HEY MR. HANNITY, What would Reagan do? Not capitulate to a bunch of knee-jerk ninnies!

3/10/06 | soccermom

[soccermom]

Dear Mr. Hannity,

Your cavalier attitude toward the possible removal of our troops from the UAE air base (as discussed on Thursday's show) has finally caused me to lose whatever remaining affection I had for you. It is very easy for you, sitting in your comfortable studio, to respond, “Let em”. You're not the one who has to conduct missions in the Middle East. You're not the one that needs the logistical support. Why don't you tell it to General Tommy Franks? Better yet, why don't you tell it to the men and women that are currently working with the UAE?

Yesterday's stunt by congress to revoke the contract with DPW has done absolutely nothing to make our country any safer. It was purely a political stunt. Unless congress closes down every air and sea port to imports (and foreign visitors) of any kind, there will always be a risk. Changing whomever holds the contract is nothing more than a change in window dressing and you know it. Meanwhile, as you and others are stirring up people into a frenzy over them thar A-rabs, another pale-skinned, British-accented Richard Reid will waltz right in under your nose.

Whether or not the selfish pandering of our politicians hampers our war effort remains to be seen. But, if our troops are forced to take on additional risks due to a lack of cooperation by the UAE, I will lay their blood directly at the feet of you, like-minded shock-jocks, and the spineless Republicans in congress. (I expected such tactics from the Demagoguecrats. I did not expect Republicans to put their own miserable political careers ahead of national interest.)

Furthermore, I am getting more than a little tired of your wrapping yourself in the mantle of Ronald Reagan. Your repeated attempts to paint yourself as a “Reagan Conservative” is nothing more than an intellectually lazy way for you to appeal to your audience. It is very easy to simply claim “I'm with him – the cool guy”, rather have to define yourself and stand on your own.

We (conservatives) all love Ronald Reagan. Who are you to invoke him as to where he would stand on your issue? My father was a fighter pilot from the time he fought in Vietnam to the time he retired in 1992. He will tell anyone who will listen about the brilliance of Ronald Reagan. He tells us he is a “World War Three” veteran and that Reagan won the Cold War without firing a shot. For Father's Day a few years ago, I even got him a license plate frame that reads: “World War III Veteran......Reagan Won the Cold War.” Incidentally, my father was the DO for the fighter wing that bombed Libya. I was only a teen then but, if I'm not mistaken, France was even uncooperative then, refusing to let us use their airspace. So while you're telling it to Tommy Franks and our troops in the Middle East, why don't you go ahead and tell my father how insignificant it is to have strategic allies as well?

Finally, I get a little tired of people like you holding subsequent presidents to the “Reagan Ideal” -- an illusion that Ronald Reagan himself couldn't possibly live up to. Yes, Reagan was one of our greatest presidents. Yes, he was a conservative leader. But, NO, he didn't always adhere to his conservative principles and I'm getting a little tired of you revisionists pretending he did. President Reagan, like any great leader, was a pragmatist. And he, like any great leader, occasionally had to set aside his conservative ideals for more practical purposes. Raising taxes on social security isn't a conservative ideal. I don't think Reagan wanted to do it, but he did so in order to get other concessions from congress. Growing the deficit is not a conservative ideal. I don't think Reagan wanted to do it, but he did so for the greater goal of building up our military (and he thought he was getting other concessions from congress.) I don't think a conservative like Reagan would want to ally himself with a country like Iraq, but he did so because it was the pragmatic thing to do at the time. And let's not forget Reagan appointed Sandra Day O'Connor. So please, stop holding Bush (or anyone else for that matter) to a purely conservative standard that never was.

So WWRD? I don't know what Reagan would have done in the DPW controversy. NEITHER DO YOU. I do know that Reagan wasn't concerned with what the “popular” thought was. He did what he thought was best for our nation, regardless of what the critics said. Unlike you, he was not short-sighted. He knew that the long-term benefit of defeating communism was more important than avoiding the contemporaneous scorn of his critics. And unlike the spineless Republicans in congress, he didn't ignore the best interests of the country in an attempt to save his own political rear end. And that is why his legacy stands today.

[holdonnow]

You come on my thread night after night to engage in exactly the same kind of behavior, attacking me just as you attack Sean. People can read for themselves; they don't need direction from you. I often wonder, though, who you are and what you do? You are a very nasty guy with a whole lot of time on his hands.

