"Hewitt stormed off the set during the online show 'First Look' with Jonathan Capehart and Ruth Marcus, who claimed former President Donald Trump was 'laying the groundwork'” to contest Tuesday’s election if he lost. After being cut off by Capehart, an MSNBC host, and then accused by him of spouting misinformation, Hewitt ripped out his earpiece and said: 'I’m done. This is the most unfair election ad I’ve ever been a part of.' Hewitt, who hosts a nationally syndicated radio show, then quit the paper, which has been roiled by owner Jeff Bezos’ decision to kill an endorsement for Vice President Kamala Harris."
The NY Post reports (with video of Hewitt up and leaving).
November 2, 2024
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
85 comments:
Hewitt is too nice.
Those two lying democrat hacks need to be told to eat shit.
My son and I, (Me and my son, for you uneducated hillbillies out there) watched it - it was grand.
Hugh Hewitt to join Harvard's Institute of Politics — Hewitt suggests 2000 mules to be made into core curriculum.
contesting lying leftist cheaters is "A threat to Democracy!"
I suspect, as noted previously at this blog, both candidates are laying the groundwork to contest the election results that don't go their way. It has become the norm since at least 2000 when Al Gore contested Florida for months. Only the left makes it out to be sinister if Republicans dare to contest.
I saw that interview and saw Hewitt jumping up, pulling out his earpiece, and stalking off the set. I sympathize with his view but it immediately struck me that he was being rather histrionic. The Lefty host was annoying, of course, but his action followed very little significant provocation.
Took him long enough. Hugh will make more money on SubStack.
"Feuding"?
That was lame as shit. Hewitt should be embarrassed. Instead of speaking his piece and eloquently refuting and humiliating the libtard Party members, he acted like a scorned sissy who'd just been misgendered. And he's been a talk show host for decades! This is how it's done, Hugh: https://www.facebook.com/MaryGraceMediaUSA/videos/this-is-gonna-leave-a-mark/8538722029550897/
Agreed. Hewitt did no favors to the normies, and gave the libtards ammo with that pointless hissy-fit.
I'm glad Hewitt has a shred of self-respect and walked off , but he's always been a fake and a RINO. I'll never forget (or forgive) him calling Pete "Im a fucking moderate" Wilson a "racist" for supporting Prop 187. Or trashing Buchanan in 92 for bringing up Trade policy and neo-con wars. Or trashing Trump in 2016, and calling on Trump to drop out in October 2016, to "Save the Senate".
Hewitt's always been a "House conservative". The Corporate neo-con who goes on MTP or writes for the MSM because he's so "Gosh darn reasonable". And never disagrees on any issue the liberal/globalist establishment truly cares about. He's an intelligent Mitt Romney.
As for Ruth Marcus, she hides her leftwing intolerance behind a mask of "Niceness". I can remember when she and Mona Charon (who I liked at the time) appeared on CSPAN together. They were old friends and had grown up together. Marcus the liberal, Charon was (supposedly) the conservative. But their friendship had remained strong. Both talked about how pleased they were that their old HS had been "all white" back in the day (boo!), and now was diverse with people from all over the world and whites were a minority.
I saw that clip. That Capehart is one smarmy little poseur.
and thats why everyone is talking about her.
Wait, what?
I listened to HH years ago in SoCal, but I came to realize that not only was he a talking head for the GOPe/uniparty, every political/judicial prediction he made on his show was wrong. I quit listening to him even though he's one of the best book author interviewers in the business.
Leftists demand Soviet-like obedience to the lies and bullcrap.
Hewitt is a Reagan-type conservative, but he wasn't a Never Trumper. Marcus was laying the groundwork for how Trump was going to make baseless (without evidence) claims of fraud or election rigging. That's what set Hewitt off because there were two real examples of how the Dems had tried to manipulate the election (Virginia and Bucks County). Instead of discussing those facts/truths, Capehart accused Hewitt of misinformation "all the time". in other words, Hewitt was speaking the truth and Capehart said well, yeah, but you are a liar. Hewitt has been putting up with that crap for a long time and I applaud him for doing it so publicly.
Capehart has a bad case of Smug Personality Disorder.
Yes, that's how I saw it.
Lefty host directly accused him of being a serial liar.
The best part of that video is when Ruth Marcus uses "Umpty-Ump" as a unit of measurement.
