>>He has now brought a fresh wave of attention to those commercial spots.<<
True, but the story publishes the letter citing his positions, ensuring that his counterpoints appear in conjunction with the accusations....at zero cost to Paul’s campaign, I might add.
I’ve always believed that responding to an accusatory ad with a responding ad is ineffective because people don’t believe most ads are accurate anyway. But if you let an ad go unanswered, people assume its true, so you have to respond somehow.
He seems to have found a means of responding that puts both sides’ claims front and center without spending a dime...well, except for the legal work, I suppose.
One thing’s sure, whoever ran the original ad doesn’t intend to observe Reagan’s 11th commandment. This approach might even result in revealing who the intended beneficiary of the ad is, possibly to their detriment.
You think that Reagan wouldn’t be tearing Paul apart for being so weak on our military forces and in foreign policy?
He would be.