This Post is Not About Mitt Romney
By Leon H Wolf Posted in Blogosphere — Comments (34) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Full Disclosure: Leon Wolf is the E-Campaign Coordinator for the Sam Brownback for President Campaign.
Honest to gosh, this is not a post about Mitt Romney, or the 2008 elections. It will mention Mitt Romney in several places, but only because this story - which is about Hugh Hewitt - is not possible without mentioning Romney's name. I have included the disclaimer up there because nonetheless, I think it's important that everyone is perfectly clear where I stand on things.
Hugh Hewitt, as many of you know, has written a book about the Mitt Romney candidacy which purports to be an "investigation" rather than a piece of advocacy. The very existence of this book is somewhat of a puzzle, as our own Hunter Baker points out:
For quite a while I was puzzled by Hugh's decision to write a book about Romney becoming the first Mormon president. After all, there's really no strong evidence that Romney is even a major candidate, yet. He has money, yes, but so did Phil Gramm, and he didn't last long at all.
Presumably, if Romney never cracks single digits in the national polls, and never becomes the true frontrunner in the race, Hugh's book sales will suffer as 70-80% of the country will continue to be unaware of who Mitt Romney even is. Nevertheless, in the intro to his book, Hugh makes the following claim, which is both self-contradictory, and also ludicrous to anyone who has followed Hugh's posting history for the past several months:
I have not endorsed Governor Romney and will not do so until a moment comes when I decide whom to vote for in California's Republican primary. . . . But in fairness to the reader, I do have to disclose that if the California primary were held tomorrow, I would indeed vote for Mitt Romney.
So apparently, we are supposed to believe that Hugh is not engaged in pure advocacy for Mitt Romney, despite the fact that a successful Romney candidacy presumably helps his own pocket book, and despite writing numerous eye-brow raising posts about the viability of Romney's candidacy, and posts which claim that there are "no credible arguments" against Romney's conservative credentials and suggesting on Hannity and Colmes that only the liberal media and anti-Mormon bigots think that Mitt Romney is a flip-flopper (presumably, as eyeon08 notes, Carrie Lukas is now either not conservative or an anti-Mormon bigot).
Now comes the latest fracas involving Romney, which involves his statements concerning the Terri Schiavo affair:
[I]t's probably best to leave these kinds of matters in the hands of the courts. I generally think that it's not a good idea for courts to legislate. Nor is it a great idea for legislatures to adjudicate in a specific circumstance.
Now, I have no desire to re-open the wounds and rifts caused by everything surrounding the death of Terri Schiavo; what is important for this story is that Hugh Hewitt was unambiguous on this issue. His most cogent piece on the matter dealt specifically with Congrssional intervention into the judicial process. Hugh strongly supported both the legitimacy and the wisdom of Congressional intervention into the judicial process in the Schiavo case:
Tricked-up public opinion polls on the Schiavo case have allowed some commentators to pretend that Congress stumbled politically when it passed the law benefiting Terri's parents. Absurd. It was the right thing to do, and the focus on the facts of the case daily adds to the number of people who know that to be true.
At the same time, the anti-religion bias and rhetoric of the hard left specifically have leapt into public view again, as ordinary people supporting the parents find themselves denounced as fanatics and zealots. Liberal blogger and University of Michigan Professor Juan Cole went so far as to declare that "President George W. Bush and Republican congressional leaders like Tom Delay have taken us one step closer to theocracy on the Muslim Brotherhood model."
Now that Mitt Romney is in the news for opposing this position (wonder how this statement will affect the Jeb Bush's impending endorsement of Romney for President), will Hugh Hewitt call Mitt Romney's stance "absurd" or wonder aloud whether some sort of nefarious bias led him to this position?
In this case, I'm not exactly holding my breath.
This talk about Hewitt is just an excuse to attack Romney for his position on the Terry Schiavo case.
Furthermore, I don't see what is so wrong with Mitt's statement. I certainly agree that the courts made the wrong decision- but I felt pretty uneasy with the US Congress attempting to interfere.
Hard cases make for bad precedence- and that's sort of how I feel about the Congressional intervention- and is what Mitt Romney express.
As for Hewitt- I think he has made it very clear that he favors Romney, but that he just isn't willing to make a commitment yet. (I guess Romney is girl he's going to the dance with, but he hasn't decided if Romney is the girl he's going to leave with.)
This makes sense if you consider that we are still almost a year away from voting on the matter.
Since I didn't "attack" Romney, or say anything else about his stance on Schiavo, and deliberately left my feelings on the matter ambiguous.
------------
[F]or by the fundamental law of Nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred...
-John Locke
But learning that Romney didn’t drink the Flavor Aid ™ that too many Republicans did to appease the ideological fringe in the Teri Schiavo matter is a good sign that he’s in the mainstream of the social conservative movement. It also shows respect for both the rule of law and that (unlike Bush, McCain, and Brownback) he may actually be a candidate that respects federalism and the Constitution even if he disagrees personally with the outcome.
