Saturday, October 28, 2006
|
|
Cheney v. Blitzer; Hewitt v. Sullivan; CNN v. The U.S.
|
|
Posted by:
Hugh Hewitt at
2:26 AM
|
|
[UPDATE: Welcome, Sullivan readers. My response to Andrew's latest is at the bottom of the post.]
There are some lefty blogs attempting to argue that Lynne Cheney came off looking bad in the CNN exchange with Wolf Blitzer, which is why, I guess, almost every conservative blogger in the U.S. is drawing attention to the exchange. Visit TruthLaidBear.com and search "Lynne Cheney" for an assortment of opinions, but there's a reason I played the exchange in full and parts of it many times on today's program, and it isn't because the exchange will boost CNN's ratings as "the most trusted name in news." The "most busted name in news" is more like it.
Lynne Cheney goes on CNN to discuss a book, the host barely discusses the book, and Lynne Cheney stays calm and eviscerates the host and the network.
Andrew Sullivan comes on my program to discuss a book, won't discuss it, and flys off the handle when I ask him specific questions about what he has written. (Ace has other problems with Sullivan.)
Lynne Cheney is a conservative. Andrew Sullivan is a radical. Thus the different approaches to interviews about their books.
A digression: Andrew quotes an anonymous law prof who points out --correctly-- that race isn't the only classification that requires compelling reasons for the state to make distinctions when employing it. As all of my law students over a decade know, there are other such classifications, most especially religion.
But the anonymous law professor must also know that Andrew's book claims --in studied and proofed black and white, not in the rush of an interview-- that government must have a compelling reason to make distinctions between its citizens, which is flat out wrong, and which was my point, as is obvious from the interview. I won't accuse the law prof of bad faith unless I know who he or she is and what he or she wrote. Yes, I gave an incomplete account of the strict scrutiny classification. Here is the relevant exchange:
HH: Andrew, it’s not. It’s your book. You write, for example, on page 240, that the government needs a compelling reason to treat citizens differently. That’s flat-out wrong. That would flunk any law student in America. Are we supposed to ignore the fact that you do not have a basic grasp of Constitutional law?
AS: I deny that. I think that’s an insult, and you should withdraw it.
HH: Well, it says, page 240…
AS: I just want to know why you support torture.
HH: The government needs a compelling reason to treat citizens differently. That is 180 degrees wrong.
AS: You don’t think the basic equality of people in this country, the civil equality of people in this country, isn’t a critical element…
HH: Andrew, the government…the only time the government needs…
AS: …is a critical element of the American experiment?
HH: We’re going to a break. The only time the government needs a compelling reason to treat people differently is when they do so on the basis of race. I mean, that’s what’s so astonishing about this book, is that you purported to write a book about the Constitution, and you don’t know how it works.
AS: I didn’t write a book about the Constitution. I wrote a book about conservatism.
HH: We’ll come back and continue the conversation with Andrew Sullivan, who apparently wants to forget the last third of his book.
What I ought to have said is:
We're going to a break. One of the very, very few times that the government needs a compelling reason to treat people differently is when they do so on the basis of race. I mean, that's what's so astonishing about this book, is that you purported to write a book about the Constitution, and you don't know how it works.
That was an error on my part, one of many I have made in 17 years of broadcasting and a decade of teaching, but nevertheless an error. I should have taken the time to more fully school Andrew in the intricacies of Equal Protection analysis. I am glad to correct the error. But I note that the context in which I misspoke was a radio interview when I was pointing out that Sullivan had radically misstated the law completely, not incompletely stated it.
The key point: Sullivan's book's error is a major one as he argues the opposite of what is true. He does so on p. 240 of his book:
There is, in other words, a presumption in the way a government interacts with its own citizens. That presumption is that they will treat each citizen absolutely alike, unless it has a very compelling reason not to. And it is up to the government to prove it has a good reason to discriminate rather than up to a citizen to prove she is equal under the law.
If Sullivan would let us know the name of the professor, we could ask the professor if he or she agrees with Sullivan. He or she could not. No licensed lawyer much less Con Law professor could.
No one with a legal education in America can agree with Andrew on a major premise of his book.
Unlike Andrew, when I make a mistake, I am happy to come forward and say "Yes, that was wrong. I was careless in the statement, but not deceitful in making it."
Sullivan's refusal to admit error here is taking him close to deception, and not just about Con Law.
The theologians are now examining Sullivan's arguments on Vatican II and much more. Too late for him to issue a correction and an apology? His reputation, what was left of it, is in ruins. It will take a mighty effort to rebuild it. Possible, but not likely. But possible.
But believe it or not, I am hoping he tries. As Joe Carter has pointed out, Sullivan is a brother in Christ, and C.S. Lewis has made a declaration of extraordinary relevance here:
You have never talked to a mere mortal. Nations, cultures, arts, civilizations — these are mortal, and their life is to ours as the life of a gnat. But it is immortals whom we joke with, work with, marry, snub, and exploit — immortal horrors or everlasting splendors.
Like Sullivan, I am a sinner and in need of God's mercy and grace. I do not want to snub or exploit him. But I am concerned that his errors not gain traction in the American public, for they are destructive of the Republic and quite obviously wrong. I would welcome the opportunity to find common ground, and perhaps an encore interview could proceed on the premise that we would only discuss those matters on which we agreed. Mark Roberts is already about the project of correcting Sullivan, but Dr. Roberts is pretty much a saint, and I am just a scribbler. I hope Sullivan reads Roberts very closely. Very closely indeed.
Which brings me back to Wolf Blitzer, who should be reading the reviews very closely tonight. He should call Lynne Cheney and apologize. She is not just the spouse of the Vice President. She is a former colleague. He ambushed her. We. Don't. Do. That.
Wolf Blitzer is one of the nicest gentlemen I have met in this business, one of the most objective talking heads, though his network isn't As I said on the show today, Wolf Blitzer was very good to me when I was hawking a book. He made a mistake today. He should say so.
The silly season does funny things to journalists. Wolf threw a spoke. If he says so Monday, he would be a much better journalist for doing so. If he says so Sunday, in an interview with Mrs. Cheney about her book, he'll be hero to journalism.
And CNN should schedule an hour on whether it was wise to show that bit of propaganda. Wolf Blitzer didn't make that decision. Mr. Klein may have. He and other CNN execs should defend it against a panel of critics. I have met Mr. Klein. He's a smart guy and a patriot. But his network threw a spoke today when it ambushed Lynne Cheney and when it aired the sniper video. It should discuss why it did these things --on air.
You want ratings? That will give you ratings.
