Hugh Hewitt gives Rudy a little advice, and discusses the upcoming debate
Continuing from what my wonderful wife started earlier, I'd like to follow up the post she did on Rudy with this sound and savvy column from Hugh Hewitt. In it, Hugh discusses the next debate, slated for this Tuesday, which will be moderated by Brit Hume, and hosted by FOX News:
Given Mitt Romney’s performance in the first debate and the kudos he earned from across the spectrum of pundits, expect the other nine to find some opportunities to take some knocks at the former Massachusetts governor. Expect more “gates of Hell” declarations from Senator McCain who has very little else to offer conservatives who haven’t forgotten or forgiven McCain-Feingold, the Gang of 14 or McCain-Kennedy.
I can'tr disagree with Marecie when she says Mitt Romney shined in that first debate, and Hugh is right that a couple of candidates might take the underhanded swipe at him to knock him down a peg or two. Politics is a bare-knuckled brawl, and I'm sure the candidates will be surprised how Mitt will probably handle them on Tuesday. But Hugh is right to point out, and a number of pundits agree, that Rudy has a problem. After re-reading the transcript from the first debate, I have to concur with my fellow pundits. While Rudy did answer the abortion question as he always has, he danced and stammered over it too much. So, here's Hugh's advice to the former mayor:
By the time we get to Tuesdays night, Rudy will no doubt have retooled his abortion response to something along the lines of:
“You know what voters care about when it comes to abortion and the presidency? They care about judges. I haven’t been particularly effective in getting my message out on this, as my friend Ted Olsen has been kind enough to point out to me. Ted and I have spent a lot of time, a lot of time, talking about judges, and about the sort of judges that my old colleagues from Ronald Reagan Justice’s Department have turned out to be, and of course I am talking about Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito and also Judge Mike McConnell and now retired Judge Mike Luttig, although Mike was at the White House when I was over at Justice. Most of these men were ten or more years younger than I am when I was #3 at Justice and then when I went up to New York to take on the mob as the United States Attorney there. But I can tell you this: W knew how to pick legal talent, and how to find originalists, and that’s who I am going to put on the bench as president and I think that’s what people want to know when it comes to abortion and the presidency.”
When the follow-up comes about the Planned Parenthood contributions, Rudy should respond,
“Look. I just told you what I think pro-life voters want to know about the next president. They don’t want to know what I was contributing to in the ‘90s. They want to know who I am going to be appointing to the bench in the future. And I just told you. I know John Roberts. John Roberts is a friend of mine. And I know people like John Roberts who will look great in a black robe.”
That should be his story, and he should stick to it.
Call it a dodge if you want, but Hugh's spot-on. Forget about the past. As the president, Rudy could do little to overturn or curtail the out-of-control, 800 lb. gorrilla known as Roe. What HE can do is appoint the right jurists to the bench. Those would be judges that believe as he does: That Roe is bad law, and it's rightful place resides in the hands fo the people. It was prior to Justice Blackmun's gross misinterpretation of Consrtitutional jurisprudence in 1973.
If elected president, Rudy can't simply eliminate abortion with the stroke of a pen. He has to get the right people in the right place to deal with abortion. Conservatives have always been, for the most part, pro-life and ardently anti-abortion. Contrary to that thought process though, conservatives must come to grips with the simple face that we will never be completely rid of this barbaric practice. This nation has had it for far too long, and the voting public is fairly apathetic about it. Out of the fifty states in the Union, I would bet that over half would accept abortion were the people allowed to vote on it.
Additionally, the standard three provisions would still be granted under the States -- to protect the life of the mother, and in cases of rape and/or incest. Those exemptions aren't going anywhere.
Another facet of the debate may well focus on Mitt Romney's religion. During the first debate, Chris Matthews tried to make something out of it, and that attempted failed miserably. It certainly didn't make him look good in the eles of the GOP electorate who thought the maneuver was underhanded, at best.
But on the heels of the recent Al Sharpton comment (“As for the one Mormon running for office, those who really believe in God will defeat him anyway, so don’t worry, that’s a temporary situation.”) his faith will surely come under fire again. Hugh's excellent missive on Mitt's faith, and the ginned-up controversy is a must-read for anyone who wants to know what sort of man Mitt Romney is, and how he would lead this nation. Marcie and I wrote a piece on this subject coming at the questions surrounding his faith from an Article VI point of view. In short, folks, the scrutiny given this man based on his faith is unwarranted, and completely irrelevant as to how Mitt would serve as president.
The debate coming up this coming Tuesday will be a more focused look at the candidates, and it's virtually assured that there won't be the same inane questions that were asked in the previous debate. (No offense, whether these candidates like Karl Rove, or think Scooter Libby is innocent, or whether they want to see Bill Clinton back in the White House is simply irrelevant.) This debate should focus on how we are going to deal with the health care problem in this nation; what we are going to do to finish up the war in the Iraq theater; what we are going to do about Iran and their nuclear program; what we are going to do to rein in Congress, and keep them on budget; what we are going to do to ensure the economic prosperity of the nation continues; and what we are going to do about the immigration problem the nation has.
