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.

[Don'tMessWithTexas]

Some might call this a great day because the American people have spoken. However, on the day after this fiasco, those who opposed the deal are not thumping their chests too much. They know that the USA came out of this looking weak, small-minded and xenophobic. Not to mention the fact that the President's party in Congress abandoned their leader in a politically opporutnistic attempt to second guess foreign policy. The POTUS should tell Hastert, Boehner, et al. to kick his @$$.

[Don'tMessWithTexas]

You actually mean that some of our allies in the WOT do not enjoy the same freedoms we do? That settles it. We were right to kill this deal. /s

BTW, many countries restrict foreigners from owning land, controlling corporations etc. Did you realize that coutries like the UK do not have constitutionally protected free-speech and gun rights? Are you suggesting that we only form alliances with those nations that have the same freedoms that we enjoy?

[metesky]

People who think the government should have just ignored the will of "We the people" are in dire need of some civics courses.

The will of the people only counts at election time, behind closed curtains. That's why we are a Republic and not a democracy. Our elected leaders at all levels are not supposed to be subject to popular and changing whims.

Today's politicians are, for the most part, pathetic herd animals.

[Night Hides Not]

Where is the other great one, Mark Levin on this issue?

I may not be entirely correct, as I only hear Mark on my evening commute. His stance, IIRC, was that he wanted the extra 45 days of hearings to put more sunlight on the matter. At the end of those 45 days, if the evidence favored the contract, he'd be for it.

At the same time, he was ripping the Democrats for turning it into a completely partisan political issue from a national security issue.

From what I heard on Laura's show, I think her stance was similar.

For the record, my better half has had it with Hannity, too. I haven't watched H&C for quite a while...the shouting of talking points between the arbiters got old with me. Heck, the only thing I'm watching now is ESPN/College Hoops...March Madness!

Just check my home page to see who my team is, but here's a hint:

I'm going to be a nervous wreck next week. I'll be fine if (once?) we make it to the Sweet 16. When you haven't been to that level for a few years, you forget how sweet it really is.

[beyond the sea]

would suggest he give up his "concerts" as Rush did years ago.....and concentrate on his job as a TV and radio host. He's spread too thin and his lack of knowledge and depth on issues is many times appalling.

Yes................Hannity is a DWEEB!

He needs to grow up, grow up a LOT!.

[OldFriend]

Hannity's a captive of the NY union thugs.

[em2vn]

Your damn right he delegated and those to whom he delegated kept the old man aware of what was taking place or else.
The arms deal was completely removed from executive political discourse. It was a back channel dark operation that those who mis-served him cooked up on their own nickel, unlike the ports deal that the President should have been fully aware of.
"W" should make some heads roll for him being caught out in the dark a very important issue. Though this only seems to indicate a continued loose hand on the rudder.
"Oh PUHLEEZE!" By the way are you thirteen years old or just juvenile?

[OldFriend]

What, you don't want to hear good friends like Rangel, Lanny Davis, Leo Terrell, and assorted other kooks on Hannity's show?

You don't want to hear interviews with Jerry Springer and Howard Stern?

How gauche of you.

[OldFriend]

Levin against the Port deal because the Dubai folks don't like Israel.

AAAAAAAARRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHH

[BurbankKarl]

ping

[OldFriend]

If Hannity read FR he would be better informed on EVERY topic.

Freepers read the news first, analyze the news, share links with facts, and then comment......

[OldFriend]

We are angry because Hannity uses his influence to harm the President just so he can brag on his intellectual honesty.

Personally, I think intellectual honesty and Hannity in the same sentence is an insult.

[Iwo Jima]

I understand and acknowledge that you started this thread to vent about Sean Hannity; however, I have to tell you that he is not the issue to me. I did not hear the particular exchange to which you refer, but you seem honest (albeit mistaken on some points), and so I accept your account.

Perhaps Hannity thought that the point had been made that the ports weren't being sold but that that was not the critical issue, the degree of control that the deal involved was the issue. Maybe he thought that the lady understood this and just misspoke. Maybe he missed it, and should have spoken.

I have heard him state so many times that the port deal did not involve the outright sell of the ports that I know he knows that and his listeners do, too.

