Advertisement
Call the Show 800-520-1234
LIVE: Mon-Fri, 6-9AM, ET
Hugh Hewitt Book Club
Call 800-520-1234 email Email Hugh
Hugh Hewitt Book Club

Paul Ryan and Mark Steyn on the Left’s Hatred of Rick Santorum and the Anti-Catholic Prejudices of the Manhattan-Beltway Media Elite

Email Email Print
Advertisement

I interview Mark Steyn and Congressman Ryan today, and will ask them both about the stunning and deeply repulsive anti-Catholic bigotry that mark’s today’s New Yorker essay by staff writer John Cassidy. Editor David Remnick adds that he finds Sabntorum’s views “anathema” and his views “abhorrent,” but that is mild compared to Cassidy’s poisonous venom:

Aaghh! Santorum! Not Santorum!! Surely not Santorum!!!

From Cambridge to Brooklyn, from Georgetown to Hyde Park, from West L.A. to pretty much the entire Bay Area, you could almost hear the howls of anguish this morning. They even reached across the Pacific. “SANTORUM? Oh, America, how you disappoint me,” Jeremy Tian, a writer and actor from Singapore, tweeted in response to my earlier post.

Ladies and gentlemen, I feel your pain. Ever since Santorum was elected to the U.S. Senate in 1994, I have regarded him as a particularly off-putting character. But the strength of the feelings that Santorum evokes pretty much explains why the former Pennsylvania senator, even at this late stage, could put a serious fright into Mitt Romney, and, just conceivably, could take him down.

To educated liberals of almost any description, Santorum is an abomination. It’s not just that he’s a pro-life, anti-gay, anti-contraception Roman Catholic of the most retrogressive and diehard Opus Dei variety. It’s his entire persona. With his seven kids, his Jaycee fashion code, his nineteen-seventies colonial MacMansion in northern Virginia, his irony bypass, he seems to delight in outraging self-styled urban sophisticates: the sort of folks who buy organic milk, watch The Daily Show, and read the New York Times (and The New Yorker, of course).

Read the whole bile-choked thing, but I include these four paragraphs so you will know that I am not editing his hate speech –isn”t that what the Left calls it– in any way. For a bit of video about Mr. Cassidy’s other views, watch this short YouTube interview. No surprises, just background.

CNN suspended Roland Martin for homophobic comments. What’s the New Yorker’s standard on anti-Catholic venom?

The transcripts of the Ryan interview will be posted here asap. The Steyn interview will appear as it always does on the Transcripts page and at SteynOnline.com.

Oh, and consider making a contribution to Rick Santorum in Mr. Cassidy’s honor. His naked display of Catholic-hatred will help Santorum more than another caucus win. Indeed, genuine liberals may contribute to Rick just to distnguish themselves from this example of the snarling, sneering, fear-and-loathing-filled left.

The Ryan Transcript:

HH: A little bit later tonight at the Conservative Political Action Convention in Washington, D.C., Congressman Paul Ryan is going to walk out on the stage sometime after 8:30 tonight and deliver the keynote address on East Coast time. Congressman Ryan joins me now. Thanks for spending some time as you get ready for the big speech, Congressman.

PR: Hey, you bet, Hugh. How are you doing today?

HH: Good, but I’ve got to begin by telling you, I just got done talking to Mark Steyn about two astonishing articles in this morning’s New Yorker.

PR: Yeah, that guy is a great thinker.

HH: …that attacked Rick Santorum. I know you haven’t endorsed, but…

PR: No.

HH: But they’re astonishing in the vehemence of his attack. I want to read you just one, because it plays into, I think, something you’re hitting tonight, which is this HHS controversy.

PR: Right.

HH: John Cassidy wrote, “To educated liberals of almost any description, Santorum is an abomination. It’s not just that he’s a pro-life, anti-gay, anti-contraception Roman Catholic of the most retrogressive and die-hard Opus Dei variety, it’s his entire persona with his seven kids, his J.C. fashion code, his 1970s colonial McMansion in Northern Virginia, his irony bypass. He seems to delight in outraging self-styled urban sophisticates, the sort of folks who buy organic milk, watch the Daily Show and read the New York Times, and the New Yorker, of course.” What do you put that down to? That’s almost irrational hatred. [# More #]

PR: Who cares? Ignore it. Big deal. I mean, so we’ll get that from…I mean, that obviously is from a guy from the left. He…I mean, I’ve never read, I don’t know who this person is you just quoted.

HH: He’s their staff writer on business. He’s the former deputy editor of the Sunday Times. He was the New York Post writer. He’s their big go-to guy on economics.

PR: Yeah, I don’t know the guy. Sorry, I don’t know the guy.

HH: Okay, here’s David Remnick, who’s the editor of the New Yorker. He’s talking about Santorum’s views. “You may, as I do, find those views on gay rights for starters anathema, and his rhetoric abhorrent. But he is, it must be conceded, consistent. He is, alas, who he is.” Alas. I’m talking, there is this divide in this country, Paul Ryan…

PR: That’s weird, yeah.

