• Notes From Dave
  • my thoughts on some of the tough issues of short-term missions
  • God's Politics
  • jim wallis' smart, political, and God centered take on the issues of today
  • Progressive Eruptions
  • the liberal side of politics from shaw kenawe. a daily read of mine.
  • Conservatism With Heart
  • a conservative take on life and politics from a well connected missouri mom
  • Truthdig
  • left of center, and very informative. bob scheer's online journal
  • Coffee Klatch
  • home of the best coffee roaster in So. Cal. and where i learned to love coffee
  • The Coffee Geek
  • everything you need to know about coffee and how to make a great cup o' joe
  • Bleacher Report
  • varied sports blog, lots of attitude, and sometimes i'm a featured writer
  • Aubievegas
  • a mix of sports in general with a bent towards vegas and auburn
My Photo
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada

I am a self proclaimed coffee addict and Executive Director of a non profit missions agency working primarily in the Mexican cities of Oaxaca, Guadalajara, and Ensenada. I've been married for over 30 years to Chelle, and we have one grown son, Joseph, a graduate of Auburn University in Alabama.

Powered by Blogger

Friday, November 09, 2012

Dear Sean Hannity... welcome to the party...

Dear Mr. Hannity,

I try not to be overly political.

Yes I supported and even worked to elect Barack Obama to the presidency in 2008, but I try to see the other side of the equation.

Some days I am better at that than others and believe it or not, I have voted for, and even worked for Republican candidates in the past.

Like many, I believe issues are important and disdain politicians when they are fungible on their views simply for political gain.

Which brings me to my subject today, immigration.

Mr Hannity, you are a well known FOX News personality and popular conservative radio host.  Apart from Rush Limbaugh, you are the best known media figure in conservative circles and have been front and center in the conservative wars against Barack Obama, the liberal media and the progressive agenda.

Which makes what happened yesterday all the more remarkable.

You sir, the darling of the right-wing of the Republican Party, the man Dems love to hate for what they see as his extreme views, have "evolved" on immigration.

What's perhaps most amazing is that you have embraced a pathway to legalization that you have always derided as amnesty and a reward to lawbreakers.

I'm stunned.

Stunned, because for years you have been dismissive of any attempts to realistically deal with the millions of undocumented people living in our country.  Short of building a wall and deportations, you, and your network have had no constructive ideas on the subject and have frequently, along with the guests you have had on your shows, fanned the worst flames of anti-immigrant xenophobia.

Yet for some reason, you've evolved.

Well welcome to the party Sean.

Pardon me while I wipe the sarcastic look off my face.

You see, it would not be so bad, I mean after all, us realists knew for years that the GOP was going to have to get to this point, except that you and your guests are so often spiteful of President Obama when he changes his views, or evolves.  You were especially disdainful when he in fact used the term "evolved" for his position on gay marriage.

So let me ask you a question Mr. Hannity... when did this evolution take place?  And what changed for you?

Is there any possibility at all that this evolution, announced 2 days after the GOP lost a winnable election for the presidency and gave up seats in the Senate, had anything to do with those results?

Is it possible that you came to this need to evolve after looking at the demographics of the election results and, like some of the other ilk in the GOP, concluded that without some "evolution" you guys would soon be about as relevant as the old Whig Party?

Or is it the product of a long process of reflection, prayer and study?

Seriously, I'd like to know.

Because like you, I wonder whether people who change their positions overnight are just doing so for political expediency.  The type of political expediency that represents all that is bad about politics here in the United States and which you frequently decry as unprincipled on your shows.

In all seriousness Sean, we're glad to have you on board.  Even if it was solely for naked political ambition, it's the right thing to do.



Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments on "Dear Sean Hannity... welcome to the party..."


Anonymous Anonymous said ... (12:46 PM) : 

So you voted for Obama in 2008 but you don't mention who you voted for in 2012. I am just wondering if you have evolved in the past 4 years.


Blogger Dave Miller said ... (1:11 PM) : 

Anon... I saw no reason to change my vote.

I am not totally happy with President Obama, and I think he personally lacks some political skills, but I believe he is a better president than Mitt Romney would have been.

I also believe that for the most part, I will not be surprised by President Obama, or his views. he has been fairly consistent.

The same cannot be said of Mr. Romney who has been all over the map, not just in comparison to his MA days, but during his campaign.


Anonymous Anonymous said ... (1:23 PM) : 

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.


