I don't know what Dennis Kucinich was thinking when he appeared on Hannity a few nights ago but I do know he delighted Sean Hannity by validating right-wing fears about the over-reaching of the Obama administration and by letting Hannity's anti-Democratic comments beforehand go unchallenged.
Before bringing on his guests, Hannity spent several minutes urging Republicans to “unite” and “fight” President Obama's proposed gun violence measures. “This is not Bill Clinton's 1994 assault weapons ban... (It's) your right to bear arms being shattered by these left-wing lawmakers,” Hannity said. Otherwise, he said with his customarily inflammatory rhetoric, the Obama administration will “take away your Constitutional rights” and “bankrupt the country” in its effort to “transform America into his socialist utopia.”
It's possible Kucinich never heard what was said before he joined the discussion. But anyone with even the slightest familiarity with Hannity knows that his end game is always smearing Democrats and the left. And the “Obama unconstitutional power grab” meme is a Fox News/right wing fave. Kucinich ought to know that. So while I can understand someone's misgivings about stricter gun regulations, I simply can't understand anyone who fashions himself as a serious liberal saying what Kucinich said.
He began by noting that historically, Americans got weapons to protect themselves from a tyrannical government. Then he added, “So now, with government getting ever more powerful, people weaponize themselves, but what's happening at the same time? More of our tax dollars is going to helping to make the government more powerful. Somebody has to puzzle that out for me.”
Hannity couldn't have looked more pleased. “Beam me up, Scotty,” he said. “...Dennis Kucinich is the first liberal that seems to actually have an understanding of the Second Amendment.”
Memo to Kucinich: Any time Hannity is delighted with a liberal's comments, it's a sure sign you've played right into his hands.
Later, Hannity turned to Kucinich to ask if we don't need to look at mental health as a path to reducing gun violence.
Kucinich replied, “Thank you.” He did say that if he were still in Congress, he'd give “careful consideration” to the Obama administration's proposed assault weapons ban. “But I want to say something, Sean,” he added. “What you just said: fundamentally right. This is a broad issue that touches all of American society. We have, unfortunately, a violent society. Guns make it very easy for people to act out on their aggression. But the truth is that the mental health problems in our society have not received enough attention. You do when there's violence... but we weren't able to get mental health parity in a lot of health care legislation.”
I'm not saying that any and all liberal guests should be combative on Hannity. Or even be an Obama-administration mouthpiece. But they do need to realize that they are playing a role in Fox News political theater, not having a serious or wonky exploration of policy, and understand how their lines will play in Peoria.
Do you like this post?
Ellen commented
2013-01-27 23:59:27 -0500
· Flag
Daniel Tanure, do you have statistics to back up your claim that “Most gun murders in America are a direct or indirect result of the War on Drugs?”
I think you have a point that drugs play a large part in gun murders but I don’t see how the “war on drugs” is such a huge cause.
And while I agree that the war on drugs should be completely re-vamped and may well do more harm than good, I don’t see how that would solve the problem of gun violence in our country.
I think you have a point that drugs play a large part in gun murders but I don’t see how the “war on drugs” is such a huge cause.
And while I agree that the war on drugs should be completely re-vamped and may well do more harm than good, I don’t see how that would solve the problem of gun violence in our country.
Aria Prescott commented
2013-01-27 18:25:22 -0500
· Flag
Most gun murders in America are a direct or indirect result of the War on Drugs.
Yeah, Daniel… that’s why the first thing we do when someone shoots someone else is look for a link to the War on Drugs. Or are you trying to tell us that gun violence is Reagan’s fault?
Let’s go into the most recent shootings- I mean post Aurora recent.16 of 20, What did the very large majority of the shooters target? Schools and the police. You know- the two professions Fox News has been telling anyone who will listen are the destruction of this country.
Has Fox News curbed the “thug” talk? Hardly… they just slowed it down a little. Unions are still thugs that need snuffed out before they destroy America, and police/teachers are the face of the enemy.
