Sean Hannity is trying something new on his program. It’s called the “Liberals-Only Hour,” where he offers to “help” liberals by allowing them to call in and vent in the hopes that they will feel better afterward. He allows them a “30-second vent” rule where he won’t interrupt them for a full thirty seconds and will let them say whatever they wish.
What Sean has discovered is a new way to collect ammunition against liberals who are angry at being subject to a lying, oppressive, shadow government. One caller, upset at the obvious hypocrisy of the Republicans garnering so many votes on the “moral values” platform asked why is it that he is constantly attacked for being an “America-hating leftist” when Rush Limbaugh is on drugs, Newt Gingrich had an affair with an intern while his wife was in the hospital with cancer, and Bill O’Reilly was involved in his own sex scandal. Instead of answering the question, Hannity asked him if he liked Michael Moore. The caller tried once again to get an answer out of Sean, but was redirected back onto the Moore question. The rest of the call was about Moore, but the caller’s last words were, “when will the hypocrisy stop?”
Of course, Sean ignored him.
As he went to commercial, I had heard just about all I could stand, but wasn’t able to hit the “stop” button on my RealPlayer before Sean capped up the hour by stating, “here’s what we’ve heard from these liberals when they’re given a chance to talk — lynne cheney would eat her own young, Bush knew about the bombings, Bush would support terrorists if he knew it would get him more money, and I’m a terrorist…” Folks, STOP calling into these shows. You cannot win. Sean has a long record of bullying the conversation, and you’ll never get your point across without it being twisted into something hideous. It’s tempting to think you can get the truth out if given thirty seconds, but Sean will make sure you look like a fool. It’s just not worth it.
I am very conservative and I listen to Sean Hannitysomewhat often. While I don’t fully agree with the caller in the above article on the point regarding the issue of hypocrisy (although I don’t fully disagree either; I just don’t agree with the implication being made), I will readily admit that Sean is a conversation bulldozer.
Sean has his moments when he is truly trying to get a straight answer out of a person being evasive, but the problem lies with the fact that he practices the same “bulldozing” conversational tactics even when his guests ARE giving a straight answer.
I found myself flabbergasted one night (this was during he and Colmes’ TV show) when I found myself siding with Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee in an argument with Hannity. The discussion was on immigration, and Lee was being practical about the matter, freely admitting the simple fact that we just don’t have the resources to up and deport a 12 or so million illegal aliens. Sean would have none of it. Lee certainly wasn’t expressing a desire to let illegal aliens off Scott free as a matter of desirable policy – but just that we approach it from a realistic standpoint, recognizing the unfortunate reality. Sean wouldn’t let her flesh out her point without DEMANDING that she give a “yes” or a “no” to the question of whether or not she wanted to let law breakers get away with it. She approached the issue with a reluctant recognition of reality, but he wanted to force her into a recharacterization of her position as being “pro-lawbreaking” or “pro-illegal immigration.”
One can readily and honestly disagree with the prudence of Congresswoman Lee’s approach – the issue of immigration itself is not the subject of my point. I didn’t get to hear enough of what she thought to really know if I agreed with her overall plan or not– and that’s exactly the point isn’t it ?! Sean was so intent on pinning her to the wall that he stiffled what could have been a real discussion.
And this is coming from someone who can’t remember EVER agreeing with Sheila Jackson Lee on ANYTHING. I don’t know much about this site, heck I’ve only read one thing on here so far, but from the title I gather I’m not in similar political company. And I’m sure that when it comes to the substance of the issues themselves, I agree with Hannity a great deal more than with those on this site. But I will grant without question that Sean Hannity does a disservice to this country and conservatism by conducting himself the way he does. I could go on forever, as “bulldozing” is not the only drawback to Sean’s approach, but I’ve written enough already.
Matt
Thanks for writing Matt. You might not be in similar political company, but it’s very good to see that you can at least see reason. That said, I’ve just about had it with most of the politicians in Washington right now, including the Democrats. They are all opportunists, in bed with big business, with the exception of a very minor few. The whole lot of them have a lot to answer for.
As far as the immigration question, I don’t know what the answer is, but I stopped watching Hannity and Colmes a couple years ago when it was clear that it was not intending to be a forum for the expression of different viewpoints (which it claimed to be), but rather a platform for Hannity to bully his guests, and for Colmes to basically sit back most of the time and watch it happen. Not every show can be “The McLaughlin Group,” but it became obvious to me very early on that Hannity has no interest in probing the issues. He wants people to come down squarely on his side, or else they’re “the enemy.”
Most Neo-Cons seem to want the world drawn with very clear lines of right and wrong, good and evil. Unfortunately, the world is not that simple. There are so many shades of gray, and it can get exhausting looking at them I know. True conservatism is not something I have a real problem with — personal accountability, balancing the budget, smaller government (and government that stays out of your personal business).
Trouble is, the people in charge today are not really conservatives, are they… Sean is probably more of a traditional conservative than so many others on television and radio — I like the fact that he rarely brings up religion in conjunction with patriotism, and I also was very pleased that he confronted the author of the recent anti-Hillary book on some of the lies contained therein.
Still, he shills for this administration on a daily basis. A true conservative, I think, would have a very hard time doing that.