Hannity

[NoCalMike 0]

I never agreed with the bastard, but he has totally shown the total gravy training ham that he really is. Throwing his support behind Arnold simply because he thinks he can win and has an ® by his name. This is such a joke. I wish Arnold would just change his allegience to himself and run as an indy, and then see Hannity back track and say, well umm......McKlintock is my guy dammit, great man he is.

[Vyce 0]

My, my, such emotion!

 

Any Republican SHOULD support Arnold. He's the only Republican who has a chance of winning there. It's pure pragmatism.

[NoCalMike 0]

My, my, such emotion!

 

Any Republican SHOULD support Arnold. He's the only Republican who has a chance of winning there. It's pure pragmatism.

if you look at the elections as horse races, where you are just trying to go with a winner, then yes Arnold is your man. However if you are conservative TO THE BONE, your loyalty should be with the true conservative and better suited man McClintock.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

I'd like to take this moment to plug CNN's Crossfire and say that Tucker Carlson (the main rightie on that show) likes McClintock and doesn't really like Arnold.

 

A 30 minute partisan shoutfest doesn't exactly make a great show, but it's certainly better than Hannity & Liberal To Be Determined.

[NoCalMike 0]

yes, Jotw, at least a dork like Tucker Carlson is keeping honest to his belief system and not just riding the gravy train, so he gets some respect for that.

[Guest MikeSC]

My, my, such emotion!

 

Any Republican SHOULD support Arnold.  He's the only Republican who has a chance of winning there.  It's pure pragmatism.

if you look at the elections as horse races, where you are just trying to go with a winner, then yes Arnold is your man. However if you are conservative TO THE BONE, your loyalty should be with the true conservative and better suited man McClintock.

Perhaps --- but if you're a CONSERVATIVE, Arnold comes the closest to matching your beliefs that has a prayer in heck of winning. It is pragmatism. A LOT of conservatives may not have agreed with Bush in 1992 --- but did voting for Perot help them AT ALL? No, it simply put a fairly left-wing guy (and Clinton WAS liberal, like it or not) in the White House.

 

Twice.

 

As the last 3 Presidential elections have shown, throwing your support behind a guy who CAN'T win can lead to the WORST possible choice for you winning the race.

-=Mike

[Guest MikeSC]

My, my, such emotion!

 

Any Republican SHOULD support Arnold.  He's the only Republican who has a chance of winning there.  It's pure pragmatism.

if you look at the elections as horse races, where you are just trying to go with a winner, then yes Arnold is your man. However if you are conservative TO THE BONE, your loyalty should be with the true conservative and better suited man McClintock.

Perhaps --- but if you're a CONSERVATIVE, Arnold comes the closest to matching your beliefs that has a prayer in heck of winning. It is pragmatism. A LOT of conservatives may not have agreed with Bush in 1992 --- but did voting for Perot help them AT ALL? No, it simply put a fairly left-wing guy (and Clinton WAS liberal, like it or not) in the White House.

 

Twice.

 

As the last 3 Presidential elections have shown, throwing your support behind a guy who CAN'T win can lead to the WORST possible choice for you winning the race.

-=Mike

[Vyce 0]

A 30 minute partisan shoutfest doesn't exactly make a great show, but it's certainly better than Hannity & Liberal To Be Determined.

 

I want everyone on Crossfire to be run over by a bus. Twice.

 

I hate everyone on that show.

[Guest MikeSC]

I'd like to take this moment to plug CNN's Crossfire and say that Tucker Carlson (the main rightie on that show) likes McClintock and doesn't really like Arnold.

 

A 30 minute partisan shoutfest doesn't exactly make a great show, but it's certainly better than Hannity & Liberal To Be Determined.

Let's be honest, JotW, you'll dislike ANYTHING on FNC.

 

Why even waste the time trashing a show on it?

-=Mike

[NoCalMike 0]

MikeSC, I think the only reason certain candidates have no chance of getting in is because of the way we are all conditioned towards politics. Until I found out on my own through snippets on tv, and/or internet and talk radio, I knew SQUAT about 3rd party candidates. I mean in highschool all we ever talked about as far as competition was a Democrat or Republican with maybe once in a blue moon and (I) thrown in there just for fun. People are conditioned to buy into the 2-party system.

[Guest MikeSC]

MikeSC, I think the only reason certain candidates have no chance of getting in is because of the way we are all conditioned towards politics. Until I found out on my own through snippets on tv, and/or internet and talk radio, I knew SQUAT about 3rd party candidates. I mean in highschool all we ever talked about as far as competition was a Democrat or Republican with maybe once in a blue moon and (I) thrown in there just for fun. People are conditioned to buy into the 2-party system.

