FOR THE SAKE OF THE NATION

SEAN HANNITY


Sean Hannity must be getting desperate. He's starting to beg. During his radio program on Wednesday, Hannity actually resorted to pleading with Democratic voters to stay home "for the sake of the nation." From Media Matters:

I want you [Dem voters] to stay home on Election Day because you must accept the fact that your party has abandoned you. You've gotta accept the fact that your vote doesn't matter anyway. So all you Democrats, stay home.

[...]

So I'm saying, for the sake of the nation, I think you Democrats should stay home. For you there's no reason to vote. But you Republicans out there, the ones -- there's enough people in this audience to make a real, significant difference in really key important states.

Sort of an odd comment (dare I say Freudian slip?) about Dem votes not mattering, don't you think? Still, to go on and on about this is so unseemly to me. And of course there's the fact that the tirade is about as effective and useful as discussing birth control options with a 90-year old woman given that the majority of his audience is either die-hard conservatives or die-hard liberals who only listen to hear the latest stupidity eminating from his piehole and wouldn't be inclined to pay any heed to his request to supress Democratic voter turnout. Have the GOP and their mouthpieces become so flat-out desperate that they've actually taken to a sort of semi-voter suppression? What next, does Hannity tell his Dem audience that they are required to vote November 8th while all Repubs vote Nov. 7? I bet it's coming.

ATTACK OF THE CLONES

BRIT HUME & FRED BARNES


As I have blogged about in the past, certain rightwing bobbleheads have made it their mission to demonize current House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi in an effort to rile up the GOP base and make certain that Pelosi does not become House Speaker, assuming a Democratic takeover of the House this November. Bill O'Reilly fears for the future of the nation with a California liberal like Pelosi in charge of the House while Sean Hannity feels that keeping Pelosi from becoming House Speaker is something worth dying for.
On Sunday, another Fox bobblehead put forth his two cents in attacking Pelosi, this time pulling stuff directly from of his own posterior. Brit Hume had this to say about her (via http://mediamatters.org/items/200610150005):

Let's talk about this possibility -- it seems likely now, in almost all cards that the Democrats will get control of the House, which will bring us two years of Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who is not a popular figure or respected figure nationally. Her behavior will be more visible than ever, more conspicuous than ever. What effect does that have on the possibility of Hillary Clinton being nominated or even elected in 2008? I think it is a very good question. I suspect the effect would not be terrifically positive.

First of all, the claim by Hume that Pelosi is not a popular figure doesn't hold water. A full forty percent of those polled, according to a recent USA Today/Gallup poll either have never heard of her or have no opinion of her (35% have a favorable opinion with 26% unfavorable). Yet, she is "not a popular or respected figure"? And as for her effect on a potential Hillary Clinton presidential run, how would he 'suspect the effect would not be terrifically positive'? Did he use some special glasses or perhaps jump into Doc Brown's DeLorean with Marty and zoom forward to 2008 to see what two years of life under Speaker Pelosi would be like?

Of course, the lies didn't stop there, as The Weekly Standard executive editor Fred Barnes (a frequent guest on the "fair and balanced" news network) attempted to spin the same schlock about Pelosi's unpopularity, claiming, "[...] Pelosi is the most unpopular national politician in America." Is he out of his ever-loving mind?! I mean really, how did he actually write that last sentence without cracking up laughing? The intellectual dishonesty of the spinmeisters on the Right is enough to make a reality-based individual want to barf.
Excuse me for a moment while I borrow judiciously from Media Matters again:

Bush:
According to an October 10-11 Fox News/Opinion Dynamics Poll, 54 percent of respondents had an "unfavorable" opinion of Bush, compared with 43 percent who had a "favorable" opinion. The October 6-8 USA Today/Gallup poll put Bush's "unfavorable" rating at 55 percent.

Cheney:
An October 5-8 CBS News/New York Times poll put Cheney's "unfavorable" rating at 48 percent, compared with the 20 percent of respondents who had a "favorable" opinion of him.

Rumsfeld:
According to a September 22-24 CNN poll, 50 percent of respondents had an "unfavorable" opinion of Rumsfeld, compared with 35 percent who viewed him favorably. Moreover, the October 6-8 CNN poll found that a majority of respondents (52 percent) thought Rumsfeld should be fired as defense secretary, and 48 percent thought he should resign (compared to 41 percent who thought he should not).

