This is my long-stated problem with Sean Hannity: his cable-TV mentality that looks for the REPETIVE SMEAR becaues he is TOO LAZY to actaully present facts and issues. No, I have no problem acknowledging that Hannity is a conservative--one of the FEW on the unfair and unbalanced network. But I can hardly bear to listen to him because of his love of the SMEAR and "negative ad viw" of politics.
Example? Hannity is now, in his usual REPETIVE and annnoying way, tring to SMEAR Ron Paul with those 15 or 20 year old newletters under Paul's name. I have no problem with the FACTS of those newsletter being reported. Btu what Hannity clearly wants si for the media to HAMMER Ron Paul with those newletters around the clock, until Paul cries uncle. This is ABSURD, as this blog has informed you (Hannity not being interested in INFORMATION, but only in PARTISAN smears--Hannity not favoring Ron Paul, as can be said of the entire network).
What this blog has told you is accurate: those old Ron Paul newsletters are pretty despicable--racist and anti-Semitic. However, they were no actually written by Ron Paul, and it is absurd to suggest that they have much to do with whether Ron Paul should be Prfeisdent. Doubt me? Don't. Is it really a S:URPRISE to you thaqt Ron Paul would not pay too much attentino to what is said in a newsletter under his name. ? And do you REALLY think that slurs of Israel in a NEWSLETTER is the reasn people should not vorte for Ron Paul? Nope. I do NOT believe that Sean Hannity thinks that.. Hannity decided he opposes Paul, and THEN looked around for a SMEAR he could use against Paul. That is what the OVERHYPE of these newletters is al aobut. Yet, Hanity suggests that Paul is NOAT BEING HAMMERED ENOUGH over those newsletters--as if they have any MAJOR effect on whether Pual should be President.
Paul, IN THIS CAMPAIGN, has said that the USA is responsible for 9/11. He has said that Iran has a RIGHT to have nuclear weapons, if Iran wnats them. He would LEGALIZE drugs like COCAINE (to some degree or another). He would DISMANTLE the Federal Government (where I agree with him). The idea that some stupid old newsletters weigh heavlily, in cmparison to what Paul is ASSERTING NOW as his positions, is really more than absurd.
I have said I would vote for Ron aul for President, against Barack Obama, while I will NOT vote for Mitt Romney against Barack Obama. And I mean it. But I have also said that Ron Paul is NUTS (figuratively and politically speaking), and cannot win the nomination (much less the Presidency). Waht sense does it make to keep quoting OLD NEWSLETTERS to Ron Paul (which Hannity evidently wants tthe media to do every tie they ask Paul any questons)? Again, if youLIKE Paul because he would SHAKE up the Federal Goverfnment, adn actually try to bring it under control, and are willing to put up with his CRAZINESS, what do a few old newsletters matrter? Not a thing. They don't have anything to do with what kind of Preisdent Ron Paul would make. Explaining THAT would take a real journalist" so much time that there would be NO TIME for the newsletters. Just reportt them an dforget it. ABUSING pual about them makes no sense at all. Really, if you LIKE Ron Paul because he is an anti-war ISOLATIONIST< who would pull ALL Aemrican ctoops out of ALL foreign countries, should ti really matter to you what was printed in a few newsletters under Paul's name? Don't be silly!!!!!! Paul is the ONLY candidate who is saing he will BRING OUR TROOPS HOME NOW, AND FROM EVERYWHERE, and not take us to war unless we DECLARE WAR. after an attack on us. If you WANT that kind of President (as I don't, but I feel it is LESS DANGEROUS than Romney or going along like we are domestically), then Ron Paul is YOUR ONLY VOTE. What could a few newsletters possibliy matter? Using myself as an example, I actualy think Paul MEANS IT when he says he wants to dismantle the Federal Government,a nd reduce spending by ONE TRILLION DOLLARS in the FIRST YER. No one else does mean it--not even Rick Santorum, who I have endorsed. I don't even think Michele Bachmann MEANS IT, although she probably comes coser than anyone besides Paul.
No, Hannity, you have a cable-TV mind, and I don't mean that in a good way. I am GLAD I do not have to make the choice of whether to actually vote for Ron Paul for President, since he will not win the nomination. Voting for Ron Paul is not a thing I would be proud of. But, on balance, it would give me ENUGH of what I want---things NO ONE else would do--that I would hold my nose and do it. What I would NOT do is the LAZY, Hannity cable-TV device of SMERING Ron Paul for reasons that have little or nothing to do with why I am reluctant to vote for Ron Paul (at least without holding my nose)., I repeat what I have accurately told you before: A SMEAR is NOT defined by whether it is TRUE. A SMEAR is defined by OVEREMPASIZING things that are really not that important (in perspective). For example, Gingrich's adultery and his credit account at Tiffany's are SMEARS, having really NOTHING to do with the kind of Presient Gingrich would be. Gingrich's INCONSISTENCY on ISSUES is NOT a smear, beccause that has a lot to do with what kind of Preisdent Gingrich would be (and whether we can KNOW what kind of Presdient Gingrich will be).
It would be nice if our media would REPORT FACTS--as many of them as they can--and let US decide what facts are IMPORTANT (even, perhaps, deciding for themselves that a candidate's personal lief should NOT be the subject of media "scrutiny" in the absence of an actual crime). "We report, you cdcide" is the LIE of the unfair and unbalanced network. If they actually did that, I would not advoacate you BOYCOTT them, as I do advocatge. That includes Hannity, even if i do agree with him on almost every POLICY issue (as much as I do with almost any conservative).
P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight).