Hugh Hewitt: Mitt had an objectively great day, and if you disagree, well, you don’t much matter anyway

posted at 8:54 pm on December 6, 2007 by Allahpundit

This is one of those posts where you remind yourself afterwards that Hugh is not, in fact, a spokesman for Mitt and therefore it shouldn’t be held against Romney in any way. But the fact that you even have to remind yourself isn’t exactly good news for the campaign.

And yea, the punditocracy looked upon what Mitt hath wrought and said, “It is good.”

Mitt Romney threw a long ball today and scored. There can be no objective argument against that conclusion. Why? Because Romney is running for the GOP nomination, and his remarks, both in delivery and substance, were lavishly praised by Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Medved, and James Dobson, not to mention Mark Steyn, Fred Barnes and Charles Krauthammer -and these were just the seven people I heard on a long drive south to San Diego and then in a hotel room before leaving to post this and give a speech…

Here are seven of the most influential conservative commentators in the U.S., and their opinions on the Romney success are all aligned with mine. Thus, objectively, the speech cannot be judged as other than an extraordinary success for Romney.

Italics in the original. It’s not so much that I disagree — there was nothing objectionable in the speech and it’s bound to bring a few fencesitters over to Mitt’s side — but insisting repeatedly upon its success as an objective fact is a weird rhetorical ploy which reads like a transparent attempt to delegitimize critics as being, in an almost clinical sense, out of touch with reality. Why not just say, “With Rush, Hannity, and Mark Steyn swooning, early indicators are that Mitt’s speech is a smash”? Of all the people commenting today about this, there’s only one who sounds like he’s coming unglued. And it ain’t any of Mitt’s critics.

A little more, in case you thought your opinion mattered:

Some early takes on the speech from conservatives were less enthusiastic than mine, and that just means that a pundit or two had a bad morning, and their analytical skills of the GOP race less trustworthy than before.

But to persist in minimizing the success of Romney’s speech or the talent and passion with which it was delivered calls to mind my favorite Irish saying: When everybody says you’re drunk, you’d better sit down.

Finally, a note to my angry e-mailers: It doesn’t matter that you don’t like Rush or Dr. Dobson, or that I thought Harriet Meirs got a raw deal. Your opinion of who ought to be the GOP nominee doesn’t matter beyond your vote, and then only if you are a GOP voter, which most of you aren’t. The folks listed above matter. Because they earned the respect of the voters who decided the past two presidential elections and who will decide the next –the patriots and the values voters, the investment class and the national security-minded.

Among the pundits whose analyses of the race are forever marred by their reaction to the Romney speech are Hitchens, David Frum, Bill Bennett, J-Pod, and of course yours truly. Take note.

Exit question: Does Hugh need to “sit down”?

Update: Predictably, one of Hugh’s defenders is already questioning my motives. Flashback to Tuesday night: “I hope he knocks it out of the park on Thursday”.

Update: Says Bryan, “I liked Romney’s speech quite a bit, but Hugh is making out like it was the St. Crispin’s Day speech as delivered by Winston Churchill in the Sistine Chapel on the first Christmas with Nazi bombers overhead.”

Update (Bryan): Picture a wind-swept city, husks of bombed-out buildings littering the vista, smoke columns rising as far as the eye can see, enemy bombers droning overhead. Then, to the podium, in that greatest of cathedrals, on that very first Christmas, comes a man…

This may be the speech that a certain pundit heard today, Agincourt, 2008.

“O, that we now had here
But just one Great Man of those men in the past
Who used to lead—Reagan!”

What’s he that wishes so?
My fellow Americans? No, my fair cousins:
If we are markt to lose, we have enough
to show our country’s loss; and if to win,
The more common the men, the greater the glory.
God’s will! I pray thee, wish not Great Men more,
By Jove, I am not covetous for auld;
Nor care I who doth lead upon the party;
It yearns me not if a man the bid wins;
Such outward things dwell not in my desires;
But if it be a sin to wish the commons rule,
I am the most offending soul alive.
No, faith, my cozs, wish not a man from the past:
God’s peace! I would not lose so great a freedom,
As no “Great Man” should think he rules for me,
Instead of rules with me. O, do not wish one more!
Rather proclaim it, Americans, through the host,
That he which hath no stomach to this fight,
Let him depart, a subject shall be made,
And Crowns for others taken from his purse;
We would not govern in that man’s company
That fears fellowship to fight with mere us.
This week is call’d the feast of Thanksgiving:
They that created this day so fought to make
All free, and law be not by Great Men made,
But of the people, by the people,
And for the people. They that lives’t now
Doth yearly on the vigil feast their neighbors
And say ‘Together this we should do:’
Then will they make their case and show their plans,
And say, ‘These ideas we will vote Election Day.’
All men forget; yet all shall be for naught,
If we remember not advantages
That free men bring that day: common people
Familiar with their lands and household worlds—
Nary a king, “Great Man” or “expert”,
Journalist nor pundit, shall over free men
Be by flowing words a common will deny.
This civic will the good man teach his son;
And Election Day shall ne’er go by,
From this day to the ending of the world,
But we in it shall be triumphant,–
We Free, We Happy Free, We Americans.
For we that day that cast our votes in free
Rule we together; be we ne’er so vile,
This day shall our wisdom show forth:
And “Great Men” in our land now a-bed
Shall think themselves accurst they were not there;
And hold their statecraft cheap whiles any speaks
That voted with us upon Election Day.

