Posted on 11/13/2010 12:03:05 PM PST by Brices Crossroads
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."
Shirley goes on:
"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?"
Rendezvous with Destiny, pp. 21-22
Two observations about this excerpt, which was quoted verbatim by Mark Levin the other night:
I. Social Issues: The Fault Line
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.
II. The Dug-In and Hostile Interests Inside the GOP
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."
Those fiscal conservatives are single issue, and in
reality what impact have they had for the past 40 years?
Look at our fiscal house now, its worse than ever, they
are part of the problem. Don't get me wrong, I fashion
myself a fiscal conservative, but not proud of beating
we have taken.
Ignore the main media, our opinion is right crowd,
Reagan did and spoke straight to the American people
and was a winner.
Native teapartier
Brainless. Repetitive. I am a Reagan Conservative. I am a Reagan Conservative. I am a Reagan Conservative. I am a
Reagan Conservative.
I don’t dislike him. I know he has done some good things, but shallow and repetitive.
Interesting, you know also that Reagan was the guy who ordered us out of Beruit, instead of ordering us to go in and get the stinking little bastards with napalm and carpet bombing.
We can win. But we can never win without an absolute resolve, to win.
Am I a sacrifice for nothing? Or, are we going to kill these guys for real?
.
Lay low. We’re going ten miles northeast. Anybody you see you shoot and kill. Say it! I don’t hear you.
Alright, now stay down and do exactly what I do. But most of all.do not speak. Is that clear! Ok
123
Fu!
Fu!
Fu!
Drive On! Ok, here we go, Giddyup
“I don’t dislike him. I know he has done some good things, but shallow and repetitive”
Let me be kind. Sean Hannity has to rely more on his guests to generate viewership. Levin and Limbaugh don’t need the guests. In fact guests get in their way. They are both, in fact, better than any guest. Sean has to bring in some better talent, guestwise, than Perino, Wallace, etc or people will stop wasting time waiting for the occasional interesting person. If conservatives see Rove, they will turn Hannity off out of spite.
That will be too bad because he is a decent guy and I think his heart is in the right place.
Neither is Dana Perrino.
I stopped watching Fox this week after repeated appearances by Rove.
Now I am getting my news almost exclusively from the Internet.
Woo-Hoo Brices Crossorads!
Love the Reagan excerpts from Craig Shirley’s “must own and treasure” book.
I’m not certain whether Hannity is in charge of naming his guests, at least not the repetitive “Fox News Analysts” like Rove, that horrid Nicole Wallace, Dana Perrino and the totally disgusting Bob Beckel. I’m also tired of Jaun Williams.
I do not listen to his radio show, so TV is it for me. I think he or someone from his crew reads FR, so I think you can rest assured that your “suggestions” and this piece, have a good chance of making their way to Sean Hannity, whom, like you, I also like very much.
Sean is always gracious and fair to Sarah Palin and I appreciate and enjoy his interviews with her. I also think that Sean *is* a Reagan conservative, but he’s a New Yorker too, so he’s always simpatico to Republicans in the East, like Rudy Guiliani and now Chris Christie.
I say RAWHIDE and GO SARAH! Bring us back to CONSTITUTIONAL COMMON SENSE!
Thanks for the post, Onyx. I am not sure Sean is as sympatico with Freepers as Levin, but his show is too important to allow it to deteriorate.
FR is a good place to get the pulse of the grassroots. Around here, his decision to keep putting Tokyo Rove on is not very popular here or elsewhere in the conservative blogosphere. He should hear it from us now before the ratings sweep does some lasting damage to his ratings.
I stopped watching and listening to Hannity a long time ago-—he’ll suck up to anyone who sucks up to him.
A sack over Dana’s head? Never!
Easy solution to that, get your own shown and host your own guests.........if that doesn't work then switch the channel, that's what a remote is for.
As for this vanity, well, it sucks..........in the grand scheme of life, nobody really cares what you think, especially Sean Hannity.
Let me guess, you're sitting at home alone at your computer and want some company..............if that's the case then get yourself a blowup doll.
And at least post your crappy vanity in chat, not News/Activism............
Since I refuse to pay for TV, I can’t watch his show and listening to his radio show has become too annoying to put up with. His pandering to Newt and Karl are only part of it. I’d bet that he spends 1/3 of his radio show plugging his TV show, 1/3 on his testimonial commercial for gold, beef, flowers or computer backup and two calls from “so and so, my favorite lib”. Then after local news, traffic and weather there’s not much there. He’s gotten me back to listening to music.
When he first went solo with his TV show, I thought it was really good. But it’s been getting stale lately. And I hate the panel he has every night. Some of them are OK, but he has a lot of silly comedians who make the panel look silly. And I know this is nitpicking, but that throwing of a Nerf football is lame IMO. I only watch his show if he has a really good conservative, like Ann Coulter, on his show.
Yeah, he’s a Reagan conservative, yada, yada, yada. Just like when he was a cheerleader for pro-abortion, pro-homosexual, cross-dressing Giuliani.
Ha ha Listen, I do not know you. I have no beef with you at all.
But the sheer irony of your post cannot go unanswered.
You are the person who would post to something, saying that everyone who posts here is a loser! You are that person. LoL!!
What happened to your blow up doll? Did it deflate?
If you are not doing what you said we are doing? Then what are you doing here and why did you post?
I'm not sure if you are serious or not but either way your post is hilarious. HAHA LOL Thank you for that.
She's gone and now I'm lonely, want to come over? I know you do., I've followed your posting career.......
Well played. lol
Hey, do you know that Tabasco is made in New Iberia.
I think you know that but I am curious.
Ever been fishin’ in the horseshoe lake?
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.Yeah, he's past the age where he can just sit around lookin' pretty, and really needs to shut his big mouth. On the political continuum, he's somewhere to the right of, say, Newt Gingrich, which isn't that much of a claim -- Newt's got almost as much K-Y between his cheeks as Obama does when he's visiting other heads of state.
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.