Politico, please define "expert"
January 06, 2009 11:31 am ET by Eric Boehlert
Addressing the Bush legacy, Politico published a strident defense by GOP talk show host Hugh Hewitt, which really must be read to be fully appreciated. (Trust us, you'll be amazed.)
But aside from the rampant misinformation Hewitt pumped out as part of his loving remembrance to Bush (short Hewitt: Bush was just misunderstood), we couldn't help wondering, what makes Hewitt an "expert"?
As part of the introduction, Politico wrote:
How will Bush’s legacy fare? Politico asked the experts to consider his place in history.
As part of its round-up, Politico published a Bush essay by Matthew Dallek, who teaches at the University of California Washington Center. Expert? Sure. Another by John Feehery, who worked for the House Republican leadership from 1989 to 2005. Expert? We guess. Not exactly independent, but we'll say yes, an expert.
But Hewitt an expert? Please. He's a paid GOP apologist, propagandist, and a not very well-informed one at that. We're pretty sure if Politico actually wanted to find three Bush "experts," they could have found them, minus AM talker Hewitt.
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
The Friday Rush: A series of conflicts
Contrary to media hype, Sarah Palin is very unpopular
Just looked at Hewitt's bio, and he unequivocally qualifies as an expert: Professor of law, Harvard grad, worked for both Nixon and Reagan, written several political books, etc.
And he's "paid" by the free market, not by some shadowy billionaire patron, natch.