Hannity Insanity!

Sean Hannity begins by tackling Teresa Heinz-Kerry, a very proactive woman who would be called a shrewd political activist were it not for her gender.  He says she told a reporter who "accurately quoted her" to shove it.  Except, of course, the reporter Colin McNickle did not accurately quote her.  She said, "... unAmerican traits".  He said, "... unAmerican activities".  This is incredibly nitpicky on my part (after all, she also said she didn't say "unAmerican" but she did).  She did say, "You can shove it."  This is considered inappropriate by Sean Hannity, although he gave a pass to Dick Cheney for saying "Fuck you" on the Senate floor.  Hmm... I didn't know "shove it" was even considered a profanity.  In fact, it is not.  It's a slang term but can be said in any PG-rated film.

In a surprise turn, Hannity aired the "shove it" comment and its preceding question from the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review reporter.  Noticeably absent is the reporter's actual question in which he says, "unAmerican activities."  Instead, he simply says, "unAmerican".  I'm not sure if this is manipulation of news footage by Hannity's program, but I recall rather specifically his question.  In fact, Mr. McNickle was asked about this incident.  He specifically says he asked her about "unAmerican activities" (source: National Review).

Certainly, she should watch what she says.  She has called herself an "African America" which is true.  She was born in Africa.  Should she say this?  Probably not, as it denotes a different racial ethnicity rather than geographical origination.  The Drudge Report, in a strange lapse of objectivity, reports that Teresa Heinz-Kerry has called her critics "scumbags."  This is merely part of a massive story in the New Yorker, most of which contains non-partisan issues (source: New Yorker).  By the way, why exactly do we listen to Sean Hannity?  All he does is state everything that's presented on the Drudge Report's website.  Later in the day, the Drudge Report linked a Pittsburgh story which argues that the New Yorker story took Ms. Heinz-Kerry's "scumbags" comment out of context (source: Pittsburgh Channel).

Hannity's being quite a turd, calling CBS News a fraudulent news organization.  He also claims that there is probably a connection between the DNC and Kerry campaign and CBS News.  This, of course, is speculation with little proof to back it up.  Oftentimes investigative journalism results in failed reports which become dead ends.  It's a natural effect of investigate journalism.  Why does Hannity need proof of the CBS News documents when he apparently doesn't need proof that Kerry corresponded with CBS News?  I guess he's merely an opinion talk show host and doesn't have to rely on facts unlike CBS News. 

Later in the day, USA Today reported there may just be a link between the DNC and CBS News.   Perhaps Sean Hannity was correct?  This could mean a severe criticism of both CBS News and the Kerry campaign.  However, according to Bill Burkett, the man who purportedly gave CBS News the forged National Guard documents, "Neither the Democratic Party or the Kerry campaign had anything to do with the documents." (source: USA Today)

CBS News has done their job and are retracting the story.  It makes me wonder exactly why this is still an issue now.  They reported something, it was incorrect, they retracted.  This happens quite frequently in journalism.  Why should, as Hannity argues, Dan Rather be held responsible?  Hannity often reports fictional or inaccurate news.  Should he not be held responsible for perpetuating calumnous stories? 

President Bush has countered recent criticism of his Iraq leadership by suggesting we need "consistency" in leadership and shouldn't change leaders in the middle of a war (I suppose he's hoping this will be over by the end of his second term?).  What does this remind you of?  "Don't change horses in midstream," so-said former President Abraham Lincoln (but Bush is no Lincoln, that's for damn sure).  Bush has received criticism from Senator John Kerry of course, but also from Republican leaders, including Senator John McCain.  McCain says Bush has not been "as straight as we would want him to be" about Iraq (source: CNN.com). 

President Bush gave his speech at the Republican National Convention tonight.  All in all, I must say it was very effective--far superior to his 2000 speech.  He swung for the swing voters and I think he hit a homer.  Unless, of course, the swing voters are well-informed.  The first half of Bush's speech focuses on his plans for the next four years if he is re-elected.  Heck, after listening to him, even I felt he would make a great President.  Except he's had four years already.  The promises made in his 2000 convention speech (President Bush's 2000 RNC Speech) were fulfilled but did little to actually help anybody.  It would seem good that he followed up on his promises, except we didn't see anything from the plans Bush implemented.  Even the tax cuts.  They didn't affect me whatsoever. 

