Posted on 10/11/2005 6:12:13 PM PDT by Mia T
OUTSTANDING! Thanks soooo much Mia T.
I to was stunned listening to the interview....thought I was listening to someone else other than Hannity...
A total disgrace of an interview....anyone who would put another clinton back in the White House deserves everything they get...
NO CLINTON SHALL EVER RULE THE WHITE HOUSE AGAIN!!! (2008 motto)
****
This certainly being true............. Sean Vanity will always be a self-absorbed, insecure, nasally, sanctimonious, shlub. He is one of the worst interviewers in the country, constantly concerned with his own thoughts rather than the person being questioned, and if he is one of the conservatives' most popular spokesmen in the media, the right is in deep trouble. The kid comes off so self righteously that it is repulsive.
I agree with his politics in general, but he is so full of himself it's impossible to watch him on tv or listen to him on the radio for any period of time. Imagine how sanctimonious he must come off to those who do not agree with his politics!
And yes, he blew the interview, but what else is new.
Good letter!!
A minor point of disagreement.
"...And so we had two more years of the clinton Nano-Presidency. And with it, inexorably, 9/11."
We would not have gotten GW Bush with a Clinton exit but rather GW (Global Warmed) Al Gore and things may have gotten worse.
She would've been persona non grata around the demented two... and to a Dem, journalist/campaign-advisor... that's a death sentence. You can bet his 'friendship' meant more than whatever happened to her personally in the past.
It is more likely that Estrich is just as good a liar as Clinton... and that Hannity LET her get away with it.
Dear Mr. Hannity- It appears that you allowed your "friendship" with Susan Estrich affect your interview this afternoon. (Or was it the favorable mention in Estrich's shameless new polemic, The Case For Hillary Clinton?) While you correctly went directly to one of the issues that should automatically disqualify clinton for any position of power, the clinton rape of Juanita Broaddrick, you sabotaged your own line of attack. Your setup question, whether hillary 'believed' bill, was a dodge. And a not very artful one, at that. As you well know, the issue isn't whether hillary 'believed' bill; the issue is whether hillary participated. In that rape as well as in all the other rapes and predations. You of all people should know this. You interviewed Broaddrick on precisely that point. (A video and analysis of that interview to follow.) Broaddrick described to you in detail the meeting with hillary that occurred two weeks after the rape. hillary clinton went to that meeting for the express purpose of warning Broaddrick to keep her mouth shut. (She and the rapist entered the room, she approached Broaddrick (whom she had never met before) while a slinking rapist stayed behind, she proceeded to warn Broaddrick, she and the rapist immediately left.) In your original Estrich-Broaddrick interview, you were honest about the real issue. But even then you ultimately failed because you neglected to expose the following clinton casuistry being spun by Estrich: On point 1, the statute of limitation on rape applies in a court of law, not in the voting booth. The question we are deciding isn't whether the clintons should be thrown in the slammer (another matter for another day); the question is less onerous, (from the clintons' perspective, anyway): Do the clintons have the character to be president? The reductio ad absurdum is Christopher Shays' comment, made after he viewed the Ford building evidence on the rape of Broaddrick: "I believed that he had done it. I believed her that she had been raped 20 years ago. And it was vicious rapes, it was twice at the same event." Asked if the president is a rapist, Shays said, "I would like not to say it that way. But the bottom line is that I believe that he did rape Broaddrick." And yet Shays voted not to impeach. Purportedly because he asked the wrong question. ("Where was the obstruction of justice?") (Any cognitive dissonance Shays may have experienced rendering that verdict was no doubt assuaged by the political plum clinton gave to Mrs. (Betsi) Shays...) And so we had two more years of the clinton Nano-Presidency. And with it, inexorably, 9/11. Regarding points two and three: Juanita's bitten lip, swollen to twice its normal size, the hallmark of a serial rapist, is the obvious counterexample. I hope you do better tonight. Instead of hawking Susan's book, try, for a change, to REALLY nail the clintons. If women truly understood the clintons' 30-year history of abuse of women, there would be no way these two profoundly dysfunctional scourges would be elected dogcatcher. Sincerely, P.S. How you can respect a rape victim (Estrich), whose view of these two rapists bends with the political wind, is beyond me. P.P.S. As for the clinton "blueprint" being laid out by Estrich in this... eh... book, an intellectually honest interview would have done a helluva lot more than all that excessive handwringing you exposed us to tonight. The Estrich eyewash exposes the clintons' main strategem: tie the fate of the clinton candidacy to the fate of all women in a cynical attempt to get the women's vote, (recognizing that the women's vote is hardly a lock for hillary--there is a not insignificant number of leftist women who can't stomach missus clinton... and are actively working to short-circuit her candidacy). Estrich argues that missus clinton is qualified, that indeed she is the only woman who is qualified. If either claim were true, the clinton agitprop would have modeled "Commander-in-Chief" after missus clinton. But they didn't. They modeled the "Commander-in-Chief" after missus clinton's infinitely more qualified potential opponent, Condi Rice. For discussion, see HILLARY'S COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF PROBLEM This clinton-Estrich ploy to get the women's vote, and perhaps even more so, the ploy's utter transparency, are an insult to all women. The clintons' fundamental error is always the same: They are too arrogant and dim-witted to understand that the demagogic process in this fiberoptic age isn't about counting spun heads; it's about not discounting circumambient brains.
Mia T
October 11, 2005
Addendum: (10.11.05, 10 PM)
The Hannity-and-Colmes Interview
YOU ARE 100% CORRECT
Thank you. I wish he were a lot more mature. The conservative movement suffers in the long run because he's in love with himself too much.
You are so right - they both are an insult to women, marriage, and children.
Two points---
1. Estrich mentioned hillary clinton's 'Education Study', which was geared to teacher testing - remember that big issue, she did in the early 80's. Well, a little secret about that study - it was abruptly aborted when it was discovered that a large majority of AK teachers could not pass the test. and second point.
2. Hannity, please explain why Fox showed the shot of their hands as they bounded up those stairs. This couple is the poorest example of 'a couple' and with their history why zero in on those hands. I found it very insulting to all the couples that respect and love each other. The clinton's disrespect for women, marriage, and children has been thrown in our face for the last 15 years. Please don't further insult with 'those hands'.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.