RWer's Post-Mortem-- Defeat Blamed on McCain and his Gang of 14 (!!??!!)

[TexasLawyer]

This is profoundly dumb.

The Road Not Taken: Forfeiting a Majority

By Hugh Hewitt
Wednesday, November 8, 2006

The post-mortems are accumulating, but I think the obvious has to be stated: John McCain and his colleagues in the Gang of 14 cost the GOP its Senate majority while the conduct of a handful of corrupt House members gave that body's leadership the Democrats.

<snip>

In the Senate three turning points stand out.

On April 15, 2005 --less than three months after President Bush had begun a second term won in part because of his pledge to fight for sound judges-- Senator McCain appeared on Hardball and announced he would not support the "constitutional option" to end Democratic filibusters. Then, stunned by the furious reaction, the senator from Arizona cobbled together the Gang of 14 "compromise" that in fact destroyed the ability of the Republican Party to campaign on Democratic obstructionism while throwing many fine nominees under the bus.

Now in the ruins of Tuesday there is an almost certain end to the slow but steady restoration of originalism to the bench. Had McCain not abandoned his party and then sabotaged its plans, there would have been an important debate and a crucial decision taken on how the Constitution operates. The result was the complete opposite. Yes, President Bush got his two nominees to SCOTUS through a 55-45 Senate, but the door is now closed, and the court still tilted left. A once-in-a-generation opportunity was lost.

A few months later there came a debate in the Senate over the Democrats' demand for a timetable for withdrawal for Iraq led to another half-measure: A Frist-Warner alternative that demanded quarterly reports on the war's progress, a move widely and correctly interpreted as a blow to the Administration’s Iraq policy. Fourteen Republicans voted against the Frist-Warner proposal --including Senator McCain-- and the press immediately understood that the half-measure was an early indicator of erosion in support for a policy of victory.

<snip>

http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/HughHewitt/2006/11/08/the_road_not_taken__forfeiting_a_majority

[Old and In the Way]

1. Oh yeah, filibusters.....

Still a good idea, Hugh?

But I'm all for Republicans dumping McCain as their 2008 candidate...

[TexasLawyer]

2. Destroying the filibuster option

probably seemed like a good idea at the time-- back when the GOP was the "permanent majority."

McCain actually did the GOP a favor on this one!

[TexasLawyer]

3. Of course it couldn't have been corruption or Iraq,

the main reasons that actual voters gave for voting the way they did.

Noooooo... it was failure to enforce rigid, lock-step compliance with Rove's dictates.

:rofl: Give me a break! :rofl::rofl::rofl:

[Old and In the Way]

5. Fine with me.

Let the influential pundits like Hindrocket, Hewitt, and Coulter continue to delude themselves and their followers on why they lost their majorities. They are in the Desert of Denial and their Oasis of Excuses will be just another dry hole. :rofl:

[trotsky]

4. Yup, seems to be the meme many RWers are repeating.

Heard from a Repuke friend yesterday, and he said that Republicans scared away their base by acting too moderate. :rofl:

[Drifter]

6. I think the Dems should try ...

to eliminate the Filibuster. Not to eliminate it, but to simply watch the reaction of the minority party. This will prove that it was not because of principle, but for power grab.

Cheers
Drifter

[Norquist Nemesis]

7. We can thank them for Roberts and Alito, too

But I'm betting that Hugh Hewitt had no problem with the Gang on that fiasco.

[ProfessorGAC]

8. One Word Tells Me All I Need To Know About Hugh Hewitt: Originalism

This is most intellectually bankrupt concept in modern conservatism. Anyone who uses that term instantly reveals themselves to be dumber than a fence post.

The concept, which by their own admission, is an extension of strict constructionism, suggests that the Constitution should not be extended in its written word and therefore not interpreted. HOWEVER, that strict construction is based upon the original intent of the framers, not the exact wording.

So, to be an originalist one needs to believe that one should not interpret the Constitution but only take it as written, as long as one interprets it exactly the way they do. The concept is self-contradicting, and if those who believe it can't see that, they are idiots.

Hugh Hewitt, by that one paragraph, proves himself a buffoon.
The Professor

[Clark2008]

9. Why can't they get that they were voted out of office for

A.) Not doing their jobs and protecting the Constitution by telling their pResident, "NO!" every now and then.
B.) For refusing to listen to anyone other than evangelicals and far rightests; and,
C.) For their corruption (yes, this guy mentions it, but he relegates it only to sex cscandals and not the more-important power grabs)?