UPDATE: Sullivan, predictably, takes a correction of a small error in speaking on my part as an opportunity to obfuscate about a major error in his writing. (Weirdly, he calls it a retraction and then publishes my correction, leaving his readers to think that I have retracted what is in fact my correction. Like the book, a mess.)
As a means of retreat from that central error, he first must disassociate his last chapter, "A Politics of Freedom," from the Constitution, which he attempts to do by asserting that "i]t is perfectly clear, in other words, that I am not citing the U.S. constitution here - let alone expounding on the intricacies of the equal protection clause or anything else in the constitution for that matter," and by arguing that I "wrench[ed] that sentence out of context on the air," and that it isn't a major premise of the book anyway.
Not my dog. He didn't bite you. Beside you kicked him first.
Sullivan is apparently reserving the right to reject criticism of his book on the basis of a hierarchy of undisclosed premises. Minor errors --Jefferson as a Christian, Disraeli bringing in "universal suffrage" don't count (even though my incomplete statement of the companion categories of suspect classes is for him a sort of Waterloo), and a sweeping and wholly incorrect assertion about government --any government by the way, but especially the American government which is the central focus of this chapter-- doesn't matter at all, because Sullivan says so and he has a PhD.
Here's the crucial passage --three sentences, not one-- again:
There is, in other words, a presumption in the way a government interacts with its own citizens. That presumption is that it will treat each citizen absolutely alike, unless it has a very compelling interest or reason not to. And it is up to the government to prove it has a good reason to discriminate rather than up to a citizen to prove she is equal under the law.
Here is the on air exchange in which it was discussed, coming deep in the interview, and denied the time it deserved by Sullivan's refusal to answer questions:
HH: Andrew, is the Constitution a fundamentally…
AS: And that’s what I want to debate. I’m not going to be trapped into your little trick questions, and your cross-examination.
HH: Andrew, it’s not. It’s your book. You write, for example, on page 240, that the government needs a compelling reason to treat citizens differently. That’s flat-out wrong. That would flunk any law student in America. Are we supposed to ignore the fact that you do not have a basic grasp of Constitutional law?
AS: I deny that. I think that’s an insult, and you should withdraw it.
HH: Well, it says, page 240…
AS: I just want to know why you support torture.
HH: The government needs a compelling reason to treat citizens differently. That is 180 degrees wrong.
AS: You don’t think the basic equality of people in this country, the civil equality of people in this country, isn’t a critical element…
HH: Andrew, the government…the only time the government needs…
AS: …is a critical element of the American experiment?
HH: We’re going to a break. The only time the government needs a compelling reason to treat people differently is when they do so on the basis of race. I mean, that’s what’s so astonishing about this book, is that you purported to write a book about the Constitution, and you don’t know how it works.
AS: I didn’t write a book about the Constitution. I wrote a book about conservatism.
From the book, page 250:
The point of the American constitution was not to banish such human fallibility, but to bank on it. And so if the federal government had some apparently bright --but ultimately flawed-- idea, it couldn't impose it on everyone without a long and cantankerous battle. In that battle, individual states could go their own way. Or the Supreme Court could block the proposal. or the Senate, more detached from popular passions than the House, could stop the idea in its tracks. Or if it percolated up from the House and Senate, a president could veto it.
I discovered Sullivan attempting to smuggle into a chapter very much about the American Constitution --and not just in this excerpt but throughout-- a radical interpretation about what "equal under the law" means, a radical interpretation necessary to the same sex marriage project, judicial imposition division.
Erwin Chemerinsky notes that "[t]he Supreme Court has not yet ruled as to whether discrimination based on sexual orientation warrants the application of intermediate or strict scrutiny." "Nowhere [in Lawrence v. Texas] did the Court speak of a fundamental right or mention strict scrutiny," Chemerinsky added. Thus at least for now, the Supreme Court has not insisted on anything other than a "rational basis test" for discriminations based on sexual orientation --such as Congress' determination about gays in the military, or marriage laws limiting marriage to a man and a woman. A rational basis test is not only extremely deferential to legislated judgments, it usually --thpugh not always-- presumes the existence of facts supporting legislative judgment.
The essence of our Constitutional structure, then, is that our government is not built on a presumption of equality, that the government often discriminates between citizens, and that not only do those discriminations not need a "compelling" reason to support them, the government usually does not need even to state them.
The soul of American conservatism, then, is a right understanding of the Constitution and a respect for and honest statement of its operation. And that operation is best described as "constitutional majoritarianism," a process that insists that significant change proceed from the people's representatives making laws and the executive signing them. Thus a "conservative soul" simply cannot endorse or do anything but condemn radical innovation imposed by courts.
Here is the exchange that illustrates Sullivan's radicalism:
HH: In the history of the United States, has any state legislature ever passed, and a governor signed into law, a bill establishing marriage for two people of the same sex?
AS: In the state of California, of course, as you know, the legislature did vote, and the governor vetoed it.
HH: And so it has never actually happened anywhere in the United States in history, has it?
AS: Not yet, but boy, considering that only eleven years ago, I wrote a book suggesting the idea, it’s happened pretty quickly, hasn’t it?
HH: Well, given that it’s never happened with a legislative and an executive predicate, is it a radical thing for New Jersey to impose it on New Jersey, or Massachusetts courts to impose it…
AS: They’re not imposing it. What they have done is actually agreed with the President, as he said, I’ll repeat, the President’s words, for your listeners, I don’t think we should deny people rights to a civil union, if that’s what a state decides to do. The state court has decided that its own constitution, which guarantees equal protection of the laws to all citizens, whether they’re gay or straight…I know you think gay people should not have equal citizenship…they’ve decided that there should be equal rights. And then they’ve sent it back to the legislature, which is directly elected, to decide what to do with that, just as in Massachusetts, the people will be voting in 2008, whether the terrible thing of allowing two people to commit to each other forever, in responsibility and fidelity, whether that’s going to destroy civilization, the people of Massachusetts will decide. Let the states decide in time. It’s…this has happened very quickly. I think the process should go on state by state, and we should deliberate and argue, and the courts and the legislatures, and the executives can all fight this out in the way the founders intended.
HH: Yeah, but this is not the way the founders intended, because it is, of course, three articles, and the third branch was the least dangerous, and had no executive or legislative authority, and it’s inventing it. So my question is, given…
AS: 39 states have amended their own constitutions to make this impossible forever, okay?
HH: But Andrew, is it a radical act…
AS: You don’t think the states have power to stop this if they don’t want to?
