Thursday, October 26, 2006

Three Debates

First, watch the Hitchens vs. Galloway debate (both parts). Next, read this transcript between Hugh Hewitt and Andrew Sullivan. Finally, I had a debate this week with a friend from work. There is a parallel in styles between Sullivan, Galloway and my friend. I will explain these differences to Mr. Sullivan and Mr. Hewitt here:

Andrew --

Why do I compare you to the anti-Semitic Galloway? Because, like him, you define anyone who disagrees with you as a heretic (Heretic = Christianist). During yesterdays conversation between Mr.Hewitt and yourself, you were offended by his conservatism and religion. By insulting him, how do you gain supporters of your view?

You act like Galloway by striking on the torture issue and promoting over the din of the conversation. The issue was your book, The Conservative Soul, and yet you did not want to discuss your own book.

My feeling is you are Conservative to a liberal like Arianna Huffington or to a Kossite [By the way, where is your indignation for their anti-Semitic?], but not to a Conservative. How do you explain to a Jewish Conservative that by voting Democrat he keeps the Conservatives honest? The current Democrat party wants to make Israel the new Czechoslovakia. The last time the GOP voted out someone is was Bush's father , that gave us Clinton and the coarsening of the culture. Why should any person from the GOP listen to you? You go to all the Georgetown parties being the "Conservative" everyone loves because your issue is not addressed? That, Mr. Sullivan is petty and the beginning of Fascism.

Mr Hewitt --

Mr. Sullivan did ask some questions, you could have answered. Otherwise, you were open-minded (more then Andrew), but if you answered, his issue would have been re-butted. However, it was your show, and you call the shots.

Since you have actually visited The Valley (I have sent Andrew many invitations, the sitemeter showed he never came), you get much more leniency. We are Institutionalists. The core factor of keeping society from falling apart is the institutions. In an earlier post , I mentioned how I felt about Clinton, yet I was civil and respectful. Clinton and I agreed about 30% of the time, but I still believe in the institution of the Presidency. As do you.

At times you seem Pollyannish and don't focus on winning the local battles outside of Orange County, but at least you talk ideas and strategy. You were civil. Sullivan wasen't.

In my debate earlier this week, I won by default because the other person let everyone know his points within the framework of the debate. Galloway and Sullivan could keep from insulting their opponent. Do that and you join the coarsoning of political talk. I hope to hear from both Mr. Sullivan and Mr. Hewitt regarding my take.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Welcome to the Valley! Please comment about the post and keep to the subject.

There is only one person (JSF) keeping track of comments, so as long as what you write is civil and close to the purpose of the post, you will see it.

Keep this in mind: Politics should not be Personal; then you have a place here.

Write! History will remember your words!


Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...