CommunityFDL Main Blog

Hugh Hewitt, Romney’s Grand Inquisitor

So Willard the Mormon endorses religious bigotry in the Christian Science Monitor. His campaign doesn’t deny it. Then four witnesses back up the original account. Obviously, the only thing left to do is enlist apparatchik KGB interrogator right-wing radio host and Romneyite Hugh Hewitt to “interview” the man who dared expose Willard.

HH: I mean, you’re a pretty substantial Democratic contributor, aren’t you?

MI: No, that’s a misnomer.

HH: And so, who are you supporting for president right now?

MI: I’m not supporting anybody yet. I’m still trying to make my mind up.

HH: Okay, are you registered in Virginia or New York as a Democrat or a Republican?

MI: No, independent.

HH: How close were you to the Governor?

MI: I was probably about 20 feet away, across the swimming pool, basically.

HH: Okay, so he’s right in front of the pool, no one’s standing between you?

MI: Yeah, and…

HH: I’m just trying to get whether or not you can hear each other very well.

MI: Yeah, yeah, yeah. No, there was no question about the fact that he could hear me, and I stood out.

HH: Actually, what did he, give me the exact quote what he said.

MI: It’s exactly the way I wrote it in the Christian Science Monitor op-ed. You can go read it.

HH: Okay, and that’s the extent of what…because in the Christian Science Monitor, you didn’t have the part about being interrupted. That’s why I’m confused here.

HH: Now Mansoor, but I’m curious as to what you think someone should answer that question, because you wrote, most of this op-ed is, I take from it your sense of outrage that he didn’t say yes.

MI: No, it’s not a sense of outrage that he didn’t say yes.

HH: All right, now, because we’ve only got about a minute left, anyone else corroborate your account yet?

MI: Yes, three people have.

HH: And there names are?

MI: Go read them on National Review. It’s all there.

HH: Well, just…(laughing) we’ve got an audience that can’t get to National Review, Mansoor. They’re listening in their cars.

MI: All right, well, one of the people did not give their name, but they’ve corroborated it. He’s a very prominent Nevada businessman, and has corroborated the incident. The other two people, I think, have corroborated that Governor Romney apparently said this at other events as well…

HH: So there’s no one that you’ve…

MI: and they are Nevada Republican Party officials.

HH: Do you have any names, Mansoor, of someone who one the record says…

MI: George Harris and Irma Agari (sp?). Go look it up.

HH: At your party? They were at your party and they heard you say this, and Romney answer?

MI: They were at their own gathering with Mitt Romney where he made the exact same comments to them.

HH: But they can’t corroborate what you said you said, and what he said he said, can they?

MI: …corroborated it is on there as well.

HH: Who?

MI: He’s not willing to give his name, but he’s corroborated it in three different…

HH: So no one’s on the record yet?

MI: They have.

HH: No, they have not on the record.

MI: I mean, well, if someone says I don’t want my name used, but I’m telling you exactly what was said, how do you define that?

HH: That is not on the record. On the record is…

MI: Well, I don’t agree with you.

HH: Well, I’ve been doing this for twenty years, Mansoor.

MI: And I’ve been in the media a very long time, with all due respect…

HH: I’ve been doing this for twenty years, and on the record means your name is on it.

MI: That is a flat lie that he’s [Romney] making right now.

HH: Well actually, I don’t think it’s a flat lie, Mansoor. I guess, you know, being a lawyer, I guess you look at these things a little bit differently, having done a lot of client interviews. You guys are pretty much saying the same thing, I think. I think these accounts are completely…you could have heard what you heard, and Romney could have heard what he thinks he heard in a crowd of 150 people over a swimming pool. And I think it’s kind of silly, and I think most people think it’s kind of silly. What’s the significance?

MI: Then why are you interviewing me?

HH: Because it’s got a lot of attention among lefties who hate Romney. And you’re a big Dem, and you’ve raised a lot of money for Dems, and some people on my side of the aisle are saying oh, this is a hit…

HH: ..The lefties, the lefties hate Romney. But I would much rather talk to you about Pakistan, and I’d much rather know from your position, because you know this stuff cold, is the transition to democracy going to work? I think that’s significant, not what a he said, he said argument is in Nevada.

MI: Well, with all due respect, I’m not the one who made it a he said, he said argument. What I simply said was here is a position that I feel needs clarification, and instead of Romney clarifying, what he did was try to say that that wasn’t the way it happened. And it is the way it happened.

HH: All right, and that’s your story…

MI: And so for me, this becomes what we call a false set of negatives. Look, I’ve been around a long time in the media just like you have. I’ve published 185 op-ed pieces in ten years. I’ve been on television for five years straight. Every other night I was on television for the last three years. You know that as well as I do with my work at Fox News. I know exactly how the media works. I know exactly what the reporting rules are. I know exactly how to verify. And you can be darn sure that an organization like the Christian Science Monitor would not have published a piece like that without checking very carefully every single fact that was in there, number one. Number two…

HH: Mansoor, we’re out of time.

Previous post

YouTube Debates: Huge Hit. Wingnuts: Irrelevant.

Next post

Blue Texan

Blue Texan