Blogger Dave Miller said ... (7:11 PM) : 

Anon, I'm all for lively debate, but you gotta keep it clean and factual...

You failed on both counts so I deleted you


Blogger BB-Idaho said ... (7:51 AM) : 

In that same genre, I watched a news show this morning where 4 GOP
pols discussed the problem of their party attracting younger and minority voters. Jon Huntsman, congresswoman Cathy McMorris Rogers (WA), Gary Bauer(American Family Values) and Carlos Gutierrez, (former Bush adminstration & Romney advisor.
There was much disagreement between the far right and the moderates, with Huntsman expressing
to Bauer that being a decent family man did not require forcing your values on others (Bauer's specialty) and Gutierrez stating
that many people were afraid of the GOP because the natterings of the far right. IMO, Huntsman and
Gutierrez were right...and as long as those types are marginalized, the GOP will be something to be
'afraid' of.


Blogger dmarks said ... (5:02 AM) : 

I'm probably to the "left" of Obama on immigration. After the election, I shunned all the commentators. I wish I would have heard this.

Immigrants, including illegal ones, who risk a lot to come to America to work hard and build a better life for themselves and their families are nothing but an asset to the nation. A win-win-win-win-win situation.


Blogger Dave Miller said ... (8:42 AM) : 

Dmarks... you, in my opinion, are correct, but the majority of the GOP does not agree with you.

Here's something for you, and others in the GOP...

Is it possible to do something illegal, and not "be" illegal?

Or to put it another way, can Juan cross the border illegally, and not be seen as an illegal, rather, just as someone who did something illegal?

How someone answers this will tell lots about how much they understand about the depth of the GOP issue with latinos...


Blogger Dave Miller said ... (8:43 AM) : 

BB... i was reading about that interview as you, apparently were posting... good stuff in it indeed...


Blogger dmarks said ... (8:50 AM) : 

Dave: Your question seems like a semantic game. Is calling an illegal alien an "illegal" any different from calling a person who practices the Roman Catholic faith a "Catholic" ?

I have no problem with accurate terms. Such as calling illegal "illegals". I suppose we could call them foreign criminals instead? Would that make you happy?

But I think the crime is about as harmless as jaywalking.



Blogger Dave Miller said ... (3:22 PM) : 

You can call them whatever you want...

As many in the GOP do... and it explains why soon the GOP will be seeing Texas go the way of the Dems...

Any people group should have some intrinsic right to identify terms they feel are offensive when used to describe them.

Italians don't like term WOP, Jewish people don't like Hymie, Polish people take offense to polack, and black people take offense to nigger.

Interesting that when Hispanics, or people who are here without documentation, they do not get to define a descriptive term that is offensive to them... at least in the Republican Party.

I wonder why that is... and what the future ramifications will be for the GOP moving forward...


Blogger dmarks said ... (5:38 AM) : 

"Any people group should have some intrinsic right to identify terms they feel are offensive when used to describe them."

It's all about accuracy and proper use of the English language. If a group is distinguished by an illegal. criminal activity, "illegals" is not racist, It is just accurate.

Your statement implied that illegals/etc is some sort of ethnic slur. When it clearly is not: check here for a list that includes anti-Latino slurs, of which this term is not one.

"Italians don't like term WOP, Jewish people don't like Hymie, Polish people take offense to polack, and black people take offense to nigger."

All of which are on that list. In distinct contrast to "illegals", which is an objective reference to a status, and has nothing at all in common with Wop, sp*c, or the N-word.

If you don't like using accurate terms, then there is no hope for you on this particular issue.


Blogger dmarks said ... (10:46 AM) : 

An addendum: This "people group" also has the right to change the law. I think that is the best course, rather than ignore that lawbreaking is illegal. And I would support then on this course, rather than mangling the objective use of English words.

Changing the law makes them no longer illegals. Leaving them illegal and making a big deal over not calling them that is not a good solution, IMHO.


Blogger Dave Miller said ... (11:19 AM) : 

Dmarks... how is the use of WOP offensive in your world? isn't it just a true descriptive?

After all it literally means With Out Papers.

But people of Italian descent determined that they were offended by technically correct term and it has since been determined to be offensive.

Answer me this... why are you unwilling to allow people to determine for themselves what they find to be offensive and then respect them enough to refrain from such terms, regardless of your understanding of English?

That speaks volumes about someone's character.

If people choose to use terms that offend others, even if they believe those terms are accurate, what hope is there for civil discourse?


post a comment