Sean, Sean, Sean (Hannity Supports Arnold Snubs McClintock)

Hannity2004.com ^ | 9/29/03 | Matthew Reid

[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

[Sir Gawain]

"We're back on! Quick, where's my Conservative Cliff Notes???"

[CaptBlack]

If this were a general election, McClintock would be well served by running toward the center. That is how elections are won.

TOTALLY SERIOUS QUESTION:

What do you mean by the phrase "running toward the center"?
Do you mean espouse views that appear more centrist?

[Dr.Zoidberg]

I'll give that a look, thanks.

[Dog Gone]

It means softening emphasis on conservative views (or liberal views, if we're talking about a liberal candidate) in order to seem less scary to the mushy middle.

It doesn't mean abandoning those views.

Let's take an easy example. Abortion.

Typically, Republicans come out with their statement of being for right to life in the primaries. But at the general election, they tend to brush off questions about it with the assertion that they can do little about it. Both statements are generally perfectly true.

I could give many other examples, but it is all about trying to make the maximum number of candidates feel comfortable with your views, or at least not actively vote against you.

[kingu]

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???

Major disaster? We've already got that. His name is Davis, and I think he was a Lt.

There's a wonderful way to get your message to a radio commentator - stop listening. If 17% of California's voters stopped listening to Sean, he'd likely make changes. Sean's motive is to have the largest listening audience possible.

See, something that people keep forgetting when dealing with a radio or television personality, they take positions for entertainment value. Perhaps he'd cast a vote for McClintock if he was a California voter. That doesn't matter, what matters is what gets him the most listeners while maintaining the promised demographic.

[CaptBlack]

I could give many other examples, but it is all about trying to make the maximum number of candidates feel comfortable with your views, or at least not actively vote against you.

I can track with idea of not needing to needlessly bait or antagonize those who might otherwise agree with you by trumpeting your more divisive views, but if those are central to your ideology (take the illegal immigration issue in Cali), then I think there's no way around that.

What I pick up from the pro-McClintock Californians is that things aren't just being downplayed; they are just being outright let go. That seems to be the crux of the issue.

[truthandlife]

See, something that people keep forgetting when dealing with a radio or television personality, they take positions for entertainment value. Perhaps he'd cast a vote for McClintock if he was a California voter. That doesn't matter, what matters is what gets him the most listeners while maintaining the promised demographic.

You hit on the head. Sean use to speak what he believes and he got very far on those beliefs but now he is making a lot of money, selling books etc. He is afraid to give up what he has and he will sell out to the highest bidder (the audience). He probably doesn't want to be known as "right wing looney." The interview with Arnold tonight was sick pandering. It was truly pathetic.

[gc4nra]

Sean seems to have gone Arnold stupid!

[gc4nra]

"Personally, I think this country would be better off if the whole state would slide off into the Pacific"



Even Fresno, the home of Free Republic?

[moodyskeptic]

When a classic nerd loses to a classic alpha male and you are shocked and saddened, it reveals how little you follow human nature.

[kingu]

It was truly pathetic.

And you watched it. :) Seriously, though, his principles are what he makes of them, and if his principles are to make the most money, to have the widest listening audience without going outside of his demographic, then he's going to do it.

But, on the flip side of this whole thing, think what this campaign would have been without Arnold.. You still had moderates to attract the middle part of the vote. There would still be a three horse race at the end.

[Southflanknorthpawsis]

I don't know who wants to help McClintock more....the liberals or the we-are-the-only-principled-people-on-earth crowd.

I guess it lends credence to the idea that extreme extremists often end up standing together on practically the same ground.

In this case, two so-called opposite ends of the political world are, for all intents and purposes, joining forces for a common goal; getting Bustamonte elected.

Maybe I'm too simple minded, but I have a difficult time recognizing "principle" when the byproduct is the antithesis of everything one claims to desire.

[anncoulteriscool]

*****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."*****

and you basis for that comment is what...maybe if only freppers and rush listeners were allowed to vote...its a very liberal/democrat state. McClintock has not been able to build up enough support. OK...I'll sit back you be called names now. LOL!

[dalebert]

All I heard Hannity say was that they are both good men but people should stick together because Cali needs Republican leadership.

[Dog Gone]

Let's talk about the illegal immigration problem in California as it relates to this election, then. Arnold's strategy appears to be that he downplays the issue while remaining opposed to licenses for example.

He's choosing technical grounds to oppose them (security issues) while not addressing the bigger issue of whether they should have them at all.

I suspect he's doing that in order to avoid alienating more hispanic votes than he has to, while still maintaining his objection.

Is he being disingenious? I don't know. We won't know unless he's elected and he's forced into specifics by legislation or a referendum. But I do recognize a strategy of playing to the middle.

There's no other way to win this election, especially as a Republican in this state. It's indisputable that we're outnumbered significantly. The only hope of winning an election is to either have massive amounts of Democrats stay home, or to have massive Democrat crossover votes.

[kingu]

Maybe I'm too simple minded, but I have a difficult time recognizing "principle" when the byproduct is the antithesis of everything one claims to desire.

If that happened, it would be because we in California 'deserved it' and would happily toast Bustamante disassembling the state with an eye to the elections in '06. 'course, most conservatives would leave the state if possible, and the independant middle would likely choose just about anyone other than Bustamante - but would that be a Republican? That's their thought.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the heads up!

[Wild Irish Rogue]

" I'm a supporter NOT upset with Hannity."

Neither am I. Sean is a stand up guy-has everyone forgotten his scholarship fund for the military ? Sean has as much right to support a particular candidate,as the rest of the posters here. Trashing Sean because he sang hymns and worshipped in a Christian,(but, non Catholic) church,is contemptible.The McClintock supporters should be more upset with Rush Limbaugh,who is obviously not a fan of Arnold,but,to my knowledge, has not stepped up and formally endorsed McClintock.Limbaugh had the perfect opportunity to endorse McClintock, when he wrote an op ed for the WSJ,August 23. He back handed AS,but,not one word about McClintock,his name wasn't even mentioned in the piece.Sean has given McClintock air time,which is more than can be said of Limbaugh.

[Southflanknorthpawsis]

Nice attempt to cover over your adolescent comment. It's so demeaning to a thread when comments such as yours are made.

You could have expressed the same thing without the "little boy" nasty talk. It becomes no one.

[BunnySlippers]

Thank you for posting the link. I just sent Sean a note. I'd been meaning to thank Sean for seeing this election for what it is.

Sean's support has meant a lot. Just the day after Arnold announced his candidacy, Newt Gingrich was on to sing Arnold's praises and endorse him as well.

Thanks, Sean!