Hannity/Horowitz vs. Ward Churchill, with Alan Colmes presiding (Ineffective and mismatched)

[DaveLoneRanger]

Did anyone catch the debate with Hannity/Horowitz versus Ward Churchill? I flipped over to it apparently as it was just beginning.

Ward Churchill was extremely disrespectful, rarely made sense, and didn't defend his position.

Sean Hannity used his typical "that's outrageous" tactics and really didn't address OR refute the points.

Alan kind of danced back and forth between the two, but I must respect him for trying to pin the elusive Churchill down.

Horowitz got next to no time, unless they'd talked to him before I came in, but it seemed like he was mismatched anyway, because he never addressed Churchill's arguments and was primarily focusing on whether or not we can/should have politics in the classroom.

I don't mean to call out the Hannity's Haters here on FR (and I know they're here; believe me, you all, I have as much reason to dislike Hannity personally as you do, he kicked me off the show for mentioning FR) but my quarrel with him is legitimate, I believe. Instead of arguing some of the points that I believe should have been argued (IE, the 9/11 attacks were primiarily religious in nature, not cultural, we did not attack Iraq except in the Gulf War with UN 'approval' in the 90's, or a "we did it, so they are justified in doing it" argument is fallacious, that sort of thing) he merely accused the man of not having a soul, of being heartless and cruel, and demanding an apology. He was just ineffective; he wasn't trying to win any points in a debate with Churchill, he was trying to get applause from the peanut gallery for standing up to Churchill.

Churchill's entire performance was revolting. If he was trying to give his side a good name, he should have looked at the camera and addressed the arguments, not fidgeted or shifted around or rolled his eyes or any of that nonsense.

I don't pretend to think I could do any better, especially under the hot lights and high pressure of TV. But I can think of people (say, Michael Medved or Michelle Malkin ... the M&M's of conservatives) who could have done a much better job of this than Sean did.

What did everyone else think?

Please no senseless Hannity bashing!

[John Filson]

I'm sure I missed this when I was watching Alabama Senator Sessions stand alone against the treasonous "compromise" bill.

[stylin19a]

Michelle Malkin ? I saw the Hardball show...she went mush mouth and get bullied off the air by Chris Matthews.

[jackadams]

I like Sean. Ward Churchill being the brave soul kept pretending he could hear Sean through the audio feed.

[David1]

Yeah, I thought the same. David hardly spoke and never really took on Ward's accusations. Sean is not really that good of a debater to begin with even though I agree with him just about every time. Who on the conservative side would we pick as a good debater? I always thought Pat Buchanan was an effective debater even though I disagree with him on many things. Even with Pat's slide to la la land, I still consider him very effective as a debater. Can anyone name any good, effective, mainstream conservative debater out there? I'll start--Mark Levin. I love that guy and truly is very effective debating. Let me hear some more names.

[Proud_USA_Republican]

Its was pretty boring.

But you really got a sense that Churcill is all talk.

His answer to every question was, "But Rumsfeld is bombing Iraqi children" and every sentence was filled with memorized long words he uses over and over again to appear intelligent. Most of the time, the words he's using don't even make sense in the context he's trying to use them in.

The guy is a phoney intellecutal and was easily exposed.

[rapture-me]

Sean kicked Churchill's a$$! I saw the whole thing and Churchill tried, but could not make a coherent point. On the other hand, Sean called him (Churchill) everything but an American. I get irritated with Sean also but tonight he came up about 6 notches in my book.

[Toidylop]

I also like Mark Levin. Mark is the best debater and he never backs down from any leftist bogus charge.

[wolf24]

Horowitz is one of my favorite conservatives. I think he often follows one of Rush's rules: never get into an argument with idiots because people will have trouble telling the difference.

Sean never has a problem arguing with idiots.

[DTogo]

Bingo! My thoughts exactly as I stomached but a few minutes of it.

[rapture-me]

I listened to the Horowitz/Churchill debate on Rightalk.com. Actually, I also recorded it onto my Hard drive to replay tomorrow. If anyone wants a copy (26 meg MP3 file) I'll try to figure a way to get it to them.

[Nachum]

I listened to most of the debate and I don't think that Horowitz got to score many points until the end. Churchill was very careful in the beginning, but as the debate ran on, a bit of his extremism would slip out. Horowitz did not attack him directly until the end when he caught Churchill in an out contradiction in his speech.

The whole thing ended too soon. I got the impression that they would have really gone at it if the debate was longer. It would have benefitted Horowitz greatly if he had more direct knowledge of what Churchill does in the classroom.

Not a lot of fireworks, but definately worth listening to.

[Miss Behave]

Ben Stein

[Ciexyz]

I don't have cable so thanks for the news that Ward Churchill is still making news (with a barf alert).

[frannie]

I don't think you missed much. I turned it off several times. Sean got on my nerves. He has a few phrases and tonight he used them over and over, Churchill said nothing of any substance and Horowitz IMO was given very little time to say anything.

Sean, for all his prodding, was not going to get Churchill to apologize or take back any thing he had said about 9/11.

Learned nothing.

[Emmet Fitzhume]

Well, I certainly admire Mr. Hannity for defending the 9-11 victims and their families.

After hearing the interview, I am convinced that Ward Churchill will probably join Mohammed and Stalin in hell.

