Home Store In Memoriam Deborah Newsletter Forum Topics Blogfeed Blogroll Facebook MySpace Contact Us About

A Conservative Hate Fest Featuring Ann Coulter, Michael Reagan And, Of Course, Sean Hannity

Reported by Ellen - July 28, 2005

Democrats were shut out yet again last night from a Hannity & Colmes discussion about the nomination of John Roberts. This one featured Michael Reagan for the nomination and Ann Coulter as "the balance" because she questions whether Roberts is conservative enough. One thing both panelists agreed on: it's hilarious to insult and demean Democrats. Alan Colmes was not amused and let them know it.

Ann Coulter started out by saying "I'm with Chuck Schumer. I want more information on this guy... because he's a mystery date... We know nothing about this guy... What we're hearing from the Bush Administration is their hopes and dreams... but why not nominate somebody we know a little bit more about. We get a mystery date."

Comment: It's not too surprising she would twice refer to Roberts as a "date" considering her reputedly prodigious romantic appetite.

Colmes asked if she felt that way about Clarence Thomas who said he never had an argument or a thought about abortion. Coulter laughed her flirtatious laugh (I still think she has a thing for Colmes) and said, "No, I thought that was magnificent." She claimed "we knew" that Thomas was really conservative Comment: Indicating, apparently, that she doesn't care about what Thomas thinks about Roe v. Wade, that it's his other conservative beliefs that count.

Colmes turned to Reagan and noted that when Roberts worked in the Solicitor General's office, he argued that it was constitutional to "strip" the Supreme Court over issues like abortion, busing, school prayer. "I don't think you have to worry, do you?"

Reagan said he had to trust the president. Then, with a typical FOX News Democrat-bashing grin, added, "I don't want to wake up one morning and find out I'm on the same side as Schumer and Kennedy and Durbin. Listen, if Schumer, Kennedy and Durbin are against the guy, there must be something really righteous and good about this man and maybe the president of the United States, you know, picked the right person for the job."

Tres amusant! Can you imagine if Colmes or another Democrat joked that if Bush is against something (like, say, outlawing torture) it must be righteous?

While it was Hannity's turn, Coulter said, "Whenever we get someone we're not absolutely sure of, it's never, ever been a pleasant surprise... This is a White House - Karl Rove (my emphasis) seems to be afraid to present the Republican party as a party that is against abortion, pornography, criminal rights. Karl Rove wants people to see the Republican party as the party of corporate America and country clubs. That's when we lose - when they see us as a Ronald Reagan Republican party."

Comment: Is there anyone Ann Coulter won't insult? That was just one of many swipes she took against Michael Reagan's father. Also, is Ann Coulter saying Karl Rove chose the nominee? And why is she suddenly concerned about being against abortion now when just a few minutes ago, it was "magnificent" that Clarence Thomas wouldn't reveal his views during his confirmation hearings.

Then Sean Hannity completely misrepresented Senator Patrick Leahy's remarks about Roberts. Hannity claimed that Leahy said "if you're pro life you're not qualified for the court." The truth, which we have emailed Hannity, is that Leahy was talking about a nominee's respect for the law, not his or her personal feelings about abortion. This was clearly reported by AP, the wire service used by FOX News:

Leahy also said any Supreme Court nominee who doesn't agree that Roe v. Wade is established legal precedent would have difficulty getting confirmed.

"Just as you would not have a justice nominee who said, `Well I wouldn't consider Brown vs. Board of Education settled law,' I don't see how they could get confirmed," Leahy said. "I don't see how somebody who said that they didn't consider Roe vs. Wade settled law ... I don't see how they get confirmed."

Comment: Hannity must be able to recognize that Leahy said nothing about a nominee's personal beliefs. This is the first time I have caught Hannity making this particular misrepresentation. We'll be watching and reporting on it if he does it again.

Michael Reagan didn't seem to know or care that Hannity had just gotten his facts wrong. Instead, Reagan used the smear as an opportunity to pile on the insults. "It's expected... They make litmus tests. It's really interesting. The liberals tell you how they really care about you but then they're the ones that see color, they're the ones that see religion, they're the ones that see all of these issues on a regular basis and then try to make them an issue and try to turn America against you because you're Catholic or you're Jewish or you're black or whatever it might be."

Hannity, on a Democrat-bashing roll, complained about Kennedy "huffin' and puffin'" over his request for documents to be released.

Coulter then joined the fray saying, "It's nice to see at least the nut Democrats rising to the bait. I just wish we had a bigger piece of bait for them because they would go on and on about religious tests and demanding documents and staying away from things like abortion, pronography and criminal rights which they lose on... (Wait a minute! Didn't Coulter just tell Colmes it was "magnificent" when Thomas avoided talking about abortion? But when has logic and/or consistency ever trumped insults with Coulter?)

When it was Colmes' turn again, he sounded angry. He said to Reagan, "I want to ask you something about something you just said about Dick Durbin which was really unfair. You're accusing Democrats of being against people because of their religion. That is outrageous that you would even suggest that. Dick Durbin is a Catholic. Patrick Leahy is a Catholic (Coulter and Reagan laughed snidely) and he never said there was a litmus test. He, in fact, asked the same question John Cornyn asked - whether he could separate his personal beliefs from what the constitution says and not use that to influence that. Don't suggest that Democrats are against people because of their faith."

Reagan, smirking, said that the Democrats "will accept (Roberts) if he becomes a bad Catholic. (Colmes said "That is ridiculous.") See, they'll take a bad Catholic, but they'll not take a good Catholic. I'm sorry but that's the facts."

Colmes asked, "a good Catholic, according to whom? Do you determine what a good Catholic is?"

Reagan, still with a supercilious grin, answered, "A good Catholic, according to the Catholic Church. How 'bout that? Ask Sean, your neighbor." Reagan then repeated Hannity's distortion, that the Democrats will accept someone only if they're pro-choice and that because the Catholic Church is against abortion, "(that) means they will accept a bad Catholic."

Colmes asked, "Can you be a good Catholic and support the death penalty?"

Coulter, perhaps unable to stand not having the camera on her for such an extended period and probably wanting Colmes to pay attention to her, too, interrupted to say "If you kill a girl at Chappaquiddick, you're really good."

Reagan chuckled.

Colmes did not sound bowled over by her wit. "Pardon me, Ann?"

Coulter, grinned from ear to ear. "I said, 'and if you kill a girl at Chappaquiddick, you're really in.'"

Colmes: "That's a low blow. It really is a low blow."

Coulter: (feigning innocence and surprise): It's true! What do you mean it's a low blow?

Colmes: You really ought to be above that.

Coulter: Why? Did Senator Kennedy or did he not kill a girl at Chappaquiddick? What, we can't mention it?

The music started. Hannity, who, to give him credit, once again gave me the impression he thinks Coulter is a twit, ended the segment.

Another example of "Real Journalism, Fair and Balanced."

Post a comment

Remember Me?

We welcome your opinions and viewpoints. Comments must remain civil, on-topic and must not violate any copyright or other laws. We reserve the right to delete any comments we deem inappropriate or non-constructive to the discussion for any reason, and to block any commenter for repeated violations.

Your email address is required to post, but it will not be published on the site.