HH: …that’s just bizarre.

PR: Look, I’ve known Rick a long time. I like him. I listened to his, I think he was in St. Louis the night of the other caucuses where he gave his…I think he gave a great speech. I mean, I thought it was unifying, I thought it was inclusive, I thought he was great giving a passionate defense of the Constitution and the right to religious freedom. And I have a hard time seeing how that was offensive to anybody unless you’re really out there as a left progressive.

HH: I don’t know, I think the New Yorker…

PR: You know, a recitation of Constitutional principles apparently can be offensive to people.

HH: That’s it. I think the New Yorker’s pretty mainstream left wing, but I think the left is in the grip of President Obama’s ideology, which I know you’re talking about tonight.

PR: Yeah. I think that’s right.

HH: And give people some sense of what that ideology is, and what you’re talking about at CPAC.

PR: Well, my main message is we cannot just win and run a campaign, and have an election just by running against Barack Obama, and just trying to win this thing by default, you know, running against the economy or whatever. That’s not good enough, because this time is so much different. This is not your garden variety presidential election. The country is in a very precarious moment and spot right now, and we are about to choose a trajectory for our nation that will last at least a generation. And if I had to sum it up, it’s whether we get back toward those core founding principles and become a prosperity society, that opportunity society with a safety net, or whether we go down the path toward a European kind of debt crisis where we become a cradle to grave welfare state. That’s the path the President has us on. And so what I’m saying is we have to offer the country a clear alternative, be bold, be specific, and then let the country choose which of the two paths they want to take. And I would say that the President is on the outside of the American mainstream. He is not in the thinking of most Americans. And if we offer the country a very clear, principled path on how to get this country fixed, and how to address these issues and save us from the kind of debt crisis and welfare state we’re heading toward, then if we win that election, then we have earned the right and the moral authority and opportunity to fix this country and save this country after we win. And for a glimpse into the view, and I’m going into this a little bit, and the contraception thing’s a topical thing. But it’s just, like the President says, it’s a teachable moment into the kind of philosophy the President subscribes to, because under this progressive philosophy, the government can give us rights. The government does give us rights, like health care. But here is a story or a case where and which this new government-given right trumps a Constitutional right, a natural right, our right to religious freedom. And whenever those two rights collide, in this case, the government trumps it. The new right trumps it. And so the provider of our new rights, the government, they decide these things. And whoever is in power makes these decisions. It is sort of this theory that the Constitution is a fungible thing, it’s a living, breathing, evolving document. That means we’re away at sea. We’re not tethered to bedrock core, absolute principles that are timeless. Instead, those in power need to decide how our lives are lived, how are destinies are shaped, how these rights that are given to us by government are delivered to us, how we exercise them. And so I would just simply say we owe it to the country to show how this philosophy really is different than the American idea, how the choice we have before us is to reclaim the American idea, the rights come from nature and God, we have a prosperous society, upward mobility, people can make the most of their lives, to shape their destinies, or whether we want to go down this path that the President is taking us on, which is really an abandonment of what I would call the American idea, which is more of a European social democracy.

HH: Now Congressman, I know you have personal experience from the President browbeating you, to the reaction to your budget plan. I know you have personal experience with the vitriol of the left. But the Occupy movement is one face of it. These sorts of attacks on Santorum from the New Yorker is another face. I don’t know, I’ve read your speech. You’re going to get a lot of applause tonight. I hope everyone listens to it when you publish it. I’m not going to talk about the embargoed places. I hope everyone listens to the speech. But do you think that that audience, or America generally, and in fact, does Paul Ryan know how hard it is going to be to do what you say needs to be done, and with which I agree?

PR: Right. That’s why I’m trying to make the case as forcefully as I can. I think, you know, in the House, we have the majority. So that’s why I’m saying let’s put out really bold budgets to actually give the country this choice. Let’s force this conversation so we have this conversation, because the temptation is to just be risk averse, you know, run an election by default, and just run against Obama. That’s the easy way out, I think. And A) we have a moral obligation to the country to show them a different path, to reassert these principles, and then you have the right kind of victory, an affirming election that allows you to actually fix the country. So yes, believe me, Hugh, I’m kind of uniquely qualified to understand the vitriol and the blowback. But all the more reason why that gives me an incentive and just a drive to continue to push these differences, and give the country a very clear, sharp, contrasting choice.

HH: Well, I know you do, and you’re from Wisconsin, which has been the focus of the animus of the left and your governor, Scott Walker, for the past almost year now. And so it is not going to come as a surprise to you. But I wonder if the people at CPAC, good, conservative activists they are, we’ve got a minute to the break and we’ll come back and talk about this, do you think they have any idea how mobilized the left will be in the fall?

PR: You know, it depends on where you come from. In Wisconsin, we have every idea. We see it and we know it. I think it depends on whether you’re in a targeted state or not. If you’re in a battleground state, you’re probably getting, sensing it. If you’re not in a battleground state, you don’t get it. You don’t see it.

HH: That’s interesting.

– – – –

HH: Congressman, I read your speech. And in it, you allude to the fact that among many conservatives, there is disappointment in what has been accomplished in 2011.

