Listen to Sean Hannity on voting: "I don't want everybody to vote; I want well-informed people to vote. . . . You've gotta accept the fact that your vote doesn't matter anyway. So all you Democrats, stay home. So, you know, why don't you stay home on Election Day?"
Does this mean that Hannity knows for sure that the elections are rigged again? Or is he merely afraid that the Democrats are going to crush Republicans in a fair election?
For sure, Hannity does not like Democrats or liberals. He has even said that "there are things in life worth fighting and dying for and one of 'em is making sure Nancy Pelosi doesn't become the speaker." Hannity has claimed that Democrats winning Congress could be a "victory for the terrorists." Hannity has even compared voting for Hillary Clinton to voting for Hamas and Hezbollah.
No wonder fair and balanced Hannity narrated the welcome video for delegates to the 2004 Republican National Convention. Nor was it a shock on his program when he said "Can we pray for the re-election of George Bush?" No surprise that concerning upcoming elections Hannity is openly saying: "I want to talk to you Republicans out there, both candidates and voters."
Of course, poor Sean is merely a victim of mean Democrats. "Liberals want to shut me up!" As to Hannity saying Democrats votes don't count, the wise man said "This is how the press is going to report this: 'Hannity says Democrats should stay home on Election Day.'" How daring Hannity is to have made such a bold prophecy.
But Hannity is far smarter than the rest of us, especially Democrats and liberals. Our Democratic "candidates have absolutely no ideas how to win the war on terrorism." As to President Bush, Hannity has said "Let me be straight with you - I like George Bush. I think he's a man of principle, a man of faith. I think he's got a backbone of steel and he's a real, genuine, big-time leader ... He's a consequential figure for his time. We don't see it right now." Whereas Democrats only "espouse . . . ways to undermine the troops in harm's way and undermine their commander in chief while they're at war." All Democrats are doing is "abandoning our troops on the battlefield or closing [their] eyes to enemy communications or listening to enemy communications in our country . . ."
With such views, imagine what Hannity would express about somebody who said:
"But you know what? There's a lot of massacres going on in the world. As you know, 37,000 Kurds in Turkey, over a million people in Sudan. We have hundreds of thousands in Rwanda and Burundi. I mean, where do we stop?"
"Why should one U.S. airman give up his life when our national security is not in imminent danger?"
"No goal, no objective, not until we have those things and a compelling case is made, then I say, back out of it, because innocent people are going to die for nothing. That's why I'm against it."
"A couple of things that are in my mind. Number one is the president has really failed to lay out before the American people the reasons why we need to be involved militarily. . . . is there a vital U.S. national interest? And do we have a plan to disengage? What's the exit strategy? I don't see that we've met that test either. And why does it have to happen this second, this hour? Why don't we have a national debate first?"
"So it seems that we're talking about a very ill-conceived military action here. And now the question is, do you go in further and deeper, or do you pull back and rethink what the strategy's going to be here, because there has really been no stated goal, mission or objective."
"But if you know - every mistake we've made up to this point, there's no stated goal. There's no definition of success. All these important things. There's no exit strategy. One mistake after another. Why would you go in deeper when we have not been successful up to this point? That seems to me to be folly."
"But what are we doing there? And if we don't know what's next, we have no business being there!"
"We've hurt the people we thought we were going to help."
"What is our stated goal, our mission, our objective? How do we get out of here?"
B. 1952, GA, USA. D. To Be Determined. Beloved husband, father, grandfather, lover, confidant and friend of many from bikers to Zen masters; American writer and speaker, known for his criticism of Mammon's unholy trinity of big business, big government and big religion; served the least of them professionally as psychologist and voluntarily as activist for decades; loved to shoot basketball, billiards and the bull; lived free, died game. (memorial sketch by davidhewsonart.com)
That was a prime example of right wing news slanting. I have been picked apart for writing why I'm voting Democrat this year and you made my case for me with that article. I've seen some ridiculous posts coming from "progresssives" that don't seem to want to vote for anyone. The only conspiricy we have to fight right now, this month, is the conspiracy of removing our rights under the Constitution by the Right. Everything else is secondary. I don't believe that Bush blew up the twin towers, but I do believe that he has corrupted the Constitution, and people like Hannity are OK with this. Good work!