Thanks to reader Scott for kicking it iambic pentameter old skool.

Update: See-Dub makes a great point.

[Hewitt] is a fellow who wants to get people involved in blogging, who believes in grassroots revolutions through electronic networks, and who touted An Army of Davids alongside his own book on the subject, Blog: Understanding the Information Reformation That’s Changing Your World. The idea behind the overhaul of Townhall.com when it was bought by Salem Media, the company that runs Hugh’s show, was to enable exactly this sort of politically influential blogging revolution to unfold. Ordinary, politically aware people would start up their own blogs at Townhall and fuse with talk radio to form a new grassroots media network that would challenge the old network of elite, mainstream columnists and reporters. That was a great idea. That was 2006.

This is 2007:

“Finally, a note to my angry e-mailers: It doesn’t matter that you don’t like Rush or Dr. Dobson, or that I thought Harriet Meirs got a raw deal. Your opinion of who ought to be the GOP nominee doesn’t matter beyond your vote, and then only if you are a GOP voter, which most of you aren’t. The folks listed above [Steyn, Rush, Hannity, Dobson, Barnes, Krauthammer, Medved] matter. Because they earned the respect of the voters who decided the past two presidential elections and who will decide the next –the patriots and the values voters, the investment class and the national security-minded.”

Translation: Do you know who I am? I’m Moe Greene! I made my bones when you were going out with cheerleaders!


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Sit down or stand up, I like HH, but I still can’t get over Harriet Miers. I doubt I’m alone in that.

Attila (Pillage Idiot) on December 6, 2007 at 9:00 PM

Allah, you’re just not to be trusted as an analyst.

Bad Candy on December 6, 2007 at 9:01 PM

That may be the weirdest post ever from Hugh, Allah.

And no one wants to piss him off b telling him how extraordinarily out of line this is because he’s such a big blogger (well, present company excepted, of course).

I don’t read Hugh anymore – especially since Barnett left (who was barely tolerable himself). If I want to read about what Mitt Romney is doing, I’ll read about it on his campaign website. There’s no difference between the two and at least you’re not being given the sugar coat with the information.

Very sad…

rick moran on December 6, 2007 at 9:02 PM

Seriously, am I the only one who found that incredibly pompous and irritating?

Allahpundit on December 6, 2007 at 9:02 PM

Exit question: Does Hugh need to “sit down”?

A time-out is indeed needed.

Sammy316 on December 6, 2007 at 9:04 PM

Upset that Hugh isnt fawning over your prefered candidate?

Certainly sounds like it.

and yeah Hugh is certainly in the Romney camp – makes no bones about it – but other than Paul, he is not attacking the other candidates. And most of the criticism I’ve heard today is from the other primary candidate supporters.

Truncated: Mitt speech bad cuz it doesnt work for my preferred candidate.

bains on December 6, 2007 at 9:05 PM

Seriously, am I the only one who found that incredibly pompous and irritating?

Allahpundit on December 6, 2007 at 9:02 PM

Maybe, I think he’s such a Romney shill most of us just dismiss it as goofiness.

Bad Candy on December 6, 2007 at 9:05 PM

At least Rush does this sort of thing with a humorous bent, HH just got a bit big for his britches in my book.

bbz123 on December 6, 2007 at 9:06 PM

The more that I think about it, the weirder that emphasis on objectivity is. It’s almost as if whether Mitt actually benefits in the polls or not is irrelevant. Steyn and Rush and Hannity gave thumbs up to Hugh’s candidate and that’s that and no one can take that away, especially the moron voters whose opinions don’t matter one one-thousandth as much as Charles Krauthammer’s. It’s a success. Period.

Allahpundit on December 6, 2007 at 9:07 PM

Objectively, he’s being a pompous tool. I’d say irritating, but he’s not irritating me.

Bad Candy on December 6, 2007 at 9:08 PM

Seriously, am I the only one who found that incredibly pompous and irritating?

Allahpundit on December 6, 2007 at 9:02 PM

Acute sanctimonious wind baggery.

Sammy316 on December 6, 2007 at 9:08 PM

Upset that Hugh isnt fawning over your prefered candidate?

Certainly sounds like it.

No, because I have no preferred candidate. In fact, I said of Mitt on Tuesday that “I hope he knocks it out of the park” during his speech. But it’s very, very typical of someone who’d defend a post of Hewitt’s like this that you’d immediately jump to questioning my motives. I expect nothing less.