HH: Again, the filibuster, I think, is self-defeating. The question is, is it a radical or a conservative act for a court to dictate to a legislature that they must pass laws establishing that civil unions or marriage are open to two people of the same sex?
AS: It is a conservative notion, a very conservative notion, that the court should look at…when presented with a case, should look at its own constitution, and see what it asks. What’s happened here, Hugh, as you know, is that our view of homosexuality has changed dramatically over the last 20, 30, 40 years. We understand what homosexuality is more than we used to. We used to think it was something that heterosexuals did that was bad and immoral, and should be punished and criminalized and actually have the death penalty in some cases. We then came to understand that gay people are gay because they are gay. And therefore, it’s something intrinsic to them in the way that race is. And therefore, it is subject to equal protection. And courts that have constitutions with equal protection clauses are really up against a wall on this.
There, you see, is Andrew Sullivan stating his core theory on same sex marriage and the courts, and the sentences I identified as central to his book are an attempt to smuggle the same erroneous claim into a long discussion about political theory, American government and the American Constitution, except now Andrew doesn't want this understood. In the interview he was more candid.
Because his central premise about how free governments operate is flat out wrong.
Sullivan's post-interview writings about the interview have gotten increasingly strident, which suggests something changed since Wednesday:
AS: By the way, Hugh, I just want to…I actually do want to thank you, because I’m having a ball.
HH: Oh, good. Good. We needed to get you happy. You should come back more often, because we needed that.
AS: You know, I’ve decided…I was completely wrong. I…you know, I grew up in the Oxford Union. I love debating, and you’re a hell of a debater, and I’m having a great deal of fun. I’ve wanted to have a fight about this book ever since it was published, and I’m having a great time here. So sorry…
Today, however, '[Hugh] knows he's lying. But this is his modus operandi: lying knowingly in order to smear anyone who dissents from the current party line."
I am "lying" because a I describe a major premise of his book as a major premise of his book.
What happened?
Sullivan has endured quite a bit of ridicule since he appeared on the show, beginning with the Lileks' parody, and continuing around the web. Some of that commentary was cruel and tasteless, but most of it went to Sullivan's incredible defensiveness and the inadequacy of his arguments. Sullivan has its defenders, but if it was afight, the ref would have stopped it long ago.
Now Catholic and protestant theologians are zeroing in on his unusual understanding of Christianity. In short, it is a smash-up on many levels.
Sullivan is compounding the error by attempting to take my concession of a minor misstatement and inflate it into --well, who knows? Given the Sullivan's own minor errors I would think he'd want to avoid such a standard.
But his real error today was to close with the very un-conservative assertion of authority over the debate because "[i]t's about political philosophy - where I have the PhD, and he doesn't." Not only did the framers --mostly lawyers-- not have PhDs, Andrew's book has quite a lot of theology in it, and the PhDs trained in that area, by Andrew's own standard, will deserve our respect when and if they deliver their assessments.
Whether or not Sullivan returns to the lists with another attempt to undo the interview, which can be listened to here (part 1) and here (part 2) or read here, the cement has set. It is a mess of a book, and it cannot be rewritten or Sullivan's on air comments unsaid.
|
|
Thanks for the update Hugh.
In the meantime, I've been reading your blogospherical theologians.
We have one protestant who thinks that reading the non-cannonical gospels (or a leader scholar of them) is not instructive. That's a really damaging criticism, somehow?
We have a catholic observer (a technology expert) who takes us through a long tour, including Gaudium et Spes and the Catechism, to show what, that before Vatican II, Catholics were obliged to the teachings of the Church and, afterwards, they were free to agree with the Church.
This is not a recipe for public governance, is it (or Conservatism)? If it were, we ought to fold our legislature and courts and appoint a Defender of the Faith. Adopting the CC's view wholesale, it would just be a debate the end of which we convince oursleves that the Church is right.
Then we turn to JunkYardDog, who brings us the insight that it is good sport to make fun of Englishmen. It is always a good Christian attitude to foist stereotypes on people to poke fun at them, don't you think?
We also have another round of ringing the "radical" bell over AS head. Lilkes just thinks you are a nice guy, but even he is going to have to come around to deal with all these other "radicals". I did a quick web search and came up with these statistics:
"Over the past decade polls have shown that self-identified, churchgoing Catholics have already substantially pulled away from the Vatican's teachings on issues of sexuality: seventy percent disagree with the church's position on birth control; sixty-three percent disagree with its teaching on divorce; fifty-four percent disagree with its prohibition on premarital sex, and fifty-one percent disagree with its stand against homosexual activity."
Maybe try working with people qua people, rather than as labels or 'theological' categories or bundles of this-or-that PhD expertise. The Truth can set you free.
last:
Because his central premise about how free governments operate is flat out wrong.
---------------
Well, that seems to me back on target, at last!
Hopefully, your readers/listeners take enough time to find out where both you and Andrew are right and wrong.
He (apparently) doesn't have the full legal picture of public policy, and you don't have the final or completely word on policy evolution (few would stand for Blue Laws these days) or on how the philosophy of how that policy should be put to work (although you would LIKE to have it, reportedly, in (self?) stylized moral majorities).
Kicking the Courts the way many have isn't helpful. The Courts have deliberated these cases, taken them fairly through the judicial process, and do not all agree. This is exactly how the Courts are meant to function, even on issues of public policy.
There are plenty who would like issues like gay marriage to go through the state legislatures. But what chance does any minority have to be heard through the legislature, first? It's darn hard. And even after one or two court decisions pressed the issue, how much do our alledgely deliberative bodies of government debate the issues? Not much: someone stands up and recites a slogan: "Man and a Woman" and that's all she wrote, in too many cases, it seems. |
|
|
It is true that sexual propensity is not a suspect class under federal law. However, it is a suspect class under the laws of many states, most likely including California where Hewitt lives and teaches law. So it's perfectly legitimate for Sullivan to argue that the constitution should not allow discrimination on the basis of sexual preference in the absence of a compelling state interest, although that is not the current state of the law. I know, I know, activists judges and all, but it's certainly a legitimate argument. |
|
The arrogance is almost unfathomable. HH decides to take up yet another Cro... er, _Conservative_ Cross, this time against journalism's excesses?
Well, like he did for Andrew Sullivan, I checked on HH bio page here. He doesn't list any degree in journalism. "Interesting", as HH said to himself at the time (while licking his chops for his on-line attack piece?).
Consider this:
Forthright and honest: "Andrew, I have to say, after reading your book, I thought that you might be more of a Deist that a Christian-theist. I thought this because X. Why do you think that would be the wrong impression, if so?"
