Hugh Hewitt posted this while sucking on his pacifier:
I heard a powerful Obama ad on K-Earth 101 while driving this morning. That’s the ’60s/’70s rock station. The pitch combined some fine Obama audio on change and the future with clips from the scores of newspaper endorsements the Illinois senator has racked up.When you pull in $32 million in January, you can play in a variety of micro-markets.If the GOP sends a 72-year [sic] into this race whose prime was from a different time at least two generations back to campaign solely on the need to win the current war, even his hero status won’t help him against the tsunami that is building. Dole ’96 will seem like an energized, cutting edge effort by comparison. Perhaps there is some recognition of this in U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski’s endorsement of Romney this morning. She can’t be looking forward to a Senate GOP caucus reduced to a rump by an Obama-led blowout fueled by tens of millions that McCain cannot hope to match.
I’m guessing after Hugh posted that, he went back to pounding his rattle furiously on the floor.
I stopped reading Hugh’s blog shortly after he wrote A Mormon in the White House? – and became Mitt’s #1 cheerleader – and returned only recently to read Patrick Ruffini, who is one of the best political strategy wonks out there.
Contrast Hugh’s sour pabulum with the estimable Victor Davis Hanson’s analysis:
Three unexpected developments have given Republicans a shot this year at winning — once thought impossible, given the normal desire of the electorate for a fresh party after eight years, and worries about Iraq and the economy. All can change, but for now they have a real shot.
The first, of course, is the radical turnabout in Iraq. Had we been seeing over 100 dead a month, the loss of Baghdad, and a failure of the surge, McCain would be finished and his Republican rivals would have carved out a third position between Bush and the Democrats that would have been still rejected by the voters.
Second, no one anticipated the surge of Obama, and the Clintons’ overt and clumsy efforts at personal destruction that turned off even liberals — a development that explains why a McCain in theory could be palatable to disaffected Democrats and Independents. No one knows whether Thursday night’s reconciliation will last. But I doubt it, since Obama was figuring his nice guy image gained him ground, while Hillary worried that unleashing Bill and knee-capping her rival lost her percentages. But when it gets down to winning and the race narrows, each will readjust and it will get nasty again. Bill is ungovernable, and growls and gets toothy in periods of quiet and tranquility when he recedes from the news
And third, the unanticipated November implosion of Rudy Giuliani coalesced many moderate Republicans behind one candidate, the once moribund McCain, while base conservatives were never quite energized over either Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, or Fred Thompson, and either diluted their support or never embraced a candidate with real passion.
He’s just warming up, so you should read the whole thing. Mr. Hanson goes into some very fine arguments for recognizing Senator McCain as not much different than any recent past Republican nominee… except Reagan. Even then, Hanson explains, Reagan’s policies were not as conservatively pristine as many today argue.
I know who I’m listening to.