So, by your logic, I get to blame gun violence on Fox News. Not that there’s not a good case to blame at least some of it on them anyways.
Yeah, Daniel… that’s why the first thing we do when someone shoots someone else is look for a link to the War on Drugs. Or are you trying to tell us that gun violence is Reagan’s fault?
Let’s go into the most recent shootings- I mean post Aurora recent.16 of 20, What did the very large majority of the shooters target? Schools and the police. You know- the two professions Fox News has been telling anyone who will listen are the destruction of this country.
Has Fox News curbed the “thug” talk? Hardly… they just slowed it down a little. Unions are still thugs that need snuffed out before they destroy America, and police/teachers are the face of the enemy.
So, by your logic, I get to blame gun violence on Fox News. Not that there’s not a good case to blame at least some of it on them anyways.
Daniel Tanure commented
2013-01-27 13:31:41 -0500
· Flag
(just one final point)
Most gun murders in America are a direct or indirect result of the War on Drugs. Is Obama trying to nip that problem in the bud? No. He’s actually doubling down on the War on Drugs, going so far as to arrest people who own Marijuana dispensaries where it’s legal to own them.
No, what Obama is doing is focusing on incidents that happen almost never (three hundred million inhabitants, three shooting sprees in a year – at the most – what are the odds of you being caught in one of them? Tip: Less than the odds of you accidentally suffocating in your sleep) banking on emotions rather than rationality because “Holy smokes! Don’t you like children???”.
I want to know if there would still be 8.000 gun murders every year if the POTUS stopped with the War on Drugs.
Most gun murders in America are a direct or indirect result of the War on Drugs. Is Obama trying to nip that problem in the bud? No. He’s actually doubling down on the War on Drugs, going so far as to arrest people who own Marijuana dispensaries where it’s legal to own them.
No, what Obama is doing is focusing on incidents that happen almost never (three hundred million inhabitants, three shooting sprees in a year – at the most – what are the odds of you being caught in one of them? Tip: Less than the odds of you accidentally suffocating in your sleep) banking on emotions rather than rationality because “Holy smokes! Don’t you like children???”.
I want to know if there would still be 8.000 gun murders every year if the POTUS stopped with the War on Drugs.
Daniel Tanure commented
2013-01-27 13:25:45 -0500
· Flag
And by the way, calling me stupid and telling me to get an education without elucidating WHY my arguments are flawed reflects poorly on you, buddy. The “you’re stupid shield” only works up until kindergarten. From then on, either you participate in the conversation or you don’t say anything if you don’t want to sound like a child.
Daniel Tanure commented
2013-01-27 13:19:36 -0500
· Flag
@joseph West So your speculation (based on nothing) that Bush would have rounded up the liberals if they had weapons is worth not having weapons in order to… Be more easily rounded up? You don’t want to stand up to your government because you’re afraid that it will bite back too hard?
I don’t own a single gun and I’ll never own one even if it’s legal where I live (it’s not), because I don’t trust that I would be able to handle them safely, and I don’t care what goddamn Scalia says, but, considering the gaggle of morons that are responsible for tanks and nuclear arms nowadays, I wouldn’t be more worried about civilians owning them than I am worried now about the government owning them. Actually, considering all of the cops and military I know, I would feel MUCH safer if I knew civilians had guns to protect me from their pyschosis.
And lastly, the second amendment has been extensively clarified by the ones who drafted it to mean that it IS put in place so civilians can have access to the same weapons that the military has in order to keep government in check. Read Thomas Jefferson. Read Ben Franklin. Absolutely NONE of them ever said that “well-regulated militia” means a militia regulated by the government or on the government’s paycheck. They have made everything very clear. Read the goddamn federalist papers.
I don’t own a single gun and I’ll never own one even if it’s legal where I live (it’s not), because I don’t trust that I would be able to handle them safely, and I don’t care what goddamn Scalia says, but, considering the gaggle of morons that are responsible for tanks and nuclear arms nowadays, I wouldn’t be more worried about civilians owning them than I am worried now about the government owning them. Actually, considering all of the cops and military I know, I would feel MUCH safer if I knew civilians had guns to protect me from their pyschosis.
