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.

[Txsleuth]

bttt

[SquirrelKing]

I know. Some people don't understand the FR filter. This isnt simply a "right-wing blog" [?] but a way to disseminate and digest the news. Rather than have it fed to me by a blow-dryer pretty boy every evening on TV, we stay on the edge of information and break it down to understandable and relevant levels.

I just remember Hannity bellyaching a year or so ago about mean-ol' FReepers "eating their own" and wondered if he didn't in fact get Zotted.

Bet he still lurks, though.

Hey Sean! I heard you wrote a book or something...

[Txsleuth]

I want to tell you how glad I am that you posted this...it is totally, totally on point..


Thank you...thank you...for expressing what I only wish I could.

What a great post!

[Pablo64]

"He BEGS for callers. Doesn't get very many."

He won't get many, either. If you're not interesting enough to get people to call in on their own you're not going to get them to call by begging...because they're not listening!

Keep tuning him out and the station will eventually put someone in that timeslot who will attract listeners, not repel them (maybe they'll even bring Glenn back).

[Don'tMessWithTexas]

DPW is not a foreign power. It is a foreign corporation. P&O, a British concern, was seeking to sell its terminal business, which included leases at location in the US, because they could not do so profitably. DPW and a Singapore concern sought to acquire P&O. DPW was the successful suitor. No American company sought to acquire P&O. If an American concern could do so profitably I am sure they would have sought to acquire P&O.

Second, you are fixated on ports. The acquisition of P&O would not put DPW in control of American ports. They are terminals. These terminals were already being run by P&O a British company. What is the reason why a company owned by Arabs as a rule should not run a terminal? You suggest that the bidding process was rigged. Get real.

Third, your concern about foreign firms doing business in the U.S. is misplaced. Daimler Benz, a German corporation, acquired Chrysler. British Petroleum acquired Amoco. No one was concerned. Walmart has offices in China coordinating the shipment of cheap crap to their stores in the US and no one dare criticize Walmart on this board.

I would be willing to agree that terminal should be run by an American company if you would be willing to agree that Walmart should stop importing stuff from China.

[OldFriend]

Oh Sean or people on his staff lurk here. Sean Levin gets on some of us for criticizing Sean too.

Too bad!!!

[OldFriend]

Oh Sean or people on his staff lurk here. Levin gets on some of us for criticizing Sean too.

Too bad!!!

[saradippity]

You did a terrific job with your initial post.

Since you have mentioned Reid several times,I thought you might be interested in this little piece of info I picked up when browsing around looking for information on security vis a vis port management. It involves both security contracts and Reid.

A private security company called ICTS had the contract to provide security at Logan the day that two of the 9/11 planes that flew into the WTC took off. Some security!!Incidentally,the company was owned by an Israeli.

ICTS it is said was also responsible for allowing the shoebomber,Reid to board in Tel Aviv.

I found this on a Google search,Logan,9/11,security.

Interesting how often I have read on these very threads that we need to utilize Israel's know how and expertise on just about everything. I had always wondered how they managed to be held in such high esteem even though they had not managed to stop terrorism in their own country despite constantly eliminating the terrorists and their families. After reading this latest info I am totally mystified.

I turned Hannity "off" after too many "all I ask is three hours" and walking into church to see a picture of Jesus asking His apostles in the garden "won't you spend one hour with me?". The chutzpah of Sean stunned me as I looked at the picture and he (Sean) became cartoon silly.

[muawiyah]

Look, Hannity knew what he was doing ~ he was risking the safety of our troops in the Middle East who depend on support from facilities in Dubai, and that's exactly what I said.

Whether the relative risk has increased or declined over the last week is different issue.

During wartime such things are far from hyperbole ~ that's the problem with so many of you people from California ~ you weren't attacked and simply have no feel for this.

[redgirlinabluestate]

Truth be told, I thought he was a lightweight (compared to most other hosts) long before this. But he's a nice, well-meaning guy and he's generally a good conservative, so I listened.

I agree that Sean has completely gone over the edge on this port thing, but I think we can't forget that he exposed many new people to our conservative principles (especally women and other soccer moms) who were previously turned off by Rush. He is the more cuddly, cute, compassionate version who has "hannitized" quite a few people and made it more "mainstream" to be a Republican. So he has served a valuable purpose.

[em2vn]

I think that you have proven that genius has limits but stupidity does not.

[Edit35]

Who owns the ports in New York and New Jersey?

I presume the Port Authority of NY and NJ.

