Support




Contact
Powered by
Movable Type

Hugh Hewitt v. Allah Pundit

It started with this pronouncement of Hewitt's:


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.

...which led to a day of snarking by Allah about who and who cannot be trusted as an analyst.

Hewitt seems to respond to the carping with a post essentially saying... well, I won't characterize his remarks.

As I think the main point to be made is the more insistent and strident one is about a point, the more resistant others are to agree, I'll just be silent and hope others can use that space usefully to re-evaluate precisely what they're saying and how they're saying it.

Posted by: Ace at 10:12 PM



Comments

1 Ha. Way to take a stand, dude.

Posted by: Allah at December 06, 2007 10:15 PM (0jAyR)

2 the more insistent and strident one is about a point, the more resistant others are to agree

Don't I know it...

Posted by: Harry Reid at December 06, 2007 10:17 PM (wWoFq)

3 Ha.  Hewitt sounds like the dem idiot who spewed that you had to believe fat Teddy Kennedy was the conscience of the party if you wanted to be a good democrat.

Posted by: funky chicken at December 06, 2007 10:19 PM (I+jPP)

4 I didn't hear the speech, but a Huckabee-leaning relative switched to Romney today, so it must have been something.

Posted by: albi at December 06, 2007 10:22 PM (SD/MW)

5 Hewitt's just being goofy.

Posted by: sinistar at December 06, 2007 10:24 PM (XjLbb)

6 Mark Steyn said the same thing Hewitt did. Is he also challenging Steyn's trustworthniess? And why should anyone trust a guy who finds Hitchens getting his ass cracked waxed fascinating? Yech.

Posted by: aoshq janitorial & escort service at December 06, 2007 10:26 PM (5W7JJ)

7 Mark Steyn said the same thing Hewitt did. Is he also challenging Steyn's trustworthniess?

Steyn liked the speech, but he didn't denigrate anyone who disagreed with him.  Hewitt's problem is that he regards anyone who didn't find the speech MAGNIFICENT unworthy of punditry.  That's just a ridiculous stance.

Posted by: Slublog at December 06, 2007 10:31 PM (o0mFY)

8 Hmm...

Me vs. MKH...

Allah vs Hewitt...

C'mon Ace....find a Townhall blogger and go after 'em. I suggest Medved.

Posted by: Jack M. at December 06, 2007 10:39 PM (Rt2uy)

9 I'll take AP in the third.

Posted by: steveegg the inveterate gambler at December 06, 2007 10:39 PM (LvEFt)

10

Is he also challenging Steyn's trustworthniess?

Wow janitor you got your facts all a mixed up lately.

Allah isn't the one questioning anyone's credibility. Hugh is. Allah's point is, with Hugh's broad gross general overstatements, he seems to have just accidentally written former Reagan education secretary and radio host Bill Bennet out of the conservative movement and respectable pundit class.

I know Hugh doesn't mean Bill Bennet is not a trustworthy source of opinion. That's the point.  'It is objectively impossible to disagree' that Hewitt is using some outrageous hyperbole to describe Romney's speech.

Posted by: Entropy at December 06, 2007 10:41 PM (HgAV0)

11

Remember, Jack.  In the fifth, your ass goes down.

Posted by: Marcellus Wallace at December 06, 2007 10:43 PM (LvEFt)

12 He also doesn't seem to know the deifnition of 'objective,' but I don't want to pile on...

Posted by: MlR at December 06, 2007 10:47 PM (A+BGL)

13

Nah, it's ironical.

It really is impossible to objectively argue against him on this.

It's also really impossible to objectively argue in favor of him on this.

It's truthy. It's got buzz. I like it. Let's get an ad copy.

Posted by: Entropy at December 06, 2007 10:52 PM (HgAV0)

14 Seriously, I was just thrilled someone finally said it loud and proud.  I stopped reading Hewitt months ago after tiring of Rah-Rah Romney.  Even Katherine Jean Lopez isn't quite as bad.  (Although she's bad.) 

Posted by: Lana at December 06, 2007 11:04 PM (Nf4XK)

15 Can someone remind Hugh Hewitt that he's talking about Mitt Romney and not Harriet Miers?

Posted by: Jimmie at December 06, 2007 11:07 PM (Zq0R+)

16 Did any of you posting comments listen to Romney's speech?  Hugh is simply saying that if you don't think Mitt hit the ball out of the park you weren't paying attention.  He did indeed hit the ball out of the park and petty comments pertaining to Hugh's remark that if you don't agree, you aren't a worthy analyst are beside the point.  The speech was one of the best I have ever heard and will likely boost Romney's standings in the polls.  I have not been a Romney supporter to this point, but having heard him speak, I believe the man is a worthy successor to Reagan. Let's close ranks and support someone who expresses views about faith and the founding fathers that other candidates have failed to espouse. Allah - chill dude.  This was not a personal attack on you by Hewitt. It was a broad statement meant to point out the importance of Mitt's speech, not an indictment of those who may not agree with him.

Posted by: jack at December 06, 2007 11:07 PM (vKj/N)

17

Thank god. I wasn't looking forward to another year of campaigns and bullshit. Now that Romney has given his "I believe in Jesus, but I really, REALLY believe in America" speech we can just blow everything off and swear him in when W. Bush leaves.

Posted by: mike at December 06, 2007 11:07 PM (/InkS)

18 The page at Hot Air is the most disturbing page i have read in years. More anti-Mormon bigotry in one page than one could find on Daily Kos. I am not a Mormon but i do respect their works. I don't judge people on theology, only on their actions. The venom i read in the comments was palpable.

When i try and talk to my Democrat friends about looking at the GOP, they always say that Republicans are intolerant. Now i know what they are talking about. When did we forget about Reagan's 11th Commandant?? Is it possible to like another candidate without trashing the opponent? If we expend all our vitriol against each other, what are going to have left for the Big Fight?? All you people are doing is giving ammunition to the Dems that they will certainly use in the general election. Keep this crap up and even I will give up on the GOP.

