Yesterday, ACORN videographer James O'Keefe was arrested for an alleged plot to interfere with* Sen. Mary Landrieu's phone. Andrew Breitbart, whose website BigGovernment.com published O'Keefe's ACORN videos, stated that he pays O'Keefe a "fair salary" so that "when he puts a story out there, it's on the Breitbart sites, the Big sites, that he can tell people what transpired." Breitbart also said that O'Keefe "was not involved in anything that was related to Big Government, or Breitbart.com" when he was arrested.
From an interview by Hugh Hewitt:
HH: I love that, by the way. That is exactly what public figures should do when they are implicated, even by a complete falsehood in something like this. They should do what you're doing, which is get out there and say nope, not me, not now, not ever, never. Last question, in terms of his relationship with you not connected to this event, are you still, is he in your employ in any way?
AB: When the story came to us, what I wanted to do was to make sure that the ACORN story got as much widespread dissemination as humanly possible. The videos that he independently produced went on YouTube. And so Huffington Post, every single site put it out there, including my sites. What he does for the site exclusively is he tells his life rights, basically. So when he puts a story out there, it's on the Brietbart sites, the Big sites, that he can tell people what transpired. So...
HH: Do you pay him for that?
HH: And are you free to tell me how much you pay him?
AB: I'll...perhaps at another date, but he's paid a fair salary.
HH: Is he...so he is an employee?
AB: I'm not sure that's technically the thing, but yes, he's paid for his life rights. And he's, you know, he's still...we reserve the right to say yes or no to any of the stories that he puts up on our site as we do to any other contributor who comes to the site.
HH: Will it be a mischaracterization to say he was working for you when he went about this?
AB: Well, I mean, no. He was not involved in anything that was related to Big Government, or Breitbart.com.
From the June 9 edition of the Hugh Hewitt Show:
Loading the player reg...
From his June 9 blog post, titled "GM: The MSNBC-Endorsed Car Maker":
GM has launched a new ad campaign to try and rebrand the company. No need. MSNBC has ridden to the rescue and is proud to declare Government Motors its new favorite cause. The hard-left cable network had adopted GM, so let the word go forth that if you want to support President Obama, his cheering section at MSNBC has made it clear that means buying GM product.
MSNBC's hapless Ed Schultz accused me of "hating" President Obama on his Tuesday's show because I have announced that I will not buy a GM or a Chrysler car. (Since 2001 I have purchased two GMs --a Saab and a Trailblazer.) My reasoning is explained in this WashingtonExaminer.com column and this Townhall.com column. Briefly put: The socialization of GM severely disadvantages Ford, Toyota and other auto workers while undermining basic, bedrock principles of free enterprise, and I will not endorse the deal with my dollars and don't think any other car buyer should either. In Ed's rather fevered world this means I "hate" President Obama. In fact I supported the first GM/Chrysler bailout and would have been happy to see the feds support the two companies with loan guarantees or other assistance that would not have resulted in government ownership of the company.
But I won't support a government-owned car company that tilts the competitive field against every other car maker, and the feds now own and control GM, and the new Government Motors has a $65 to $75 billion dollar advantage over the shareholders, bondholders and workers at every other car company in the country. The left doesn't care because President Obama decreed this state of affairs it so it must be good, but it is inimical to the American way of doing business, building widespread prosperity, the middle class and great cars, and to ideals of freedom and liberty. A government-owned car company is a car company that can dictate who wins and loses and who gets the good deals. That's the danger of Government Motors
Schultz's shouted tirade is par for the course for a left long used to screaming at its opponents, and his attribution to me of "hatred" for the new president is simple projection of Schultz's feelings towards the old president on to me. We had a good laugh on my show at Ed's expense, and at his desperate attempt to find a new ratings hook now that George W. Bush is beginning to fade from the mind of a public that is beginning to chuckle at the number of jobs President Obama "saved or created" this week, even as unemployment continues to rise after the near-trillion dollar stimulus that wasn't. The Dems are running everything in D.C., and not well, so the MSNBC play-book is down to one page: Attack center-right commentators.
