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

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

bains on December 6, 2007 at 9:46 PM

I don’t know what that irrespective of… well anything would be.

He is in fact the only candidate whom I have donate $$ to.

MB4 on December 6, 2007 at 10:10 PM

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?

I have no problem with his faith, either. I wish others didn’t. Quite frankly, to the extent I’m biased re: Mormons, I’m biased in their favor. They seem like clean cut, very civic minded citizens. Mitt himself is immensely likeable.

Allahpundit on December 6, 2007 at 10:10 PM

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.

For the love of G-d people, the Dems are proposing a Gestapo for health care and we’re arguing about the Garden of Eden?
An argument led by an Atheist??!111!

billy on December 6, 2007 at 10:10 PM

Guinness or Beamish sounds good.

Speakup on December 6, 2007 at 10:12 PM

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).

Oh, I don’t mind at all.

Jimmie on December 6, 2007 at 10:12 PM

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

Allahpundit on December 6, 2007 at 9:02 PM

No. And Hugh shouldn’t grab Rush and place him in the Mitt camp. Before this speech was made, the debate was who would be first to have

Fred’s

baby, you or Rush. Rush praised Fred because of his focus on first principles, and he liked Mitt’s speech because it unapologetically took an “long view” of America. Both themes are laudable, which is what Rush did.

Weight of Glory on December 6, 2007 at 10:12 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

Nope, don’t need that kind of candy anyway as my house was paid off in cash years ago.

MB4 on December 6, 2007 at 10:12 PM

That Hewitt would have multiple orgasms over Romney’s speech was approximately as predictable as the sun rising in the east. Yes, it’s creepy and weird, and if I didn’t already think Mitt was a four-flusher, Hugh’s spoogetastic man-crush would certainly be pushing me in that direction.

Centerfire on December 6, 2007 at 10:13 PM

and by the way,

HH is a turd.

V15J on December 6, 2007 at 10:05 PM

is disgusting, and I nominate V15J for a gracious escort to the door.

RushBaby on December 6, 2007 at 10:13 PM

Uh…that block quote, “Fred’s,” should read as an emphasis. Really AP you should have a preview button or som…oh…nevermind.

Weight of Glory on December 6, 2007 at 10:14 PM

For the love of G-d people, the Dems are proposing a Gestapo for health care and we’re arguing about the Garden of Eden?
An argument led by an Atheist??!111!

billy on December 6, 2007 at 10:10 PM

Jeepers, Billy! Make your point.

jaime on December 6, 2007 at 10:16 PM

Guinness or Beamish sounds good.

Speakup on December 6, 2007 at 10:12 PM

Yes it does.

billy on December 6, 2007 at 10:16 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

Yup, I finally got to hit “post” on making a single commented over there and my comment hasn’t even showed up last I checked.

May not make it through the censors.

MB4 on December 6, 2007 at 10:16 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 knew some atheist would come divert from my original point and then force me to sound like some d**k attacking Mormonism, but here goes… For starters, yes, I find it silly that you call yourself a “rationalist” because you don’t believe in anything (essentially saying all those that do, are irrational)… But my main issue is with you treating Mormonism on the same level as Christianity. Sorry, but the Bible is easily the most detailed historical ancient book. You may not believe stories like the parting of the Red Sea or the Resurrection, etc… but the unbelievable historical accuracy of “everyday things” in the Bible, is amazing. Whether you buy in to any of the spiritual aspects of it or not, any honest person has to give more credence to something when we regularly have archaeological digs confirming things written thousands of years ago in the Bible. In an attempt to not mock Mormons, let’s just say they have nothing remotely close to this.

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

Fake flushed, but the image was HILARIOUS!

RightWinged on December 6, 2007 at 10:16 PM

For the love of G-d people, the Dems are proposing a Gestapo for health care and we’re arguing about the Garden of Eden?
An argument led by an Atheist??!111!

billy on December 6, 2007 at 10:10 PM

I don’t know why you’re singling out my post. That was my first comment in this thread, and it wasn’t about religion, it was about Hewitt and his man-crush. If you can’t post coherently, maybe you should go cool off for a while.