Posted by: Mike A at December 06, 2007 11:09 PM (DJ+vL)

19 WTF?

Also, Ace, this:

I'll just be silent and hope others can use that space usefully to re-evaluate precisely what they're saying and how they're saying it.

is like passive-aggressive on steroids. My mother would approve.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at December 06, 2007 11:10 PM (1Ug6U)

20 Can we just swear him in now?

Posted by: MlR at December 06, 2007 11:10 PM (A+BGL)

21

Romney is an asshole....i wont vote for him in the primaries...hes the republican John Kerry...flip flopper from Mass...havent we seen the way that story ends???

Being assiocated w/ that cult doesnt help, Hell they didnt even allow blacks to join until 78...and the Garden of Eden is in Missouri???? im as tolerant as the next guy but thats just downright bizarre...

Having said all that if i HAVE to vote for him in the general i will...The Mitt definately doesnt fit.

Posted by: saudihater at December 06, 2007 11:10 PM (lFKep)

22

Did any of you posting comments listen to Romney's speech?  Hugh is simply saying that if you don't think Mitt hit the ball out of the park you weren't paying attention. 

I happen to agree with Hugh, not Allah, that Romney hit it out of the damn park.

He did indeed hit the ball out of the park and petty comments pertaining to Hugh's remark that if you don't agree, you aren't a worthy analyst are beside the point. 

No sir, actually they are the point. This is the topic at hand. Romney's performance is now actually beside the point.

Posted by: Entropy at December 06, 2007 11:12 PM (HgAV0)

23 Also, Ace, this:

I'll just be silent and hope others can use that space usefully to re-evaluate precisely what they're saying and how they're saying it.

is like passive-aggressive on steroids. My mother would approve.


Careful, Gabe. You wouldn't like me if I got actively aggressive.

Posted by: Dr. Bruce "Ace" Banner. at December 06, 2007 11:12 PM (Rt2uy)

24 I give Romney's speech a solid B+!!!!

Posted by: slackmac at December 06, 2007 11:13 PM (3bFaP)

25

No sir, actually they are the point. This is the topic at hand. Romney's performance is now actually beside the point.

Exactly. Hewitt took this to new levels of absurdity with his "I am objectively right about an entirely subjective topic."



Posted by: Gabriel Malor at December 06, 2007 11:19 PM (1Ug6U)

26 I'll just be silent and hope others can use that space usefully to re-evaluate precisely what they're saying and how they're saying it.

In other words, I'll let the morons do the dirty work for me.

You are a New Yorker, already!

Posted by: cheshirecat at December 06, 2007 11:24 PM (5jPUJ)

27 Steyn liked the speech, but he didn't denigrate anyone who disagreed with him.

Denigrate? Poor AP feels, sniff, denigrated??!!  You ARE  drunk and you  really better sit down.

Wow janitor you got your facts all a mixed up lately.

Righ back 'atcha, moron

Allah isn't the one questioning anyone's credibility.

Let me quote Ace:  ...which led to a day of snarking by Allah about who and who cannot be trusted as an analyst.

It's amazing that this is one time you guys don't have your nose deep in Ace's ass. But then again, it's too far up AP's.

p.s.:  Ace also accuses AP of "carping."

Posted by: aoshq janitorial & escort service at December 06, 2007 11:25 PM (5W7JJ)

28

AlPun is right, Hugh has let confirmation bias cloud his thinking.  The speech wasn't bad, but it wasn't great, and objectively great?  Nyuh.

Anyway, the larger problem is that speech or speech the MSM/DNC will utterly destroy Romney for his Mormonism; by summer 2008 he will be a joke, the "magic underwear guy." It's not fair, but it's a fact.  If you don't think so, remember all the incredibly nasty things they've said about Bush, and now pretend he's a Mormon too.

But then, of course, I'm for Rudy, and anyone who isn't is objectively wrong.

Posted by: TallDave at December 06, 2007 11:26 PM (r1Ip+)

29

Rabble robble rabble robble rabble robble!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ok, i didn't hear the speech, but I still wanted to contribute

Posted by: Warden at December 06, 2007 11:29 PM (jk97N)

30 Denigrate? Poor AP feels, sniff, denigrated??!!  You ARE  drunk and you  really better sit down.

Righto.  I'll just drink until I can show the same level of sycophantish behavior as Hewitt.  Sure, it might take me awhile, but it's worth the sacrifice.

Posted by: Slublog at December 06, 2007 11:29 PM (o0mFY)

31 The page at Hot Air is the most disturbing page i have read in years. More anti-Mormon bigotry in one page than one could find on Daily Kos. I am not a Mormon but i do respect their works. I don't judge people on theology, only on their actions. The venom i read in the comments was palpable.

I have identical views on Mormonism and HA.  AP should really stick to hard hitting news analysis like Hitchen's hairy balls.

Posted by: aoshq janitorial & escort service at December 06, 2007 11:30 PM (5W7JJ)

32 Janitor, Hewitt declared first that anyone who denies the magnificence of Romney's speech is not to be trusted as an analyst. Allah spent the day snarking about that.

And he's right. I hope that Hewitt was trying to be funny by claiming that the speech is objectively wonderful. But I kinda doubt that is the case.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at December 06, 2007 11:30 PM (1Ug6U)

33 Righto.  I'll just drink until I can show the same level of sycophantish behavior as Hewitt.  Sure, it might take me awhile, but it's worth the sacrifice.

Describing AP as "denigrated" is pretty damn "sychophantish" behavior.  You really are drinking, aren't you?

Posted by: aoshq janitorial & escort service at December 06, 2007 11:32 PM (5W7JJ)

34

Talldave, did you say magic underpants?

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxoxR1T4vUc

 

It's  anticlimatic. The best part is the reverend talking about his debating tactics imo.

Posted by: mike at December 06, 2007 11:33 PM (/InkS)

35 I happen to agree with Hugh, not Allah, that Romney hit it out of the damn park.

Both Hugh and Allah think that the speech was well-done. Here's where the disagreement is: Hugh thinks that those who don't think so aren't worth paying attention to not just on this subject but about anything else.  Or at least that is the type of hyperbole that he is using.

Posted by: baldilocks at December 06, 2007 11:34 PM (8M/ly)

36  
Oh, butch up, Malor!

Posted by: aoshq janitorial & escort service at December 06, 2007 11:34 PM (5W7JJ)

37 Describing AP as "denigrated" is pretty damn "sychophantish" behavior.  You really are drinking, aren't you?

It would be wrong to be on this site without doing so, but I'm going against the grain.  No cheap vodka for me.  I'm enjoying a nice glass of red wine.