AND?

 

You speak as if that is a bad thing.

 

Too many parties is a bigger problem as ALL the parties HAVE to be virtually identical to develop enough support to actually govern.

 

At least with OUR system, any "selling out" by a party (i.e Bush's asinine support of the Medicare drug "benefit") is infinitely harder to justify.

-=Mike

[NoCalMike 0]

I never said lets have 1000 parties. I'd say 3-5 is healthy.

[Firestarter 0]

yes, Jotw, at least a dork like Tucker Carlson is keeping honest to his belief system and not just riding the gravy train, so he gets some respect for that.

"Riding the gravy train?" Exactly what kind of benefits do you think Hannity will accrue by supporting Schwarzenegger, assuming he wins, as seems likely?

 

What ridiculous political naivete. It doesn't matter what McClintock's ideology is if it ensures that he'll never be elected. It's the equivalent of stepping onto one of two stones in the middle of a river. You can either step onto the first and have a good chance of landing safely, or you can leap for the second and probably drown. Say you've almost drowned several times trying to leap onto similar stones in the past. Don't you think California Republicans have learned?

 

If someone sees Schwarzenegger as at least a first step in the right direction, there's no shame in supporting him.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Let's be honest, JotW, you'll dislike ANYTHING on FNC.

 

Why even waste the time trashing a show on it?

-=Mike

I tend to dislike a lot of opinion shows, and as many of them are on NPR as they are Limbaugh, Hannity, Media Whore, etc. I watch Fox News Sunday sometimes depending on who's on and I see "Studio B" a lot since my parents watch it (and Shepard Smith is the guy there left with credibility anyway)

 

My two main tests of an opinion show are (if it's a solo show) whether the host can ever admit to being wrong on something, or (if it's a two-side show ala H&C or Crossfire) whether I can agree with the guys on both sides on different issues.

 

H&C is 83% about Hannity, so I can't ever come to a conclusion besides "Boy, that guy is a real ass."

[NoCalMike 0]

yes, Jotw, at least a dork like Tucker Carlson is keeping honest to his belief system and not just riding the gravy train, so he gets some respect for that.

"Riding the gravy train?" Exactly what kind of benefits do you think Hannity will accrue by supporting Schwarzenegger, assuming he wins, as seems likely?

 

What ridiculous political naivete. It doesn't matter what McClintock's ideology is if it ensures that he'll never be elected. It's the equivalent of stepping onto one of two stones in the middle of a river. You can either step onto the first and have a good chance of landing safely, or you can leap for the second and probably drown. Say you've almost drowned several times trying to leap onto similar stones in the past. Don't you think California Republicans have learned?

 

If someone sees Schwarzenegger as at least a first step in the right direction, there's no shame in supporting him.

but see it has nothing to do with a "step in the right direction" it has to do with, wow here is a popular figure head that can garner votes. Nevermind that 50% of more of his views are stuff we detest, fuck it, he is under the ® tent. Now here is this other guy but he is not as popular so lets blackball him and scream and yell at him that he is a spoiler and he should drop out so he won't hurt our precious sterling horse on his way to the victory lap. I gurantee that if Arnold had the same views but ran as an (I) or (D), the same fucks who support him would rail his ass as another, "hollywood liberal" and only bring up his liberal tendencies.

[NoCalMike 0]

Let's be honest, JotW, you'll dislike ANYTHING on FNC.

 

Why even waste the time trashing a show on it?

                -=Mike

I tend to dislike a lot of opinion shows, and as many of them are on NPR as they are Limbaugh, Hannity, Media Whore, etc. I watch Fox News Sunday sometimes depending on who's on and I see "Studio B" a lot since my parents watch it (and Shepard Smith is the guy there left with credibility anyway)

 

My two main tests of an opinion show are (if it's a solo show) whether the host can ever admit to being wrong on something, or (if it's a two-side show ala H&C or Crossfire) whether I can agree with the guys on both sides on different issues.

 

H&C is 83% about Hannity, so I can't ever come to a conclusion besides "Boy, that guy is a real ass."

83%? I'd say 95% at the least.....

[Hogan Made Wrestling 0]

There's nothing wrong with being pragmatic in politics. I personally have supported people who I wouldn't say were my personal favorite candidates, but I felt they were my best bet to get a representative whose views are reasonably close to my own. I'm certainly not going to be one of these idealists who votes for someone (or some party, as the case may be) with no chance of winning, then complains afterwards about not being fairly represented.

