Give it a rest already, Hugh

Dude. We heard you.

There are a few outliers in the world of conservative influencers who were not with this group of enthusiasts, but now that the reactions are in and counted, there is simply no basis for considering the Romney speech other than a triumph of staging and substance. Whether or not he gains the nomination or the presidency, Romney put himself in the political history books with an address that, along with “the Kennedy speech” will be shorthand for the powerful presentation of the civic religion of America which holds that no man or woman’s religion will be a bar to the presidency.

I said it was a good speech, okay? Now let my puppy go, mister!

I wouldn't care if this was simply a case of overselling Romney's speech. It's a shame Hewitt has to hog the limelight and be such a jerk about it. As I said here:

Seriously, though, it’s not the takeaway Hugh or Mitt wanted from the speech, is it? If HH had just said that Mitt knocked it out of the park, full stop, and didn’t impugn or belittle anyone else who might disagree with him, more of the focus would be on the speech than on Hewitt’s overreach.

Hugh has a great talk show that I listen to every time I get the chance. And talk radio personalities, like law professors, need a certain degree of alpha-male swagger to be successful. That's fine. But even taking that into account, what burns me here is the presumption that everyone who disagrees with him, because they disagree with him, is doing so from a position of incompetence or bad faith.

It seriously PO'd me when the Wall Street Journal editorial board snarked condescendingly about anyone who disagreed with them on open borders, hinting darkly that they were all racists or loons. (They've since taken that video down, and I can't say I blame them. It was embarrassing.) It chapped my hiney, and a lot of people felt the same way. Professor Hewitt's new appointment as the oracle of objective truth isn't going to win him any friends on the right, for exactly the same reason.

The irony goes deeper. This is a fellow who wants to get people involved in blogging, who believes in grassroots revolutions through electronic networks, and who touted An Army of Davids alongside his own book on the subject, Blog: Understanding the Information Reformation That's Changing Your World. The idea behind the overhaul of Townhall.com when it was bought by Salem Media, the company that runs Hugh's show, was to enable exactly this sort of politically influential blogging revolution to unfold. Ordinary, politically aware people would start up their own blogs at Townhall and fuse with talk radio to form a new grassroots media network that would challenge the old network of elite, mainstream columnists and reporters. That was a great idea. That was 2006.

This is 2007:

Finally, a note to my angry e-mailers: It doesn't matter that you don't like Rush or Dr. Dobson, or that I thought Harriet Meirs got a raw deal. Your opinion of who ought to be the GOP nominee doesn't matter beyond your vote, and then only if you are a GOP voter, which most of you aren't. The folks listed above [Steyn, Rush, Hannity, Dobson, Barnes, Krauthammer, Medved] matter. Because they earned the respect of the voters who decided the past two presidential elections and who will decide the next --the patriots and the values voters, the investment class and the national security-minded.

Translation:Do you know who I am? I'm Moe Greene! I made my bones when you were going out with cheerleaders!

UPDATE: Part of me was hoping it wouldn't come to this. Oh well.