: Beware Nichevo, you know not the danger you are in. You are in the grip of the Balrog, a figure of depravity and filth legendary since the days of Middle-earth. His squat and bulbous body, unspeakably ugly countenance and horrific odor does not do justice to the depth of the evil in his soul. He will hold you in his grip covering you in foul smelling spittle as he shouts obscenities such as “Blow Me” or “Suck My Dick.” You can not reason with it. Kindness is to no avail. Mercy earns a spit in the face. No reasonable argument can be made. Despite the marshaling of facts and proofs, no productive engagement can be made with such a primitive mind. The Balrog is of such limited intectual capacity that it can not comprehend the simplest passage. His wit is dull as the first tool made by those who have gone before. His foul persona is enough to gag an orc.

But all of this is not the true danger. It was what you can become when locked in his foul embrace. You struggle and fight as he tries to rip your flesh and overpower you with his fetid breath as you fall deeper and deeper into your own personal slough of despond. You will find yourself matching his foul tactics with unspeakable acts of your own as your rage is ignited and you loose sight of the limits of respectable behavior. Over and over you will tumble, endlessly fighting and gouging, biting and spiting, to a denouncement that one can predict. Even the greatest of heroes are no match for this mighty troll. It is best to seal the gates of the mines of Moria and let the monster sleep. You awaken it at your own peril.; 11/20/07, 6:35 PM
Trooper York said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 11/20/07, 7:26 PM
Trooper York said...: Intellectual, sorry Gandalf doesn't know how to spell.; 11/20/07, 7:29 PM