On Wednesday, radio show host Hugh Hewitt, who tends to see GOP prospects in every election through rose-colored glasses, reversed himself in an op-ed for The Washington Post, calling for the GOP to rally around Donald Trump only one week after he opined that the Republican National Committee should change its convention rules if Trump continued his aberrant behavior.
Hewitt, who had flatly declared Mitt Romney would win in 2012, and submitted a proposal for a book that predicted McCain-Palin would win in 2008, does have a habit of avoiding combative statements; even his suggestion that the RNC should consider dumping Trump was mitigated by the idea that Trump could change.
In Wednesday’s editorial, Hewitt put on his rose-colored glasses again, insisting that Trump had turned over a new leaf in his speech at New Hampshire’s Saint Anselm College on Monday. Hewitt ignored Trump’s slander of American soldiers on the very next day, instead focusing on Trump’s “We need to tell the truth about radical Islam” was a signal moment.
Ignoring the polls that show Trump losing ground even after the Orlando massacre, Hewitt posited, “If Trump can forcefully expose the weak leadership and serial failures of Obama and Clinton in the fight against terrorism — the central issue of our time — he will not only consolidate support, he will make any talk of an intra-party coup obsolete.”
In another moment of self-delusion, Hewitt trumpeted Trump’s statement “I will be meeting with the NRA” to “discuss how to ensure Americans have the means to protect themselves in this age of terror,” as a wonderful sign to cheer conservatives.
Hewitt ignored Trump’s tweet two days later, in which he completely undermined the NRA’s position:
As Leon Wolf of Redstate wrote:
Memo to Trump: the conceptual problem with what you are proposing is that the executive branch makes sole determination of who is on those lists, with no due process, adjudication, or even opportunity for those who are put on the list to know about it or appeal the decision. Gun owners do not want President Obama or President Clinton – or President Trump – to have the unilateral right to decide they can’t purchase a gun through the simple expedient of putting them on this list.
Hewitt admitted, “He’s not a policy wonk, and he’s not an orator in the mold of Abraham Lincoln. But more than any other right-of-center politician, he relishes aggressively championing Republicans’ national-security priorities.”
That may be true, but Trump’s constant waffling on positions offers cold comfort to those who would consider rallying behind him.
Hewiit then slammed those who will not vote for Trump: “Trump has returned to a winning message and walled off the assorted “never Trump” holdouts trying to upend his nomination. Although there’s been talk in recent weeks of implementing new rules at the Republican convention in Cleveland that would allow party leaders to replace Trump — talk that I’ve entertained — the appetite for that sort of drastic measure is gone.”
The truth is that Hewitt is a follower, not a leader, so his desire to mend fences rather than stake out a position of principle is unsurprising. He confirms that with what follows:
House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) want no part of a coup, so there won’t be one. Yes, party rules allow for last minute rules changes and tricky procedural maneuvers. But for Republicans to root for a coup at this point would be more than just futile, it could be completely self-defeating. No Ryan, no McConnell, no mutiny. Period.
Hewitt surmises that GOP leaders “understand that Republicans have to stick with Trump if they want to avoid capitulating to Clinton, who has demonstrated again and again that she is unfit to lead — and, that at this stage, Trump alone can run successfully against her.”
That is a patently ridiculous argument; Trump has lost in virtually every poll to Clinton for months. If the GOP dumped him and nominated someone else, considering Clinton’s self-inflicted wounds, they might have a proper chance of winning in November.
Hewitt launches into a lengthy explanation of how to attack Clinton, but then makes it clear he’s been guzzling the Trump Kool-Aid, writing, “Trump alone can draw a real contrast with Clinton about what government will look like going forward.”
What hogwash. Sound familiar? Remember when Trump posited “I alone can solve?”
Hewitt indulges in his usual fantasy, writing spritely, “Trump’s task now is clear: It’s time to abandon his off-the-cuff remarks, disengage from his battles with the media and methodically prosecute the case that throughout her career, Clinton has consistently displayed a disqualifying lack of judgment.” Abandon his off-the-cuff remarks? Disengage from his battles with the media? Is Hewitt serious?
Hewitt concludes, “But in this election, it’s she who represents the dangerous choice, not Trump. As more Republicans, and all voters, recognize that risk, the more they will wholeheartedly back the one man who can beat her.”
The truth is that Trump is the only GOP candidate whose unfavorability numbers are so astronomical that he cannot beat Clinton. There are at least 10 candidates who ran who would easily defeat Hillary Clinton, but Trump isn’t one of them.
But don’t tell that to Hewitt; he’s as uncomfortable standing out as a limb as anyone in the pundit’s world.