ReubenJCogburn on December 6, 2007 at 10:17 PM

To All:
Based upon the field, I will support nearly all GOP candidates were they to earn the nomination. Yes I prefer Romney – but then I was in the local news district when he saved the SLC Olympics. What I see is far too much emphasis on his religion, whereas his management abilities is totally discarded.

Further, and directly against those Huckabee fans, Romney governed a blue state as red as he could. Huckabee governed a purple state as blue as he could.

bains on December 6, 2007 at 10:17 PM

Maybe I do need a beer and pizza break.

Allahpundit on December 6, 2007 at 10:06 PM

Sounds like a plan.

steveegg on December 6, 2007 at 10:18 PM

I have no problem with his faith, either. I wish others didn’t. Quite frankly, to the extent I’m biased re: Mormons, I’m biased in their favor. They seem like clean cut, very civic minded citizens. Mitt himself is immensely likeable.

Allahpundit on December 6, 2007 at 10:10 PM

Amen to that. They seem like decent people, and good Americans, I don’t get the sometimes creepy dislike. I’ll admit, I like a drink now and then, and I’m a caffeine junkie, so I could never actually be Mormon, but it works for them, so I say more power to em. I’m not a fan of Mitt, but I hate how he’s being treated by some.

Bad Candy on December 6, 2007 at 10:20 PM

Note to Hugh, wait till next week…to see if Mitt changes his mind.
If Mitt can go for a few weeks with just one statement that he doesn’t back down from, I would be amazed.

right2bright on December 6, 2007 at 10:21 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

So now I guess Dr. Hewitt is an oncologist.

MB4 on December 6, 2007 at 10:22 PM

MB4 on December 6, 2007 at 10:12 PM

The barn too? Just kidding :)

Entelechy on December 6, 2007 at 10:22 PM

They seem like decent people, and good Americans, I don’t get the sometimes creepy dislike.

It’s baffling. I can understand if someone’s under the misimpression that they still practice polygamy, but if you know they don’t, then what’s the problem?

Allahpundit on December 6, 2007 at 10:23 PM

Fair enough AP. Sorry I included you with those social-cons with whom I seriously disagree. I stand corrected.

bains on December 6, 2007 at 10:23 PM

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…

Great. Hugh is heading South to help build “the fence” and soon afterwards, is getting paid to speak.

Glorious!!!!

awake on December 6, 2007 at 10:27 PM

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…

Thanks, Allah and Bryan; that was the best laugh I’ve had all day.

Unfortunately, my opinion apparently doesn’t matter.

Frozen Tex on December 6, 2007 at 10:29 PM

I have no problem with his faith, either. I wish others didn’t. Quite frankly, to the extent I’m biased re: Mormons, I’m biased in their favor. They seem like clean cut, very civic minded citizens. Mitt himself is immensely likeable.

Allahpundit on December 6, 2007 at 10:10 PM

O am I glad you said that, AP. +1

I would have said plus a million, but my opinion, after all, doesn’t matter much anyway.

RushBaby on December 6, 2007 at 10:29 PM

The world would be a better place if it was 100% Mormon, I believe, based upon my experiences with them. Yeah, I pretend I’m on the phone when I see them biking up to my front door and all, but all of my personal experiences with them have been extremely positive otherwise.

I read more about Mitt’s Mormonism on conservative blogs than I do his incredible success in the private sector. The man is a leader and a winner. Most of the other guys are career politicians who started out earning a taxpayer-funded paycheck and haven’t looked back. Besides Mitt, McCain and Obama are the only ones I can kind of look up to.

RW Wacko on December 6, 2007 at 10:31 PM

Heh, awake, I was driving home from LA this afternoon too. I might have been paralleling Hugh all the way to San Diego, not knowing what sanctimonious company I was in.

Entelechy on December 6, 2007 at 10:31 PM

In an attempt to not mock Mormons, let’s just say they have nothing remotely close to this.

Don’t they offer a description of Christ’s visit to America? I don’t find The Book of Mormon believable but The Bible seems a little odd in that you’d have to believe that God created the Universe and our planet with its 7 continents, but would rely on giving a book to a group of tribes in one small part of the world, and would then come bodily to our planet but not visit anywhere beyond Nazareth and Jerusalum.

dedalus on December 6, 2007 at 10:32 PM

For starters, yes, I find it silly that you call yourself a “rationalist” because you don’t believe in anything (essentially saying all those that do, are irrational)…

I believe in all sorts of things, just not everything.

