Huey Hewitt And The News...

Why the Right Was Wrong - New York Times

In which Huey Hewitt takes over the Democrats' heavy lifting and bashes the right for DARING to object to the nomination of Harriet Miers. It isn't so much that Huey enjoys trashing conservatives, merely conservatives who have the unmitigated gall to think for themselves, and, gasp, disagree with the President.

With friends like Huey, who needs enema's?

Op-ed piece for the NY Times? The man simply has no shame.

"The right's embrace in the Miers nomination of tactics previously exclusive to the left - exaggeration, invective, anonymous sources, an unbroken stream of new charges, television advertisements paid for by secret sources - will make it immeasurably harder to denounce and deflect such assaults when the Democrats make them the next time around. Given the overemphasis on admittedly ambiguous speeches Miers made more than a decade ago, conservative activists will find it difficult to take on liberals in their parallel efforts to destroy some future Robert Bork."

He is wrong in so very many ways..."exaggeration, invective, anonymous sources," chief among them, for the truth was as simple as Huey's lips firmly planted to the White House posterior, and there was no need to exaggerate Mz Miers unqualifications, as she did it quite well on her own. Jonathan Adler helps with MY heavy lifting and answers Huey here:

Bench Memos on National Review Online

Why Hewitt Is Wrong

[Jonathan Adler 10/28 08:59 AM]

"I have tremendous respect and admiration for Hugh Hewitt, and I don't disagree with him lightly, but I think his op-ed in today's New York Times is wrong on many levels.

First, the tactics employed by most on the Right were not those used by the Left. Miers' record was not falsified or distorted, but it was scrutinized. Most of the critiques, particularly those made her, were substantive. Insofar as there was significant attention to irrelevancies, such attention was invited by the White House. If you claim a nominee is "detail oriented," you should expect people to notice when she fails to record the dates on which she served on a for-profit corporation's Board of Directors. If a nominee's record in the White House is praised, whether those who worked with her shared that impression is worth knowing. I do not believe this compares with the savage and dishonest campaign waged against prior conservative nominees — and that we will likely see again if Bush follows with a solid nomination.

Second, Miers' withdrawal does not contravene the call for giving nominees up-or-down votes. No one was going to deny her a vote. There was never any threat of a filibuster or tying her up in committee. There were not even any delays in the process — other than any that may have resulted from the nominee' own failures to provide complete and accurate information to the Committee. The White House and the nominee eventually realized there was more to lose by continuing ahead than by stopping the process — but this was their decision."

It's a good retort, even beginning with the obligatory ass-kissing that ALL must give Lord Huey or be forever banned from that inarticulate assemblage of hooting barnyard animals he calls his radio show. The hive-mind must stick together or they'll find themselves alone in the dark with just their fellow nobody conservatives to whistle along with, and...wait a second, I DID say it was a good retort so we'll leave it as that.