What is exactly the purpose of Sean Hannity's attempts to convince his audience that Barack Obama is a "terrorist sympathizer"?
One would think that since Obama won, that Hannity - and many other lunatic-fringe conservatives - would have realized that there is only a tiny percentage of Americans that actually believe this nonsense.
Considering that such inflamatory and divisive rhetoric does nothing more than caused continued harm to the Republican party, it would seem that Hannity is more concerned with his ratings rather than the party that he allegedly represents.
It should be noted that:
None of the sixteen were convicted of bombings or any crime which injured another person, and all of the sixteen had served nineteen years or longer in prison, which was a longer sentence than such crimes typically received, according to the White House.[14] Clinton offered clemency, on condition that the prisoners renounce violence, at the appeal of 10 Nobel Peace Prize laureates, President Jimmy Carter, the Cardinal of New York, and the Archbishop of Puerto Rico.
via Wikipedia.
Consdiering Hannity's diefication of Ronald Reagan, it is more than just a shade ironic that Eric Holder was nominated by Reagan for Associate Judge of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, on which he served for five years.
Though I tend to do my best to avoid the "what if" language that is easily dispersed by people like Hannity ( ie: what if this were George W. Bush pardoning people in the FALN ) it will be interesting to see whom it is that Bush does pardon.
While that moment is yet to come, I don't see Sean Hannity, or any like him, doing anything to make his party any more relevant. The themes that he continually espouses are helping anyone.
No comments:
Post a Comment