The Hugh Hewitt Show

Listen 24/7 Live: Mon - Fri   6 - 9 PM Eastern
Call the Show 800-520-1234

Election Night Special: Such A Show For You. Plus Predictions (Mine: Trump/Kasich/Rubio) Then Results

Tuesday, February 9, 2016  |  posted by Hugh Hewitt

Having spent yesterday snow bound in a Boston hotel, I’m eager to get to the microphone tonight and spend six hours –from 6 PM until midnight EST on air– gathering predictions and then reporting results.  I’ll be joined in my Boston studio by Sidewire’s Jon Allen, also a columnist for Roll Call, who will be running a simultaneous “Livewire” event for Sidewire (download the great App for the site if you haven’t already.) A special guest will open program at 6 PM EST, and among the line-up are a number of Washington Post reporters on the ground in NH –Robert Costa, Ed O’Keefe, Phil Rucker, Karen Tumulty– plus Politico’s Mike Allen, Shane Goldmacher, Alex Isenstadt and Annie Karni, the Washington Examiner’s Michael Barone, David Drucker and Michael Barone, and Senators Tom Cotton, Mike Lee and Jim Talent and House Financial Services Chair Jeb Hensarling, Commentary’s John Podhoertz, National Review’s Eliana Johnson and the Weekly Standard’s Fred Barnes and Bill Kristol.

And of course Guy Benson, Mary Katharine Ham, and Ed Morrissey of Salem Media Group will call in as their reporting and posting schedules at and allow.

The best political coverage remains on the radio.  Join us via this site, my mobile App, on the Hughniverse or live on all the network stations carrying the regular broadcast and the network special.

One note: It was announced yesterday that beginning 4/4 I will move my broadcast to 6-9 AM EST as Dr. Bennett goes all Brit Hume on us.  He’ll be a frequent guest with me and all the other Salem Media Group shows, doing segments within my show as well as a weekend program and so the best of both worlds, except for the early-rising challenged.  Looking forward to driving America to work every day –and the news cycle as well on occasion.


Cam Newton and Character Formation

Tuesday, February 9, 2016  |  posted by John Schroeder

Much has already been made of Cam Newton’s petulant, childish, churlish, classless and unsportsmanlike conduct in the wake of the Denver Broncos Super Bowl victory and his Carolina Panthers loss.  It stands in sharper focus than the usual such behavior from professional athletes because of the contrast to Peyton Manning.  Given that word “usual” in the last sentence this is a story that will likely soon fade, if it has not already.  But that word “usual” actually greatly broadens the discussion and makes these actions, and others like it, more grievous than they appear on the surface.

For someone like Cam Newton to reach the pinnacle of success that he has, and yet still retain in his character that kind of behavior means that throughout his entire life people, from parents to coaches to teachers, valued his athletic prowess to the expense of the formation of his character.  The same can be said for people like Michael Jordan or Tiger Woods.

This cannot be a question of great success in an endeavor demanding a certain single-mindedness because there stands Peyton Manning.  I am sure Manning is not perfect, but he has figured out how to be one of the greatest quarterbacks in football history without being a childish jerk.  In this age Manning does seem the exception rather than the rule, and that is the real problem.  That means that more athletes than not go through entire careers without having anyone worry about their character.

When I was a young man, sports were all about character.  Schools invested in them because they helped form character in a way that classrooms never could.  All that seems to have fallen by the wayside.  Apparently scholastic sports are now just another job training path, and no one worries about character formation at all. Continue Reading

Diversity Perversity

Sunday, February 7, 2016  |  posted by John Schroeder

Most of us, when we think of the word “perverse,” think of sexuality.  But it is really much broader than that.  Merriam-Webster gives the simple definition:

wrong or different in a way that others feel is strange or offensive

I say that fits this story from the University of Oregon about some construction in the student union:

Since 1986, the University of Oregon has housed a quote by Martin Luther King Jr. in the lobby of the Erb Memorial Union. “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. I have a dream…” […]

Laurie Woodward, the Director of the Student Union said that when she approached the union with the question of if they wanted to keep the current MLK quote or supplement a new one, one of the students asked, “Does the MLK quote represent us today?”

Sophomore architecture student Mia Ashley — who wasn’t on the board — understands this reasoning.

“Diversity is so much more than race. Obviously race still plays a big role. But there are people who identify differently in gender and all sorts of things like that,” Ashley said.

So, because King used a single descriptor instead of some sort of laundry list one of the greatest bits of oration in the English language is deemed inadequate?  The idea that underlies the quote is not enough…Or is this really a rejection of the underlying idea because, of course, who wants to be judged on their character?  That’s one of the problems about messing with language – it is pretty hard to do that without messing with ideas as well. Continue Reading

Left and Right Religious Narratives

Friday, February 5, 2016  |  posted by John Schroeder

Double standards in the press are not surprising.  Most of us are well aware of how they cover religious conservatives.  We’re always battling to find just the right person.  That narrative is based in fact.  We do debate endlessly about exactly what we want in our candidates.  And, of course, as the left-leaning press presents it we have these debates with a certain air of oppressive superiority.

Well now the left has their very own religious narrative.  Bernie Sanders is rising and he is…wait for it...Jewish.  So now, as in 2008, we have the battling “oppressed” minorities.  In 2008 it was women and African-Americans.  In 2016 it’s women and the Jews.  How in the world former first ladies and senators and Secretaries of State can be cast as oppressed is beyond me, but I am not of the left.  Bernie is a very particular kind of Jew as Hillary is a very particular kind of woman, but they can’t let that get in the way of a good narrative.

There is all sorts of commentary one could make about this juxtaposition of religious coverage as it relates to the election cycle.  I do find it fascinating that Christians debate and work hard to gain office while the left treats it like some sort of award, but that is not really the point I want to make in this piece.  The point I want to make is that the difference in coverage is so stark and so obvious that we should be able to overcome it.  If the election is swayed by these narratives, and not in our favor, then it is our own cotton-picking fault. Continue Reading

Page 1 of 35171 2 3 4 3,517
Advertise With UsAdvertisement
Sierra Pacific Mortgage Advertisement
Back to Top