Politically, I agree almost down the line with Sean Hannity. Personally, he seems like a good guy. However, I don't often listen to him or watch him. Why? Because, like most of Fox News, he has a "cable TV mentality".
What do I mean by that? I mean that he goes in more for rumor and gossip than facts, and regards "facts" as only something to be USED for exaggeration and hype--not just in politics but in the "news" in general. As I have said repeatedly in this blog, and backed up repeatedly with examples (see yesterday's entry about the disgraceful, bigoted stories about Mitt Romney and why we are not hearing about Barack Obama's great grandfathers--whoever they were), the mainstream media are the primary agents of the "politics of personal destruction" in this country today--primary agents for political SMEARS. Sean Hannity, and Fox News in general, have completely bought into the back street gossip--smear--view of "news"--for both politics and other news events like the Utah coal mining disaster. In contrast, Rush Limbaugh (who I do listen to) is much better. It is not that he is perfect--who is?--but Limbaugh has a certain intellectual honesty only occasionally outweighed by exaggeration for the sake of a political agenda. Exaggerating the facts, by the way, is entirely different from phrasing things prvocatively. See again yesterday's entry on Barack Obama's great grandfather, which was not really about Barack Obama but about media bigotry and hypocrisy.
Hannity likes to combine items in LISTS--thinking that a litany of things adds to an argument. Hannity seems to believe that it does not matter whether the litany includes both important (relatively) and unimportant (even irrelevant) things. For example, here is the preset litany of things Hannity likes to list about Barack Obama:
1. His church concentrates on "black values", and seems to have a black seperatist/racist type message that African-Americans need to have "black values", in preference to false "white values" (see the promised entry on "black valuves", coming--I promise--today). Hannity, of course, is right that no "white" candidate could get away with belonging to a church professing "white values", but see yesterdays entry about the danger of going into the details of the beliefs of a candidate's CHURCH. Hannity buys into the concept that because "they" (leftists and the leftist media) do it, "we" (conservatives and more conservative oriented media) should do it. I don't buy that.
2. Barack Obama's church gave an award to extremist/bigoted Lewis Farrakhan. Further, Lewis Farrakhan is supporting Barack Obama. In the most recent debate, Obama was asked about whether he repudiated Farrakhan. He eventually said he did, but really first tried to weasal word it. Again, what Obama's church does is really not Obama's responsibility (within reason). I don't have much problem--more importantly, nor do most people) with a church recognizing that the black communities in this country have challenges that need to be met by people who can relate directly to those communities, and who are in those communities. That does not mean excusing Lewis Farrakhan. It does mean that merely being supported by him, or having one's church give him an award, is irrelevant. It is the logical fallacy of "guilt by association". Leftits engage in this all of the time. How many Republicans were "friendly" with Mark Foley (gay scandal with interns), and remember how the mainstream media plays up the "guilt by association" angle with regard to Republicans who stray from the moral straight and narrow. Yes, it IS legitimate to ask Barak Obama what he thinks of Lewis Farrakhan, and Barack Obama needs to be asked more questions like that. But mere vague "associaton" with Lewis Farrakhan is unimportant. The way Barack Obama tried to "dodge" the question in the debate is probably more important, although a minor thing.
3. Obama's pastor (a person named Wright, I believe) is a radical (see above as to Obama's church). Again, "guilt by association" is not going to take you very far. We simply can't get to the point in this country of "scrutinizing" all of the words of every candidate's minister. If Obama is really close to Wright, and Wright really is very "radica", then questions might be appropriate to Obama as to whether Wright's positions reflect his own views. However, this is almost surely going to have almost nothing to do with whether Obama should be President.
