Last night, Sean Hannity hosted a discussion about the forced resignation of Brendan Eich as CEO of Mozilla because of his support for a gay marriage ban in California six years ago. Instead of a legitimate discussion about the pros and cons of judging a CEO by his political beliefs, the Hannity show brought on Ann Coulter – of all people - to complain about intolerance on the left.
For the record, I find the forced ouster of Eich troubling. But the decision to host Coulter said at least as much about Hannity and Fox News than anything said about Mozilla or its users. For one thing, it signaled Hannity’s complete lack of interest in the subject. Otherwise, he would have hosted someone other than Coulter. Her only stock in trade is throwing flames at the left, usually in provocative clothing.
Fox News complicit in using Mozilla CEO discussion as vehicle to attack the left
Fox News called its video of the segment: “Was Mozilla CEO ousted for stance on gay marriage? Ann Coulter discusses the intolerance.”
The choice of Coulter also revealed that Hannity’s real interest in this story (and just about any other) was to exploit it for political purposes and demonize the left and the heck with the facts. Apparently, Fox higher-ups approved.
Sure enough, Hannity “asked,” “Is this the new reality in America where anybody that holds views that are opposing to the liberal masses, they’re going to be intimidated and forced into silence?”
He and Coulter also used the discussion to gratuitously smear Democrats like President Obama and Hillary Clinton. The two talking heads made the false allegation that Obama and Clinton shared the same beliefs as Eich until recently. In fact, while President Obama thought marriage should be between a man and a woman (and supported civil unions), that is a far cry from donating money for a state law banning it. Hillary Clinton did support a federal law banning recognition of same-sex marriages in the states but she has since publicly endorsed same-sex marriage. Eich, on the other hand, has not renounced his position.
There were lots more flames thrown at the left:
Coulter: Mobs are always on the left.. Just the vicious, horrible, hateful behavior. … Conservatives do have to go with a body guard to college campuses.
And her especially laughable argument that those who opposed integration and the Civil Rights Act were liberals:
The death threats, the actual violence, the vandalism, it has always been from the left and, of course, it was from the left at the Little Rock High School.
That begs the question, then why do African Americans vote Democratic so heavily? Out of stupidity? But, of course, Hannity didn’t ask. He went on to play the (multimillionaire) conservative mouthpiece victim: “You have well-funded groups of people… people whose job it is” to monitor his shows “in the hope that I might say something stupid that then they can go out there, attack my advertisers.” Query: Was it liberals' fault that his show got booted from its prime time hour and put in a later spot?
But that leads me to the next thing: Hannity’s utter lack of credibility on the subject of tolerance. This is the guy who attacked President Obama for “playing the race card” and then squelched challenge to a guest who called “most blacks” in Tennessee “so racist.” This is the guy who had a bullyboy meltdown when a guest argued in September, 2008 that our economy was in trouble. And he’s the same guy that in the same show, deliberately belittled and humiliated a Muslim guest trying to make a serious, respectful argument about church flyers circulated in a public school.
Nobody on Fox News really in a position to lecture others on intolerance
Last but not least, Hannity is preaching from the intolerant pulpit of Fox News. Besides the steady diet of hate mongering against liberals, African Americans, Muslims and just about anyone else they disagree with, how many prime time Fox News hosts are as aggressively liberal as any Fox host is aggressively conservative?
When Fox News gives even one show to an unapologetic liberal to host on his or her own, allows him or her to freely express any and all liberal opinions, then I’ll begin to take them seriously on the subject of political litmus tests.
Funny how adultery is suddenly not a measure of character, and we just need to focus on the issues when Republicans are the ones who got caught. Certainly wasn’t the case with any Democrat caught cheating since 1988.
That’s just one of Coulter’s flat-out lies. I suppose she’d justify it by the old canard that most Southerners were Democrats pre-Civil Rights Act, when they all went over to the Republicans. But even then, Southern Democrats were in no way “the left.”
And like Joseph, I’m not the least bit “troubled” by Eich’s resignation. I’m just relieved i don’t need to find a different browser/email client. I’m never “troubled” by social or economic punishment for people who want to deny other people’s civil rights.
Too bad for Eich. He’s an unrepentant bigoted pig, and wherever possible, I will not support unrepentant bigoted pigs with either my vote or my business.
Ms Peacock (who is also married) seems to be held to a different standard of “adulterous behavior” than her partner in adultery.
So, AnnieC……..what’s your position on THIS “forced resignation?” I don’t really see much of a difference. Eich resigned (of his own accord, even if there was pressure being applied); so did Ms Peacock.
Additionally, do you or ANY of the people who are “troubled” at his “forced resignation” really believe that he would’ve been allowed to resign if he’d donated anything to the KKK or some other racist (or even anti-Jewish) group? The man would not only have NOT been afforded the chance to resign, he would likely have been terminated from any employment with Mozilla. (Do you remember what happened with Paula Deen, especially in light of her comments about that hypothetical party? She lost her Food Network spot for something she DIDN’T EVEN DO, only speculated about.)
Sorry. But the LGBT community gave the man a chance to explain himself—even offering him time to explain his current stance on marriage equality (he did have time to “reconsider” his donation) but the man simply wouldn’t explain how he currently feels. He kept waffling on the issue; he made the mushy-mouthed “I know gay people….” blather.
And the far-right nuts are in NO position to be complaining. Exactly how many people has Obama nominated for some position only to have that person “withdraw” his or her name because some far-right batch of lunatics decided the nomination was “too extreme” simply because the person was nominated by “the Black man in the White House?” The homophobes who are so upset can suck it. Eich knew what he was doing when he made that donation and if he’s embarassed about doing that, he could’ve just said—“I made a mistake and I realize that what I did ended up hurting people and I’m sorry.” And, in doing so, he could’ve saved his job. But he didn’t. He had to make it all about himself and how he was being “unfairly” targeted by “intolerant people.” Well, dude, that’s all on you. (Like Orson Scott Card. When his anti-marriage equality stance first came to light, it cost him a writing job at Marvel—not that what he’d written was that great—and, later, it cost him a gig writing for DC. And then, last summer, it cost him serious bucks when “Ender’s Game” was released as the LGBT community urged a boycott—although some LGBT fans suggested it would only hurt the people in the film but Card stood to make money on the back end, as is typical with the film industry. And the best defense that Card could come up with to curtail the boycott was “Well, same-sex marriage is legal and will probably become legal across the nation, so there’s nothing we can do about it.”)
But, yeah. Coulter is the LAST person to be talking about tolerance and FoxNoise is the LAST place to be discussing tolerance.