Hannity’s Spin: Even He
The other day Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) criticized the Obama administration's reliance on "czars." Sean Hannity seemed to consider the news a big deal.
He bellowed that "even Russ Feingold is turning on President Obama and his 'czars.'" And: "You know things are going bad for Barack Obama when even Russ Feingold is out to get him."
Hannity does not do nuance or subtlety or, for that matter, intelligent discourse, but "even" he ought to understand that disagreement does not necessarily correspond to "out to get him." Feingold also has expressed reservations regarding Obama's approach to the war against jihad. Feingold remains a supporter, we suspect. He certainly will vote for Obama against a Republican challenger in 2012.
The Hannity statement would be insignificant, of course, except that it symbolizes widespread intellectual sloth. Many on the right accuse the left of having no values except the thirst for power. Feingold's criticism of Obama suggests precisely the opposite, as do the skeptical comments appearing regularly in The Nation, The New Republic, and other left and left-center publications.
In recent years it has been the right that betrayed its legacy for the golden calf. Conservatism also has grown less tolerant of dissent, or open discussion, among its own ranks. To criticize the so-called movement from the center-right, as Kathleen Parker and others have done, is to invite scorn from the factions responsible for conservatism's self-inflicted humiliations.
The questioning from a Feingold ultimately will redound to the benefit not only of the Obama administration but to liberalism generally. Republicans and conservatives would have benefited from similar inside criticism during the previous eight years. Oh, we forget. From time to time, Republicans did raise legitimate concerns -- only to be read out of the party by purists.
Reader Reactions
Thetruth: Does your rhetoric just apply to conservatives since those are the only examples given in your rant? Or do you also hold Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and their liberal ilk to their same standard? If not, you are no better than those you claim are the problem. I’m so tired of reading your trash comments on the RTD site. Everyone knows you’re a joke and ignores your ridiculous comments. Do us all a favor and beat it. Thanks!
Speaking of spreading lies, google the name Tawana Brawley
Why can’t the truth tell the truth.
He loves to mention Rush Limbaughs admitted prescription drug use, for which he received treatment but fails to mention the illegal drug use of his man Obama.Not to mention Obama’s insatiable addiction to power and control for which there is no cure.
That addiction to power is fed by the blind allegiance and support of his followers.
My hypocrisy meter is pegged…. to the left.
I disagree with the “tsar” short-hand scoffaw:
1. The most influential “tsarist” positions are subject to confirmation by the senate.
2. These offices are created and funded only through the consent of the congress.
3. All of the executive bureaucracy is subject to congressional review.
An executive branch officer utilizing professional appointments to staff the non-career positions of the executive branch is an operational power of the presidency. Congress, specifically, has over the course of several decades negotiated the terms of these appointments (i.e. the living constitution; that which is not explicit…); following the Iran-Contra scandal, an example of a “tsar” gone bad, NSC officials in the Reagan Administration were subject to further congressional oversight and management limiting their powers and clarifying their accountability. This is true of all federal offices.
I’m still not entirely clear as to what the controversy is; balanced powers and shared management? Professional appointments? The congress is not without recourse. No one operates alone in the bureaucracy, no one is above the law.
A “tsar” has no formal powers that can’t be immediately impeded by the judiciary or the legislature, hence they aren’t autonomous, autocratic, or “tsarist” in any sense, but it does sound catchy and a broad stroke seems to paint the preferred narrative of critique in this case.
“out to get him”, whoever and whenever “him or her” pops up, is the single narrow degree of capable intellect within the likes of Sean Hannity, and we can dump Rush Limbaugh and some others into the same chamber pot.
When you review the education and experiences of such people, we find little substance of qualification for debatable abilities. They stick to the one avenue on their one-way map; attack-only.
I use to listen to Hannity when he was not on Fox, but radio only, back when Clinton was President. Five days a week, the same old broken record; Clintons, Clintons, Clintons (ditto for the drug addict in Palm Beach).
People like Hannity are trash by the road of our lives; an eye sore as we make our journey, best be avoided as a distraction that can cause mishaps of rational thought.
Recent example of how these potholes in the road is Limbaugh last week running with an August hoax about President Obama’s Columbia U thesis re: the Constitution. When Oxycodone Rush rushed with glee in “got him” Obama mode; then, found he had been duped, got it wrong, he justified the wrong as a right; as after all, “we know the President thinks such and such”. All we know for sure is trash is trash and some of it gets smelly. Stick around it for long and the stench carries further down the road, similar to that of a skunk several miles after you drive past it. Takes awhile to fumigate your vehicle; your mind.
So… what about the ‘czar’ issue? This article states it ‘seems to be a big deal’. Actually, it IS a big deal and that was the point Hannity was making. If even folks on the left are getting the heebie-jeebies over them, then maybe its time to reflect upon their constitutionality. This is not a partisan issue. Bush and his predecessors started a trend of abdicating executive authority to these hybrid positions and this practice has accelerated in the current Administration. What are they doing? Where does their power to do what they do come from? What public oversight exists of their functions? The worm turns. ‘Conservatives’ may be leading the charge today on this issue, but what happens in the future if a less-than-liberal executive capitalizes upon a practice that is never challenged? T-D, stop trying to score political points on this one.
Post a Comment(Requires free registration)
- Please avoid offensive, vulgar, or hateful language.
- Respect others.
- Use the "Flag Comment" link when necessary.
- See the Terms and Conditions for details.
Advertisement