The Hugh Hewitt Show

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

Mr. Griffin, MSNBC’s president, denies that it has an ideology. “I think ideology means we think one way, and we don’t.”

Sunday, September 7, 2008  |  posted by Hugh Hewitt


Old Irish proverb: When everybody says you’re drunk, you’d better sit down.

NBC needed to sit down a long time ago. It didn’t, and the brand built over decades has been broken beyond repair with a vast segment of the American audience. They are the network of the left, making no attempt –as Fox does with Chris Wallace. Alan Colmes, and many members of Hume’s panels– to feature voices quite obviously not of its overarching ideological beliefs. Indeed, given the comment quoted here and others made over the years, the network seems genuinely not to know how far from the center of American politics it has drifted.

Conservatives within talk radio are transparent as to their beliefs, but also quite well aware of their own biases and eager to have liberals and leftists on to discuss issues, though it is rare that top drawer liberals or leftists will engage in sustained debate on these programs. (My eight hours with E. J. Dionne was a welcome exception.) The collapse of NBC’s credibility will not be arrested by moving the name plates around. You cannot fix what you don’t know is broken.

UPDATE: Ed Driscoll notes that Phil Griffin was taking a different line last year:

Officials at MSNBC emphasize that they never set out to create a liberal version of Fox News.

“It happened naturally,” Phil Griffin, a senior vice president of NBC News who is the executive in charge of MSNBC, said Friday, referring specifically to the channel’s passion and point of view from 7 to 10 p.m.

AdvertisementAdvertise With Us

Chicago Rules: Defending Sarah Palin From The Chicago Machine

Saturday, September 6, 2008  |  posted by Hugh Hewitt

The Obama thugs that tried to intimidate Stanley Kurtz are now busy sending e-mails alleging everything about Sarah Palin except an illegal polar bear hunt, and that may be in tomorrow’s in-box. Teams of Obamians are arriving in Alaska to invent veneers for smears, even though by now the record of rebuttal is so complete that perhaps even the New York Times will hesitate before publishing another round of lies and retractions. (Then again, probably not.) Exposure as a dirt-monger doesn’t deter those without a conscience.

One thing is clear: McCain-Palin is going to need a large “compliance fund” which are the monies used to defend the campaign on a variety of legal fronts in the weeks ahead. It is still legal to contribute to this fund, and if you support a fair shake for Sarah Palin, you should.

The three posts directly below –on Team Obama’s disgraceful handling of their surplus flags from coronation night, the questions that need to be answered about Obama-Ayers, and Obama’s incoherent gun ramble from yesterday– all suggest an Obama campaign in crisis. The huge crowd at the McCain-Palin event in Colorado today will only work to increase the sense of panic on the left, which in turn will raise not only the level of nuttery in the leftosphere but also trigger more resort by Obama to the Chicago rules he has mastered. When the going gets tough, Obama has a history of doing whatever it takes to win, so watch it get even uglier next week.

UPDATE: Be sure to read Jack Kelly’s Sarah Barracuda: Palin should strike fear in the hearts of Democrats. Hard to believe Jack is a Steelers fan. I haven’t pinned down this most-disquieting of rumors about Governor Palin yet, but it is said that she, like Jack and Rush, suffer from “SDS,” Steelers Derangement Syndrome, which leaves the afflicted with sudden flashbacks of NFL highlight films from the ’70s.

See also the Los Angeles Times’ Andrew Malcolm noting that Hillary is refusing to join in the disgusting attacks on Palin. The story includes this picture:

Alaska Governor and Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin visits American troops in Iraq

Here’s an e-mail re: yesterday’s McCain-Palin rally in Colorado Springs:

Obama’s media reports: “more than 10,000 saw McCain and Palin….. but that is to be expected because it is Colorado Springs.”

The truth—

1) I haven’t seen a reliable number but

2) Cars were backed up for miles

3) The line to get in was about a mile long 3 abreast when the hanger was already full and stretched in a 20 yard semi circle outside the hanger door.

4) 12,000 flags were handed out and not more than 1 out of 3 or 1 out of 4 people received one.

5) At least 15,000 tickets were handed out per McCAin HQ and many were noted to admit 2

6) Children on 16 were not issued tickets and many children were there.

7) At the end they passed anyone through the magnatometer

8) I had a high bleacher seat and could see 3/4 of the crowd. I tried to picture them in seats in a stadium and concluded that there had to be at least 30,000 and could be as many as 50,000.