And lastly, the second amendment has been extensively clarified by the ones who drafted it to mean that it IS put in place so civilians can have access to the same weapons that the military has in order to keep government in check. Read Thomas Jefferson. Read Ben Franklin. Absolutely NONE of them ever said that “well-regulated militia” means a militia regulated by the government or on the government’s paycheck. They have made everything very clear. Read the goddamn federalist papers.
Daniel Tanure commented
2013-01-27 13:07:13 -0500
· Flag
@visitor 55 . Here it is: Out of my ass, straight to you. An article by a liberal that got almost 4000 shares on facebook in 2007: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/apr/24/usa.comment
And 1 – You don’t need to be smart to be a dictator and 2 – If you really need to be smart to be a dictator and you think Obama is smart, then you think Obama could be a dictator?
And 1 – You don’t need to be smart to be a dictator and 2 – If you really need to be smart to be a dictator and you think Obama is smart, then you think Obama could be a dictator?
Ellen commented
2013-01-27 11:40:45 -0500
· Flag
I’m critical of Kucinich but I don’t think he’s gone over into Caddell territory. Not even close.
Not yet, anyway.
Not yet, anyway.
Aria Prescott commented
2013-01-26 16:55:22 -0500
· Flag
Joseph, I have become convinced that Libertarians are just conservatives who don’t want the Conservative stigma. Every one I’ve seen, from Joe Nobody to the celebrities we’ve interviewed claiming to be one sound like Fox Nation posters.
In fact, the most a celebrity libertarian will hide what they are is they’ll be deliberately vague in interviews, and they’ll keep it off their social media… unless they’re Kelly Clarkson, who’s still wondering how she lost all her black fans endorsing Ron Paul as one.
No problem saying it when they know they’re safe from being on record, though.
But off-topic, and this could turn into a rant fast.
In fact, the most a celebrity libertarian will hide what they are is they’ll be deliberately vague in interviews, and they’ll keep it off their social media… unless they’re Kelly Clarkson, who’s still wondering how she lost all her black fans endorsing Ron Paul as one.
No problem saying it when they know they’re safe from being on record, though.
But off-topic, and this could turn into a rant fast.
Joe Marsh commented
2013-01-26 14:08:29 -0500
· Flag
Hannity gun update:
The other day (on the radio), slanthead proudly announced that he had the wisdom to “see this coming” [Obama’s attempt to take away all guns] but don’t let your heart be troubled) since he moved quickly to acquire “all the weapons I need!”
So the question now is, how many assault “weapons” does Hannity own in addition to the two semi-automatic Glocks with big mags that he conceals on his fat person every day before driving into Manhattan?
Slanthead needs to protect himself, not just from the roving bands of po’ folks on Long Island who surely want to invade his North Shore bunker, but also from the homeless on the city’s streets who “talk to themselves.” These homeless talkers, Slanthead concluded a few weeks ago, are the root cause of all violence in Amerika!
The other day (on the radio), slanthead proudly announced that he had the wisdom to “see this coming” [Obama’s attempt to take away all guns] but don’t let your heart be troubled) since he moved quickly to acquire “all the weapons I need!”
So the question now is, how many assault “weapons” does Hannity own in addition to the two semi-automatic Glocks with big mags that he conceals on his fat person every day before driving into Manhattan?
Slanthead needs to protect himself, not just from the roving bands of po’ folks on Long Island who surely want to invade his North Shore bunker, but also from the homeless on the city’s streets who “talk to themselves.” These homeless talkers, Slanthead concluded a few weeks ago, are the root cause of all violence in Amerika!
Joseph West commented
2013-01-26 13:59:48 -0500
· Flag
Daniel, I believe that you haven’t got a clue about how liberals and progressives were treated under the Dubya regime. We were already called “traitors” by that administration, and I will guarantee you that, had the liberals and progressives behaved the way the right-wing nuts are acting and started “arming themselves,” the Dubya cabal would’ve rounded us up in a heartbeat. And DOYC knows that had American Muslims started packing heat to protect themselves from angry white men, anxious to “avenge” 9/11, they would’ve been rounded up even faster.
For crying out loud, have you considered how liberals and progressives behaved towards Dubya and compared that to how conservatives have behaved towards Obama? We were, by comparison, the absolute models of civility—even at our most “raucous.” And just imagine if we’d really had a liberal media during the Dubya years, one that had the real power that the morons like Palin and Limbaugh claim the mythical one does; Dubya would not have stayed in office after the 2004 election.
But keep fantasizing your little absurd fantasy. When the US gov’t decides that you’re an enemy of the state and comes after you, just keep believing that your little arsenal will keep you safe from them. And the rest of you “libertarians” keep on with that little delusion. Even Scalia says you don’t have the right to own tanks and nuclear weapons—items which the US military DOES possess. (Oh, by the by. Where were all the “libertarians” during the Dubya years? I don’t seem to recall ANY of them joining in the protests against Bush’s Wars or opposing Gitmo. REAL Libertarians would be the first to acknowledge that the Second Amendment does NOT apply to military-style weapons since we have a standing military. REAL Libertarians believe the Second Amendment starts with the phrase “A well-regulated militia” not at “the right to keep and bear arms.”)
For crying out loud, have you considered how liberals and progressives behaved towards Dubya and compared that to how conservatives have behaved towards Obama? We were, by comparison, the absolute models of civility—even at our most “raucous.” And just imagine if we’d really had a liberal media during the Dubya years, one that had the real power that the morons like Palin and Limbaugh claim the mythical one does; Dubya would not have stayed in office after the 2004 election.
But keep fantasizing your little absurd fantasy. When the US gov’t decides that you’re an enemy of the state and comes after you, just keep believing that your little arsenal will keep you safe from them. And the rest of you “libertarians” keep on with that little delusion. Even Scalia says you don’t have the right to own tanks and nuclear weapons—items which the US military DOES possess. (Oh, by the by. Where were all the “libertarians” during the Dubya years? I don’t seem to recall ANY of them joining in the protests against Bush’s Wars or opposing Gitmo. REAL Libertarians would be the first to acknowledge that the Second Amendment does NOT apply to military-style weapons since we have a standing military. REAL Libertarians believe the Second Amendment starts with the phrase “A well-regulated militia” not at “the right to keep and bear arms.”)
Aria Prescott commented
2013-01-26 12:59:42 -0500
· Flag
Daniel, Google Kucinich’s history of stances- His opinion is always agreeing with the highest bidder. When the money’s backing the left, he stands with the party. When it backs the right, he’s a DINO.
In fact, a common joke about him goes along the lines of someone attending a local RNC meeting, and Kucinich is there. When asked if he changed parties, his answer is some form of “No, but the good money’s on red this year!”
This was addressed in the thread about him becoming a contributor, when posters asked why they would choose him to be a leftist counterpoint, given that aspect. A couple of us even asked if he could disagree with the money when that’s what they’re paying him for.
So far… no. I’ve seen him on a couple other shows before this, and his opinion has magically changed agree with the money on even the few things he’s otherwise kept his integrity on through his whole career.
In fact, a common joke about him goes along the lines of someone attending a local RNC meeting, and Kucinich is there. When asked if he changed parties, his answer is some form of “No, but the good money’s on red this year!”
This was addressed in the thread about him becoming a contributor, when posters asked why they would choose him to be a leftist counterpoint, given that aspect. A couple of us even asked if he could disagree with the money when that’s what they’re paying him for.
So far… no. I’ve seen him on a couple other shows before this, and his opinion has magically changed agree with the money on even the few things he’s otherwise kept his integrity on through his whole career.
Kevin Koster commented
2013-01-26 12:52:40 -0500
· Flag
This isn’t a matter of Kucinich being “allowed an opinion”. Dennis Kucinich is free to say or think whatever he pleases, whether he is paid big money by Fox News or not. Nobody is imposing any fascist rules on him that I’ve ever heard of.