Hastert:
The October 6-8 CNN poll found that 36 percent of respondents had an "unfavorable" opinion of Hastert, compared with 28 percent who viewed him favorably, 24 percent who had never heard of him, and 12 percent who were "unsure." The October 6-8 USA Today/Gallup poll also put Hastert's unfavorability rating at 36 percent, compared with 27 percent who viewed him favorably, 23 percent who had "no opinion," and 13 percent who had never heard of him.

Frist:
The October 6-8 CNN poll found that 36 percent of respondents had an "unfavorable" opinion of Frist, compared with 28 percent who viewed him favorably, 22 percent who had never heard of him, and 14 percent who were "unsure."

Sadly, this is all just a lame attempt to paint Pelosi as a scary ogre in an effort to drum up Republicans supporters to get out to the polls in three weeks. I think it speaks quite poorly about the right if their main message is, "Gee, I know we in the GOP have done a crappy job, what with a huge deficit and the Iraq debacle and some other stuff too, but can you imagine how much worse it would be if that Pelosi-monster were in charge of the House?"

WASTE OF BREATH?

O'REILLY AND HANNITY


I've posted recently about Sean Hannity's and Bill O'Reilly's attacks on Nancy Pelosi in an attempt to demonize her and make her supposedly less palatable as the new House Speaker, assuming the Dems gain a majority in the House. Hannity feels that making certain Pelosi does not become Speaker is something worth dying for while O'Reilly fears for the very future of this nation with a liberal married mother of five at the helm of the House.
But Del Ali, posting at Political Wire, thinks these types of attacks are pointless:

In October 1994, the Democratic leadership began attacking Congressman Newt Gingrich with both ads and on Sunday morning talking head programs with a simple theme of, "You the voters may be angry at President Clinton and our failure to come up with national health care and our corruption in the House leadership among those involved with the Post Office Scandal, but can you imagine a Speaker Gingrich? In 2006, the Republican leadership has begun attacking Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi with both ads and on the Sunday morning talking head programs as well by telling voters that nothing could be worse than a Speaker Pelosi in spite of the Page Scandal, Iraq, etc.

The GOP leadership may want to seriously consider dropping this strategy because of two reasons. First, Pelosi is no where near as polarizing as Gingrich was in 1994. In fact, even after Gingrich's unfavorable rating sky rocketed after he made his infamous claim that Susan Smith, the South Carolina mother who murdered her two children and then blamed an African American man for it was the fault of Democrats in power, the Democrats had their heads handed to them on election night. Number two, Pelosi does not have the name recognition or the high profile that Newt Gingrich had nationally. Our polling shows that at this same moment in time, Gingrich's name recognition nationally was 25 points higher than Nancy Pelosi's. In the end, voter disgust towards Democrats in 1994 superceded any feelings voters may have had about Newt Gingrich. In fact, Gingrich's unfavorable rating was 12 points higher nationally than Pelosi's.

Now, I doubt that the bobbleheads on the right will heed this information, but it is interesting to see history repeating itself; at least one part of history. Let's hope that the other part - namely the majority party being thrown out on their collective asses come election day - also hold to form.

PELOSI IS COMING! PELOSI IS COMING!!

BILL O'REILLY


It appears to me that the talking heads over at Fox News have made it there mission to do and say anything and everything in order to avert the greatest disaster that America would ever face - Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House. Recently it was Bill O'Reilly's turn to take a bat to the Pelosi pinata as he warned his viewers that if the Dems win control of the House in a few weeks, Pelosi-zilla and her crazy, fag-loving, pot-smoking, ultra-liberal San Francisco values would run amok in the hallowed office of the Speaker and reverberate through the halls of Congress. The message here was clear - don't vote for Republicans because they're the better party, instead vote for them because the alternative is a Speaker who has remained married to one man and raised five kids and even waited until they all started school before she started her career. Truly the End of Days is near with a scoundrel like that in charge of the House.
About a month or so ago, Sean Hannity donned his khaki overalls and strapped his proton pack to his back and armed himself with his particle thrower in order to go hunting for the evil Pelosi-monster (with Ray Parker Jr. theme music pumping in the background, no doubt). On his radio show, he posited the notion that stopping Pelosi from becoming House Speaker is something that is worth dying for. And now O'Reilly felt is was his civic duty to warn America that a vote for a Dem this November is a vote for all manner of lewd and lascivious conduct in the halls of Congress (oh wait, we've already got that in the House).

