Hannity—whore for the Bushites on the Ground Zero mosque

(Note: “whore” is not the right word for Hannity—see below.)

An interesting comment from a reader at Monica Crowley’s site:

I have positive things to say about Hannity and I’ve said them on this site, I even think he’s on target about half the time. He’s got a certain “carnival barker” talent, mainly in behalf of G.O.P. types who may or may not deserve it. Not even GRINGOBRO thinks his letting Karl Rove escape without going on record about the Ground Zero Mosque means he’s nothing but “The Architect’s Whore.” Ummah was perfectly justified to point out the dodge. Hannity’s shameful display there might have been due to strong pressures on him. Who knows? Maybe even from the Saudi-fied House of Bush, What if the Bush position is closer to Bloomberg’s? As a good proxy, Rove would have to protect Jebbie’s political future and therefore clam up. But what was Hannity’s obligation? The Mosque is a burning national issue. Hannity, to his shame, let the “Religion of Peace” Bush proxy weasel right out of it (At least Nanny Man Mayor Bloomberg hasn’t been that kind of weasel. He’s taken his stand, I’ll credit him with that much, which in a way towers over the Bush proxy.) Hannity giving cover to Rove was not his finest moment. It was disgraceful. Pressures? Maybe he was being something like a desperate housewife? Or maybe he was just being himself——another Republican apparatchik with radio talent?

Mike Berman writes:

“Hannity‚Äôs shameful display there might have been due to strong pressures on him. Who knows? Maybe even from the Saudi-fied House of Bush.”

Never forget that FOX News is, itself, Saudi-fied. The second largest stockholder of FOX’s parent company is Prince Alwaleed bin Talal.

- end of initial entry -

Paul K. writes:

It seems to be the policy at Fox to treat the regular contributors with kid gloves and not bring up any contradictions between what they are saying now and what they might have said previously. For example, for at least a month following Arizona’s passage of SB 1070, Karl Rove appeared on programs like O’Reilly and Hannity and spoke about the immigration issue, but was never asked to explain in what way Obama’s policy differs from that of George W. Bush.

Finally, Rove was hit by the question from Laura Ingraham, who was filling in for O’Reilly one night. He didn’t have much of an answer.

August 17

Mick writes:

I object to your improper use of “whore.” Whore is a person who is paid for her or his services. A slut on another hand does exactly the same but for the love of the action.

It is unlikely that Hannity is paid by Repubs, not directly anyway. He does it for the fun.

Sometimes people wonder how such an IQ limited, uneducated, and boring performer like Hannity can be so popular. Well, there is a huge market, probably anywhere between 20-40 million, who (1) are not very intelligent (IQ less than 95, barely enough to finish high school); (2) are interested in politics and to the right of Joe Biden politically, and (3) would listen to talk radio if they can identify with a host.

In other words, stupid conservative0leaning folks need their media hero and Hannity is it. Now, the hero does not have to be as stupid as his people (Oprah is 1000 times smarter than her welfare mothers public), but it does not hurt.

There is also a similar market on the left, but that market is serviced by TV, newspaper and local radio programming. So the market is fragmented and no big leftwing host can emerge.

LA replies:

I may be wrong on this, but I doubt that people with IQ under 95 take much interest in politics or spend their time listening to a radio or TV program that is all about politics.

I think you’re right that “whore” is not the right word for Hannity. He’s not being paid to say something he doesn’t believe. He is simply a loyal member of the Republican establishment.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at August 15, 2010 02:49 PM | Send

Email entry

Email this entry to:

Your email address:

Message (optional):