[Iwo Jima]

You are under the false impression that the vast majority of Americans are under false impressions about the significant facts about this deal. I am well aware of the facts that you state that Americans don't know, as is everyone that I know, and I and they oppose this deal.

It may be that the way it was first reported made it sound as though the UAE would have more involvement with security than it actually would have, but those errors were quickly corrected. The fact remains that the more the American people and especially grass roots Republicans learned about the deal, the more the opposition grew.

You sound like the Democrats (which I know you are not) when you lament that "you just couldn't get your message out" and that's why the American people just didn't get it. The more you get your message out and the more you scream and insult people because they don't agree with you, the more entrenched the opposition becomes.

This is just a bad deal and never should have seen the light of day. As soon as Bush became aware of it, he should have nixed it.

[Dane]

You come on my thread night after night to engage in exactly the same kind of behavior, attacking me just as you attack Sean. People can read for themselves; they don't need direction from you. I often wonder, though, who you are and what you do? You are a very nasty guy with a whole lot of time on his hands

Yeah like your tagline "get off my phone you big dope" is "pleasant".

Maybe you should take a cue from Rush, who's tag line is "talent on loan from God", which does not denigrate one human being, but gives praise to the divine.

[Edit35]

The US was allied with Stalin's USSR during WWII.

Did we sell Stalin our US ports during WWII?

The UAE remains free to invest in and buy 99.9-percent of any asset in the US of A, don't they?

Some things, however, should be held closer to the vest especially when that vest is being shot at and threatened by Muslim nations, none of which even had the balls to denounce violence caused by a newspaper cartoon.

[holdonnow]

As you well know, Rush gets slammed as well ... from the likes of you. I asked you who you are and what you do? If you are not embarrassed by such a straightforward question, answer it.

[holdonnow]

Well, I guess you are. Thought so. Have to go. You might want to consider getting a job rather than looking for opportunities all day to attack decent people like Rush and Sean (oh yes, I do remember how you viciously attacked Rush over his opposition to the Harriet Miers nomination). Take care folks.

[Dane]

As you well know, Rush gets slammed as well ... from the likes of you

I may have about a 5% political disagreement with Rush, but was one of his biggest defenders on FR(and getting slammed) when he was going through his troubled times, friends help friends in troubled times, but in your case, you and hannity decided to go with the President's enemies(schumer) during a politcal troubled time(the port snort, which was driven by lies and hysteria).

[woofie]

I agree...Bye Sean

[woofie]

I have to go to work now

[RabidBartender]

MARTY!

[Don'tMessWithTexas]

DPW was not going to BUY any of our PORTS. They were going to LEASE a limited number of TERMINALS. Meanwhile, the US of A would continue to be fully in charge of security of our PORTS. Please, if you want to engage in a debate on this get your facts straight. You must be getting your information from Hannity.

[Fresh Wind]

Quite boring and without intellecutal honesty.

Funny you should mention "intellectual honesty". That's one of Sean's favorite self-promotion claims, and it just isn't true.

[Iwo Jima]

OK IJ, are you going to coerce a US firm to operate these TERMINALS? What if you don't get an American firm? As a rock-ribbed conservative, are you going to nationalize terminal operations?

Well, finally we are back-dooring our way into what should really be the focus of this discussion. Of course, I would never support nationalizing any aspect of port operations, including TERMIINALS (I don't know why you thought that you had to shout that at me), although I would say that if any government should be in charge of that, it should be our government and not a foreign government and certainly not one with a checkered record like the UAE. I find it strange that you would not object to allowing port operations or aspects thereof to be effectively nationalized by a foreign power.

My first question is: Is it true that operating ports or portions thereof (i.e., TERMINALS), is just another one of the jobs that Americans won't do. Who says this, and what is their evidence? This should have been the first thing that Bush did when he heard of this deal -- find out why American firms do not have this and other similar contracts.

Before just accepting the statement that Americans won't do this job, I would want to hear that from American companies first hand. Preferably, from a company which has done it in the past and decided to no longer do so, or one which looked at getting into that business and decided against it.

If in fact no American firm will do this work, then my next question is why? And, again, I would go to the firms to get this information.

My next question would be: what can we do make it so that American firms can and will do this job? Because that is the objective -- to get Americans working for American companies to do these jobs. Not to cozy up to the UAE or the globalist agenda.

