Monday, October 10

POOR FORM, MR. HEWITT

What's with Hugh Hewitt and the Miers' nomination? I felt compelled to publish this post to respond to his heavy-handed criticism of those on the Right side of the blogosphere who took issue with the president's nomination of a cipher and long-standing personal friend in Harriet Miers. Calling us DailyKos-like was insulting and gratuitous.

Here he gets sarcastic with David Frum, who I don't believe deserved the cheap-shot. And here it would appear (although I hope that the observation was tongue-in-cheek) he's needling one of his own -- blogger disciple Professor Bainbridge -- for articulating an opposing point of view on the president's selection by suggesting he should not have sponsored him early on when Bainbridge began blogging.

Now, today, he really oversteps in this post of his with pure silliness:

The nomination of Miers is one of three things: a brilliant move by the president; a blunder like Reagan's nominations of Justice O'Connor and Kennedy or the first Bush's of Souter; or a betrayal of the sort that occasions taking leave of the whole project.


Other than those who are easily betrayed --and probably already feeling betrayed because of budget deficits of less than 5% GDP or a failure to put machine guns on the Mexican border-- the GOP voters in the last category are very few indeed. They have disproportionate representation among the conservative punditry.


Now I have no doubt Hugh Hewitt doesn't know me, my blog, or my views from Adam (although he's linked to me). But I have taken the president to task any number of times for his profound lack of fiscal restraint; and regular readers of ACSOL know that I put a great deal of focus on this nation's porous borders, egregious illegal alien problem, and a president and Congress who have largely turned their collective backs on both.

So when I read Hugh's hyperbole that center-right bloggers like me would just as soon see "machine guns on the Mexican border," I take exception. Indeed it's tantamount to the mean-spirited foolishness in the Left's reaction to Bill Bennett's recent remarks about abortion. Bennett is branded a racist and we who take issue with the invasion from the south are characterized as the equivalent of racist-jingoists bent on slaughtering Mexican nationals en masse.

It's not funny, Hugh. Your writing ought to be more precise and not capable of being interpreted as pejorative, unless of course that is precisely your intent. You've done so much good in the blogosphere and have been an inspiration and mentor to so many that you'd do well to temper your language on this Miers' matter. Be a statesman and show some restraint in wielding your ample powers of persuasion and the tremendous clout of your large readership and multitude of loyal blogger disciples.

With that, I'm about to tune into your "News Talk 870 KRLA" radio show. I'm still a fan, but decidely annoyed with you at the moment.

POSTSCRIPT: Well, Hugh Hewitt didn't waste any time in the opening segment of his radio show this afternoon. He branded Republicans opposing the Miers' nomination as "knuckleheads." There was a palpable air of condescension in his voice. Next, and not wanting to risk misquoting him, I'll paraphrase an outlandish statement he made: "If you oppose Harriet Miers, you oppose the President of the United States, you oppose the GOP, and, by definition, you support Hillary Clinton." Now I'm convinced I'm reading the man correctly. He's gone overboard with this entire matter and it's not pretty.