Horrible Hugh

So I thought it was a good idea. You know, a fun one. I'd write a review of Hugh Hewitt's new book, Blog, get a byline and a check, go home happy. I mean, the book isn't really long or anything, is it?

Well, no, it's not. But it certainly the most distasteful piece of waste I've handled since maturation imbued me with the good sense to stop handling garbage. I think I was three years old, then. Why is Hugh so bad? Well, aside from the towering egotism and the blistering partisanship, the guy is constantly lying. Here are three, just from the introduction:

On October 1, 2004, more than 130,000 internet users visited HughHewitt.com. They did so because the first presidential debate between George W. Bush and John Kerry was conducted on the night of the thirtieth, and folks wanted my take as well as my continually updated analysis of the debate that took place.

I believe George W. Bush had won the debate, and that John Kerry had committed incredible blunders. Very few pundits agreed with me. I was right.

As you may remember, Hewitt spent the day of the debate screaming at the media for ignoring the "mantan" story, wherein John Kerry would appear on television looking bright orange. John Kerry didn't. Hewitt then watched cartoons for a couple hours and declared Bush the winner. Pundits and voters disagreed overwhelmingly.

The Blogosphere is about trust. CNN lost the trust it once had and its fall has been sudden and shattering. FOX News is trusted by millions, so its numbers have shot up, much to the dismay of lefties who don't understand why viewers would trust Fox News.

Here Hewitt didn't even need to do research (or be particularly sane), he just needed to watch commercials. That "CNN: The Most Trusted Name in News" tagline? That comes because CNN still beats FOX by 7% in trustworthy ratings, 32%-25%.

[John Kerry] never recovered from an August spent hiding from the Vets, their ads, and a relentless inquest conducted fairly and with lawyerly thoroughness within the blogosphere.

Italics mine. And, I should note, those aren't the only three (and they're just from the introduction!). FOX's viewership shot up during the convention not because Republicans watch Fox, but because nobody wanted to see the RNC on the DNC's television outlet. Hugh's book will "have a huge impact across many fields." "What is really going on is an internet reformation similar in consequence to the Reformation that split Christianity in the sixteenth century." This is what I'm slogging through. This and Hugh Hewitt's enormous, uncontrollable ego, which threatens to reach out from the book and throttle me every time I turn the page. All because I wanted to defend the fine folks in the blogosphere.

You see what I go through for you?

Update: I really can't believe we're arguing over who won the first debate. On one side is Hugh's contention that Bush owned it. On the other is this:

Early polls indicated Americans felt Kerry had won the debate. Fifty-three percent of Americans polled in a USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup poll said Kerry had won, compared to 37% for Bush. Kerry also was ahead in polls taken by CBS News and ABC News.

And this:

Newsweek's post-convention poll had Bush leading among registered voters 54 percent to 43 percent. Its post-debate poll had 47 percent choosing Kerry-Edwards, and 45 percent for Bush-Cheney. Two percent said they would vote for Ralph Nader and his running mate, Peter Camejo.

Must we play such boring games?