Ouch, ow, ouch, stop....
Posted on 10/24/2005 3:32:25 AM PDT by KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle
Hugh Hewitt has jumped the shark. I do not know that I will ever be able to entertain an argument of his seriously again. Suspicion was raised when Hugh backed Arlen Specter for Chairman of the Judiciary Committee. Suspicion is confirmed with Hugh's unyielding defense of Harriet Miers. Hugh has ceased to be a conservative pundit and is now a shill for the administration. While critics of the Miers nomination are willing to give her credit for much, Hugh has apparently ignored all objectivity and closed his eyes to all concerns so that he can be an effective pimp of the Bush administration. Today, Hugh writes:
"I see many on the web are exercised about Harriet Miers' support for affirmative action in the private setting of support for resolutions of the Texas Bar urging quotas in hiring at private law firms. It is not a policy with which I would agree either, but it also not a matter of constitutional law, unless under Brentwood the action of the Texas Bar in urging private firms to set strict goals has converted into a state action. Don't know what Brentwood is? Or the state action doctrine? Not many people do. But those that don't ought not to be confusing ConLaw with the private decisions of private firms while agruing that this policy makes Miers suspect on Bollinger. Now, if she supported a soft line on the Bollinger cases, that would be a legitimate area of concern, but not the Texas Bar resolutions."
First, Hugh must be discounting the numerous reports that clearly show Miers, Spellings, and Gonzales backed the administration splitting the baby in the University of Michigan affirmative action case. In fact, on Ken Melhman's blogger conference call, he was asked about Miers' position and did not dispute that Miers backed the White House's amicus brief in the case, which was widely seen by conservatives as a failed response. The Justice Department wanted to set a clear line on the matter, but when the brief went to the White House, enough water was added to make the amicus meaningless.
There is, however, a larger point of why Hugh has jumped the shark. He says we should give no weight to Miers' support of affirmative action in her position with the Texas Bar. It was, after all, a personal action and a "private setting." How then can we square this with Hugh's support of Miers?
Hugh's support seems to be, beyond trusting the President, based on the fact that people who know MIers say she'll be right on life, she'll have a conservative judicial philosophy, and that she is personally conservative and evangelical. This makes no sense. If Miers is personally supportive of affirmative action, Hugh believes that will not affect her judicial philosophy. But, because we're told Miers is personally conservative, Hugh believes her judicial philosophy will be just what we want. I dare not even contemplate the pains Hugh will go through to explain how personal support of affirmative action and a conservative judicial philosophy mess.
While Hugh should be applauded for unfailingly supporting the administration, pardon the rest of us if we do not want to go along. Thus far, Hugh has managed to cast aspersions on arguments George Will, Judge Bork, and most of National Review. While I can certainly give credence to the idea that we should wait for the hearings to make up our minds, Hugh has gone beyond that and in so doing has lost credibility on the subject.
Were Hugh Hewitt in Rome, he'd have been the first in line to champion Incitatus for the Senate.
Fill us in!
Gee Kent..like playing with your own keywords I see. Are you aware that people get banded for such things?
ping
"You see, I've tried to explain to people about Judge Janice Rogers Brown, that she has not been a federal judge. And my concern over her and Priscilla Owen is, that federal judges just do different things than state judges.
And I want to see a little bit from them, before you run as a conservative. I don't want to run blind. And I think she really hasn't done, for example, federalism issues, hasn't done federal pre-emption, hasn't interpreted the free exercise of the establishment clause, though there are Constitutional counterparts in California.
That's my concern, Erwin. I just don't think they're reliable enough when it comes to understanding how they'll handle federal issues."
Looks like ED hath been:
Too bad this was posted in the middle of the night instead of now.
I love the pics. :)
Posted by Jim Robinson to Southack
On News/Activism 10/21/2005 2:49:30 AM EDT · 66 of 195
I see the alarms going off all around us due to the regrettable Miers nomination and that's not propaganda. I'm wondering who's advising the president these days and how desperate will he be to see it through?
Sorry..it doesn't work like that around here. The Robs were on the side of many who got zotted during the Terri Schiavo thing.
It's all about following the rules.
I got to shake Jim's hand last month in DC so I'm "special" but I could go out the door just as easily if I step in it. :)~
I'd like you to enumerate the rules-or cite the specific rule-that I've violated.
None that I know of...why?
I don't know if Hugh Hewitt has jumped the shark. He's just proved himself to be another empty talking head. But he still does one good thing. He invites conservative guests to talk on his show. If he keeps on doing that, with people like Mark Steyn, for instance, then he'll be worth listening to for his guests, at least.
But he has certainly put a big hole in his credibility as a conservative pundit. He'll have to apologize and give an awful lot of good advice on other matters before he can live it down.
Not only do I not live in terror of being "banded"; I don't even take the spinsterish finger-wagglings of moderator wannabes all that seriously. Go fig, huh...?
interesting.
i also remember hugh saying something during the forged documents scandal that turned me off....maybe it was that he thought dan didnt do it on purpose? or something like that...i can't remember, its been so long.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.