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."
ping
We’ve quit watching Hannity altogether because of these Mt. Olympus types who prefer hanging out with Zeus instead of us regular folks.
When I was growing up, we called them “know-it-alls.” Now, that description doesn’t seem to fit because they don’t know half as much as they think they do.
And none of them, including Hannity, seem to be in touch with real Americans. To me, that’s a real disappointment.
I prefer Rove any day over those liberal clowns.He has some original thoughts.
rove is part of the “estabished”,
as dana perino said.
rove is not a conservative.
i turn him off when Newt the Turd sucker comes on.
How about all of the other RINO scumbags?
I agree with much of what you said, although I like Sean Hannity. Sean occasionally gets under my skin, but he has done a lot of good for America.
As for Tokyo Rove.... he’s dead in my view. I hate seeing Rove come on any show, even when I agree with that days message.
I think Hannity may change his approach when Tea Party conservatives change the channel or listen to podcasts of Levin and Rush.
I bet his ratings are dipping. Too many people around her say they never watch him anymore.
As much as I hate Dr. Laura's voice while driving around town in my car, she still beats Hannity. Can't stand him!
The appearance of Karl Rove or Dana Perino is an immediate channel changer for me.
Are you listening FOX???
“I agree with much of what you said, although I like Sean Hannity.”
I do too, and part of the reason I wrote this is to give him some friendly advice. This Rove thing is hurting him. Rove used his show to fire his first broadside at Christine O’Donnell after she won the primary. Hannity is not to blame for that. But continuing to give him a prominent platform and to flatter him as “the Architect” is making conservatives hurl.
If Hannity’s program is going to become just the second hour of Baxter, it is going to fold. It must be conservative. Or it will be kaput.
I agree. The quicker we get back to all around Reagan conservatism the better. The next President of the United States must be one who is dedicated to the task of repealing and reversing ALL of the damage inflicted on our great nation by Obama and the godless Marxist Democrats. The next POTUS must love America, patriotism, cherish the Constitution and the Declaration, love freedom, small government, God, family, country, Life and Liberty! He/she must have a solid program to roll back government, roll back taxes and spending, strengthen our foreign policy, strengthen our defenses, secure the border, defend the unborn, defend marriage, defend the second amendment, appoint constitutional judges, restore our economic freedoms and energy independence! In short, he/she must not only talk the talk, but must walk the walk! Drill, baby, drill! And she must love the great American outdoors! Love boating, fishing, guns, hunting and skinning game, like moose, RATs and RINOs!!
Agreed.
I agree about Dana P, alicewonders. I simply cannot stand her. She interrupts people and makes stupid comments. What was it she said about women being too busy for something one night on Fox? Does anyone remember that brilliant comment? I think it was pre-election and in a conversation about COD.
BTTT, Jim
“skinning game, like moose, RATs and RINOs!!”
LOL. I think I have someone in mind for this job....
Good points and I agree. Also Reagan was the only good President we have had in decades.
People need to wake up and realize this is a war against freedom and the idea of America. It is the idea of America that people can wraps their hands around and 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.
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.