Allahpundit on December 6, 2007 at 9:09 PM

Seriously, am I the only one who found that incredibly pompous and irritating?

No, especially because it sounds as if he’s still upset he didn’t carry the day for Miers.

INC on December 6, 2007 at 9:09 PM

I hate to demean Hugh in this way, but he is becoming like a Ron Paul supporter.

Complete7 on December 6, 2007 at 9:11 PM

Seriously, am I the only one who found that incredibly pompous and irritating?

Allahpundit on December 6, 2007 at 9:02 PM

I was avoiding Town Hall today because I knew he’d be intolerable. I really hope Hugh comes out soon saying he’s been doing an elaborate parody in his worship of Romney as nothing else will save him.

frankj on December 6, 2007 at 9:12 PM

Seriously, am I the only one who found that incredibly pompous and irritating?

Allahpundit on December 6, 2007 at 9:02 PM

Nope. I liked Romney’s speech quite a bit, but Hugh is making out like it was the St. Crispin’s Day speech as delivered by Winston Churchill in the Sistine Chapel on the first Christmas with Nazi bombers overhead.

I think he needs to calm down a bit is what I’m saying.

Bryan on December 6, 2007 at 9:13 PM

Allahpundit on December 6, 2007 at 9:02 PM

That sums up how it made me feel

Gatordoug on December 6, 2007 at 9:13 PM

Not only “pompous and irritating” but incomprehensibly mean spirited. I don’t like being told I’m an idiot because I refuse to sing hosanahs for a speech that was reasonably well written and delivered but whose substance is open to criticism on several levels.

rick moran on December 6, 2007 at 9:14 PM

Seriously, am I the only one who found that incredibly pompous and irritating?

Allahpundit on December 6, 2007 at 9:02 PM

No, but you may be the only one who just noticed this tendency of HH’s to behave in this manner when he thinks that his opinion is correct.

BTW, in spite of this, I’m leaning toward Romney.

baldilocks on December 6, 2007 at 9:16 PM

Hugh’s the guy who writes a “Romney Rising!” post every time Mitt’s national support rises from, say, 11.7% to 11.7%. He’s discredited himself with his own fervor, but I guess he has books to sell.

Big S on December 6, 2007 at 9:17 PM

rick moran on December 6, 2007 at 9:14 PM

Medved was having a love fest over the speech today too.

Gatordoug on December 6, 2007 at 9:18 PM

Exit question: Does Hugh need to “sit down”?

YES.

I thought the speech was excellent, but Hewitt’s ridiculous cheerleading is close to parody.

Slublog on December 6, 2007 at 9:18 PM

Allah, you’re just not to be trusted as an analyst.

Bad Candy on December 6, 2007 at 9:01 PM

Like Mr. Hitchens, you should also lay lower on those beer-packs, your cynicism, and not look so ugly.

Mr. Hewitt is smart but always a bit sanctimonious. He might be very disapointed later, having so much invested in one man.

Entelechy on December 6, 2007 at 9:20 PM

Top left and right threads at Hot Air —-

—- Mitt’s leading Huckabee, three American flags to two.

MrC_5150 on December 6, 2007 at 9:21 PM

WTF is the matter with that man, Hugh Hewitt?

I happen to have just read his insulting sickly wacko piece at his own web site.

He is a total moron.

With “friends” like him, Romney needs no enemies.

I like Romney and if he gets the nomination I will gladly vote for him and that is more than I can say for a couple of the other Republican contenders.

I might even vote for Romney in my states primary.

But now I almost feel like voting against Romney just to spite Hewitt.

Maybe Romney’s next speech will have to be to separate himself from Hewitt.

MB4 on December 6, 2007 at 9:23 PM

I like what Matt Lewis posted on Townhall:

What Romney Accomplished
Posted by: Matt Lewis at 3:07 PM
Aside from whether or not the speech was good (saying it wasn’t good would apparently discredit me as an analyst), there are three things Romney indisputably accomplished today…

apparently he can’t be trusted to be a analyst either…

Dhornertx on December 6, 2007 at 9:23 PM

I like Hewitt’s show. But I had to stop reading his site. His Romney boosterism is so over the top as to be a bit embarrassing for me to read. He’s the last one I would go to for objective analysis on anything related to the GOP. He generally looks on the bright side of everything (he’s kinda the anti-Allah)to such an extent that he reminds me of the liberal cocoon that the MSM provides to the Dems.

Clark1 on December 6, 2007 at 9:23 PM

Exit question: Does Hugh need to “sit down”?

YEEESSSS!

I like Romney alot, and I thought his speech was pretty good, but Hugh is shilling so hard for him without the stones to admit it I can’t stand listening to him anymore.

I think you are right Allah, Hugh’s pretend objectivity in support of Romney it’s just that Romney happens to say all the right things for Hugh, is starting to be a bit of a liability.

Topsecretk9 on December 6, 2007 at 9:24 PM

He might be very disapointed later, having so much invested in one man.

