Hannity vs. Savage

> Weapons of mass destraction...what a beautiful phrase.
> Whomever coined it from the Bush administartion should be
> bowed down to. We live in such a bumper sticker world.
>

those bumper stickers work...their focusing on the WMD issue....allowed them to stray from the fact that Hannity does actually distort news and parrots long disproven concepts...
...and in addition they did not deal with Hannity's personal faults.....
.next one will hear "but doc9464 hates america" and "doc9464 doesnt support the troops"...then they will be actual Hannity clones....

> those bumper stickers work...their focusing on the WMD
> issue....allowed them to stray from the fact that Hannity
> does actually distort news and parrots long disproven
> concepts...

Such as?

> ...and in addition they did not deal with Hannity's personal
> faults.....

Again, such as?<P ID="signature">______________
"Get educated. Read stuff on the web and believe all of it."
-- Phil Hendrie</P>

>
> Not only that, but moving to the domestic issue of
> Hillarygate 2005, this isn't the first time her campaign
> finance manager has done this, and she's looked the other
> way for years. It is her responsibility as it's her
> campaign, and after several other times of this happening,
> there's no reasonable explanation as to why she wouldn't
> have known about it this time. Hannity isn't leveling
> baseless accusations, it's simple (un)common sense
>

You apparently are talking about the allegations against David Rosen. If you're going to raise those, you might want to mention at some point that Mr Rosen has been acquitted on all counts by a jury.

Of course, getting your 'information' from Hannity, you likely don't know that. Media Matters noted how Hannity and his ilk, after previously showing great interest in this story, suddenly forgot about it after the acquittal. At least on his TV show, Hannity has not once mentioned the verdict.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200506010001

> Not usually a big fan of talk radio myself but... was
> channel surfing in my car the other night came upon Michael
> Savage going on about how he was kicking Hannitiy's butt in
> several markets. Excuse my ignorance but aren't these guys
> on the same side??

Hannity has roots on WABC radio. He's sort of Bob Grant without the racism and anti-semitism. His radio show eventually included Alan Colmes, who managed around the same amount of talk as he does on the TV show... which is to say about 10%, and often he ends up agreeing with Hannity anyway. That's why he's the Vichy Liberal who performs just like Fox wants him to perform... ineptly and quietly. Everyone knows who is boss. His solo radio show is somewhat better, but most of his liberal friends aren't listening to him.

Savage is a vitamin peddler turned radio show host. He sticks his finger to the wind, feels the hot breath of the "Hot Talk" format blowing on it, and re-invents himself into "Michael Savage." It's all a performance - don't you believe for a second he really believes all of the stuff he spews. He's the pro wrestler version of talk radio. On his occasional TV appearances, he's brought out as part of the dog and pony show fireworks. He insults the opposing guest, throws bombs, and does his best to attract the angry white male set to his companion radio show.

If you want to hear the other side using this format, try Mike Malloy. The thing with Malloy is that he actually believes the stuff he's saying - he's been saying it since he was on WGN Chicago several years ago.

> What liberals will try to make everyone forget is all the
> Kurds, Kuwaitis, Iranians and other non-Suni's that Saddam
> killed WITH WmD's...

George Will is among the most consistent of conservatives and is actually bold enough to turn up on right wing talk radio from time to time and remind the "amen corner" that America is not supposed to be the world's policeman, and that conservatives uniformly believed that until the talking points changed. Even he finds it remarkable that there are neocon conservatives on talk radio that still spout that the whole invasion was to stop Saddam when prior to no WMD's showing up, they were saying it was only about the WMD's.

There are a lot of conservative listeners who will have to tie themselves into rhetorical pretzels to match the talking point of the day coming from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue when they were saying the exact opposite during the days of Carter, Reagan, Bush, and "No War for Monica" Clinton.

> You apparently are talking about the allegations against
> David Rosen. If you're going to raise those, you might want
> to mention at some point that Mr Rosen has been acquitted on
> all counts by a jury.

Okay... he was. Big whoop. That doesn't mean he wasn't guilty of it.

> Of course, getting your 'information' from Hannity, you
> likely don't know that.

No, I knew that. I just didn't agree with the verdict.

> Media Matters noted how Hannity and
> his ilk, after previously showing great interest in this
> story, suddenly forgot about it after the acquittal. At
> least on his TV show, Hannity has not once mentioned the
> verdict.

A lot goes on on his radio show that doesn't get into the TV show. I believe he has mentioned the acquittal on the radio.

