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

Arianna Huffington vs Bullyboy Hannity.

Reported by Marie Therese - July 24, 2007 -

News Hounds Editorial
On Sunday night's edition of Hannity's America (July 22, 2007), Sean Hannity went head-to-head with political acitivist Arianna Huffington on two topics: Global warming and an inflammatory post on her blog, The Huffington Post. We News Hounds were privileged to meet Ms. Huffington in 2004 at a New York City party celebrating the just-released documentary OUTFOXED: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism. She was utterly charming, very open, gracious and accessible. She won us over completely. Consequently, it saddens me to see a bullyboy like Hannity go after her. I keep wondering when she and others on the left will learn that when you beard the lion in its den, you leave the olive branch behind, train for combat beforehand, wear protective armor and carry a nice sharp spear. With video

For the past four years we News Hounds have watched as a lot of liberals have appeared on FOX News only to be cut off at the knees. It has become more and more obvious that a lot of them do not watch FOX News on a regular basis and, therefore, are routinely sandbagged by obnoxious hosts asking ridiculous questions that set up distractive or misleading straw man arguments.

Arianna Huffington's appearance last Sunday was no exception.

She started off strongly, making several good points.

Then, Hannity hit her with his most predictable question on global warming, i.e., he asked her if she's ever flown on private jets. It was clear she thought that this was a ridiculous query and she said so. However, he kept hammering away at it, even resorting to showing a four-year-old interview he had with Robert Kennedy Jr. on the same topic.

As a result two minutes went by during which she answered questions about personal travel habits. She was effectively prevented from advancing any of her other ideas on climate change, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, etc. because she spent all of her time defending herself against a charge that she is a hypocrite.

During the second segment, the situation unfortunately disintegrated. Ms. Huffington was completely thrown off base when Hannity (true to form) read from a post that had appeared somewhere on her blog featuring a poetic invocation asking Dick Cheney's heart to stop beating for the good of the country.

When pressed by Hannnity about why she allowed such "vile stuff" on her site, Huffington struggled for four minutes to "justify" the post. At first she defended the "poetry" of the writer, then she made a point of how it was not a featured post. In the end, rightly or wrongly, she came off as someone who is unaware of what's posted on a blog with her own name on it and ended up agreeing that it should not have been allowed to remain published.

I was shouting at my TV screen, trying tell Ms. Huffington that there was a simple direct answer that would have ended the discussion, i.e. "Sean, we have a first amendment that protects our right of free speech. While I personally do not condone what so-and-so wrote, I will defend to the death his (her) right to write it or say it. It is protected speech. Are you saying that we should do away with the first amendment protections our forefathers fought and died for?"

On a superficial level Hannity won the "debate" because he achieved his objectives: Make her look foolish and keep her from talking about the things that are near and dear to her heart.


When will liberal guests on FOX News actually learn that they actually have to watch the channel ahead of time to get a "feel" for the style of the inquisitor they will be facing? When will they learn that you should not engage in overly-complex explanations and convoluted rationales?

First rule: Know your host. Watch his/her show a lot.

Second rule: Know your topic, including what the host has had to say about it in the past.

Third rule: Stick to snappy words of one or two syllables, deliver them crisply and succinctly.

Fourth rule: NEVER defend yourself. Always turn an accusation or outlandish question back onto the host.

Fifth rule: Prepare mentally and emotionally to be ambushed, sabotaged, interrupted and demeaned.

Sixth rule: Limit yourself to certain talking points and always get the conversation back to them, no matter what distractions are thrown at you.

Seventh rule: When the discussion disintegrates into crosstalk, disengage. Stop talking. Breathe deeply. Wait patiently. They will eventually figure out that you are no longer participating.

Eighth rule: Answer a question with another question, whenever possible.

Ninth rule: Speak from your diaphragm with a full, rich tone. Study with a singing or elocution teacher, if necessary. Speak louder than you ordinarily would. FOX engineers sometimes lower the volume on the liberal guests. A rich, directed vocal tone makes it harder for them to do that.

Tenth and last rule: Pay a lawyer to teach you how to survive a vicious cross-examination.

In the final analysis, FOX News management views liberals as degenerate criminals who must be humiliated and made to look weak and pathetic to satisfy the audience's craving for a black-and-white world with no shades of gray.

As for Hannity, in his interview on Sunday night, he made a big deal about how he hires people who screen the comments on his blog.

I subscribe to his site so I thought I'd mosey over there and have a look-see.

Here's the response I got when I tried to log onto the Hanniblog.

"The HanniBlog will return when the Hannity Insider is relaunched in the coming months. We appreciate your patience and understand the level of service the Hannity Insider has been providing has been frustrating at times. Please email webmaster@hannity.com if you'd like a refund, we'd be happy to do so."


And here are a few choice pieces of invective from his Forums (complete with misspellings).

"Well, my personal belief is first we start killin'em, then we figure out where there coming from. I like that ideal more then the let’s figure them out then start killin’em idea because it doesn’t waist a whole lotta good killin’em time.
Join the heard….. vote democrat and obey."


It will be interesting to see how the defeatist try and spin this success. I can just see it now... there is Harry "Al Qaeda" Reid on the Senate floor, hands covering his ears, and saying repeatedly "La La La, I can't hear you, La, La, La!", while Nancy "which-way-is-up" Pelosi goes outside to dig a ditch so she can stick her head in.

Hillary will just come out and thank herself for coming up with the surge idea,
and state how she really, really did mean to vote to authorize Iraq.

Denial can be a great thing, if you're an idiot and know it.


Can someone point to where a liberal is depressed about this news for me please? Who is depressed? Did Hillary get her panties in a wade and cry on national tv about it or something?


New Yorkers are universally liberal cheese-eating surrender monkeys?

No...just you and a few select other pro-terrorist propagandists.


Liberalism is a mental disorder.


You are freaking disgusting. You slimy pinko commie.


Oh and I suppose that makes it alll better. I am quite certain [Rep. Keith] Ellison is crooked enough to have to screw his socks on in the morning too. You illustrate your intellectual bankruptcy again retread.


insane people should not represent or lead even a single congressional district of americans. [Rep. Keith] Ellison; by dint of the evidence of his diatribe, is insane. Ergo he should resign or be recalled.
"how does it feel to be the enemies only hope, libtard? their secret weapon? the reason they kill soldiers? the reason they bomb schools? ...the enemies only hope of victory? "