Entelechy on December 6, 2007 at 9:20 PM

How dare you question his faith in Mitt!

Big S on December 6, 2007 at 9:24 PM

since Barnett left (who was barely tolerable totally insufferable himself).

rick moran on December 6, 2007 at 9:02 PM

MB4 on December 6, 2007 at 9:25 PM

But now I almost feel like voting against Romney just to spite Hewitt.

Exactly. If I was Romney’s web guy, I’d be tempted to call him and say, “Listen, we realllllly appreciate all the good press, but, um…”

Allahpundit on December 6, 2007 at 9:26 PM

Romney’s speech was objectively a solid B+.

a4g on December 6, 2007 at 9:26 PM

Entelechy on December 6, 2007 at 9:20 PM

Er, you do know I was goofing on Hewitt, right?

Bad Candy on December 6, 2007 at 9:26 PM

Seriously, am I the only one who found that incredibly pompous and irritating?

Allahpundit on December 6, 2007 at 9:02 PM

Probably not.

MB4 on December 6, 2007 at 9:27 PM

Whattayacallit when you get tased from the left side, swivel reflexively to the right, look closely, assess the situation, and lob a grenade?

RushBaby on December 6, 2007 at 9:27 PM

Oh, and if you didn’t like the speech, it’s probably anti-Mormon bigotry. Objectively.

Thankfully, Mark Steyn was subbing for Hugh today. I’ll have to avoid the show tomorrow. (And, yes, MB4, the Hewitt spite-vote factor is high and rising.)

a4g on December 6, 2007 at 9:29 PM

AP, I love Hot Air and applaud what you, Bryan, and Michelle, are doing.
So please get this:
Romney gave an important speech today.
He spoke well of the role of faith and conscience in tha modern political world.
Evaluate the speech on those terms, not on the reaction of Hugh Hewitt.
Be a relevant blog, not an internet gossip blog

billy on December 6, 2007 at 9:30 PM

Mitt Romney’s “Faith in America” speech was simply magnificent, and anyone who denies it is not to be trusted as an analyst. On every level it was a masterpiece.

- – Hugh Hewitt

apparently he can’t be trusted to be a analyst either…

Dhornertx on December 6, 2007 at 9:23 PM

Based on the quote from Hugh, no one can be trusted…

Er, you do know I was goofing on Hewitt, right?

Bad Candy on December 6, 2007 at 9:26 PM

Of course I do :) You’re totally cool BC! I was goofing too, but seriously. Regards,

Entelechy on December 6, 2007 at 9:30 PM

Entelechy on December 6, 2007 at 9:20 PM

The ‘untrustworthy analyst’ bit is a joke that originated in an older thread. I’ll try to find the link for you because it’s destined to become an inside joke, confounding newcomers for…well, weeks! to come.

RushBaby on December 6, 2007 at 9:31 PM

Seriously, am I the only one who found that incredibly pompous and irritating?

Allahpundit on December 6, 2007 at 9:02 PM

Allah,

I do think some of you “24/7 frontliners” need to get some R&R. In the simplist of terms, an objective action is one taken with the longer-term perspective, and a subjective action is based more upon the here & now. Give any child the choice of a single candy bar right now, or come back next week and to get the whole bag… and the subjective child will take the one right now. Rarely will a child exhibit the maturity to wait a week to gain posession of the whole bag.

HRC is the pentultimate subjective adversary; she will stop at nothing to maximize the moment, and just as in chess, that is her weakness.

Personally, as a conservative I think EVERYONE needs to temper their judgements. You must bet on a horse that is in the race if you want a chance to win. I’m not “moved” by ANYONE on the republican ticket, but you can bet your ass I will vote for WHOEVER the nominee is.

The more people try to out-conservative each other, the more we fall pray to the other side. We need to win the White House AND some seats in the legislature; we don’t need a proxy Savior.

singlemalt_18 on December 6, 2007 at 9:31 PM

He spoke well of the role of faith and conscience in tha modern political world.
Evaluate the speech on those terms, not on the reaction of Hugh Hewitt.
Be a relevant blog, not an internet gossip blog

I honestly have no idea what that means, billy. I wrote two other posts today about Mitt’s speech on the merits. Bryan posted the Ustream video in yet another post this morning. Not sure how that’s not “relevant” just because I posted about Hewitt too.

Allahpundit on December 6, 2007 at 9:32 PM

Seriously, am I the only one who found that incredibly pompous and irritating?

Yes, and weird too. I think Mitt’s speech was terrific–I’d give higher points for style than substance, but very very good. The shame for Mitt is that he had to pull that speech out now, rather than keep his powder dry for a time when it would receive broader attention. I’m guessing he had hoped he’d have an Iowa win behind him before delivering the speech, but it looks like Huck forced his hand.

