|
Hugh Hewitt—Republican triumphalist
I drafted the below e-mail to Republican blogger and radio host Hugh Hewitt a couple of days before the election but neglected to send it until after the election. My point remains valid. Hewitt was saying that Kerry could lose 45 states because of the missing-munitions issue. In the end, Bush won by one state. A change of 70,000 votes in Ohio, and Kerry would be president-elect today. Given Kerry’s record, Bush SHOULD have beaten him by 45 states electorally and 20 points in the popular vote. That he instead beat him by one state and by three points is not cause for all the Republican triumphalism that is going on. The reality is that almost half the country voted for an anti-American leftist pacifist in the midst of a war. If Kerry had been a somewhat more skillful candidate, he would have been elected. Mr. Hewitt should remember that in the midst of all the celebrations of Rove’s genius and of the American people’s virtue and patriotism.
To Hugh Hewitt: Posted by Lawrence Auster at November 06, 2004 11:36 AM | Send Comments
I know Clark Coleman will disagree with the assertion that the American people knew about Kerry’s record. It may be that they didn’t know all they should have known. But certainly enough was known. Posted by: Lawrence Auster on November 6, 2004 11:41 AMMr. Auster writes: “Standard issue conservatives like yourself are living in an America that doesn’t exist anymore.” In case of Hewitt he is not insignificant contributor to disappearance of America. It appears he is not against OpenBorders religion. He is a strong supporter of congressman David Dreyer, Repub, Mexico City, who routinely gets D- for his position on immigration. Why bother with Hewitt? He always comes accross as a paid commissar for RNC. Posted by: Mik on November 6, 2004 11:58 AM“Why bother with Hewitt? He always comes accross as a paid commissar for RNC.” First, the equivalent of Mik’s dismissive comment, “Why bother?”, could be made about an e-mail or letter written to just about any prominent person in America today. Second, calling Hewitt a “paid commissar for RNC” is a cheap shot. He’s a radio host and, as one can see at his web site, actively markets his books. He’s evidently someone working at making his living as a commentator, author, and radio host, not a “paid commissar.” He evidently has the views he has because he has them, not because someone is paying him to have them. We have to resist this tendency in politics today to attack a person who has views that one disagrees with by saying that that person is a paid creature of sinister forces. The same is done over and over by the left. For example, the mainstream media portrayed the Swift Boat Veterans as goons or tools hired by the RNC, rather than as people who had something to say and were saying it. Third, the pro-Republican bloggers such as Hewitt have been an active and confident voice during the election campaign. They embody the spirit of Republican triumphalism which is a significant voice today. I disagree with that triumphalism and wrote to Hewitt to tell him why. Fourth, I posted my e-mail to Hewett here, so that others could read it. Even if Hewett pays no attention to my e-mail, it’s not wasted any more than anything else that one may happen to write. By the way, many articles of mine have started as e-mails. Posted by: Lawrence Auster on November 6, 2004 12:12 PMI don’t think people knew enough about Kerry’s record. First, why didn’t the Republicans mention that he was against the death penalty, and his support for executing terrorists was a 2004 flip-flop? Second, I don’t think many people knew about Kerry’s Vietnam record (and his post-Vietnam statements). It’s one thing for the SwiftVets to run ads, and another thing for newsmen to question Kerry about what he did and said. The second seems so much more “objective,” to the public, even if it’s coming from Dan Rather. Posted by: Steve Jackson on November 6, 2004 12:52 PMMr. Auster wrote: “calling Hewitt a “paid commissar for RNC” is a cheap shot.” Since I don’t know if Hewitt is paid directly by RNC or is an unpaid true believer in the lattest RNC talking points, I have to modify my statement: Mr. Hewitt may or may not be paid by RNC, he may or may not believe in RNC talking points dejour, but his On-Radio persona never deviates from said talking points. “First, the equivalent of Mik’s dismissive comment, “Why bother?”, could be made about an e-mail or letter written to just about any prominent person in America today. “ I was not precise. Hewitt is a second or third string pundit, but it would be very worthwhile to turn him to truth at least on some issues. My point was that it is probably hopeless with Hewitt, based on my listening to his show. His radio show is not bad, he is a pro and knows what he is doing. He often has interesting guests. The weakest part of his show is when he blabs alone. Then he slides into RNC spokesman mode. Another pundit is this category is Michael Medved. He is very intelligent as is Hewitt, and often interesting on cultural issues. He becomes bad when he discusses lattest White House point or proposal. I have heard him spending hours arguing that Bush amnesty is not amnesty, Open Borders for labor are not open at all, etc. It is impossible to believe that a very intelligent Medved cannot understand that WH amnesty IS amnesty, the borders are open, etc. The fact that Medved as well as Hewitt keep insisting that amnesty is not amnesty make me question the honesty of their On-Radio personas. My personal view is they modify their On-Radio opinions based on marketing research, to increase their market share. It is not evil as radio is a business, but forget about turning them, their opinions are largely driven by the market.
|