[Firestarter 0]

but see it has nothing to do with a "step in the right direction" it has to do with, wow here is a popular figure head that can garner votes.  Nevermind that 50% of more of his views are stuff we detest, fuck it, he is under the ® tent.

Exactly so. Thus it has everything to do with a step in the right direction. Even if 50% or more of his views are liberal, conservatives agree with him more than they do with Gray Davis or Cruz Bustamante. That is the choice California Republicans face. You can't fault them for choosing the lesser of two evils, and you can't honestly take issue with other Republicans supporting their choice. 50% bad means 50% at least tolerable. I'd take that over 75-99% bad any day of the week.

 

Now here is this other guy but he is not as popular so lets blackball him and scream and yell at him that he is a spoiler and he should drop out so he won't hurt our precious sterling horse on his way to the victory lap.

If he's nipping at the leader's tail and has no chance of winning himself, certainly.

 

I gurantee that if Arnold had the same views but ran as an (I) or (D), the same fucks who support him would rail his ass as another, "hollywood liberal" and only bring up his liberal tendencies.

Quite possibly. But he isn't running as an independent or as a Democrat, and even if he were, we Republicans would still prefer him to Davis or Bustamante.

[NoCalMike 0]

Well Marney, maybe if they went out and supported the other guy, gave him the unlimited resources to all the talking head shows like they do Arnold. Those types of tactics do work to get people's support. I mean I really shouldn't be caring since the GOP splitting the vote is a good thing for liberals.

 

It would be one thing if the choice was, Arnold or Cruz or Davis, but it is clearly not. Arnold is just being used in hope of getting a name into the office and then hopefully molding him like so.

[Firestarter 0]

Well Marney, maybe if they went out and supported the other guy, gave him the unlimited resources to all the talking head shows like they do Arnold. Those types of tactics do work to get people's support.

I assure you, neither the Republicans in California nor the RNC can automatically get you on Oprah or the Tonight Show. Being Arnold Schwarzenegger can.

 

It would be one thing if the choice was, Arnold or Cruz or Davis, but it is clearly not.

It is.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

I gurantee that if Arnold had the same views but ran as an (I) or (D), the same fucks who support him would rail his ass as another, "hollywood liberal" and only bring up his liberal tendencies.

Reverend Sheldon of the Family Values Council or whatever has already dubbed Arnold with his homespun RINO (Republican In Name Only) catchphrase, and his other hardline conservative groups are running ads where Arnold's face morphs into Davis'.

 

This is about more than supporting one guy who can win (although I do believe Hannity is a bit of an ass on this subject because he's generally Pro-Life and such, which is why I mentioned Carlson as he at least sticks to his guns), this is about the entire direction of the state GOP.

 

Every Republican convention from last year back in history has been a fight. Sheldon labeled Riordan a RINO if I remember right and the result was that idiot Bill Simon won because he got the backing of those groups for being a harder social Conservative. He failed miserably, going as far as outright lying about having proof of Davis breaking the law at one point. Some high in the GOP think that a softer social message could win more votes from swing voters and right-leaning Democrats, but these organizations and the fundies (yep, I said it) that are usually at the head of them won't give the nod to a pro-choice, pro gay union candidate to find out.

 

If Arnold wins, it could give those who want to soften the tone of the party the ammunition they need to take control of the party and maybe the races will be a little more exciting than Democrat vs Unelectable Republican.

[NoCalMike 0]

Well Marney, maybe if they went out and supported the other guy, gave him the unlimited resources to all the talking head shows like they do Arnold.  Those types of tactics do work to get people's support.

I assure you, neither the Republicans in California nor the RNC can automatically get you on Oprah or the Tonight Show. Being Arnold Schwarzenegger can.

 

It would be one thing if the choice was, Arnold or Cruz or Davis, but it is clearly not.

It is.

Well then I take up issue with Oprah & Jay Leno. I mean if the general public honestly wants to vote for a candidate based on softball joke-y questions lobbed by Oprah and Leno, then UGH, so be it, I guess. If Oprah & Jay Leno are honestly interested in politics and not just Arnold the celebrity then they would give equal time to all candidates, but they are in the ratings game not the political arena. So why should I give validity(although too many people do) to an appearance on Oprah/Leno etc?

 

Just to add, I saw McClintock on Hannity last night and not once did Hannity ever mention to him about how he thinks he is a good candidate and agrees with his principles, it was just 20 mins of, "drop out loser, you suck, you are hurting the golden boy etc......" I mean Hannity had not ONE positive thing to say to his own republican comrade. How betrayed he must feel.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

If McClintock had not attacked Arnold so mercilessly on talk radio, I might feel sorry about him.