Actually, in using the word "denigrated," I wasn't speaking specifically of AP, but of anyone who disagreed with Hewitt's fanboy-ish review of Romney's speech.  I personally thought the speech was outstanding, but still think Hewitt is overdoing it with his praise.

But please, continue making assumptions.  It's amusing, with the added benefit of making you look like a moron.

Posted by: Slublog at December 06, 2007 11:37 PM (o0mFY)

38 Hugh thinks that those who don't think so aren't worth paying attention to not just on this subject but about anything else.

Well, that's the status quo, isn't it?

Posted by: aoshq janitorial & escort service at December 06, 2007 11:37 PM (5W7JJ)

39 Mitt Romney threw a long ball today and scored. There can be no objective argument against that conclusion. 

Boy, I haven't heard anyone that certain of something since the global warming worshipers declared the science 'settled'.

Geeze, is Mitt Romney as pro-Romney as Hewitt is?

Posted by: Drew at December 06, 2007 11:39 PM (hlYel)

40
Actually, in using the word "denigrated," I wasn't speaking specifically of AP, but of anyone who disagreed with Hewitt's fanboy-ish review of Romney's speech.

Don't back pedal.

But please, continue making assumptions.  It's amusing, with the added benefit of making you look like a moron.

That's what I would expect a back pedaling drunk to say.

Posted by: aoshq janitorial & escort service at December 06, 2007 11:40 PM (5W7JJ)

41

The speech was one of the best I have ever heard

Now you maybe hoping on the Hyperbole Express. Come now. It is not THAT good.

You must not listen to many speeches. Never heard a passionate reading of Libery or Death, or the Gettysburg Address? Never watch old clips of Reagan? Listen to recordings of Churchill addressing the British Parliament after the evacuation of Dunkirk, or Roosevelt or Patton?

Best you've ever heard? Nah. Not that good.

But if you listen to Hewitt, he does indeed seem to paint it as though he just heard Churchill on St. Crispin's Day, and someone at NRO said.

Posted by: Entropy at December 06, 2007 11:42 PM (HgAV0)

42 Slublog...."fanboy."  That is EXACTLY the right word for the tone of Hewitt's speech review and a good majority of what he writes about Romney.

Posted by: Lana at December 06, 2007 11:43 PM (Nf4XK)

43

If we expend all our vitriol against each other, what are going to have left for the Big Fight??

Sir, you underestimate the depth of my vitriol.

It is bottomless.

Posted by: Entropy at December 06, 2007 11:44 PM (HgAV0)

44 ..which led to a day of snarking by Allah about who and who cannot be trusted as an analyst.

Hewitt seems to respond to the carping with a post essentially saying... well, I won't characterize his remarks.

Snarking by Allah . . .
Who cannot be trusted . . .
carping . . .

What? No one what's to challenge Ace???



Posted by: aoshq janitorial & escort service at December 06, 2007 11:46 PM (5W7JJ)

45 Posted by: aoshq janitorial & escort service at December 06, 2007 11:40 PM (5W7JJ)

Hm.  Spoken like a true intellectual.  Well done, sir.

I guess you've outed me.  I'm completely in love with Allahpundit.  We've got a little sumptin'-sumptin' on the side.

But keep it on the down low.  Ace doesn't know.

Posted by: Slublog at December 06, 2007 11:46 PM (o0mFY)

46 Forgot the part where Ace rolls up a newspaper and smacks AP on the nose:

I'll just be silent and hope others can use that space usefully to re-evaluate precisely what they're saying and how they're saying it.



Posted by: aoshq janitorial & escort service at December 06, 2007 11:48 PM (5W7JJ)

47 I must say thaqt I have enjoyed the various "reparte".  I have read several of the commentators blogs, or columns, or postings, or whatever you call it. I respect hearing your voices, especially you Gabriel. and JackM; F.U. Ace ;-) and Allah, and Hugh and Michelle, etc.  I trully appreate reading what you have to say, and what you choose to post, about what is simply happening all around us.  regards, eric

Posted by: metsfan4004 at December 06, 2007 11:50 PM (zu9gK)

48 We've got a little sumptin'-sumptin' on the side.

Then you better schedule your Brazilian wax quick!

Posted by: aoshq janitorial & escort service at December 06, 2007 11:51 PM (5W7JJ)

49

Hugh: "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."

Seriously, you don't just have to like the speech, love the speech, you have to be AS ENTHUSIASTIC AS HUGH about the speech to retain your trustworthiness...

I mean, Mormonism a cult?  Do. Not. Go. There.

Hugh's Romneyism? 

Oh, he's gone there.  Set up camp.  Eating honey and locusts.

Posted by: hit and run at December 06, 2007 11:53 PM (umXXT)

50 The speech was good, but my PB&J was even better.  In fact, it was the best sandwich anyone has ever made ever.  And yeah, 10:30 in the morning is the best ever time to eat a sandwich ever.  Disagree and die.

Posted by: Joanie at December 06, 2007 11:54 PM (32L4Y)

51

Joanie, that's a great perspective.  My wife is out of town.  No One To Bring Me A Sammich.

I can't fault Mitt for that.

I'm just a (self-proclaimed yet utterly wannabe in the bowels of a blog comments) pundit who "had a bad morning".

Dammit.  Hugh was right.

 

Posted by: hit and run at December 06, 2007 11:57 PM (umXXT)

52 Maybe Joanie needs to make Hewitt a sammich.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at December 06, 2007 11:58 PM (1Ug6U)

53 I didn't watch the speech, and after reading Hewitt, I'm not sure I want to.  The thing sounds like a shotgun full of blowjobs exploding in my pants, and I'm just not in the mood to clean that up right now.

Posted by: Sobek at December 06, 2007 11:59 PM (dmsUZ)

54

All I'm sayings is this.

Next time csdeven (or anyone else including Ace) comes along bitching about fanatic 'fredheads' acting like Paulbots, I'm throwing this page in their face.

someone sometimes goes a bit overboard with his accusations against anyone who does not prostrate before the Fred.

aoshq janitorial sevices is 3 microns from signing up for the mormon Jihad. (and he's not even mormon....and they don't even have a jihad!)

