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

By: Jabba the Tutt

Jabba the Tutt — Sun, 13 Jul 2008 07:08:59 +0000

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.

By: RobM1981

RobM1981 — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 10:07:46 +0000

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…

By: Audacious

Audacious — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 17:24:34 +0000

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

By: Independent Conservative

Independent Conservative — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 17:15:16 +0000

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.

By: diaphanous

diaphanous — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 16:27:06 +0000

Birds of a feather…..

By: Nuggler

Nuggler — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 12:55:28 +0000

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.