USpolitical.com

Hugh Hewitt at Least Was Impressed

Posted in Election 2008,Media Bias by Ryan on the November 30th, 2007

Mitt Romney’s biggest fan, Hugh Hewitt, was at least impressed by Romney’s performance. It certainly wasn’t bad and got a B- from Time for the 3rd spot in their evaluation of the debate performances. Huckabee was considered the winner by many, particularly among the media analysts. His surge is by no means hampered by the star treatment he has been getting. I can only imagine what these analysts think…”Huckabee is good because he goes after the support of evangelical voters while all the other candidates are bad because they go after the support of evangelical voters…”

I’ve been surprised though how the way things have been spun or presented the day after. I was just watching Lou Dobbs and he has Gloria Borger discussing the part of the debate when Romney and Giuliani clash about the “sanctuary mansion.” All they show is Giuliani restating his original assertion that Romney employed illegals “under his nose.” “Under your nose,” which oddly enough is a term used for things people don’t realize until after the fact, yet he infers Romney’s foreknowledge and consent. Hehe. Freudian slip? This is right after Romney had refuted it having to resort to a gradeschool question due to Giuliani’s gross misrepresentation of his “hiring” of illegals. The part where he basically takes the gloves off and says, “Ok, let me explain it to you.” He then asks if Giuliani expects homeowners to individually question the employees of contractors they hire to determine the legality of their residency in the United States.

Gloria Borger’s analysis consisted of something about Romney mentioning funny accents. If you watch the whole exchange, that is not exactly the point Romney made. Is “he mentioned funny accents” the best CNN has to offer?

Then I read this gem which is featured at RealClearPolitics.com. Here is what E.J. Dionne had to say:

Romney, who kept coming back to the dangers of runaway government outlays, insisted that farm subsidies were different because “it’s important for us to make sure that our farmers are able to stay on the farm.” Romney helpfully explained all this opportunism by ticking off the list of states besides Iowa, home of the first presidential nominating caucus, where farmers loom large. He sounded as if he were merrily counting delegate votes in his head.

Was I the only one that heard Romney clearly state the reason for his position being that we never want our food supply to be under the control of other nations, the way our oil is? I mean, I guess I’m a little befuddled as to how a 5th grader could pick out specific explanations or arguments made in candidate’s statements but professional columnists are at a loss. Or, should I clarify? They are fully capable of simply picking and choosing parts to assemble their own spin.

Ah well. I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised.

One Response to 'Hugh Hewitt at Least Was Impressed'

Subscribe to comments with RSS or TrackBack to 'Hugh Hewitt at Least Was Impressed'.

  1. […] Read the rest of this great post here […]

Leave a Reply