[William Terrell]

But Islamics? Sure, another nationality managing the ports may get skunked, but using Islamics just puts the fox in the henhouse. Especially since Islamics don't have to be used, so why use them?

Consider:

First, The Islamics haven't made any secret of their intention to make Earth an Islamic world. The nature of the religion and its holy writings advocate deadly violence to achieve that end.

They're working the politics, now, here, and in Canada. Europe seems to be in a more advanced state of interaction with Muslims.

The pressure of Islamic culture on countries whose people have nothing in common with it is currently taking place. I see it can:

1. Increase
2. Decrease but not stop
3. Stay the same
4. Stop

I have a hard time believing that it will 2, 3 or 4. I'll bet number 1. Increase means more intense interactions with Islamics and non-Islamics, the way the Islamics are behaving, and misbehaving.

Second, I'm asked to believe that the UAE, in any kind of pressure situation, will ally with powerful infidels against their own people.

Why, why, why would we camp in the rattlesnake nest when we don't have to?

[ventana]

Man, I read this post and felt sympatico. I was stung yesterday for daring to differ w/Rush regarding the Port deal. The bile I was subjected to by the likes of several newly arrived as well as an oldbie was a shock. I mean, I was compared to Katie Couric, my sexuality was attacked, why I share monikers w/my husband was attacked (ancient freeper history, and no biggie)...on and on. But not one of these rah rahs offered a salient debate point; nobody could conjure an argument. I feel like the character in a Python skit: "I came here for an argument."..."Oh! Well, it's being hit on the head lessons here!"

If all this forum has detiorated into is a string of being hit on the head lessons as opposed to true debate, well then we have done the forum and ourselves a disservice.

I like Rush. I have been a rabid dittohead since he hit the airwaves in Nueva Yorque mucho anos ago. I was in the TV biz driving to a production meeting of the then nascent Fox show (starring you know who): Inside Addition to meet w/its producers, and heard this guy and laughed and loved it immediately. He still makes me laugh, maybe not as often, but he still makes me laugh. And sometimes I disagree with him. Hell, he probably sometimes disagrees with him. But, here on FR we ought to be able to present reaoned arguments and disagree. Sure, and sling a little mud occasionally. But the likes of the Freepers I met yesterday disappointed. No debate: just a bunch of cheerleaders.

Well, I am still up for a good debate. And, btw, I think I'll stick around and kick in my two cents every once in a while just to keep my hand in the game, in spite of the party-over-principles-always-poopers.V's wife.

[ventana]

Absolutely. Hillaire Belloc Dittos. Who on earth wants to make their enemy stronger. Islam is our enemy. End of story. V's wife.

[ventana]

Must be. And the answer is: Vincent Gigante. V's wife.

[soccermom]

Thanks -- as for Rush, I haven't heard him on this issue. It isn't that I don't like Rush -- just that I never have time to listen when his show is on. I'm glad Rush is right on this.

[soccermom]

"Some might call this a great day because the American people have spoken." They didn't "speak" -- they had a knee-jerk reaction to misinformation. As for Boehner, he pretty much admitted he didn't care about the facts -- it was all politics. If that is "leadership", the House needs a new majority leader.

[soccermom]

"Your damn right he delegated and those to whom he delegated kept the old man aware of what was taking place or else." You're simply making stuff up. How do you know what they apprised him of? It was a relatively minor business arrangement. Do you have any idea how many government contracts are arranged every day? Do honestly think the president, any president, is informed of them? You are the typical example of the Reagan opportunist -- making up what you think Reagan would have done to suit your own arguments.

[soccermom]

"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." It is the issue for me. There are other talk show hosts how opposed the deal. Michael Savage has been paranoid of foreigners under the bed from day one, so I expected his hysterical ranting. My beef is with Hannity -- not merely for his position but the disingenuous way in which he handled it.

"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." Again, it wasn't the "sale" that was the issue. The term she used was "security."

Incidentally, it is not up to Hannity to assume the caller understood because, even if she understood and misspoke, other listeners take her misstatement and Hannity's failure to correct it as fact.

"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." Sorry, but as you know, that was just one of the misleading arguments made by opponents of the contract. I've referred you to the other misleading claims -- they "funded" 9/11, terrorists came from there, blah...blah.....

As for the administration, of course they did a "too little, too late" job of defending the contract. Again, that is irrelevant to my beef with Hannity and the GOP leaders in congress. Hannity knew better, knew the implications and didn't care. Likewise, Boehner (sp?) knew better and actually said the facts didn't matter in this case - it was politics.