July 9, 2008, - 11:09 am

Conservative?: Sean Vannity Promotes Leftist Ted Koppel’s “Insights,” Anti-Semite Buchanan . . . Again!

By Debbie Schlussel
As much as he wishes he were Rush Limbaugh, yesterday offered us yet another insight to why Sean Hannity will never even come close. He’s simply a clueless individual who doesn’t know much about being conservative unless he’s mimicking what he just hear on Rush’s show or repeating some talking points the FOX News producers provided him.
Yesterday, on his nationally syndicated radio show and on his FOX News TV show, Vannity not only featured, but gushed over, both left-wing “journalist” Ted Koppel and anti-Semite Pat Buchanan.
On his radio show, Vannity gushed to Koppel. “Don’t be a stranger. We love having you on, and we love hearing your insights.” Perhaps one of Hannity’s tutors needs a refresher on just who Koppel is. For over two decades, Ted Koppel hosted a nightly late-night news show in which he repeatedly took up the mantle of left-wing causes. In the few occasions when “both side” of an issue were provided, he was condescending and rude to the conservative and helped the liberal along with friendly, softball questions. “Nightline” would have been more appropriately called “Leftline.”

seanhannityfreedom.jpg

tedkoppel2.jpgpatbuchanan.jpg

Sean Vannity & “Great Americans”:

Let Freedom Ring for Leftists & Anti-Semites

Now, with a gazillion cable channels and the internet, Koppel has basically disappeared from the scene. He was ousted by ABC from “Nightline,” the ratings of which sagged tremendously in his last years at the helm. And he considered taking a job at Al-Jazeera’s English language network. That’s how anti-American and left-wing Ted Koppel is. But, instead, Koppel took a job doing documentaries for the Discovery Channel. Still, he is basically out of the limelight.
So, who swoops in to rescue and promote Koppel and his documentary glorifying the Chi-Comms? None other than Sean Vannity. You’d never see this from Rush Limbaugh. Rush regularly and rightfully lambasted Koppel and his one-sided nightly “news” show. It’s simply nauseating to see, now that Koppel has fallen into relative obscurity, to see a so-called conservative–Sean Hannity–promote him and push him back into the mainstream.
Then, there’s Sean’s other friend, Pat Buchanan. As I recently told you, Vannity promoted Buchanan and praised and gushed over him and his new pro-Hitler book. But once wasn’t enough. Vannity promoted this draft-dodger–whom he calls “a great American”–on his radio and TV show again, last night.
Nauseating. And it should put the lie to Sean Vannity’s claimed pro-Israel positions. Sure, Vannity spouts the pro-Israel line. But it’s not heart-felt. He does it because he knows that, today, you really can’t be a star in the conservative movement if you’re not pro-Israel. It’s all an act for him. Otherwise, why would he promote this blatant anti-Semite Buchanan, the left-wing/anti-Israel Ted Koppel’s “insights,” and have been friends with neo-Nazi Hal Turner?
A refresher on some of the things Sean Vannity’s “Great American” Pat Buchanan said about Jews:
* Read Meryl Yourish’s “Pat Buchanan: Hitler’s Willing Prevaricator“.
Reader Thee Bruno:

William Buckley, years ago, said that Pat Buchanan was an anti-Semite and wrote a very long article in his National Review magazine supporting his charges.
Pat Buchanan said that Desert Storm was a war started by G.H.W. Bush at the behest of Israel.
Pat Buchanan engaged in Holocaust revisionism as to his defense of John Demjanjuk, the notorious SS guard at the Treblinka death camp during WWII, saying that its gas chambers could not have inflicted so many deaths.
Pat Buchanan & Sean Hannity: Perfect for each other.

Reader Charles:

I don’t know if you read his recent insane article, “Was the Holocaust Inevitable?” As I read it I knew the man had finally lost his mind. He first says Germany did not want any of it’s land back from the Versailles treaty!? Are you kidding me, that is how Hitler rose to power. He preached it! He sent troops into the Rhine to take it back! Those territories were where its’ industrial heartland! Second Hitler did take some of the French fleet when they surrendered. When we began our landings of North Africa they were firing on us! Second, Hitler was building a fleet, but rushed ahead with war. There were plans for a German aircraft carrier but they were scrapped. Hitler’s problem was he was impatient. He built defenses in the Rhine because if his invasion failed he needed defenses to bring troops back from the east! Brittan only lost her empire because of FDR. Churchill never wanted to give it up, but FDR forced him to. Too many conservatives still let him on the air. Another one of them is Laura Ingraham. She is another one who needs to be told to keep this jackass off the airwaves. When he is finally marginalized in the conservative movement I am throwing a big party.

Bottom line on Sean Vannity: When he’s not plagiarizing the work of others, the man is completely clueless and promotes the likes of Buchanan and Koppel.
If you promote the views of anti-Semites and leftists, you are no different than they are.

