Hugh Hewitt's Gaffney-Norquist Debate (four reviews)

HughHewitt.com, Captain's Quarters, Powerline Blog, Little Green Footballs, | December 11th, 2003

[Sabertooth]

[Sabertooth]

FYI

[Sabertooth]

((((((growl)))))

[Travis McGee]

I heard it. Norquist came off as a snake in the grass.

[NormsRevenge]

guilt by association .. works for me. ;-)

[Swanks]

Bachelor and Alexander are sinking their collective teeth into this story each night on their show. And John Loftus seems to have a ton of stuff to dump in due time.

This clown Norquist will be nuclear to Karl Rove soon. Esp. with the Dem media smelling blood in the water.

Doesn't matter to me though. After the CFR (and other fiascos) there is no way I will vote for Bush in '04.

[Sabertooth]

guilt by association .. works for me. ;-)

Association is the contention, that is...

Gover Norquist has, wittingly or unwittlingly, associated with radical Islamists.

It's believed that the purpose of the Islamists in cultivating these associations was to gain access to the highest levels of power.

That's why there are questions that need answers.

[Swanks]

In fact; what would be sweet irony is ... right before election, ABC-NBC-CBS-MSNBC does a collective hit piece on Bush regarding these connections. Pubbies go to buy airtime to refute; and (wait) we're in the 90 day window - no advocacy ads allowed, says Sandra Day O'Conner.

Charges stick, Dean is Prez. Serves Bush right.

[Cicero]

I don't blame Norquist for getting involved with these guys earlier. But I do blame him severely for not cutting his losses when it became evident what a sinkhole he had gotten himself into.

Five years ago, you could make a case that Christians could work with Muslims on certain conservative issues. For instance, the Vatican teamed with Muslim countries to block Hillary's UN initiative which would have made abortion an internationally recognized human right. In fact, we can still work with the right kind of Muslims on issues like that. But nobody can afford to take Muslim dollars to facilitate terrorism. Nor, if they did it unknowingly, can they afford to continue doing it.

Sorry, but together with Horowitz's piece which was posted here yesterday, I'm convinced. Norquist is not a man the administration should be dealing with. Nor any honest person.

[NormsRevenge]

The recent Gaffney article on FrontPage.com , if it only is 1/10th accurate is pretty damn strong indications that something smells with Grover's contention he is only working for democracy in the Islamic world or whatever he claims. jmo

[NormsRevenge]

Better tell Howard Kaloogian ...

[vbmoneyspender]

Even Hugh Hewitt was having PLO swill on his show about a year and a half ago (I am sure at the behest of Norquist - who used to be Hugh Hewitt's roommate in college). But after a few weeks of that, Hewitt stopped based on a particularly nasty spate of bombings that Yasser's boys carried out.

[bboop]

Norquist was awful, I thought -- sleazy, a real snake. I was wishing HH or Frank Gaffney would just up and throttle him. What spew!! It should be illegal for ANYONE to take Saudi money. What are they doing, contributing to our political lobbies, building mosques here, etc? I think the whole thing stinks to high heaven.

[Snuffington]

Nice job. This has been an excellent demonstration of talk-radio and the blogosphere at their best. Even more striking considering the article they're reacting to was posted to an internet magazine, rather than the traditional "dead tree" type.

Incidentally... another reference you didn't mention is the Fraters Libertas. No real reason to look them up on this issue yet, as their writings have been of the "wait and see" variety so far. Still, "The Elder," from that blog was one of Hugh's four on-air blogosphere guests on the topic the night following the debate, so I'd imagine there will be some follow-up there eventually (and not just about baseball (it's an inside joke - you had to be there)).

[Fledermaus]

Watch out, like in other threads, the Norquist groupies will be out in force whining about how "he's been a staunch conservative, blah, blah, blah".

Who cares? John Wayne Gacey was a Republican. Does mass murder then become "okay" to these idiots?

[nevergiveup]

After the CFR (and other fiascos) there is no way I will vote for Bush in '04.

This mean that you are either:

a) Relying on others to reelect him or

b) Prefer having a democratic president over Bush?

Which one is it?

(Preparing now for the third party yoddle.)

[Victoria Delsoul]

By the end of the segment, Gaffney had made several specific charges regarding Norquist's association with people such as Sami al-Arian and other known Islamists with ties to terrorist groups or charity front groups, and Norquist was left decrying Gaffney's attacks on his "patriotic" associates and insisting that people read his web site, as if an organization's web site substitutes for an independent investigation. At one point, he accused Gaffney of writing the article to raise funds for Gaffney's organization, implying it was bankrupt.