He’d likely be a very capable president but I don’t think the electorate will get past his Mormonism.

dedalus on December 6, 2007 at 9:33 PM

Steyn and Rush and Hannity gave thumbs up to Hugh’s candidate and that’s that and no one can take that away,

Steyn guest hosted Hewitt’s site today. He talked about Romney’s speech quite a bit but IIRC he had John Podhoretz on the show who wasn’t all hot of Romney’s speech and Steyn was the picture of professionalism able to take criticism of Romney seriously and in stride.

IOW he didn’t “challenge” John at every turn and tell him he wasn’t “objective” (a funny choice of wording coming from Hewitt) or full of it.

It was actually a refreshing change.

Topsecretk9 on December 6, 2007 at 9:33 PM

Here’s the bottom line… I have only heard the highlights of the speech, and couldn’t care less about what he said. He’s not running as “spiritual leader”, he’s running for president. And I think anyone who says “it was all about putting Christians at is”, is off the mark. It was a necessary speech for Christians and non-Christians alike. I, like most Christians (and I would say probably most people) think Mormonism is loony. I’m sorry if that offends anyone here, but that’s just the way it is. I believe the whole back-story is just silly, and so do most non-Mormons who are familiar with it.

Romney’s speech wasn’t about saying “it’s not weird”, it was about saying “it doesn’t matter, which is why I’m not going to detail the specifics”, because he’s not running for Mormon Leader, he’s running for President. Did his Mormonism manifest itself in Massachusetts in any strange ways? No. But the fact is, the polls show people are uncomfortable with the idea of a Mormon president (the country is only less comfortable with atheists and Muslims). For that reason, he had to address the issue, to anyone and everyone who might think Mormonism is weird (i.e. the majority of people), so that people can be confident he’s not bringing some cult stuff in to the White House.

RightWinged on December 6, 2007 at 9:33 PM

singlemalt_18 on December 6, 2007 at 9:31 PM

He’s criticizing Hewitt’s reaction, not any of the candidates. It seems to me Allahpundit liked the speech, but didn’t find it MAGNIFICENT. Hewitt is holding people to a ridiculous standard.

Slublog on December 6, 2007 at 9:33 PM

Steyn guest hosted Hewitt’s RADIO SHOW today

Topsecretk9 on December 6, 2007 at 9:34 PM

He’s not running as “spiritual leader”, he’s running for president. And I think anyone who says “it was all about putting Christians at is”….

RightWinged on December 6, 2007 at 9:33 PM

is = ease* (/retarded)

RightWinged on December 6, 2007 at 9:34 PM

Entelechy on December 6, 2007 at 9:30 PM

Sorry bout that :P

Bad Candy on December 6, 2007 at 9:34 PM

untrustworthy analyst link

RushBaby on December 6, 2007 at 9:35 PM

Not sure how that’s not “relevant” just because I posted about Hewitt too.

Allahpundit on December 6, 2007 at 9:32 PM

ADD is more rampant than we thought.

baldilocks on December 6, 2007 at 9:36 PM

The punchline to all this is that I didn’t even disparage the speech. I said it was a pander but otherwise well written and delivered. I didn’t even care about the atheist omission that people like Mary Katharine mentioned.

Allahpundit on December 6, 2007 at 9:36 PM

I was avoiding Town Hall today because I knew he’d be intolerable.

frankj on December 6, 2007 at 9:12 PM

Every time I tried to navigate over there, my browser would shut down. Anyone else have trouble?

Barntender on December 6, 2007 at 9:37 PM

RightWinged on December 6, 2007 at 9:33 PM

Now there’s some sensible analysis. Mitt Romney has demonstrated to me that he is a decent human being, and capable of being the President of all American people. Frankly, I’m impressed by the courage he demonstrated today.

RushBaby on December 6, 2007 at 9:39 PM

Oh by the way, I forgot the most important part of my comment… This may seem trivial, and I’m half stealing a joke from Conan O’Brien, but does anyone really think the country will elect a “President Huckabee”? Seriously!? Huck-a-bee!? Immigration issues aside, I’m sorry, but he sounds like a cartoon character, and he’ll never be elected with a name like that. Again, may seem trivial, and I’m not saying that the name is why I wouldn’t vote for him (because you know I’d still be first in line next Nov. if he is the nominee… not that it matters here in Vermont), but I’m serious, as a country, we won’t elect a President “Huckabee”.

RightWinged on December 6, 2007 at 9:39 PM

RushBaby, thanks for the link – I was with you all along. Been reading the Hitchens link in headlines, and Hugh Hewitt’s intro. See my quote above. Best regards.

Bad Candy, nothing to be sorry about :)

Entelechy on December 6, 2007 at 9:40 PM

Give any child the choice of a single candy bar right now, or come back next week and to get the whole bag… and the subjective child will take the one right now. Rarely will a child exhibit the maturity to wait a week to gain posession of the whole bag.

singlemalt_18 on December 6, 2007 at 9:31 PM

Well I did not take the candy right away and I did not take the whole bag a week later either.

In fact it has been decades and I still don’t have my candy.