The second half of his speech was filled with his normal outlandish sentiments, claiming moral superiority and criticizing Senator John Kerry.  Even President Bush seems unable to comprehend John Kerry's senate record.  Maybe it's no surprise that Kerry doesn't run on his senatorial record--nobody can seem to understand the complexity of the job.  President Bush, prior to his run as governor of Texas, had no experience whatsoever.  He had no record to run on (except for his DUI record, natch).   He didn't even have wartime experience.  And yet, this is the man we elected (not really) to the position of Commander in Chief.  And now he's claiming Kerry's record is no good?

His promotion of democracy in Iraq ignores that we are a democracy, yet we were still attacked.  Democracy does not prevent terrorism.  If the Iraqi citizens elect a leader we dislike, will we march in and "fix" things?  There are still many questions to be answered.  However, Bush's speech far surpasses Kerry's Democratic National Convention speech in terms of quality and ideas.  In that, President Bush showed how to be a leader and rally the citizens.  Will it result in his re-election?  In my opinion, yes (Read President Bush's RNC Speech).

Now that I'm over that, onto Sean Hannity (this will be brief).  Oh boy, I am not looking forward to tomorrow's show.  He'll be gloating like a two-bit whore who just won the lottery.  I really hope John Kerry wins the election just to listen to Hannity's show the day after. 

Hannity's consistent abuse of radio power is astonishing.  Take Liberal Brian, for example.  Liberal Brian calls up, exclaims, "You are a great American," and then turns the tables on Hannity.  He questions why Georgia Governor Zell Miller is now criticizing Senator Kerry when just three years ago, he was praising him.  Sean Hannity, the brilliant man, interrupts him and labels him as a "seminar caller for the Democratic party."  This is rather childish, really, since it assumes that any liberal who is intelligent and well-researched must be working for the Democrat party.  Instead, he cuts to commercial, as he always does when confronted with intelligent arguments.  Check it out: Liberal Brian on Sean Hannity (MP3).  *I apologize for the lackluster quality--where I work gets rather poor AM reception.

For anyone curious as to what Liberal Brian was referring to, here's the quote which he was trying to finish: "In his 16 years in the Senate, John Kerry has fought against government waste and worked hard to bring some accountability to Washington. Early in his Senate career in 1986, John signed on to the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Deficit Reduction Bill, and he fought for balanced budgets before it was considered politically correct for Democrats to do so. John has worked to strengthen our military, reform public education, boost the economy and protect the environment." -- U.S. Sen. Zell Miller in his remarks to the Democratic Party of Georgia Jefferson Jackson Dinner in 2001 (source: U.S. Newswire).

Let's also get one thing straight that Hannity seems unable to comprehend.  Senator Kerry is a senator.  As a result, he is responsible to the voters of Massachusetts alone.  That is the point of a senator--to express the will of his constituents.  After four consecutive terms, it would seem Senator Kerry is much liked in his state.  He represented the citizens of Massachusetts in his votes.  How can this be used to criticize Kerry?  It makes no sense, it says little about the man's character except that he is loyal to those who elect him.  God forbid.

But this does lead me into one thing--John Kerry sure does seem to skip a lot of his duties as a senator.  In his address, President Bush slammed John Kerry for his vote to give authorization for military action, then chided him because of his 'nay' vote on the 2004 Emergency Appropriations Bill.  Even the President perpetuates this myth.  Ugh, I feel tired just thinking about all the people being misinformed.  Yes, he voted against it.  But the myth is that Kerry wanted to vote for it--he did not want the $87 billion to be added to our national deficit.  As I mentioned in the past, Kerry asked for the bill to be funded by a temporary roll-back of tax cuts for anyone earning over $400,000/year.  This is what we call being fiscally responsible, a typically Republican-held ideal.  Kerry ensured that the bill would pass before he voted against it--his 'nay' vote was a sign of protest against Bush's seemingly indifference to national deficit.

Why wasn't the $80 billion approved by the Senate in March 2003 enough to cover funding for military armor?  Why were soldiers sent into Iraq without adequate body armor?  Why was ANOTHER $87 billion necessary to supply proper body armor?!  However, I will recognize that John Kerry did not vote for the $80 billion emergency supplementary appropriations bill.  Of course, since it passed 93-0, Kerry's non-vote says very little except that he wasn't there.  Where was he?  I'd sure like to know.  As a senator, it's his job to vote (source: Roll Call and Text of Legislation for S. 762 - Supplemental Appropriations Act to Support Department of Defense Operations in Iraq for Fiscal Year 2003).

That's all for now.  Tomorrow should be a chore to sit through, but it may provide a goldmine of material to straighten out.