A Vanity to Hannity on Reagan, Rove and the GOP Establishment

I have watched Sean Hannity for a number of years and listened to his radio show. (I will admit at the outset that my tastes run more in the direction of Mark Levin and Rush Limbaugh, and I know the three of them are good friends.)

To be blunt, the continued appearance of Karl Rove on his show is an affront to anyone who is serious about creating a new and permanent conservative majority. When I see Rove appear, I change the channel. I certainly have no problem with frankly liberal guests like Juan Williams, Bob Beckel and Ed Rendell among others. I think he features Dana Perino and Nicolle Wallace far too often and rarely does a genuine conservative like Jedidiah Bila or Craig Shirley show up on anything other than his "Great American Panel".

Yet Rove appears night after night. I have noticed many Freepers are tuning Hannity out and I am one of them. (I myself listen to Mark Levin instead of Hannity since he happens to come on in Hannity's 9 p.m. EST time) slot. Hannity, who styles himself a "Ronald Reagan conservative", is the premier conservative program on television as I write this, and I am writing to appeal to Hannity to distance himself from Rove and others of his confreres (Tucker Carlson was guest hosting for him last night) who are in the camp of the GOP Establishment for two reasons. First, your association with Rove is going to hurt your ratings if it has not already.

Second, since I take him at his word that he is a Reagan conservative, I recommend that Sean Hannity read pages 21-23 of Rendezvous with Destiny, the great history of the 1980 Reagan campaign in which author Craig Shirley quotes heavily from Reagan's speech to CPAC in 1977:

"Reagan's method of taking on the status quo was different from Carter's. In the opening months of 1977, he addressed important conservative organizations to explain his vision for a "New Republican Party"...Reagan told his young listeners [at CPAC] to look beyond the simple math of the two parties and instead to focus on the disparity between self identified conservatives and liberals.. During his CPAC address he noted that...by a 43-19 plurality those polled by Harris said they would prefer to see the country move in a more conservative direction than liberal one.

Reagan called for bringing into the Republican fold those Democrats concerned with "social issues---law and order, abortion, busing, quota systems--[that]are usually associated with the blue collar, ethnic, and religious groups." In short he proposed a fusion between those mercantile and economic interests long associated with the GOP, who were mostly concerned with government regulations, and social conservatives, who believed the fabric of society was also threatened by big, intrusive government...

Then Reagan took on the GOP, telling his CPAC audience that the party "cannot be limited to the country club, big business image that ...it is burdened with today. The 'New Republican Party' I am speaking about is going to have room for the man and woman in the factories, for the farmer, for the cop on the beat."

"Reagan received a standing ovation from the young conservatives gathered at CPAC. The "True Believers" understood Reagan's call. The former governor was not only taking on the established order in Washington, he was also continuing the fight against the dug-in and hostile interests within the GOP. His followers understood that Reagan believed in a "natural aristocracy" of men who climbed to their highest ambitions without the heavy handed aid of nobility or government connections. He was defining a new ideology of optimistic and enlightened conservatism that was unsettling to the powers-that-be that ran the Republican party. They didn't understand it, so how could they possibly support it?"

Two observations about this excerpt, which was quoted verbatim by Mark Levin the other night:

I believe the fault line between Reagan, and his true heirs in the Emerging Conservative Majority, on the one hand, and the Establishment are the social issues such as abortion and gay marriage, which are font and center in our society. The Establishment treats those issues with timidity and embarrassment, preferring to de-emphasize such cultural issues in favor of the "mercantile issues" such as taxes and spending. Where Reagan saw a FUSION of the social issues with the mercantile, or economic issues, Rove and his Establishment friends recommend an AMPUTATION of the social issues (and the constituencies which support them) from the so-called GOP Big Tent. At best, they will tolerate such issues but never emphasize or highlight them. In other words, they recommend that we give the huge constituency which supports social conservatism as little reason as possible to join the new Republican Party which Reagan envisioned. If they like Democrat economics, these social conservatives will go ahead and vote for the Democrat. More likely, they will not vote at all, and the GOP will have a turnout problem. 2010 is a case in point.

Unfortunately, the attempt to run the election on purely economic issues without regard to social issues likely cost the GOP some close seats, both in the House as well as Colorado and Nevada, and possibly Alaska. In Alaska, for example, Joe Miller won the primary with the aid of a heavy turnout of Right to Life Voters, since there was a parental consent abortion issue on the ballot. With the exception of a commercial by Jim Demint highlighting Lisa Murkowski's pro-abortion record, there was little discussion of abortion in the general election, although Miller was the only pro-life candidate in a three way race. Had Miller made abortion the centerpiece of his campaign, using Palin early and often on the issue, in effect treating this as a "base election", he surely would be in a different position that the one he finds himself in now.