But my main issue is with you treating Mormonism on the same level as Christianity.

RightWinged on December 6, 2007 at 10:16 PM

Romney and other Mormons say that they are Christians. That is good enough for me, I am not Allah or Mohammad after all.

MB4 on December 6, 2007 at 10:34 PM

The world would be a better place if it was 100% Mormon

I hope for Mitt’s sake that there isn’t a Mormon Ann Coulter who comes out and says that during the primaries.

dedalus on December 6, 2007 at 10:38 PM

I am not Allah or Mohammad after all.

MB4 on December 6, 2007 at 10:34 PM

“What a relief” –the non-virgins

Entelechy on December 6, 2007 at 10:38 PM

Romney governed a blue state as red as he could. Huckabee governed a purple state as blue as he could.

bains on December 6, 2007 at 10:17 PM

Now that sounds familiar.

MB4 on December 6, 2007 at 10:38 PM

dedalus on December 6, 2007 at 10:32 PM

Yeah sure, but did you help build “the fence”?

awake on December 6, 2007 at 10:38 PM

The barn too? Just kidding :)

Entelechy on December 6, 2007 at 10:22 PM

The barn too. And the well house also. And the 3.25 acres they all sit on. And the UFO landing port.

MB4 on December 6, 2007 at 10:42 PM

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…

HAHAHAHA!!

And a +5 for reader Scott, that’s friggin’ classic.

Bad Candy on December 6, 2007 at 10:43 PM

MB4 on December 6, 2007 at 10:42 PM

Maybe we should have that HA gathering over there. It sure could house all of us. I’ll book the port :)

Entelechy on December 6, 2007 at 10:44 PM

I think HH’s comments are distinguishable.

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. The staging and Romney’s delivery, the eclipse of all other candidates it caused, the domination of the news cycle just prior to the start of absentee voting in New Hampshire on Monday –for all these reasons and more it will be long discussed as a masterpiece of political maneuver.

This is pompous and irritating, because HH makes no bones about having taken a side and some others who have not are probably more “trustworthy” in this respect. Ironically, the reference to “political maneuver” is not too different from AP calling it a “pander” in substance, just in tone.

I think HH is on more solid ground in saying it was objectively a good day for Romney. The reviews were largely positive, and even those somewhat critical, like AP, saw it as accomplishing its purpose. And in politics, perception is often reality, so this was a “good” day for Romney. Maybe not as “good” as HH thinks, but “good” nonetheless.

Karl on December 6, 2007 at 10:45 PM

Heh, awake, I was driving home from LA this afternoon too. I might have been paralleling Hugh all the way to San Diego, not knowing what sanctimonious company I was in.

Entelechy on December 6, 2007 at 10:31 PM

Did you see any vehicles near by with a raised roof to accommodate an extra big head.

MB4 on December 6, 2007 at 10:46 PM

I hope for Mitt’s sake that there isn’t a Mormon Ann Coulter who comes out and says that during the primaries.

Glenn Beck is on the shortlist.

sulla on December 6, 2007 at 10:48 PM

Did you see any vehicles near by with a raised roof to accommodate an extra big head.

MB4 on December 6, 2007 at 10:46 PM

Yes – I didn’t know who it was, but it had a halo on top.

Entelechy on December 6, 2007 at 10:50 PM

Did you see any vehicles near by with a raised roof to accommodate an extra big head.

MB4 on December 6, 2007 at 10:46 PM

I resemble that remark. Oh wait–I was home. Never mind.

baldilocks on December 6, 2007 at 10:53 PM

baldilocks, I was in your neck of the woods for work, from very early morning until about 2:00p.m. Then I trecked back to SD, leaving you North. I think of you sometimes, when up there. How’s the sabbatical going?

Entelechy on December 6, 2007 at 11:00 PM

OBJECTIVELY, a lot of the blogosphere is buzzing about HH’s unction of Romney’s speech.

