"Conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt resigned from the Washington Post after feuding Friday with two of the newspaper’s liberal columnists during a live talk show..."

"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).

Josh Hawley "is positioning himself, and therefore his movement — his far-right, White-guy movement — as, 'If you’re a man, then you believe in these things.'"

Said Jason Kander," an Afghanistan War veteran who in 2018 stepped away from rising success in the Democratic Party to tend to his mental health," quoted "Josh Hawley’s problem with masculinity" (WaPo).

The column is by Jonathan Capehart, who continues:

When is it okay to liken human beings to nonhuman animals? I'm seeing "like a cheetah running down an impala on the Serengeti."

It's a column in The Washington Post by Jonathan Capehart, who appears to be a black man, and I'm pretty sure that a white columnist would refrain from animal metaphors and similes when speaking about a black person. But Capehart writes:

Two polls out of South Carolina show that Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R) is the impala to the cheetah that is Democratic challenger Jaime Harrison.

Graham is white, and Harrison is black. Harrison is within 2 percentage points of Graham in the new poll, and Harrison has raised much more money than Graham. But there's nothing else in the story that justifies portraying Graham as a prey animal on a plain in Africa and his challenger as a wild predator. I think if a white columnist called a black politician a "cheetah" there would be hell to pay.

I'm trying to figure out if Chester Cheetah was black. The answer is complicated, but see if  you can tell:



Wikipedia explains (boldface added):

WaPo's Jonathan Capehart says Gingrich made an "unbelievably disgusting" "blanket condemnation of 'really poor children, in really poor neighborhoods.'"

But what did Newt say?

"Really poor children, in really poor neighborhoods have no habits of working and have nobody around them who works so they have no habit of showing up on Monday...

"They have no habit of staying all day, they have no habit of I do this and you give me cash unless it is illegal"....

Now, obviously, it's Newt's style to provoke people like Capehart, and, indeed, Capehart's denouncement of Newt in the pages of WaPo leverages Newt's message for him. Capehart lambastes Gingrich for his wealth and for his disrespect toward "the overwhelming majority of those children and their families who live their lives with far more integrity and far less cash than Gingrich ever will." Capehart is doing what he is hired to do, and he gets some cash for that.

Both Gingrich and Capehart probably care to some extent about poor children. It's impossible to say how much. There's nothing about Capehart's liberal orientation that guarantees that he's more caring, though it's liberal style to pose as if you are. It's conservative style to offer love in "tough love" form, and that's what we get from Gingrich.

Liberal style, Capehart stirs up emotion: What a bad, greedy man Gingrich is! He condemns and disrespects children! Conservative style, Gingrich risks that we'll think he's mean as he invites us to think beyond those initial reflexive emotions.

Capehart declines the invitation.