Hugh Hewitt has staked out a brave, if lonely position on the Specter-Judiciary Chairman kerfuffle. While the rest of conservatism is lobbying to have Specter sidelined, Hewitt is practically the sole conservative voice supporting him. He's wrong on this, but he isn't out to lunch.
Read the column -- he makes some good points. But his premises don't necessitate his conclusion. I think we should recognize that the Republican Party is a coalition, and not monolithically conservative. And it's better to keep our moderates in the fold with some concessions than have them pull a Jeffords.
That doesn't mean we're required to put a knife to our own throat. Two of the key fights of the next session will likely be tort reform and a Supreme Court nomination. Specter has a 43% approval rating from the ACU. He has proven time and again that we can't trust him. He's the Republican most beholden to trial lawyers. We want HIM on point for tort reform?
Hewitt ends with: Jeffords. Jeffords. Jeffords.
My response: Bork. Bork. Bork.
Posted by Discoshaman at novembre 13, 2004 02:55 AM | TrackBack
"Bork, Bork, Bork. . ."
Dude, could I sound more like the Swedish chef?
Posted by: Discoshaman at novembre 13, 2004 03:41 AMI used to listen to Hugh Hewitt in California before he became well-known nationally, and at that time he used to stress he was a dedicated conservative, not a Republican party hack. At some point he must have decided dedicated conservativism didn't pay well enough. The Republicans had a chance to strengthen themselves in Pennsylvania, and his name was Pat Toomey.
Posted by: Russ at novembre 13, 2004 10:10 PMRuss-
I don't at all impugn his motives here. Like I said, I think a lot of his basic points in the article are accurate. There needs to be a healthy respect for the tactics of party politics. They just can't be allowed to overshadow the big picture strategic side of what things we hope to achieve with those party tactics.
I just think in this situation he's unwisely overemphasizing the former at the expense of the latter. We need to keep the moderates in the party; and we can't be a winning party with only conservative voters. But that doesn't mean we need to give Specter this particular position. . .
Posted by: Discoshaman at novembre 14, 2004 02:36 AMThe thing about Sphincter/Specter is that he can't be trusted as far as you could spit a rat. Bush campaigned hard for Specter in his fight with Toomey. To show his gratitude, Specter didn't do jack squat for Bush in the presidential campaign, and Bush was this close to winning Pennsylvania. He's out for himself, and it appears that he always has been. It's high time he was introduced to that female dog called Payback.
Posted by: Roy Jacobsen at novembre 15, 2004 09:55 PMDon't mince words man, let us know what you think. ;)
I think that Bush handled the last campaign cycle with amazing adroitness, but I have to give you Toomey. That was a MAJOR screw-up. In many ways it would have been better if a Dem had won that seat. That way the barbarian would at least be outside the gates, rather than in a chairman's seat.
In Bush's defense though, it's easy for us to say that now that we have 55 seats. The strategic picture looked a bit less rosy when the decision to support a safe Republican seat in a Democratic state was made.
In hindsight though, ugh. We should have dumped him.
Posted by: Discoshaman at novembre 16, 2004 02:41 AMOf course I don't really know Hewitt's motives either - it was a joke more than an accusation. Still, I think he's about as likely to criticize a Republican as Ken Mehlman.
Posted by: Russ at novembre 17, 2004 08:41 PM