[HawaiianGecko]

I didn't see it and really didn't need to witness it. I'm sure Hannity did his righteous indignation routine again. David did his too many liberals in universities shtick, Churchill did his America is evil and Bush killed Crazy Horse gabble and Colmes still thinks Valerie Plame is James Bond.

Churchill hasn't had a stage in months. I wonder what the meaning of pointing the spotlight on him tonight was all about.

 

[David1]

Yeah, I love Sean. I just don't think he really is that good of a debater. But neither am I, LOL. ;-) Sean can be good at times in debates with these leftists. At other times, he's not that great. But that is just my opinion. It doesn't mean much. Sean is out there fighting the good fight in ways I can't. So I support Sean all the way.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Churchill proved he was an Idiot, Dave didn't need to say much, Sean was clubbing him pretty good anyway.

[Snapping Turtle]

Ping!

[dk/coro]

In my view the HannityColmes hour is virtually worthless;
strident, pedantic and sophomoric in the extreme.


Perhaps if one were never attuned to current political happenings it might be worth a plug nickel.

But, for my money, Fox could scuttle the show without missing a beat; juggle the line-up a bit; expand Brit to perhaps another 30 minutes or so -- or even to 2 hours!

Then I feel the Fox ratings would go through the roof.

[j.frank.dobie]

Sean did good. He laid bare the alleged moral equivalence between the 9/11 victims and "Rummie's collateral damage" in Iraq by talking about mass graves and comparing panties on your head vs. being dead.

That said, I'd love it if Sean could try to take a deep breath and let the bad guys talk a bit more. I think he would benefit from giving the other side more rope to hang themselves by their talking.

Easy for me to say. I'm sure that the dead air between verbal exchanges via satellite seems like a lifetime when you are live and on the air.

Final thought. Colmes seems postively reasonable when they have Ward on the show. Is Alan "growing"? Probably not. Ward is just nuts.

[RichRepublican]

I agree that Sean is out there fighting the good fight and confronting these idiots every day. We might not always like the way he conducts debates and doesn't let the opposition finish making their point, but he doesn't back down either.

[uptoolate]

Jay Sekulow

[FOG724]

Sean Hannity used his typical "that's outrageous" tactics and really didn't address OR refute the points.

Nothing surprising there.

[woofie]

The question to be asked is :

Is there a difference between the Jews killed by Hitler or the "innocent" Japanese we killed at Hiroshima ?...I see a big difference myself but someone like Ward Churchill cannot tell that there is a difference

[Vivaldi's Manifesto]

The portion of the segment I was able to catch was embarrassing to watch. I tuned in looking for some sort of cerebral brawl. Instead, I found a loud mouthed grandstander (Hannity) sucking the oxygen out of the room. I lasted two minutes and flipped the channel on over to Ultimate Fighting.

[bcsco]

"Fox could scuttle the show without missing a beat; juggle the line-up a bit; expand Brit to perhaps another 30 minutes or so -- or even to 2 hours!"

What about the 'Tom Delay Show'?

[hershey]

I missed it, too, but caught a bit of Senator Sessions, God bless him. He's wonderful, never fails to impress. (Alabama did good.)

[hershey]

These days, Alan Colmes is using better hair dye.

[pookie18]

My thoughts afterwards was that I pitied Churchill's (captive audience) students who are intimidated by his overbearing personality.

[pookie18]

My thoughts afterwards was that I pitied Churchill's (captive audience) students who are intimidated by his overbearing personality.

[beaversmom]

Horowitz IMO was given very little time to say anything.

I've seen him in the Hannity/Colmes type forum before and it always happens to him--they give him very little time to talk. I like it better when he's one on one with an interviewer.

[Dr. Bogus Pachysandra]

i thought The Wart came off as being like a sullen teenager, against everything his father stands for, and for no other reason than rebelliousness. Hey! Ward! Grow up!

[rfp1234]

This was pure showbiz, not academia. Hannity was going for effect, not to score substantive points. In that sense, his points on 9/11 totally obliterated WC, who sounded evasive, arrogant, and disingenuous. Horowitz used good tactics by playing the straight man and saying little while WC embarrassed himself by mouthing off out of his @$$ in front of a national TV audience.
BTW, does anyone else note Churchill's striking resemblance to... (see below)?

http://www.mnzoo.com/animals/northern_trail/muskox_1.asp

[Antoninus]

Can anyone name any good, effective, mainstream conservative debater out there?

Michael Medved may be the best of the bunch.

Alan Keyes is also an exceptionally skilled debater.

[tjpst15]

First off Sean went completely off the subject that was suppose to be discussed. I am not a Churchill fan but if you invite a guest onto your show then stick to the topic. Hannity is a moron who tries to be outrageous or a suck up to get people to like him. Secondly I felt bad for Horowitz who came onto the show to discuss professors expressing opinions in the classroom but the only one who attempted to carry on a conversation was Allan. Sean decided he was going to attack Churchill but not really let anyone but Sean talk. I think Churchill has a point when he says that our foreign policy is directly connected to our current situation but Sean being the idiot that he is did not want to hear anything but his own voice. Please let me know when Hannity actually gains some intelligence and actually has a point other than blindly backing this admin. Do I agree with all that Churchill says? NO!!! But I also think that if you debate someone then you have some point not just to wave the flag. Also, Fox once again does a great job covering up the problem with Churchill's ear piece which you can hear them changing while Horowitz is talking.