Hewitt’s NYT Piece
Hugh Hewitt has a piece in today’s New York Times titled Why the Right Was Wrong. All day long, Democrats have been ignoring previous Democrat criticism of Miers, as they tout their predictable spin: Miers was borked by extreme right-wingers. Hewitt is kind enough to lend his own credibility to this argument, by making it himself in this op-ed.
There is little point in taking apart Hugh’s piece line by line, when the flaw in Hewitt’s argument screams out in one sentence in his piece:
Conservatives are also fortunate that no Republican senator called for Ms. Miers’s withdrawal.
But Hugh: if you had gotten your way, they would have.
This nomination was a mistake. It now appears clear that it ended when Senators quietly let Bush know that Miers wasn’t going to get the votes. If Miers had been guaranteed a hearing, as Hugh repeatedly and forcefully advocated, Republican Senators would have been placed in the extraordinarily difficult position of having to vote against Miers.
Instead, a couple of them offered a fig leaf, and Miers withdrew. It is the best possible outcome, and public pressure from vocal conservatives certainly didn’t hurt — though I suspect that the Senators mostly made up their own minds based upon their own review of Miers’s personal appearances, writings, and other information.
Thank God we didn’t have the hearings that Hugh was pushing for.
UPDATE: Ace agrees:
The left loves quotes like this; prepare to hear “Even Hugh Hewitt says…”
His commenters are pretty vicious.
UPDATE x2: Honestly, we’d be better off just looking forward. We really would.
UPDATE x3 AND BUMP TO TOP: See-Dubya’s take is immediately below, here.
Hugh being a party man and all, one has to ask, what good does his op-ed do the GOP now that Miers has been withdrawn?
*cough*
Excuse me, I seem to have a back HACKing cough lately…
Christopher Cross (7ca2a7) — 10/27/2005 @ 10:31 pmHugh Hewitt: NYT Columnist
Now here’s a fun one to consider–for all his talk that rejecting Miers would put the war in jeopardy, would cause Republicans to lose the Senate, would bring the very fabric of Republican existence crashing down, how does writing an op-ed in the New…
Legal XXX (59ce3a) — 10/27/2005 @ 10:53 pmEven James Dobson was planning to oppose the Miers nomination. Hewitt climbed out on a limb for the President, and the President sawed off the limb. Hewitt is thrashing about for someone to blame — anyone besides the man responsible. I think what we have here is a first class case of denial and projection, but I descend into psychology.
PrestoPundit (c8886f) — 10/27/2005 @ 11:01 pmMost of us are looking forward. HH is obviously not. He’d prefer to get all pissy in an enemy publication. He’s been writing the Democrat talking points all week in the event of a nomination pullback. He likes to push; he doen’t like the pushback. Instead of being grateful that HM withdrew and spared the Party a debacle, he’s actively trying to split the party himself. God Hugh has suspended the 11th Amendment for himself apparently.
Mikey (15b88b) — 10/27/2005 @ 11:23 pm[…] Also sprach: Ace, Patterico. by Tom Dunson , Friday 28 October 2005 at 7:40 am […]
The Trigger » Hugh Hewitt: Hack, Hypocrite (e72e64) — 10/28/2005 @ 5:51 amSome guys just can’t let go, or see the forest for the trees. Hugh Hewitt should step back, count to 10, wind his watch, and take a few deep breaths. He doesn’t need to fall on his sword. The world isn’t coming to an end, the sun will continue to rise in the East, and go down in the West. Yes, Hugh, life will go on. Only not in the same way as before. Now, dry up, wash your hands, and get back to work, we need you.
The Miers nomination, inconsequential in itself, is really only the tip of an iceberg. The real story is that a paradigm shift is underway. The developmental process is incremental, but occasionally something illustrative comes up, and as relationships come into focus, patterns are revealed. Now, don’t expect too much too soon. That isn’t how it goes. But, change is happening everywhere, you just have to be looking for the signs
GOP politics as usual will continue to lose ground to the new Conservatism, which is allied with the GOP, but not owned by it. Conservatives have come out of the closet. We are here, and we will have our place in the sun, and all the name calling, mischaracterization, or questioning of our loyalty will not deter us. We have arrived.
No longer can mainstream Republicans shut us up, or ignore our concerns, or double deal our most fundamental issues. No, it’s a new day, a springtime for Conservatives. Let our friends rejoice in our freedom and self-determination. We will know our true friends because they will welcome us to their side as brothers, not as indentured servants.
Likewise, we will know our opponents because they will oppose our individuation and seek to control our voices and our votes. But, that day is over, we’re here, and we’re not going back in the closet.
Our friends in the GOP might want to start getting used to our new ways. The sooner they grasp the differences which divide us from them, the sooner they will appreciate our points of agreement, and how our diversity compliments the GOP and strengthens it.
