{But he does know that he loves Ronald Reagan. And he knows that if you’d love Reagan too, what a wonderful world this would be (He being Sean Hannity, not Sam Cooke, that is).}
I got quite a kick out of a short portion I heard today of the Sean Hannity radio show. Sean Hannity, of course, is one of the top names in the type of “conservative” talk radio which I have generally criticized quite a bit here on this blog.
Hannity, like his other radio cohorts, has been critical of the way President Obama has responded to the recent, intensely disputed Iranian presidential election (as well as just about every other thing Obama has done or not done).
Apparently, at least one thing President Obama said that caused Hannity and others to complain was this:
It is not productive, given the history of US-Iranian relations to be seen as meddling – the US president, meddling in Iranian elections.”
President Obama also said of the election,
“[I want to be] very clear that it is up to Iranians to make decisions about who Iran’s leaders will be; that we respect Iranian sovereignty and want to avoid the United States being the issue inside of Iran…
It’s no surprise really that this stuff would produce fits from conservatives like Hannity, who seem to always think most everything is somehow about the U.S., and often seem all too anxious to get some kind of aggressive meddling going in our foreign policy.
Anyway, the laughable part on today’s show came when Hannity spoke briefly with liberal radio host Lynn Samuels. Samuels argued that Obama’s statement about meddling should be understood in the context of events like the 1953 coup the U.S. helped stage, in which the democratically elected Iranian leader was overthrown. She asked Sean if he knew about that particular episode. His response?
Uh, I don’t remember my history.
Well isn’t that great? A man who is heard on the radio and seen on Fox News every day all across the nation constantly blasting the President for supposedly wrecking whatever it is the U.S. is supposed to be all about at home and abroad doesn’t “remember his history” about U.S. foreign policy? Awesome.
I was amazed he didn’t even try to sound like he knew what she was talking about. Quite a rare moment indeed. But, hey, I get it. 1953, that was, like, pre-history man, I mean, way back before the world-saving Reagan coalition, conservative revolution, and also well before Hannity’s brand of conservatism had entered into such a happy marriage with the Republican Party; so why should that period be of any consequence, right? Probably then, in my imagination, what he really should have said was,
Oh, well that happened way before the presidency of Ronald Reagan – the greatest President ever – and I’m not really interested in much history before the wonderful Reagan years, unless of course it deals with something bad that happened during the preceding Carter years in the late ’70s, so I can make Carter the Terrible look totally awful in comparison to Reagan the Great, our savior. Did I mention he was the greatest President ever? And also, we have always been conservative Republicans, just as we have always been at war with Eurasia.
He Doesn’t Know Much About History… June 18, 2009
Posted by Joshua in History, Political Commentary/Statements, Right Wing Radio.add a comment
{But he does know that he loves Ronald Reagan. And he knows that if you’d love Reagan too, what a wonderful world this would be (He being Sean Hannity, not Sam Cooke, that is).}
I got quite a kick out of a short portion I heard today of the Sean Hannity radio show. Sean Hannity, of course, is one of the top names in the type of “conservative” talk radio which I have generally criticized quite a bit here on this blog.
Hannity, like his other radio cohorts, has been critical of the way President Obama has responded to the recent, intensely disputed Iranian presidential election (as well as just about every other thing Obama has done or not done).
Apparently, at least one thing President Obama said that caused Hannity and others to complain was this:
President Obama also said of the election,
It’s no surprise really that this stuff would produce fits from conservatives like Hannity, who seem to always think most everything is somehow about the U.S., and often seem all too anxious to get some kind of aggressive meddling going in our foreign policy.
Anyway, the laughable part on today’s show came when Hannity spoke briefly with liberal radio host Lynn Samuels. Samuels argued that Obama’s statement about meddling should be understood in the context of events like the 1953 coup the U.S. helped stage, in which the democratically elected Iranian leader was overthrown. She asked Sean if he knew about that particular episode. His response?
Well isn’t that great? A man who is heard on the radio and seen on Fox News every day all across the nation constantly blasting the President for supposedly wrecking whatever it is the U.S. is supposed to be all about at home and abroad doesn’t “remember his history” about U.S. foreign policy? Awesome.
I was amazed he didn’t even try to sound like he knew what she was talking about. Quite a rare moment indeed. But, hey, I get it. 1953, that was, like, pre-history man, I mean, way back before the world-saving Reagan coalition, conservative revolution, and also well before Hannity’s brand of conservatism had entered into such a happy marriage with the Republican Party; so why should that period be of any consequence, right? Probably then, in my imagination, what he really should have said was,
There. That sounds about right.