Posted by: Entropy at December 06, 2007 11:59 PM (HgAV0)

55

"Joanie, that's a great perspective." 

Guess what? You get to live.  And you also get a sammich.

Posted by: Joanie at December 06, 2007 11:59 PM (32L4Y)

56

Geeze, is Mitt Romney as pro-Romney as Hewitt is?

I wasn't.  Until now.  Never thought I'd have to lurch to the right on the subject of Mitt Romney.  But here I am.

Old Romney: voted for Paul Tsongas

New Romney: ninja-kicked Tsongas in the tonsils and then went out and aggressively not-voted for him

I hope Hewitt doesn't go over the top on this hand, because any more pro-Romney bombast from me is going to look strained.

Posted by: Mittimus Romneus at December 07, 2007 12:06 AM (kico6)

57

Hey!

We're UP WITH PEOPLE, the group with the most SuperBowl Halftime performances!

Google it!!

and thanks to Hugh Hewitt, we're making a comeback.

We're Magnficent ... Objectively So.

 

Posted by: Up With People at December 07, 2007 12:12 AM (UeP9e)

58

Listen, "Hewitt".

Turn that W upside down and whaddya get?

He Mitt

Oh God, I gotta stop drinking.  And on an empty, sammichless stomach, no less.

Posted by: hit and run at December 07, 2007 12:16 AM (umXXT)

59

I have heard only clips of Romney's speech, so I really have nothing to say about it. However, if you wanna hear a speech what is a speech, then listen to this from Ronald Reagan from 1964. It is simply amazing, and sounds like it could've been made yesterday.                                                                      Miller Center of Public Affairs - Ronald Reagan Speeches

 

Posted by: FishFearMe at December 07, 2007 12:27 AM (XWJh5)

60

Yeah, A Time for Choosing in support of Goldwater is probably my all time favorite Reagan speech.

But the all time bestest speech ever still goes Patrick Henry.

http://libertyonline.hypermall.com/henry-liberty.html

Can't even read it without getting chills.

Posted by: Entropy at December 07, 2007 12:33 AM (HgAV0)

61 Don't fuck with me, Entropy. Somebody ate the last piece of pumpkin pie! I repeat: Do. Not. Fuck.With. Me.

Posted by: aoshq janitorial & escort service at December 07, 2007 12:33 AM (5W7JJ)

62 Entropy...thanks for the link. I, too, got chills reading those words.

Posted by: FishFearMe at December 07, 2007 12:41 AM (XWJh5)

63 Hugh Hewitt took the last piece of pumpkin pie...and gave it to Mitt Romney. 

Posted by: Lana at December 07, 2007 12:42 AM (Nf4XK)

64 Rush was pretty fond of the speech too, and standing on its own just as a speech it might be great. Doesn't say anything good or bad about Romney himself, but its one thing to analyze the speech on its own merits and another to analyze it based on who gave it and how valid the words are coming from that person.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at December 07, 2007 12:54 AM (hfyfI)

65

Joanie: Guess what? You get to live.  And you also get a sammich.

I bow before your goodness.  I've had saltines and cheddar cheese to this point tonight.

And lots of Miller High Life.

How many?

My socks are still on, so I can't tell you.

Posted by: hit and run at December 07, 2007 12:54 AM (umXXT)

66 Posted by: FishFearMe at December 07, 2007 12:27 AM (XWJh5)

I actually sent that to Ace yesterday, different link though, when everyone was fighting. Thought maybe it could remind us where we came from.

Posted by: MlR at December 07, 2007 12:55 AM (mX6h5)

67 No need for you guys to argue. I'll be sending out my talking points on the subject tomorrow, and you can just mindlessly parrot those.

Posted by: Dan Bartlett at December 07, 2007 12:57 AM (z6drm)

68

While Hugh Hewitt bloviates all the time, it was still a great speech.

I like how Mitt took the argument from a JFK-like reaffirmation that his personal faith would not prevent him from representing all Americans, to an attack on the Michael Newdowesque Left.

Just because Hugh would suck Mitt's dick, probably through Mitt's magic underwear, doesn't mean that Mitt's speech wasn't a great speech.

 

Posted by: Nick Byram at December 07, 2007 12:58 AM (TYBRi)

69 The speech was great. The delivery wasn't all that much of a much.

Romney just didn't sell it like he could and <i>should</i> have. I mean, the entire purpose of this speech was to stir Republicans into ignoring his detractors and vote for him. It should have been a barnburner, but it wasn't. It was just not that good.

And as good as I thought the actual speech was, most of it could have been delivered just as well by any other Republican candidate and a couple or three of the Democrats. There was nothing in it, save a long mention of the word "Mormon" that made it particularly Romney's. Yeah, it waved all the right flags and hit all the right buttons and quoted all the right people, but...well...was anyone expecting otherwise?

Romney, for a day, had the undivided attention of a least half the country's voters and he hit a nice, solid double off the wall. He should have knocked it out of the park. A double isn't bad, but it's not what he needed.

Posted by: Jimmie at December 07, 2007 01:11 AM (Zq0R+)

70 Allah is an analyst?


More like analyst.

Posted by: Z Ryan at December 07, 2007 01:20 AM (PDeVA)

71 The effects of Mitt's speech will do the one thing it was supposed to do. Polarize the bigots from the decent folks. Just like the WBC has gotten louder, the bigots will get louder. And the louder they get, the more people will pay attention. And the more they pay attention, the more disgust will be leveled at them. Consequently, the ranks of the bigots will be silenced by people of their own faith.

Mitt's speech was the right speech, at the right time, by the right person. Not everyone could pull it off. Fred would have put us to sleep, AND his groupies would be trumpeting it to the high heavens. Rudy couldn't pull it off. Huck is the one relying on the bigotry, so he would hardly be credible.

Posted by: csdeven at December 07, 2007 01:35 AM (M5cP1)

72

Oh, and I checked the link for Reagan's speech, it just has audio and transcript. You can find a lot of places with the video.

Like here.

When the government tells you you're depressed, lie down. And be depressed.