In any case, look at the circumstances: the judge was appointed by Bill Clinton, and specifically stated at the beginning of the trial that this had nothing to do with Hillary or the campaign, it was simply dealing with Rosen himself. The problem is that it was her campaign, and therefore her responsibility. Common sense shows you that the judge obviously wanted to keep her out of it for some reason (probably the possibility of a backlash from liberals, in my opinion). Why wouldn't a judge, whose job is to use all the facts available to bring the jury to a verdict, specifically deny the involvement of someone whose responsibility included overseeing the actions of the person being accused? Something doesn't smell right here.

<P ID="signature">______________
"Get educated. Read stuff on the web and believe all of it."
-- Phil Hendrie</P>

> George Will is among the most consistent of conservatives
> and is actually bold enough to turn up on right wing talk
> radio from time to time and remind the "amen corner" that
> America is not supposed to be the world's policeman, and
> that conservatives uniformly believed that until the talking
> points changed. Even he finds it remarkable that there are
> neocon conservatives on talk radio that still spout that the
> whole invasion was to stop Saddam when prior to no WMD's
> showing up, they were saying it was only about the WMD's.

I don't think the belief that we shouldn't be the world's policeman has ever been uniform among us conservatives. Personally, I would rather go out there and stop people from doing anyone harm than just sit on our laurels and do nothing about it, and I think that's the type of compassion that has made conservatism such a strong force in politics. That's something that the rest of the world looks to America to do... take action when and where it's needed. Of course, the rest of the world also likes to see us as the "Great Satan" when they don't need our help, but that's a different rant altogether. In a post-9/11 world, we do have to take action to prevent those who wish us ill from acting out on those ambitions. Saddam Hussein has had those ambitions for some time. No one I know ever thought that the war was simply over WMD's... the fact that he's been killing, raping and stealing from his own people for decades was enough for us to go in there. He also, in more ways than one, violated the treaty that was meant to end the first Gulf War, essentially nulling it. WMD's were, quite frankly, a side note that the media focused on based on a couple of speeches and a note coming out of the White House and 10 Downing. And yes, I do believe they were there. There were about six months between the time that we initially started talking about war and the night we bombed Baghdad... don't you think that was enough time for Saddam to either sell them or hide them? I certainly think so.

> There are a lot of conservative listeners who will have to
> tie themselves into rhetorical pretzels to match the talking
> point of the day coming from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue when
> they were saying the exact opposite during the days of
> Carter, Reagan, Bush, and "No War for Monica" Clinton.

I seem to recall Clinton bombing Iraq. I also seem to recall a little number called Operation Desert Storm during Bush 41's presidency. Reagan was too focused on Russia, Iran and the Contras to really worry about Iraq. Carter was essentially a do-nothing president. All in all, I'd say the argument that conservatives have never, until this point, been in favor of helping oppressed peoples is flat-out wrong.<P ID="signature">______________
"Get educated. Read stuff on the web and believe all of it."
-- Phil Hendrie</P>

> I don't think the belief that we shouldn't be the world's
> policeman has ever been uniform among us conservatives.
> Personally, I would rather go out there and stop people from
> doing anyone harm than just sit on our laurels and do
> nothing about it, and I think that's the type of compassion
> that has made conservatism such a strong force in politics.

Yet most Republicans were opposed to intervention in Bosnia and Haiti, not to mention what happened in Somalia. Exit, stage door right.

> That's something that the rest of the world looks to America
> to do... take action when and where it's needed.

Sudan... nothing going on there.

> In a post-9/11 world, we do have to take
> action to prevent those who wish us ill from acting out on
> those ambitions. Saddam Hussein has had those ambitions for
> some time.

Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11 and represented no threat to us. Bush himself said there was no evidence of his involvement in Al Qaeda activities.

> WMD's were, quite frankly, a side
> note that the media focused on based on a couple of speeches
> and a note coming out of the White House and 10 Downing.

Amazing... than what was Dick Cheney doing running on Sunday talkshows warning Americans Saddam was on the verge of going nuclear, our Secretary of State turning up with fake anthrax and DRAWINGS of weapon launchers at the UN, and Bush himself said it was WMD which was directly responsible for our immediate involvement. Time to go re-read what was said then and stop listening to "change the facts" talking points after the fact. Right wing talk shows all operate off of talking points delivered to them. It becomes an echo chamber when you hear the same "points" repeated on all the shows and then it becomes easy to believe them. Don't.

Now we have the Downing Street Memo which laid it all out back in 2002. It's been ignored by the American media which fears being dealt with like Helen Thomas. It's just now surfacing, right along with conservative talking points which are so bizarre that they include a British-American English translation table to try and redefine plain English. Invasion doesn't mean invasion, it means intervention... puhlease.

> I seem to recall Clinton bombing Iraq.

