Is it Hugh or is it Sid?

Here are the top ten reasons why, contrary to Andrew Sullivan’s nasty aside, Hugh Hewitt is not the Sid Blumenthal of the Bush administration:
10. Hugh has not been called before a grand jury.
9. Hugh believes in people; Sid believes in conspiracies.
8. Both have great hair, but Hugh’s is gray.
7. Hugh is a gentleman (see his response to Sullivan); Sid’s nickname is “Vicious.”
6. The president Hugh supports is a gentleman.
5. Hugh advances the policies of President Bush because he agrees with them; Sid advanced the misconduct of President Clinton because he was on the payroll.
4. Sid demonizes those with whom he disagrees; Hugh invites them on his radio show for a discussion.
3. Sid is a name-dropper; Hugh isn’t, except for the occasional Catholic Bishop.
2. Hugh didn’t compare our liberation of Fallujah to the Nazi’s siege of Stalingrad; or America’s handling of terrorist detainees to Stalin’s gulag.
1. Hugh has a massive nationwide U.S. audience (sort of like Sullivan once did); Sid is read, if at all, in a few precincts of England and Germany.
JOHN adds: Awesome job. I’ll only add that Hugh is possibly the least vicious man I know. It takes a curious sort of myopia to be unable to distinguish Hugh from the appalling Sid Blumenthal.
SCOTT adds: Andrew thinks he has “hit a nerve” with his likening of Hugh Hewitt to Sidney Blumenthal. I think he has simply demonstrated once again why he has become such a crashing bore. He has also demonstrated that he isn’t exactly a fair controversialist, asserting that “Powerline believes that the Iraq war has been conducted flawlessly and that the feds did a perfect job with Katrina.” But, hey, he’s got a column in Time, and a column in the Sunday Times of London (“the biggest Sunday circulation in the UK”)!
Before we leave the subject of Hewitt versus Blumenthal, reader John Casey offers reason 10a:

Hugh wasn

Responses

Books to read from Power Line