Andrew Sullivan - Cry habeas corpus and let slip the dogs of war.
Hugh Hewitt is attempting to interview Andrew Sullivan about his new book, The Conservative Soul. This interview is turning out to be like some kind of weird car chase. I want to listen but find it sort of disturbing. It’s awkward. Andrew Sullivan must be having some kind of panic attack.
It’s pretty clear that Sullivan must have heard about Hugh’s killer reputation as a questioner. (relentless interrogator) He’s loaded for bear and refusing to answer Hugh’s softball questions about his book and instead, is responding to Hugh’s questions with accusations, filibustering with all his might. His behavior is nothing short of bizarre.
Now Sullivan’s complaining about the advertisements on Hugh’s show. He’s trying to draw Hugh into a debate.
Good Lord, Sullivan’s a gasbag. He claims to be happy, then calls Hugh pedantic and pathetic.
Do happy people attack others on nation-wide radio?
Hugh’s playing cheesy, cheerful music to cheer Andrew up. Andrew denies he is unhappy, then insults Hugh again.
When Hugh tells Andrew that his book is an intellectual mess he giggles.
How long is this thing going on?
Now Hugh’s attempting to get Andrew to discuss gay marriage. Andrew is for it of course. He claims the founders intended for courts to dictate to legislatures. He contends it’s a conservative notion to grant marriage rights to gays. He’s lecturing Hugh about the history of gays.
Hugh questions Andrew about the Massachusetts Supreme Court. He asks, “is the court out of control by arrogating to itself the lawmaking power.”
Andrew’s response? More attacks on Hugh.
Haha. Hugh’s losing patience. He closed the segment stating, “We’ll be back with more sophistry.” I like that word…..sophistry.
They’re back. Andrew makes an admission. He’s having fun. He likes debating. (you could have fooled me) Hugh sticks with the interview…..lots of legal questions about legislation. Doesn’t Bush respect the constitution more than the legislature?
Andrew makes a sort of admission that yes he does. But says we have an opportunity to stop the attack on our liberties by voting for Democrats. Keeps asking Hugh if he believes in torture.
He thinks President Bush believes in all monarchical power. Hugh says he’s not much of a monarchist if he steps down after the end of his second term.
Andrew states that Habeas Corpus no longer holds in this country. He claims the executive branch is torturing people for the sake of torturing.
Hugh wants to understand the definition of what a Christianist is? Sullivan answers, saying that Christianists have a faith in ideology instead of Christ and that being a democrat means they cannot be a Christian. Anyone who uses religion to get people to vote.
End of segment.
Hugh asks Andrew if he has any doubt about the benefits of same sex marriage. Andrew seriously doubts that it will do any harm.
He has no doubt that President Bush has suspended Habeas Corpus.
Hugh says the main principle of Sullivan’s book would cause him to flunk any Constitutional Law Class at any Lawschool in the country.
Andrew says the word, Christian is too crude a term.
And with that we end. Andrew Sullivan is a very difficult person.
UPDATE: James Lileks is also giving Hugh a bad time. He claims to be happy too. He’s yelling at Hugh about his meteorological shortcomings and is accusing Hugh of supporting tornadoes.
This is so rich. It tastes even better than supper did tonight. Simply and basically it’s cold in Minnesota and tornadoes could sweep Lileks away to an alternate world where Superman has a beard.
Trackback URL for this post:
http://www.thewideawakecafe.com/wp-trackback.php?p=1544
11 Comments »
Leave a comment
RSS feed for these comments. |
Trackback URL for this post:
http://www.thewideawakecafe.com/wp-trackback.php?p=1544










Heh. This is a pretty good summary of the interview. Sullivan's publisher shouldn't allow him to go on interviews anymore, because I won't buy his book after hearing him on Hewitt's show. I was really interested in hearing a passionate critique of the current brand of conservativism in America and instead I heard 90 minutes of childish, churlish arguments on behalf of an ideology that is totally nonsensical. Whatever it is that Sullivan believes in, it certainly isn't anything that resembles any sort of conservativism that I've ever heard of.
