“Who ran the worst campaign?”
Politicalwire.com has an online poll that asks the question, “Which Republican candidate ran the worst campaign?”
The editors write: This isn’t an easy question: Of the Republican presidential candidates, who ran the worst campaign? Explain your answer in the comments.
Who ran the worst campaign?
The results:
1. Perry 3,593 46.84%
2. Cain 648 11.74%
3. Pawlenty 634 11.47%
4. Huntsman 419 7.58%
5. Gingrich 418 7.56%
6. Romney 363 6.57%
7. Bachmann 298 5.39%
8. Santorum 132 2.39%
anita says:
Well, it appeared to be a very easy question, with an obvious answer.
Everyone knows this but Rick Perry and his merry band of sycophants.
He was quoted last week saying that his answer on in-state tuition was more damaging then his “oops” brain freeze during a debate. I truly don’t think he knows how foolish he looked, how his only currency became mocking himself and his self-imploding trajectory.
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks Reply:
April 22nd, 2012 at 6:41 am
“Well, it appeared to be a very easy question, with an obvious answer.”
It’s an obvious answer to those who haven’t a clue why democrats haven’t won a statewide election since 1994.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
April 22nd, 2012 at 7:49 pm
JBB has revealed himself as Rick Perry.
Reply »
Art Reply:
April 23rd, 2012 at 8:23 am
Huh? What do the Dems have to do with the fact Rick Perry is about as presidential as a Jack-in-the-Box taco? That his team is overmatched outside of Texas? That his message does not work? That his embracing the radical right wont play in Peoria?
Reply »
Blue Dogs Reply:
April 23rd, 2012 at 3:35 pm
John Sharp came within 2 points away from beating Perry in the 1998 Lieutenant Governor’s race and Paul Hobby almost defeated Strayhorn in the Comptroller’s race that same year.
Reply »
The Mustache That Dare Not Speak Its Name says:
One thing is for sure. The answer is not Herman Cain, because he has a fine mustache, like any respectable and successful gentleman.
Which reminds me, it is time for my weekly shampooing and brushing. I hope the man I am attached to doesn’t forget. Hint, hint.
Reply »
Robert Morrow says:
James Carville is on record that Rick Perry ran the worst presidential campaign of ALL TIME.
That is what happens when you really don’t want to run for president and your wife, your political groupies and puppet-handler donors make you run…
Reply »
Blue Reply:
April 22nd, 2012 at 6:45 pm
Id by “all time” you mean “since Phil Gramm” then I agree with you.
Reply »
Texian Politico Reply:
April 23rd, 2012 at 7:42 am
HA! Good point.
Reply »
retrocon says:
Although the story goes that Rick was the reluctant candidate pushed to run by his wife and others because they all just knew Rick was THE ONE who we were all so desperately needed in the White House, I’m not buying it.
Paul has already written about how the last legislative session was set up to preserve Rick’s conservative credentials, he put his name to two books — one touting his moral values against the backdrop of the Boys Scouts and the other touting his Tea Party credentials (Fed Up) — and stood next to evangelical leaders at “The Response” prayer rally.
His plans on the Presidency had to have been in the works for quite some time before announcing in South Carolina or stepping up on a haystack in Iowa.
Reply »
Robert Morrow Reply:
April 22nd, 2012 at 8:02 am
Rick Perry for years had been running for President. But after the 2010 campaign, when he was nearly exposed then while Anita pouted her way through the campaign, Perry developed a serious case of the cold feet.
By Jan, 2011 Perry did not want to run. Figured let’s just skip this grueling campaign and perhaps angle for an easy vice presidency and much, much lighter “vetting” that would go along with it.
Then the wife and groupies and the Gingrich implosion and “fate” dragged Perry into it … and the rest is history. Some hiliarious fall 2011 entertainment for stunned political junkies.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
April 23rd, 2012 at 4:32 pm
He would have been a shoe-in for VP
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
April 22nd, 2012 at 6:08 pm
The idea of running was already in place during 2010. The decision to do it wasn’t firm, but Perry was certainly doing all the things candidates do by that point.
Reply »
Blue Dogs Reply:
April 23rd, 2012 at 3:36 pm
Perry had NO business running for President: it just distracted people from doing their jobs.
