A quibble with Mr. Hewlitt
November 14, 2014 Leave a comment
Here’s ten minutes of audio revolving around Hugh Hewitt’s interview today with Chuck Todd concerning Chuck’s new book, The Stranger: Barack Obama In The White House.
The first 2:09 consists of back and forth between Hugh and Chuck Todd. 2:10 to 3:57 is a call Hugh took from a caller Rod in Tucson. 3:58 to the end is my conversation with Generalissimo Duane Patterson on the Hughniverse Aftershow.
Here is an extremely concise transcripted executive summary of the audio–suffice it to say that this is a drastically truncated version of the overall theme, but this was indeed the theme:
HH: Is there a core, at the core of Barack Obama, about what he believes?
CT: There’s not an ideological core to him….He wants to be a compromiser….He wants to try to find a middle ground….
HH: Reagan had a core that never moved, and most of it was anti-communist. And that’s [why] I say, Obama is sort of the opposite of Reagan. I don’t know what he stands for that he would fight to the death for, that he wouldn’t give an inch for.
CT: I think he’s yet to prove that to us….
Caller Rod from Tucson: But I have to tell you, I’m not buying Chuck Todd’s book. He lost me when he said this is a non-ideological President. This is the most ideological President we have ever had.
HH: But now, Rod, you’re losing me, too, then, because I don’t think there’s any there, there. I think he’s an empty suit….
Me: Chuck Todd said that Barack Obama does not have an ideological core, and Hugh basically did not push back against that narrative, and in fact pushed back against a caller who pushed back against the idea the he doesn’t have an ideological core, insisting that [Obama is] nothing but an empty suit.
You get the idea.
Where to begin.
Oddly enough, during today’s show I was multitasking, reading a fascinating 2011 piece that I unfortunately missed when it was first published in the The American Spectator, titled “Letting Obama Be Obama”–a very well-researched piece on Valerie Jarrett:
Barack says Valerie is “someone I trust completely.” “She is family.” As president, he trusts Jarrett “to speak for me, particularly when we’re dealing with delicate issues.”
But what, precisely, does that mean? What does Valerie Jarrett personally believe? How far to the left, or perhaps nearer the center, are her politics? Is she the red-diaper heir to radical Chicago leftists from a half century ago? Has she rejected her forebears’ hard-left politics?….
Obama and Jarrett are practically political alter-egos. And as Jarrett has said, she and the president have a “mind meld” working together, and what he wants to do is what she wants to do.
As to Jarrett’s pedigree:
In 1983, Valerie married Dr. William Robert Jarrett. William Robert Jarrett’s father, Vernon Jarrett, was a leftist columnist very well known in Chicago media.
In fact, in an irony rich with symbolism, Vernon in the late 1940s had served on the Citizens’ Committee to Aid Packing-House Workers with no less than Frank Marshall Davis, a Communist Party USA member who mentored a young Barack Obama in Hawaii….
Frank Marshall Davis died in 1987. His recently released FBI file reveals, among other things, his CPUSA number, which was 47544.
Well, there are plenty more damning associations besides that.
Perhaps I’ll flesh this post out at a future date. But Hugh Hewitt is a very smart and knowledgeable guy, and shouldn’t need the likes of me to help him with his due diligence.
It was a great, albeit belated joy in the Hughniverse chatroom when, about three and a half years into Mr. Obama’s first term, Mr. Hewlitt came around to characterizing Mr. Obama as a socialist.
And while I understand the political utility of sometimes eschewing “red-baiting” terms that sound like crazytown to the uninformed, the fact remains that the most accurate description of the President is a creature of the Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee, Democratic Socialists Of America, New Party, neo-Marxist Chicago Left.
But if you don’t like that description, fine. Just call him a President with a self-evident Leftist ideological core, notwithstanding any political demands-of-the-moment posturing and equivocating he may engage in.