Dishonest journalism (but o.k. for trial lawyers?): "Are you a Christian?" "Are you Catholic?" "Do you think that Thomas Jefferson was a Christian?"
Lileks thinks HH is "decent" and his line of questioning informative; but truly all Hugh does, IMO, is *deliberately* mask the foundation for his questions so that he, later, can dishonestly take it in any direction he wants.
Don't believe me? Well, look around, believe your eyes.
Once AS is on record with, "I'm a Catholic" or "I'm a Christian", Hugh (and his blogosphere minions?) run around to find everything non-Catholic that AS has ever said or done. In short, no one remembers that it was an answer to some finer point about Deism, a question that may or may NOT have even been a correct interpretation of the original text, even! In other words, it is possible to run this kind of attack _completely_ based on _false_ pretext. Some "decency", indeed, Lileks.
You can't fool all the people all the time, Hugh. On this basis, I think Andrew was right to treat your "interview"/"inquisition" as hostile, and to rightly call into question the entire process that is used with _full intension_ to "crush" everything that gets in the way of a "permanent majority" (yeah, it's easy on the net to find your book titles, too).
The pattern repeats itself - look at the rest of the interview.
And there appear to be other tactics, too.
What was the foundation for that question about who Andrew's PhD adviser was? Why do I care? Given that HH wants a "permanent majority", how does that not come across as an intimidation tactic, addressed to every adviser out there who dares to confer a degree on another AS?
=======================
Catalonia writes: "When Sullivan decided his purpose in life was to marry his boyfriend's anus (to put it distastefully but accurately), his intellectual journey ended."
--------
I have to say that this is the kind of outrageous ignorance that, today, Conservatism condones and the "religious" right is so adept at inspiring.
Rather than deal with Sullivan's broad-ranging politics, we'll just call him "a gay" gone bad.
Rather than deal with the hard questions of gay and lesbian relationships, we'll just refer to sex acts (how's your vagina partner doing, btw - get the point)?.
Such "convervatives" have no doubt about this; and besides, doubt implies thinking and thinking is hard and can lead "us" astray if we aren't careful, so best to declare our principles and join a GOP wolfpack/PAC-for-the-majority-everywhere (but we'll call ourselves "sheep"). |
|
"Where's your argument? "
Uhhh, what's your question?
Are you a lawyer? If you're not one, then you should just take Hewitt's word for it.
If you are one, then I expect you realize that sexual propensity is not a suspect class. Because sexual propensity is not a suspect class, compelling government interest is not required for government to discriminate.
You'll have to ask the Supreme Court why that is. Shepardize the equal protection clause and you'll discover their reasoning eventually. |
|
|
Agreed - if you make an assertion in a book, then you should be ready even before the publish date to defend the assertion without looking so pathetic that you arouse pity in those who hear you, such as alot of the people on this blog. |
|
As someone who also has a legal education, I know without a doubt that you knew the suspect class list, and that you were just naming the most prominent example from that list, to point out the kind of class discrimination required.
Since so much of the debate is on the meaning of equal protection, you were right to point out that government discriminates all the time and does not need much more than a rational basis to do it except in a small number of cases. |
|
Clearly, Sullivan lost his cool, but you folks ought to be a little more understanding.
When Hugh interviews someone he disagrees with, he conducts his interview like a cross-examination. Being a very capable and smart lawyer, he is good at that. He often has a specific agenda to trap the interviewee. In some cases, after setting and releasing his trap, he often calls the subject a liar, often on the thinnest pretext. (See, e.g, Eric Black and Lawrence O'Donnell.) The subject he traps his subject on is often secondary or tertiary to the main point, but no matter.
When Hewitt began by asking Sullivan if he was a Christian, Sullivan sensed what Hewitt was up to and got nervous. (It's a basic technique to cross-examination to set a foundation by asking questions to which the witness must give the expected answer. It is not, however, the normal approach to media interviews, since time is limited.) It was understandable that Sullivan got nervous, since Hewitt is very good, although not very fair, in setting these traps. While the question "Are you a Christian" is not per se offensive, it was a little weird, since Sullivan professes his Christianity openly and often. Sullivan sensed that Hewitt had an ulterior motive, which he did. (I don’t think Sullivan would have been defensive had Brian Lamb asked the same question.)
Hewitt also uses his power as the "interviewer" to insist on keeping the discussion in the areas where Hewitt feels he is strongest. When the interview tries to change the subject, as Sullivan did, Hewitt refuses to engage on that topic. This may be within Hewitt's rights, but it certainly gives Hewitt a huge advantage. Both of them have said a lot a derogatory things about the other on their blogs, and it is hard to understand why Sullivan would agree to confront Hewitt in a format which gave Hewitt such tremendous advantages.
The next day Hewitt often quotes selected portions of the interview on his blog and provides his own color commentary about how he made his subject look bad, or links to sympathetic blogs who make the point for him. Needless to say, he leaves out the portions of the transcript that make him (Hewitt) look bad.
For example, in the interview, Hewitt accused Sullivan of being inconsistent because he (Sullivan) quoted approvingly from one rather eloquent sentence from Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Hewitt then discusses another portion of Casey that Sullivan did not quote from, which Hewitt argues is inconsistent with Sullivan's approach, and accuses Sullivan of being inconsistent. So, let me understand: we're not allowed to quote a portion of a Supreme Court decision (or an article or book, presumably) unless we agree with the entire text? That is, of course, ridiculous, so it's pretty clear that Hewitt's agenda was to discredit Sullivan, not to conduct a fair interview.
Obviously, Sullivan's statement about treating citizens differently is more substantive, but in Sullivan's defense, he was not attempting to explain the intricacies of the fourteenth amendment, but rather, as Joe said, making more of a policy argument. In reading the subsequent exchanges between Sullivan and Hewitt, Sullivan seems correct in stating that he was not attempting to describe the existing state of 14th amendment law. Hewitt presents a convoluted argument that that Sullivan has attempted to “smuggle” his radical interpretation of the constitution into his chapter on conservatism. Well, maybe; I haven’t read Sullivan’s book so I am not qualified to comment. But in Sullivan’s defense, he doesn’t claim to be a constitutional scholar. Sullivan's essential argument is that there should be some justification for treating gay couples differently than straight couples, an issue which Hewitt never directly addresses in this exchange.
In Hewitt's reply he states:
"The essence of our Constitutional structure, then, is that our government is not built on a presumption of equality, that the government often discriminates between citizens, and that not only do those discriminations not need a "compelling" reason to support them, the government usually does not need even to state them."
