“The idea Prager was on the same radio network as Michael Medved told me all I need to know about Prager and doubly so for Hugh Hewitt with that stupid smirk!”
Your judgment is accurate.
There is some slight difference between Hewitt and Medved versus Prager. Hewitt and Medved are more politically astute and they knew all along that they didn’t share the conservative opinions of their target audience. So they spent a lot of energy trying to deceive people.
Hewitt is a poster boy for the GOP establishment. He was so enthusiastic about “severe conservative” Mitt Romney that he wrote a book promoting Romney for President. Hugh’s Harvard buddy Grover Norquist claimed credit for “converting” Hugh into a conservative but the evidence is in and Norquist was fooled.
Medved was one of the “second thoughts” leftists who decided to bandwagon for Reagan after McGovern’s and Carter’s foreign policy wasn’t “muscular” enough to suit them. These lefties rebranded themselves as “neocons”, and like cowbirds they shoved real conservatives out of the nest and in a hostile takeover. Other than hijacking America’s military for their own purposes they didn’t have any use for conservatives, especially Buchanan populists who they referred to as nazis.
Prager is different in that he’s what the late Larry Auster described as “a confused liberal”. He’s not purposely lying like the other two jokers. Prager just hangs on to a lot of liberal ideology that has caused the very problems that he sometimes recognizes. Nowhere is this more evident than in his ideas on immigration and race.
Setting Prager the 2000 Mules documentary being skeptical of voter fraud before the evidence came out and even after the footage he watched, he was sheepishly admitting there may have been some cases of fraud.