Related Posts with Thumbnails
Print Friendly




6 Responses

Pawn Vannity?
Schmuck.
Radio contract with ABC.
TV contract with FauX.
Pushes DisneyWorld. (ABC)
Is he Democan or Republicrat?
Great American putz.
BTW…
F Islam.

Nuggler on July 9, 2008 at 12:55 pm

Birds of a feather…..

diaphanous on July 9, 2008 at 4:27 pm

Don’t be so harsh on Sean Hannity, Debbie Schlussel.
After all, I hate to see a man crying on live TV.
The guy is “young” and is trying to make a career.
You know how it works in America:
Do whatever it takes to be rich, famous and have more power.

Independent Conservative on July 9, 2008 at 5:15 pm

Thee Bruno is a source? Can he stop the rabid profanities long enough to make a coherant statement?

Audacious on July 9, 2008 at 5:24 pm

Hannity is a good looking guy with a nice voice who works hard. He’s of middling intelligence, and clearly more Republican than Conservative regardless of what he says (or feels).
It always amazes me to see how Alan Colmes is far more intelligent than Hannity, but almost always loses the arguments. Why? Two easy reasons:
Even a dumb conservative can usually beat a brilliant liberal (if you can find one) for the simple reason that liberals have no discernible policy other than socialism. The only skill needed it so peel back whatever veneer of lies the liberal is using to hide that he’s a commie, and then show “he’s an anti-Freedom, anti-God, anti-YOU socialist swine…”
Even Hannity can do that over Colmes, who is clearly smarter.
The other reason is that while Colmes is smarter, he’s nowhere near as polished as a personality. Hannity has the look, the smile and the timing.
Brains and Presence are not synonymous. If you want to really see someone botch a TV appearance, catch Michelle Malkin. I deeply enjoy most of her blogging and respect her work ethic and intelligence. Moreover, she’s photogenic. She has the look for TV.
But when the lights come up, her brain appears to freeze. She misses things that, if she were writing, she’d knock out of the park. She becomes argumentative instead of thoughtful and insightful.
A lot like Alan Colmes, truth be told, only more so.
Sean might not be extremely bright, but he’s good on camera. That’s probably why he’s so smitten with other personalities.
Don’t forget, guys, that Hannity is an entertainer first and foremost. That’s his skill and his career. Like most entertainers, he’s easily impressed by other successful entertainers.
Say what you want about Koppel, and I have zero use for the man – but he did run a very successful show for a long time. As long as he could keep his Communist Rat B___ views under control, that guy could sell airtime.
When you’re Hannity, that’s what it’s all about…

RobM1981 on July 10, 2008 at 10:07 am

I just have to be nit-picky with Charles, who rightly criticizes Pat Buchanan’s historical mistakes, but makes mistakes himself.
Charles writes: He first says Germany did not want any of it’s land back from the Versailles treaty!? Are you kidding me, that is how Hitler rose to power. He preached it! He sent troops into the Rhine to take it back!
The Rheinland was part of Germany. Hitler didn’t march the troops in to “take it back”. The Rheinland was de-militarized as a way to prevent another German invasion of France. Hitler re-militarized the Rheinland. BTW, Hitler had a plane ready to flee to Sweden, if France had opposed his violation of the Versailles Treaty. After he successfully forced this on the West, Hitler knew the Democratic powers wouldn’t stand up to him. Hitler did take back the provinces of Alsace-Lorraine, which the French took after WWI and the Germans took in the Franco-Prussian war.
Charles wrote: Second Hitler did take some of the French fleet when they surrendered. When we began our landings of North Africa they were firing on us!
This implies that a German-controlled or operated French fleet fired on US troops landing in North Africa. Nope, it was strictly French-controlled, loyal to Vichy, French military that fired on us. If I recall, Gen Mark Clark met with Admiral Dahlin the night before the landings to make a deal to prevent the landings from being resisted. The British sunk most of the French fleet in a surprise attack to keep those ships from falling into Nazi hands.
Charles wrote: Second, Hitler was building a fleet, but rushed ahead with war. There were plans for a German aircraft carrier but they were scrapped. Hitler’s problem was he was impatient.
The aircraft carrier was a new one to me. Whether Hitler was impatient or not is a matter of opinion. If Hitler had left the management of the war up to his professional soldiers, they would have done a much better job of it. On the other hand, they wouldn’t have started the war either. They knew that Germany could not take on the world by itself, it was sure to lose. Germany made itself enemies of France, the British Empire, the US, the Soviet Union and all the occupied peoples. Oh, he created an at least two front war, strategic suicide for Germany.
Charles wrote: He built defenses in the Rhine because if his invasion failed he needed defenses to bring troops back from the east!
Not quite sure what this is about. The Rhine is in the West of Germany, which certainly wouldn’t help in an invasion from the East.

Jabba the Tutt on July 13, 2008 at 7:08 am

Leave a Reply

* denotes required field