Posted by: Chris | December 15, 2011

Please

Others who are decidedly not in Roger Ailes’ pocket pushback against Andrew’s latest quixotic stand, which, Trig-like, makes him only dig in deeper.  However, a quick intrusion of “objective data”  is necessary for this bit of electoral revisionism:

I might add that up to this point in the last cycle, exactly the same things were said about Barack Obama.

I really cannot say what Andrew is talking about here.  At this point in the last cycle, Obama was the favorite to win Iowa and tied with Clinton in NH.  He had a massive warchest of money, having raised $80 million from January to September 2007 (far more than any Republican in this cycle).  He was polling at 27% nationally, a total which would make him the frontrunner in the current GOP field.  He was considered by most observers as a likely candidate for the Democratic nomination (note: not the most likely winner because his opponent had raised even more money and was sitting a bit higher in the polls).  The situation with respect to Paul is in no way analogous.

There is this weird desire amongst some Obama supporters to go back and reimagine the President’s nomination fight as a scrappy underdog battle against the evil party machine.  They like to paper over the fact that the two camps raised equal totals of money right from the start and that Obama had early on secured the support of many members of the Democratic leadership (like Tom Daschle).  Obama quite quickly amassed a campaign that would have, in most other circumstances, made him the prohibitive favorite.  Unfortunately, he was up against someone else who had done the exact same thing, but a bit bigger and better, hence the rather unprecedented grinding six month primary slog with no majority winner.  I can see how imposing a David-vs-Goliath frame over that contest is appealling, but, for the sake of historicity, it was much more Ajax-vs-Hector (or perhaps this). 

Either way, Andrew’s rewriting of Obama’s history to make a more compelling narrative should have no bearing on Ron Paul’s chances right now.  They are still nonexistent.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories

%d bloggers like this: