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.
Sean Hannity is not known for his intellegence. I thought everyone knew that.
So please, stop holding Bush (or anyone else for that matter) to a purely conservative standard that never was.
Amen to that. It was President Reagan who said (paraphrasing) that it is better to get some of what you want than not get anything at all. President Reagan was the ultimate pragmatic even more so than President GW Bush and I think that is an excellent and necessary trait in a leader who know reality and does not live in a silly theoretical world.
Also regarding the “Non Conservative” thing that President Reagan did, is that he gave “amnesty” to millions of illegal immigrants in the US something that President Bush has never done and does not intend to do, however the “Absolutists” among us who carry the mantra “What would President Reagan do?” are savagely attacking President Bush on the illegal immigration issue and with such a hatred toward him as if he is the devil incarnation himself.
I'm surprised, Hannity thinks that he is another Rush.
Yes he is.
Last week Rush explained how his mood improved when he stopped watching the cable news political shows and the sunday morning political shows. He said why listen and watch shows that upset you. Instead, he hires people to watch and listen and he then uses only soundbites on his show. He said he feels much better. I took his advice and began turning off my radio after his show finishes and before Hannity comes on. It works, my mood has improved. Hannitys whiny, nasal voice and hyperbolic style were like fingernails across a blackboard.
Yeah, Levin's stand is hard for me to swallow. I love him. He's probably the only reason to tune into Hannity any longer.
Where is the other great one, mark Levin on this issue?
He then proceeded ona tirade about "stupid, closeminded Christians".
It may have soothed me a little if Sean has the ability to skewer these leftists on the air, but he doesn't. All he's doing is giving them a platform to circulate their views, and that's all they want.
I've listened to Rush for about 13 years, and can't remember him every giving air time to the enemy. I like Hannity and have always hoped he'd mature politically as he's generally on the same page as I am (minus the ports deal, that is).
I 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.
Leni
Thanks for the point about the immigrants. I didn't know that.
bttt
I've heard Hannity use that term many times. I've also heard others like Glenn Beck (who is way more entertaining, IMHO) use it as well. Don't know if Rush coined that term (very likely) or if it is something that those in the industry all use.
I don't care what Hannity or anyone else says. THe simple fact is that the American people were against this deal and are looking at a lot of other deals done in the past. People who think the government should have just ignored the will of "We the people" are in dire need of some civics courses. Either that or they my be happier in north Korea where the government doesn't listen to the "knee jerkers".
Brilliant! Nice post. :)
I second that amen! :)
Or did he get zotted?
=)
Interesting post, two mistakes:
1. Richard Reid is not white, pale skinned. He is a hybrid between an English mother and a Jamaican father. Look at his pictures on the web - he looks mulatto.
2. Your assertion "Unlike you, Reagan was not short-sighted". Reagan was incredibly short sighted when it came to Afghanistan. Don't forget - the jihadists and Pakistani dictator Zia Ul Haq got $4 billion a year from the US when Reagan was president. We are still paying the price for that alliance and policy today. (For those who have a short memory, the Soviets invaded Afghanistan in 1979 when Carter was president. Carter had the US boycott the Olympics in Moscow, and promised Zia Ul Haq $100 million to help support the mujahideen against the Soviets, which Zia rejected as "peanuts". Reagan aligned the US policy with Islamic fundamentalists such as Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, Zia Ul Haq, etc and gave them unrestricted funding. Read my book for more details).
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.