Sean Hannity is, to me, one of the main poster boys for everything that’s wrong with conservative punditry. This is a guy that simply isn’t credible day-in, day-out and yet a decent number of people continue to listen to this guy’s rhetoric.
Mr. Hannity still claims to be a major supporter of President George W. Bush. This alone should make most people question his intelligence or, more to the point, his motives. It doesn’t matter what the President or his administration does. Sean Hannity will find someone or something else to blame.
What I find most entertaining is his debating tactic. When callers call in and put him in an indefensible position his response is always the same — change the subject. I’ll give him credit. He tries to be sneaky about it by making it appear as something else entirely. Most of the time that shift happens when Sean will respond to a guest by saying, “Let me ask you a question.” At that moment you know he’s out of ammo, and you can bet the topic the caller inquired about won’t be center stage for the rest of the call.
Lately there have been a slew of callers talking to him about the Attorney General and his actions. This guy is yet another example, in a long line of examples, of George W. Bush choices that you knew was going to be a failure from the start. Alberto Gonzales stood up the other day and took responsibility for mistakes made in the firing of eight US attorneys last year. Actually it’s giving him too much credit to say he took responsibility. He said he did and then went on a long diatribe about how we wasn’t actually responsible. However, none of this mattered to Sean Hannity. In his view, it doesn’t matter if anyone admits to mistakes. That’s not the point. The point is to change the subject. When callers asked about this his response was to say, “Let me ask you a question” and then asking if they thought there was anything wrong with Bill Clinton‘s administration having let go 93 attorneys at the start of his term (though Hannity, of course, pins this squarely on Bill himself).
First, there are dramatic differences between these two events. Clinton did this at the start of his administration, just as Presidents have done all along. New President, new party, new people. The scale to which he did it was large but it also followed 12 years of Republican control of that department. What’s also different is that Clinton’s administration didn’t specifically segment their choices into those who played ball and those who didn’t. The other major difference is that Clinton didn’t re-write the laws to benefit from such a move. This administration stuck a change in the law into the Patriot Act that allows the President to appoint anyone he wants to these jobs without Congressional approval. This thing stinks to the high heavens.
However, none of this matters. The point is that this is the tactic that Sean Hannity uses to try to avoid being pinned down on a no-win situation. There’s no defense for what happened here so he has to go back 14 years to invoke Bill Clinton to diffuse the issue and move the discussion.
This guy is a joke. His motives have nothing to do with anything other than making sure he does and says anything he has to in order to keep people listening. The arrogance alone should be enough to enlighten most people. From the opening music to the final moments, the entire show is a choreographed exercise in manipulation. Think about the end of the show. He has a segment where he goes, “rapid fire” to callers to give them 5 seconds to make a statement and move on. If that ever happens let me know. They should call this segment the “Marty” segment. Listeners know what I’m talking about. This listener calls in and has his on mini-show at the end of a huge number of shows. I wonder how many people sit on hold thinking they have a chance to be heard if only that Marty wasn’t so fast on the dialer. Then there’s the whole “Hannitization” concept. How arrogant do you have to be to refer to something like that? It’s one thing to have someone else use the phrase but it’s entirely telling that he uses it and advertises around it. I also have to wonder about someone who needs to be told he’s a great American every few minutes.
Sean, let me ask you a question. When are you going to admit you’re a sham?
11 Comments
You float a nice turd, but ity is still a turd when it roll s over in the water.
Hannity is not even close to the Democrap theology of “Let me says this about that” that spews daily from the demon-crap left side of the brain that controls by the margin of 2 Independants, the senate. Yeah, now that is a real majority in action there, they have done less than the Iraqui governemtn in the past year, and they are not under the viel of daily violence….Hannity brings sanity to a world of political debauchery that the Democraps embrace daily…..
Well, my thoughts about his ardent listeners still stands firm. First, recall, I’m not a Democrat so attacking it from that side doesn’t mean very much to me. Second, I agree. This Congress has been pretty useless, however, they also haven’t spent us into oblivion like the last one. Given the two choices, I’ll take the latter one thanks.
What Hannity brings is hatred in my view. His comments are continually proven to be erroneous and yet people still listen as if he has credibility. I don’t see it. Remember him telling everyone that if the Dems got control of Congress that we’d spend the entire next two years mirred in impeachment proceedings? I do. He said it daily during the run-up to the election. It’s now been nearly a year and no such action has taken place. Hmmm.
Sean Hannity is the biggest assets to Fox News he has worked so hard in investigating this lastest news bombshell. He is a
Must watch show rush home from work to watch. Only one complaint. Why does he have Jessica Karlov and Juan Williams on all the time. They refuse to see what is in front of them!!! Always denying the truth!!! I actually shut my volume off when they are on!!!i feel so sad for our President!!! He tries so hard and only looking out for his people. He is so good for our country I would love to meet him and his lovely wife sometime!!i am lucky to be under his watch. Thanks Sean for your great work.
This comment doesn’t seem real given the myriad of grammar issues, it’s lack of specificity and its complete disconnect from the post it’s in reply to. If it is real then it doesn’t say much for Hannity fans. Oddly, what it reminds me of most is a Trump tweet.
why can Nancy have a wall around her property, but we cant’t have a wall around our county.. Tell Nancy to tear down her security wall so what everybody can come into her estate without having to deal with a wall. Bet she will not tear down the wall. What about those security guards with guns??? She is an employee of all the people of the United States not just Democrats.
Bill, I’m not sure what ANY of this has to do with the post, but since you raise it, I’ll respond. A wall around something small is effective. For a better example consider Israel. It has an effective wall which is, in total, 96 miles long. The US southern border is 2,000 miles long, includes mountainous terrain and large rivers that would be quite challenging to build a wall on. So, building a wall with lots of gaps in it is about as effective as building a dam with lots of holes in it. What’s more is that there are currently hundreds of legal cases in the courts today that have been there, in some cases, for decades over this very issue. It’s not a simple matter of just breaking ground and building. Millions upon millions of dollars (and likely well into the billions) will need to be spent beyond the money being discussed to handle these cases. Plus the $5.7 billion is a fraction of the cost estimated to actually build the full wall. That once again brings us back to the hole-riddled dam issue. On top of this is the irony of how the same conservatives backing this wall and using Israel’s wall as an example are often the same people who say you can’t equate medical care in European countries with the US because we’re so much bigger and thus two are not relatable. Hmm. So, we can spend the $5.7 billion dollars, but then what do we actually get for it? A wall? NO! We get a segment of a wall that, for the most part, is actually nothing more than glorified fencing to not extend the existing wall, but to instead replace much of the current fencing already in place (yet another fact almost no one is talking about) and that will solve very little.
Do you own a home? Can you keep mice away from cheese in your refrigerator? Of course you can as long as mice can’t figure out how to open a refrigerator door. That’s the Israel example. The cheese and the refrigerator are relatively small, but can you also keep the same mice, spiders, ants and other wildlife out of your house entirely? If you think you can then I have an exterminator who’d like to correct you. These creatures are drawn to your home because it offers a benefit over their current home. It’s warmer, drier, has a food source, etc. People can’t lock down their own homes and yet we’re supposed to be able to lock down 2,000 miles of hostile terrain? Come on. That’s a more apt apples-to-apples comparison.
I personally love how Fox News (and to get this back to the topic above), especially Sean Hannity, keeps pointing to a few anecdotal examples of fear and demanding that changes happen. I would generally agree with that sentiment if only it was equally applied anywhere else in Hannity’s history. It isn’t. I can point to over 11,000 gun deaths every year that destroy THOUSANDS of families forever and yet he’s not moved to do something about that actual emergency. 3,000 people every year die from skin cancer. Where’s the outrage? Should we all move underground? It’s a joke Bill. The fact is, the key word in the phrase “common sense” is the word “common”. Common sense is often wrong and that’s why it’s so damned common. It makes common sense to put up a wall. It doesn’t make actual sense in the real world where this so-called wall would live. It would not be a complete wall. It would not stop the VAST majority of drugs coming into the country that come in through legal ports of entry. It would actually INCREASE the number of illegal immigrants permanently in our country (the data here is clear as ever time we’ve made it harder to such people to cross, they cross INTO the country and then just stay instead of going back home later). It just ends up spending billions of dollars on a political folly to appease people who think common sense is uncommonly accurate.
Would like to get a message to Donald Trump. I am one of his largest fan’s. I may have a solution for his wall problem. Donald is a business man. Very intelligent let him sell advertisement on the wall. He could let the American people buy the metal for the wall. And put their business ads on the wall. The people that have lost love ones due to illegal immigrants. Put photos of the ones that they lost. In memory of. It would not long to pay for the wall. Let Nancy keep her money. To many Trump fan’s not for this to work. Got many more ideas. I wish l could meet with President Trump. I’ve got lots more. Carol McClendon 850-307-7016
Sean Hi ,I watch your show all the time. Great job on getting to the bottom of things. My question is to the voters that want a president that can fix global warming. The answer is theirs not one. because the president can only control the USA not the world.We vote on a president to watch over the United States not the whole global.Global warming is a world problem that the people of the global must fix together If people want to fix it tell the DEMS and REPS to first work together and do the best we as americans for OUR COUNTRY FIRST. President Trump has done so much good for us THANKS is not good enough Sean thank you for your reporting the truth to your viewers GREAT JOB AGAIN true viewer Dean
Some of us don’t want to President that can FIX global warming. We want a LEADER than can set American on a course to LEAD by EXAMPLE like we used to. The EXCUSE of it being beyond us to fix is a joke. The same could have been said for our joining say, World War II. We couldn’t win WW2 alone, but that was no reason not to take part in the global challenge. We instead lead by example and got involved and won the war. Live and learn. Sorry, but I prefer to get my news from someone who doesn’t change their position 180 degrees based on which party is in office.
I was wondering if the five senators who are running for president if their vote can be a conflict of interest in the
Senate Trial
Why does it seem like the politicians are trying to put this country into a depresion