Posted on 09/29/2003 5:15:01 PM PDT by ElephantMan
[Editorial]
Sean, Sean, Sean...
From the very minute that Arnold Schwarzenegger announced his candidacy for Governor of California, Sean Hannity's behavior has been more like a star struck groupie than a professional commentator or political pundit.
Sean has admitted many times, on both his radio and television shows, that his views are much closer to those of State Senator Tom McClintock, the real conservative in the race. Yet, Hannity supports Arnold.
He insists that he "hasn't endorsed anyone," but it's clear who his horse is in this race. Hey, we like Arnold too--and if McClintock wasn't running, we'd support him over Davis or Bustamonte without hesitation.
Sean praises Arnold at every turn. He repeatedly quoted from Arnold's "editorial" in the Wall Street Journal last week, stating his admiration for Arnold's views and citing the article as proof of Arnold's conservative bona fides--even after he was informed that the piece was ghost-written by the Club For Growth's, President, Stephen Moore. (How a seasoned political pro could even give that article a quick skim without questioning it's authorship is beyond us? Does it sound even remotely like any of Arnold's other campaign statements?)
Hannity defends his impartiality by saying that he has given more airtime to McClintock than Arnold. Even if that isn't simply because McClintock has been more available than Arnold, it makes little difference when the bulk of the interview is spent asking the same question a half a dozen different ways. The question, of course, being, "You can't win, why don't you drop out? Why are you going to split the vote? Aren't you going to give the election to Bustamonte?"
Sean maintains that he couldn't talk up McClintock early on because he didn't know enough about him prior to the debates. I maintain that part of his job is to learn more about the key players. It would have minimal effort to call a couple of his colleagues in California, i.e., Melanie Morgan, Roger Hedgecock and Tom Sullivan to find out if any of the other candidates were serious and/or viable. They would have all mentioned McClintock and Sean could have done some additional research--talked to Tom and found out that he was for real.
Sean's unequivocal and blind support from the beginning for Schwarzenegger is baffling. More importantly, his support comes at the expense of intellectual consistency. Consider the following:
Even though he thought Bill Clinton's actions 25-30 years ago were relevant to an election, as do we by the way, Sean repeatedly says that he "doesn't care about Arnold's actions from 20 years ago," and his views as expressed in the interview with a porn magazine in 1973. Sean says, "Hey, I'm not the same person I was 20 years ago." Actually, Sean, you're not the same person you were just a couple of years ago...
Based on his statements over the past several weeks, Sean thinks that we should vote for Arnold because:
1.) Arnold can win.
2.) Tom can't win.
Doesn't this sort of thinking suggest that we should only back "moderate" Republicans in all races? This would especially hold true for Presidential races--which means we should back someone like Olympia Snow or Colin Powell in '04 rather than Bush. After all, Bush is just "too conservative."
Of course, that makes no sense. And neither does Sean's support of Arnold.
And here's another thought for you Sean. What happens if the Gray Davis Dirt Digging and Demonization Machine finds the magic bullet and takes down the Terminator at the 11th hour? It's a very real scenario--and if it does happen won't we all be glad that McClintock remained in the race?
Worse, what happens if Arnold Schwarzenegger, Republican Governor of California were to either not endorse Bush in '04 or even announce his support of a moderate Democrat?
Can you say M-A-J-O-R D-I-S-A-S-T-E-R???
Again, Sean should have done his homework. My guess is, he would have support Tom from the start. And that being the case, perhaps Tom would be 20-25 points in front of Arnold. Who knows, maybe Arnold wouldn't still be in it? Maybe he wouldn't have ever jumped in...
We love ya Sean. We thank God for you and your (usually) firm, brave voice for conservative issues. We put this site on the web over a year and half ago--we've supported you for a long time. But on this one, Sean, we respectfully think you're wrong.
We understand the arguments for supporting the guy who can win, "it's better than Bustamonte." And we agree that Bustamonte would be a true disaster for an already ailing state.