Your side is setting up a straw man by seizing on every time someone uses terminology referring to "sale of the ports" as proof positive that anyone who opposes the deal is a knee jerk ninny who deserves to be ignored except to castigate. Most people who use those short hand terms, when corrected, say that they understand the nature of the deal but just misspoke. And when people absolutely, without any doubt, correctly understand what is known about the deal, they still hate it, so "correcting" their understanding does not help your side.
Whatever it is that DPW/UAE would have been allowed to do in this deal, is something that the American people especially the Republican base does not want them to be able to do, and that is a fact that no amount of "education" and certainly not insults or personal attacks can change.

I am a trial lawyer. You are very right that a second report (correction or not) rarely gets the same reception as the initial story, assuming that the initial story was found to be believable and accepted as true. Anyone in the persuasion business knows that no one keeps an open mind or waits to get all the information before forming an opinion. Jurors make up their minds about whose side they are own by the time they have heard the first witness, and rarely change (it takes a BIG event to cause a shift). This is particularly true for issues that have such a visceral impact as an Arab country having involvement in our ports post 9/11.

To lament as your side has done that people did not wait for all the facts to make up their mind is to yearn for human nature to be different from what it has always been. When this story hit the airwaves, Bush had about 48 hours to get the information out that would ameliorate the public's well-founded concerns. Instead, he fell back on tactics which have proven disastrous in the past: 1) "trust me" -- the public and conservatives no longer trust Bush for reasons entirely of his own making, 2) "you're ignorant and therefore your opinion doesn't matter" -- well, when you stop insulting me maybe you'll get around to informing me about what you say I am ignorant of, 3) you're racist/sexist/evil -- yes, that is certainly persuasive (not), and 4) defiance -- threatening to veto anything that Congress does and other vague threats of retaliation.

I never would have won my first jury trial if I told jurors, trust me, I know more, than you do, just do what I say and if you disagree with me it can only be because you have character flaws and are stupid, so just vote for me.

[em2vn]

"Absolutist Conservatism."
I think you are making an unproven assumption simply because you have no sustainable argument to make.
When in doubt resort to name calling. That has been liberal SOP for decades.
You must permit no disagreement. Those who do disagree are heretics. Bind them hand and foot and tie them to the stake.Pile on the wood before impure thoughts escape into the uneducated conservative masses. You must save the free thinking conservatives from themselves. Don't they know their place? You conseratives, who are the only ones to have pure conservative thought must prevail.
I think the fumes you pseudo elitist conservative minions are breathing must be numbing your brains. Get some fresh air of free thought.

[Bahbah]

Wow, soccermom. This is just excellent.

[Iwo Jima]

Reagan may not have known about the deal any earlier than Bush did, but ONCE HE DID KNOW, Reagan's values and instincts would have led him to reject such a deal, whereas Bush's values and instincts led him to embrace such a deal. Reagan valued the sovereignty of the United States above almost any other value. Bush values globalism and business above sovereignty.

If you don't think that you know what Reagan would have done in this situation, why did you refer to Reagan's likely response in your vanity?

[Pablo64]

If I'm not mistaken, I think Denny Schafer filled in once for Glenn and I hated him. I thought he was the worst guest host in the history of the show. His perspective was not exactly what I would call conservative.

[sandbar]

>>>If I'm not mistaken, I think Denny Schafer filled in once for Glenn and I hated him. I thought he was the worst guest host in the history of the show. His perspective was not exactly what I would call conservative.>>>

Well you guessed right. He claims to be conservative, but yet disagrees with everything made. Even made a point to go see Brokeback Mountain with his news guy. He keeps whining about people liking him or something and last Thursday kept referencing to it being his last day because Atlanta didn't like him. But he is still on this week. I was soooo dissapointed. He BEGS for callers. Doesn't get very many.

[Iwo Jima]

I have been awaiting a response from you to my post #153. I have to leave to go out of town now, and won't return till Monday.

Perhaps I will have the benefit of your thoughts waiting for me when I return. Or perhaps you find posts such as mine to be difficult to respond to and still be able to maintain your position that anyone opposing the ports deal is ignorant, hysterical, etc., etc.

[jveritas]

Typical Absolute Conservative rant when they lose an argument.