Showing posts with label hannity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label hannity. Show all posts

Wednesday, August 13, 2014

Ann Coulter: We have no choice but to vote for these Republicans, including the crap-ass ones

AnnCoulter:Wehavenochoicebutto

Ann Coulter: We have no choice but to vote for these Republicans, including the crap-ass ones

posted at 11:21 am on August 13, 2014 by Allahpundit

An electrifying midterm rallying cry on a slow summer news day. Boehner, incidentally, isn’t one of the crappy-asses, she says. She doesn’t name names there, but she’s been known to diverge from grassroots conservatives in these matters before.

What would happen, though, if Boehner turned around and made a deal with Harry Reid on amnesty in September? One of the goals of Obama’s looming power grab over legalization is to scare Republican leaders with the thought that Latino voters will be so grateful, they’ll break even harder for Democrats in 2016. The only countermeasure, Dems would have you believe, is for the GOP to agree to comprehensive reform before then and steal some of Obama’s thunder. No one in conservative media (with the possible exception of the boss emeritus) is as vociferously anti-amnesty as Coulter. If Republicans signed off on a legalization deal, as is quite possible next spring or summer, would she consider that reason enough for conservatives to protest by staying home in 2016? We all have our red lines when it comes to political betrayals, but as the example of Obama and Syria reminds us, a red line that isn’t enforced is meaningless and even counterproductive in how it invites further aggression. I’m reluctantly willing to boycott the next election if the GOP makes a bad deal on immigration in the name of showing them how steep the cost of future betrayals might be. Is Coulter? Or are we destined for a “three cheers for the Gang of Eight bill!” column in two years if/when Rubio is the nominee?

Exit question: Besides immigration, which other issues (within the realm of realistic possibility) could the GOP endorse before 2016 that would give righties serious pause about voting? I can’t think of one offhand. I suppose Boehner and McConnell could make a terrible grand bargain with O on deficit reduction that annoyed everyone, but even a bad bargain would contain some concessions on entitlements that they could spin to their advantage.


Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Wednesday, May 14, 2014

Rand Paul on voter ID: It’s a matter of emphasis, not a matter of abandoning the policy

RandPaulonvoterID:It’samatter

Rand Paul on voter ID: It’s a matter of emphasis, not a matter of abandoning the policy

posted at 11:21 am on May 14, 2014 by Allahpundit

After two posts devoted to parsing what Paul believes about this issue, you deserve to hear it from the man himself. Here he is yesterday, via the Right Scoop, telling Hannity that voter ID belongs on the GOP’s policy stove but on the back burner with the heat turned down. Money quote:

PAUL: Like I say, I think both sides have made mistakes in…this issue. But it’s mainly in presentation and perception, not in reality. In the sense that, if Republicans are going to go around the country and this becomes a central theme and issue, you have to realize, rightly or wrongly, it is being perceived by some — and this is the point I was making and I think it’s still a valid point, that I’m trying to go out and say to African Americans ‘I want your vote and the Republican Party wants your vote’. If they perceive, rightly or wrongly, that showing their ID is an attempt to get them not to vote because they perceive it in the lineage of a time when it truly did happen through poll taxes and questioning to try and prevent people, if they perceive it that way, we have to be aware that the perception is out there and be careful about not so overdoing something that we further alienate a block of people we need to attract.

Re-read that last sentence. That’s basically the same rationale amnesty fans have used to justify comprehensive immigration reform. Latinos, the theory goes, are “deaf” to Republican policy proposals because they’ve been alienated by the GOP’s opposition to illegal immigration and some of the rhetoric (“self-deportation”) surrounding it. If you want to make inroads with them electorally, you need to get past that threshold obstacle. Likewise for voter ID and blacks, Paul’s saying. Note the difference in approach, though. In the case of Latinos and immigration, Republicans seem to have concluded that no amount of “messaging” is going to solve their problem. They need to change their policies, which explains why every Republican with national aspirations — Paul included — supports some sort of immigration overhaul that would make it easier for illegals to stay. In the case of voter ID, for whatever reason, Paul seems to have come to the opposite conclusion, that if he talks enough about sentencing reform for drug crimes and re-enfranchising nonviolent felons, he can continue to support voter ID and still win a higher-than-expected share of black votes. Whether you think that’s true or not depends on many variables — Paul’s retail skills, who his opponent is, Democratic counter-messaging to blacks about Paul’s view of the Civil Rights Act and his father’s newsletter, etc — but it raises the real possibility that Paul will eventually conclude, a la immigration, that the outreach barrier is insuperable unless and until the GOP changes its policy, not just its message. And that means abandoning voter ID entirely.