In all honesty, I think all of this speaks volumes for the dearth of anything to actually run on in the Republican Party. Things have gotten so desperate as more and more unfavorable polls come out that the GOP and their annointed mouthpieces on Fox News must spend their time belting out asinine ad hominem attacks rather than telling voters why they should vote for Republicans.

It just popped into my head that Repubs are always attacking Dems for having no plan for anything, but I cannot remember for the life of me what the GOP plan is if they happen to hold onto the congress. Could it be because they have no plan (other than to bend over and take whatever Bush-suppository he deems to jam in their collective asses over his final two years in office)? Could it be, as is evidenced by Hannity's and O'Reilly's attacks, that they have nothing to run on so they instead spend time and money attacking Dems and riling up the base? If nothing else, one thing has been made certainly clear - this Grand Old Party is a long way aways from their Contract with America days. And let us hope and work and pray that their days as the majority party in Washington are numbered.

[h/t to News Hounds for this one.]

PO-TAY-TO, PO-TAH-TO

SEAN HANNITY

John Walsh of America's Most Wanted fame was on HANNITY & colmes recently and he was expressing his thoughts about the Mark Foley scandal. The two had had a working relationship getting child protection legislation passed. Walsh discussed his feelings of betrayal given Foley's stalking of children through the internet, which is basically what the legislation they worked on together would outlaw. Suddenly, Hannity started a bit of a tirade about former New Jersey governor Jim McGreevy's sexual pecadillos (long story short- McGreevy was a closeted gay who was married and who recently came out - he supposedly liked cruising truck stops to engage in sexual activities with men).

Of course, John Walsh quickly distanced himself from the Hannity as it appeared that Hannity was attempting to equate being gay with being a sexual predator of children. Hannity attempted to "clarify" his comments by instead equating sexual predation of young children with cruising for strangers to engage in consensual homosexual activity. And again, Walsh wasn't biting as he made it perfectly clear that consensual sex involving adults has nothing to do with a 52 year old congressman engaging in improper and potentially illegal activity with underage congressional pages. I'm certain that Hannity's attempts at moral equivalency between the two played big with his conservative audience who more than likely would tend to agree with his interpretation. Fortunately, John Walsh is a better man than Sean Hannity and much of his fanbase.

A VOICE OF REASON?!

MICHELLE MALKIN


Yes, you can stop laughing. Michelle Malkin is actually viewing this the proper way. From her blog:

At this point, I think the GOP is making a mistake banging the drum so hard over the apparent far left/MSM orchestration of the story. However long the other side sat on the e-mails and IMs, the fact is that Mark Foley--and Mark Foley alone--is responsible for giving his enemies something to spring upon his campaign in the first place.

Of course, guys like Sean Hannity are obviously not heeding Malkin's wise words on this. From Hannity (via http://thinkprogress.org/2006/10/03/hannity-conspiracy-video/:

HANNITY: Who knew? Why did they leak it now, 30- some-odd days out of an election, when they had this for three years? That’s a big question in my mind.
...
HANNITY: But do you think politics is involved in the timing of the release of this, after the Republican primary in Florida, which makes it difficult to replace his name on the ballot, which you can’t do, in other words, to replace the candidate?
...
HANNITY: We see a lot of things unfolding just before an election. You see that this is just pure politics. Is there any principle left?
...
HANNITY: Apparently some of these instant messages are three years old. So I think we all have to have a question raised here. I want to know why these instant messages were held back until now. Who knew about them? Why did they hold them back? Did they do it for political reasons? In other words, were they held back to maximize the political impact before an election?

Jeez, Sean! We get it! You think that the Dems sat on this until just before the elections. It doesn't matter how you phrase the question, you're still barking up the wrong tree. First of all, Dems were purposely kept out of the loop on this, and second (and most importantly), it doesn't matter!!! Foley is a sexual predator looking to score with underage boys. Malkin said it best - "the fact is that Mark Foley--and Mark Foley alone--is responsible for giving his enemies something to spring upon his campaign in the first place."

See, for once, Malkin was able to put politics aside. Do you know what she sounds like - a mother. A mother who cares about sexual predators that have easy access to children like Foley did. When I first read her post, I was in shock because I believe that it may actually be the first time that I agree with her. She is right on the money on this one. And honestly, if I can agree with Malkin on something, then I guess there's hope for us all.