THE BIZARRE BEHAVIOR OF CONSERVATIVE PUNDITS
Many of us have long viewed men like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Hugh Hewitt as conservative heroes for articulating, explaining and defending conservative principles. I was a conservative -- even a conservative leader -- long before any of them became national radio hosts, but I was delighted to finally hear voices on the radio who shared my philosophy of government.
That's why I'm at a complete loss to understand the animosity being directed at Mike Huckabee and John McCain by these radio hosts. Their constant trashing of Huckabee and McCain is foolish, irrational, shortsighted and ultimately devastating to the conservative cause they are trying to advance.
I don't mind policy disagreements with Republican candidates -- I certainly do not agree with Huckabee and McCain on everything. But what Limbaugh, Hannity and Hewitt are doing is way beyond policy critiques. A few examples:
-- Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity have both continually referred to Huckabee and McCain as "liberals."
-- On Friday I heard Limbaugh essentially embrace the New York Times critique of religious conservatives as "uninformed" and "easily led" when he claimed that most Huckabee voters in Iowa were women from rural communities who were "told" who to vote for by their church or by their husbands.
-- I listened to Hannity cross-examine Huckabee in a hostile manner that he never employs when he interviews Romney and Guiliani. With Romney and Guiliani, he defends and helps them explain away their many deviations from conservatism.
-- Hewitt long ago wrote a book touting Romney and at times seems to have turned his radio show and blog into a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Romney campaign. His attacks on Huckabee and McCain have been irrational and unfair.
Mike Huckabee has actually governed as a pro-life, pro-family, pro-gun, tax-cutting, pro-military and pro-defense Reagan conservative in a very liberal state. He wants to eliminate the IRS and has a strong border security plan. For anyone to call him a liberal is just silly, and yet that is what Limbaugh has done.
John McCain has a 20-year history of being essentially pro-life and pro-marriage, and was never a passionate defender of abortion and gay rights, as Romney was recently and Guiliani still is. McCain is anti-pork barrel spending and pro-military and for a strong national defense. He promoted the surge in Iraq when it was unpopular. He has come around on immigration to support the need for strong border security first. These are not the positions of liberal Democrats, and it serves no purpose to accuse him of being a liberal.
These pundits could also make the case that Mitt Romney and Rudy Guiliani are liberals because each of them has at least 20 years of public statements and support for abortion, gay rights, opposition to gun rights and general expansion of government power, as in Romney's universal health care in Massachusetts. Both of them, like McCain, have become more conservative in their approach to illegal immigration than they were a few years ago. Fred Thompson lobbied for Planned Parenthood and had a conservative voting record very similar to Sen. McCain's, including sponsoring campaign finance reform. Yet Limbaugh describes Thompson as a conservative and McCain as a liberal?
I am thankful that Romney and Guiliani are now taking more conservative positions on issues, and I'm glad Fred Thompson has been a consistent voice of conservative philosophy in the race. But despite their flaws, I haven't heard any national conservative pundits constantly bashing Romney, Thompson and Guiliani as unelectable liberals who are destroying the Reagan coalition.
As should be clear by now, none of the Republican candidates is completely pure from a conservative standpoint.
But here is the critical point -- all of the Republicans would be better than the big-government, class warfare, universal health care, retreat and defeat in Iraq, tax-raising liberalism represented by any of the potential Democratic nominees. And this is the point that should be emphasized by conservative pundits.
What I don't understand is why these pundits are investing so much energy trying to convince their listeners that Huckabee and McCain are liberals, while ignoring flaws in other candidates.
I am a committed free-market, limited government, pro-border security and anti-illegal immigration conservative who is also a committed social conservative, and I have been a long-time fan of Limbaugh, Hannity and Hewitt. But the vitriol in their attacks against McCain and Huckabee is disappointing and will deeply hurt the ability of conservatives to unite behind any candidate.
C'mon guys, knock it off. Keep promoting conservative principles, keep pointing out the conservative strengths and weaknesses of all the candidates, fairly and equally, and then allow us to make our own decisions about which candidate is most authentic and committed to the conservative principles we care about.
Comments
Len,
Great post. I too was listening to Hannity's interview of Mike Huckabee last week and was struck by how confrontational he was compared to his interviews with the other candidates, especially Mitt Romney earlier in the week.
That said, I've begun to find myself more impressed with Romney after viewing the NH debates. He carried himself well, provided good arguments, and responded well to the mountain of criticism thrown his way. He has certainly changed his policy positions over the last couple of years, which is a concern, but his changes have been in the right direction. So I give him credit here.
I don't know if you ever look over at National Review Online, but it's definitely been the same issue there as with other media. They spend a great deal of time talking down McCain and Huckabee.
One difference I see in McCain and Huckabee is that their economic rhetoric tends to be more populist and sometimes anti-corporate. Perhaps this is seen as unpredictable or downright frightening to free-market types and thus their strong reaction.
For example, I believe in the NH debates McCain took pharmaceutical companies to task for their high profits and Huckabee talks about issues such as U.S. shell corporations in the Cayman Islands not paying their fair share of taxes, something I've heard John Edwards talk about as well.
Regardless, personally I could support any of the three (other others) and any of them would be preferable in almost every policy area to what the Democrats are offering.
Keep up the good work.
JR
Posted by: JR | January 8, 2008 01:12 AM
Don't forget Mark Levin
Thanks for the commentary. Keep up the good work. Couldn't have said it better myself.