To the point that it may overshadow discussion of the brilliance of Romney’s speech.

How ya like them apples?

see-dubya on December 6, 2007 at 11:08 PM

OBJECTIVELY, a lot of the blogosphere is buzzing about HH’s unction of Romney’s speech.

Yeah, like who?

Allahpundit on December 6, 2007 at 11:08 PM

Yeah, like who?

Allahpundit on December 6, 2007 at 11:08 PM

Heh

Bad Candy on December 6, 2007 at 11:12 PM

Yeah, like who? Allahpundit

Every unserious analyst who will be required to slink off the national stage at the stroke of midnight and turn in their pundit ball gown to Romney’s fairy godmother, one assumes.

Lana on December 6, 2007 at 11:18 PM

You, Ace, Hugh defending himself, Tom Bevan, Oliver Willis, Jimmie at the Sundries Shack, looks like some snark by Jay at stop the ACLU, me, some others

Yeah, pretty much the whole blogosphere. If you disagree, you’re simply not a credible analyst.

Seriously, though, it’s not the takeaway Hugh or Mitt wanted from the speech, is it? If HH had just said that Mitt knocked it out of the park, full stop, and didn’t impugn or belittle anyone else who might disagree with him, more of the focus would be on the speech than on Hewitt’s overreach.

see-dubya on December 6, 2007 at 11:22 PM

Entelechy on December 6, 2007 at 11:00 PM

Very well. I get to watch as other unserious analysts–who will be required to slink off the national stage at the stroke of midnight and turn in their pundit ball gown to Romney’s fairy godmother–get pummeled. (Thanks Lana.) Actually I’m finally beginning to miss it.

Driving in the ‘hood during the holiday season is an adventure, no?

baldilocks on December 6, 2007 at 11:25 PM

If HH had just said that Mitt knocked it out of the park, full stop, and didn’t impugn or belittle anyone else who might disagree with him, more of the focus would be on the speech than on Hewitt’s overreach.

see-dubya on December 6, 2007 at 11:22 PM

Exactly. To put in succinctly, Romney yes, Hewitt no.

baldilocks on December 6, 2007 at 11:27 PM

God I love Hot Air!

awake on December 6, 2007 at 11:27 PM

awake on December 6, 2007 at 11:27 PM

If you didn’t love Hot Air you wouldn’t be a ‘credible’ commentator.

terryannonline on December 6, 2007 at 11:30 PM

Driving in the ‘hood during the holiday season is an adventure, no?

baldilocks on December 6, 2007 at 11:25 PM

Glad you’re doing well, and that you miss blogging :)

Yes, driving today was worse than the usual bad. Get up at 4:00a.m., find out around Mission Viejo that the 405 is on a standstill until 8:00, take the 5 as an alternate, find out it’s not much better…sweat to make it to Wilshire/San Vincente on time…work, skip lunch, hit the freeways early, with hope, only to find no difference from the morning…but you know all this. Fortunately it’s not a daily routine. Only the best, whatever you do and fancy,

Entelechy on December 6, 2007 at 11:34 PM

Hewitt has been, and always will be, a total hack. He is a complete sycophant to his politician-du-jour. Today it happens to be Romney. If someone else gets the nomination, he’ll say the same thing about that guy. It doesn’t matter. Hackery is in his blood.

The guy really, really, REALLY pissed me off during the Hariet Miers episode. He went to the mattresses for her, and still refused to accept defeat until long after Alito was on the radar. The guy is a complete jerk. He has an enormous ego and as a result is prone to making idiotic comments like those he made today.

It’s not surprising that people are noticing it now. After the Hariet Miers debacle, of which he was a full participant, people kinda calmed down. But the guy just can’t quit. Ultimately, his problem is that he’s more concentrated on political power than on values. He would vote for a snake if it were called a Republican.

Sydney Carton on December 6, 2007 at 11:36 PM

You’re welcome, baldilocks! Good to “see” you around.

Lana on December 6, 2007 at 11:37 PM

If you didn’t love Hot Air you wouldn’t be a ‘credible’ commentator.

terryannonline on December 6, 2007 at 11:30 PM

Way to bring it home, terryann.