I guess his comments were right on target. You were right about him by the way.

[Sabertooth]

Nice job. This has been an excellent demonstration of talk-radio and the blogosphere at their best. Even more striking considering the article they're reacting to was posted to an internet magazine, rather than the traditional "dead tree" type.

Good points, especially since this story is breaking on Hugh's show a month after the Rockefeller Memo story broke on Hannity.

The major media stranglehold continues to loosen.

Incidentally... another reference you didn't mention is the Fraters Libertas. No real reason to look them up on this issue yet, as their writings have been of the "wait and see" variety so far. Still, "The Elder," from that blog was one of Hugh's four on-air blogosphere guests on the topic the night following the debate, so I'd imagine there will be some follow-up there eventually...

Good catch, I wonder why Hugh didn't link to it.

I'll post it here for reference.

Is Grover Being Frank?

Norquist versus Gaffney? I listened to the hour long debate last night on Hugh's show. I read the whole piece by Gaffney at FrontPage (yes, all twenty pages of it) that started the fracas. And?

And I can't possibly untangle this web of charges and countercharges to reach any clear conclusions yet. I agree with The Speculist, that the personal animosity between the two makes it difficult to separate the pertinent facts from the churlish name calling. But I'm leaning toward the views of Ed at Captain's Quarters (pretty smart for a jack booted thug) and the Big Trunk at Power Line that Norquist is not coming completely clean. During the on air debate last night be seemed to choosing his words very carefully, almost too carefully, in a Clintonesque manner in order to dodge questions:

Do I know him? No. Did I meet him? Yes.

For Grover it all depends on what the word 'know' means I guess. Hugh will be replaying yesterday's debate in the third hour of his show tonight, as well as discussing the matter with Prof. Reynolds, The Big Trunk, and...(drum roll please)

The newest member of the Northern Alliance of Blogs; Ed from Captains Quarters.

Congratulations Ed. You will now enjoy all the privileges and distinctions that membership in our organization brings with it. Mitch should be stopping by shortly to drop off your membership package along with a freshly baked loaf of bread, before he plays a rousing rendition of the Northern Alliance fight song on bagpipes. Just our way of saying welcome aboard.

[Sabertooth]

I guess his comments were right on target. You were right about him by the way.

Thanks. The reviews are still coming in for Norquist...

December 10, 2003

Well, If We're Going to Go All Shakespearean

I'm not sure that I would say that it was "much ado about nothing." I think all that sound and fury on yesterday's Hugh Hewitt show signified something, I'm just not sure what. As I pointed out in my e-mail to Glenn, there appears to be a good deal of personal animosity between these two. It would be helpful to know what the level of acrimony was between Gaffney and Norquist before the charges surfaced. When they started arguing over rent payments and the use of conference rooms in the middle of a debate that goes to the heart of national security, I had to take a step back. Maybe it would be helpful if the person raising these issues wasn't someone who has essentially shared an office with Norquist all this time.

There's no question that Gaffney raises a number of questions that need to be answered, and describes some connections which, if accurate, are more than just a little disturbing. But any Oliver Stone or Art Bell fan can tell you that connect-the-dots is the fun and easy way to find a major conspiracy where there was none before. Gaffney is almost certainly not the racist that Norquist makes him out to be, but he does little to help his credibility when he has to backpedal after alleging that a muslim White House aid played a role in securing a meeting for Wahhabist leaders (as NRO reported earlier this year.) For his part, Norquist would do well to stop denying any connections to "bad people" and saying that Gaffney can't name any specific "bad things" that he has done.

By the way, can't we expect a little more from the vocabulary of a major Beltway player pulling down the kind of bucks that Norquist makes? It's a quibble, but come on. "Bad people?" He sounds more like Grover from Sesame street than one of the nation's top conservative voices.

Norquist would do well to follow Hewitt's advice :

I have known Grover for more than 25 years, and recently shared a panel with him at our college reunion this past summer. Grover needs to respond in detail to Gaffney's charges, as soon as possible, and in an easily distributed electronic form.

Yesterday's WWF-worthy radio broadcast won't cut it. Norquist needs to respond to these charges one by one. Posted by Phil at December 10, 2003 08:54 AM
The Speculist

[Victoria Delsoul]

Thanks for the article, Saber, and speaking of being right, I must say that you were also right regarding CFR. GW should've vetoed it. Too late now.