My work schedule is a bit off this week... I am working a true "swing" schedule, rotating through grave, evening and day shifts to cover someone's vacation plans. Not an issue at all, just background as to why I was listening to Sean Hannity when I was (I would normally have been sleeping).
So, it was yesterday, during the whole "Hillary hostage" crisis, that I had the Sirius Sat radio tuned in to the conservative talk and Hannity was on. I must have been just starting his third hour "free for all" and Sean takes a caller from Minnesota that started this whole stream of thought in my head.
The caller was an avowed "liberal" (coming from MN, he was probably DFL, too... former supporter of Wellstone), but listened to Hannity on a regular basis. He called to ask the simple question of "What if" the hostage taker in NH had been associated with or influenced by the likes of "Stop Hillary Express" or other anti-liberal blogs and websites. Does the conservative pundit arena of bloggers and talk radio have a responsibility towards the actions of even the disturbed and fringe-elements that might be listening?
Let me state here that he wasn't ACCUSING the radio hosts or bloggers of instigating the act, or influencing the alleged "bomber"... only asking a "what if" question on the radio.
So, Hannity asks when HE had ever made a statement that could be construed as advocating ANY kind of violence or illegal action on the part of his listeners. A very legitimate question, and one the caller made a point to say he didn't think Sean had done, only that the possibility existed that the passion and feeling that people like Hannity put into their shows can influence listeners... good and bad.
Hannity persisted in asking for a "specific" example of his making inflammatory remarks that could be misconstrued. The caller gave a very specific example. March of 2006, Hannity made an appearance in Florida with... you guessed it... Ann Coulter. However, before the caller could voice his example... as soon as Coulter's name was mentioned, in fact... Hannity killed the connection and hung up. He then spent the next 5 minutes saying the conversation was unproductive and "moronic" in nature.
I took this to mean that Sean was NOT ready to face the music of his affiliation with the likes of Coulter... whom, I am quite sure no one will argue... DOES make inflammatory statements that are tastless at best, and hate-inspiring at worst. Who can deny that Coulter has voiced a wish that every liberal "gun control" advocate be robbed at gunpoint, that "liberalism" is a disease best treated with a bullet, and countless other little tid-bits that I can recount upon request.
When Democrats question the patriotism of soldiers in Iraq, or the ethics of anyone supporting the troops overseas, based solely on the politics of Dem vs GOP... people like Hannity and Ryan scream from the top of their lungs (and justly so, I agree). When people like Coulter (and by extention, Hannity) do the same in the other direction... they hang up the phone and call the conversation "moronic".
Can someone please... PLEASE... explain how that ISN'T a blatant example of hipocracy?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Hypocracy maybe, but Alan Colmes does the same shit but worse, Hannity just hung up the phone. Colmes will argue with the person until he gets an answer he can spin and then make the person look like an ass. I've heard him rip the crap out of a conservative on a subject and then turn around 2 days later and praise a liberal for the same crap. If you want to listen to conservative radio and I honestly don't even know if his show is on anymore but G. Gordon Liddy had one of the best shows going. I know he's a criminal blah blah blah but his show was very good and everyone had their say even if he didn't agree with them.
I agree that people like Colmes are just as hyporitical as anyone I may have indicted in my post, perhaps even more so (or at least more frequently), and Colmes' association with Hannity may lend a kind of explaination to their similarities, but it doesn't address the core of my point...
How can it further the GOP's agenda or "conservatism" in general to make the same damaging associations that the Dems so often make? How is it helpful to the GOP hopefulls to have the radio and blogger pundits of conservatism associate with the likes of Coulter or Falwell?
The only thing I can think of is that "birds of a feather flock together". Extremism is a factor in modern American Politics today and all of these twits on both sides should be smacked between the eyes even if I agree with 10 percent of what they say.
Post a Comment