Chuck Grassley provoked the wrath of New Yorkers with these comments about why Rudy Giuliani failed to do well in Iowa:

“Lifestyle,” Grassley replied. “Things you do in Las Vegas stay in Las Vegas. Things you do in New York don’t stay in New York. I think a New York personality … hasn’t gone over in some places.”[…]

Continued Grassley: “It seemed to me like when he was campaigning in Iowa, he did not have the one-on-one relationship. He didn’t take time to have the one-on-one relationship with people, even with the few events he was at. He tended to be in and out.

Some New York columnists and public figures have been piling on Grassley, calling him a “hick,” a “moron” and worse, leading the Register to publish a follow-up on this story today.

I think Grassley’s only half-right, by the way. Giuliani failed in Iowa because he didn’t do the slightest bit of outreach, even to many moderates who were inclined to support him.

I know of prominent Iowa Republicans who had considered endorsing Giuliani publicly, but ended up on the sidelines because he just wasn’t making the effort. I also remember overhearing a man in a restaurant telling his friends, “I thought I was gonna be for Rudy, but I am just loving Romney now.”

You can’t win if you don’t play, and Rudy wasn’t playing.

I think he could have finished a strong third or perhaps even second if he’d run a better campaign in Iowa.

On the other hand, he spent more time campaigning in New Hampshire and failed to move in the polls there. Maybe people really did like Rudy less the more they saw of him.

For me, the only disappointing thing about the Giuliani campaign’s slow-motion implosion is that Steve Gilliard wasn’t around to write about it.