We have so many people who can't see a fat man standing beside a thin one without coming to the conclusion that the fat man got that way by taking advantage of the thin one.

So they're going to solve all the problems of human misery, through government and government planning.

Well now if government planning and welfare have the answer - and they've had almost 30 years of it - shouldn't we expect government to read the score to us once in a while? Shouldn't they be telling us about the decline each year in the number of people needing help? The reduction in the need for public housing?

But the reverse is true, each year the need grows greater, the program grows greater. We were told 4 years ago that 17 million people went to bed hungry each night.

Well that was probably true. They were all on a diet.

But now we're told that 9.3 million families in this country are poverty stricken on the basis of earning less then 3,000 dollars a year. Welfare spending is 10 times greater then it was during the dark depths of the Great Depression.  We're spending 45 billion dollars on welfare. Now do a little arithmetic and you'll find that if we divided the 45 billion dollars up equally among those 9 million poor families, we'd be able to give each family 4,600 dollars a year. And this added to their present income should eliminate poverty.

Direct aid to the poor however is only running about 600 dollars per family.

It would seem that someplace there must be some overhead.

Posted by: Entropy at December 07, 2007 01:35 AM (HgAV0)

73 AP is OK. He is always fair and balanced in his views. Except when he gets a humpbot bug up his butt. He goes nutzy! I'm surprised that he didn't post up the Japanese violin playing robot. I guess his carping kept him busy today?

Posted by: csdeven at December 07, 2007 01:37 AM (M5cP1)

74

simply magnificent

When did Hugh Hewitt turn into James Lipton?

 

Posted by: Penn State Marine at December 07, 2007 01:46 AM (UK1DK)

75 Nobody has said it, so I guess I'll lay my ass on the line here and say this ...

It disgusts me as both an American and a person of faith (albeit private) that a man is forced to defend his faith in God - whichever version you believe in. I find it distressing and unseemly.

To date, I have not seen anyone go after Obama and ask him to explain his "I was a Muslim but now I'm not" faith, nor has Senator Lieberman, to my knowledge.

Okay - I said it. Give it your best shot, but you won't change my mind. Be aware, though, that I am not in Romney's corner. That spot is reserved for Fred.

<CLANG!> There's the bell - the fighters come out of their corners and approach!

Posted by: Bruce at December 07, 2007 01:48 AM (2q+Ss)

76 I mostly like Hewitt, but there's something about him ... he reminds me of a Methodist minister. Or Robert Schuler. A little scary.

As for Hitchen's hairy balls and getting his crack waxed ... what the hell are you guys talking about?! What did I miss?

Posted by: Steve (the artist formerly known as Ed Snate) at December 07, 2007 01:50 AM (B8Q2p)

77 Tom Bevan:

http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/2007/12/hughs_review.html

A favorable review of Romney's speech by Hugh Hewitt was certainly to be expected, but the opening of his post is so over the top it gives sycophantism a bad name

Two words, Hugh: Shit sandwich

Posted by: John from WuzzaDem at December 07, 2007 01:52 AM (Pt3Le)

78 Hugh Hewitt = =  Smug Rush Wanna Be

Posted by: Liberrocky at December 07, 2007 02:12 AM (HR16A)

79 He's STILL defending Miers.

B+, motherfucker.  That's how you'll be remembered.

Posted by: someone at December 07, 2007 02:26 AM (2z2WN)

80 I will say that Romney moved into my #2 slot (out of the frontrunners right now), termporarily or not.

Posted by: MlR at December 07, 2007 02:30 AM (mX6h5)

81 Wuzzadem, you found it!  Yay!

Posted by: See-Dubya at December 07, 2007 02:41 AM (T8DAQ)

82 Anyone remember a blogger named "Allah" before Michelle Malkin took his nuts and renamed him the less offensive "Allahpundit"?

Yeah, me neither.

"Allahpundit" is the McCain of rightwing bloggers, he reserves all of his biting venom for people on our side of the aisle.

Posted by: pinballwizard at December 07, 2007 02:49 AM (3K56+)

83

The effects of Mitt's speech will do the one thing it was supposed to do. Polarize the bigots from the decent folks. Just like the WBC has gotten louder, the bigots will get louder. And the louder they get, the more people will pay attention. And the more they pay attention, the more disgust will be leveled at them. Consequently, the ranks of the bigots will be silenced by people of their own faith.

Really? Huh. Well, I'll be damned. So, anyone who thinks that Mormons are a deranged cult that believes that some yahoo name Joseph Smith had revelations from God, and believes numerous other wacky things like the Second Coming in Missouri or whatever the fuck it is, and was racist, and has an angel named Moroni, and on and on, and who has reservations about electing someone who's a member of that cult is a bigot? And everyone else is just "decent folks?" I did not know that.

Posted by: CraigC at December 07, 2007 03:15 AM (xc+/D)

84 As for Hitchen's hairy balls and getting his crack waxed ... what the hell are you guys talking about?! What did I miss?

Worse than you can imagine -- there's pictures, too. It's over on HA.

Posted by: aoshq janitorial & escort service at December 07, 2007 03:24 AM (5W7JJ)

85 pinballwizard: Anyone remember a blogger named "Allah" before Michelle Malkin took his nuts and renamed him the less offensive "Allahpundit"?

Yeah, me neither.

So what sort of traumatic brain injury did you suffer that caused you to forget some of the best blogging of all time?   "Allahpundit" is the McCain of rightwing bloggers, he reserves all of his biting venom for people on our side of the aisle. Crap like this is why Allah is so important. He keeps you cheer-leading douche bags honest.  

 

Posted by: Liberrocky at December 07, 2007 03:54 AM (HR16A)

86 This is like watching local community theater divas get in a catfight.  In other words... totally awesome.

I like AllahPundit quite a bit, and I agree with him on this, as on most things.  But I'm not sure why he cares so much about Hugh Hewitt's comments.  Allahpundit seriously needs a Roomba in his life, if you ask me.