Reply »
anita says:
That’s exactly right — Rick Perry believed he was the chosen one. He worked hard to burnish his party credentials, even when it sold Texas and Texans down the river. And he continues to this day with his crippling “pledges” that only ensure that future generations of Texans won’t be able to compete. It’s shameful. But make no mistake — Rick Perry wanted to run.
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks says:
President Barack Obama has replaced Jimmy Carter as the worst president ever, this fact is lost on the democrats who haven’t a clue why they haven’t won a statewide election since 1994.
Instead of bashing the Greatest Guv Texas has ever had, try figuring out why democrats are losers.
Reply »
garyfan Reply:
April 22nd, 2012 at 7:05 am
But that wasn’t the question.
Reply »
Simon Reply:
April 22nd, 2012 at 5:38 pm
JBB doesn’t know what the question was, don’t worry.
Reply »
Art Reply:
April 23rd, 2012 at 8:25 am
And his answer is incorrect. George W. Bush would certainly outpoll Obama as the worst President ever.
anita Reply:
April 22nd, 2012 at 8:17 am
16 months of economic expansion, taking out Osama Bin Laden, taking out Quadaffi, making health insurance and healthcare available to more, including students and young adults, expanding domestic energy production, bringing our troops home from Iraq — I’d call that an impressive record of success especially in light of a obstructionist congress who’s stated goal is to deny any victory to this President.
Reply »
Kenneth D. Franks Reply:
April 22nd, 2012 at 10:21 am
G.M is alive and Osama Bin Laden is Dead.
Reply »
Texian Politico Reply:
April 23rd, 2012 at 7:43 am
Weak.
Reply »
Art Reply:
April 23rd, 2012 at 8:27 am
True. And fewer Americans are dying in countries we have no business being in, our nation is better respected abroad, jobs are coming back instead of declining and cars fromt he US of A are being bought.
Crabtree's Catch Reply:
April 23rd, 2012 at 10:44 am
GWB played a huge part in GM’s survival.
Reply »
Willie Reply:
April 23rd, 2012 at 1:46 pm
He bought a Caddy?
Anonymous says:
I think there are two different questions here. Who ran the worst campaign and who was the worst candidate. The two aren’t necessarily related to one another. Staff and consultants can only do so much. The rest depends on the candidate.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Who is the most dumb Republican mentioned on this blog — JohnBernardBooks, Robert Morrow, or Rick Perry?
JBB because he is illiterate; Morrow because he is crazy; or Rick Perry because he is both.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
April 22nd, 2012 at 7:54 am
Well that’s a tough one, Anonymous. JBB hasn’t ever proofread a comment he has posted. His atrocious grammar makes one wonder if he has ever taken an English class.
I seriously wonder about Morrow’s meds.
For Governor Perry, of course, I’ve wondered about both his meds and command of the English language.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
April 22nd, 2012 at 12:44 pm
JBB is learning to make fun of himself, just like Perry. Like with Perry, though, it doesn’t save him.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
April 22nd, 2012 at 1:13 pm
Maybe there’s a sanctuary city that JBB can go to until he learns to read and write English?
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
April 22nd, 2012 at 12:54 pm
1. Perry.
2. JBB.
3. Morrow.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
April 23rd, 2012 at 1:46 am
Robert is smart. Maybe out of touch with reality, maybe bipolar, but I enjoy (most of) his musings. JBB’s posts are repetitive and bore me. Perry is … ah, what’s the point. History will not be kind to him. Except in the textbooks approved by the SBOE.
Reply »
Roscoe Reply:
April 23rd, 2012 at 8:28 am
You forget fiftycal?
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks says:
democrats don’t know how to do two things, change the dial when Rush comes on or how to win a statewide office.
Reply »
Reagan Republican says:
I think Rick Perry emerged as the worst prepared presidential candidate in recent history. He was running for an office he neither understood or wanted. His campaign’s weakness was in not doing a better job of keeping the truth from being exposed. Unfortunately for them they had no choice given the numerous debates which pretty much pulled the curtain back and exposed him as inarticulate, unprepared and unable to recall his talking points. You can overcome a great deal in politics but you can’t overcome the perception of being a dim bulb. The infamous “oops” moment would never have occurred if Perry actually knew what federal agencies do and why he wanted to cut them rather than simply memorizing some smart guy’s talking points.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
The only thing missing from JBB’s comments is the infamous, “I know you are but what am I” that we all used in elementary school. Grow up and have some thoughtful dialogue.
