Hewitt's Displaced Anger
Having read the transcript of the Hewitt-Frum interview, my verdict is: Hugh Hewitt has a legitimate nit to pick with David Frum.
Hewitt complains: A reader could conceivably infer from what Frum wrote that he (Hewitt) is hypocritically supporting Hoffman (the third-party candidate in New York) while deriding Daggett (the third party candidate in New Jersey). But in fact, Hewitt, apparently, has derided Daggett while not supporting Hoffman. Thus, in Hewitt's eyes, he (Hewitt) is pure and consistent: a party man through and through, a "big tent" Republican.
Fine. Glad to have that settled. But Hewitt’s reaction to this nit seems seriously overwrought, and I think purposely so. Having Frum as an opponent helps to cement Hewitt's bond with Limbaugh, Levin, and other talkers. Now, Hewitt can say that he, too, was "targeted" by the malevolent Frum, just like Limbaugh and Levin.
Still, David's larger-scale point, it seems to me, is unassailable: It makes no electoral sense for conservatives to deride Daggett voters, even as we wisely court Hoffman voters.
Conservatives, moreover, do need to be more savvy and sophisticated; we do need to court moderates and independents; and we do need to develop a modern-day, 21st Century reform agenda. I'm not eager to jettison socially conservative positions, but we do need more attractive and compelling spokesmen; and we do need to self-consciously play against stereotype. That's just smart politics and wise public relations.
I'm at a loss as to why some conservatives find this advice so objectionable. Well, get used to it, fellow conservatives: because, for many years to come, the truth may hurt very badly at the polls. And the electoral pain may well intensify in the years to come.