Hewitt is mis-stating the law here. In fact, the government always has to provide, at a minimum, a "rational basis" for treating different citizens differently, so the statement that “the government usually does not need even to state” the reason for discrimination is just plain wrong. As Hewitt would say, he would flunk any con law student who wrote the above passage.
[Disclosure: I am a lawyer, but I do not practice in the area of constitutional law.]
|
|
Phew, what frenzy you got worked up into!
“Get a grip, "Tom" You need to get over yourself, Tommy. Catalonia pretty much nailed it insofar as Sullivan is concerned. For quite a while now, Sullivan has been a rather dreary one-note-Johnny over the issue of his sexuality; an issue that, truth be known, most people don't give a royal rat's behind about one way or the other.”
Catalonia needs you to stick up for him/her why?
”Of course, there is a little caveat there, that neither Sullivan or quite a few of his homosexual cohorts have figured out yet; don't rub everyone else's nose in it either.”
I see you share Catalonia’s world view regarding this issue. A gay man asking for equal rights is ‘rubbing your nose in it’?
”The vast majority of the population is straight, and even the most "so open-minded that their brains fell out" (i.e., the average liberal/leftie) individual in their heart of hearts finds that sort of thing revolting. And that doesn't make them "homophobes" (and there's a nice example of PC Newspeak if ever there was one) either. It's simple human nature. Deal with it.”
What word would you use in normal (un PC) discourse? I’m glad you are the voice of the majority of the population, even the liberal/lefties, I am sure they are happy with you deciding what they all think. Or maybe you are just talking from your perspective… which seems to be an interesting one to say the least… Maybe you need to deal?
”As it is, as far as "rights" go, the gays wanted to be able to leave their property to a surviving partner upon one's death; they got that. They wanted equal visitation right to a partner while he/she was in, say, a hospital, along with the partner's family; they got that. They wanted to be able to buy property and enter into contracts as couples; they got that. They wanted "domestic partner" benefits from employers; they got that. They wanted to adopt children; I know that in Texas at least, they most certainly can do that.”
At this point I think I should point out that Sullivan was not on Hewitt’s show to talk about gay marriage, although his points about the current state of Republicanism and conservatism in America are quickly dismissed by you, and a few others on this board because of his sexuality. Oh… you’re from Texas.
”Bush even says he's OK with this "civil union" thing. But that's not enough. It's never enough. Even if this "gay marriage" thing gets shoved down everyone's throat by what Jefferson called "the despotic branch" (the judiciary), which it probably will, it still won't be enough to satisfy the sex-obsessed Sullivans of this world.”
No comment, you are really on a roll… you go girl! Right wing! Right wing!
”And no, I haven't read his book. I don't need to. I've read his blog, and frankly, the boy could not think his way out of a New Orleans cat house, even an all-male one. The man has become a joke, except to his sexual fellow travelers and BDS sufferers.”
So why did Hewitt have him on his show, if he is a joke that is… Are there many homosexuals and AIDS sufferers in Hewitt’s audience?
”And I certainly don't need Andrew Sullivan to tell me how the GOP has pulled some major FUBARs in recent years. Whether it be on profligate entitlements, securing the borders, budgetary "earmarks" for pet projects, or not stomping on every Muslim d*ckweed who looks cross-eyed in our general direction, I can figure those out all by myself, thank you very much, as can most anyone else out here with more than two brain cells to rub together.”
I see you agree wholeheartedly with the conservative, gay, British writer on these points… you have more in common with Sullivan than you thought right?
The Republicans have really sucked with all three branches of government in their control haven’t they. You see, all three of us agree!
”And as for Mr. Hewitt's little faux pas in that interview, you got your law degree and became a law professor and talk show host when? Became infallible when?”
I don’t have a degree in law. I’m not a law professor. I do not have a talk show. I am not infallible… OK your turn.
”And the day that you measure up to being a pimple on the backside of either Messrs. Limbaugh or Hannity will definitely be the best day of your”
Ha ha! I can only dream… Political discourse at its worst, well done cave bear. Lots of well thought out positions and rebuttals in your post… great effort…
|
|
LoafingOaf makes some fair points--although I think some of that is also attributable to Hewitt too. Sullivan overracted to Hewitt, but Hewitt was not exactly conducting that interview as he would to some guy promoting a book--he went after Sullivan from the start.
Hewitt made it like he was grading a con-law exam question on equal protection. Sullivan was making a policy argument. Apples and Oranges. The sad part is Hugh knew that going in but was more concerned with scoring points against Sullivan than giving his book a fair shake.
They obviously don't like each other. Fair enough. They should pick a subject and debate it. I have heard Sullivan on Medved and they can engage in a respectful conversation (even though they strongly disagree with each other). I am sure Sullivan could do the same with Hewitt. |
|
It's three days after the fact, yet it is painfully obvious that Andrew Sullivan's acolytes, and a Hollywood member of the Rob Zombie fan club, as well as other lefties who continue to attack Hugh Hewitt from the computer/telephone in their mother's basement are simply confused about the purpose of Sullivan's appearance on Hewitt's radio program on Wednesday.
The purpose of the Sullivan interview was not to provide an Ultimate Fighting Championship debate forum on various political issues between Andrew and Hugh.
Rather, the purpose of this particular interview was explicitly to discuss Sullivan's new book.
Instead of milking his opportunity to assert the claims he makes in his book, Sullivan chose to change the subject by brazenly challenging Hugh on his opinions about specific policy issues such as 'torture.'
But let's be clear; Hugh did not just publish a book about 'torture,' but Sullivan DID just write a book which asserts controversial positions regarding Catholic Theology, and Constitutional Law.
Since Sullivan's new book makes assertions about Catholic teachings, Hugh was merely being responsible by asking him to explain his assertions.
Since Sullivan makes assertions about well-known historical figures such as Thomas Jefferson, Hugh was well within responsible parameters by challenging Sullivan on his historical interpretations.
If another author came on the program and asserted that the winless 1976 Tampa Bay Buccaneers were the greatest NFL team of all-time, the audience would expect the radio host to challenge the author on his expertise---specifically, "Hey, pal, what exactly do you know about football ?"
Hugh responsibly challenged Sullivan on his inaccurate facts, as well as challenged him where he felt Sullivan's opinions were not grounded---and like Michael J. Fox or Cindy Sheehan, Sullivan was simply not accustomed to having defend his views in his interviews with mainstream media.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but everyone is not entitled to their own FACTS.
And the fact is, this interview was a discussion about Sullivan's controversial new book.