The point is that Reagan saw the GOP as a "both, and" party. Rove and the Establishment, too embarrassed by abortion and to afraid of the cries of racism and intolerance from the La Raza and the Log Cabin Republicans, see the GOP as an "either, or" party. While Reagan wanted the Party to be a robust entity breathing in both its social and economic lungs, Rove and the Establishment want to return us to the pre-1980 days when GOP limped along on only its economic leg. Alas, too many conservatives (like Miller) appear to have drunk this kool-aid and stand to pay a price for it.

The dug-in and hostile elites in the GOP, which Reagan battled throughout his career are exemplified by Rove, the NRSC and the Delaware and Alaska party apparatchiks, among others, who sabotaged conservative candidates coast to coast. It is beyond outrageous that Sean Hannity continues to give a prominent platform to Rove, who is the most egregious offender of all.

To Hannity, I say one thing: If you are serious about remaking the GOP in Ronald Reagan's image, there are two very simple things you can do. You can begin to promote both the socially conservative component of the GOP coalition (principally the right to life) as BOLDLY as you promote its economic agenda. (Warning: This may subject you to ridicule on the Upper East Side of Manhattan, among the Peggy Noonans and the Kathleen Parkers). This is what Reagan would do. And he would do it both because it is the right thing to do and because it is the politically savvy thing to do.

Second, stop giving such a prominent platform to those within the GOP (like Rove) who not only are unsettled by the "New Republican Party" envisioned by Reagan, but are overtly hostile to it. Trust me, that view is amply represented by the Kathleen Parkers, the Peggy Noonans and the Joe Scarboroughs on the other networks. If you occasionally have someone of Rove's ilk on, invite a conservative to rebut them. There are no shortage of great conservatives, real Reagan conservatives like Jeffrey Lord and Craig Shirley (not to mention Levin and Rush), who could be called upon for commentary, and they could both educate you and debunk some of the political fairy tales Rove and company are peddling.

Until you make some changes such as the above, your audience is going to be shrinking as fast as Rove's "Big Tent."

“it is the idea of America that will get people off their butts to let their voices be heard as they realize we have to fight to keep the idea of America.”

As Reagan said, freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We only keep it by fighting for it, not by following the RINO playbook of “surrendering a little more slowly”

Some good points here but I think Tokyo Rove is less an anti-ideologue and more just a semi-scrupulous agenda-driven Bush-backer trying to place-hold for Jeb with his attacks on Palin, et al. The social issues are as useful to Rove as any other issues—when they’re useful, that is. When they’re not, they’re not.

As for Hannity, I think FR is generally overly critical. Hannity is a flawed spokesman for conservatism, true, but he is TIRELESS and does lots and lots of God’s work, especially in election years. By example, he’s the one who put the Obama connections to Rev Wright, Billy and Bernadine out there among the general public and kept pounding away even AFTER the Comrade was elected. Hannity is the kinda critter that just keeps coming. He’s not my fave either but he’s a good man. I’m not turning him off only because he puts someone on the air I don’t agree with.

(And, I’m hoping he’ll read the above and send me a free Lobstergram!)

As for everything you say about not shying away from the social issues, I’m down with you brother. Those are winners for us, not losers. Pound those social issues. Pound them and win!

Rove is a yesterday ‘Republican’

GW ‘bless him’ is a yesterday ‘Republican’

WE THE PEOPLE are the Republicans now of today.

I’m MAD AS HELL! AND I’m NOT GOING TO TAKE IT ANYMORE.

Where Reagan saw a FUSION of the social issues with the mercantile, or economic issues, Rove and his Establishment friends recommend an AMPUTATION of the social issues (and the constituencies which support them) from the so-called GOP Big Tent.

Precisely. This has been the ever-growing tension with the GOP ever since Reagan and it has cost GOP candidates millions of votes.

As you wrote, Craig Shirley pointed out in the book and Levin re-stated the other night:

"He [Reagan] was defining a new ideology of optimistic and enlightened conservatism that was unsettling to the powers-that-be that ran the Republican party. They didn't understand it, so how could they possibly support it?"

They still don't get it. Sean Hannity, are you listening? Stop pussy-footing around with these people. I, for one, tuned you out months ago.

“Hannity is a flawed spokesman for conservatism, true, but he is TIRELESS and does lots and lots of God’s work, especially in election years. By example, he’s the one who put the Obama connections to Rev Wright, Billy and Bernadine out there among the general public and kept pounding away even AFTER the Comrade was elected. Hannity is the kinda critter that just keeps coming. He’s not my fave either but he’s a good man. I’m not turning him off only because he puts someone on the air I don’t agree with.”

I agree with everything you say, except for not turning him off. The Rove episode was the tipping point for me. His regular guests include Perino, Rove and Nicole Wallace, diehard Bushies who don’t have much interesting to say. When you add in Newt Gingrich and Dick Morris and Beckel adn Juan Williams, there really aren’t any conservatives. He should have some one who is conservative and has a spine like Levin or Jeffrey Lord or Tammy Bruce. His show is increasingly becoming like Ted Baxter, Hour 2.