To return to a point I made yesterday, though, maybe all of this is less about Paul seriously believing that he can win black votes and more about re-branding himself for both the primaries and the general election. He was initially going to run as the right-winger in the race, I think, but now that Cruz has come on, he’s re-positioning as “a different kind of Republican.” That was always going to be an undertone of his campaign given his libertarian pedigree but now it’s become more of a major theme. Whether you’re a centrist Republican, “somewhat conservative,” or full-on tea partier, if you’re disgusted with the state of the GOP, Rand’s the guy who’s going to give you something different on pretty much everything except federal spending. (And given how much establishment Republicans have spent over the years, lower spending actually qualifies as something different too.) If he makes it through to the general election, Democrats will put all of their energy into kookifying him as the most retrograde politician in America, someone who wants to time-travel back to before the New Deal when it comes to the welfare state and back to before the Civil Rights Act on racial matters. Rand knows that’s coming, which is why his outreach to blacks is so dogged even though it’s all but certain to be futile: The gesture itself is politically useful to him down the road in reassuring whites that he’s not the gargoyle Democrats say he is, even if it doesn’t reassure blacks. To be honest, I think he’d be happy to jettison voter ID altogether in the interest of making that gesture more broadly if not for the fact that it’s a sort of litmus test in the GOP primaries. He needs some conservative votes to win. If he “evolves” on voter ID now to impress Democrats, righties will conclude that he can’t be trusted not to pander to them if elected and that’ll ruin him. So he’s leaving the issue on the stove. Just on very low heat.


Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Thursday, April 24, 2014

Hannity: Bundy’s comments on race are beyond repugnant to me

Hannity:Bundy’scommentsonracearebeyondrepugnant

Hannity: Bundy’s comments on race are beyond repugnant to me

posted at 6:21 pm on April 24, 2014 by Allahpundit

It’s the story du jour and Hannity’s take is probably the most eagerly awaited in media given how much airtime he’s devoted to the BLM standoff lately, so here you go — a sneak preview of his (presumptive) opening segment on tonight’s Fox News program at 10 p.m. An hour later, the guy he’s been feuding with over this goes on the air on Comedy Central. I wonder if Hannity will come up in his opening segment.

WaPo, incidentally, has posted more context from Bundy’s comments. A taste:

In video of the entire speech, which was obtained first by the Washington Post and shot by someone who describes himself as a Bundy supporter, Bundy said that he “hardly ever” saw a black person until he was almost a teenager and also noted that he is surrounded today by white faces.

“Where is our colored brother? Where is our Mexican brother? Where is our Chinese — where are they?” Bundy said. “They’re just as much American as we are, and they’re not with us. If they’re not with us, they’re going to be against us.”

His take on race relations since the 60s, after describing how he witnessed the Watts riots firsthand:

Before making the comments that made news Thursday, Bundy tied up his point, saying the riots resulted from people not having their freedoms. He said the country needs to avoid returning to those days.

“We’ve progressed quite a bit from that day until now, and we sure don’t want to go back,” Bundy said. “We sure don’t want these colored people to have to go back to that point. We sure don’t want these Mexican people to go back to that point. And we can make a difference right now by taking care of some of these bureaucracies and do it in a peaceful way.”

Only one thing is clear, my friends. If this guy turns around and endorses comprehensive immigration reform, it’ll be the troll of the decade.


Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Thursday, October 24, 2013

Audio: ObamaCare operator fired for talking to Hannity on the air

Audio:ObamaCareoperatorfiredfortalkingtoHannity

Audio: ObamaCare operator fired for talking to Hannity on the air

posted at 6:01 pm on October 24, 2013 by Allahpundit

Via RCP. Here’s the audio of the original call from two days ago. The firing offense, I guess, was the operator admitting to him that no one likes Healthcare.gov. That’s so patently true that the president himself held a press conference in the Rose Garden earlier this week to acknowledge it, but it’s one thing for him to say it in the course of a Popeil-esque pitch to buy insurance and another for an O-Care worker to admit it flatly to — gasp — right-wing talk radio. That goes to show you how politicized this ostensibly neutral government program is. In fact, I assume the real reason she was canned was to retaliate against Hannity by victimizing a sympathetic blue-collar worker and then hoping/trusting that he’d take the blame for it somehow. And … that strategy will probably work, at least in left-wing media, notwithstanding (a) Hannity’s offer to give her a year’s worth of salary and help her find a new job and (b) the fact that some jackhole apparatchik tossed her out on the street simply because she acknowledged a truth in public that embarrassed the bureaucracy. That’s accountability, ObamaCare-style. Congrats on finding someone worth firing over the rollout, guys!

We need to get Hannity to call Sebelius now.


Related Posts:

Source from: hotair