We expect that with Brit Hume moderating the debate that this will be a far more serious debate with a much better look at the ten candidates available to the electorate right now.
Publius II
Given Mitt Romney’s performance in the first debate and the kudos he earned from across the spectrum of pundits, expect the other nine to find some opportunities to take some knocks at the former Massachusetts governor. Expect more “gates of Hell” declarations from Senator McCain who has very little else to offer conservatives who haven’t forgotten or forgiven McCain-Feingold, the Gang of 14 or McCain-Kennedy.
I can'tr disagree with Marecie when she says Mitt Romney shined in that first debate, and Hugh is right that a couple of candidates might take the underhanded swipe at him to knock him down a peg or two. Politics is a bare-knuckled brawl, and I'm sure the candidates will be surprised how Mitt will probably handle them on Tuesday. But Hugh is right to point out, and a number of pundits agree, that Rudy has a problem. After re-reading the transcript from the first debate, I have to concur with my fellow pundits. While Rudy did answer the abortion question as he always has, he danced and stammered over it too much. So, here's Hugh's advice to the former mayor:
By the time we get to Tuesdays night, Rudy will no doubt have retooled his abortion response to something along the lines of:
“You know what voters care about when it comes to abortion and the presidency? They care about judges. I haven’t been particularly effective in getting my message out on this, as my friend Ted Olsen has been kind enough to point out to me. Ted and I have spent a lot of time, a lot of time, talking about judges, and about the sort of judges that my old colleagues from Ronald Reagan Justice’s Department have turned out to be, and of course I am talking about Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito and also Judge Mike McConnell and now retired Judge Mike Luttig, although Mike was at the White House when I was over at Justice. Most of these men were ten or more years younger than I am when I was #3 at Justice and then when I went up to New York to take on the mob as the United States Attorney there. But I can tell you this: W knew how to pick legal talent, and how to find originalists, and that’s who I am going to put on the bench as president and I think that’s what people want to know when it comes to abortion and the presidency.”
When the follow-up comes about the Planned Parenthood contributions, Rudy should respond,
“Look. I just told you what I think pro-life voters want to know about the next president. They don’t want to know what I was contributing to in the ‘90s. They want to know who I am going to be appointing to the bench in the future. And I just told you. I know John Roberts. John Roberts is a friend of mine. And I know people like John Roberts who will look great in a black robe.”
That should be his story, and he should stick to it.
Call it a dodge if you want, but Hugh's spot-on. Forget about the past. As the president, Rudy could do little to overturn or curtail the out-of-control, 800 lb. gorrilla known as Roe. What HE can do is appoint the right jurists to the bench. Those would be judges that believe as he does: That Roe is bad law, and it's rightful place resides in the hands fo the people. It was prior to Justice Blackmun's gross misinterpretation of Consrtitutional jurisprudence in 1973.
If elected president, Rudy can't simply eliminate abortion with the stroke of a pen. He has to get the right people in the right place to deal with abortion. Conservatives have always been, for the most part, pro-life and ardently anti-abortion. Contrary to that thought process though, conservatives must come to grips with the simple face that we will never be completely rid of this barbaric practice. This nation has had it for far too long, and the voting public is fairly apathetic about it. Out of the fifty states in the Union, I would bet that over half would accept abortion were the people allowed to vote on it.
Additionally, the standard three provisions would still be granted under the States -- to protect the life of the mother, and in cases of rape and/or incest. Those exemptions aren't going anywhere.
Another facet of the debate may well focus on Mitt Romney's religion. During the first debate, Chris Matthews tried to make something out of it, and that attempted failed miserably. It certainly didn't make him look good in the eles of the GOP electorate who thought the maneuver was underhanded, at best.
But on the heels of the recent Al Sharpton comment (“As for the one Mormon running for office, those who really believe in God will defeat him anyway, so don’t worry, that’s a temporary situation.”) his faith will surely come under fire again. Hugh's excellent missive on Mitt's faith, and the ginned-up controversy is a must-read for anyone who wants to know what sort of man Mitt Romney is, and how he would lead this nation. Marcie and I wrote a piece on this subject coming at the questions surrounding his faith from an Article VI point of view. In short, folks, the scrutiny given this man based on his faith is unwarranted, and completely irrelevant as to how Mitt would serve as president.
The debate coming up this coming Tuesday will be a more focused look at the candidates, and it's virtually assured that there won't be the same inane questions that were asked in the previous debate. (No offense, whether these candidates like Karl Rove, or think Scooter Libby is innocent, or whether they want to see Bill Clinton back in the White House is simply irrelevant.) This debate should focus on how we are going to deal with the health care problem in this nation; what we are going to do to finish up the war in the Iraq theater; what we are going to do about Iran and their nuclear program; what we are going to do to rein in Congress, and keep them on budget; what we are going to do to ensure the economic prosperity of the nation continues; and what we are going to do about the immigration problem the nation has.
We expect that with Brit Hume moderating the debate that this will be a far more serious debate with a much better look at the ten candidates available to the electorate right now.
Publius II
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 12:07 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home