A defense of heated rhetoric here

And there is a defense of heated rhetoric here: what language are you going to use when a president institutes torture or goes to war on empirically false pretenses?

What we need now is a presidential speech that can affirm the positive aspects of robust debate while drawing a line under the nihilist elements of personal and ideological hatred. But it is clear to me at least that if American politics is to regain its composure, the forces of Palin and what she represents must be defeated. Not appeased or excused for, but defeated in the derelict public square of what’s left of our common discourse.

Sullivan means: “and there is a defense of Dish conduct here.”

But anti-torture voices did tell him that the imprecisions, inflations and elisions in his heated language made it wrong for the cause and perceivable as the fire of straw men burning in protest, driving people away from dialogue “in the derelict public square of what’s left of our common discourse.”

No one wants to dialogue with an ego who attempts to shame others and hold himself morally above people while wanting them to be misconstrued.

%d bloggers like this: