Jonathon Chait
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.
When they open their mouths it shows just how stupid the liberals really are.
Boy needs some vocabulary and grammar lessons.
Hewitt is the second coming of Rush.
I
Thou shalt create an illusion of invulnerability shared by most members to foster excessive optimism and encourage extreme risks taking
II
Thou shall not allow any member to question the group's inherent morality, instead members shall be encouraged to ignore the ethical or moral consequences of their decisions
III
Thou shalt promote collective efforts to rationalize in order to discount warnings, or other information that might lead members to reconsider their assumptions before they recommit themselves to their assumptions
IV
Thou shalt reinforce stereotyped views of enemy leaders as too evil to warrant genuine attempts to negotiate, or as too weak and stupid to counter whatever risky attempts are made to defeat their purpose
V
Thou shalt self-censor any deviation from the apparent group consensus, inclining each member to minimize the importance of their doubts and counterarguments
VI
Thou shalt create and maintain a shared illusion of unanimity concerning judgement conforming to the majority view
VII
Thou shalt apply direct pressure on any member who expresses strong arguments against any of the group's stereotypes, illusions, or commitments, making clear that this type of dissent is contrary to what is expected of all loyal members
VIII
Thou shalt appoint mindguards to protect the group from adverse information that might shatter their shared complacency about the effectiveness and morality of their decisions
-Eddie01 2006 (adapted from Janis '82)
Wonder why nobody cares what the MSM says?
..ever notice when ever a lib talks they almost always refer to "many others", or "as many have spoke"....they always have to bolster their point as though it's common place,overall opinion, which of course, it's not...
Doogle
Hewitt just ate this guy up and spit him out. Wow, I am going to have to listen to him. Wonder if he is on in Knoxville.
Y'know...that's just silly! At the outset, it robs Chait's argument of any credibility.
It is truly amazing that such ludicrous notions can be taken seriously. And, especially, by a supposedly adult publication -- like the Los Angeles Times.
Yet, millions of lefties believe this tripe. It is truly a statement about their mental capacities. And their sanity...
Except in their tight little circle.
Where everybody thinks exactly the same thing...
Except in their tight little circle.
Where everybody thinks exactly the same thing...
An objective press is an oxyMORON, like Jumbo Shrimp, Pretty Ugly, Rap Singer or Pro-American DemocRat!
Pray for W and Our Freedom Fighters
Actually, it's not that amazing. Have you checked the state of the public school system over the past 15/20 years? It is not surprising at all that adults take this seriously. They have no ability to think things through anymore. (And no, I'm not trying to hijack the thread to another topic.)
Thanks for the post. I have never heard this Hugh Hewitt fellow before. He's a hell of an interviewer!
Is that the new divide between left and right? One is educated, the other intelligent?
If you haven't picked up a copy of the LA Times recently, you're in for a shock. I thought the newspaper was horrible 10 years ago when I quit even looking at free copies.
Well, the other day I found a copy of the Orange County Edition on my desk and had a peek. The two facing editorial pages, well, let's just say it was like reading a print edition of Democratic Underground. They've gone over to the dark side completely. "Bush is a Liar," "Bush is a Scumbag," and "We should be nice to the terrorists" were the gist of three of the editorials that come to mind. There were others espousing socialism in one form or another.
I knew it was bad, but this was shocking. There was not one SINGLE paragraph that made any sense whatsoever. I suppose it should come as no surprise that newspapers of record are now printing national secrets on their front pages. It will be interesting to see how much lower they can go.
You're welcome! Yes, Hugh is great!
This was commonly used in Communist Russia, in their newspaper Pravda. Their way to say it was, "As is well known......"
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.