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

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

[Sabertooth]

Hugh Hewitt has posted links to several reviews of Tuesday's debate between Frank Gaffney and Grover Norquist, about Gaffney's recent Frontpage.com expose of Norquist's Islamist ties which has gotten so much attention at Free Republic the past few days.

I checked them out, and thought they were worth a read here...

December 09, 2003

Gaffney versus Norquist

On his show tonight Hugh Hewitt led with a full hour devoted to a joint interview of Frank Gaffney and Grover Norquist regarding Gaffney's Frontpage article (discussed below earlier today): "A troubling influence."

The thesis of Gaffney's article is that Norquist has worked on behalf of, and together with, an American fifth column of Islamists and Islamist organizations. According to Gaffney, Norquist has successfully sought to turn his political connections to the advantage of these Islamist individuals and organizations.

I first heard Gaffney present a skeletal version of this argument in person at the Conservative Political Action Conference this past January. Norquist appeared and responded later that day. As I recall, the gist of Norquist's response was that Gaffney's criticism of him was bigoted and that Gaffney's criticism unfairly impugned his patriotism. Norquist tearfully invoked his family background in avowing his allegiance to the United States.

I was struck at the time by the vacuity of Norquist's response. It is clear that Norquist is devoting substantial professional efforts to the advancement of interests that have brought him into close contact with a number of unsavory characters and placed him in circles where he has become acquainted with key Islamist players.

In his interview this afternoon, Hugh focused the inquiry on critical factual disputes that go to the heart of the issues raised by Gaffney's column. Norquist flatly denied certain of Gaffney's charges while avoiding others. Again, I was most struck by the rhetorical devices used by Norquist to respond to Gaffney.

When asked by Hugh about the American Islamic Council and the Council on American-Islamic Relations, Norquist not only denied any connection but professed a kind of agnosticism about their means and ends that is utterly incredible -- i.e., not believable. In his concluding remarks, Norquist raised irrelevant issues about the financial status of Gaffney's organization.

Factual disputes are not usually susceptible of resolution in the kind of joint interview Hugh conducted with Gaffney and Norquist. Nevertheless, Norquist's response to Gaffney's charges on-air tonight is powerfully suggestive of the conclusion that Norquist's response is lacking in candor. Hugh will replay the interview during the third hour of his show tomorrow night. Listen if you can and let us know what you think.
Powerline Blog link

December 09, 2003

HUGH HEWITT, BLESS HIM, is interviewing Frank Gaffney about the Grover Norquist / Wahhabi connection article mentioned below. It'll start in about 15 minutes, and you can stream it live from his site.

UPDATE: Listening to it now. Norquist and Gaffney are both on. Norquist says he's only supporting Arab democracy and that Gaffney is engaging in guilt-by-association. Gaffney says that's B.S., and says that Norquist's closeness to terror-linked Islamists is undeniable and emblematic of a much larger problem of Washington political types being too close to Arab money. I hope that other journalists will look into this problem further.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Phil Bowermaster emails that he listened to the show and thinks it's much ado about nothing. I'd like for it to be, but. . . .
Instapundit link

Tuesday, December 09, 2003

Grover Norquist and Frank Gaffney, Grudge Match?

Hugh Hewitt moderated a debate this evening that was a lot more illuminating than that of the Democrats. Hewitt hosted Frank Gaffney and Grover Norquist, the latter of which was one of the subjects of the former's article in FrontPage.com's new article, A Troubling Influence. The article delineates in great detail the extent of the influence that radical Islamists have had on conservative circles, including but not exclusive to Grover Norquist. I haven't read the article in detail -- I plan to do so over the next day or so -- but I had read stories about the article and I was familiar with the general themes. The accusations are deeply disturbing. As Power Line capsulizes it:

The thesis of Gaffney's article is that Norquist has worked on behalf of, and together with, an American fifth column of Islamists and Islamist organizations. According to Gaffney, Norquist has successfully sought to turn his political connections to the advantage of these Islamist individuals and organizations.

In an odd way, not having read the article, I felt like I had a better perspective on the debate itself. Instead of calibrating arguments in my own head based on my knowledge of the material, I was forced to listen in the moment and try to make a judgement based on detail and presentation. Both men communicate well and obviously have public-speaking experience, and so neither had a technical advantage over the other. Hugh tried to keep both men focused on facts, reeled them in when they started to wander into personal ad hominem attacks, and forced them to answer critical questions that seemed to be avoided.

In my mind, Frank Gaffney clearly spoke with more conviction and more factual presentation than Norquist. Norquist started off the debate by challenging Gaffney to come up with "just one" specific charge, and Gaffney continually responded during the one-hour segment with specifics. Norquist, however, never acknowledged Gaffney's presentations. He would start off after each charge by saying something to the effect of "I appreciate the opportunity to refute this" or "Journalists have looked into this and found nothing." I find that type of approach a bit annoying after the third or fourth time; it's a mannerism that allows the speaker to gather his thoughts while he tries to continue holding the mike. Norquist, who had to have read the article (he said he had), should have been prepared for Gaffney's charges and had responses ready.

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.

It seemed to me that of the two, Gaffney kept his arguments to factual statements, ones that could be refuted or affirmed by indepedent investigation, while Norquist's arguments deteriorated almost exclusively into passive-aggressive personal attacks, such as, "I ask everyone I know why Frank says these things about me, and no one can understand it," or "All Frank had to do was call the White House and ask," or "I was just 100 feet away from Frank, and all he needed to do was ask me." Gaffney focused on facts and in so doing revealed questions about Norquist's motivations; Norquist focused on motivations and made himself seem much more suspicious. If Grover Norquist intended to dispel suspicions about his motives and his character, he failed miserably.
Captain's Quarters

12/9/2003: Gaffney and Norquist Face Off

Hugh Hewitt had both Frank Gaffney and Grover Norquist on his radio show today to discuss Gaffney’s article on Norquist’s ties to radical Islamic groups and individuals—and sparks flew. In my opinion, Grover Norquist came off very poorly, with a series of almost hysterical personal attacks against Frank Gaffney, and very little real substantial rebuttal of Gaffney’s charges. You can listen to Hugh Hewitt’s show with Windows Media Player at KRLA’s web site for the rest of the day. Recommended.
Little Green Footballs link

[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.