4. Obama is "friendly" with a former BOMBER of the Weather Underground--the violent group which used violence in its "fight" against the Vietnam War. A man named William Ayers (or something like that) has admitted "bombing the Pentagon" (military offices),, etc. He is unrepentant about it. He was never convicted (statute of limitations? Pardon? I don't know). Ayers is now some sort of politically connected professor in Illinois (politically connected on the left). Obama supposedly went to him for his blessing and guidance when Obama was starting out his politcla career, and Obama evidently "admits" still being friendly with him. Again, this is "guilt by association", and Obama was not even around when the Weather Underground was conducting its reign of terror. Irrelevant stuff, except to the cable TV mentality, unless you can show a radical stain in Obama himself (really the point, isn't it, and something which really can't be done by vague "guilt by association". Sure, lefitists do it. I have even seen leftists online say things like "Ted Bundy (serial killer) was a Republican." That does not make it right.
5. Obama refused to wear an American flag pin, and does not place his hand over his heart when the "Star Spangled Banner" is played. Give me a break.
6. Michelle Obama said that she had not been "really proud" of her country until this campaign, and Barack Obama failed to really disassciate himself from that statement (certanily not quickly and instinctively). To me, this one is NOT a "smear". What Obama, and those directly speaking for him, SAY and BELIEVE is exactly the point of the campaign. If Obama believes that this is fudnamentally a "sinning" country which needs to be "saved" (by him), I think that is important. But this gets buried in Hannity's litany of "guilt by association".
There are probably more in Hannity's litany of things that should be hyped about Obama. You get the idea.
Then there is the Resco matter. Resco is the man with whom Obama has had a twenty year association, and who is undergoing a FELONY trial on Federal corruption related charges. This one IS a legitimate are of inquiry, where the media SHOULD be examing Obama's exact relationship with Resco.
The point is: Do ANY of the items above explain why Sean Hannity, and me, do not think Barack Obama should be President? Basically, only item 6 aobve directly touches on it. The other five items ar really not important, and even item six is only important in context of what Obama really believes (the problem with the other items is that they may raise INNUENCO on that, but do not go directly to that question).
More importantly, are any of the above items (other than, conceivably, the Resco matter) going to BEAT BArack Obama? I think McCain is right on this (albeit I wish he would get over this habit of only trashing conservatives). Republicans are NOT going to beat Barack Obama on these kinds of unimportant smears (the not "really proud" of America matter not really being a "smear", although it, alone, is not going to defeat Barack Obama).
As previously stated, I think we (conservatives) should be accurately showing that lieftists, and the mainstream media, are lying hypocrites regularly engaging in smears, rather than trying to out-smear them. Leftists have the advantage of the mainstream media being willing to carry the water on their smears (such as the despicable AP article taht Mitt Romney's great grandfather was a Mormon). What the left regards as a "smear" is often not a smear, but I believe McCain'general approach is correct: defeat Obama on the ISSUES.
For example, one ISSUE upon which McCain has the clear advantage is QUALIFICATIOINS to be President. Obama is unqualified, by any objective standard, to be President of the United States. That is highlighted by Obama's own words. Around when he was elected to the U.S. Senate (either in the campaign or right after winning the election), Obama was asked if he had any aspiratiions for national office. I believe I may have even herard Hannity play his answer. His answer was that he would not be "comfortable" presenting himself to be PResident of the Untied States with so little experience. He noted that he would have start running for President essentially before doing anything as a Senator--given that he had to start moving toward a Presidential campaign early, or not have a chance. Exactly. This kind of thing, from Obama's own mouth, reflects on the ISSUE of whether he is qualified to be President, or has merely had the arrogance and ego to move prematurely for a positon for which he, himself, knows he is not qualified.
P.S. As I have said repeatedly, the logic of this campaign will force me to regularly appear to be supporting John McCain for President. That is not the case. I will never vote for John McCain. I believe he will be a disaster for Republicans. Neither will I vote for Barack Obama, who I consider dangerous. I do continue to support Hillary Clinton, even for the general election, on the grounds that she would be best for conservatives/Republicans in the long run--enbabling us to get a new start against a commn enemy.