Hugh Hewett explains himself
Hugh Hewitt has, from the beginning, opposed any motion to deny Arlen Specter the chairmanship of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary. Now, he explains his thesis. Incredibly, he asserts that the Republicans, by ditching Specter, would be making the same mistake as the Democrats did. Thus he asks the Republicans the same question that Zell Miller asked the Democrats: Are We A National Party?
His argument fails on several points. First and foremost is his fundamental misunderstanding of the sea change that has taken place in the Democratic Party and arguably in the Republican Party. Back in the Sixties, neither Party stood for anything beyond "a platform appealing to the greatest possible number of voters." This led George C. Wallace to declare that "there's not a dime's worth of difference between the two parties." That is no longer true today (sorry, Michael Peroutka, but I'm not buying your message, either). Why should we return to the days of consensus-building at the expense of moral principle, just when moral principle has carried the day to the extent that the other side is going certifiably insane?
Worse yet, Hewitt's example betrays the most important principle he ever stood for. When Robert P. Casey, architect of abortion-related parental-notification laws, was not allowed to speak at the Democratic National Convention, too many people cast this as an example of a Party going off the rails. No, that wasn't it. Yes, the Democratic Party is off the rails right now, but the main symptom of that is their loose talk of turning John Kerry's States into either Canadian provinces or yet another North American federation. But what happened to Robert P. Casey is that the Democrats had found a moral principle--well, an anti-principle, anyway--that prenatal infanticide was a woman's right. For that, and not for narrow-mindedness pe se, we ought to condemn the Democrats.
Yet Hugh Hewitt's solution is for us, as Republicans, to tolerate within our ranks those who do not recognize that abortion is murder. Hugh Hewitt himself has said that abortion is murder. Now look, Hugh: you either believe that abortion is murder, or you believe that abortion is not murder. If you believe that abortion is murder, then you do not tolerate those who advocate murder. Period. End of memo.
Hewitt then brings up Jumping Jim Jeffords like some kind of mantra, and implies that the Republican Senate caucus is full of Jumping Jims. To which I say: Patience, my good man, patience. If we have to keep inviting Senators out of the Party even at the expense of narrow majorities, so be it. The solution, dear sir, is to recruit and run candidates in the States that Bush carried in the last election to knock off a few more Tom Daschles. Why did Harry Reid retain his seat in Nevada even though Bush carried it? Something's wrong there. Whose fault was that? I'll tell you whose: ours. To allow any Democrat to retain his seat in the Senate while successfully inducing said State to send a Republican delegation to the Electoral College is the grossest sort of political negligence. If voters will split their tickets, that is our fault, and that is where we should redirect our political-educational efforts.
In short, when I look at the Red State/Blue State map, I want to know why, seeing that Bush carried thirty States, we do not already have sixty Senators. Yes, I know--not every Senate seat even in Bush Country was up for grabs. But while Hugh Hewitt chants, "Jeffords, Jeffords, Jeffords", I have two other, contrasting mantras for him to chew on:
To which I will now add a third: Shelby, Shelby, Shelby. Where are the efforts to convince Ben Nelson, also of Nebraska, that he's better off in the Republican Party than in the Democratic? I'd even start wooing Senator-elect Salazar of Colorado. And that's another thing: Whose bright idea was it to run a brewer as a "conservative" Senate candidate?
Now you know why otherwise reasonable men like Hugh Hewitt think we're stuck with Arlen Specter and have to let him take the chair at Judiciary. Simply put, he doesn't belong there. Give him some other committee assignment, if you like--let him switch chairs with Chuck Grassley at Foreign Relations, for example.
Again--it looks as though Specter is going to cut a deal. The only thing is, in American politics today, a bought man doesn't always stay bought. The only consolation prize we have is that he is not likely to try for J. Strom Thurmond's record of continuous Senate service, and hence is likely to retire from the Senate in 2010. Let's put in the order to Rolex for his gold watch, then.
His argument fails on several points. First and foremost is his fundamental misunderstanding of the sea change that has taken place in the Democratic Party and arguably in the Republican Party. Back in the Sixties, neither Party stood for anything beyond "a platform appealing to the greatest possible number of voters." This led George C. Wallace to declare that "there's not a dime's worth of difference between the two parties." That is no longer true today (sorry, Michael Peroutka, but I'm not buying your message, either). Why should we return to the days of consensus-building at the expense of moral principle, just when moral principle has carried the day to the extent that the other side is going certifiably insane?
Worse yet, Hewitt's example betrays the most important principle he ever stood for. When Robert P. Casey, architect of abortion-related parental-notification laws, was not allowed to speak at the Democratic National Convention, too many people cast this as an example of a Party going off the rails. No, that wasn't it. Yes, the Democratic Party is off the rails right now, but the main symptom of that is their loose talk of turning John Kerry's States into either Canadian provinces or yet another North American federation. But what happened to Robert P. Casey is that the Democrats had found a moral principle--well, an anti-principle, anyway--that prenatal infanticide was a woman's right. For that, and not for narrow-mindedness pe se, we ought to condemn the Democrats.
Yet Hugh Hewitt's solution is for us, as Republicans, to tolerate within our ranks those who do not recognize that abortion is murder. Hugh Hewitt himself has said that abortion is murder. Now look, Hugh: you either believe that abortion is murder, or you believe that abortion is not murder. If you believe that abortion is murder, then you do not tolerate those who advocate murder. Period. End of memo.
Hewitt then brings up Jumping Jim Jeffords like some kind of mantra, and implies that the Republican Senate caucus is full of Jumping Jims. To which I say: Patience, my good man, patience. If we have to keep inviting Senators out of the Party even at the expense of narrow majorities, so be it. The solution, dear sir, is to recruit and run candidates in the States that Bush carried in the last election to knock off a few more Tom Daschles. Why did Harry Reid retain his seat in Nevada even though Bush carried it? Something's wrong there. Whose fault was that? I'll tell you whose: ours. To allow any Democrat to retain his seat in the Senate while successfully inducing said State to send a Republican delegation to the Electoral College is the grossest sort of political negligence. If voters will split their tickets, that is our fault, and that is where we should redirect our political-educational efforts.
In short, when I look at the Red State/Blue State map, I want to know why, seeing that Bush carried thirty States, we do not already have sixty Senators. Yes, I know--not every Senate seat even in Bush Country was up for grabs. But while Hugh Hewitt chants, "Jeffords, Jeffords, Jeffords", I have two other, contrasting mantras for him to chew on:
- Daschle, Daschle, Daschle.
- Reid, Reid, Reid.
To which I will now add a third: Shelby, Shelby, Shelby. Where are the efforts to convince Ben Nelson, also of Nebraska, that he's better off in the Republican Party than in the Democratic? I'd even start wooing Senator-elect Salazar of Colorado. And that's another thing: Whose bright idea was it to run a brewer as a "conservative" Senate candidate?
Now you know why otherwise reasonable men like Hugh Hewitt think we're stuck with Arlen Specter and have to let him take the chair at Judiciary. Simply put, he doesn't belong there. Give him some other committee assignment, if you like--let him switch chairs with Chuck Grassley at Foreign Relations, for example.
Again--it looks as though Specter is going to cut a deal. The only thing is, in American politics today, a bought man doesn't always stay bought. The only consolation prize we have is that he is not likely to try for J. Strom Thurmond's record of continuous Senate service, and hence is likely to retire from the Senate in 2010. Let's put in the order to Rolex for his gold watch, then.
posted by Temlakos at 10:21 AM
<< Home