It might shock you, but even Republicans turn the dial when Rush comes on. Many of us don’t consider the word “slut” as humor, especially when considering how we would react if he said it about our own daughter.
It is possible to engage in dialogue that ELEVATES the debate, rather than denigrate.
Perry’s campaign team is/was one of the best at the state level. But success at one level doesn’t always predict or guarantee success at the next level. It has been proven time and again for both Democrats and Republicans.
Reply »
Alan says:
I make a distinction between the worst campaign and the worst candidate, and am going to buck the crowd here and say Perry is neither.
The worst campaign was Michele Bachmann’s.
1. Her staff did an atrocious job of handling her, telling her half-truths during campaign prep and then sending her out to talk about vaccines causing mental retardation and a host of other things that made her look ridiculous.
2. In Iowa, it was one scheduling mishap after another and they never bothered to send an advance team to events; sending your candidate into a local diner, letting her get halfway through a speech and then yanking her back into the bus isn’t a great way to do retail politicking.
3. She had terrible people working for her. Having one of her advisors publicly defect and throw his support behind Ron Paul was just the icing on the cake; it was incredibly unprofessional.
Reply »
anita Reply:
April 22nd, 2012 at 6:25 pm
At least she can blame her failure on staff. Perry’s failure was all his. He owns it.
In four years, when he again lands in the parlors of America’s landed gentry and asks for their support — and more importantly their money — what does he tell them?
“I’ll really try this time”?
Oops.
Reply »
Alan Reply:
April 22nd, 2012 at 10:07 pm
“At least she can blame her failure on staff. Perry’s failure was all his. He owns it.”
Which is why I said Bachmann had the worst campaign – as in the sum of staff, strategy, management, messaging – but was not necessarily the worst candidate.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
I put JBB a close second to Morrow’s rants.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Perry’s politics put him front and center as THE candidate to represent the GOP this time around. He wasn’t ready. His team wasn’t ready. They all thought national politics was as easy as Texas politics. Unforturnately for them, most Americans aren’t JohnBernardBooks a/k/a Texas voters.
Reply »
Roscoe Reply:
April 23rd, 2012 at 8:28 am
But in state races they are
Reply »
texun says:
Well, I thought that Perry was back in the national news when I spotted the title of one of MSN’s articles today: “Perry Gives Lucky Sailor a Kiss.” Hmm. Turned out to be Katy Perry, a pop star. I need to provide the clarification for fear of setting Morrow off.
Reply »
Julie says:
Perry is the winner of the worst campaign. He was a candidate whose mistakes were nothing short of shocking. He even topped his oops moment in a later campaign event during which he was still unable to correctly state the names of the three federal agencies he wanted to abolish.
Perry will never be presidential material. He lacks the intelligence to be this nation’s chief executive..
Reply »
texun Reply:
April 23rd, 2012 at 3:26 am
I agree with you, but there is a dedicated cadre of Texas journalists who insist that he would have been more effective, were it not for his back surgery and if his handlers had packaged him better. My own view is that how ever good his coaches might have been, he was still a Texas Leaguer trying to play in the majors. Apart from being none too bright, being inarticulate, and being naive about his opposition, he might have done well, the cadre says.
So, with a better mind, enhanced skills, and better mangement, he would have done well and he would not have been Rick Perry.
Reply »
Robert Morrow Reply:
April 23rd, 2012 at 11:08 am
This cadre were all pretty vocal in asserting in August, 2011 that Goofus would be the next POTUS no problem.
Perry’s political strategy is to not say a word to ANYONE that is not scripted in a campaign commercial and just let the money and his good Texas cowboy looks win the votes.
Unfortunately, Thank God, you have to actually open your mouth and talk to a voter or a journalist or a fellow debate participant to actually get elected president.
Those journalists were actually rooting for the guy just so they could look like geniuses; they were court scribes rooting for the court jester to someone pull it out.