We also understand that most of the social issues where many conservatives agree more with Tom than Arnold, are out of the sphere of influence these men will enjoy in their role as governor.
But besides standing on principle and conviction, the main reason we support Tom is simple. We believe he can do the job. He's spent 25 years working intimately with CA budget issues and can spout off a systematic plan to reversing the state's fortunes on demand. This guy knows what needs to be done. What can be cut. What needs to be left alone.
And this recall election, the dynamics of which are so unique, may provide the best opportunity to project a true conservative into the position of Governor. Squandering that opportunity just to play it safe seems foolhardy to us. If Californians were given the chance to see a conservative in action, solving the state's problems and debunking the doom and gloom scare tactics the Left has used to keep conservatives out of office, i.e., scaring senior citizens that their social security will be cut or taken away, scaring women regarding the "right to choose" and so forth.
Unfortunately, thanks in no small part to your position on this issue, California is likely to lose that once-in-a-generation opportunity. Yes, he will probably not raise taxes. But we will subject California to governance by a total novice--to deal with problems that cause even the most experienced to tremble. Should his inexperience, regardless of who he surrounds himself with (And some of those on his team gave California its largest tax hike in history!), leave the state worse for his being there, Republicans will be blamed.
Will it be cool to have The Terminator as Governor of our State? Of course. But c'mon, we're not all young teenagers. Shouldn't we make our political choices based less on testosterone and adrenaline? And lastly, do we really want a man who calls Sen. Kennedy, "Uncle Teddy" to be carrying our banner? :::Shudder:::
All the best...
Matthew Reid, Founder
www.Hannity2004.com
Chat rooms and message boards all over the Net are echoing the same sentiments.
Would McClintock be running away with this thing if people like Sean had supported him from the beginning?
As McClintock said in an email to his supporters over the weekend, "If everyone who's ever said 'Well, I'd vote for McClintock, but He can't win so I'm voting for Arnold' actually voted for McClintock, he'd win in a landslide."
PS--It's worth noting that even Hannity's wife said she thought he was beating up McClintock too hard regarding withdrawing from the race...
On any other issue Sean preaches that we should stick to our principles, but not this time.
I have NEVER heard Sean Hannity that upset or passionate. I thought he was going to burst a blood vessel in is cerebrium. At least drops of urine must have stained his trousers. Sean was shouting at the top of his lungs "I haven't endorsed either of them!!!" and then about three minutes later, showed his lies by letting into every single reason why McClintock is toast and Arnold is the way and Arnold will win, even agreeing with his toadie "Marty" on the final segment over the preferability of Schwarzennegger. How disengenous, to outright lie that he has not endorsed Schwarzenegger.
Hannity's true self came out today. I was not impressed, and I generally liked the guy.
Excuse me? Sean is not running for office, Tom McClintock is. If Tom wanted Sean to "talk (him) up", then it was McClintock's responsibility to get Sean the info he needed.
The excuse spinning from the McClintockeys continues..
Since principles mean nothing to the Arnold supporters - as evidenced by their support for Arnold - they will be able to vote for McClintock, safe in the knowledge that they have not stuck to any principles. They don't even have to tell anyone who they voted for; unprincipled people usually have no troubles lying. They can even bitch and moan and groan when McClintock wins. But they can be proud that they never violated their lack of principles.
This is a fantasy on somebody's part. A significant number of voters who are voting for Arnold, would never vote for McClintock.
Given the choice between the cruzemeister and McClintock, I believe it is too close to call.
McClintock should bow out, conceede to Arnold and then focus on defeating Babs in '04.
It's worth noting?
Do you really value what Sean Hannity's wife has to say?
Amazing.
That's more an opinion than an endorsement, no?
My sister in law in LA says that for the first time in her voting life, she's voting against her conscience & voting for Arnold.
So, it's a perplexing situation. Do you vote your heart (knowing he won't get in) or do you vote Arnold to keep a rat out?
I'm in CT & I find myself going back and forth. It's a very hard decision.
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.