Posted by: sandy burger at December 07, 2007 04:36 AM (/aoF4)

87 Maybe B+ can argue with Jay Cost, who notes a rather huge hole in Mitt's approach:

"But surely he must expect those voters to be wary of the systematic changes that a 60 year old man has undergone, to want to know more about this man and what he believes, and to frame those questions in terms of religious beliefs. Is it unreasonable for those whom he is openly courting (on their terms) to inquire a bit about the origins of his policy preferences, to want some insight into his inner being, to see whether he will remain faithful to his promises once in office? Romney seems to think so. Not only did yesterday's speech provide no positive answer -- but, because it once again leaned so heavily on the non-sequitur of religious toleration, it placed the questioners on the same ash heap upon which have been placed the narrow-minded boors who drove Roger Williams to Rhode Island and Brigham Young to Utah."

Posted by: someone at December 07, 2007 04:55 AM (2z2WN)

88 Anyone who reads Hot Air knows that Allah can't stand Romney. The bigotry and snide remarks are really really bad over there. Allah is acting like a baby. Hewitt wasn't attacking him, he was praising the speech. I agree with HH that the speech is one of the best I've heard for a very long time and I think that anyone who doesn't think it was a good speech is tone deaf. You don't have to agree to still be able to appreciate a good speech. I cannot stand Susan Sarandon's politics, but "Thelma and Louise" is still one of my favorite movies and I feel the same way about that moonbat husband of hers, Tim Robbins, but "Shawshank Redemption" is at the top of my favorite movie list.

Posted by: Sara at December 07, 2007 06:18 AM (QWlxD)

89

The candidates are shaping up:

Hillary - hard line communist

Edwards - hardline socialist

Obama - radial communist

Guliani - Democrat

Romney - conservative democrat

Huckabee - liberal democrat

McCain - liberal democrat

WTF is going on?  The closest we have to a Republican is Fred Thompson, and he is polling at 0 % +/- statistical error.

Posted by: dustydog at December 07, 2007 07:01 AM (aqV/Y)

90 I think Romney would govern as a split the difference centrist. But the speech was magnificent.

Posted by: ricpic at December 07, 2007 09:37 AM (dvyRd)

91 Some people get their jollies from being a contrarian and the worst of them are the one's with thin skin when discussing interparty issues.  Allah, Malkin and Bill INDC are on the top of that heap.  I read them not for their analytical skills but for objective information and facts they provide in their frequent outrages.  

Posted by: polynikes at December 07, 2007 10:14 AM (m2CN7)

92

Anyone who reads Hot Air knows that Allah can't stand Romney. The bigotry and snide remarks are really really bad over there. Allah is acting like a baby.

What are you talking about?  Allah snarks on all of the GOP candidates roughly equally.  And he was praising the damn speech that Romney gave before he decided to take on Hewitt's objective douchbaggery.  Again, real slow and with small words this time: Allah is taking on Hewitt's fanboy cheerleading, not Romney's speech.  Got that?

Seriously.  We're all entitled to our own opinions, but you are not entitled to your own set of facts, Sara.

And I agree with someone on Hewitt: he exposed himself as a total in-the-tank hack with his commentary in the wake of the Miers nomination.  Mr. B+, indeed.  Its almost as if he's just decided to run with this hack image and really embrace it with his cheerleading for Romney.  His radio and blog personna is real smug and arrogant too.  Like he'd make a real nice apparatchik, or something.

Posted by: Fred at December 07, 2007 11:21 AM (ivbbD)

93

Allahpundit:


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”?

Point 1: Hitchens is not a conservative. He is, in fact, a liberal atheist who probably finds my views about baptism as cultish as I find Romney's views about sacred underpants. I imagine that Richard Dawkins and Maureen Dowd might not have liked the speech either. I believe Hugh's remarks were intended to be reserved for conservative nay-sayers and primarily for religious conservative nay-sayers.

Point 2: The link to Bill Bennett's 'disagreement' is the same one I keep seeing everywhere. Byron York reports hearing BB make one critical comment about the speech (basically, that it didn't go into Mitt's Mormonism enough, nor as much as it promised to). I have more than one criticism of the speech, but it doesn't stop me from thinking that it's the best one I've heard in this campaign season. What, really, is BB's actual opinion of the speech as a whole?

Point 3: Frum's criticism amounts to this: Romney said what he thinks about Jesus, so he's now opened the door to every question about his faith. This is preposterous. If this were a representative example of Frum's commentary, he really wouldn't be worth listening to. He must have (as Hugh suggests) been having a bad day.

Point 4: J-Pod's criticism amounts to this: Romney just calls attention to the fact that he is a Mormon. Note to JP: Huckabee's well-wishers had already called attention to the fact that Mitt is a Mormon (as had many Mitt supporters like HH). The speech was given to adress that and to allay fears about Mitt's Mormonism. Please see my prior comment about Frum.

Now, if you have the view that it's simply impossible for a political speech to be objectively good. Fine, and you're welcome to the view. I'll let you work out on your own how we can truthfully say that the Gettysburg address is better than any speech ever given by, say, Gerald Ford.

For those that do think that speeches can be objectively good, I'll propose the same argument as Hugh did: A huge majority and the best respected conservative pundits have praised it, and those few that have criticized it have committed such boners that the conclusion I draw is that they were having a bad day.

This is not mathematical 'proof' that the speech was objectively good. But it's better than any reason I've seen to suggest that it wasn't.

Posted by: WisdomLover at December 07, 2007 11:40 AM (YGMaD)

94

Dude.  Dude. 

Its not so much that people don't think it was a good speech, even "objectively" a good speech. 

Its the idea that if you don't agree with Hewitt on this subject, your opinion on other things is suspect as well.

That's off-putting and weird, but sadly, it feels real familiar coming from Hewitt.

Posted by: Fred at December 07, 2007 11:47 AM (ivbbD)

95 Bah.....

All the current hyperbole can be tolerated.

Just fully support whoever is running against hitlery/osama after the R primary.

Posted by: Kristopher at December 07, 2007 11:51 AM (jcvPd)

96 A whole lot of arguing about who makes the best arguments on this site lately.  Instead of you guys just reading each others blogs and gossiping about that maybe you should be commenting on the news or making snarky comments about lefty bloggers. 

