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

Bullyboy Sean Hannity Unable To Take Losing Like A Man

Reported by Ellen - October 19, 2006 -

Dictionary.com defines "bully" as "a blustering, quarrelsome, overbearing person who habitually badgers and intimidates smaller or weaker people." A better description of Sean Hannity was never written. What’s also implied in that definition is that a bully is strong only when there’s no serious challenge. In the face of looming Republican losses on November 7, Sean Hannity seems in danger of losing it, himself. Rather than defend any of his beloved Republicans in trouble, Hannity has ramped up his tirades against Democrats – and then, with Hanctimonious outrage, pretends that he is the victim. His partner in hypocrisy tonight was chairman of the RNC, Ken Mehlman.

Hannity introduced the segment with Mehlman by announcing that the top story was the “hope and optimism” from Karl Rove and President Bush about the upcoming election. Then, Hannity said, “Meanwhile, the venom just continues to flow from Bill Clinton. At a speech earlier today, at Georgetown University the former president ripped into Republicans and said this about politics in America:”

Clinton: Most of us long for a politics where we have genuine arguments, vigorous disagreements, but we don’t claim to have the whole truth and we don’t demonize our opponents and we’re really trying to work on what works best for the American people.

Doesn’t sound so venomous to me. But Hannity said with disgust, “He wants a more positive dialogue. Well, remember all the women that were smeared?” To help the anti-Clinton message, the biased banners on the bottom of the screen said: “Bush Optimistic” while Hannity spoke of Bush and “Clinton Pessimistic” as Clinton spoke.

Hannity continued his stream of hate by pretending that it was someone else doing the hating. “It is ironic,” Hannity told Mehlman, “the guys that started the war room, the guys that you know, Bill Clinton sat back while any woman that said anything about him was smeared and besmirched by his closest allies.”

Mehlman was just a bit slicker but played the same game. “What he said is right. The fact is, we ought to be in a place where, when you disagree with someone, it doesn’t mean, as Howard Dean said, that you hate them and you hate their ideas.” But without taking a breath, Mehlman continued, “You ought to not have a leader in the Senate, Mr. Reid, who would call the president of the United States a liar and a loser to school kids. It seems to me we need to understand we disagree on issues, we debate the issues, our country’s better off, and at the end of the day, we’re all Americans. We all respect each other, where we’re coming from, we all want the same things for our country but we disagree about how to get there.”

From there, Hannity launched into an attack on Nancy Pelosi, his ubervillain for the election season, and other Democrats. Hannity ticked off on his fingers a dubious list of offenses: “Nancy Pelosi said the president was mentally unstable (Mehlman audibly concurred with that); Howard Dean said Republicans are dark, evil, dishonest, corrupt, mean. They can’t get people of color in a room unless of course the wait staff’s there. All said by Democrats on top of undermining the war on terror."

Mehlman nodded his head throughout.

Later, Hannity offered his “respectful” analysis of Democratic policies with a litany of smears and distortions: With his sincere face, Hannity said “Charlie Rangel wants to eliminate the Bush tax cuts… John Murtha, he wants to redeploy to Okinawa, he wants to cut and run… You want to grant Constitutional rights to Al Qaeda members like Dick Durbin? You go with the Democrats. If you want to end enemy intercepts, you go along with the Democrats and Pat Leahy.” Hannity disingenuously added, “On measure, it’s got to be about issues.”

Mehlman continued nodding his head in agreement. “No question about it,” he said.

Alan Colmes pointed out that Mehlman called Democrats “defeatocrats” but, rather than focus on the hypocrisy of smearing Democrats while pretending to take the high road, Colmes focused on the number of Republicans who have also called for a change of policy in Iraq.

Mehlman told Colmes, "It seems to me, Republicans and Democrats can come together and say, if we allow Iraq, a nation that sits right in between Syria and Iran, a nation that has the second largest oil reserves in the world, to become another Afghanistan was before 9/11, it would be incredibly dangerous to America."

That might have been a good moment to make the point that the Bush administration has botched the job in Afghanistan but Colmes let that go by asking another series of questions. “What’s the Bush plan? What is the success plan? What are they gonna do other than stay the course? What’s the plan to turn over security to Iraqis? What’s the time frame?”

Ken Mehlman didn’t really answer, other than to say that the president’s plan is “to win by constantly adapting.”

Something tells me that adapting to more Democratic participation is not going to be part of either Mehlman’s, Bush’s or Hannity’s plan anytime soon.