What the left doesn't understand is that Team Obama would rather they drop the whole GM takeover issue. There's a reason the White House isn't talking up the nationalization of GM and would rather talk about anything else: They know the public hates this, including large majorities of independents and significant numbers of Democrats. The advisors around Obama also know that the cumulative effects of the trillions spent the president's friends are adding up to one enormous bill the staggering total of which will give even liberals pause when the subject of a "government option" for health care comes up this month and next. President Obama wants the feds to take over health care just as it has GM, but even the enraptured MSM is beginning to ask the inconvenient questions, such as "If you can't run Medicare how do you propose to expand it hugely and contain costs?" The unfolding misadventure with GM is simply an introduction to how government-run operations function. The Post Office and the DMV are exhibits one and two on that list, but more than any other Obama initiative, the takeover of GM promises to illustrate what the new Democratic Party stands for: A pay-off of friends and a kiss-off to everyone else.
If you are fine with that, but a GM instead of a Ford or now a Saturn or a Toyota. GM is now the brand endorsed by MSNBC and Ed Schultz, Keith Olbermann and the rest of the crew over there. The folks at Government Motors must love this rebranding-assist. Let's wait for the ads starring Ed, Keith, Chris and Rachel pitching Obamacars.
See also: Socialist cars?
On his radio show, Hugh Hewitt did not challenge Gov. Sarah Palin's claim that the "extreme position" on abortion Sen. Barack Obama took in the Illinois state Senate included "not even supporting a measure that would during a -- after a botched abortion and that baby's born alive -- allowing medical care to cease and allowing that baby to die." But Obama and other opponents said that the legislation to which Palin referred posed a threat to abortion rights and was unnecessary because Illinois law already prohibited the conduct being addressed by the bill.
On Hugh Hewitt's show, the Politico's Mike Allen said that "Senator [John] McCain had a good week last week" and stated it may be because of the McCain campaign's "Celebrity" ad, which "suggested [Sen. Barack] Obama is going to raise taxes." Allen did not note that the claim is false. In fact, Obama has proposed cutting taxes for low- and middle-income families, and McCain's own chief economic adviser has reportedly said it is inaccurate to say that "Barack Obama raises taxes."
On This Week, Hugh Hewitt claimed that a comment he made during the June 25 edition of his show -- that the September 13 Ohio State-USC football game will "probably [be] the last football game we'll ever get to see before the United States gets blown up by the Islamists under Obama" -- was distorted by Arianna Huffington.
Nationally syndicated radio talk-show host Hugh Hewitt falsely asserted that Sen. Barack Obama had "gotten a question or into a debate about abortion rights for minors" when he said of his two daughters: "[I]f they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby. I don't want them punished with an STD at the age of 16." In fact, Obama was responding to a question about "the issue of HIV and AIDS and also sexually transmitted diseases with young girls."
On Hannity & Colmes, Hugh Hewitt claimed that Mitt Romney is "not going to have a problem with pro-lifers" in seeking the presidency in 2008, but rather "[h]e's going to have problem with anti-Mormon bigots on the left, especially." However, recent polls indicate that more liberals than conservatives would be willing to vote for a Mormon.
On CNN's Reliable Sources, conservative blogger Hugh Hewitt pointed to Rush Limbaugh as a model of the type of media figure that could help the mainstream media get Americans' "trust back."
President Bush and senior aides have claimed that Americans are increasingly disillusioned about the Iraq war because the mainstream media report only the violent and tragic events occurring there -- an accusation that has simultaneously been advanced by an array of conservative media figures.
On Your World, blogger and radio host Hugh Hewitt explained in an interview with Neil Cavuto why those who are currently "calling the president, 'damaged goods' ... can be prepared to eat their own words." Hewitt predicted that media figures "are going to have to answer to themselves again how they could have been so wrong, again." During the entire interview, an onscreen caption read, "Coming Soon: The Great Bush Comeback?"
Loading the player leg...
On CNN's On the Story, conservative blogger and radio host Hugh Hewitt accused CNN of ignoring conservative criticism of Democratic senators' performance during the nomination hearing for Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. In fact, CNN featured six solo appearances by non-senators who criticized Senate Democrats over their questioning of Alito, and no solo appearances by non-elected progressive critics of Alito. Moreover, CNN offered no opposing viewpoint to counter Hewitt's baseless accusation.