Posted on 10/14/2005 4:17:25 PM PDT by Stellar Dendrite
It's very interesting to go to RadioBlogger's july 2005 archives and read what Mr. Hewitt was saying about the SC back then. Here's a small sample. I'll put them all together, the perfect ingredients for a ** sandwich:
Hugh Hewitt on why federal judicial experience and a track record do matter:
You see, I've tried to explain to people about Judge Janice Rogers Brown, that she has not been a federal judge. And my concern over her and Priscilla Owen is, that federal judges just do different things than state judges. And I want to see a little bit from them, before you run as a conservative. I don't want to run blind. And I think she really hasn't done, for example, federalism issues, hasn't done federal pre-emption, hasn't interpreted the free exercise of the establishment clause, though there are Constitutional counterparts in California. That's my concern, Erwin. I just don't think they're reliable enough when it comes to understanding how they'll handle federal issues.
Hugh Hewitt on why age matters and why you don't want someone close to 60:
HH: You know, I had this argument with people earlier. I view every year as 70 votes. So when you trade from a Luttig or a Roberts at 50-51, or McConnell, or even a Miguel Estrada at 44, you're giving up seven hundred votes, seven hundred decisions. That's a lot of future influence for a president to give away to someone who he doesn't know who it's going to be.
and
Now let me close with Larry Thompson and Ted Olson, in the Washington Post write-up, as well as J. Harvey Wilkinson. They're all a little long in the tooth, really.
and now for the COUP DE GRACE. Hugh Hewitt on why Brilliance and Intellectual Greatness matter:
I want to pause for a moment, because you'll say great things about Luttig, Roberts and McConnell, as I have. There is an argument for brilliance that's got to be made here. And I don't know some of these judges. But those three I do, and they're brilliant. And brilliance matters, even if you're a dissent, because you've got to mold the law schools. You've got to mold the professions. You've got to look ahead. I think Bush needs to go for someone about whom there is no question of intellectual...the capacity for intellectual greatness.
Your Honor, Mr. Hewiit is GUILTY of fraud in his support for Miers. The evidence is clear and convincing, beyond a shadow of a doubt.
That's it. The whole thread was so nasty I would like to see it just disappear. So it was probably stupid of me to mention it in an earlier post. Mea Culpa.
True enough.
I will say this. It has become painfully obvious to me that the complaints about W.H. communications were more accurate than anyone could have thought. Absent the "sexist and elitist" support system, they seem unable to communicate anything other than playground insults.
They used to be better than this, I'm convinced of it. No matter what happens they desperately need to call a meeting and set about fixing this problem. Granted they have little material to work with here, even so, you don't grant opposition from whatever ideology front that arise more ammunition. You don't cede ground. They've made this worse than it was at start. Insulting many in their base in a manner that would never be tolerated toward the Clinton's. It's inexcusable.
Then he's toned down his support considerably since the nomination was announced. I wouldn't know as I turned him off the same day as he was attacking 'conservatives' in general for being sceptical of the choice.
I did. I didn't get the idea that Cheney opposed it. He perhaps might have wanted somebody else, but he's now fully on board to give Miers a hearing.
I don't want to run blind.
How is Hugh's statements inconsistant with the current situation in the Senate?
Strawberries?
Continue reading the comments section over at confirmthem.com. They are talking about everything that was said on Fox. Anyone know of a FR Fox thread?
Let's be clear about your demarcation implied by your post. Am I a threatening moderate in your eyes simply because I support Bush on this nomination?
To repeat my first post to this forum.... "Hugh's flaw is that his absolute, is to be optimistic,regardless of the facts, this isn't as noticeable when we win elections but after a losing election, when you think back over his analysis it was always positive with a win guaranteed at the end. Rush is an optimist but is no Pollyanna like Hugh. Hugh has a good and useful show and his take on Meier's hopefully is accurate, my problem is we all knew he would have this response, regardless, Hugh is no tough guy."
Add Michael Reagan to that list. Best I can tell at any rate, on a first read.
HaHa..
hightlighting your illogic in red, I see
***
HUH?? I was trying something new and debating whether I wanted red or bold. I'm tired of putting everyone's words in italics. I'm sure you will continue to think whatever you want, though.
bill o'reilly is an "anti-phony" phony
Great find.
The only reason I can think of why Hugh Hewitt has taken the position he has is that he wants to go with the winner. It seems to have made him a hero to some, but in the long run I think it will prove to be a big mistake.
As to what leads us to think that Harriet Miers is a second rater, all you need to do is read her stuff. It's flat, banal, poorly written, boring, vague.
There is an OpEd on this by Brooks in the NY Times today, briefly posted and then removed because it is premium content. But anyone who cares to read this schlocky stuff can find it right here:
http://www.hg.org/redir.asp?url=http://www.texasbar.com
Turn to the right column and look for the link.
Here's an extract from her earliest presidential column, June 1992. I can't resist quoting from the final paragraph, a magnificent combination of meaningless repetition, non sequiturs, and banal cliches:
"This bar year will culminate one year [sic] from now. We hope then to look back and say another year has passed [sic], and that we have left no stone unturned [sic] in the quest for service to our profession and the public, and that the lawyers of Texas [hear! hear!] have done more than their fair share [sic]--they have gone above and beyond [sic]."
Vacuity squared. But Freepers who think she has a great intellect should be condemned to download and read the whole series, which unfortunately are in pdf format.
Yeah, but a hearing, and maybe even a vote and rejection may be the best way to save face for all. It is important to figure a way to make it look "okay."
But the darn barbs coming the WH were kinda mean. I'm not an elitist, or sexist, or stupid. Well, okay, maybe stupid. Well, okay, stuid and sexist. But I am not an elitist, no way, Jose.
I did. I didn't get the idea that Cheney opposed it. He perhaps might have wanted somebody else, but he's now fully on board to give Miers a hearing.
**
Well, I think the thought was that he wouldn't comment on it soooooo....I will watch it at midnite.
How quickly and shamelessly Hewitt dumped his principles to shill for Miers!
Has he even attempted to explain himself in light of these disclosures?
We have to understand and appreciate that achieving justice for all is in jeopardy before a call to arms to assist in obtaining support for the justice system will be effective. Achieving the necessary understanding and appreciation of why the challenge is so important, we can then turn to the task of providing the much needed support.
" But the darn barbs coming the WH were kinda mean. I'm not an elitist, or sexist, or stupid."
Hey...did you see this one?
Another Insult!! (from Confirmthem.com - Card calls opposition "cynical")
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1502672/posts?page=23#23
I know I was tying to point that out
If she gets a landslide it will mean the dems don't fear bher at all
This is HUGH!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.