Saturday, December 08, 2007

Hugh Missed the Irony...

I wonder, if Mitt Romney cheerleader Hugh Hewitt can really be so dense as to miss the irony in this blog posting at Townhall (emphasis mine -- ed.)...

Mitt Romney threw a long ball today and scored. There can be no objective argument against that conclusion. Why? Because Romney is running for the GOP nomination, and his remarks, both in delivery and substance, were lavishly praised by Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Medved, and James Dobson, not to mention Mark Steyn, Fred Barnes and Charles Krauthammer -and these were just the seven people I heard on a long drive south to San Diego and then in a hotel room before leaving to post this and give a speech. I am sure when I get a chance to review the blogs more widely late tonight, there will be many others, though in fact every single one could denounce Romney and it wouldn't matter given the line-up of assessments just listed, to which I add mine from earlier today.

Here are seven of the most influential conservative commentators in the U.S., and their opinions on the Romney success are all aligned with mine. Thus, objectively, the speech cannot be judged as other than an extraordinary success for Romney. It does not, of course, guarantee him the nomination, but no other Republican has had a comparable day since the campaign began, and Romney's triumph comes four days before the absentees are available for casting in New Hampshire. Romney's success today has also clearly panicked Mike Huckabee who was on with Glenn Beck tonight warning that the "ruling class" in America is growing more distanced from the people --the sort of arch-populist class warfare nonsense which has never had a home in the GOP mainstream.

Finally, a note to my angry e-mailers: It doesn't matter that you don't like Rush or Dr. Dobson, or that I thought Harriet Meirs got a raw deal. Your opinion of who ought to be the GOP nominee doesn't matter beyond your vote, and then only if you are a GOP voter, which most of you aren't. The folks listed above matter. Because they earned the respect of the voters who decided the past two presidential elections and who will decide the next --the patriots and the values voters, the investment class and the national security-minded.
There are actually a couple of ironies here, apparently both of which escaped Hewitt. I thought it was just a bit, shall we say, odd that Hewitt was talking about objective analysis when it's quite obvious that his own analysis is about the furthest thing from objective. To put it delicately, never mind mere ass-kissing, it would seem the above analysis was nothing less than the verbal equivalent of oral sex. I mean, that's about as kindly as I can put it and retain any semblance of putting forth what I really think.
And then, of course, you have Hewitt deriding Huckabee for engaging in so-called "class warfare," while out of the other side of his mouth basically telling ordinary voters like you and me that we basically don't matter because we're not part of the so-called "elite." He's attempting to drive a wedge here just like, oh, say, John Edwards would do. Good grief, the hypocrisy's so thick here that if you stepped in it you'd never get it off your shoe! As for the regular voters not mattering...well, I guaran-damn-tee that elitist asshole that we damn sure would matter if we spent Election Day at home, or the range, or the hangout of our choosing. I would have thought we on the right would be better than to hold on to such an elitist attitude. And I really thought we would be better than to resort to something like an appeal to authority. After all, say what you will, but the above-mentioned pundits all have but one vote apiece, just like we do. But then maybe we are better than that, to the extent the base actually thinks for itself and doesn't blindly do what the self-appointed elitists tell them to. I mean, I thought it was great to see Rush practically endorse Fred Thompson, but I was going to vote for Thompson anyway because I think he's the most reliably conservative candidate who has a chance to win. To whatever extent Rush can influence his listeners to vote for the man is great, but I'd like to think most of 'em were gonna vote for him because of his conservative credentials, not just because some cat on the radio told them they should. Maybe Hugh Hewitt's just another thoroughly unprincipled Party apparatchik who votes for the Party no matter how reprehensible its chosen candidate may be. I'd like to think so anyway.
Scrolling through the comments, though, I ran up on this:
I saw some solid conservatives, with great policies that have been extolled by all the people you mentioned above, but by you? Nope...not a word. Suddenly if it's anti Mitt, Mitt is on the phone to defend himself, if it's Pro Mitt, it's the biggest headline on your site, the first thing out of your mouth on the show. You and a few other center right conservatives told us it's a two man race and to me, it started to sound condescending.
We suddenly didn't know ANYTHING, and you knew all. You haven't been objective, because you haven't been fair. When Rush, National Review, Investors business daily said he liked Fred, not a word from you. When Medved talked about liking Huckabee, you dismissed it out of hand. Instead of trying to BUILD UP the party, You closed it up not giving any of these other upstanding, GOOD men the time of day. So yeah...I'm mad at you, and I can see why most everyone else is starting to get that way too.
So it would seem that this objectivity Hewitt speaks of is just more of a smokescreen than anything else and that he's only touting the opinions of the other conservative pundits because they're agreeing with him, but not a word from him when they're not agreeing with him. It's an ugly thing to watch, too.