Replies

You are of course entitled to your own opinion about Sean Hannity, but your article is unpersuasive and downright insulting. It also displays a lack of understanding and historical context.

The faulty effort to claim the mantel of Ronald Reagan is particularly offensive. Given Reagan's opposition to the give-away of the Panama Canal, I think that we can safely presume that he would never have allowed this deal to get as far as it did. Especially in our post 9/11 world, Reagan would have quickly seen the folly of allowing foreign elements to have such involvement in our ports, especially those with ties to such foreign governments as questionable as the UAE.

Reagan, as he usually was, would have been in tune with the vast majority of the American people, and with grass roots Republicans.

Let me ask you this question: Why do you think that your opinion is so contrary to the vast majority of the American people or with grass roots Republicans? [Hint: "they're stupid" or "they're uninformed and lazy" are not convincing arguments.]

So, I am here -- intelligent, informed, aware, energetic, willing to listen and learn -- convince me that your position is correct and my opposition to the ports deal is wrong.

Given Reagan's opposition to the give-away of the Panama Canal, I think that we can safely presume that he would never have allowed this deal to get as far as it did.

Apples and oranges. Complete control of the entrance to the Panama Canal is not the same as leasing some terminals at ports.

So, I am here -- intelligent, informed, aware, energetic, willing to listen and learn -- convince me that your position is correct and my opposition to the ports deal is wrong.

I nominate you for the "Mr. FR member of the month!" (There he is... Mr Free Rep......music)

You do sound good! :)

"Why do you think that your opinion is so contrary to the vast majority of the American people or with grass roots Republicans?" Because the vast majority of Americans are under the impression that the UAE would "control" the port or was "in charge of security" of the ports. Both those notions are false. Some poor misinformed woman called into Hannity's show yesterday and said she couldn't understand why we had to contract out to foreigners for our security. Not once did Hannity take the time to correct her and let her know that wasn't the case. The vast majority of Americans have heard the talking points that the UAE "funded 9/11", which is a lie. The vast majority of Americans were told 2 of the 9/11 hijackers came from the UAE. What they weren't told is that the UAE detained one of those men and it was the U.S. that let him go. You get my point -- their opinion was formulated on misinformation and people like Hannity, who should know better, allowed the misinformation to persist.

"Given Reagan's opposition to the give-away of the Panama Canal, I think that we can safely presume that he would never have allowed this deal to get as far as it did." If you can't distinguish between "giving away" the Panama Canal and allowing foreigners to have contracts with American-owned ports, I think you've illustrated that you have fallen for the hype and hysteria. And, as I noted to another poster, what makes you think Reagan would have been aware of such a deal, let alone micro-managing it? No president would have been involved in such a decision. Reagan wasn't even aware of the arms deal, yet you expect me to believe he would have been all over this?