Last night, Hugh Hewitt took the dramatic step of saying Republicans should adopt new rules and dump Donald Trump as their nominee. Hugh Hewitt has always been a ‘company man’ when it comes to presidential candidates. After Hewitt’s statements last night, the Trump campaign didn’t take long to express their disgust with Hewitt.

Late this afternoon, Dan Scavino Jr., one of Trump’s hatchet men, took to Twitter to say “Assume hater Hugh Hewitt will not be attending the @GOP Convention. If he is – the RNC should BAN him from attending.”

Scavino knows that Hewitt is a member of the media. He knows because Trump has appeared on Hewitt’s show multiple times. This begs the question of why Scavino and Trump hate the First Amendment. Previous nominees have gotten hounded by the press. They dealt with it. Trump has abolished reporters from his events. He’s protected Corey Lewandowski after Lewandowski attacked a female reporter. Now this. Why does Trump hate the First Amendment, which is the cornerstone of this republic?

Hewitt isn’t the only one calling for dumping Trump:

“Since the Indiana primary when my candidate, Ted Cruz, dropped out, I’ve woken up every morning looking for reasons to support Donald Trump,” Lonegan admitted. But “it’s going in the other direction. What we’ve seen from Donald Trump — we all agree it’s racism, but worse than that, what you’ve seen is incredible poor judgment.”

“Our delegates have an obligation come July to do what’s right for the Republican Party, not just anoint Donald Trump,” Lonegan said. When CNN’s Kate Bolduan clarified by asking, “Are you calling for a revolt?” he responded, “I would love to see a revolt.”

Trump is a Hillary landslide waiting to happen. Trump’s shoot from the lip habit has turned large parts of the electorate off. (Think women and minorities.) Trump was too busy loving the sound of his voice to build a campaign organization. That means he’d lose any tight races to Hillary.

Here’s the video of Lonegan on CNN:

Technorati: , , , , , , , , ,

6 Responses to “Trump vs. the First Amendment”

  • eric z says:

    Hewitt did his thing on MSNBC. Not welcome on FOX?

    What do you make of that, Gary, readers?

    Is Trump the candidate from FOX, the culmination of the direction that network has taken; and then, does this whole show indicate Hewitt is okay and fine with the Clintons again in the White House drivers seat?

    Do any of you, Gary, readers, really feel a putsch by Ryan would work? Or be better down ticket than Trump?

    A lot of that thinking ignores the question of whether Sanders supporters, tired of being the Dem toilet on what trickles down, might or might not vote down ticket but leave the top spot blank — the rest of you decide that one. The Clintons’ 1990’s co-opting the traditional Republican agenda, kissing Wall Street, etc., does not sit well with the Sanders suggestions any more than it does with the Tea Party Angst, or the fundies, burning want (not a need) to deny others freedoms they don’t like.

    Likewise, a Ryan putsch might leave the Trumpsters unhappy enough to stay home.

    Is the right’s mood a “so what” that way as is the corporatist bloc of the Dems having a “so what” attitude toward the young and the true left?

    And for all the apparent P.T. Barnum sucker born every minute character of “Trump University” why are Hewitt and his ilk NOT highly and vocally critical of that as a sign of moral bankruptcy on Trump’s part; much as the left views Clintons’ speech selling at obscene rates?

  • eric z says:

    With the first comment I’d only scan read your linked item, where you, unlike here, did note Hewitt had taken his screed to MSNBC. However, adding this comment is with a focus on your last paragraph in the linked item:

    “With Democrats attempting to portray every Republican as Trump, it’s time to cut their losses. It’s better to lose this election with someone who doesn’t offend sensible people than to give Democrats enough fodder to win elections for the next decade.”

    Trump, whatever his defects, is less an exitential threat to decency in politics in America than Paul Ryan.

    Trump leaves behind an aura of sincere opinionated blowhard, clueless in many ways.

    Paul Ryan leaves behind an oil slick. One of insincerity and mean spiritedness. He comes across as having the mental and moral integrity of a contract killer.

  • Gary Gross says:

    With all due respect, Eric, you’re full of shit. Like President Obama, Trump doesn’t give a shit about the Constitution or the rule of law. That’s what it’s like to be teetering on the brink of becoming a third world dictatorship. That’s the next step to mob rule. Paul Ryan hasn’t done anything close to that.

    If you think that Trump is just a blowhard, you aren’t paying attention. Seriously.

  • Gary Gross says:

    Contrary to popular belief, conservatives aren’t enamored with Fox. I still have high regard for Bret Baier as anchor of Special Report. I think the world of Catherine Herridge, who I think is the best reporter in DC. I think that James Rosen is fantastic in whatever assignment they give him. Megyn Kelly is a good interviewer, too. After that, Fox News content is kinda pedestrian.

  • JerryE9 says:

    No question this election will be another and more extreme contest of two evils– one lesser than the other. Unfortunately we seem to have a race to the bottom, with Hillary now ahead, after a speech yesterday promising the most insane and radical agenda imaginable. No doubt trying to co-opt Crazy Bernie’s message.

    Oh, and any hope that blind ideologue Democrats won’t pull the lever for Hillary? Forget it. Too many Republicans have principles and won’t vote for Trump, but there is no such principle among Democrats.

  • Bob J. says:

    Here’s the thing. Delegates wouldn’t have to change the rules to dump the Orange Idiot. They’re already allowed to vote their conscience by standing rule. If they don’t, they’re either gutless or they’ve gargled the Reince Preibus Kool-Aid.

    “Of two evils, choose neither.” – Charles Spurgeon

Leave a Reply