Sullivan's performance does beg the question, "Does Sullivan find his own book indefensible ?"
|
|
You need to get over yourself, Tommy. Catalonia pretty much nailed it insofar as Sullivan is concerned. For quite a while now, Sullivan has been a rather dreary one-note-Johnny over the issue of his sexuality; an issue that, truth be known, most people don't give a royal rat's behind about one way or the other.
Of course, there is a little caveat there, that neither Sullivan or quite a few of his homosexual cohorts have figured out yet; don't rub everyone else's nose in it either.
The vast majority of the population is straight, and even the most "so open-minded that their brains fell out" (i.e., the average liberal/leftie) individual in their heart of hearts finds that sort of thing revolting. And that doesn't make them "homophobes" (and there's a nice example of PC Newspeak if ever there was one) either. It's simple human nature. Deal with it.
As it is, as far as "rights" go, the gays wanted to be able to leave their property to a surviving partner upon one's death; they got that. They wanted equal visitation right to a partner while he/she was in, say, a hospital, along with the partner's family; they got that. They wanted to be able to buy property and enter into contracts as couples; they got that. They wanted "domestic partner" benefits from employers; they got that. They wanted to adopt children; I know that in Texas at least, they most certainly can do that.
Bush even says he's OK with this "civil union" thing. But that's not enough. It's never enough. Even if this "gay marriage" thing gets shoved down everyone's throat by what Jefferson called "the despotic branch" (the judiciary), which it probably will, it still won't be enough to satisfy the sex-obsessed Sullivans of this world.
And no, I haven't read his book. I don't need to. I've read his blog, and frankly, the boy could not think his way out of a New Orleans cat house, even an all-male one. The man has become a joke, except to his sexual fellow travelers and BDS sufferers.
And I certainly don't need Andrew Sullivan to tell me how the GOP has pulled some major FUBARs in recent years. Whether it be on profligate entitlements, securing the borders, budgetary "earmarks" for pet projects, or not stomping on every Muslim d*ckweed who looks cross-eyed in our general direction, I can figure those out all by myself, thank you very much, as can most anyone else out here with more than two brain cells to rub together.
And as for Mr. Hewitt's little faux pas in that interview, you got your law degree and became a law professor and talk show host when? Became infallible when?
And the day that you measure up to being a pimple on the backside of either Messrs. Limbaugh or Hannity will definitely be the best day of your life...:)
|
|
|
whats with this "your argument is not valid because you misspelled a word" idiocy? For anyone even just lately familiar with this medium it is known that posting on the fly has its hazards. So, a typo, a grammatical error, a mispellong (oops). If you cant argue the point just shut up |
|
Catalonia:
"Getting back to Sullivan, he is a case study of how individuals become one-issue creatures and then set about constructing vast ideological/political/psychological edifices around that single issue (e.g., abortion). When Sullivan decided his purpose in life was to marry his boyfriend's anus (to put it distastefully but accurately), his intellectual journey ended. Ever since that moment his worldview has disintegrated into a pulpy mess. It's both fascinating and piteous.
You discredit his work why? Have you read his book even? It is much more a discussion about conservatism than one on gay marriage. I see you are a rampant homophobe, perhaps that is why you write so viciously, your distasteful description of his lifestyle is akin to saying you married your husband’s pe-nis or that he married your vagina. Although from your handle it is unclear what gender role you have. Or you may not be married.
It is clear from listening to the interview that Hugh sought to discredit Andrew from the start, questioning his faith, education and political beliefs, without engaging Andrew in his legitimate questions about any of Hugh’s views. Another observation is that Andrew has Hugh and his listeners fairly well pegged, an ideologue broadcaster with the requisite followers, some of the comments here are straight out of the world view of religious fundamentalism, which kind of proves Andrews point…
If Andrew is to reappear on Hugh’s show, Hugh should agree to debate any and all issues either side wish to discuss, and then perhaps we will see who the better mind, wit and debater is… I know who I am betting on.
Hugh, as for your error with regard to conlaw, it is all well and good that you retract your comment, but as an interviewer in the middle of an interview, while discussing a subject you profess to know better than the other (you made that clear at the start) it is important not to be factually wrong… especially because you used this issue to discredit Andrew larger point. You can retract, correct and reframe your argument (as you did in your post) but it is still embarrassing. Ha ha.
"No one with a legal education in America can agree with Andrew on a major premise of his book."
That is just false and shameful, it brings you down to the ranks of Limbaugh and Hannity, enjoy your stay.
|
|
"...and he flat-out because a HATER against anyone who sees things differently than he does."
Should read: And He flat out becomes a hater against anyone who sees thing differently than he does.
I've seen this time and time again from Sullivan. He has a lot of hate inside of him, IMO. |
|
You know what bugs me about Sullivan's war with Hugh Hewitt is that I was reading both his blog and Hugh's long enough to recall that Hugh had always tried to be respectful towards Sullivan. As Sullivan descended into his Bush Derangement Syndrome, he started making completely unprovoked personal attacks on Hugh. For example, during the Harriet Miers episode, Sullivan started posting childish personal attacks on Hugh.
Sullivan has a problem where he gets so self-righteous on certain issues that he cannot tolerate any disagreement whatsoever, and he flat-out because a HATER against anyone who sees things differently than he does. He'll even all-out despise someone and question their entire morality if they disagree with him on something so small as one's subjective reaction to a movie (Passion of the Christ). And even daring to link to a blog that Sullivan considers "evil" (InstaPundit linking to Malkin, for example) will cause him to judge you as unprincipled.
This is an odd intolerance from Sullivan, given how often he does 180 degree turns on his own views.
To Andrew Sullivan, if you dare to disagree with him or see something differently than he does, he will declare you an unprincipled, immoral person, and it does not matter that some of his judgments are based upon his own confusions on constitutional law. The specific item discussed in this post - about the suspect classifications that trigger strict scrutiny - really is basic stuff that any law student learns in their first semester of con law. It's so basic that there is no chance Hugh Hewitt did not know the complete law when he oversimplified it as he went back and forth with Sullivan, just as there is no chance Sullivan has even the most introductory grasp of con law. I wouldn't attack Sullivan for his ignorance on con law if he wasn't so self-righteously, arrogantly, childishly, and hatefully attacking others based on that ignorance (a trait he has in common with his ignorant but arrogant friend, Bill Maher).
In short, Sullivan needs to step back, calm down, accept that he does not know as much as he thinks he does, and ought to try engaging people in a less hostile and unhinged fashion. Hugh Hewitt has attempted to be respectful towards him many a time.
|
|
Subject:From CNN
Date:Friday, October 20, 2006 12:37:59 PM
Thank you for your email regarding the insurgent sniper segment and for providing us the opportunity to respond to your concern.
