Ordinarily mild-mannered Hugh Hewitt quits the WaPo on air
I don’t know how any conservative can stand to work for an organization like the WaPo and listen to their slanted coverage. But Hewitt couldn’t take it any more, a bit like Howard Beale in Network.
Here’s the video. Capehart’s incredibly off-putting attempt to convey the pretense not only that nothing much had occurred but that he didn’t have to answer Hewitt’s accusations is unintentionally revealing of how deeply biased and truly obnoxious he is. Ruth Marcus, another long-time shill for the left, was – to her temporary credit – at least more flummoxed by the whole thing. I’m not sure if she was also subject to a simultaneous technical problem, but the timing of it makes me think it was not an accident:
Hewitt actually quit the paper rather than just walking out of the interview:
“I have in fact quit the Post but I was only writing a column for them every six weeks or so,” Hewitt later told Fox News Digital.
I wonder what Bezos will say, or whether he’ll address it at all.
“Journalism” ceased to be journalism long ago, which is one of the main reasons we face the possibility that the execrable duo of Harris/Walz could well be elected next Tuesday.
[ADDENDUM: Found at Ace’s, this sarcastic comment:
Not knowing details of election fraud and just insisting that there was none at all is the way to go.
Well, okay, there was some, but it didn’t affect any outcomes.
How do I know it didn’t affect any outcomes? Because that’s impossible. People commit fraud in elections in order to have no effect on the outcome. It’s really more of a hobby.
Yes, that’s the way it’s spun by 98% of the press and every Democrat. As I’ve said so many times, once the voting rules are relaxed it becomes impossible to prove fraud and to prove it affected the outcome, except in a very few extremely local elections with only maybe a hundred votes or less cast, total, and minuscule vote differences between candidates. Other than that, it would be nearly impossible to prove and in any event courts are reluctant to hear the evidence in a timely fashion and to apply a remedy.
And what would a court-ordered remedy be, anyway? It can’t be to automatically award the win to the other candidate. It could be a do-over, but in a federal election that’s not going to happen. A fine wouldn’t matter, because the fraudsters often would consider it well-worth it to pay the price if the election is for national office. Criminal convictions? Maybe, but the proof would have to be ironclad and as I’ve already said, it’s very hard to prove.
No, it must be an ounce of prevention, because there really is no cure. Trust in elections is earned, not automatic. The stakes are way too high, the temptation too great, and the opportunities too available.
Words fail to describe my contempt for that smug little fellow Capehart.
Thumos. Achillean, we might even say. That’s what Hewitt displayed there as he rose from his seat. A human characteristic he generally never displays.
A GREAT FURY — arose from ‘mild-mannered Hugh Hewitt’ — taking out the other guest whilst also bringing an end to that horrendous show.
Nerves are certainly on edge. Have never seen the Front Look show – and that capehart doesn’t even need description…
neo, please give a warning on such videos in future…GEEZ!?
Hewitt was the only one of the three who pees while standing.
Well, they’re having issues with the Dominion machines in Michigan. What? Can’t be a problem. Those machines are perfect.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/a-nationwide-issue-is-affecting-certain-dominion-voting-machines-michigan-secretary-of-state-reveals/ar-AA1tciWi?ocid=BingNewsSerp
And then there’s this: “Election security experts told CBS News that unfounded claims of machines flipping votes have circulated for years, and while voting machines have potential vulnerabilities, there is no evidence of machines being hacked or programmed to alter ballots.”
**********
“Becker said that human error is the cause of “every single” vote switching claim he’s encountered, yet these isolated incidents are often cited as proof to falsely claim widespread fraud.”
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/false-claims-about-machines-switching-votes-are-going-viral/ar-AA1sSwrl?ocid=BingNewsSerp
It’s all human error. Nothing to see here.
Capehart has long turned my stomach.
“Hewitt was the only one of the three who pees while standing.”
How do they say it at the Professor’s place? ‘Harsh…but true.’
Pravda on the Potomac
Words fail to describe my contempt for that smug little fellow Capehart.
Which reminds me, a former Democrat, of my decades-old characterization of Democrats: smug, sneering, condescending, self-righteous. If the shoe fits…
Capehart asked Ruth Marcus to comment on her column, where she wrote that democracy and decency are at stake in this election. Apparently Ruth Marcus, in a fit of self-awareness, realized that she would look like a fool in further commenting, considering who was calling the other side “garbage.” She prudently decided that silence was the best response. (Be quiet and no one thinks you’re a fool. Talk and everyone will know you are a fool…)
I am about ready to sign off from the election. My mind is made up. Nothing I read between now and Tuesday will change my mind. Nothing I say will change anyone’s mind.
As I’ve said many times now, in many venues;
We don’t have to PROVE fraud.
The people running the ‘elections’ need to PROVE that we can trust their ‘elections’
Human error is what happens when human-on-purpose gets caught.
And what is it about “human error” which makes it innocent compared to….what?
The “human error” in Antrim County in 2020 would have stood had not there been one guy with a beef about a marijuana issue on the ballot. He called in. Had he not, the results would not have been reviewed.
So how many errors were not reviewed due to lack of a coincidence?
The Hewitt explanation of what actually happened might make an impression on some viewers. Maybe not many, since by this time most would find facts to be unwelcome.
Nevertheless, it’s a simple issue easily researched. No nuance, no maybes. Hewitt is right, the two shills are wrong by 180 degrees, and wrong in such a fashion about such an open and shut issue that they can’t be simply misinterpreting a complexity. They are, must be, lying. That they are flat lying is a different issue than the vote cheat issue. They’ve been caught lying, on air, about something very easy to know, and lying in a partisan cause. They lied. How this affects the viewers would be interesting to know.