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
April 23rd, 2012 at 11:02 pm
I’m one of those people who thinks Perry would have run a better race had it not been for his back surgery. But he didn’t act presidential, and the fact is, he’s not a leader.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
April 24th, 2012 at 12:38 am
A silk purse and sow’s ear come to mind..
Blue Dogs Reply:
April 23rd, 2012 at 3:37 pm
Perry’s presidential campaign started off well, but once they brought up immigration, HPV Vaccines, etc., he was FINISHED.
Reply »
No Le Hace says:
Ron Paul’s numbers???
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks says:
You have to love this article “Republicans more open-minded, better informed than Democrats”
“Pew’s data suggests that the Democrats’ low average rating likely is a consequence of its bipolar political coalition, which combines well-credentialed post-graduate progressives who score well in quizzes with a much larger number of poorly educated supporters, who score badly.”
I couldn’t have said it better the majority of democrats are stupid.
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/04/22/science-say-gop-voters-better-informed-open-minded/#ixzz1ssHSOT2l
Reply »
Julie Reply:
April 23rd, 2012 at 12:07 pm
JBB,
The Pew Poll also shows that 59 percent of Republicans think the GOP Party supports cutting defense spending. Those Republicans obviously don’t know what GOP leaders are up to on Capitol Hill.
The Republican House plan now in the works calls for an increase in defense spending, with the increase to be covered by cutting domestic spending.
Former Reagan administration assistant Secretary of Defense Lawrence Korb says the Defense baseline budget has gone up for 13 straight years in real terms” and “it is now higher than it was on average in the Cold War and higher than the next 17 nations in the world combined.”
Apparently House Republicans don’t think that’s quite enough.
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks Reply:
April 23rd, 2012 at 1:17 pm
@Jullie House republicans are calling for a spending increase to balance the Obama cuts in defense so our military isn’t gutted.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
April 23rd, 2012 at 2:16 pm
JBB,
My friends at Lockheed are pleased that House Republicans are pushing for an increase in defense spending, so the company can stay on a lucrative gravy train
Lockeed’s $400 billion contract to build Strikefighter aircraft has fallen five years behind schedule, while the budget has gone up by nearly $120 BILLION.
The contract likely will hit $1 TRILLION before all the planes are built.
That’s good for Lockheed, but bad for taxpayers.
House Republicans should not simply increase defense spending; they should demand accountability on defense contracts.
Defense wants to replace all its aircraft under new yet-to-be awarded contracts — which like Lockheed’s — will double or triple over the contract periods.
That is wonderful news for contractors but again, bad for taxpayers.
Julie Reply:
April 23rd, 2012 at 2:19 pm
JBB,
My friends at Lockheed are pleased that House Republicans are pushing for an increase in defense spending, so the company can stay on a lucrative gravy train
Lockeed’s $400 billion contract to build Strikefighter aircraft has fallen five years behind schedule, while the budget has gone up by nearly $120 BILLION.
The contract likely will hit $1 TRILLION before all the planes are built.
That’s good news for Lockheed, but bad for taxpayers.
House Republicans should not simply increase defense spending; they should demand accountability on defense contracts.
Defense wants to replace all its aircraft under new yet-to-be awarded contracts — which like Lockheed’s — will double or triple over the contract periods.
That is wonderful news for contractors but again, bad news for taxpayers.
Increasing spending alone is not the answer to providing the U.S. with a strong defense.
Jim Sirbasku says:
JBB, one thing we here at Profiles International do not tolerate is name-calling. Now shut the f@#% up, you idiot.
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks Reply:
April 23rd, 2012 at 1:16 pm
Jim Sirbasku is dead show some respect liberal.
Reply »
Jim says:
Oh, Perry wins this hands down. Worst candidate and worst campaign IMO. I hope we get to see his freak show of a campaign one more time when 2016 rolls around. Think about how many good laughs we missed out on due to Perry dropping out so early in the primary.
Reply »
Robert Morrow Reply:
April 23rd, 2012 at 1:35 pm
Kind of like syndication on cable…
Reply »
Robert says:
So the Perry haters just can’t stop talking about him. An odd obsession.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
April 23rd, 2012 at 4:39 pm
Last fall was alot of fun…I miss it. We did enjoy a laugh each and every day. I don’t think Ive has as much fun ever. Ah the days were too short, too few. If he just could have held on a bit longer.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
“Who ran the worst campaign?”. I’m surprised anyone had to ask.