Sometimes you have to wait the entire show to hear someone who is not mouthing GOP or Democrat Establishment talking points. I haven’t got that kind of time. I just turn on my radio and listen to Mark Levin. Fifteen minutes of Levin yields more bang for the Buck than a week of Sean Hannity.

I wish Levin could get on TV. He would be a megastar. there is a real hunger for the kind of intelligent commentary mixed with knee-slapping humor that he provides.

If Hannity would be more like Levin or Rush(not more intelligent; that ain’t happening; but more resolute) his ratings would skyrocket. This dalliance with Rove is hurting him. And I hate to see it.

Hannity has always been brainless—just repeats lines he hears from other productions. I have never heard him voice an original idea.

I found him boring. Now, when I tuned in and found his huggy buddy Rove mouthing off about candidates that the voters had selected—I turned it off. Hannity is out of my house.

Rove was perturbed because his credibility as an expert was questioned, his candidates were losing in the primaries, and he was losing consultancy income. It is the money loss that has that Rove twit squirming and screaming. He wants his post back as future king maker, and all the perks—which he see slipping from his grasp by tea party success.

Just put a sack over her head and listen to what she has to say.....I don’t care about her hairstyle.

I do enjoy some of the little tidbits she knows about from working in the Bush WH. For that reason alone, I will listen to her and Rove occasionally. Not a steady diet of them, tho.
I cannot stand that Beckle liar. He is just a dem spinner and I don’t like that Hannity gives him air time to promote the Obama theories and excuses.....Let him go on MSNBC where he belongs! Hannity is supposed to be Conservative, so why give these leftists the podium?

Hannity should be giving us more Conservative views and people who can inspire our side to do the hard task at hand for this country.
I like Hannity but he has gotten lazy about choosing his guests.
Look at all the folks Greta puts on. I like her show more than Hannity at this time. She puts some work into it and it shows.

No doubt about it, Al. Levin absolutely gets it. He was there with Reagan during the First Revolution. He knows what the Establishment varmints will do before they do it. He needs to have a sit-down with Hannity and explain to Sean the facts of life. Honestly, it is as much for Hannity’s own good as it is for the Conservative Cause. I have tuned him out as well.

“Rove was perturbed because his credibility as an expert was questioned, his candidates were losing in the primaries, and he was losing consultancy income. It is the money loss that has that Rove twit squirming and screaming. He wants his post back as future king maker, and all the perks—which he see slipping from his grasp by tea party success.”

Which is exactly why he tries at every turn to knife Palin. She sees him for what he is and he knows that when she becomes President, his days as a consultant or even a talking head are over, finished, kaput. He has to try to stop her now. For him, that means stopping the Tea party as well.

More than just Rove, all roads from the Establishment lead to the Bush family interests, unfortunately. None of them can tolerate someone like Palin who has the potential to put Reagan's "new Republican majority" back in business.

Reagan's abiding miscalculation, as you've discussed before, was putting daddy on the ticket in 1980 instead of someone -- like Paul Laxalt -- more attuned to Reagan's vision for the party.

I understand the political calculation Reagan used in making that decision. In retrospect, he sewed the seeds of a tremendous problem for conservatives.

If I could hit the rewind button for one decision of the Gipper’s, it would have been to pick Laxalt for VP in 1980. Smiling down on us, I bet Reagan regrets it as well.

Laxalt wouldn’t have hurt him at all. The GOP Establishment was already trying to destroy Regan with John Anderson. WHat more could they have done? But i guess he didn’t know it at the time. And Reagan had never run nationally before so he didn’t have that experience. He was a little unsure of himself at Detroit, and I guess that is understandable, given the Anderson thing and the Mary Dent Crisp walkout.

Palin’s experience in 2008, as well as with the CBC in Alaska leading up to her election as Governor, has given her the necessary experience in “skinning RINOs” as Jim Rob so aptly put it. I am sure she will pick a solid conservative.

“Why are we turning on Hannity who has done more for conservatives than anyone else over the years (and our soldiers)?”

Two points:

First, I am not turning on him. I am giving him some advice without which he risks a “ratings crater” from which he may never recover. Hopefully, he reads FR like Levin does, and heeds it.

Second, he has not done more for conservatives than anyone. Not close. Rush has done more. Far, far more. Levin hasn’t been on the air as long but he has done more since he has been on the air. And he did more when he was working to elect Reagan and then working for him as President. That is just two. there are many others who have done a lot more than Hannity. He basically functions as GOP cheerleader first, conservative second.

I admire and am encouraged by his enthusiasm and dedication to the conservative cause.

However,

When he brings NG, DP, or KR around, I disappear; and don’t come running back.

There are a WHOLE HOST of NEW FRESH CONSERVATIVE voices just waiting to be heard, Mr. Hannity.

Play the new sounds ( think Dick Clark ).

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.