Hugh Hewitt vs. Me
I had a freaky experience yesterday evening.
A week ago, I wrote a column contrasting conservative enthusiasm for the third-party challenger in the NY-23 special election to the conservative indignation against the third-party challenger in the New Jersey gubernatorial election.
To make the point, I indulged in a bit of fun: I spoofed a recent interview Hugh Hewitt had done with the N.J. challenger, Chris Daggett. I quoted Hugh’s words, but substituted Doug Hoffman as the target.
Conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt this week offered a stern condemnation of this fratricide on his popular program, calling the third-party candidate: “.... a wrecker, a selfish "look at me" poser .... It takes an outsized ego to look at poll after poll that puts you behind not one but two candidates by more than 10 points and still declare yourself in the hunt.” Whoops! Sorry, rewind. Fzzzzwwwwvvvvwwwzzzp. That was an editing error. Hugh Hewitt was not blasting Doug Hoffman, the third-party candidate in New York. In fact, Hoffman is the darling of talk radio and Fox News, which have helped to spread Hoffman Fever for the past few weeks.
Yesterday I got a call from a booker on the Hewitt program inviting me to appear to defend my words. I cheerfully accepted.
I expected that Hewitt would want to talk about the New Jersey and New York races, the role of moderates vs. conservatives in the GOP, etc. I also looked forward to reminding Hugh that in 2005 he had bet a steak dinner that Harriet Miers would be confirmed by the Senate for the U.S. Supreme Court… and that I was still waiting by the phone for his invitation.
Instead I got this.
You drove off of an on-ramp, you drove off of the highway, you ran by, sideswiped me … You wrote this sloppily, you did no research, you can’t back it up, you didn’t bother to call me. In fact, it is the worst kind of drive-by punditry that I have seen in a long time from you. … You are an outrageous example of the worst kind of yellow journalism out there.
There’s much more besides, and you can read it in full here.
Whew. I didn’t know that the rules of journalism required a “mother may I” phone call for permission before publishing a send-up. Still: I truly did not intend to slight Hewitt by teasing him, and I am sorry that he feels I did so.
On air, as I hope the transcript shows, I did my best to avert the kind of ugly quarrel that erupted. But as the saying goes, you cannot escape a quarrel with a man who is determined to quarrel with you.
Yet notice something: We never did get around to discussing what the underlying topic of our interview was – the races in New York and New Jersey.
We spent 20 minutes, two full segments, on Hugh’s bruised feelings.
DF: I don’t know why you want to make this conversation about you.
HH: Well David, you name me in your columns. Why shouldn’t it be about me.
DF: ..or even about you and me.
HH: If you’re going to name me in your columns, aren’t you going to be man enough to stand up and back up your aspersions on me?
DF: But I didn’t make aspersions, and I’m not hostile to you, and I’m not being critical of you.
As you see, my point made zero impression.
I should have thought that a man who dispenses the kind of violent language Hugh Hewitt dispensed throughout the interview – accusations of cowardice, accusations of misrepresentation, accusations of slander, etc. etc. - would have had the toughness to withstand a little gentle teasing. But no. On the radio, it seems, the tolerance for criticism goes only one way: the host may vilify anyone and everyone in the most extreme language. But one little spoof against the host, and it’s like you slapped a baby.
It all goes to confirm a wonderful lesson my father-in-law taught my son: When you face a bully, no matter how much bigger than you, always swing for the nose. There hasn’t been a bully born who won’t burst into tears when he sees his own blood.
* * * * *
UPDATE
Hugh Hewitt posted a reflection on our encounter here.
Posted by: Hugh Hewitt at 8:43 PM
David Frum and I mixed it up on air tonight. The two columns I challenge him on are here and here. Frum accused me of narcissism because I treat the references to me in both of them as attacks on me. You read them and decide for yourself.
The transcript will be posted here later. The audio will be available at the Hughniverse. I invited David to continue the debate in the third hour of the show. He declined. The unwillingness to confront anger in his targets doesn't speak well of Frum. Neither does his unwillingness to own what he writes.
One more reply: It's hardly apt for Hugh to describe his show as a "debate." In a debate, both sides are informed in advance of the topic, both sides get equal time, and neither party controls the other's microphone. But leave that go. What is truly disingenuous is for Hugh to complain that I was unwilling to confront his anger. I did confront it - for every minute of the scheduled time. If Hugh felt that he had failed to make his points effectively within the alloted period, how is that my fault?
* * * * *
UPDATE
Very briefly, a competely inappropriate headline and image went up over this piece. For that, I do sincerely apologize.