I don't get why that quote upsets you so much, since that is exactly what you want to do with outgunned Ukrainians every day. BTW, Ukrainians are outgunned because our MIC focusses on expensive weapons systems that may or may not work, like the ATACMS, which had a heyday of about 6 weeks before the Russians successfully countered them, while socialist countries like China and Russia crank out low profit items like artillery shells without regard to profit.
So maybe that comment hits a little close to home for you. Maybe you should head over to Ukraine and grab a rifle, the way you have been urging unwilling Ukrainians to do now for three years.
No he didn't. The host said, after Hewitt insulted him (righteously or not - it doesn't matter), "I don't appreciate being lectured about reporting when many times you come here saying lots of things that aren't fact."
Saying that what someone is saying to you (repeatedly even) is not factual is pretty standard argumentative technique and is a far cry from calling someone a "liar."
"Lefty host directly accused him of being a serial liar."
That's infuriating, but he should have said "prove it."
That's the strangest usage of "far cry" I have ever seen. I have never seen it used to mean "effectively the same thing."
Bad link.
I'm of two minds about this. On the one hand, Hewitt is generally mild-mannered, so there may have been more to this than meets the eye. On the other hand, it's the WP for crying out loud, so he understood the nature of the game he was participating in. Walking out is the opposite of "Fight! Fight! Fight!".
"Hewitt is a Reagan-type conservative, but he wasn't a Never Trumper."
Bullshit. Go google it. he was a never-trumper until the summer of 2016, at one point he wanted the RNC to change the Convention rules so Trump couldn't be nominated. He then switched and "Supported" Trump but then back on that in October 2016, demanding Trump drop and give the election to Hillary because of "Oh dear, heavens to betsy, Pussygate".
I get so tired of "moderate republicans" Neo-cons, and "Life long Republicans" always playing these word games. Hewitt didn't support Reagan in 80 or 76, he was a Ford/Bush guy. He's always been a Corporate republican and neo-con in foreign policy.
Good for you, Hugh!
Talking about Fake "Reagan Republicans". David Gergen was constantly referred to on PBS as a "Reagan Republican" because he'd worked for Jim Baker in the white house. that is, until he went to work for Bill Clinton! LOL.
"Saying that what someone is saying to you (repeatedly even) is not factual is pretty standard argumentative technique and is a far cry from calling someone a "liar.""
What the hell? It's exactly like calling someone a liar.
What an astonishingly moronic comment by Ice Nice. Both Capehart and Ruth Marcus were slying referencing efforts in Bucks County PA and VA, without providing ANY details or context, as examples of Trump attempting to undermine election integrity narratives. So Hewitt jumped in, quite properly, to inform these "journalists" that they had a responsibility to not mischaracterize, by ommission, the actual facts that have been established in both those cases.
And what are those actual facts? That Trump and his campaign had every right to complain about what was being done by the New Soviet Democraticals AND that in both cases, the RNC lawsuit in Bucks County PA and the Youngkin lawsuit in VA were both heard in court and the republicans WON their case....facts the hack "journalists" Capehart and Marcus couldn't be bothered sharing in their little Harris ad they were running in the guise of a "news show".
But then again, if Trump says it or its said by someone who is pointing out that Trump is correct in what he is saying, the squishes will always find a way to minimize the actions of the lefty hack "journalists".
Which we see in this very thread, don't we?
I'd never seen nor heard of him before but yeah, what a prick.
Hugh has been in full Andy McCarthy Mode for about 9 years now and I suppose, given his willingness to continue appearing in all these lefty politicized venues hemming and hawing for all that time Capehart and Marcus just assumed they could push their typical BS with Hugh playing the "gee willickers guys, that's just not cricket!" weak "conservative"/GOPe-er role until even Hugh was able to muster up just enough gumption to finally say enough and not play along any longer.
its a corrupt bargain,
I dubbed gergen audio sominex, don't operate heavy machinery
Hewitt would have been better off simply saying Capehart and Marcus were lying sacks of dogshit the first time his mike was turned back on.
Can’t wait for the Washington Post to go out of business.
Yeah. That was weird. One of those incidents that made you wonder if the world you were told about on the news was actually the one that existed. But then again, times were different. Reagan used to have drinks with Tip O'Neil, because in those days, Democrats and Republicans didn't hate each other.
WaPo needs to review the arguments acknowledged in court and those dismissed for lack of standing. WaPo is arguing, without evidence, that there was no cause to challenge election integrity. It's not like it happened 10, 20 give or take a decade years ago without forensic and eyewitness evidence.