I'm not a South Park Republican, I'm a King of the Hill libertarian.
That one of you geniuses who have apparently divined something that I neither said nor implied can tell me how I feel about what happened with Terri Schiavo?
Didn't think so.
But by all means, keep on smarmily pretending you're the smartest person in the room. It's obviously doing something for you, or you wouldn't keep doing it.
------------
[F]or by the fundamental law of Nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred...
-John Locke
That one of you geniuses who have apparently divined something that I neither said nor implied can tell me how I feel about what happened with Terri Schiavo?
Go back and reread my post, I never made any comment about “how [you] feel about what happened with Terri Schiavo.” Frankly your “feelings” on this don’t interest me but I did recommend the diary because I think it’s a good illustration that Romney isn’t pandering to the nutters to get the nomination.
I'm not a South Park Republican, I'm a King of the Hill libertarian.
You said that you "agreed" with Cicero that it was a "bait and switch" which means that you, too, were claiming that:
This talk about Hewitt is just an excuse to attack Romney for his position on the Terry Schiavo case.
So if your position now is that you disagree with Cicero, and you now realize that this is not a bait-and-switch, but you nonetheless applaud Romney's stance on Schiavo, then that will be fine, and I'll accept that as an apology for misconstruing my post, since I know that's the closest to one that I'll get from you.
------------
[F]or by the fundamental law of Nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred...
-John Locke
There’s nothing in there about your “feelings” on the Teri Schiavo issue either. And he’s correct, your title notwithstanding, the diary is actually a thinly-veiled hit piece on Romney but because you do such a ham-fisted job of it that it actually helps him more than hurts him, I whole-heartedly recommend it.
I'm not a South Park Republican, I'm a King of the Hill libertarian.
In order for you (or Cicero) to claim that I'm "attacking" Romney for his position on Schiavo, you'd have to have some evidence that I, you know, disagree with Governor Romney's position. Given that I've been posting on RedState for a long, long time, and that I write about 75% of my pieces on life issues, should be a breeze, right?
Now, if neither of you *geniuses* can perform such a task (I'll guarantee you you can't perform it just from looking at the OP, which takes excruciating care not to take any position at all on Schiavo), you can either quit smearing me or scram from my thread.
------------
[F]or by the fundamental law of Nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred...
-John Locke
In order for you (or Cicero) to claim that I'm "attacking" Romney for his position on Schiavo, you'd have to have some evidence that I, you know, disagree with Governor Romney's position.
Nope, we only have to look at the way you distort what Hugh Hewitt actually said in your sixth paragraph and your latter attempt to conflate Romney’s comments on why special legislation is generally not a good idea with Hewitt’s comments on the “anti-religion bias and rhetoric of the hard left.”
As far as what you actually “feel” about the debacle – utterly irrelevant.
I'm not a South Park Republican, I'm a King of the Hill libertarian.
The point you seem incapable of capturing is that Hugh and Romney disagree on the issue. Leon was using this as an occasion to wonder if perhaps Mr. Hewitt isn't as principled and objective as he so often insists he is.
I would move on if I were you.
----------------
Kevin Holtsberry
www.kevinholtsberry.com
As if you must agree with everything your favored candidate believes in order to be considered "principled".
So the main attack was at Hewitt, the point was that it's about Romney. Somehow, I think that if the issue didn't touch on Romney, Hewitt's "principles" wouldn't have come under such sructiny.
Furthermore, I have no idea about your position on the Terry Schiavo case. I guess I should have made that more clear.
It does seems obvious that you are trying to imply that Romney shouldn't be trusted by the social conservatives. I don't see how you can argue anything else. Whether this is because Romney took the wrong position on Terry Schiavo (as the structure of the post implies- though this may be a misreading) or if it's just that Social Conservatives shouldn't trust Hewitt's vouching for Romney on social issues because Hewitt and Romney take opposing viewpoints on Terry Schiavo (an argument that doesn't make much sense to me)- the point of the post is still to try and undercut Romney's support among Social Conservatives (who are Brownback's most natural supporters). To argue anything else is silly.
Sorry about that Kevin, I gues my reply is partially to you, but mainly to Leon.
Leon is the "you" and "your" refered to in the above post.
On a number of other occasions. Just not here. Why is why this piece is accurately titled "This Post is Not About Mitt Romney."
The post is about how Hugh is willing to ignore or say anything that will help sell his own books. Nothing more, nothing less.
------------
[F]or by the fundamental law of Nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred...
-John Locke
If you say so Leon- but somehow I find it hard to believe you'd be as upset with Hewitt if he wasn't backing Romney.
Hewitt disagrees with a lot of the people he’s supported over the years but agrees with them more than he disagrees. It’s called the “big tent” and it’s what happens when you’re serious about politics and want to build a governing party.
Unless someone can point to where Hewitt has said that he considers this to be some sort of litmus test for candidates, it has nothing to do with whether he’s “principled and objective” (your words, not his).