So how much candy do I get now?

I should be due a whole truck load by now!

Where’s all my candy?!!!

MB4 on December 6, 2007 at 9:40 PM

I just hope The Oprah’s speech gets this much scrutiny this weekend. Sheesh.

The speech is what it is. I thought the speech was excellent (although unnecessary), and reached the targeted audience. To me, Mitt was saying either vote for me because I’m religous or don’t vote for me because I’m not the religion you want me to be. Simple, right? It is to me, but perhaps I’m not analytical enough.

SouthernGent on December 6, 2007 at 9:41 PM

do think some of you “24/7 frontliners” need to get some R&R.

Yeah, I think that is one of the dangers of covering politics 24/7. Sometimes “24/7 frontliners” end up going on and on about one topic to where it becomes repetitive and exhausting. Then again it’s part of the job. People flock to blogs that are usually focused on a specialized topic. If you’re all over the place then no one will read.

If the current news cycle wasn’t 24/7 then maybe more of those reporting and commenting on the news would take a break and realize the thing I’ve been ranting about for the
past 16 hours is not as important as they’ve lead themselves to believe.

terryannonline on December 6, 2007 at 9:41 PM

The punchline to all this is that I didn’t even disparage the speech. I said it was a pander but otherwise well written and delivered. I didn’t even care about the atheist omission that people like Mary Katharine mentioned.

Allahpundit on December 6, 2007 at 9:36 PM

How dare you put yourself in the same league as MKH. How dare you! The day you post video of yourself flushing a cat down the toilet or climbing out of a pond and eating venison, we can talk, but until then sir, you’re way out of line!

RightWinged on December 6, 2007 at 9:42 PM

I listen to alot of conservative talk ready. I enjoy most of the pundits, respect their perspectives and enjoy the guests. I have listened to liberal talk radio and just on the entertainment level don’t think they can hold a candle to most conservative talkers. Having said that, with the exception of Rush, it’s my perception that few of the top talkers have any accurate perception of what a normal, middle class conservative thinks about what is going on. I hear them and their guests tell me what I think about what’s going on and they are usually so far off it would be laughable except I wonder how many people give them too much credit. Most are Ivy League, have worked in government, have lots of money and run in the same social circles as those liberals they speak of every day. they each should be appreciated as entertainers, as providers of information and alternative view points. But in the end they all have their own opinions shaped by their own development and those opinions have no more weight then mine or any of the participants on hot air.

peacenprosperity on December 6, 2007 at 9:42 PM

The punchline to all this is that I didn’t even disparage the speech. I said it was a pander

Yes, we all know how “pander” is such a compliment.

billy on December 6, 2007 at 9:43 PM

peacenprosperity on December 6, 2007 at 9:42 PM

Well said and agreed.

baldilocks on December 6, 2007 at 9:43 PM

Yeah, I think that is one of the dangers of covering politics 24/7. Sometimes “24/7 frontliners” end up going on and on about one topic to where it becomes repetitive and exhausting. Then again it’s part of the job. People flock to blogs that are usually focused on a specialized topic. If you’re all over the place then no one will read.

terryannonline on December 6, 2007 at 9:41 PM

Just a second. Are you saying HA goes on and on about one topic, or that HA is all over the place?

RushBaby on December 6, 2007 at 9:46 PM

But now I almost feel like voting against Romney just to spite Hewitt.

Exactly.

Hummmm…
Something tells me you would already vote against Romney irrespective of… well anything.

bains on December 6, 2007 at 9:46 PM

well, you don’t much matter anyway

Seriously, am I the only one who found that incredibly pompous and irritating?

If he wrote this after watching the network news twist, manipulate and generally dump on Mitts speech as not politically correct enough (to put it mildly), I can understand a pissed off reaction.
I wanted to spew chunks myself.

Speaking of which, has Soros crawled out from under his slimy rock lately?

Speakup on December 6, 2007 at 9:46 PM

Where’s all my candy?!!!

MB4 on December 6, 2007 at 9:40 PM

I hope you don’t need it, but the ‘conservative’ president put some out today in the “interfere-with-the-free-market-mortgage-plan”.

Sorry for the ot.

Entelechy on December 6, 2007 at 9:47 PM

Barntender on December 6, 2007 at 9:37 PM

It doesn’t crash my browser (RedLasso sure does however*cough*) but Townhall is a friggin chaotic mess in its layout and slow as can be.

Bad Candy on December 6, 2007 at 9:47 PM

I barely read Hewitt any more due to the over the top Romney worship, but he’s a great interviewer and not deserving of some of the mockery I’m reading here. I don’t care what he blogs, but if you don’t read his major interviews you’re missing out.

Patrick H on December 6, 2007 at 9:49 PM

I was hoping for a great speech for historical reasons. I expected a good speech because the subject is fascinating.

