Why the Right Was Wrong

The New York Times ^ | October 27, 2005 | Hugh Hewitt

[right-wing agnostic]

OVER the last two elections, the Republican Party regained control of the United States Senate by electing new senators in Florida, Georgia, Minnesota, Missouri, North Carolina, South Carolina, South Dakota and Texas. These victories were attributable in large measure to the central demand made by Republican candidates, and heard and embraced by voters, that President Bush's nominees deserved an up-or-down decision on the floor of the Senate. Now, with the withdrawal of Harriet Miers under an instant, fierce and sometimes false assault from conservative pundits and activists, it will be difficult for Republican candidates to continue to make this winning argument: that Democrats have deeply damaged the integrity of the advice and consent process.

The right's embrace in the Miers nomination of tactics previously exclusive to the left - exaggeration, invective, anonymous sources, an unbroken stream of new charges, television advertisements paid for by secret sources - will make it immeasurably harder to denounce and deflect such assaults when the Democrats make them the next time around. Given the overemphasis on admittedly ambiguous speeches Miers made more than a decade ago, conservative activists will find it difficult to take on liberals in their parallel efforts to destroy some future Robert Bork.

Not all critics of Ms. Miers from the right used these tactics, and those who did not will be able to continue on with the project of restoring sanity to the process that went haywire with Judge Bork's rejection in 1987. Conservatives are also fortunate that no Republican senator called for Ms. Miers's withdrawal.

But the Democrats' hand has been strengthened. Voting for or against Ms. Miers would have forced Senate Democrats to articulate a coherent standard for future nominees. Now, the Democrats have free rein.

[right-wing agnostic]

Hugh Hewitt's shameful behavior during the Harriet Miers debacle is why I have only turned him on a handful of times since the Harriet Miers debacle. I now consider him nothing more than an elitist and unprincipled hack whose only goal is to futher the Republican elites' agenda.

FYI-I got all the article ready before and I hit post at nearly the the same time./rwa

[trubolotta]

I tried listening to his show long ago but he struck me as overly impressed with himself because of his chumminess with the GOPe elitists. His softball questions seeking feel good answers just were not that interesting. Yes Hugh, we know you are good buddies with the power elite, but how about some substance once in while? No? Too dangerous?

[TigersEye]

bttt

[GeronL]

That was the day when I knew for a fact that Hugh was more of an establishment toady than a conservative.