Posted by
Bruce Armstrong on Thursday, October 05, 2006 12:08:53 PM
As he did when many conservatives opposed the nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court, Hugh Hewitt has launched a rhetorical war against those calling for the resignation of Dennis Hastert as Speaker of the House over his mis-handling of Foleygate.
Hugh verbally assaulted Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council on yesterday's program, and has
continued his assault on conservatives with a blog post today. (I'd point you to the transcript of his attack on Perkins, but Hugh hasn't posted it. Wonder why?)
In Hugh's world, since many conservatives (including Tony Blankley,
Tony Perkins, a majority of those contributing to National Review
Online's Corner, and myself) want to hold Republican leaders to a high
ethical standard, we are suddenly "indiffer(ent) to the prospect of a
Nancy Pelosi-led House in a time of war", an indifference that requires
new leadership at the Washington Times and the Family Research Council.
Nobody is indifferent to the danger of the
"Pelosi - Murtha - Rangel - Conyers" superfecta. Pelosi and Murtha are willing to lose Iraq, Rangel is willing to lose a good economy for tax increases, and Conyers wants revenge for the impeachment of Clinton by doing the same to Bush.
We get it, Hugh.But Is it worth retaining control of the House if we have to dissemble and obfuscate and mudsling and cover-up - essentially, if we have to act like Democrats - to do it?
Tony Blankley had it precisely right in his column yesterday when he wrote,
How in the world will Republicans be able to champion our values in the
future if we weasel and excuse the cover-up of such conduct in one of
our own? We have more to protect than the next election, we have our
historic reputation among more than half the country for our principles.