Fair Fight: Two Liberals vs. Hugh
Okay, okay. So it was a little lopsided but adding a third liberal wouldn't have tipped it into the libs' favor. That's the impression I got in reading
the transcript
from Hugh's appearance on Hardball last night. Check out this exchange:
Then there's this exchange:
Think about it this way: If you read something by Michael Isikoff or someone like that, where they claimed they knew that the Bush Administration was maliciously attempting to destroy a reporter's career, wouldn't you want to know who they were trying to destroy. Wouldn't you want to know what proof they had to verify their claim? I wouldn't take their word for it for a minute without that information.
That's the difference between the real journalists that inhabit the Right Blogosphere and the farces that pretend to be mainstream journalists. When the two collide, it isn't pretty.
Cross-posted at California Conservative
Posted Tuesday, April 11, 2006 3:02 PM
No comments.
REAGAN: Well Hugh and I agree, that we certainly have the right to secure our borders. We disagree about that fence. Somebody said that 10-foot fences make for a big market for 11-foot ladders. These are people who are desperate to feed their families, who are willing to brave the Sonoran desert and death by, you know, dehydration. Now a fence is not going to stop them. They've got shovels, they've got ladders, they're coming over.Talk about a total slapdown. Hugh makes Ron Jr. look foolish in that exchange. Hugh had logic the facts on his side in the fight. Reagan had....well, you decide if he had anything.
HEWITT: Hey Ron, did you ever carry an 11-foot fence?
REAGAN: Eleven-foot ladder you mean?
HEWITT: Eleven-foot ladder? You ever carry one of those?
REAGAN: Yes, as a matter of fact, I was up on my roof just the other day.
HEWITT: Across the Sonoran desert?
REAGAN: You don't have to do it across the Sonoran desert. All you have to do is get to the border of the U.S.
HEWITT: Why does Israel build 400 miles of fence that effectively keeps out...
REAGAN: ... That's a much, much smaller area.
HEWITT: It's 400 miles, Ron.
REAGAN: We're talking about thousand miles of border.
HEWITT: No, we're talking about 700 miles of easily accessible.
REAGAN: Seven hundred miles in a very remote country.
Then there's this exchange:
MATTHEWS: Let me ask you about the far more troubling question about Sy Hersh's piece in The New Yorker [...]Hugh makes another liberal look foolish. Why? Because Matthews went by Hersh's reputation instead of thinking that a story might actually not be true. Especially a story that's that incredible.
I think it was in The Washington Post yesterday that we're developing a strike option for Iran, including the nuclear.
HEWITT: It was very interesting. Seymour Hersh gets it right about 50 percent of the time. I did not hear a single name. He could have completely fabricated that.
MATTHEWS: Why did he make it up?
HEWITT: Because it's a heck of a story. It sells a lot of magazines.
MATTHEWS: Sy Hersh is a credible reporter.
HEWITT: Half the time he gets it right. Half the time he goes on to stuff that will never see the light of day. And when you asked him, you pressed him, who is the name here? And he said, "Well, George W. Bush. Give me one name and I'll believe it, Chris. And until I get one name in the Pentagon, I'm not going to.
Think about it this way: If you read something by Michael Isikoff or someone like that, where they claimed they knew that the Bush Administration was maliciously attempting to destroy a reporter's career, wouldn't you want to know who they were trying to destroy. Wouldn't you want to know what proof they had to verify their claim? I wouldn't take their word for it for a minute without that information.
That's the difference between the real journalists that inhabit the Right Blogosphere and the farces that pretend to be mainstream journalists. When the two collide, it isn't pretty.
Cross-posted at California Conservative
Posted Tuesday, April 11, 2006 3:02 PM
No comments.
