Posted on 07/11/2006 5:58:07 PM PDT by infoguy
On Monday, July 10, 2006, fabulous radio host Hugh Hewitt celebrated his 6th anniversary on the air with an on-air spanking of Los Angeles Times columnist Jonathan Chait. The day before, in another one of his badly misguided op-eds, Chait actually wrote that President Bush is a "greater threat" to the country than Osama bin Laden, and it is "quite reasonable to conclude that Bush will harm the nation more" than Bin Laden.
Hewitt invited Chait to his program and proceeded to do what he does best with far-left liberals who espouse unsupportable views. Hewitt coolly shredded Chait and his Times column. The transcript with audio is at Radio Blogger (Thanks, Duane!).
Right from the start of the interview, after Chait clearly affirmed that he hates President Bush, the exchange spiraled downhill for Chait. As he drubbed his guest, Hewitt asked Chait to support his baseless allegation that Bin Laden has a "very limited numbers of followers capable of striking at the U.S." Chait failed to answer the challenge. Hewitt asked Chait how many terrorists there are. Chait responded by asking, "How many terrorists? You tell me." Doh! It was a clear fumble by Chait.
Here is another favorite exchange:
HUGH HEWITT: ... Jonathan, I want you to just have the opportunity to explain what you mean by Bush has "wreaked enormous damage on the political and social fabric of the country."
JONATHAN CHAIT: Right. This is a broad generalization that I had to make, and obviously within the constraints of an op-ed, couldn't possibly flush out in the detail you'd like to. But of course, me and many people have written a lot of pieces about Bush's policies, and the dangers that they pose to the United States. He has practiced policies, both in the way he's gone about them and the affects of them, in ways that I find different than most of his predecessors, Republican and Democrat, historically, and that have severe damaging effects on the United States and the way the politics are practiced.
Did anyone get that? When Hewitt asked a follow up for "specifics" and clarification, Chait stumbled even further.
It's clear that Hewitt really got under Chait's skin, because Chait ultimately had to resort to cheap attacks and name-calling. As the interview neared its end, Chait referred to Hewitt as "unhinged" and as a "nutty, but lovable crank." "Unhinged"? "Nutty"? Please ... Whether you agree with him or not, Hewitt's show is an exhibition in reasoned and clear-thinking dialogue.
Chait actually had the gall to say to Hewitt, "Kos [Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas Zuniga] is almost as unhinged as you." Wha-? With that response, it was clear that Chait could not defend his column or his baseless views.
Want some fun? Try this: Pour yourself your favorite beverage; take a peek at Chait's loony column; and then listen to the interview at Radio Blogger. It's a good one.
OR... an ad copy writer and spokesperson for the DNC posing as a credentialed journalist hired by the marketing firm of L. A. and Times."
You need to look at the bigger picture. These people including most of the DNC don't like what the US is and what we stand for.
Many of them would be very happy to see the US and our accomplishments destroyed, you and I understand what would take place as a result but I don't think they have a clue. Their hate over powers their reason.
Very well put.
Reading the transcript my respect for Hewitt just went way up. Not that it was low before, but he is a very sharp guy and in complete control of the interview.
Yes, I think you're right. Isn't that a mighty small market though?
I wonder if he would make the same comparison between FDR and Tojo or Hitler?
Hitler never attacked the USA.
Only better educated and pious. But Rush beats all in knowing conservative values.
I noticed the same thing, Hewitt sometimes used almost a C-Span interview technique -- ask a question, listen to the answer without commentary, ask another question. Maybe Hewitt believes that when your opponent is digging a hole for himself, you should let him keep digging.
Chait was the moron who actually said he hated Bush because of the way he walked. Only someone wallowing in incoherent hatred could make a statement like that. Typical lib who hates all conservatives but can't express a logical thought...only venom and bile.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.