And Al-Qaeda training camps and chemical factories. But all I remember hearing from conservative talk shows was "NO WAR FOR MONICA!" Who knew it was actually the Clinton Administration that first realized the Al Qaeda threat and did something about it.

> > those bumper stickers work...their focusing on the WMD
> > issue....allowed them to stray from the fact that Hannity
> > does actually distort news and parrots long disproven
> > concepts...
>
> Such as?

Since most you parrots always try to push the other side for answers while providing nothing in your posts but flame fodder....heres one simple proof.

Hannity on WMD - Dulfer report - explicity shows that there were no WMD in Iraq at the time of the war as Bush, Condi, CRummy, and Darth Cheney stated in the run up to the war. Hannity has repeated several times about 1988 gassing of Kurds...well thats not 2002-2003. Thats proof from Bush's weapons people Kay and Dulfer.

> > ...and in addition they did not deal with Hannity's
> personalush
> > faults.....


You are telling me that Hannity doesn't have personal faults.....ok heres a few,,,,,

Hannity did not serve in the war - yet he acts as if he did...and that hes some defacto military expert.....while in fact he is a GOP lickspittle and a chicken hawk....he hasn't gone as far as O'Reilly who was caught talking about his unit when in fact he had only been in south america as a media resource...everybody knows that and if you have a problem with my point..talk to the soldiers at Operation Truth who loathe losers like Hannity.


Hannity was caught prompting people on how to speak on his show during the Teri Shiavo case

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/gossip/story/300125p-256914c.html (scroll to section on Fox News Host)



Hannity was also caught calling a US senator a nasty name while he beats up on Howard Dean or other liberals for saying someting..

http://www.newshounds.us/2005/03/30/hannity_gets_caught.php

Hannity does screen his callers as carefully as anyone - only Rush and O'Reilly are worse. No one in Liberal radio from Enid Goldstein to Randi Rhodes screens like Hannity does. I know that from my own personal experiences....


I know you will all say that proves nothing and you wont have any counter information....but its fun letting Hannity embarass himself....and letting us Libs sit back and laugh as he spews.

> Since most you parrots always try to push the other side for
> answers while providing nothing in your posts but flame
> fodder....heres one simple proof.
>
> Hannity on WMD - Dulfer report - explicity shows that there
> were no WMD in Iraq at the time of the war as Bush, Condi,
> CRummy, and Darth Cheney stated in the run up to the war.

That's not true at all. If you read the Dulfer Report instead of spewing leftist talking points (something you're incorrectly accusing me of on the right-wing side), you'd know that the Dulfer report states that there is no evidence of WMD's currently being in Iraq. At no point does the report say there were none there in the time leading up to the war.

> Hannity has repeated several times about 1988 gassing of
> Kurds...well thats not 2002-2003. Thats proof from Bush's
> weapons people Kay and Dulfer.

So are we to simply disregard that? Are we to assume Saddam is just some lovable, cuddly little furball now, that he's seen the error of his past ways? I think not. And on top of that, what about the torture and rape rooms that were in use until we began bombing Baghdad? That's something to ignore? Please... you can't tell me that none of this factored in.

> > > ...and in addition they did not deal with Hannity's
> > personalush
> > > faults.....
>
>
> You are telling me that Hannity doesn't have personal
> faults...

I don't think anyone said that.

> Hannity did not serve in the war - yet he acts as if he
> did...

He does? I've never heard or seen him say or do anything to suggest such a thing.

> ...and that hes some defacto military expert...

Again, where's your proof? I want specifics here.


> ...while in fact he is a GOP lickspittle and a chicken hawk...

And again, we're back to spewing opinion as fact. We're not debating what you think of him, we're debating what he does, says and claims.

> he hasn't gone as far as O'Reilly who was caught talking about his
> unit when in fact he had only been in south america as a
> media resource... everybody knows that and if you have a
> problem with my point... talk to the soldiers at Operation
> Truth who loathe losers like Hannity.

What do O'Reilly's lies have to do with Hannity? Personally, I don't pay much attention to O'Reilly, so what he does and claims to have done doesn't mean much to me. If these soldiers have a problem with O'Reilly, they have a problem with O'Reilly. O'Reilly isn't Hannity. If they have a problem with Hannity, then they have a problem with Hannity. Frankly, I don't know much about this group of which you're speaking, so I can't say one way or another if I agree or disagree with what they stand for. If they stand where you do, however, I'd be glad to debate them on any of these points as well.

