On language

I don't really know what to make of Matt Bai's half fawning, half critical appraisal of Giuliani. But I was struck by Giuliani's repeated invocation of Churchill and Reagan. Nevermind that the "unpredictability" Giuliani praises in Reagan probably isn't a reference to Reagan's decision to pull the Marines out of Beirut, so I guess Giuliani means his hero's twitchy "button" finger. And nevermind there was another politician whose stirring radio addresses got his country not only through a war, but through a depression before that. And without whose support of Britain Churchill may not have been quite so confidant in victory.

Nevertheless, what struck me was that Giuliani has these caricatures of both Reagan and Churchill, as though they appear in his head like old newsreels without sound. He can see his heroes, but it doesn't seem to register to him that Churchill -- along with FDR -- used language effectively to dispel fear of an enemy. Giuliani is the opposite. The menace is everywhere. We must constantly be on our guard. War. All. The. Time. That may appeal to Republican primary voters, who share his view that Islamonazithugs are amassing on our borders AS WE SPEAK, as dangerous a threat as the Soviets when nuclear armed bombers circled the globe. But Americans are beginning to be skeptical of...well, more.

Language is important. Bin Laden understands that better than our president, vice-president, and the leading Republican contendors.