*soul chuckle*

RushBaby on December 6, 2007 at 11:40 PM

Romney and other Mormons say that they are Christians. That is good enough for me, I am not Allah or Mohammad after all.

MB4 on December 6, 2007 at 10:34 PM

For the record, that was a gigantic dodge.

RightWinged on December 6, 2007 at 11:42 PM

He would vote for a snake if it were called a Republican.

I’m not a Hewitt fan but given the choice btw. a Republican snake and a Democrat snake, I’d always pick the former too.

Entelechy on December 6, 2007 at 11:45 PM

If HH had just said that Mitt knocked it out of the park, full stop, and didn’t impugn or belittle anyone else who might disagree with him, more of the focus would be on the speech than on Hewitt’s overreach.

see-dubya on December 6, 2007 at 11:22 PM

Well said. Me, I have this rare hearing disorder that causes me to stop listening to anybody right after the point that they tell me that my opinion doesn’t matter–kind of a funny reciprocity thing, you know? I could really care less who Hewitt supports as long as A)he’s honest about it, and B)he isn’t a prick to everybody who doesn’t kiss Mitt’s ass with the same degree of pucker that he does. It was a good speech today, and I’m glad it was a good speech–I’m sick to death of Mormon-bashing for the sake of Mormon-bashing. But that doesn’t mean that I’m going to be joining Hugh in the Monica position either.

ReubenJCogburn on December 6, 2007 at 11:45 PM

Reuben, Reuben, Reuben…

I cannot read a thing you write without automatically thinking, “fill your hand, you SOB” even when I agree with what you’ve just said. It’s an interesting problem.

Lana on December 6, 2007 at 11:51 PM

Is that your picture at the link, Reuben J?

Nice guns.

see-dubya on December 6, 2007 at 11:54 PM

For the record, that was a gigantic dodge.

RightWinged on December 6, 2007 at 11:42 PM

Then for the record, you must not have understood it.

MB4 on December 6, 2007 at 11:55 PM

I missed the whole thread because I was watching the stupidest movie ever made (Superbad), but I’ll still say that Hewitt comes across like an arrogant jerk.

It sounds like all those that say “It is settled – Global warming is a fact, and humanity is causing it, and if you disagree, you hate the planet and your fellow man.”

nailinmyeye on December 6, 2007 at 11:55 PM

I cannot read a thing you write without automatically thinking, “fill your hand, you SOB” even when I agree with what you’ve just said. It’s an interesting problem.

Lana on December 6, 2007 at 11:51 PM

Heh. Well, I’m sorry to disappoint you, but I don’t have a cat named General Sterling Price. But my cousin does.

ReubenJCogburn on December 6, 2007 at 11:57 PM

watching the stupidest movie ever made (Superbad),

You, son, have no sense of humor…

sunny on December 7, 2007 at 12:04 AM

Is that your picture at the link, Reuben J?

Nice guns.

see-dubya on December 6, 2007 at 11:54 PM

No, sorry–I’m all male, all the time. Also large, foul-mouthed (but you knew that), and cantankerous like my namesake. But that’s an excellent website with many things that are good to look at, as you’ve noticed. I don’t have any affiliation with them, I’ve just been a customer, but I liked that photoshoot and thought I’d try to throw them a little free advertising.

ReubenJCogburn on December 7, 2007 at 12:05 AM

Then for the record, you must not have understood it.

MB4 on December 6, 2007 at 11:55 PM

Nope, just a dodge by you, and I understood it just fine. You (as an atheist) lumped all religions together. I demonstrated that it’s dishonest to lump Mormonism in with Christianity. You offered nothing but “well they claim they are Christian”, and completely dodged everything I said.

RightWinged on December 7, 2007 at 12:12 AM

Nope, just a dodge by you, and I understood it just fine.(Funny, doesn’t seem that way at all.)You (as an atheist) lumped all religions together (Rolleyes, then ROFLMAO!). I demonstrated that it’s dishonest to lump Mormonism in with Christianity (You did nothing of the kind). You offered nothing but “well they claim they are Christian” (Mitt and other Mormons say they are Christians and they believe in Jesus. Just who do you think you are to say they are not, Jesus Christ?), and completely dodged everything I said (You see, but you do not observe. – Holmes.)