This is my assumption, too- it wasn't just this time but an accumulation of things the paper and drones have done to him at various times this cycle.
Former Rep. Liz Cheney is calling on former President George W. Bush to endorse Vice President Kamala Harris. “I can’t explain why George W. Bush hasn’t spoken out but I think it’s time, and I wish that he would,
Maybe because Harris's people are knocking on his door every day to beg him not to endorse Harris, which he wants to do in the worst way.
It's pretty much a given that the Dems see anyone not voting as they'd like as evil.
You're standing in the way of a perfect world. Therefore, you're stupid, evil, various versions of 'ists' practicing various types of 'isms', and for them the concept of giving you the benefit of the doubt and thinking you're a good (or even 'okay') person gets thrown right out the window. You're standing in the way of what they want, and they're justified in their anger. Their tolerance is entirely dependent on giving them what they want, believing what they say, and never disagreeing. They are right, you are wrong, and there's no possibility of compromise there.
Hewitt disagreed, so he's shoving misinformation. Doesn't matter whether it's true or not - whether something is true or false has no relevance when it comes to that label.
I'm glad I never learned who any of these assholes are. I think less of anyone who references a media 'personality' these days as if they're Walter Cronkite or Eric Sevareid. With the liberation of media there are so many outlets that a name in the byline shouldn't equate to fame...
...many in the commentariat here deserve more recognition than these hacks...
Bezos's acknowledgement of the toxic climate st WaPo lay the groundwork for audible exiting.
Narrative is all, comrade. Reality doesn't make narrative, media makes narrative. Bad people question narrative.
/sarc, kinda. That seems to be the way the media does things. Decide the narrative, find 'facts' to support it.
This just proves that the libtard media doesn't actually believe in the finalness of a court decision like they demand Trump supporters must follow.
That's what I was thinking, too.
If words hurt his feelings that much he really belongs in another line of work.
The Scorpion and Turtle story every day.
Its WHO they ARE.
Off topic, but I was hoping the professor would post about the Peanut the Squirrel story.
*this* alert.
Relatedly, the viral meme insisting "The Yankees can still win the World Series if the scoreboard operator has the courage to act."
“This is the most unfair election ad I’ve ever been a part of.”
“Most” implies Hugh Hewitt has been part of more than a few unfair election ads. Why didn’t he walk off those? Presumably because they were for his side. Or did Hugh just not like being owned by Jonathan Capehart.
Huffy little bitch is never a good look. As you’d say to a toddler, “Use your words, Hugh.”
It’s my impression that there is more to this story and the reaction has been building between them for some time.
It wasn't hurt feelings at all. The other two hacks were insufferable liars, and they refused to acknowledge basic truths in real time.
Granted - Hewitt is no JDVance or Vivek.
Those 2 know how to handle the corrupt lying democrat hacks. We need more bravery in media.
The Cheney endorsements damaged Harris enough. W’s endorsement would be the coup de grace
gives ChimpyBushHitler chance to atone for fake wars by endorsing Trump
will he take it?
Fair enough: If Hugh lacks the chops to confront insufferable lying hacks in real time he really belongs in another line of work.
Fair enough.
If Jeff Bezos was serious * about adding conservative opinion writers to the staff of the Post then he’s off to a bad start.
_________________
* As to whether Bezos really was serious, I am and shall continue to be skeptical.
If it were me and we were in the same room, he'd be picking his teeth up from the floor. He called him a liar, no matter what kind of language you use. That's the problem with people today. These lib retards need to have their face punched a few times.
Disgusting behavior by government officials who should all be fired.
That would be my guess, too. I suspect HH has been cut off repeatedly when trying to make substantive statements while the two lefties are allowed to pontificate ad nauseum.
That would be my guess, too. I suspect HH has been cut off repeatedly when trying to make substantive statements while the two lefties are allowed to pontificate ad nauseum.
Hey, rich
Here’s my totes innocent hand gesture, just for you, sweetie!
....................../エッ/)
....................,/ッ../
.................../..../
............./エッ/'...'/エッッ`キク
........../'/.../..../......./ィッ\
........('(...エ...エ.... ッ~/'...')
.........\.................'...../
..........''...\.......... _.ď˝·ď˝´
............\..............(
..............\.............\
If he was serious he would be swinging the metaphorical axe wildly and indiscriminately…
why not? 2000 Mules shows how your corrupt leftists cheat. Did you happen to see it?