by
Timothy V. Gatto (348 articles, 177 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 575 comments)
on Sunday, October 22, 2006 at 9:00:00 AM
Many times, many modern "progressives" can come across as rigidly orthodox devotees of a culture of ideological purity. Certainly, the Democratic party has many, many shortcomings but it is suicidal for "progressives" to stay at home because the Democrats do not fulfill all the casuistic criteria for correct thinking. Sometimes I think that progressives get so caught up in seeing the forrest that they can't see the tree they're walking into. Certainly, ethical principles have to be maintained but the way many "progressives" refuse to have anything to do with the Democratic party because it is not progressive enough, you would think that they were waiting for Jesus to come so that they will have something perfect to rally behind. If liberals don't get off their ideological asses and start getting their hands dirty in the real world, instead of wanting to live in an ideologically pure world, the Republicans are going to continue to win elections, including the upcoming because to the common person liberals often appear as elitist, sanctimonious, condescending snobs.
by
Richard Mathis (128 articles, 103 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 121 comments)
on Sunday, October 22, 2006 at 9:30:24 AM
I just hope that all of you enthusiastic voters for Democraps stay alert after their likely victory and objectively evaluate their actions with respect to rebuilding our democracy, opening up our political system, and retooling our economic system to serve the interests of working- and middle-class Americans. Those of us without any enthusiasm for voting for Democraps see the stark evilness and corruption of the Bush regime and the whole Republicrook crowd. That is not in question. But it is intellectually honest to question whether, in the longer term, voting for Democraps and continuing to legitimize our currently corrupt, dysfunctional political system is the right strategy - as distinct from the more tactical choice to support the other partner in the two-party duopoly right now in these admittedly terrible times.
by
Joel S. Hirschhorn (118 articles, 22 quicklinks, 54 diaries, 472 comments)
on Sunday, October 22, 2006 at 4:10:31 PM
While I cannot and will not speak for others at this site, I can and do speak for myself. I will keep at least one of my eyes pointed towards the possible new iteration of congress.
Since I consider myself a libertarian, I am not tied to the two party system...technically anyway. I tend to vote Democratic just because I refuse to vote for any Republican on principle. I do not support any political party or other institution that does not support me. Since the right doesn't support me or my kind, I have no place for them in my life.
So, you can rest assured I will watch what happens. If there's something that's going on I feel is wrong, you can bet I'll be here writing about it.
Blessed be!
Pappy
by
Pappy (61 articles, 0 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 863 comments)
on Monday, October 23, 2006 at 2:24:52 AM
I very much agree with you that Democrats have been and are part of a "duopoly." I also agree with you that there needs to be a viable alternative to both the Democrats and Republicans. Unfortunately, in the interim between now and then, there is the problem of out of control Republicans. One can certainly look upon my vote as one of picking the "lesser evil" but right now I view the Democrats as being more workable than the Republicans. That is not to say that the Democrats are going to do the right things, by any means. Personally, I'm afraid that they are going to do the same with the Iraqi war as they did with Iran-Contra. However, given a choice at this point between, let's say, an Obama and a Delay, I'm going with Obama.What the Democrats must learn, and learn quickly, is that they are going to be held accountable. Therein is the great danger, as I see it, that voters will think that merely replacing Republicans with Democrats will rectify the problem. I agree with you in your very enjoyable book, Delusional Democracy - which I'm now reading with intent to review soon - that the problem is systemic and that Democrats have been willing conspirators in duping Americans into believing that any party, religion, etc. is going to bring "salvation." In other words, I'm very afraid that as soon as a Democratic congress is elected that too many Americans are going to think the problem is solved when it is far, far from being solved. The problem will only be solved when Americans take responsibility for the quality of government instead of acting as if they have no freedom to impact government. A non-violent revolution is necessary to take the government out of the hands of the elites - both Democrats and Republicans - and government to reside with us commoners.
by
Richard Mathis (128 articles, 103 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 121 comments)
on Monday, October 23, 2006 at 8:09:40 AM