He gave a good speech, reasonably well written and delivered, and covering the subject in a satisfactory manner. Kudos to Romney – for giving it and for the performance. Are we going to be looking back on it in 25 years as a landmark? No.

jaime on December 6, 2007 at 9:49 PM

RushBaby on December 6, 2007 at 9:46 PM

I said people don’t go to blogs that aren’t focused. Obviously, Hot Air gets lots of views. Therefore, they are very focused on their commentary.

terryannonline on December 6, 2007 at 9:49 PM

Yes, we all know how “pander” is such a compliment.

It was. That was his motive. The speech itself was fine in substance.

Something tells me you would already vote against Romney irrespective of… well anything.

That must be true. I disagree with you and Hugh Hewitt that Romney’s speech was a work of ineffable brilliance to be preserved in marble, therefore I must be against him under all circumstances.

Allahpundit on December 6, 2007 at 9:50 PM

The mindset behind Hugh Hewitt’s attitude is precisely why the Republicans pissed away every advantage they’ve had over the last 20 years.

steveegg on December 6, 2007 at 9:52 PM

Dude, chill out. Stop searching for reasons to find offense. Have a six pack and a pizza. Go out to a bar and watch the game or something. You’re being hypersensitive. People are going to disagree with your perspective. That’s the way of your business. Stop taking it all so personally. It’s not good for you.

TheBigOldDog on December 6, 2007 at 9:54 PM

Bad Candy, mea culpa, I just realized that I should have been clearer, after you stated “Allah, you’re just not to be trusted as an analyst”, the following was for AP, not for you

Like Mr. Hitchens, you should also lay lower on those beer-packs, your cynicism, and not look so ugly.

Now, I’m sorry to have confused… :(((

Entelechy on December 6, 2007 at 9:55 PM

I, like most Christians (and I would say probably most people) think Mormonism is loony.

RightWinged on December 6, 2007 at 9:33 PM

As a rationalist I think that all religions are 100% loony in their fables/beliefs, so I mainly go by how it’s adherents turn out – bottom line.

Besides Mormons have got some very interesting fables/beliefs. Almost cool science fiction like instead of primitive and usually nasty like most others. I think that they put a lot of thought into them. I think that the other religions are just jealous .

MB4 on December 6, 2007 at 9:55 PM

I said people don’t go to blogs that aren’t focused. Obviously, Hot Air gets lots of views. Therefore, they are very focused on their commentary.

terryannonline on December 6, 2007 at 9:49 PM

OK. That clears it up.
/

RushBaby on December 6, 2007 at 9:56 PM

Dude, chill out. Stop searching for reasons to find offense.

Same for the 50 other people who agreed with me here in the comments? And should Hewitt chill out too?

You don’t need to read the posts, you know, if they bug you so much. Beers and pizza, right?

Allahpundit on December 6, 2007 at 9:58 PM

I mainly go by how it’s adherents turn out – bottom line.

MB4 on December 6, 2007 at 9:55 PM

You made me smile, MB4. Mitt turned out pretty decent, didn’t he?

RushBaby on December 6, 2007 at 9:58 PM

Entelechy on December 6, 2007 at 9:55 PM

Heh, don’t worry about it.

Bad Candy on December 6, 2007 at 10:00 PM

Allahpundit on December 6, 2007 at 9:58 PM

I thought the dude he was talking to was Hugh and not you AP.
LOL.

terryannonline on December 6, 2007 at 10:00 PM

Oh, the hughmanity!

see-dubya on December 6, 2007 at 10:01 PM

Allahpundit on December 6, 2007 at 9:58 PM

Deep dish with double projection and anchovies.

RushBaby on December 6, 2007 at 10:01 PM

This is the post that was the last straw for me and Hugh Hewitt. Hugh posts an article which strongly implies that Fred Thompson’s cancer is going to return. Disgusting.

Notice how he gets savaged by commenters on his own blog.

Nessuno on December 6, 2007 at 10:01 PM

Allahpundit on December 6, 2007 at 9:58 PM

Great, now I want beer and pizza. I can grab a beer, but I already had dinner. But really, for a New Yorker like you, pizza is never a bad idea.

Bad Candy on December 6, 2007 at 10:02 PM

AP,

bains on December 6, 2007 at 9:46 PM, with this

Something tells me you would already vote against Romney irrespective of… well anything.

was responding to

But now I almost feel like voting against Romney just to spite Hewitt.

Maybe Romney’s next speech will have to be to separate himself from Hewitt.

MB4 on December 6, 2007 at 9:23 PM

Entelechy on December 6, 2007 at 10:02 PM

“Yes, we all know how “pander” is such a compliment.”
It was. That was his motive. The speech itself was fine in substance

The passive-agressive response!
I’m so pleased!
On all your postings on the Romney speech you have contained links to HH, so don’t give me the “well I’m just falling the internet” spiel.

billy on December 6, 2007 at 10:03 PM

The day you post video of yourself flushing a cat down the toilet

RightWinged on December 6, 2007 at 9:42 PM

She flushed a cat down the toilet?
I will just have to take her out for dinner sometime.
She will not need to order.

