Jaw-droppingly good radio

Matthew Hoy
By Matthew Hoy on October 26, 2006

Hugh Hewitt had Andrew Sullivan on his radio show yesterday. The transcript is incomplete, but you can listen to the interview in two parts here. (You'll need to scroll down a little bit, and listen to the 50-minute long part first.)

Full disclosure: Shortly after 9/11, when Sullivan was still sane, he once referred to me as a "superb blogger." I don't think it's any stretch to believe that he no longer holds that view. I haven't changed. He has.

Hewitt's interview at times succeeds in talking about Sullivan's new book, "The Conservative Soul," but on the whole the interview is really a look into Sullivan's soul.

Sullivan calls himself a Christian -- and he may be one, but it's a convenient brand of Christianity which allows him to ignore most of Paul's writings -- probably because of that whole Romans 1 thing.

Sullivan also likes to call himself a conservative, which is defined as believing exactly what Sullivan believes.

It's 1 1/2 hours of audio, but you really should listen to it.

Oh, and I'll answer one of Sullivan's questions.

No, I do not believe that waterboarding is torture.

0 comments on “Jaw-droppingly good radio”

  1. Anybody else notice how Andrew starting making baseless attacks on Hugh during the interview. Saying how Hugh was asking him trick questions, and comparing himself to Christ. What struck me was how Andrew kept assuming what Hughs opnions were, and then attacking the supposed strawmen. The best example for me was when he attacked Hugh for commericals trying to show Hugh to be a hipocrite for having a profit motive using a "Christian" program, only to have Hugh point out his was a secular radio show. Baseless attacks, with ignorance to facts. Hmmm. Isn't that what one of the things that Andrew states conservatives are doing? Talk about projecting.

  2. That was an interesting listen. I have never heard Hugh Hewitt before so I have no reference, not sure why Sullivan was so defensive, I guess he had his reasons. One thing I am curious about Matt, you write "Sullivan also likes to call himself a conservative, which is defined as believing exactly what Sullivan believes."

    Why do you believe Sullivan is not a conservative?

    I am a conservative who used to long for the days of a Republican majority in Congress and a Republican President. Think about what we could have done, where's the Social Security reform and cuts to wasteful government spending? Remember when the conservative mantra about the Dept of Education? Where are the cuts there, and to all the other wasteful agencies that spend tax payers money blindly? How come after six years of a republican control we still don't have permanent tax cuts?

    After six years of blind spending, the Medicare prescription drug debacle, the McCain-Feingold bill, Harriet Miers, and Republicans running around as Democrats did in the 80s/90s, I'm not sure how much more I can take.

    For the first time in years I am actually considering not voting, mainly because I can't bring myself to vote for either party. When I hear friends enter into political debate I no longer defend the republican party, as a conservative, how can I, how can any of us? Not with this record anyway.

    Sullivan is one of the few screaming from the mountain top that we're in trouble, unfortunately it seems that as long as someone has an R next to their name that's all that matters anymore. Too bad, think of what we could have done if the Hannitys and Hewitts and Limbaughs would have treated this president the way they would have if someone with a D next to their name passed the same bills and laws. How much better off would we be if we truly fought against the poor decisions instead of just smiling and waving?

    df

  3. The absolute BEST bit of radio ever though was when they called Lillek and he--more-or-less completely cold--went after Hugh for supporting Tornados. F'ing brilliant.

Tags

The @sdutOpinion Editorial pages used to be fairly mainstream conservative. When I applied for a letters editor opening there in the mid-00s, I was asked if there's an editorial I wouldn't write. I replied: a pro-abortion one. 1/

Supreme Court: “The Second Amendment is not a second class right. States can’t use subjective criteria when issuing carry permits.”
California: “But what if we added in illegal viewpoint discrimination, and violated the First Amendment at the same time?”
https://reason.com/volokh/2022/06/26/state-attorney-general-suggests-considering-applicants-ideological-viewpoints-in-denying-carry-licenses/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

Load More

Calendar

October 2006
M T W T F S S
 1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
3031  

Archives

Categories

pencil
linkedin facebook pinterest youtube rss twitter instagram facebook-blank rss-blank linkedin-blank pinterest youtube twitter instagram