Michael Ware was not with the insurgents. No CNN staffer was present during the making of the insurgent sniper video.
Through an intermediary, CNN sent a list of questions to a group of insurgents. They sent back videotaped answers and this sniper video.
To be clear: We were not embedded with the insurgency and did not meet or spend any time with the snipers.
As you know from seeing the videotape, we dipped to black at the moment of impact. We did not show any Americans being shot.
That decision -- in fact, all the decisions about this story -- were subject to hours of intense editorial discussion at the highest levels here at CNN. The insurgent videotapes were reviewed very carefully, not only by CNN journalists, but also with the advice and guidance of a recently retired US Marines sniper and CNN's military analyst, Brigadier General David Grange (Retired). In particular, General Grange was able to advise on the significance of the insurgent use of snipers from his extensive service as a Ranger, Green Beret, and as a member of Delta Force.
If you have not yet seen Michael Ware's story, it is available for viewing at CNN.com.
Again, thank you for allowing us the opportunity to respond.
Respectfully,
CNN
|
|
|
|
|
CNN and Wolf Blitzer were wrong. I think the whole Allen-Webb race is a big fiasco (and well worth criticizing on both sides)--but Lynn Cheney is not involved in it and dragging her in because she wrote a book on the fifty states is biased journalism. Blitzer was carrying the Democrats' water. |
|
If you had sense of embarassment, you would ask Hugh to delete your post.
Does 'freedom of the press' = 'never critique the press'? Oh, that's right. It means lefties get to say or do anything they feel like, and then whine falsely about censorship when they are questioned for running enemy infomercials.
Yes, Republicans and other patriots think it is an abuse of freedom to help the enemy. CNN, as every soldier and every reasonable person knows, is helping the enemy.
But of course a dhimmie like you is to....dim to see that.
And please do point out where Lynn demanded censorship of CNN? I mean in real words, and not in silly lies out of your head or where ever you pull your ideas. |
|
|
Cheney came away looking like the idiot. Is that what she was on CNN to talk about? The whining repubs can't let the issure die. UNTIL Dubya imposes news orgs run all their scripts by the white house before airing, CNN has the right to air ANYTHING it wants. Heck, Americans deserve to know the truth about what's happening in Iraq...and ANY WHERE for that matter. |
|
Thanks Hugh Hewitt for the old "Clothes-Hanging" tackle of the "Wolf" now in a Sheep's Pajama you scored by alerting us non CNN watchers of Lynne Cheney's block and tackle of the Median Wing of the Democratic Party for at least a 15 yard LOSS!
Well Mrs. Vice-President you continue to amaze and impress so why not consider a run for the Presidency as you are formidable and would be a great opponent to MRS. Bill Clinton. Lynne Cheney you have the RIGHT STUFF as you showed on CNN's Crossfire Show years ago and from the Cross Fire you jujitsu-ed on naturalized American Wolf Blitzer's (from Israel) show today when he tried to Blind Side you. Too boot you are a Mother and Grandmother bringing that wisdom to the table too. Mrs. Bill would be shaken by the prospects of a GOP Presidential Candidate with the name of Lynne Cheney!....
P.S. Wolf, when Lynne Cheney asked if "you wanted America to win" a question from Congressman Duncan Hunter which you previously ducked, the best response you could give was the Royal WE...
"The answer, of course, is we want the United States to win. We are Americans."
Wolfie, in football that lame response would result in a fifteen yard penalty for unsportman's like conduct after Lynne Cheney's beautiful QB sack resulting from her lovely Blitz!
Indeed, that is the Situation in Your Room Mr. CNN!
Lynne Cheney For President!... |
|
Steener--you have some issues with unions. You did the right thing, you quit and stopped paying dues. Good for you. I don't much care for unions. I am guessing Bruce Springsteen, Neil Young or Woodie Guthrie music should not be on your Christmas list. But have you ever given money to a political organization? Do you give to GOP? Do you give to civil rights organizations such as the NRA? Did you ever give to some trade or professional organization that lobbies on behalf of its members? Not all such organizations are liberal.
As for fearing Sullivan--well he doesn't seem to be that scary a guy (neither is Hewitt), but there seems to be a fear over being challenged. Hewitt was challenging Sullivan's faith because he supports gay marriage. Sullivan came back challenging Hewitt's own Christianity by suggesting he was a torture appologist.
You can disagree with someone and still have a rational conversation. |
|
Years back alot of bloggers linked to Sullivan and I found most of his articles of interest. I cant remember exaclty when but his logic completely jumped the tracks and I dont waste my time on them no more. I couldnt help thinking at the time that it was all about gay marriage. It seems to me that when President Bush didn't entusiastically embrace Andrews gay lifestyle he jumped the shark. Now Andrew is just part of the unhinged left fever swamp and as much as I try to avoid him and his kooky tripe he continues to surface.
Hugh's interview proves my point. Sullivan himself knows he is unhinged and thats why he was so defensive from the very start. I had no interest in this interview and changed channels as soon as the topic was announced but it caused such a kafuffle I decided to listen to it. It just reinforced what I surmised years ago. Sullivan is just carry the water of the radical gay agenda. He trys (unsuccessfully)to promote that christianity and the constitution demands that we recognize gay marriage and when his arguments fall short he has to throw in torture and habeas corpus to deflect his specious reasoning. Sullivan is obviously intelligent as seems like a decent guy but as with most of the left when their agenda dictates their logic they just become another pathetically tragic polemicist. |
|
Fear Sullivan? Wow, that was a deep statement. I fear for my country, I fear that Americans don't have the will to fight the enemies of America and the consant fight for the freedoms that come with being an American.Throughout our history, we have had enemies & we have had battles where our brave soldiers have been sent to fight. I fear that our country has become soft. I blame Liberalism for this; decades of brainwashing at the hands of the Liberal media; 24-7, week after week, month after month, year after year. The new media just might save this country; I pray for that outcome. Nothing good and decent will ever survive evil without the will to fight.
Liberals & Unions go hand in hand; they are not two seperate indities, they are one... I came from a Union background; I witnessed the brainwash that took place at every meeting; I listened to the Union Reps as they told us we would have no job if Republicans win elections. I was young then and easily influenced. As I matured, I started asking myself; why have unions survived all of these years with Republicans in control? I started to question my union Reps and their brainwash simply because their words didn't match up to the realities of life. I eventually left the union and have never looked back. I have never been out of a job, and I have done quite well for myself and my family without the "protection" of union mob bosses. Unions use "fear & threats" to control the brainwash. Darn right disgusting. |
|
"I should have taken the time to more fully school Andrew in the intricacies of Equal Protection analysis."
