The Battle Line Come Down: Gillespie on Radio, Right About…Now…

In just a few minutes, I'll be taking my weekly drubbing as a guest on "militant moderate" Alan Nathan's Battle Line radio show on Radio America. Fellow guests will be two of the following three: Wash Times' op-ed page poobah Tony Blankley, SF Examiner columnist Cathy Antrim, and Americans for Tax Reform's Grover Norquist.

To listen to the funktastic pharaoh of fooferawry put us through paces, go here.

Comments

[Gimme Back My Dog]

Someone needs to tell Blankley not to breath into the mic (or phone?) when he is not talking. Sounds like Darth Freakin Vader in the background.

[Tim Cavanaugh]

If you're having trouble with the streaming audio, here's a synopsis:

Alan Nathan: Why are these xenophoboholics anathematizing a congeries to which they have a distinct aversion, and why is the media lending thereto a characterization parenthetically referencing a wholly unrelated reality, by which measure would be allocated a formidable category that, while differentiating between a plethora of devices touching upon seemingly different perspectives, in tandem with a slightly shifted parallelism, gravitating to a newfound moderation revisiting the additional pattern of events. Nick, is that your concurring assertion?

Nick: I have no idea.

Nathan: But within the parameters of this assertion, isn't it preferable to predicate this argument upon the not-yet-proven allegation within which is preceded the accusation, before finding the merits therein?

Nick: I'm not interested in turning political differences into procedural matters, but this censure proposal may be a shrewd political move.

Nathan: But as one would be hard-pressed to find within the inherent powers nested within the occurence, my quill is still filled with ink with which to eviscerate the ego of politicians whose positions have gravitated more toward a non-legitimated impression of non-headway-making parameters, lacking efficacious ends. Which is a non-sobering stance to postulate, but I'm willing to have it struck by me.

[digamma]

This Alan Nathan character is a perfect specimen of the lethal center. Why does he think FISA is unconstitutional?

[MayDay72]

You mean Tony Blankley the former child star?

[MayDay72]

You mean Tony Blankley the former child star?

[MayDay72]

D'oh! Stupid double post (again). Hopefully this wont post twice...

[MayDay72]

D'oh! Stupid double post (again). Hopefully this wont post twice...

[Shelby]

D'oh! Stupid double post (again). Hopefully this wont post twice...

Comment by: MayDay72 at March 13, 2006 03:58 PM

---

D'oh! Stupid double post (again). Hopefully this wont post twice...

Comment by: MayDay72 at March 13, 2006 04:40 PM

Classic! A true keeper.

[GILMORE]

Har har. Funny.

Tim, i wouldnt myself have cast Nathan as quite so abstruse, but you nailed on the head the 'anti-question-questions' he kept throwing out.

At one point he was like, "End of the world or coming of the messiah? Baby Tony - what say you??"

it was like, elements of john mclaughlin's authoritarian oversimplification, mixed with charlie rose's ability to throw out fuzzy bullshit and turn to his guest and act like they're supposed to care.

maybe i just dont like the whole, 'turn the compressor up to unity so all arguments are being blasted at maximum volume, and let's throw simple soundbites at each other!' approach to some radio talk shows. Why is it every radio personality has to sound like an aggrieved cokehead? They have to wheedle and moan and have their guts in a twist over everything, but when anyone offers a point of view on the matter, they can't seem to digest a thing? if anyone says something with the slightest nuance, they always have to state back wthe guys point in some cartoonish fashion, eliminating any point of having a second person there in the first place.

anyhoo, i didnt listen to the whole thing, it was a little brutal... plus the politicalish ads on the radio? I must watch too much PBS and CSPAN, because it's too much to put up with.

However, I really enjoyed the anti marijuana ads. I'm sure they're very effective. At making stoners giggle.

JG