On a meta-level—process, not content—Hugh Hewitt’s interview with Andrew Sullivan about his new confused book exposes Sullivan as arrogant and hysterical. His manners are abominable. How Hewitt put up with Sullivan’s strutting, I don’t know. Why would he tolerate such rudeness from a guest? Is Sullivan that important? (Not to me. I have no interest in someone so “discerning” as to claim, as Sullivan did during the interview, that Jesus, Mohamed, and Socrates are part of the same search for truth.)

I’m happy Sullivan has finally come out against Bush’s dastardly doctrines, although it seems to me that he considers the war more of a logistic than a moral nightmare—the war is bad because it’s going badly, not because it’s bad. The fact that he seconded the decision to invade Iraq may have something to do with this qualified condemnation.

Would it be unfair to put Sullivan’s temper tantrum at the Republicans down to their excessive religious meddling and lack of enthusiasm for gay marriage? (There’s nothing wrong with split infinitives, by the way.) You tell me. (Sullivan is a gay-marriage activist–I’m not, as you can glean from “Marriage and the Manufacturing of Rights“–and is himself “engaged to be married.”)

Overall, his views are hardly conservative–but then that applies to the views of very many contemporary conservatives.