Posted by: snarky commenter at December 07, 2007 11:57 AM (Sg8sX)

97

Point 4: J-Pod's criticism amounts to this: Romney just calls attention to the fact that he is a Mormon. Note to JP: Huckabee's well-wishers had already called attention to the fact that Mitt is a Mormon (as had many Mitt supporters like HH). The speech was given to adress that and to allay fears about Mitt's Mormonism. Please see my prior comment about Frum.

Exactly. Don't run and hide from the Mormon issue; face it head-on and show it's not a big deal. "Hang a lantern onto your problem", and reveal that it's really a small problem.

Hugh Hewitt may be insufferably smug and a fawning butt-kisser, but he's still right about this one.

 

Posted by: Nick Byram at December 07, 2007 12:19 PM (ujg0T)

98 <a href="http://docweasel.wordpress.com/2007/12/07/almost-every-rightblog-is-missing-the-point-of-why-hugh-hewitt-is-full-of-shit/">Almost every right blogger is missing why Hewitt is really full of shit about Romney.</a>

Posted by: docweasel at December 07, 2007 12:29 PM (ACIZZ)

99

Yes, yes, doc.  We get it.  You're a raging, drooling bigot against Mormons.  Thanks for reminding us -- again -- of your pathological hatred for millions of people based on your anecdotal experiences with a horrid, disavowed subsect of an entire religion.

We really couldn't do this thread without you.

Posted by: VJay at December 07, 2007 12:49 PM (gQ+XA)

100

"As for Hitchen's hairy balls and getting his crack waxed ... what the hell are you guys talking about?! What did I miss?"

The worst thing that's happened since Bush endorsed the FMA.  O the humanity!

Posted by: Andrew Milkilohds at December 07, 2007 12:54 PM (kFwRi)

101 Fred, Fred

Whenever anyone makes a claim that something is objectively true, they're more-or-less daring anybody to disagree with them. And that is off-putting. Maybe even weird. Doesn't make it wrong though.

Now, you seem willing to admit that the speech might be objectively good. To which I say good for you. But now consider this consequence:

If
the Romney speech is objectively good and you have an individual who denies that it's a good speech, that does go against his credibility as an analyst. It's just as if a movie critic wrote about how crappy Gladiator is. That would count against future reviews that that critic makes. Wouldn't it?

Now, I'm not ready to make the Romney speech an up or down litmus test on the credibility of an analyst. But Rush's creds go up and Frum's down based on their reactions. Don't they?

Posted by: WisdomLover at December 07, 2007 02:09 PM (YGMaD)

102 Fred: My own facts? What are you talking about. It is you who missed the point, I would say. HH has been a Romney supporter from the git go, as have I. We were all sitting on pins and needles wanting the speech to not just go well, but really well. When Romney lived up to our expectations, there was/is great satisfaction and HH showed it with some exuberance. Maybe as a commentator, you and Allah thought it went overboard, but so what? If Fred Thompson finally decided to do something that lived up to the anointing that most of his followers have weighted him down with, I'm sure Allah and others would feel vindicated and excited too.

The point is, any quick read of any HA post dealing with Romney will reveal the backass swipes and the snide comments, sometimes cruel, often misinformed, that are made on that site about Romney and about Mormons. It is offensive. What is the difference if it is done directly or through the backdoor as in taking a swipe at Hewitt's enthusiasm? It is still blatant bigotry.

I have and have had many good friends in my lifetime who are Catholic and I don't hold that against them, even if I think some of the present and past practices of the Catholic church are just plain weird and in some case, in direct contravention of God's commands. I still recognize that my friends are people of sincere faith and that they get comfort in their chosen religion. I don't call up the inquisition as a reason not to recognize that we wouldn't have some of the world's greatest art if it weren't for the Catholic church, among other things. And I wouldn't go around insulting priests and nuns. The LDS church is the 4th largest church in America with millions of members. And the large majority of people who know or who have worked closely with Mormons know they are good solid people, usually of high education, high moral and ethical standards, and all around good folks.

I thought the speech was terrific, I like Mitt Romney very much and I support him because I think he has what it takes to lead this nation, especially with the looming economic crisis due to the mortgage industry breakdown. He is smart, very well-educated, looks good, sounds good, and he has proven experience. To me, being a Mormon is a plus because I know he got a solid grounding through his church and my experience with my own children attending the LDS church is that LDS are doing a whole lot more things right than wrong.

Posted by: Sara at December 07, 2007 04:11 PM (QWlxD)

Posted by: ²È½Ð¾¯½÷ at January 30, 2009 10:38 AM (hXNNS)

Posted by: google排名 at August 18, 2009 04:30 AM (ZaHj6)

Posted by: linksfromlondon at October 01, 2009 10:01 PM (SgUdh)

Posted by: dfsasfsaf at October 18, 2009 09:53 AM (GQ3Y4)

Posted by: hair straighteners at October 24, 2009 11:43 AM (9oMrs)

Posted by: NBA SHOES at October 24, 2009 06:14 PM (/6617)

Posted by: nike air max at October 26, 2009 01:27 PM (n7GXH)

Posted by: discount ugg boots at October 30, 2009 04:37 AM (mBGLP)

Posted by: ugg boots at October 30, 2009 07:10 AM (3iF2y)

Posted by: shoesshoe at November 03, 2009 09:50 PM (LHCCE)

Posted by: replica watches at November 17, 2009 04:04 AM (xpuiO)

Posted by: replica watches at November 17, 2009 08:03 AM (xpuiO)

Posted by: replica watches at November 17, 2009 09:46 PM (xpuiO)

Posted by: replica watches at November 18, 2009 05:31 AM (C/zDM)

117 UGG BOOTS

Posted by: UGG BOOTS at November 21, 2009 01:16 PM (eVWSP)

118 The proper function of man is to live, but not to exist.ugg classic cardyConquer fear of death and you are put into possession of your life. ugg classic tallThere is a time to speak and a time to be silent. ugg knightsbridgefree shippingmbt cheap
mbt sale
mbt uk
mbt shoes cheap
buy mbt shoes
shoes mbt sale

Posted by: mbtshoesbuy at November 25, 2009 12:15 AM (fd1jz)

119 As you consider the many famous brand names mbt shoes, don't just consider the price tag. Consider the health of your feet , as they are your main guide to life and will likely endure more physical trauma on a daily basis than any other part of your body. mbt shoes-Your best choice .