> Hannity was caught prompting people on how to speak on his
> show during the Teri Shiavo case
>
http:> //www.nydailynews.com/news/gossip/story/300125p-256914c.html
> (scroll to section on Fox News Host)

This, of course, coming from the "Gossip" section of the paper, being broadcast by an "investigative comedian." I'm not disputing the truth of it, though... what's wrong with what he did? He didn't tell them what to say they saw, he told them to explain what they were themselves saying of their own volition, and that that's what they saw. I don't see what the big deal is about that. Any guest who isn't used to being on a debate show such as Hannity and Colmes would probably appreciate such help.

> Hannity was also caught calling a US senator a nasty name
> while he beats up on Howard Dean or other liberals for
> saying someting..
>
> http://www.newshounds.us/2005/03/30/hannity_gets_caught.php

The link to the audio from this site is bad, so I can't comment one way or another as of yet.

> Hannity does screen his callers as carefully as anyone -
> only Rush and O'Reilly are worse. No one in Liberal radio
> from Enid Goldstein to Randi Rhodes screens like Hannity
> does. I know that from my own personal experiences....

How about an example?

> I know you will all say that proves nothing and you wont
> have any counter information...

We can't counter you if you don't give us any information to counter.

> but its fun letting Hannity embarass himself...
> and letting us Libs sit back and laugh as he spews.

I still don't have a clue as to what you're referring to.
<P ID="signature">______________
"Get educated. Read stuff on the web and believe all of it."
-- Phil Hendrie</P>

> > I don't think the belief that we shouldn't be the world's
> > policeman has ever been uniform among us conservatives.
> > Personally, I would rather go out there and stop people
> from
> > doing anyone harm than just sit on our laurels and do
> > nothing about it, and I think that's the type of
> compassion
> > that has made conservatism such a strong force in
> politics.
>
> Yet most Republicans were opposed to intervention in Bosnia
> and Haiti, not to mention what happened in Somalia. Exit,
> stage door right.

Something I didn't agree with my party on. I don't know that most Republicans particularly stood for what was going on there, though.

> > That's something that the rest of the world looks to
> America
> > to do... take action when and where it's needed.
>
> Sudan... nothing going on there.

And again, I think we should be doing something.

> > In a post-9/11 world, we do have to take
> > action to prevent those who wish us ill from acting out on
>
> > those ambitions. Saddam Hussein has had those ambitions
> for
> > some time.
>
> Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11 and represented
> no threat to us. Bush himself said there was no evidence of
> his involvement in Al Qaeda activities.

As I point out in my post below, there was no direct involvement.

> > WMD's were, quite frankly, a side
> > note that the media focused on based on a couple of
> speeches
> > and a note coming out of the White House and 10 Downing.
>
> Amazing... than what was Dick Cheney doing running on Sunday
> talkshows warning Americans Saddam was on the verge of going
> nuclear, our Secretary of State turning up with fake anthrax
> and DRAWINGS of weapon launchers at the UN, and Bush himself
> said it was WMD which was directly responsible for our
> immediate involvement.

Everyone was probably showing up on talk shows because (gasp) they were invited! I've never heard anything about "fake" anthrax. And if I recall correctly (and it's rare that I don't), Bush specifically stated that the murder, raping and pillaging of Iraq's people by Saddam Hussein were also major factors equally alongside the WMDs.

> Time to go re-read what was said
> then and stop listening to "change the facts" talking points
> after the fact. Right wing talk shows all operate off of
> talking points delivered to them. It becomes an echo
> chamber when you hear the same "points" repeated on all the
> shows and then it becomes easy to believe them. Don't.

I'm not echoing talking points... and you mean to tell me that the Democrats don't use talking points? Please... pull the wool cap off from over your eyes before pointing out that I even have one on my head.

> Now we have the Downing Street Memo which laid it all out
> back in 2002. It's been ignored by the American media which
> fears being dealt with like Helen Thomas. It's just now
> surfacing, right along with conservative talking points
> which are so bizarre that they include a British-American
> English translation table to try and redefine plain English.
> Invasion doesn't mean invasion, it means intervention...
> puhlease.

It was an invasion necessary to start an intervention... what's to be redefined?

> > I seem to recall Clinton bombing Iraq.
>
> And Al-Qaeda training camps and chemical factories. But all
> I remember hearing from conservative talk shows was "NO WAR
> FOR MONICA!" Who knew it was actually the Clinton
> Administration that first realized the Al Qaeda threat and
> did something about it.

I don't recall hearing "NO WAR FOR MONICA!" I recall hearing that this was one of the few things Clinton did correctly... although everyone knew that the only reason he was doing it (and didn't do it any earlier, like he should have) was that he needed something to take attention away from KneepadGate.
<P ID="signature">______________
"Get educated. Read stuff on the web and believe all of it."
-- Phil Hendrie</P>