Posted on 10/22/2005 8:11:57 PM PDT by Checkers
bookmark
Interesting article
I love George Will, but with the intensity and near-nastiness of the stuff he's been writing lately, which I don't doubt he genuinely feels, someone needed to put it -- and him -- in proper perspective. So ... good for Hewitt.
I listened to his show for a long time before and liked and appreciated it, but he's insufferable now.
Hewitt does not have nearly the intelligence of Will.
After reading Will for over 30 years I believe he is the true mental midget.
Thanks for the info re: DFD affirmative action. Looks like this is a pattern for Miers.
I can only hope that if I ever need the Dallas Fire Department to come to my home, that someone is physically able to put out the fire. Scary.
This column is an embarassing joke.
The shame is all his own -- Hugh Hewitt instantly proclaimed Mier's merited a "B+", without substantial facts or reasoning.
The biggest difference between Hugh Hewitt and George Will, is that George actually has serious conservative principles, while Hugh is eager to abandon any semblance of them in favor of "winning big".
I actually listen to Hugh Hewitt regularly, but this petty sniping of his is really sick.
Hugh Hewitt couldn't buy himself a clue if you spotted him the "c," the "u" and the "e."
"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."
Sad, very sad. Seems he's boned up more on Will's
decades and decades of analysis than on Miers. He just proved again that Will, Coulter, Buchanan, Keyes or any conservative I can think of, would make a better SC judge than Miers, for the simple reason, we know where they stand.
Did you know that Roger Taney (pronounced TAW NEE) was a brother-in-law of Francis Scott Key?
The only person who has a choice in any judicial nomination, right or wrong, is the president.
He crudely misunderstands Will's argument and then refutes the strawman. Sixth grade stuff. C- for effort.
I have never heard it speculated previously that Black would have opposed Roe. I know he opposed all regulation of political speech, but otherwise he was pretty much a welfare-state liberal.
I was surprised. Here is a quote from the WaPo article that puts her support in perspective.
Walter Sutton, a black lawyer Miers named to one of the four slots during her tenure, said she was "passionate" about the program.
"I know that she supported it without reservation," said Sutton, who first got to know Miers when she ran for the Dallas City Council in 1989 and went on to serve in the Clinton administration. He is now associate general counsel for Wal-Mart Stores Inc. "I remember she called me and she was very excited -- she said, 'Walter, this is something you have to do.' "
"He crudely misunderstands Will's argument"
How so?
When Will, Coulter, Frum, Bork or any of the over the top conservatives run for, and win the office of POTUS...
THEN, they can complain. They haven't put their lives, reputation and money on the line to run for office, which is required in order to nominate...or even advise and consent.
I don't think they should NOT give an opinion, I believe in free speech, AND, I believe that this president is not right on many things...BUT,
These that came out the first day...slamming her and President Bush..are no better than the people like O'Reilly and others that came out slamming the Swift Boat Vets on the first day, without interviewing them, or reading their book.
Anyone reading Will's article would have understood that the reference to those who 'crudely' made the evangelical argument is a reference to the president's handlers. Hewitt ignores the obvious thrust of Will's argument and asserts (obviously incorrectly) that Will was claiming that Dobson et al made the evangelical argument crudely. Hewitt then refutes his own strawman argument with a lot of bombast, crashing of cymbals and pounding of tympani.
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.