(DEAN BARNETT HERE, THANKFUL THAT THE HEAT HAS BROKEN AND DEFENDING THE HONOR OF MY FRIEND, NOT THAT HE NEEDS MY HELP)

When I took this gig, I thought I would be in good company working with Hugh Hewitt. This evening, though, much to my horror, I learned otherwise. It has come to my knowledge that Hugh Hewitt, my mentor, the host of this site we all love, is not the kindly thoughtful fellow that we all thought he was. No.

Hugh Hewitt is the kind of man who “cannot take responsibility .” Hugh Hewitt is “a partisan fanatic.” What’s more, “any admission of error sends his Manichean worldview careening.” Careening through what, I have no idea, but a careening worldview can’t be a good thing.

My source for this knowledge is impeccable. It comes via the much respected, level-headed blogger-cum journalist, Andrew Sullivan. Lord knows Sullivan isn’t the easiest man to offend, so obviously Hugh’s transgressions are grave.

Sullivan is apparently upset about an essay Hugh wrote where he had the audacity to claim that there are more pressing issues than Mel Gibson’s obnoxious harangues. Hugh also had the brazen audacity to not include in his essay, “I have been consistently wrong about everything, and Andrew Sullivan has been consistently right.”

If I might get serious for a moment, I would be embarrassed if my modem ever vomited out a screed such as Sullivan’s. Name calling is one thing, and not a good one. It is the mark of a weak thinker and a weaker writer.

But far worse than garden variety name-calling is name-calling divorced from any sort of coherent argument. Sullivan’s entire essay is basically an extended riff on the notion that he doesn’t think much of Hugh Hewitt, especially the fact that Hugh is “is one of those trying to fuse the primal zeal of Christianist fundamentalism with the Republican party.”

Like every other assertion in Sullivan’s virtual temper tantrum, that charge goes unsupported. There is no example of the “primal zeal of Christianist fundamentalism” let alone evidence of Hugh’s diabolical efforts to fuse that primal zeal with the Republican party.

Here’s the personal irony for me: As Soxblog readers know, Andrew Sullivan is one of the reasons I got into blogging. He was an inspiration. He used to turn out vast quantities of tightly reasoned, well written material. It amazed me he did all this for free.

Now, it’s literally tragic what he has become. The post where he attacks Hugh is the epitome of all that is wrong with the blogosphere. Sullivan eschews making an argument and opts solely for a personal attack. He makes this attack with no supporting evidence, and a surfeit of clichéd name-calling.

More tragic is the fact that we know Sullivan can do better. That’s perhaps why Sullivan’s latest incarnation so disappoints former colleagues like Mickey Kaus. Unlike Markos Moulitsas, who has shown no indications of possessing outsized talents either as a thinker or a writer, Sullivan in the past has.

And he opts to ignore these gifts in favor of indulging a childish urge to slime whoever offends his sensibilities on a particular day. Not ennobling; indeed, quite sad.

Compliments? Complaints? Email me at Soxblog@aol.com.