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

The Lower Bush's Poll Numbers Sink, The More Sean Hannity Attacks Bill Clinton

Reported by Ellen - November 4, 2005 -

The latest CBS Poll shows Bush's approval ratings at a new all-time low of 35%. That can mean only one thing for Sean Hannity: Time to attack Bill Clinton a little harder.

The guests were Michael Reagan and Bob Beckel, who seemed woefully unprepared to make what should have been an easy argument. Fortunately, Alan Colmes more than held up his side.

Hannity tried to make the case that things are going swimmingly for Bush these days. He gloatingly said he felt sorry for Beckel for not getting "Fitzmas," that Alito will be confirmed to the Supreme Court, that there was a 3.8% growth in the economy and that there's a new constitution in Iraq. He somehow forgot those sinking poll numbers, though.

Beckel did get in a few good points after he dithered about not hoping for Fitzmas. Bringing up Bush's dismal poll numbers, Beckel asked, "Is there something that the country doesn't know?"

Hannity couldn't answer, but started making Clinton jokes, that maybe Bush should start having an affair with an intern. Going into browbeat mode, Hannity said that Clinton's highest approval ratings were when he had the affair. "Do you want him (meaning Bush, I assume) to go compromise his integrity and his soul and his principles? Sell your soul for higher poll ratings?"

After a commercial break, Hannity resumed the discussion by going right back to Clinton. "As long as you guys want investigations, Bob, why don't we find out why Sandy Berger, before Clinton went into the 9/11 investigation, shoved those documents down his pants." Hannity also brought out one of his old chestnuts, the lie about Clinton being offered Osama bin Laden by Sudan.

Hannity is nothing if not predictable. He changes the subject with the same false arguments every time. Yet Beckel, a frequent H&C guest, didn't seem to know that Hannity was lying about Sudan. Hannity took another swipe at Clinton, asking what Beckel would do with the war in Iraq, considering what Hillary Clinton said (as if that has anything to do with it).

Beckel answered (lamely, in my opinion) that there was no doubt Sadam had nuclear weapons. In response to Hannity's earlier comments about Alito being confirmed, Beckel said he was willing to do "whatever I can do" to keep him off the court. How about coming on the air prepared with some clear, concise talking points? He didn't even provide a real explanation about what was wrong with Alito.

Alan Colmes was prepared. He read several statements by Condoleezza Rice, Dick Cheney and others saying what they "knew" about Saddam's WMD program. "Where's the apology to the American people?" Colmes asked Michael Reagan.

Reagan asked, belligerantly, "Why should there be?" Then he grudgingly added if so, the Senate, Russia and England need to apologize (as if that has any relevance for the need for the Bush Administration to apologize). Then Reagan asked Colmes "Are you now for putting Saddam Hussein back in power?"

Colmes answered "That's a ridiculous question... You want to change the paradigm. We were misled into war. And that is the issue. You want to bring up Clinton and you want to bring up Hillary."