It became increasingly clear during the Miers debacle that Hugh Hewitt, who I am certain is an amiable guy and who has been more than friendly to me considering the barbs I have chucked his way, is little more than a mouthpiece for the Republican party whose chief (only?) concerns are the consolidation of Republican political power and the maintenance of that political dominance, regardless what we do with it. No clearer example can be offered than this post today from Hugh:
Yesterday John McCain attacked the Bush Administration’s conduct of the war in Iraq.
Yesterday Mitt Romney attacked the Massachusetts Supreme Court’s judicial activism.
Which speech will be better received among likely GOP primary voters in 2008?
A popular saying that has achieved more prominence with the elections of George Bush has been “all hat, no cattle,”a regional colloquialism signifying the individual is all talk. Perhaps a fitting adaptation of that phrase for Hugh would be “All party, no principle.”
Unfortunately, I should note that Hugh is probably right, and that he does understand how to maintain political coalitions.
Mike S
Hugh is one of the most disingenuous talk radio hosts there is yet does seem like a genuinely nice guy.
jg
Not exactly limited to Hugh there JC. I can’t believe its just occurred to you.
simon
It didn’t take you this long to realize that, did it? What other rightwing pundits fit this description in your mind? There are legitimately dozens.
physics geek
I think that QandO’s description of Hewitt was apt: “the distilled essence of the party man.”
Steve
No discussion of right-wing shills would be complete without Time Magazine’s Blog of the Year.
Steve S
Hugh is right. Romney’s speech will be greated with cheers by primary voters. McCain is regarded as a traitor.
The same thing also happens on the Democratic side. It’s the nature of partisanship.
I think the thing that bugs me most about people like this, particularly Hewitt, is you cannot debate them intelligently. In 2002 their argument is one thing, but by 2004 they are arguing the complete opposite of the point. There’s no overwhelming ideology, rather they argue for what is convenient in their goal to just maintain power.
Look at the deficit as an example of this. In 1980 it was a big deal, by 1984 the Republicans had completely abandoned it as a principle… and now look where they are today, actually cheering on massive deficit spending claiming it helps the economy. Not because it does, but because they have no other point to argue.
jg
All they’re looking for is a way to avoid hearing you. Its systemic, Hugh’s not alone by any means.
don surber
Nice observation on Hugh Hewitt. Guess it takes all kinds to fill a party: Including those of us who supported Miers, the war and the spending
Cattle are overrated :)
rilkefan
I still prefer the Hewitts to the Reynoldses.
Steve S
rilkefan – Well, it’s a good point. At least Hewitt is honest with his leanings.
Reynolds basically trumpets the same line as Hewitt, but pretends to not be a partisan.
ppGaz
Why bring Fox News into this?
Davebo
Speaking of Fox news, why did they interview a Hollywood actor (Ron Silver) to discuss his all knowing views on UN corruption today?
I thought we weren’t supposed to care about what actors thought of politics?
jg
I think they use Ron Silver because he’s been on the West Wing and he used to be a liberal.
jg
I meant on ‘West Wing’ not on THE West Wing.
TM Lutas
I’ve come to the conclusion that the major parties are both about getting and having power. The ideological coalitions that inhabit those parties are another story but the parties themselves are fairly empty vessels and have been for decades.
Lines
Lutas, what are you going to do about it? I’m not trying to be an ass, but seriously, what do you think can be done about a horrible 2 party system?
Jcricket
Hugh and (most of the time) Glenn are emblamatic of the “ditto-wing” of the Republican party. Where the party can do no wrong and any attempt to look into things is navel-gazing, or fringe-talk. This kind of thinking is, IMHO, just about the worst kind of thing for our country. The idea that everything can be boiled down to a sound-bite, or a party platform, and then is no longer to be discussed is pathetically lazy.
I’m with John Stewart on this, “Stop. Hurting. America!”
Stormy70
Ron Silver just narrated a documentary on the UN, my brilliant “Chemical Weapons Everywhere” posters.
Steve S
Ron Silver never was a liberal.
The only thing he’s consistently been is a coward.
capriccio
I read that even Hewitt’s pals call him Monica behind his back because of his girlish enthusiasm for Bush. He would be the epitome of the party above country hack, if there wasn’t this pathetically nerdy, juvenile tone to all his stuff (not to mention the website decorated with team logos and Bush pin-ups). There really is something quite Teen Beatish about it all, and I think when he’s awakened from his wet dream of a One Party State about aa year from now, he’s going to need some very serious counseling.
Michael Stickings
I’ve been thinking recently about who could emerge as the establishment candidate against McCain — assuming that McCain is unable to shake his “maverick” label. It won’t be Frist, obviously, and Jeb is unlikely to run. Giuliani is far too liberal for the primaries, as is Rice on certain key social issues.
So why not Romney? The fact that his speech will be better received than McCain’s suggests that he may be one of the few establishment candidates who could hold off McCain.
Veeshir
I’ve come to the conclusion that the major parties are both about getting and having power. The ideological coalitions that inhabit those parties are another story but the parties themselves are fairly empty vessels and have been for decades.
A-fricking-men.