Yep. He was also a bit of a 'go-along to get-along' type I think, trying to keep his access so he could still speak out in forums like this one. Looks like he just got fed up and reacted. That's how it goes, sometimes - not always to the most optimal effect. But I can see why he got fed up. I don't blame him.
I don't know of a single conservative radio host that's listenable. Early Rush was good, back before he became a moral authority and was more of a prankster.
Hewlett called it a campaign ad for Harris as he walked off. I have been in a similar situation and walked out of meeting leaving a burn (that also got me five days off from HR). His exit was professional and principled.
I would go so far as to say that force and violence are all that liberals understand. They cannot use logic, and dismiss it out of hand. They scoff at verifiable facts. If you told them 2 + 2 = 4 they’d tell you they were raised in a middle class family and Fonald Trump is literally Hitler.
rehajm,
Walter Cronkite wasn't really Walter Cronkite, either, you know.
Most likely Hewitt was speaking figuratively and seriously, not literally. What he said was the natural and effective way of delivering the line, rather than something weak like "This is a political ad, and I don't want to be part of it."
"Owning" is juvenile -- and did Capehart's snide and smug line really "own" Hewitt. It sounded more like Capehart was defensive and thrown off his stride.
At 7pm central time that link goes to a story about van Jones.
The conservatives keep making themselves available for these biased shows.- they'll soon find another to take Hugh's place.
To fill the specific ideological niche left by Hugh Hewitt, The Washington Post must give a weekly column to either Eric or Don, Jr. Possibly a DEI hire --Kimberly Guilfoyle.
‘2000 Mules’ but No Evidence
True the Vote stiff-arms law enforcement as it faces a defamation case. ~ WSJ
‘2,000 Mules’ Producer Apologizes to Man Depicted Committing Election Fraud
Salem Media Group, which co-produced the 2022 film, issued the apology to a Georgia man who was falsely depicted as stuffing a ballot box near Atlanta. ~ NYT
Publisher of ‘2,000 Mules’ election conspiracy theory film issues apology ~ NPR
/The conservative media company behind the book and film “2,000 Mules,” which alleged a widespread conspiracy by Democrats to steal the 2020 election and was embraced by former President Donald Trump, has issued an apology and said it would halt distribution of the film and remove both the film and book from its platforms./
Cry me a river....
I finally watched the show on Youtube. I'm pretty plugged into Political media, and I like podcasts but I'd never heard of this show before. And after watching it, I can see why.
First, who but a leftist/liberal would watch a WaPo liberal/left stream/podcast? Hewitt was only on there, because he was the "reasonable conservative" that's been a liberal/left punching bag for 30 years.
Second, the show was terrible. They have a dumb, supercillious host, and typical WaPo leftist, and Ruth Marcus. Another Typical WaPo liberal/leftist. Y'know the typical 2-1 "balance" you always see on the MSM.
Third, I was shocked at the reaction of the host to Hewitt's point. The dumbshit acted like Hewitt was insulting him as a "Reporter". Maybe, he just couldn't grasp Hewitt's point. Marcus then was also smirky and supercillious with no desire to respond. Just a figurative eyeroll.
Anyway, hewitt will get some publicity out of it
Butkus51
"and thats why everyone is talking about her.
Wait, what?"
Well, yeah, that kind of makes my point. Democrat Party media is not showing the country their mouthpiece getting truth-slapped by a strong, female Trump surrogate. Democrat Party media is showing the country the Republican Trump surrogate dork who melted down like a little bitch because some libtards were mean to him. It is not the win you think it is.
Agree completely. Listened to Hewitt daily about 20 years ago. He'd often have Democrat Party "journalists" like Jonathan Haidt and Matt Taibbi on his show, and that made for good conversations. But he's no Michael Savage.
Michael, I say this as someone who thoroughly enjoys a Michael Savage show, but one Michael Savage is probably enough.
As always, the dishonest, America Hating Leftists source their quotes from Democrat media operations that had a part in the steal in 2020. The reason the film isn't being distributed is because one guy who was stuffing ballot boxes was successfully defended by the same Democrat media operations, convincing the corrupt judges that he wasn't in fact doing what he was caught on film doing.
The REST OF THE FILM is clearly correct and true, and 2020 was illegitimate.
Post a Comment