That being said, I still whole-heartedly recommend this diary. It highlights that Romney is mainstream social conservative who doesn’t pander to the nutters in the movement.
I'm not a South Park Republican, I'm a King of the Hill libertarian.
It highlights that Romney is mainstream social conservative who doesn’t pander to the nutters in the movement.
You'll now apologize for calling those who opposed the starvation of Terri Schiavo (a significant portion of our readership) "nutters."
Thanks in advance.
------------
[F]or by the fundamental law of Nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred...
-John Locke
Curiously, this genius had no trouble figuring out that Leon was taking shots at Hugh Hewitt; that the "bait and switch" was more a "bait"; and that wandering into your particular theology on Terri Schiavo's death's usefulness on finding the "fringe" is not only a great threadjack, but even more off-topic than your original misreading.
Bravo, genius. Bravo.
You never really answered me: Do you have anything to contribute besides shots at front-pagers and "me too" comments? Or is this just a side effect of hanging around Tacitus, or whatever that site is called these days?
-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
Try a simple metric. Compare the number of times that Mitt Romney's name is mentioned versus the number of times that Hugh Hewitt's name is mentioned. In an article that supposedly is about Hewitt and specifically not about Romney, why is Romney's name mentioned twice as often as Hewitt's.
"If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools..." 'IF' by Rudyard Kipling
We have subjects and objects; pronouns; and disclaimers.
Simple metrics are often merely simple.
-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
As a leaner toward Romney who is strongly pro-life, but also felt the Schiavo matter was wrongly handled, I'm now even more strongly a Romney guy.
All he's got to do now is give me a good immigration policy and barring Fred Thompson entering the race, I'll have a near perfect candidate.
I’m starting to think that any serious Republican candidate for President in 2008 is going to need to have a “Sister Souljah” moment on this issue.
I'm not a South Park Republican, I'm a King of the Hill libertarian.
If Romney actually respects federalism enough not to have pandered in the utterly asinine Shiavo case, I may take a serious look at him.
when Hugh published a book assuring the Republican party that we would win big in 2006?
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
I remember the night of the 2006 elections when Hugh broadcast live. At one point when it was obvious to just about everyone that the republican congress was about to lose big, Hugh went on the air claiming that an "inside" source told him the republicans would remain in the majority by a 3 vote margin.
I wonder if Hugh got information for his latest book by the same "inside" source ?
I actually enjoy listening to Hugh when I can catch him. He's does a pretty good job of intellectually gutting liberals, teaches law (environmental stuff I think), was in charge of the Nixon library for a while and oh by the way is way smart. I used to especially enjoy when he was on the local PBS station here in LA doing battle with the local Liberal establishment.
So he writes a book on Romney, so is the book a mash love letter to Mitt and his campaign or merely a commercial endeavor? I don't know, however there is an allusion in this diary and this thread that Hugh is doing serious water carrying for Mitt, maybe so. Is that so bad?
The other charges being made if I read this diary and the comments correctly, is that Hugh is being too cute by half, pimping for Romney under the color of neutrality or that he has a financial stake in Romney doing well, with resulting income from book sales? Something again I don't know claim to know about but I tend to think all of us have a lot of income on the line if Hillary gets into office.
So does he need a sticker or two on this new book?
"I am a supporter of Mitt Romney"
"I make money from the sale of this book"
_______________________________
Dennis Miller for President...no more wimps!
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
Starbucks coffee cups are dangerous, but
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
The HinzSight Report
The Minority Report
Race 4 2008
Instead of questioning Hewitt's priciples, lets just call him the Happy Warrior and recognize that he tends to put a happy face on no matter what is happening.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
Starbucks cups hurl
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
I know what you were trying to do with this post (and agree about Hugh), but the title really did you in. It's like when a football player starts saying things like "It's not about the money" you can bet that guy is going to jump at the highest offer, even if it's the Detroit Lions. Or when U2 had their PopMart tour a decade ago and they had to keep telling people "It's about the music." No Bono, it's about a 50 foot disco-ball-lemon.
We've been conditioned too much as a society when we hear someone say "It's not about XXXXXX" means it is about XXXXXX.
I don't know how you get around all that (I just point it out, solving it costs extra), though you could have used several other examples of Hugh's work I guess.
Two thirds of the world is covered by water, the other third is covered by Champ Bailey
"If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools..." 'IF' by Rudyard Kipling
I try not to reopen the Miers wounds if at all possible, though.
------------
[F]or by the fundamental law of Nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred...
-John Locke
They claim this is a new one and this time it's with his wife with both of them claiming to be pro-choice.
He is a Party man, that is not intended as a put-down, just a description. We need Party men, they belong in The Other Big Tent™ - TOBT means that we need both the pragmatics and the idealists. I can see Hugh's thinking on this, he advocates for the best pragmatic solution (Romney is the guy who can win and is conservative, YMMV).
Two thirds of the world is covered by water, the other third is covered by Champ Bailey