Reply »
Just tired.... Reply:
April 23rd, 2012 at 3:26 pm
No one did.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
April 23rd, 2012 at 9:44 pm
politicskwire.com asked the question Read next time..,,.or maybe you are “just tired”
Reply »
AreYouKiddingMe says:
This has to be the dumbest question ever asked…
And, despite the obvious answer, the Texas Republican sheep will still send this guy money and actually cast a vote for him. Now, THAT is pathetic…
Reply »
Arturo says:
Worst candidate, worst campaign. Methinks the rest of the country is done with Texas politicians for a while. Bush, now Perry. A thinking electorate (absent here at home) is not going to vote again for dumbasses.
Reply »
Just tired.... Reply:
April 23rd, 2012 at 3:27 pm
God, we can only hope.
Reply »
Blue Dogs Reply:
April 23rd, 2012 at 3:39 pm
Arturo, Perry did get 55 percent against an overhyped candidate in 2010 while all the down-ballot TX GOPers statewide got over 60 percent.
Perry’s statewide numbers:
1990 Agriculture Commissioner: won with 49 percent.
1994 Agriculture Commissioner: won with 61 percent: only time he cracked 60 percent in a statewide race.
1998 Lieutenant Governor: won with 50 percent.
2002 Governor: won with 57 percent.
2006 Governor: won with 39 percent in a 4-way race: you take out Friedman and Strayhorn, Perry would have won 56-40.
2010 Governor: won with 55 percent carrying 226 out of 254 counties.
Reply »
Victorious Secret says:
The response to this poll is beyond ridiculous. Campaigns matter. The only candidates who could have toppled Romney were Santorum and Gingrich. Both candidates’ campaigns refused to raise money and exhibited severe incompetence at the grassroots level, despite the influx of support at various points in the race.
Perry may have had the worst moment–a candidacy-ending moment. But to say he had the worst campaign is shortsighted. He raised $17 million in half a quarter, blitzed the early states, and organized nation-wide. He rewarded his campaign’s early success by hiring Joe Allbaugh, who pushed out all the competent staffers and invited money-hungry consultants to do things like run an anti-gay-marriage ad in a state where it’s legal and put insignificant points behind other ads that had nothing to do with the economy.
Even considering the Perry campaign’s worst moments, Santorum and Gingrich were given numerous gifts that they could not transform into momentum. Both should have been able to raise at least $15 million and organize nationally at their peaks. But they were inept.
Reply »
anita Reply:
April 23rd, 2012 at 5:57 pm
” He raised $17 million in half a quarter, blitzed the early states, and organized nation-wide.”
And he still lost his a$$. Let’s face it, he came across as the Village Idiot not because of one or two screw-ups, but because he consistently couldn’t articulate a theme or message. He came across as a dolt, not ready for prime time.
Reply »
Jeff Crosby says:
Someone ought to do a fakeJBB twitter account, though they’d have a hell of a time topping his looniness.
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks Reply:
April 23rd, 2012 at 4:42 pm
maybe some bored stateworker posting here all day has the time?
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
April 23rd, 2012 at 5:51 pm
I don’t know who you are or where you come from (probably a damn yankee) but you know nothing about state workers. The ones who work in my local extension office are overworked and underpaid. They helped us through the drought last year and did good work and done a good job over the decades that I have seen. You should think before you write.
Reply »
paulburka says:
I’m the father of a hardworking state employee who worked in the legislative research library as long as the House or Senate was in session, sometimes until 3 a.m. So I agree with Anonymous. They work hard for modest pay.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
April 24th, 2012 at 12:40 am
I’ll second that…..
Reply »
Robert Morrow says:
Lyndon Johnson in the 1950′s was the #1 congressional appropriator for the military-industrial complex. LBJ, under the wing of Sen. Richard Russell, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, also was one of a tiny handful of legislators who had congressional oversight of the newly created CIA.