Black Jack (ee9fe2) — 10/28/2005 @ 8:31 amThe most disgusting aspect of the Hewitt piece is his granting permission to the Schumers, Kennedys, Boxers, NARALs, NOWs, etc. to utilize whatever scurrilous tactics they may choose with respect to future nominess on the ground that conservatives did the same to Miers.
Talk about giving aid and comfort . . .
eddie haskell (8fd1a1) — 10/28/2005 @ 8:42 amAhhh. Let the healing begin. HH isn’t even a good shill for the Republicans. Being a useful idiot for the libs and the NYT. Way to help the team!
Shtetl G (50f4a3) — 10/28/2005 @ 9:54 amJack, maybe you’ve already seen this — if not, check it out. You’re more hopeful than John Eastman who, writing in the Claremont review earlier this week, saw the argument over Miers as evidence that the pro-federalism/small government conservatives were losing influence to evangelicals and big business interests who see big government as a means to advance their agendas. It’s probably too soon to say whether he’s right of wrong, but we might know more after W announces his 2nd choice to fill O’Connor’s seat.
http://www.claremont.org/writings/051024eastman.html
TNugent (6128b4) — 10/28/2005 @ 10:11 amHere’s something I hadn’t thought of:
That would be just lovely if Stenberg II ends up getting decided 5-4 because all the conservatives borked a nominee so anti-abortion she would have supported a constitutional amendment to outlaw the practice. We still have time to prevent that result, but both the Prez and the Senate had better act fast.
Xrlq (ffb240) — 10/28/2005 @ 10:11 amXrlq,
Conservatives didn’t bork Miers. Conservative objected to GWB’s underqualified crony nomination, and saved both him and SCOTUS from the everlasting stain of an Affirmative Action appointment to the SC.
Now, as for Judge Bork, he was well qualified for SCOTUS, but his record was distorted by the Left and he was unfairly prevented from taking a position on the SC he deserved.
Harriet Miers was never a satisfactory selection, and her record accurately shows it.
Bork was borked, Miers knew she couldn’t be confirmed and so withdrew. She deserves respect for seeing beyond the end of her nose. Others would do well to follow her lead.
Black Jack (ee9fe2) — 10/28/2005 @ 11:04 am“. . . so anti-abortion she would have supported a constitutional amendment to outlaw the practice”
If Miers has a philosphy of judicial restraint, doesn’t the fact that she would have supported a constitutional amendment (you know, passed by Congress, approved by the state legislatures) tell us exactly nothing about how she might have ruled on “Stenberg II?” Or does her support indicate that she believes that, in the absence of such an amendment, the existing Constitution either (a) protects the right to abortion or (b) is insufficiently clear to justify overturning Roe?
eddie haskell (8fd1a1) — 10/28/2005 @ 11:27 amI’m not buying it, Xrlq. If O’Connor is the deciding vote, cast for declaring parental notification requirements unconstitutional, then so be it — it’s on W’s head for trying to slide one past us and get his own lawyer onto the Court. This is about more than just one case. Big picture is getting a majority on the court who are highly capable, with judically conservative philosophies (i.e., originalist, but cautious in using judicial review). We never heard anything suggesting that Miers would have advanced that cause.
As far as acting fast, HHewitt says McConnell. Not only is he highly qualified, but he’s the short-lister with the most recent FBI background check, meaning that the review/update could be done very quickly.
TNugent (6128b4) — 10/28/2005 @ 11:37 amHewitt used to be the (ho ho) Conservative on a PBS program in LA called “Life and Times.” All he ever was while on there was less liberal than the rest of them; he was PC to the max; oh so balanced, oh so careful not to offend the Brentwood Liberals. While I certainly wasn’t a regular viewer (PBS Los “Ahn-Gay-lus” is a code word for “I’m sorry I’m white.”) the times I watched Hewitt was about as Right Wing as George Clooney in a dress. He can pretend now that he’s some kind of Right Winger, but trust me, he is the stealth liberal in the Conservative camp.
Howard Veit (baba22) — 10/28/2005 @ 5:05 pmI really am a fan of Hugh’s writing. But I’m afraid that, during the Miers episode, Hugh exhibited an unflatterng trait of some smart, supremely self-confident people. That is, an unfortunate, occasional inabiltiy to consider that one’s position may be simply mistaken.
Looking forward, unfortunately, I feel folks may think twice about Hugh’s arguments in the future. In light of his blinkered support of Miers’ nomination, despite clear evidence that her positions confilcted with Hugh’s own stated desires for Supreme Court nominees, I know I will be more suspicious of Hugh’s writing going forward.
Hugh has done real damage to his credibility, even among those, like me, who were predisposed by ideology to support him.
Trained Auditor (118a22) — 10/29/2005 @ 8:59 am