RightWinged on December 7, 2007 at 12:12 AM

- Holmes

MB4 on December 7, 2007 at 12:32 AM

Nevermind, I should never have engaged your trolling on this topic to begin with. You’ve revealed what a douche you ware on other religion threads before, and you’re proving it again… you KNOW my point wasn’t about me or anyone else saying who is a real Christian and who isn’t… It was about lumping something silly in with something that is based on a book that is primarily a history book and extremely detailed for it’s time. You may not like it, but much of what is discussed in the Bible are confirmed historically accurate events. This doesn’t prove by any means that the miraculous things are also true, but it certainly places it on a different level than Mormon beliefs. Again, I can’t believe I wasted 2 minutes on a troll like you.

RightWinged on December 7, 2007 at 12:41 AM

“Americans were unable to accommodate their commitment to their own faith with an appreciation for the convictions of others to different faiths.”

-Mitt Romney

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

-Hugh Hewitt

Big S on December 7, 2007 at 12:52 AM

Nevermind, I should never have engaged your trolling on this topic to begin with. You’ve revealed what a douche you ware

RightWinged on December 7, 2007 at 12:41 AM

You sound like you are probably up way past your bed time.

MB4 on December 7, 2007 at 12:52 AM

It’s time for Hewitt to guest-host on Steyn’s program…

CliffHanger on December 7, 2007 at 12:57 AM

Seriously, though, it’s not the takeaway Hugh or Mitt wanted from the speech, is it? If HH had just said that Mitt knocked it out of the park, full stop, and didn’t impugn or belittle anyone else who might disagree with him, more of the focus would be on the speech than on Hewitt’s overreach.

Spot on, see-dubya. I was commenting quite happily on Romney’s speech until I chanced across Hewitt’s haughty post. I would have been content to chew on the speech (and, incidentally ignore Romney’s rather pedestrian delivery of same) had Hewitt basically not made me stop and say “What the hell is he talking about?”.

Had Hewitt done basically what most of the posters at NRO had done, this wouldn’t be a deal at all. We’d be kicking around whether it mattered that Romney only said the word “Mormon” one time in his speech or perhaps the strongest denunciation of Islamism I’ve come across from a candidate not named Giuliani this campaign.

Jimmie on December 7, 2007 at 1:14 AM

All this crap about Romney worship, what about Bush worship? I had jumped the Hewitt train by mid-2005.

And what about this:

Mitt Romney threw a long ball today and scored.

He’s mixing two, possibly three different sports into one ham-fisted metaphor. I think I know all I need know about Hugh Hewitt, thank you.

Mark V. on December 7, 2007 at 1:33 AM

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

There is a lot of poetry in this post. Nice alliteration.

This is one of those posts where you remind yourself afterwards that Hugh csdeven 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.

Sorry, couldn’t resist. It’s funny how the antics of the supporters of a particular candidate can put you off that candidate. It obviously isn’t Mitt’s fault that there are a lot of commenters on this site who have been less than generous to the other Republican candidates. This boosterism, however, does make me wonder if I want to be associated with those people.

Bill C on December 7, 2007 at 1:48 AM

Obviously Hewitt is bias and firmly in Romney’s camp, but why does it matter?–let alone influence how one would feel about Romney or his speech? It’s one pundit’s opinion, who cares.

Patriot33 on December 7, 2007 at 1:54 AM

Uhh… it’s Hugh Hewitt- butt kisser exrtaordinare. Who cares? Romney could advocate the benefits of eating live babies and Hugh would declare: “Romney delivers brilliant speech to end overpopulation! Any one who disagrees just hates Mormons and isn’t credible!”

Hollowpoint on December 7, 2007 at 2:24 AM

Well…I guess that settles it! We no longer need think as conservatives! Just wait to see what Fred Barnes, Rush Limbaugh, and H.H. have to say and get in line. And we wonder why the conservative movement is in trouble these days…

sabbott on December 7, 2007 at 8:49 AM

— 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.

In my experience, when you have to say that something is an objective fact, it isn’t. If it truly was objective, it wouldn’t have any critics because it wouldn’t be subject to criticism.

