The fine art of debate.

You're doing well when you get a link and and "Indeed" from the Instapundit. But you know you're hitting the bigtime when Brit Hume cites your reporting on his show. Hugh's cross examination of Stephen Henderson yesterday elicited some damaging admissions about Henderson's reporting about Judge Alito's record.

Hugh's a pretty easy-going guy, but when he gets into a debate you'd better be ready for trouble. I don't like dissension and contention normally, but Hugh does it the way that lets you know he's practicing the art of debate.

One thing that drives me nuts, though, is when he gets a caller who wants to challenge him, he starts asking the guy about what he does for a living and what his qualifications are. That kind of prelininary sparring is pretty boring radio. Fortunately, he doesn't get that many of those calls.

Michael Medved invites people who disagree with him to call in and then says "work with me here." If they wanted to work with him, they wouldn't be calling in to argue with him! Most of them are regular callers with the same old accusations and namecalling. I much prefer to hear some facts, which Medved is very good at marshalling and citing, and some reasoned argument, but when people won't even agree on the facts, there's little point in wasting time on them. Except that just letting them talk usually makes all the points he wants about their positions.