PR: Right.

HH: And I know that, because I hear it every day on this program, and I’ve expressed it myself. The House leadership has felt the sting of the criticism from the conservative movement, and from me, and from others. So what is the…and the answer is we want the bold choice.

PR: Right.

HH: Even if you don’t win, we want people to grab the Ryan budget and similar things, and go up the hill. Is that recognition dawning widely in the House GOP caucus?

PR: I’d like to think so. The way I look at last year is the first half of the year was pretty good. You know, we put all these ideas out there, really sharpened the contrast. Then the second six months, you know, our leaders, our elected leaders here kind of got embroiled in all these negotiations with the White House, which has sort of strung things out. They got these mediocre compromises on various issues. But it basically dulled the differences. It clouded the difference. And so as far as I’m concerned, our goal right now ought to be to go back and re-clarify these contrasts.

HH: Yes.

PR: You know, draw those distinctions again like we did in the beginning of last year.

HH: Yes.

PR: Get back to doing that. You know, the good thing is this moment is coinciding with what we call budget season around here. The President is going to show us his budget on Monday, and then in March, because we think we should follow the law and actually have a budget, unlike the Senate. We’re going to do the same, and we’re going to show our contrast, our differences. And so to me, let’s get back to sharpening those contrasts. The days, you know, there’s, you have this payroll thing, but after that, the days of getting embroiled in negotiations where we cloud the differences should be putting that aside. That’s behind us. And we should get back toward contrasting those differences, but giving the country a sincere choice, arguing for our side, our case, and then winning…if you win that kind of an election, like Reagan in ’80, you win an affirming election that then gives you the ability, the moral authority, to actually fix the problem.

HH: Now Congressman, I only read, Kevin got this to me a half hour ago, so I’ve only read it once. But I think it’s a great speech. The only thing I wonder is with the sequestration of Defense looming…

PR: Right.

HH: And with the hollowing out of our military…

PR: Right.

HH: …proceeding at, accelerating, actually, is that still part of the conservative stool? And do we have to stand for a 315 ship Navy, and 200,000 strong Marine Corps, and not cutting 100,000 troops from the Army?

PR: We intend to show a different path on Defense than the President. So that’s the great thing about budgeting, because we can show our priorities and he can show his priorities. And so we don’t like the idea of turning off the sequestration. We like the idea of replacing the sequester. The sequester cuts $1.2 trillion dollars over ten years, half of that coming from Defense after the Obama cuts. We’re going to cut a lot more than $1.2 trillion dollars in our budget, and we’re not going to take it all out of the hide of Defense. We’re going to show that we believe in strong national defense and national security. And so yeah, the Reagan coalition is alive and well as far as I’m concerned, which is social conservatism, economic conservatism and national security conservatism.

HH: Now there are three presidential candidates left who are plausible. Some say Newt isn’t. There’s still a path for Newt. Rick’s very plausible, Mitt Romney remains the leading contender in the GOP.

PR: Right.

HH: Have they spoken in the clarity, in the tones of clarity that you want? And have they gotten behind last year’s budget to the extent you think is necessary?

PR: They have gotten behind the budget. So all of them, even Newt, have gotten behind the budget, and they’ve all, more or less, been pretty full-throated in favor of that. So I think to that extent, they have definitely gotten behind what we’re doing. So they’re not sort of undercutting us, so to speak. And they’re getting a lot better. I actually think they’re getting better at describing the stakes of this election. And so what I find is the conservative movement is really not that disunified. I mean, you’ve got these people who have to go out and distinguish themselves from one another, and sure, they attack each other. But they’re not miles apart from each other on understanding the stakes of this election and advancing conservative ideals.

HH: All right, so with a minute left, Congressman, I want to be the first to ask it. After this speech is given to that audience, and you get the response which will be forthcoming, people will ask you if the convention deadlocks, would you be available?

PR: That’s ridiculous. I just don’t think that’s going to happen, Hugh. I just do not see that happening.

HH: If the convention deadlocked, would you be willing?

PR: You know, Hugh, let’s not even bother…it’s not anywhere even close to my mind. So I’ve got a job to do here in the House. I think I can make a big difference where I am. I’ve got to write a budget, and that’s what’s on my mind. I’m not thinking about anything like that.

HH: And the vice presidency?

PR: Again, that’s…what I see is a bolt of lightning striking. If it happens, I’ll think about it then. If I ever got to that bridge, I’ll think about whether to cross it or not. And right now, I’ve got a lot to do here.

HH: Well, deep breath and a great delivery. It’s going to be a terrific speech tonight. Paul Ryan, Congressman from Wisconsin, always a great pleasure. Good luck.

End of interview.

.

Hughniverse

Listen Commerical FREE  |  On-Demand
Login Join
Fallen Officer Fund
Advertise with us Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Book Hugh Hewitt as a speaker for your meeting

Follow Hugh Hewitt

Advertisement

The Hugh Hewitt Show - Mobile App

Download from App Store Get it on Google play
Friends and Allies of Rome