Posted on 03/10/2006 5:34:07 AM PST by 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.
Michael Savage refers to pretty boy as "Vanity."
Hannity is good at enraging the troops (voters, conservative supporters) and he's entertaining, but he's not the kind of person who could or should form policy.
Of course, that puts him the equal of nearly everyone in the Senate and the majority of those in the House, as we saw yesterday.
This ports deal and the way many Republicans jumped in line with the idiot Democrats has been very telling to me. Our nation's strength is not its leadership.
I said goodbye to Hannity quite some time ago. With Medved to listen to, I don't miss him at all.
Well done, soccermom. I read your letter twice, just to be sure, and can truthfully say I agree with every observation you make. I vote for you to replace Hannity.
I could not have posted any better - thanks!
Michale Savage refers to him as "Vanity."
http://www.homestead.com/prosites-prs/
here is the hannity show in a nutshell:
"we got a lib caller now...hey, lib....oh, you're just a lib..c'mon now, lib...i don't want to talk to you, you're a lib.....ok, next caller, you just love me don't you, well that makes you a great american...ok, next caller, oh you're just a lib"...........and so on and so on.......he is just so full of himself it makes me sick, and his show is so predictable......and he jumped right on the bandwagon with the rest of the "libs".........i refuse to listen to him anymore
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 concur. I like Boortz (who's done it longer than any of them), but Rush is a very smart man. And he is right.
Brilliant
In fairness, I don't know if Hannity actually uses the term "seminar caller". I was using Rush's term.
I agree these folks Like Hannity and Levin, and of course Peter King or so MYOPIC on this topic!
This is a Spiritual War and I feel the Hand of God in this Dubai things..
We Have to start somewhere building bridges and I truly felt as UAE felt the foundation of the US with them and of course the UK they could gain courage to be cordial with Israel!
Everything is tiny steps to recovery!
Through God all things are possible!
These short sited foolish men what have they done?
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.
Amen.
Very Good post
I would prefer a calmer, more intelligent approach on conservative talk radio, like Rush. I like someone like Rush's occasional guest host, Paul W. Smith, who did that great interview with Paul Bremer (and was a host who seemed to draw more interesting callers when he was on).
Some one has to say it, right? :)
BTW, I don't intend to pi** anyone off, but let's face it, we have to mix it up to stand up for what we believe, as this person did and that is all good. That is what this board is about.
I agree. There's Rush, then there's everybody else.
Tony Snow is a voice of reason, too. I can't get Medved where I live, but I'm willing to bet he was on the side of Rush and Snow.
One thing that really annoys me is the way he constructs his questions in an interview. He will spend 5 minutes reciting talking points to the subject, in such a way that there is no doubt how he wants the question answered. Then, as the person is answering, he mutters this weird sound "yaow" when he hears something he likes.
Yes, and Hugh Hewitt, too. He has gotten so tiresome that I have switched to listening to Dave Ramsey talk about money instead.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.