October 25th, 2006 | #
Steve Martin will play Andrew Sullivan in any movie about Andrew Sullivan. I'm not sure if Michael Caine will play Hugh. In the sequel, Dirty Rotten Scoundrels II (Oh Yeh?!!), Andrew will play both Chips O'toole and the mute, simultaneously.
October 26th, 2006 | #
Andrew Sullivan had a golden opportunity to present his views with mature decorum. He has to see that he failed. In the end Sullivan appeared to be quite a bore on which he was supposed to be an expert.
His agenda seemed to be preoccupied on how disingenuous Hugh’s interviews are, how inauthentic Hugh’s conservativism is and how Hugh’s Christianity has no soul. This tact blindsided Sullivan’s intelligence. He spoke over Hugh dozens of times, his accusations of Hugh’s beliefs were unsubstantiated, and his anger was palpable.
I don’t question that this interview was not fun for him I just think his approach was that of an eighteen year old who relentlessly accuses his interlocutor of behavior and fails to engage patiently both his host and audience with informed ideas and persuasive rhetoric.
If he really believes Hugh's approach is or was disingenuous then he had the perfect opportunity to counter him with mature sophistication. He failed to do this and that's why I see the interview as a total loss for him.
October 26th, 2006 | #
Did Sullivan think that he was conducting the interview? So much of the time was spent trying to question rather than answer questions.
BTW...why does Mr. Sullivan condemn certainty universally, while arguing his points with such certainty?
October 26th, 2006 | #
I think Hugh is one of the few interviewers that accually reads the material before the interwiews. Sullivan couldn't handle the fact that anyone would questioned whether he really know what he is talking about.
October 26th, 2006 | #
Uh, it's con law (constitutional law) that Sullivan flunked (and flunked it but good)--Hugh teaches constitutional law and Sullivan's book apparently is pretty shoddy on that score.
October 26th, 2006 | #
Thanks Dennis. I am not a lawyer so when I heard Hugh I misunderstood. But I have a daughter in lawschool and one who just passed the bar. I will fix it.
October 26th, 2006 | #
Before I knew much about him, I used to read Andrew's column. I didn't realize, nor did I care, that he is gay. At one time he was a strong supporter of GWB and his stand on Iraq. Always had good things to say about him. Then the push for Gay Marriage began and our President did not support it. Andrew's support immediately abandoned his support to malevolent ranting about everything "Bush!" I stopped reading him at that point. I think he's an arrogant, supercilious bore! BTW, is he an American citizen?
October 26th, 2006 | #
I will not defend Andrew Sullivan's politics, his dissembling nor his rhetorical manner, but I must say that neither Sullivan nor Hewitt come off well. Andrew was correct to suspect that Hewitt had set up traps and Andrew decided to play offense. However, he ended up merely being shrill and offensive. Yet, yet, Hugh was boorish in his attempt to go from one setup to another and play the innocent, "Hey I'm just asking here..." ploy.
For an interesting contrast, compare this episode with Sullivan's appearance on Dennis Prager. Prager was more successful engaging Sullivan without Hewitt's wonkiness.
October 26th, 2006 | #
Yes I agree with Fred. After two thirds of the interview, I had to turn to another station; it was very uncomfortable to hear this interview. Although I would agree with Hugh on most issues, his interview style did no justice to Andrew Sullivan, who has worthy things to say to challenge conservatives, even though I would not agree with most of his ideas. Still, Hugh could have adapted himself better to Mr. Sullivan and scored points by answering his various challenges. Hugh always is comfortable interviewing those who agree with with him, and more stiff with those he doesn't, making for some awkward interviews.
October 27th, 2006 | #
Hugh conducts interviews like a deposition. If you answer the questions, you are fine. If you "buck" it, it will not be a pretty sight.
Frankly, I've had my fill of Sullivan for a while. He has a few "hangups" including the spector of "Inquisition". When Pope Benedict was elected, that is the first thing he said; the Inquisitor is now Pope (I think Benedict held the office that is known as the "Inquisitor", so the exclamation was correct.)
Personally, I think part of Andrew's "gayness" for lack of a better word, is looking for being "dissed". He was defensive with Hugh before the first question and it went downhill from there.
Lileks' parody interview afterwards really showcased how bad it was. (It was also quite hilarious!)
October 27th, 2006 | #