Alan Colmes visited his old stomping grounds last night, the show formerly known as Hannity & Colmes. It’s pretty clear that the break up has been good for Colmes, at least as far as his debates with Sean Hannity go. And you know what? Hannity was left in the dust.
Hannity fell all over himself making a big show of palsiness. Yet Hannity never hosts Colmes, now a contributor to the Fox News Channel, as a guest sparring partner. I’m sure there are many reasons but watching this video, I can’t help but think that at least one of those reasons is that Hannity just can’t keep up.
Watch him change the subject every time Colmes backed him into a rhetorical corner - which happened with every topic: first, when Colmes debunked the good-for-Romney poll numbers, then when he suggested that if Obama is responsible for the violence in the Middle East, Bush is responsible for 9/11 and finally when Colmes noted how “non-specific” Romney has been about “whatever he would do about anything.”
Later, as Colmes pointed out that Libya and Egypt are new democracies, Hannity said, “I’ll take the shah of Iran over the ayatollah and I’ll take Mubarek over the Muslim Brotherhood.”
Colmes answered, “You claim you like democracy… and you had the Bush doctrine which is, 'Let’s get democracy around the world.' And when democracy happens and Hamas gets elected or the Muslim Brotherhood gets elected, all of a sudden you don’t like democracy… Do you like representative democracy or not?”
Hannity didn’t answer other than to say, “I don’t know why I like you so much.”
KKKlannity’s lack of intellect is startling. Blame President Obama for everything bad that occurs anywhere, but absolve Dumbya from all responsibility for 9/11. Praise Dumbya’s push for Arab democracy, but criticize President Obama if that democracy isn’t exactly what the neocons envisioned. Fortunately for KKKlannity, his moronic audience doesn’t notice the absence of reasoned thought.
The problem I think that Alan had during those years was that it seemed obvious that Sean and his producers would frame every debate where Sean got to play offense and Alan defense. He couldn’t win but only do no better than a tie. On those rare occasions where he did get to play offense Sean would stack the deck with guests who would be on Sean’s side. It came acrossed as being rigged, and Alan had the same odds as Custer did against the Indians.