I especailly don't like how Hannity fawns over Romney and yet questions the Huck.
We have to come together if we are going to win
Posted by: James A. Bretney | January 8, 2008 09:14 AM
Thank you, Len.
Posted by: Conservative Majority | January 8, 2008 10:18 AM
I was thrilled last night to see ALL of the pundits get their comeuppance, in their projections, regarding the Obama "theatre".
As for McCain, if you actually listened to C-Span and his speeches, that man has never seen a war he wouldn't want to be right in the middle of...or leading.
And, we all know his immigration plan is "Amnesty", with payola..is ridiculous and takes away none of the hardships taxpayers have borne all of these years,the weight on our hospitals, schools as the poverty would still be upon us, just growing with more and more children and relatives of their extended family.
It is a REWARD for breaking the law, as although the illegals don't go back, and go to the back of the line, the proposed sollution is laughable to anyone of commonsense.
Huckabee, has conducted his life and political career as if the "budget" is a not-for-profit charitable trust.
Look in these people's eyes, as they are truly the windows of the soul, and I do not trust either McCain or Huckabee to be able to handle the coming recession (wherein we do not have the manufacturing, et al to bring us out of it), a housing crisis which with the help of the fed is only putting a bigger burden on our government in order to keep banks and the huge mortgage industry from bankruptcy and actually worsening the inevitable.
Mitt Romney is and has been a successful problem solver, and no one could be in more PROBLEM than this country.
Hannity is a jerk, and anyone who would not give him back as good as he gives is even a bigger jerk. Respect is a two-way street, and unless you are in lock step with him he is rude to everyone.
Posted by: Jane Horton-Leasman | January 9, 2008 12:03 PM
What you described is certainly cover for the actions of some of our own GOP leaders in the past. Where the idea that cannibalism makes us stronger came from, I have no idea, but it is garbage.
Be it a national voice, a presidential candidate, or a local leader; if all you've got is to point out the bad in someone else it could be that there is little good in you.
Posted by: Ann | January 9, 2008 02:33 PM
Huckabee will outlast McCain after Romney drops out next week.
Will the blog, Seeing Red AZ support the Republican nominee after Mitt Romney suffers two more defeats this week. Coming third in Michigan and fourth in South Carolina should send a clear message that the "anti-Huckabee", "pro-$50 abortions in Mass." writer of Seeing Red AZ should get behind the leader of the Republican Party, Mike Huckabee.
Posted by: Conservative Majority | January 10, 2008 09:06 AM
Good post. While McCain is not liberal, he is certainly an overall moderate. He is weak on the 1st & 2nd amendments, immigration, tax cuts, environment, marriage, and stem cells.
Huckabee is an unassailable social conservative and needs work on some fiscal issues. He is being trashed for not appealing to elite country club Republicans. Good for Huck. Hannity is way too emotional and repetitive. Medved, on at the same time, is many times better.
Posted by: Lighthouse Keeper | January 10, 2008 07:29 PM
John McCain is not weak on any issue and that is what all of the flack is over. John McCain is a threat and that is what all of this negative crap is over and most of the lies or what they take out of context and spin it to benefit and further their own agenda.
Posted by: Vicki Hampton | January 11, 2008 06:10 PM
I have been a Gov Huckabee supporter for awhile. I totally agree with this blog - and I would do so even if I wasn't supporter of the Gov.
Did you see that the attack ads on the Gov are being paid for by Club for Growth.net, a 527 organization. The supporters of these ads also gave large sums to Mr. Romney's campaign. Interesting.
Posted by: ron | January 18, 2008 06:53 AM
Unfortunately the issue with Huckabee has to do with his anti-business rhetoric and his obvious ignorance of simple economic theory. The "fair" tax is anything but and I don't think Huckabee would be more likely to bring us out of a recession than John Edwards would.
Also Huckabee continues to be oblivious to many geopolitical affairs and it's almost embarrassing.
Fred Thompson was right to identify Huckabee as a democrat with social conservative policies.
Posted by: Ryan | January 19, 2008 10:34 PM
Len,
McCain and Huckabee should have their liberal records fully exposed as should Romney and Guiliani.
I remember when McCain endorsed your bid for Governor. I remember wondering what that would cost you. I think your post is the payback of that debt.
Fred Thompson is the only conservative we have in this race.
Posted by: Jim Gordon | January 21, 2008 01:06 AM
Jim, thanks for your comment. Two responses:
Sen. McCain was very gracious in his endorsement, and asked for nothing in return then or since.
Over their legislative careers, Fred Thompson and Sen. McCain had very similar voting records according to the American Conservative Union, in the mid-80s as I recall. That compares to actual liberals who score from 0 to 15 percent on the same scorecard. When we refer to any of the Republicans as "liberals" because they vote with us 85 percent of the time instead of 95 percent of the time, it sort of diminishes our ability to use the term to refer to real liberals.
Thompson has his own flaws. He opposed Reagan in 1976 and 1980, he voted for campaign finance reform, and lobbied for Planned Parenthood, among other things. He is not the only conservative in the race, and he may not be in the race for much longer. But Thompson, like McCain and Huckabee, would be far more conservative and better for the country than any of the Democrats. But the more we attack our candidates with misleading labels the less likely we will win in November, and that means liberal judges, retreat and defeat in Iraq, higher taxes, more federal spending and no action on border security. That's a price this conservative is not willing to pay.
Posted by: Len Munsil | January 21, 2008 01:56 AM