A favorable review of Romney's speech by Hugh Hewitt was certainly to be expected, but the opening of his post is so over the top it gives sycophantism a bad name:

Mitt Romney's "Faith in America" speech was simply magnificent, and anyone who denies it is not to be trusted as an analyst. On every level it was a masterpiece. [emphasis added]

I guess I'll have to stop listening to or reading Bill Bennett, John Podhoretz, and David Frum, since they can no longer be trusted.

As I wrote earlier, though I don't know how much it will help him in the end, I thought Romney's speech came off well - as did many other folks. But the idea that anyone who disagrees with this opinion or doesn't prostrate themselves before the greatness of Mitt Romney's oratory is absurd.

Indeed, the one person who cannot be trusted as an analyst these days is Hugh himself, who has taken his Romney boosting to surreal heights by posting press releases from the Romney campaign verbatim on his blog, constantly slagging every one of Romney's opponents, suggesting criticism of Romney on the right is rooted in anti-Mormon bigotry, declaring victory in every debate, and just generally being so in the tank for the guy that it's hard to take him seriously at all any more.

UPDATE: A reader sends through an irony alert about Hugh's latest post on Romney's speech in which he says:

Of course there are some nay-sayers. There always are. I don't trust their judgment about the campaign at this point if they didn't think the speech was at least very good. Getting too close to the campaigns or too inside-the-Beltway can blind some observers to what the average Republican thinks or how he or she responds.

Getting too close to a campaign can warp your judgment? You don't say......