Evoking Alinsky’s Rule #12

In keeping with his practice picking his target, freezing it, personalizing it, and polarizing it, Andrew Sullivan comically accuses William Kristol of making a “fascist statement” and having “utter contempt for the rule of law”.

Kristol’s alleged transgression? That he thinks Ft. Hood terrorist Nidal Malik Hasan is going to be brought to justice and found guilty, and that, in Kristol’s opinion, he should face the death penalty. Click here to read Sullivan’s post.

Sullivan is under the impression Kristol is advocating denying Hasan a fair trial and sending him directly to death, as they do in fascist societies. No Andrew. Kristol is merely saying that Hasan is so obviously guilty that he will be easily convicted during his fair trial.

Either Sullivan thinks that Kristol actually advocates bypassing the rule of law, in which case Sullivan’s contempt for Kristol is so powerful that it impairs his ability to think clearly, or Sullivan realizes that Kristol is not advocating bypassing the rule of law, but his contempt for Kristol is so powerful that he’s grasping at any straw he can get in order to demonize him.