-------------
Is this really how you see your role as interviewer and his as guest? Explains a lot.
But your repeated statement "No one with a legal education in America can agree with Andrew on a major premise of his book" doesn't.
Where's your argument?
------------
"If I were wrong, one would be enough."--Einstein responding to the anti-semitic "100 Authors Against Einstein"
|
|
If workers are free to join or not join unions, and those unions correctly reflected all their members political seniments, I would have no problem with their involvement in politics. Unfortunately, many unions are not like that. Ever see the teachers union support school vouchers or a conservative candidate? Are there no conservative teachers who are members of that union?
Even in some secular European countries you can get a voucher and send your kids to Catholic, Montessori, or any private school of your choice. Schools are forced to be competative to compete for students. Somehow I doubt the teacher's union will ever support that.
But getting back to your question--it is better for organized religion to take a step back from our secular government. But religious people should absolutely be involved in politics.
|
|
I while I think organized religion should generally stay out of politics (directly), people of faith absolutely should be involved in politics.
Would you say the same about organized labor unions? Or is it just the religious aspect of an organization? |
|
Only a Carvellian Democrat would have been proud of Blitzer's performance. It was an ambush gone awry as Lynne Cheney debunked all of Blitzer's Democrat talking points. Guess they didn't come with the answers eh Wolf?
The worst part was about an hour later when Lou Dobbs joined Blitzer in a self-congratulatory love fest. If anyone ever was in doubt, it was good to see CNN's facade as journslists come crashing down and their credentials as Democrat shills confirmed. |
|
It was all made worthwhile by that glorious parody of the HH/Sullivan interview by James Lileks. Pure sparkling brilliance, a keeper.
And HH never did answer about tornadoes. |
|
You did not try to ambush Andrew Sullivan the way Wolf Blitzer did to Lynn Cheney. Mrs. Cheney was promoting a children's book on the fifty states and Blitzer tried to drag Allen and Webb into it. That was very unprofessional and clearly Blitzer is beyond being merely biased. She was right to fight back the way she did.
You were trying to discredit Sullivan, but at least you focused on his book.
I really hate Sullivan's Christianist lable because there is no fair comparison between fundamentalist Christianity and Islam. I do not like the corrolation that word suggests. I while I think organized religion should generally stay out of politics (directly), people of faith absolutely should be involved in politics.
I also find annoying self professed Christians publically telling someone else they are not Catholic or Christian because of a disagreement on certain points of faith. I think you did that (or at least were going in that direction) with Sullivan. It is fair to discuss and debate differences and perhaps you two will do that next time. |
|
gryphmon,
"Some of us in the American public might have difficulty taking seriously someone who can't spell "American" correctly."
Well, if you want to get all grammarian on Hugh, how shall we interpret your monumentally literate statement: "... your false piety rings quite false ..."?
(I'm quite certain Hugh would welcome you confirming his piety!)
Getting back to Sullivan, he is a case study of how individuals become one-issue creatures and then set about constructing vast ideological/political/psychological edifices around that single issue (e.g., abortion). When Sullivan decided his purpose in life was to marry his boyfriend's anus (to put it distastefully but accurately), his intellectual journey ended. Ever since that moment his worldview has disintegrated into a pulpy mess. It's both fascinating and piteous. |
|
Last evening I was trying via Google to find a video clip of the Blitzer/Lynne Cheney interview, before it was posted here, and found one at thinkprogress.org.
It was titled "Lynne Cheney unhinged on CNN".
Oh really ? !!! So I looked at the many comments already made there, and from Comment 72 I joined in as they all seemed to be singing from the same hymnshhet and needed a bit of polite correction. I tried to be civil, tried to debate, but met a lot of nasty and ignorant hostility - including a lot of people who simply could not credit that I was commenting from London, UK.
And OH MY - are they pout of touch with the latest polling of Senate and House seats. Frothing about impeachments, lots of pure bile about Bush (and Lynne Cheney as target-du-jour), and total failure to see that what CNN has been doing is plain disloyal and indecent.
They reminded me of my grandkids on a very bad day.
JohninLondon
|
|
Come on Hugh--you went into that interview trying to discredit Sullivan. You were not that fired up because a non-lawyer mistated the equal protection test. You were so fired up that you overstated it the other way.
Sullivan is a lot of things--but dismissing him as a radical is not fair. Excitable--no doubt. Annoying--well yeah he can be annoying (ask Reynolds, Ponnuru, or Kaus about that). Liberal and libertarian--sure on many issues, but he is still a conservative on many issues too. You might find you have more common ground than you would like to admit right now.
I have mostly voted GOP my whole adult life, voted for President Bush, support the GWOT, support the Iraq War and want nothing less than victory--but I have to agree with many of the charges Sullivan has leveled against the GOP and President. Expansion of entitlements, over spending, and lack of fiscal restraint are not good. I want to be tough on our enemies (in fact, ruthless to them on the battlefield)--but I was embarassed and ashamed by some of the excesses done to detainees in our custody. I think it hurt our moral standing and, more importantly, the United States is better than that.
You should have Sullivan back on. I agree you two should agree on a topic. That would be interesting radio and might actually be enlightening. |
|
"Like Sullivan, I am a sinner and in need of God's mercy and grace. I do not want to snub or exploit him. But I am concerned that his errors not gain traction in the Amerian public, for they are destructive of the Republic and quite obviously wrong. I would welcome the opportunity to find common ground, and perhaps an encore interview could proceed on the premise that we would only discuss those matters on which we agreed."
Wow. You guys really are terrified of Sullivan after all. I thought he was just being a drama queen. He is, but he can't match you for sheer scale of dramatic hysteria. And your false piety rings quite false against the sheer arrogance and presumption of your following sentences.
Thank you for your oh-so-pompous "concern" that the American public might be horribly mislead by Sullivan, but we are not your dogs to be lead around on your leash. We can think for ourselves, thank you very much. We don't need you and your blog compatriots to interpret everything in the world for us. Amazingly enough, mankind has managed to survive all these centuries until you came along to tell us all what to read and how to think. We people in the masses will just have to hobble our way on without you on this one. But thanks for the valuable lesson on the folly of arrogance.
PS: Some of us in the American public might have difficulty taking seriously someone who can't spell "American" correctly. Or maybe I just am being led astray once again and need to be guided by your paternalistic and overbearing hand as to where "Ameria" may be found on a map. |
|
|
|