If you want to get the UAE involved in our economy, let them buy golf courses (excuse me, let them but the rights to operate 3 of 18 HOLES on half the golf courses in the country). But not the ports. Not the ports.

I suspect that the way this thing worked is that the bids were rigged to effectively say to the bidders "No American's need apply." And that's what has to be changed. Once we determine why American are not doing this job, we need to make changes to level the playing field or even tilt it in favor of Americans.

It may be that the necessary changes would attack some sacred cows. But given the overwhelming public aversion to foreign influence in our ports, this should be viewed as a golden opportunity to seize the moment and make changes that we would not otherwise be positioned to make.

Do you agree that, all other things aside, it is better that this job be done by American? Because if you do, what we ought to be focusing on is how to make that more likely.

[Don'tMessWithTexas]

Sean did not present a very cogent or detailed analysis of this deal. Instead he simply repeated talking points for two weeks. He ignored the fact that Franks, Pace, Abizaid and many others with a knowledge of the region endorsed the deal. I don't believe he even bothered to have Tommy Franks available. Then he labelled anyone who endorsed the deal as a Kool-aid drinker, thumbed his nose at an emerging ally in the middle east and wrapped himself in the mantle of RWR. That's a shallow approach to a complicated matter with international, defense and national security implications.

The attacks against Sean are nothing compared to what this President has faced. And on an issue of importance to the President guys like Sean, rather than doing his homework, dissed him without doing their homework. Now the Republican leadership looks stupid and xenophobic while sending a terrible message to our friends in the ME.

[em2vn]

I think you have listened well to the White House talking points "emotional hysteria". This approach gives one ample footing to take a self assumed superior line of reasoning but you error. There was no hysteria on the part of the DWP opposition, unlike the deal's supporters. I say that forceful denounceation would be a fair description of the opposition. Whereas, the supporters unthinkingly bought into the full court press that was launched by the talk show circuit and business supporters at the behest of the White House.
Your cavalier dismissal of "W" failures is ill conceived. The expansion of federal spending is not the same as a failure to cut federal spending. Even more disturbing is the President's refusal to address the invasion of illegals into our nation.If you think voting people won't remember either of these you are mistaken.
"W" wasn't ask about the SD aboriton law. He voluntered his thoughts on the matter. Just a knuckle head move on his part.As an aside,is the baby conceived by rape or incest any less innocent than any other baby?
Harriet Miers isn't old news. Neither is the education bill. The Miers nomination shows "W" arrogance or silliness and lack of connection with American conservatives.
I would suggest that you never say a word about the state of education in this nation because from your point of view it is only old news that must not be impacting our nation today.
What you propose is that conservatives vote for Republicans because they are a better poor choice than the Democrats. You offer a concept of conservatism that runs counter to decades of American conservative thought. It is the American equivalent of the Soviet Union's useful idiot.
Conservatives demand proof of a person's convictions not the simple speaking of words. "W" is showing a slackness in conservative convictions.

[MadelineZapeezda]

I like ALL talk show hosts who are conservative...some more than others. Not even Maha Rushie is correct all of the time, nor do they know everything.

Why all the bashing of Sean here, just switch the channel if you wish? I personally tire of them all at some point or another, but can't live without them, but still wish THEM ALL WELL! They've all contributed in some way to the surge of conservatism in this country and God Bless each and every one of them. And that includes Savage and Buchanan!

[jveritas]

What you propose is that conservatives vote for Republicans because they are a better poor choice than the Democrats.

No what I am suggesting is that for your brand of Absolutist Conservatism, go ahead and form your own party and get 1% of the votes. Anyway 90% of the Absolutists our did not vote for President Bush (reply and tell me you did vote twice for him I expect those answers from you guys).

[jveritas]

Indeed President Reagan gave amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants whereas President Bush did not and is not intending to do so despite all the savage and hatred toward him by the absolutists among us regrading this illegal immigration issue.

[zook]

I've dumped him as well. There is no doubt in my mind that Ronald Reagan would have supported the ports deal.

I've always appreciated Hanity as a good conservative worker ant. But intellectually he's really just a glorified disk jockey.

[rose]

Right on, I quit listening to Sean Hannity, at the beginning of all this frenzy, and I think the DP World deal should have been completed, if not, completely studied before anyone did anything.

I am so ashamed of out politicians, media, etc.