 

Although yes, that proves my point about Hannity.

[Firestarter 0]

Well then I take up issue with Oprah & Jay Leno. I mean if the general public honestly wants to vote for a candidate based on softball joke-y questions lobbed by Oprah and Leno, then UGH, so be it, I guess. If Oprah & Jay Leno are honestly interested in politics and not just Arnold the celebrity then they would give equal time to all candidates, but they are in the ratings game not the political arena. So why should I give validity(although too many people do) to an appearance on Oprah/Leno etc?

For goodness sake. Validity has nothing to do with it. There are such things as visibility, recognition, and mass media exposure. Furthermore - oh, the hell with it. I'm too tired to teach Politics 101.

 

Although come to think of it, this is more like elementary school.

[NoCalMike 0]

Well then I take up issue with Oprah & Jay Leno.  I mean if the general public honestly wants to vote for a candidate based on softball joke-y questions lobbed by Oprah and Leno, then UGH, so be it, I guess. If Oprah & Jay Leno are honestly interested in politics and not just Arnold the celebrity then they would give equal time to all candidates, but they are in the ratings game not the political arena.  So why should I give validity(although too many people do) to an appearance on Oprah/Leno etc?

For goodness sake. Validity has nothing to do with it. There are such things as visibility, recognition, and mass media exposure. Furthermore - oh, the hell with it. I'm too tired to teach Politics 101.

 

Although come to think of it, this is more like elementary school.

Marney, settle down, you aren't TEACHING me anything. I fully understand that visibility and recognition and all that goes into it as far as who someone is going to vote for. Yes, Mass Media exposure is gonna help Arnold extremely, thank you for the insight. That is my whole point, that the average voter is going to be satissfied with Arnold because Jay Leno joked around with him about how to fix California. That is exactly the point here.

[Firestarter 0]

Marney, settle down, you aren't TEACHING me anything.

So I've noticed.

 

That is my whole point, that the average voter is going to be satissfied with Arnold because Jay Leno joked around with him about how to fix California.  That is exactly the point here.

Funny, your original point seemed to be that conservatives were dishonest, treacherous hypocrites for not eagerly shooting themselves in the foot. Yet again.

[Vyce 0]

I just don't get the venom labeled at Hannity in here.

 

Well, no, actually I do, given his political ideology, but what I'm confused about is people in here talking about him losing his credibility, etc.

 

Huh?

 

He's always been nothing more than a ultra-conservative pundit. It's not as if his opinion, or who he does or does not support in any given election, means a damn thing.

[Spicy McHaggis 0]

A few things here...

 

1. California has lost $48 billion (billion!). Screw social views. Economy is priority 1, 2, and 3. Arnold is fiscally conservative and has the best shot. He's also run businesses while Tom is a career politician.

 

2. McClintock is only 47 years old. He has a long career ahead of him. He will be a spoiler and cost himself that career if he doesn't drop out.

 

3. The alternative is BustaMECHA or letting Gumby stay in office.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Well, no, actually I do, given his political ideology, but what I'm confused about is people in here talking about him losing his credibility, etc.

 

Huh?

 

He's always been nothing more than a ultra-conservative pundit.

He is an Isabel-like source of hot air, that's for sure. But my thing is that he's a real social conservative and has bitched about Reupblicans that aren't the same. The minute Arnold comes on his show, he starts BUTT-kissing. Arnold told him over the phone he was Pro-Choice and Hannity hardly flinched, moving onto gay unions and stuff.

 

I guess I'm used to the Carlsons and the Ben Steins of the world, both of which have bashed Arnold for not being Republican enough for them. Although I'm still planning to vote for Arnold and probably wouldn't if he pandered to those groups. It's just funny to hear Hannity go from a right-side loudmouth into more of a centerlike personality when in Arnold's presence.

[Guest JMA]

When has Sean Hannity EVER had respect? He's an asshole and a right-wing extremist (nothing new there). He's basically Rush Limbaugh 2.0. I find that the guy hurts conservatives more than anything (by making them look like raving lunatics). But enough of that. People like Hannity are willing to put aside their "ideals" to keep the guy from the other party out of the position in question. That's blatantly obvious. As already stated, Hannity would bash Arnold unmercilessly if he were running as a Dem or an Indy. Hannity would paint the picture of him being just another "Hollywood Liberal" . That's enough of the douche for the time being.

 

Personally, I like Arnold and would vote for him if I was a Calif citizen.