Posted by: meruu at November 25, 2009 04:35 AM (1aNEH)

Posted by: replica watches at December 04, 2009 09:27 AM (bsW/x)

121 I will have a hard time buying ugg classic cardy at normal brick and mortar store for now on knowing that I can browse the largest selection I have ever seen and purchase confidently. Thanks for being a great company.Although your ugg boots cardy website is entered by users, the site has a lot of accurate and useful information on it.your net shop is kept to a minimum and favours websites connected to the ugg cardy boots Web Design Library in appearance and subject.
The popular blue ugg is renowned for its comfort. But some doctors worry that the popular black ugg could cause serious foot pain in the long run.So some podiatrists across the country are telling ugg classic cardy lovers to watch their steps. In fact,there is nothing wrong!
The crochet boots online retailer also knows bargain-hungry shoppers are scouring the Web for discounts, and its UGG Classic Crochet rivals are more than happy to provide them. So it is putting coupon codes on ugg classic crochet that customers can use to save money on its site.

Posted by: makol UGG at December 05, 2009 07:11 AM (cmMdO)

Posted by: wholesale jewelry at December 07, 2009 10:17 AM (zpa51)

123 The womens mbtchallenges the hard to reach
muscles in your legs, but also works the abdominal, back, buttock, and thigh muscles.
With every stride, the instability activates the whole body in concert and tones as it
stimulates different areas.mbt
footwear
have a curved pivot sole that copies walking on soft moss. The sole of
href=http://www.mbtshoesbuy.com/products_new.html>new mbt
turns even, flat ground
into uneven terrain. The mbt anti shoes challenges the muscles to work harder with
every step you take. The unique curved sole works by providing instability and makes
the muscles of your body more engaged and also helps burn more calories.
The mbt shoes walking shoes have been
highlighted for its ability to cushion your feet while challenging your muscles.
Clinical studies suggest that regular use improves balance, posture and circulation.
mbt lami shoes re-establish
the natural conditions for standing and walking.You will get more results out of your
workouts ? MBT shoes have technology in the sole design that make your working more
efficient and burn more calories. With every step, the instability activates your
muscles and the whole body is stimulated as your walk more and more.Free Shipping
1Week on Select Styles Of discount
mbt
Walking Shoes Reviews !

Posted by: mbtshoesbuy at December 09, 2009 02:42 PM (B0M1x)

Posted by: Lacoste shoes at December 15, 2009 06:32 PM (5o+JZ)

Posted by: replica watches at December 19, 2009 05:19 AM (wd3Wb)

126 i just want to say,the article you write is great,today is my first visit here,and i'll come again to read your new blog.in our website,we sell all kind of nike air max,like nike air max 360 shoes and so on,the womens air max is so popular that you can view them and purchase.(air max)
http://www.my-nikeshoes.com/

Posted by: womens air max at December 22, 2009 05:55 PM (xnxK1)

Posted by: cheap Air Max at December 25, 2009 09:49 AM (ZgK+c)

Posted by: steven11 at January 10, 2010 09:37 PM (XqCec)

Posted by: nike air max at January 20, 2010 02:59 PM (CZv6h)

Posted by: air max shoes at January 28, 2010 03:36 AM (JOSIc)

131 jchst replica watches jagohy replica watches,wxnatw louis vuitton qiq replica watches,oqzuc replica rolex emzlhe replica watches,kklsnx watches replica egdm replica watches replica watches,fcdezip louis vuitton eztnit replica watches,dxvup replica watches louis vuitton,nvzs louis vuitton,grcyfl watches uoukcj louis vuitton replica lafy watches gjruhs,louis vuitton,vishmwj louis vuitton lsiurb louis vuitton,rpsjfbp replica louis vuitton lafawe,louis vuitton,izbth louis vuitton zlwi replica watches rkpyeg.

Posted by: replica watches at February 09, 2010 12:25 PM (UTLu5)






Processing 0.09, elapsed 0.0937 seconds.
15 queries taking 0.0185 seconds, 140 records returned.
Page size 130 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.7 alpha.

MuNuvians
MeeNuvians
Polls! Polls! Polls!
Frequently Asked Questions
The (Almost) Complete Paul Anka Integrity Kick
Top Top Tens
Greatest Hitjobs

The Ace of Spades HQ Sex-for-Money Skankathon
A D&D Guide to the Democratic Candidates
Margaret Cho: Just Not Funny
More Margaret Cho Abuse
Margaret Cho: Still Not Funny
Iraqi Prisoner Claims He Was Raped... By Woman
Wonkette Announces "Morning Zoo" Format
John Kerry's "Plan" Causes Surrender of Moqtada al-Sadr's Militia
World Muslim Leaders Apologize for Nick Berg's Beheading
Michael Moore Goes on Lunchtime Manhattan Death-Spree
Milestone: Oliver Willis Posts 400th "Fake News Article" Referencing Britney Spears
Liberal Economists Rue a "New Decade of Greed"
Artificial Insouciance: Maureen Dowd's Word Processor Revolts Against Her Numbing Imbecility
Intelligence Officials Eye Blogs for Tips
They Done Found Us Out, Cletus: Intrepid Internet Detective Figures Out Our Master Plan
Shock: Josh Marshall Almost Mentions Sarin Discovery in Iraq
Leather-Clad Biker Freaks Terrorize Australian Town
When Clinton Was President, Torture Was Cool
What Wonkette Means When She Explains What Tina Brown Means
Wonkette's Stand-Up Act
Wankette HQ Gay-Rumors Du Jour
Here's What's Bugging Me: Goose and Slider
My Own Micah Wright Style Confession of Dishonesty
Outraged "Conservatives" React to the FMA
An On-Line Impression of Dennis Miller Having Sex with a Kodiak Bear
The Story the Rightwing Media Refuses to Report!
Our Lunch with David "Glengarry Glen Ross" Mamet
The House of Love: Paul Krugman
A Michael Moore Mystery (TM)
The Dowd-O-Matic!
Liberal Consistency and Other Myths
Kepler's Laws of Liberal Media Bias
John Kerry-- The Splunge! Candidate
"Divisive" Politics & "Attacks on Patriotism" (very long)
The Donkey ("The Raven" parody)
News/Chat