LBJ had close friendships with both J. Edgar Hoover who built the FBI and Allen Dulles who built the CIA. It might be a pretty good bet that LBJ-Dulles-Hoover were both involved in the planning of the JFK assassination, not just the cover up which is a given.
Also, LBJ put a lot of money into US intelligence black budget operations – a lot of which flowed throw Air Force and NASA. When I look at the JFK assassination I see LBJ, CIA, and Air Force, specifically Air Force Gen. Edward Lansdale who was deep CIA.
http://lyndonjohnsonmurderedjfk.blogspot.com/2012/04/lyndon-johnson-had-deep-deep-cia.html
[Evica, "A Certain Arrogance," p.215]
LBJ, the Bureau of the Budget, and Funding the CIA and the Pentagon:
Having for several years tanked in every encounter with the Pentagon, the Bureau of the Budget took another dive during the 1960 LBJ Senate hearings as the Bureau wore the somber colors of Eisenhower’s “administrative failures.” Senator Johnson was able to generate “a litany of military requests” that became, in fact, a Defense Department “shopping list.” Throughout the Eisenhower Administration, Senator Johnson was the crucial ally of the military/intelligence coalition as it collected its funding from inside the Pentagon budget, especially after the heavily publicized threats of Soviet space and missile programs. The softest entry for the U.S. intelligence’s black budget operations then became the hot areas of “air” and “space,” specifically through the U.S. Air Force’s programs in research and development, and then through NASA, hence Johnson’s 1959-1960 Senatorial pressure on the Eisenhower White House that was topped by his 1960 Senate hearings.
[Evica, "A Certain Arrogance," p.215]
Reply »
Robert Morrow says:
In 1960 Lyndon Johnson ran a pretty lame campaign for president.
Lyndon Johnson by 1960 was losing some of his power as Democratic Majority Leader and Robert Novak was writing about it in his columns. LBJ wanted to be president, but he feared he would lose of John Kennedy if he competed with JFK in the primaries of spring, 1960. LBJ’s plan was to win it all in smoked filled backrooms in Los Angeles, with Senators and congressmen being power brokers for him.
Obviously, that went on to fail as the Kennedy brothers outmanuevered Johnson.
Here is on of Robert Novak’s anecdotes about LBJ during this time.
Robert Novak on LBJ on March 31, 1960: “drunk as a loon”
But LBJ knew what I was writing about him as indicated in a bizarre incident two months after my liberal revolt column. Late in the evening of March 31, 1960, I was drinking in the Members Bar of the Press Club with my good friend Bob Jensen of the Buffalo Evening News (as I often did after my marriage collapsed). Somebody burst into the bar to say LBJ was in the club’s ballroom, “drunk as a loon.” Jensen and I went to check.
The report was not exaggerated. Johnson was attending the seventieth birthday celebration of Bascom Timmons, a famous Texas journalist who headed his own Washington news bureau. To my surprise, found the majority leader without aides or limo. LBJ, who until then showed little interest in me and absolutely no affection, spotted me and wrapped one of his long arms around me. “Bob,” I like (“lahk” was the Texas pronunciation) you,” he drawled drunkenly, “but you don’t like me.” He chanted it over and over, embracing me and swirling me in a little dance.
Celebrants at the Timmons birthday party, mostly Texans, were as drunk as Johnson, and uninterested in saving the majority leader from embarrassment. So, Bob Jensen and I guided the much taller man to the elevator, down to the National Press Building’s 14th Street lobby, and out into a taxi to be taken home.
The next day, a cool, immaculately groomed Senator Johnson was seated, as usual, in the majority leader’s chair on the Senate floor prior to the noon convening time. That was the only time reporters were permitted on the floor, huddled around Johnson’s chair for five minutes of questions and answers. Johnson often, as he did on this occasion, kept his eyes down reading what was in front of him and then looked up suddenly, registering seeming surprise at seeing himself surrounded by reporters. When he did that this time, he stared at me, exclaiming: “Well, Novak, saw you at the Press Club last night. Got a little drunk out, didn’t it?” The other reporters chuckled appreciatively, thinking it was I who had been “a little drunk,” as LBJ intended.
[Robert Novak, "The Prince of Darkness: 50 Years of Reporting in Washington," p. 56-57]
Reply »