FeralCat on December 6, 2007 at 10:03 PM

Allahpundit on December 6, 2007 at 9:58 PM

All-meat pizza. I’m not a beer connoisseur, so you pick. Just suggestions.

baldilocks on December 6, 2007 at 10:04 PM

Oh, the hughmanity!

see-dubya on December 6, 2007 at 10:01 PM

If only I had mad Photoshop skillz and WordPress allowed images in the comments (on second thought, since I run WP, I wouldn’t want it).

steveegg on December 6, 2007 at 10:04 PM

Hugh Hewitt has badly damaged his credibility as well as his claim that he is a balanced supporter of the GOP. He has repeatedly gone out of his way to denigrate and try to destroy every GOP candidate but Mitt… yet THEN he turns around and says that he’s support any GOP candidate and claims to be a balanced party booster.

It’s no wonder why every other candidate (but Rudy) has decided that Hewitt’s show is a waste of time to appear on. Why would they? Like he did to that guy supporting Thompson from the Nat’l Right to Life group supporting Thompson he’ll just try to attack and tout Romney instead of doing an interview!

And as every single thing that happens in the news, Hewitt sticks in some Romney reference, he ALSO claims he isn’t sold out for Romney and isn’t working for him. What a joke that is! Look, I don’t mind if Hewitt is sold out for Romney, but not to admit it… in fact to claim otherwise…. is just plain dishonest.

Hewitt has written numerous books where he says that the we all must support the GOP no matter what happens, as a bulwark against the Dems. In this case, Hewitt is going against his own prescription! He is attacking every Republican who won’t support Romney. So much for being a party booster!

Hewitt is cloying and entirely unable to view Romney in anything but rose colored glasses. Even with Romney’s many lies and flip flops, Hewitt either refuses to talk of them or merely says they don’t matter. Remember Romney’s lie about being a “hunter all his life”? The next day, Romney made a self-denigrating joke about it. Hewitt proclaimed that the joke erased the lie! Talk about disingenuous.

Then we get to the Mormon question where Hewitt automatically calls ANYONE who is against Romney a “bigot” against his religion. I’m against this liar Romney. And I couldn’t care LESS if he were a Mormon, a Catholic, or a Hindu snake charmer! A liar is a liar in ANY religion.

Sorry, but Hewitt has really hurt himself with this whole episode and I’ve lost a LOT of respect for his ability at political analysis.

Warner Todd Huston on December 6, 2007 at 10:04 PM

What’s all this talk of pizza, when you could have a tasty fish sandwich?

see-dubya on December 6, 2007 at 10:05 PM

Seriously, am I the only one who found that incredibly pompous and irritating?

Not at all. It was a good speech, and I’ve certainly been sick to death of all the religious bigotry flying around. But Hewitt is skipping around like Ed Grimley worshipping Pat Sajak. Or a lovestruck 13-year-old. Girl.

ReubenJCogburn on December 6, 2007 at 10:05 PM

HH is a turd.

V15J on December 6, 2007 at 10:05 PM

Did somebody say “Beers and pizza!”?

steveegg on December 6, 2007 at 10:05 PM

I thought the dude he was talking to was Hugh and not you AP.

Oh. In that case, I apologize. Maybe I do need a beer and pizza break.

Allahpundit on December 6, 2007 at 10:06 PM

Personally, I’d go with a good Cabernet were I not on a bit of diet. But don’t let that stop you, AP.

baldilocks on December 6, 2007 at 10:06 PM

It’s not Fish Fry Friday yet, see-dub.

Besides, it takes too long to properly defrost the walleye in the freezer.

steveegg on December 6, 2007 at 10:07 PM

No, because I have no preferred candidate…

my apologies then…

But it’s very, very typical of someone who’d defend a post of Hewitt’s like this that you’d immediately jump to questioning my motives

Having read all those that you linked, I mistakenly presumed that you shared their biases.

Tell me this Allahpundit, why is it I, an agnostic, has absolutely no problem with Mitt’s faith, and even Mitt’s speech on faith, whereas many other ‘conservatives’ find so much fault therein?

As a fiscal conservative (neo-libertarian), and positively not a social-con, the only candidate I have serious reservations about is Huckabee. What I’m hearing from the social-cons however (filtered through the MSM, BUT repeated throughout many rightroots) is that both Mitt (Morman) and Rudy (social-lib) are totally unacceptable.

Fine. but unless the GOP nominates an ostensibly fiscal/crime/immigration conservative, I’d rather be on the outside fighting the good fight rather than pretending to support a candidate/president that I despise. Eight years is too much.

bains on December 6, 2007 at 10:07 PM

Personally, I’d go with a good Cabernet were I not on a bit of diet. But don’t let that stop you, AP.

baldilocks on December 6, 2007 at 10:06 PM

Permit me to recommend Smoking Loon Cabernet.

RushBaby on December 6, 2007 at 10:09 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3