Hugh Hewitt: $h!lling more on anti-anti-miers

Hugh has had HUGE Blog street cred. It really has saddened so many of us that Hugh a man who was a intellectual bright light in our world really hasn't been in the whole Miers debate.

Worse Hugh takes a turn by saying he is Anti-Anti-Miers. When I see that from Hugh it makes me think of something Dick Morris said. It talks about how Reagan, Bush , and Hillary all see the world in black and white terms. Dick however spelled out the difference; To Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush the enemey was never other Americans.

Hugh in embracing this very tired method to defend his indefensible position has done what Morris accused Hillary of doing making others the enemey.

Hugh is in Bold, people Hugh quotes are in Italics

Question: Well into his second term, mired in scandal and obvious unending lies and deepening crisis, did any senior Democrat turn on Bill Clinton? One year into his second term, and days after a huge and historically significant election in Iraq and a month after yet another unfair savaging at the hands of the MSM over Katrina, George Bush surveys his allegedly supportive pundits and the GOP Senate majority that he made, and he finds what?"

Lets first break down some elements. Here is Hugh's first question.

did any senior Democrat turn on Bill Clinton?
No they didn't Hugh. and there is a very easy reason to explain why. The Democrats knew that being pro-impeachment would be bad with their voters back home. Thats the simple part which defeats your entire argument. But If that isn't good enough I'll do you one better.

By 1996 the Democrats had just lost for the second time they were bitter. Much as the democrats were biter in 72. When the democrats were bitter in 72 they went after Nixon. Nixon handled the situation poorly which lead to good cause to try and impeach him. But the most important issue in the Watergate scandal was "get Nixon". in 96 on as the Clinton Scandals got deeper the major motivator for the Democrats was "Get Republicans." remember Larry Flynt pulling out all the stops?

So the impeachment wasn't popular, and they wanted to get republicans so they had to stand with Clinton.

With strong grassroots efforts against Miers and against uncontroled spending and other issues going on in the Bush White House the Senators then, just as the Senators in Clinton's time are responding to the will of the voter.

Hugh's second question I find far worse. When people accuse the pro-miers side of being members of a cult of presidential personality they mean thinking just like this

and the GOP Senate majority that he made, and he finds what?

Bush didn't make that GOP Majority. People worked through the late 60s,70s,80s, and 90s to build the farm team. People worked hard to change the issues from the liberal Johnson-Rockefeller school to a positivist rock ribbed individualst school.

Bush didn't make the Senate majority, Bush just picked the fruit off the tree. Which is why Bush should have put feelers out to the folks who helped to grow that tree. Had he just took a second to listen this very situation wouldn't have happened.

Being thoughtful, being reflective, and being humble.

Jim responded this morning:
Is the Democratic Party's steadfast refusal to hold Clinton accountable for anything really the role model that the GOP wants to emulate?...

Democrats stood shoulder-to-shoulder to defend perjury, suborning perjury, and reckless, obsessive behavior that should have made Al Gore president in 1998. (To think, he probably would have won in 2000 had he run as a sitting president out from Clinton's shadow, instead of as a vice president trying to prove his alpha-maleness and leadership.)

We're not those guys. And I don't think we ought to be swayed by arguments calling for us to be more like them.

Again by his two questions saying no one defected from Clinton, and Bush made that Senate Majority Hewitt was proposing the same group-think politics that the Democratic party has lived on as its bread and butter for ages.

Jim was dead on, and Hugh again betrays his own logical system here.

I did not call for the GOP to steadfastly defend the president and his nominee against obviously meritous charges of perjury, etc. I argued that the Democratic Party's example of absurd and wrong headed loyalty of a scandal-plagued Clinton contrasted sharply with many among the GOP's immediate turn on Bush/Miers even before the hearings, Thewhen Bush deserves political support from the very people he has aided, at a minimum until the hearings begin. GOP and allied pundits cold move a long way towards party loyalty and the sort of political maturity that enduring majority coalitions need without ever coming close to the line the Democrats crossed with Clinton, and that move would serve the party and their goals in the long run.

Now lets go to the meat of what Hewitt said here.

GOP and allied pundits cold move a long way towards party loyalty and the sort of political maturity that enduring majority coalitions need without ever coming close to the line the Democrats crossed with Clinton, and that move would serve the party and their goals in the long run

In short "My party right or wrong."

Hugh in this process the committee hearing isn't the start of the machinery it is the ending of the machinery. Various groups feed to the committee what they should look into and what they shouldn't look into.

Following Hugh's position we would not advocate the best canidate possible, and in stead be forced on -just- the White House's committee sales pitch.

We'd not be talking about the legitimate ethical issues
Crooked Land sale issues in texas.
The Texas Lottery Commission mess.
Her endorsement of Racial set asides as an executive of a government agency (the Bar Assosication -is- in Texas part of the government)
The Improper use of religion
etc.

If we followed the Hewitt example none of these issues would have come out, or worse the other party would have brought them out to attack us. We then would be like them, promoting in stealth a corrupt canidate to advance our ideology.

At its core Hugh is saying nothing less then we should become the Democrats of the 1990s.

Republicans are a party of ideas. And that means we fight, we fight for our ideas because we believe those ideas make this country better.

Since the 70s the ideas have left the Democratic party and as they lost their currency of ideas they became more "my party right or wrong" and more importantly began the trend of losing elections building up to the banner elections of 1994.

The Hewitt recipie is against the grain of Reagan and against the grain Bush sold himself on.
Against being a party of ideas and principle
Against being a party of a positive agenda of freedom for the individual

It just simply isn't conservative and it isn't Republican