Thank You, Tom Bevan
I wanted to take the time to thank Tom Bevan for his post on Hugh Hewitt’s analysis of the Romney speech. Let’s first call attention to the opening to Mr. Hewitt’s post:
Mitt Romney’s “Faith in America” speech was simply magnificent, and anyone who denies it is not to be trusted as an analyst. On every level it was a masterpiece.
Here’s Mr. Bevan’s reaction to Hewitt’s review:
I guess I’ll have to stop listening to or reading Bill Bennett, John Podhoretz, and David Frum, since they can no longer be trusted.
Mr. Bevan continues by saying this:
Indeed, the one person who cannot be trusted as an analyst these days is Hugh himself, who has taken his Romney boosting to surreal heights by posting press releases from the Romney campaign verbatim on his blog, constantly slagging every one of Romney’s opponents, suggesting criticism of Romney on the right is rooted in anti-Mormon bigotry, declaring victory in every debate, and just generally being so in the tank for the guy that it’s hard to take him seriously at all any more.
I’ve noted before that Hewitt should be considered part of the Agenda Media when it comes to anything Romney:
Hugh Hewitt’s post, titled Romney Rising, is proof that he’s lost touch with the Republican base. One thing Hewitt has done is avoided talking about the real Romney record. I won’t make that mistake. Here’s some typical Hugh fluffery:
Patrick’s enthusiasms for Governor Huckabee aside (what debate was he at?) the next 45 days are about whether Rudy or Mitt runs against Hillary.
Hugh’s smart enough not to mention that Romney is a liberal. His answer on whether he’d sign federal legislation banning abortion is a clear sign that we couldn’t trust Romney on picking judges. Reagan conservatives are federalists. Conservatives have said for years that abortion would return to the states if Roe v. Wade is overturned.
In saying that he’d sign legislation banning abortion, Romney essentially said that he didn’t care about states rights or the Tenth Amendment. Why should conservatives trust Romney to nominate strict constructionist judges if he’s elected?
Hugh Hewitt is still trying ot convince people that Romney is ‘the true conservative’ in the race. As you can see, he isn’t. He doesn’t even believe in the Tenth Amendment or federalism.
I’d state further that Romney’s speech is irrelevant to me because it doesn’t change my opinion of him. He’s still a liberal. He still signed a health care bill that isn’t significantly different than HillaryCare.
At the last debate, Romney said that he’d made a mistake with regards to abortion. Considering the fact that RomneyCare has a $50 co-pay for abortions, my question remains: At what point did Romney’s abortion transformation happen?
It’s a shame Mr. Hewitt didn’t question Romney’s commitment to federalism or strict constructionism after that answer. There’s a reason why he didn’t. It’s unknowingly provided by Hewitt himself. Here’s that reason:
Of course there are some nay-sayers. There always are. I don’t trust their judgment about the campaign at this point if they didn’t think the speech was at least very good. Getting too close to the campaigns or too inside-the-Beltway can blind some observers to what the average Republican thinks or how he or she responds.
I don’t think that Hugh Hewitt doesn’t realize how his unprincipled support for Romney has blinded his observations “to what the average Republican thinks.” I’m fairly certain he knows what Republicans thinks. I believe it’s that he’s set aside his principles to push his agenda. I further believe that he’s set aside his principles to see if he can be a kingmaker within the Republican Party.
It’s a shame to see Hugh Hewitt go this far in the tank for a political candidate. Years from now, I think we’ll look back at his book on Romney as when people started questioning Mr. Hewitt’s credibility. Only time will tell if he gets it back.
Let’s hope he does because he used to be a great spokesman for the GOP. We can use more pre-Romney Hewitts in the GOP.
Technorati Tags: Hugh Hewitt, Agenda Media, Mitt Romney, RINO, Federalism, Roe v. Wade, Abortion, HillaryCare, RomneyCare, Election 2008
Cross-posted at LetFreedomRingBlog
December 7th, 2007 at 9:02 am
With all due respect, Bevan seems more obsessed with Hewitt than he is interested in Romneys speech, or why it was even made.