James on December 7, 2007 at 9:23 AM

All this Mormon controversy is the best thing to ever happen to Romney, as it causes everyone to cast aside his very flip-floppey behavior and liberal appeasing pandering as the governor of Massachusetts.

SouthernDem on December 7, 2007 at 9:26 AM

Okay, Hugh, I’m buck naked and got the bag on my head. Grease me up and get to work, buddy. You and all your RINO/Fauxpublican cohorts.

Umm. NOT.

Mike H on December 7, 2007 at 9:51 AM

But that’s an excellent website with many things that are good to look at, as you’ve noticed.

Thank you Mr. Cogburn!

Looking at site…

is good.

saint kansas on December 7, 2007 at 10:37 AM

It’s baffling. I can understand if someone’s under the misimpression that they still practice polygamy, but if you know they don’t, then what’s the problem?

Allahpundit on December 6, 2007 at 10:23 PM

I stayed last year in Las Vegas at the Golden Nugget. BYU football/cheerleaders were staying there for the Las Vegas Bowl. I thought to my Baptist self, “Wow. It will be interesting seeing this.” To a man (and woman), every last one of them were respectful, kind, and represented the Mormon faith well (while I was down 5600 dollars…or was it chips…no…it was dollar chips). I swear to you, every last one of them was like the boy/girl next door.

Matticus Finch on December 7, 2007 at 10:37 AM

Hugh Hewitt is quickly losing credibility.

bnelson44 on December 7, 2007 at 10:44 AM

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

That is are many truths to what you say. I love listening to Hugh on a general basis. However, his pandering to Mitt Romney is just disgusting. Whatever Mitt does wrong, instead of admitting his mistakes and moving on, Hugh tries to always defuse the issue. It makes him out to be a shrew!

msipes on December 7, 2007 at 10:45 AM

It’s baffling. I can understand if someone’s under the misimpression that they still practice polygamy, but if you know they don’t, then what’s the problem?

Allahpundit on December 6, 2007 at 10:23 PM

Evangelizing (aka mission) and competition (related: Mormons calling themselves Christian).

bnelson44 on December 7, 2007 at 10:48 AM

For some due length of time now, Hugh, like a puppy in love, pees in his pants with excitement over Mitt, his hero.

BTW, I am a dog lover, and have enduring patience with puppies. However, a political speech to win public acceptance is no more than a pep rally. Mitt rouses the crowd with the same zeal as Hitler, not to say that Mitt is Hitler. All in all, Mitt is what Mitt is, and Mitt is not what he is not. That said, why flock in obeyance to worship a facade?

maverick muse on December 7, 2007 at 10:54 AM

With what I pointed out here, I am taking a fresh look at Romney’s faith. Until now, I really didn’t give it much thought. But I’m beginning to have doubts that Mitt has the smarts to be able to tell the difference between so-called “moderate Muslims” and CAIR political jihadists in America.

Connie on December 7, 2007 at 11:03 AM

The thing I find most annoying about the pundit reaction is that people think Huckabee and Fred would be able to say the same things Mitt did.

Fred? Maybe. Though probably not as eloquently or as passionaitely or as forthright.

Huck? That’s laughable. He’s parading around as some sort of “Christian Leader.” I’m Catholic, Huck certainly doesn’t lead me and I find his insistence that being a man of the Christian faith specifically qualifies him to be president to be insulting. I much prefer Mitt’s stance of “I’m an American leader who believes in God” to Huck’s “I’m a Christian leader who believes in America.”

BKennedy on December 7, 2007 at 11:13 AM

It was with some amusement that we watched Hugh Hewitt bustle around at the Texas Straw Poll in August. He made a big, obvious to-do with his mic and his cameraman – a spot-on parody of the “celebrity newsman”. There were several “Anchorman” moments that perfectly exemplified Hewitt’s self-love.

He came across as a self-important, pompous ass. What made that more funny was that nobody knew – or CARED – who he was! The only ones that gave him the time of day were the Ronulans – media hogs that they are – who were all busy competing for camera time.

Redhead Infidel on December 7, 2007 at 11:23 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3