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

Hannity Fails At Pelosi Impeachment Smear

Reported by Ellen - October 24, 2006 -

Sean Hannity has been stuck on Nancy Pelosi like a broken record. Each night, he fixates on her in a rather pathetic attempt to frighten viewers into voting Republican by holding up the specter of Pelosi becoming Speaker of the House. Friday night’s scare tactic was to claim that Pelosi would try to remove “In God We Trust” from coins. Monday night’s (10/23/06) fear-mongering painted Pelosi as chomping at the bit to impeach George W. Bush. Unfortunately for Hannity, his own Republican guest, former House Majority Leader Dick Armey wasn’t buying it. With video.

You have to wonder if Hannity doesn't secretly believe that there could be grounds to actually impeach Bush. Otherwise, why would anyone worry that such a thing might stand a chance of happening? Nevertheless, “Democratic Strategist” Laura Schwartz offered nothing about the importance of checks and balances or Congressional oversight, had nothing positive to say about Nancy Pelosi or the Democratic platform. Schwartz' only talking point seemed to be an emphatic denunciation of impeachment.

During Hannity's portion of the discussion he asked Schwartz, "HR 635 is a bill that is being pushed in Congress by John Conyers. The purpose of the bill is to look into manipulation of prewar intelligence, etc. and make recommendations regarding grounds for possible impeachment. Why should we not believe Nancy and Conyers? …Nancy Pelosi has had an election-year conversion because back in May she was saying let’s see where the facts take us but now she’s denying it. So that means SHE flip-flopped. That means SHE’s playing politics and trying to tell the American people she’s not an extremist."

Schwartz squandered the opportunity to seize control of the message and talk about what Nancy Pelosi has said she WOULD do and what she WOULD focus on. Schwartz not only allowed Hannity to frame the discussion, she even giggled as she answered one of his ridiculous gotcha questions. Instead, Schwartz adopted the “strategy” of tacitly agreeing with Hannity. She said, “Because all the other Democratic leaders as well as Nancy Pelosi came out as saying, ‘We can’t do this. It’s going to be bad for America. America doesn’t want this.' ...You know what? She kept it on the table until she figured out she’s gotta take it off. Because if the Democrats have any hope of taking back the White House in 2008…. Their map cannot include (unintelligible) impeachment against the White House… We can’t go forward with any impeachment.” Comment: I’d say the map can’t include spokespeople whose only message is to try to placate conservatives with assurances that Democrats won’t be too extremist because they have their eye on the White House.

A satisfied Hannity turned to Armey with his theory. “Dick Armey, you know what it sounds like to me? It sounds like to me like we have an election-year conversion and people trying to manipulate the American people just before an election and they’re altering their real views.”

Armey said, “There’s one position that you might want to take and advocate when you’re in the minority. It’s something quite different than what you might do if you’re actually in the majority with your hand on the lever.”

A frustrated Hannity asked why John Conyers would have a bill “if he didn’t plan on following through with it?”

Armey answered, “Again, I think John Conyers might but I CAN’T BELIEVE (his emphasis) that Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer and the other elected leaders in their conference…”

“Won’t he be the head of the House Judiciary?” Hannity barked, interrupting Armey.

“Yes, he may be the head of the House Judiciary but the fact of the matter is the Judiciary Committee does not act in a vacuum. I’d be willing to bet you the first person that says we gotta sit on Conyers on this is going to be Charlie Rangel.”