The issue is that he went on Hannity’s show unprepared for what was going on. Most of the time, Juan Williams and Alan Colmes at least have done their homework and can answer the more outrageous claims or at least not allow Hannity or O’Reilly to throw out completely bogus statements without challenge. When they go on the air unprepared and just agree with a host who is spouting partisan rhetoric, it accomplishes nothing.
The issue is that he went on Hannity’s show unprepared for what was going on. Most of the time, Juan Williams and Alan Colmes at least have done their homework and can answer the more outrageous claims or at least not allow Hannity or O’Reilly to throw out completely bogus statements without challenge. When they go on the air unprepared and just agree with a host who is spouting partisan rhetoric, it accomplishes nothing.
Daniel Tanure commented
2013-01-26 12:29:48 -0500
· Flag
So Dennis Kucinich is not allowed an opinion anymore? Unless he agrees with Obama or the current left-thinking?
Deny it as much as you like, that is what you’re saying.
When Bush was in office and half of the liberals in the country were afraid of a fascistic dictatorship being imposed by him you weren’t calling yourselves paranoid nuts, were you?
We’re defending YOUR right, too, you know? If a right-wing government decides to start rounding up the left-wingers and commit injustices upon them, then YOU should have the right to own weapons and defend yourselves against it.
To paraphrase The Libertarian Republic: “Libertarians understand that when it comes to fascism as the boot on our neck, whether it’s a left boot or a right boot makes no difference. Bravo to Dennis Kucinich whose intellectual honesty appears to have led him to the same conclusion.”
Deny it as much as you like, that is what you’re saying.
When Bush was in office and half of the liberals in the country were afraid of a fascistic dictatorship being imposed by him you weren’t calling yourselves paranoid nuts, were you?
We’re defending YOUR right, too, you know? If a right-wing government decides to start rounding up the left-wingers and commit injustices upon them, then YOU should have the right to own weapons and defend yourselves against it.
To paraphrase The Libertarian Republic: “Libertarians understand that when it comes to fascism as the boot on our neck, whether it’s a left boot or a right boot makes no difference. Bravo to Dennis Kucinich whose intellectual honesty appears to have led him to the same conclusion.”
Kevin Koster commented
2013-01-26 11:45:35 -0500
· Flag
To be clear, Dennis Kucinich is now under contract to appear on Fox News. They announced that at the same time that they said that Palin was done. So yes, he’s getting paid good money to be there. One would hope that he would take some time to actually research the matters they are trying to dissemble. It doesn’t take a doctoral student to see that there’s an underlying attack position in play every time O’Reilly or Hannity starts up one of these discussions.
d d commented
2013-01-26 10:03:30 -0500
· Flag
Et tu, Dennis? Seems like so many Dems sell out their principled stances and become useful tools for the right-wing once they become paid commentators on FOX “news”. In general, FOX likes their Dems to be weak and compliant and. Gee, thanks, Dennis. (eyeroll)
Richard Santalone commented
2013-01-26 09:33:26 -0500
· Flag
Re: the title of this thread: In addition to carrying KKKlannity’s water, Dennis Kucinich is now carrying Herr Goebbels II’s (i.e. Murdoch’s) FAT HUMONGOUS PAYCHECKS. Let me repeat the chorus lines of this classic Cyndi Lauper tune:
Money, Money changes everything
I said Money, money changes everything
We think we know what we’re doing
That don’t mean a thing
It’s all in the past now
Money changes everything…
Money, Money changes everything
I said Money, money changes everything
We think we know what we’re doing
That don’t mean a thing
It’s all in the past now
Money changes everything…
NewsHounds
posted
about Dennis Kucinich Carries Hannity's Water On Gun Regulations
on NewsHounds' Facebook page
2013-01-26 09:20:47 -0500
Does Kucinich understand that he's on Fox to play a role in political theater, not to have a serious policy discussion?
