15/11: Man Bites Dog
Category: Media and Politics
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
Yesterday, I caught a few minutes of the Sean Hannity radio show. He was interviewing (debating is a better word) Charlie Rangel.
File this under things I never thought I would hear myself say: Rangel won hands-down.
In addition to relying on the host's advantage of talking over his guest, Hannity was rude and unfocussed and determined to present Rangel with a series of false choices. Nevertheless, Rangel kept making the salient points.
But here is the wildest part: by the conclusion of the engagement, it was clear that Hannity was totally committed (rhetorically, at least) to a Wilsonian ideal while Rangel articulated a classic conservative realism. How did we get here?
File this under things I never thought I would hear myself say: Rangel won hands-down.
In addition to relying on the host's advantage of talking over his guest, Hannity was rude and unfocussed and determined to present Rangel with a series of false choices. Nevertheless, Rangel kept making the salient points.
But here is the wildest part: by the conclusion of the engagement, it was clear that Hannity was totally committed (rhetorically, at least) to a Wilsonian ideal while Rangel articulated a classic conservative realism. How did we get here?
gossenius wrote:
Probably, we got there because Hannity tends to stay on the Bush/RNC talking points, and they have strayed from conservatism in the sense you describe it. Of course, I say this not having heard this particular interview...
I also think Hannity's not getting enough sleep.