Many came from Fort Collins or Lamar 100 to 150 miles away. Many came from Denver 90 miles away. It would have been more correct to say it is to be expected because it is McCain and Palin.

If they had a bigger venue they could have issued tickets for another 50,000… They stopped issuing tickets not previously reserved mid week.

Just one more incident of a media denial.

Finally, ModerateRisk is peempting attacks on Palin smears. Examples:

1. No, Sarah Palin did not have a torrid love affair with GEN Petraeus while she was in Kuwait visiting AKNG troops….
12. No, Sarah Palin did not hunt down and kill everybody with a picture of her in a bikini from her pageant days. (Most people destroyed the negatives of their own free will after the disappearances started.)

The Flags of the DNCC

Saturday, September 6, 2008  |  posted by Hugh Hewitt

Ed Morrissey has the details. Nice work by Team Obama. Sure to inspire the country.

Democratic vice presidential nominee Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., ...

AP Photo.

Obama’s Ayers’ Gambit and The Questions It Should Raise

Saturday, September 6, 2008  |  posted by Hugh Hewitt

Yesterday I played the tape of Barack Obama telling a crowd that he was being accused of being a Muslim, and of associating with radicals. This was a weak attempt to asssociate the disreputable and unfair charge concerning Obama’s faith –never made by any responsible journalist much less the McCain campaign– with the very real concern that Obama’s friendship and close partnership on the Annenberg Challenge with unrepentant terrorist Bill Ayers. Obviously Obama is hoping to persuade the public and journalists that the story of Obama’s association with Ayers is as irresponsible as nutter claims that Obama is a Muslim. Obama has used this tactic before, and we can expect to hear it again and again.

The most important thing we know for sure about Obama’s relationship with Ayers is that Obama mischaracterized it when asked about it in a nationally televised debate. That alone should be a red flag for journalists. Here’s his response to the Stephanopoulos question about Ayers:

GS: Can you explain that relationship for the voters and explain to Democrats why it won’t be a problem?

OBAMA: George, but this is an example of what I’m talking about. This is a guy who lives in my neighborhood, who’s a professor of English in Chicago who I know and who I have not received some official endorsement from. He’s not somebody who I exchange ideas from on a regular basis.

And the notion that somehow as a consequence of me knowing somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was 8 years old, somehow reflects on me and my values doesn’t make much sense, George.

The fact is that I’m also friendly with Tom Coburn, one of the most conservative Republicans in the United States Senate, who, during his campaign, once said that it might be appropriate to apply the death penalty to those who carried out abortions.

Do I need to apologize for Mr. Coburn’s statements? Because I certainly don’t agree with those, either.

So this kind of game in which anybody who I know, regardless of how flimsy the relationship is, that somehow their ideas could be attributed to me, I think the American people are smarter than that. They’re not going to suggest somehow that that is reflective of my views, because it obviously isn’t.

Called on this by Hillary, Obama acknowledged that he served on a board with Ayers, then the subject was dropped.

Through the work of Stanley Kurtz, whom Obama’s Chicago gang has unsuccessfully tried to intimidate, we already know that Obama and Ayers served not just on the Woods Foundation together but in a close partnership on the controversial Annenberg Challenge. Kurtz is continuing his researches, but MSM –so quick to invent stories about Sarah Palin such as the New York Times’ fiction on the vetting process which launched a thousand smears– doesn’t have to wait for Kurtz’s to wrap up his researches to ask obvious questions and press for detailed answers on how closely and how often Obama worked with Ayers on Woods and Annenberg and whether or not Obama ever represented Ayers or any of Ayers’ projects as a lawyer.

When Obama yesterday in effect asserted that the charge of his association with radicals was as false as the charge that he was a Muslim, he was renewing his attempt to lay a defense he must realize he will soon need. We know this a dodge, an attempt to categorize the Ayers connection as as far-fetched as the misinformation about Obama’s faith. We know after last week that MSM is in the tank for Obama, but are there any MSMers left with any standards who will ask the obvious questions: How often did Obama meet with Ayers? Why did Ayers recruit Obama to the Annenberg Foundation? Has Obama or his firm ever represented Ayers? If so, on what matters? Was Obama unaware of Ayers’ current political views which are indeed radical? Did they never talk politics or theory?

The voters would like to know, even if the MSM arm of the Obama campaign doesn’t.

Page 1239 of 3221 1 1,236 1,237 1,238 1,239 1,240 1,241 1,242 3,221
Stop Hamas Now Advertisement
Invite Hugh to Speak
Back to Top