Conservatives defend the principle that anybody, no mmatter what his political views, or previous record of public accomplishments, may run for political office without fear of their religion being use against them. That there is no test of religion, and that we are all Americans first.
I assume Bevan has no problem with Romney being Mormon. If he has a problem with him as a conservative he knows what to do.
December 7th, 2007 at 1:00 pm
If there is a choice between Mitt, Rudy, Mikey and a conservative I’ll vote for the conservative. If it comes down to Mitt and either Rudy or Mikey, I’ll probably go with Rudy. If it’s between Mitt and Mikey, I’ll go with Mitt because the only way to associate Mikey as anything but socialist is with the (R) behind his name, which is totally meaningless.
What I object to most strenuously, though, is the Romney campaign’s automatic reaction to rejection of Mitt as prima facia evidence of bigotry. Kinda like Hillarious’ automatic reaction to her dislikers as being at various time bigots, stupid, a vast conspiracy or just plain nasty.
Some people just don’t realize there are others that have significantly different thought patterns and decision-making processes.
December 7th, 2007 at 2:31 pm
Thats right in thj broad sense.
However, Bevan is casing this narrowly in light of Hewitts endorsement of Romneys speech.
If he doesnt like Romney, let him say so.
If its between Romney and any of the secular progressive jackass’s, guess who gets my vote?
December 8th, 2007 at 2:04 pm
O.C. attorney pleads guilty to molesting teens
The former aide to Rep. Dana Rohrabacher says he met one boy on the Internet and lived with the family of the other.
By David Haldane
Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
December 6, 2007
A Ladera Ranch attorney and former congressional aide pleaded guilty Wednesday to molesting two teenage boys. In exchange for the plea, authorities said, Jeffrey Ray Nielsen, 37, is expected to be sentenced April 18 to three years in state prison.
“It was time to settle these cases,” Nielsen’s attorney, Paul Meyer, said.
Nielsen, a former aide to Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Huntington Beach) who has also worked for Orange County GOP Chairman Scott Baugh, was arrested in 2003. Westminster police had found thousands of images of child pornography on his home computer, laptop and a computer at his Costa Mesa law office.
Prosecutors contended that Nielsen had met the 14-year-old victim on a gay Internet site and driven the boy to his Ladera Ranch condominium, where the two engaged in oral sex.
They did the same thing on two additional occasions over the next four weeks, prosecutors said. The boy, a high school freshman, told a friend who alerted school authorities.
A jury was unable to reach a verdict in the case earlier this year.
Later, however, Nielsen confessed, and the Orange County district attorney’s office obtained additional evidence from two of his former roommates. Prosecutors also filed charges involving a 13-year-old they said Nielsen had molested repeatedly while living at the boy’s family’s Virginia home in 1994.
Nielsen will remain free on $10,000 bail until his sentencing, authorities said.
Nielsen’s father, Ben, is a former Fountain Valley mayor.
December 9th, 2007 at 1:00 am
Benn, Benn, Benn. Just exactly what does this have to do with the topic at hand? Nothing, you say? Just an interesting little piece of dirt to remind everyone Republicans are nothing but scumbags, like other of your comments have been?
With a little help and a good dose of Kool-Aid you may make the big-time someday and get to play with the heavyweights.
In the meantime, I’ll ask once again, can you please concentrate for more than three milliseconds and stay on topic? I’m just real sure that if we gathered up all the freaks, San Fran sickos would outweigh all the Republican dirt you can try to make us feel guilty about.
(That’s one of the nice things about being a conservative - we really do believe each person is responsible for his or her own actions. What this Mr. Nielsen did is his responsibility, not ours, and it is liberal policies, all the way from the classroom to the courtroom, that allow such depravity to exist and flourish.)
December 9th, 2007 at 8:17 am
Im sure the ACLU or MAMBLA or some other group of perverts will fly to his defense.