Paul Revere by Cyrus Dallin, North End, Boston



Monday, December 15, 2008


Pardon my French. But really. The guy is too dumb to breathe. He's a one trick pony whose raison d'etre is to slime any and all Democrats/liberals. He's an undereducated blowhard who apparently believes his listeners are breathtakingly stupid. He stated on his recent show that it is was "pretty troubling" that "president-elect" was mentioned' 44 times in Patrick Fitzgerald's criminal complaint against Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich.

On the December 14 edition of Fox News' Hannity's America, discussing prosecutor and U.S. attorney Patrick Fitzgerald's December 9 press conference on the arrest of Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich (D), host Sean Hannity stated that "what [Fitzgerald] said was, 'There's no allegation in the complaint that the president-elect was aware,' " adding, "I found that as sort of almost like a parsing of words." As evidence, Hannity asserted that "the word 'president-elect' was mentioned -- what -- I think some 44 times" in the criminal complaint against Blagojevich, and said that "is a pretty high, high number." His comments followed an assertion he made on the December 9 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, that "the word 'president-elect' is mentioned 44 times in the document. Pretty troubling."

In fact, with one exception, none of the 44 instances in which "president-elect" was used in the complaint actually mentions any alleged conduct or statement by President-elect Barack Obama, much less any conduct or statement amounting to wrongdoing. The one exception consisted of an allegation that Blagojevich complained that Obama would not give him anything other than "appreciation."

In every other instance, the complaint mentioned "president-elect" in the context of Blagojevich's alleged desires, expectations, or plans for extracting favors in return for the Senate seat; in the context of the president-elect's victory having created an open Senate seat; or in the context of, as in one mention, "media reports indicat[ing] that Senate Candidate 1, an advisor to the President-elect, was interested in the Senate seat if it became vacant, and was likely to be supported by the President-elect."

Someone should tell Hannity that by his dishonest and harebrained logic, one could say that Jesus taught his disciples to pray about "temptation" and "evil," when he taught them the Lord's Prayer. What's the "evidence" of that statement? The words "temptation" and"evil" are mentioned in the prayer. That's really troubling.

Why do people listen to Hannity the branleur?



TAO said...

They listen to Hannity because he comforts their own stupidity and he fuels their own hatred of anything new and different.

Hannity will not change, he serves a market that is very loyal. Nor will Rush Limbaugh change, his market is very loyal.

It would be nice if we woke up tomorrow morning and the whole country would all of the sudden be rational, logical, and open minded...

Then Bush's approval ratings would drop to ZERO....

Dave Miller said...

People listen because their already preconceived ideas are validated.

I think if you look at the reading lists of most people, a majority of what they read, or in this case listen to, tends to support their point of view.

America is not a place where to challenge the status quo, or accepted points of view, in established structures, is appreciated.

Gordon Scott said...

I think we should go by the standard established by Sen. Byrd back when some minor Bush scandal was in the news. Byrd admitted there was no evidence that Bush had anything to do with the problem. But Byrd insisted that there needed to be hearings on the matter, because there was no evidence.

Still, it's pretty funny. "You can believe that The President-Elect had nothing to do with it, because His lawyer has investigated and says so." And the report on it is complete--but they're not going to release it until The President-Elect is on vacation in Hawaii, safely shielded from reporters.

Speaking of safely shielded from reporters, has anyone heard from Joe Biden lately?

Shaw Kenawe said...


It is not Obama's people who say there is no involvement--it is the prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald and his criminal investigation that says so.

And it is Patrick Fitzgerald's office that has asked Obama's people NOT to release the results of the investigation for another week.


You are too quick, sweetie chunks, to impute nefarious motives to Obama and his people.

Gordon Scott said...

Um...Shaw, there's a difference between Fitzgerald saying there's no involvement, and not saying there is involvement, and right now the latter is the case.

And yes, Fitzgerald did ask for the delay, so he can conduct more interviews. If there was no connection to the PEOTUS, there would be no need for interviews.

Was I imputing? (blush) Perish the thought! (/blush)

Ruth said...

The lack of anything reality-based to impute to the president-elect is going to bring out creativity of this sort. Must be hard work to come up with far-fetched allegations of this sort. My sympathies ... nah.

Shaw Kenawe said...

So Gordon,

Fitzgerald told you that the further interviews have something to do with the PEOTUS and not something else?


Dave Miller said...

Gordon, you didn't answer the question that was posed.

Why do people listen to Hannity?

His pre election show on "all of Obama's" terrorist connections was primarily sourced by a totally discredited non source, yet was very widely viewed within conservative circles.

Why, as Shaw asks, do people watch, or listen to this stuff?

Why do you?

BB-Idaho said...

People watch Hannity because Howdy Doody is off the air...

Gordon Scott said...


Fitzgerald would have no comment or reason to ask that the report be held unless the interviews he's conducting had some connection to the PEOTUS.

It's pretty well established that Rahm Emmanuel talked to the governor more than once. Was there horse trading? Almost certainly. Did that trading rise to the level of illegality? My guess is that it didn't.

Did not, not because Emmanuel isn't capable of it, but did not because PEOTUS doesn't need to. If his candidate doesn't get the job, PEOTUS can appoint her to some other position.

Honestly, though, if things were reversed, y'all would be screaming bloody murder. I understand that; just as I understand your need to spin this off as "nothing to see here, move along." It's just politics.

Shaw Kenawe said...


I honestly believe that if there were a Republican administration coming into office at a time when this country is facing horrendous problems--as is the case right now--I would think twice before going over to the dark side and encouraging divisivness and rumor-mongering to cripple the new administration before it begins.

This is not the time to be petty and play revenge politics.

Are you not paying attention? Everyone I know is in financial trouble. Everyone.

Who the hell cares what one's political allegiance is in times like these?

I have one relative who has her daughter and her family, her single daughter, AND her step-son all moved into her home because of the loss of a home, the loss of a job, and just plain inability to find enough work to live independently.

Five adults and two children living in a one-family home.

One year ago, all of these people were working and independent.

We either decide we're all Americans and help each other and support the new administration or we all fail individually.

Really. It's that bad.