Hannity’s Logic: Six Months Too Late


thinker

Today I listened to a portion of the Sean Hannity Show. Sean had a caller that is a conservative who will vote for Obama in November because he wishes to punish McCain for not being conservative. Sean argued that if the caller was a true conservative, “Why would you vote for Obama whom you agree with 0% of the time when you could vote for McCain whom you agree with 50-60% of the time?” The logic sounds pretty good, but if Republicans used that logic they wouldn’t have McCain as their nominee.

If conservative Republicans were looking for the candidate they agreed with the most then they would have chosen Ron Paul. They disagree with him on the war, but the other 80% of Ron Paul’s agenda is right out of the conservative playbook. I wrote way back in January that Ron Paul was being ostracized by the Republican party simply because of his stance on the war, and that was made evident to me again today during Sean’s radio show. Disagree with Republicans on immigration, campaign finance reform, and environmental policy and it’s begrudgingly accepted. Disagree with them on Iraq and you might as well have insulted their collective mother. Republicans claim that Democrats are invested in defeat in Iraq. I claim that Republicans are invested in zero tolerance of anyone that doesn’t wish to continue our current gameplan in Iraq. Does anyone realistically think that either is the real solution?

Our engagement in Iraq is in the front of everyone’s mind. Everyone knows it exists. It’s a hot-button issue to say the least. Our government’s fiscal crisis is a cancer that is eating us from the inside. Most people don’t see it, but it will eventually kill us if we don’t change course.

Information and Links

Join the fray by commenting, tracking what others have to say, or linking to it from your blog.


Other Posts
Writing for Primer Magazine
Birthright College Education

Write a Comment

Take a moment to comment and tell us what you think. Some basic HTML is allowed for formatting.




Reader Comments

When you go to church, the preacher doesn’t spend the whole service talking about how bad the Devil is. Imagine if you went to a church and the preacher talked about how bad the Devil is for the entire service every Sunday.

When you listen to Rush or Hannity, they spend the whole show talking about how bad Obama and Hillary are. That’s their talking points. Like you said, they aren’t calling plays out of the conservative playbooks. They are offering commentary on plays from the liberal playbook while promoting the war in Middle East.

They are going to make a killing on advertising if they have a Democratic President to bash next term.

I listen to Hannity and Rush a few hours total per year and it’s the same talking points over and over. That’s boring radio.

The example from Hannity’s show reminds me of those Clinton supporters who say they will vote for McCain out of spite. All of this reflects the sad state of current politics overall - it’s only about winning anymore, while doing what’s right for the country (whatever one considers that to be) is a distant second at best.

Eric,

The point of shows like Hannity and Limbaugh is entertainment. Hearing someone spout off about something or someone you agree with is no where NEAR as entertaining as hearing them berate and belittle opposing viewpoints.

The preacher at church isn’t there to entertain you.

Rush is fun to listen to, Hannity makes me go to sleep.

This is a replay of the Vietnam war.
Not the military conflict but the fiscal side of it. When Johnson started expanding our military commitment in Vietnam there was kinda of a deal with congress. The congress said okay, we’ll finance your war but you’re going to have to give us more domestic spending. “Guns and Butter” as Lyndon put it. It finally caught up with us during the Nixon administration when the economy went into a down turn and became full blown during the Carter administration. The same scenario is being played out now. Bush got his war on terror and the billions that it cost but at the same time congress, through earmark spending, has sent domestic spending through the roof. You can’t have your cake and eat it too and the damn fools in Washington just can’t seem to understand that. They are too busy spending other peoples money getting themselves re-elected.

It sounds like you are viewing the Republican party from afar. Most republicans view Ron Paul as an extremist, and most republicans aren’t extremist. How objective can you be when you don’t truly know both sides of the coin? Makes me question all of the content of your blog.

You’re right that most Republicans view Ron Paul as an extremist. Governing strictly according to the Constitution is an extremist position to either mainstream party.

I’m not sure exactly what it means to “view a political party from afar.” I’ll take a stab at refuting that, though, however vague it may be.

I pay attention to the details of politics every day. I have paid close attention as so called conservative Republicans have been elected on a conservative platform and gone forward to spend money like Paris Hilton in a Tiffany’s store, ignore our rights to privacy and protection against illegal search and seizure, refuse to acknowledge our nation’s sovereignty in securing our borders, legislate morality by proposing Constitutional amendments that limit the actions of citizens and not government, and blindly follow any policy endorsed by President Bush or party leadership.

Republicans are the party of talkers; not doers. At least Democrats try to advance their ludicrous agenda. Republicans are elected on the promise of playing a New England Patriots style high-powered offense. Then they go to D.C. and play an Alcorn St. prevent defense, passing just enough pork to keep their electorate happy.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. I’m no longer fooled.