Buy My Book Here

Fox News Ticker

Please check out my new books, "Bullied to Death: Chris Mackney's Kafkaesque Divorce and Sandra Grazzini-Rucki and the World's Last Custody Trial"

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

Friday, September 17, 2010

Total Hypocrisy on Christine O'Donnell

Remember these quotes...

tax cheat Tim Geithner

...

turbo tax Tim Geithner


Those are two common things that Sean Hannity says about the Treasury Secretary, Tim Geithner. Remember, Geithner didn't pay the social security tax on his income at the IMF. The same Sean Hannity is now a chief defender and cheerleader for Christine O'Donnell. Isn't this the same Christine O'Donnell that is behind on her taxes?

In March, the IRS initiated an audit and placed a lien against her for $11,744.59 in taxes and penalties from the 2005 tax year.


When Karl Rove famously attempted to bring this up, Sean Hannity fiercely defended O'Donnell and said she explained all her tax troubles to him (Hannity) and her answers were fine. Of course, Geithner also explained his own tax problems. That hasn't stopped Hannity from attacking him mercilessly on the issue.

Meanwhile, the same liberals that fiercely dismissed the tax issues of Geithner, Rangel and other Obama associates are now saying things like this,

how can someone who can't handle their own finances be able to handle the nation's finances?


That sounds an awful lot like a conservative argument.

The reality is that everyone is an opportunist on this issue. If you are O'Donnell's opponent, her personal financial problems are a serious issue even though similar issues are dismissed when done by political allies. If you are like Sean Hannity, the same problems that mean you attack Tim Geithner mercilessly mean you dismiss them with Christine O'Donnell.

Saturday, April 17, 2010

Limbaugh First to Politicize Goldman Sachs

I'll let Limbaugh speak for himself.

RUSH: There's a piece of news out there that's a very teachable moment and I want to start with this. The stock market is down about 148 points in the last hour. Now, the reason the market is down is because the Securities and Exchange Commission which is a part of the regime -- this is the teachable moment -- the SEC has filed civil charges against Goldman Sachs for essentially profiting on the subprime mortgage crisis knowing full well that the housing market was gonna bubble up and crunch and they were playing both sides, profiting on both sides of it. The suit from the SEC basically shows that Goldman Sachs and others knew that the housing market was gonna crash, they kept selling these mortgage-backed securities on the one hand and then they bet against them on the other hand. They were going short.

This was not the result of any unfettered capitalism, folks. This was not unfettered capitalism. This crash is the result of Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Franklin Raines, Jamie Gorelick and all these other liberals and their elitist buddies on Wall Street who knew what was going on in the subprime mortgage crisis, gaming the system to enrich themselves. From Clinton, Barney Frank, Chris Dodd on, they created an unsustainable mortgage situation and then other liberals enriched themselves by betting against it at Goldman Sachs, and that's what this suit is all about. Now, you might say why today? Because there's a story out there that Goldman Sachs is fully in support of the financial regulatory reform bill. My friends, here's the teachable moment. Obama wants this story out there.


Let's get a few things out of the way. First, Goldman Sachs is innocent until proven guilty. So far, they've only been accused of serious wrong doing. Second, there's no doubt that what Goldman Sachs is accused of went on and probably a lot. Third, trying to blame Chris Dodd for the wrongdoing of Goldman Sachs is simply propaganda.

Here's all anyone needs to know about anyone that analyzes the mortgage crisis. Do they have an agenda? If they do, you may as well stop listening because you'll hear propaganda. If you ask Karl Rove why the mortgage crisis happened, he'll tell you it's because Democrats blocked Republican attempts to reform Fannie/Freddie. If you ask Sean Hannity why the mortgage crisis happened, he'll tell you it's because liberals pushed the Community Reinvestment Act. If you ask Alan Colmes why, it's because of deregulation. Now, Rush has decided to step into the fray.

All of these folks have an agenda. Everyone of them just happens to blame the exact thing that fits their agenda. The mortgage crisis was incredibly complicated. It was a confluence of several things and can't be condensed into a simple soundbite. If Goldman did what they are accused of doing, it's because they were greedy and corrupt not because of a politician.

Here's my full analysis of the financial crisis.

Thursday, October 23, 2008

The Brave New World After the Fairness Doctrine

Let's do a thought experiment. Let's pretend that Barack Obama wins the Presidency and the Democrats not only control the legislature but they have a filibuster proof majority in the Senate. Let's also assume that they go ahead and impose again the Fairness Doctrine. First, let's review what exactly is the Fairness Doctrine.

The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) that required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was (in the FCC's view) honest, equitable, and balanced. The United States Supreme Court has upheld the Commission's general right to enforce such a policy where channels are limited, but the courts have generally not considered that the FCC is obliged to do so.[1] The FCC has since withdrawn the Fairness Doctrine, prompting some to urge its reintroduction through either Commission policy or Congressional legislation.[2]

Now, let's further assume that Conservative suspicions are right and that Nancy Pelosi, Diane Feinstein et al want to impose the Fairness Doctrine in order to silence talk radio. They want to do this because talk radio is dominated by Conservatives. So, for the most part, the Fairness Doctrine would only apply to talk radio. So, what would happen?

The most immediate effect is that AM radio would get crippled. The Fairness Doctrine forces media outlets to provide equal time for both sides of a "controversial issue". The problem is that liberals like Air America have been an abject failure on talk radio. As such, station managers would struggle to find appropriate voices in order to comply with the Doctrine. Most talk radio personalities like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Laura Ingraham would be force off the air. Without them on their airwaves, the format would get crushed in the ratings and ultimately get marginalized.

The more interesting question is what would happen to the personalities themselves. On this issue, I believe the Fairness Doctrine would only speed up a process that I believe will occur soon enough on its own. The personalities would likely eventually move over to the internet en masse. Currently, the internet is the place where the amateurs of talk radio go to. Yet, it is the place that is absolutely perfectly suited for a mass exodus from talk radio.

The internet substitutes for syndication. Once you are on the internet, you are immediately in syndication. Furthermore, the internet allows for the personalities to combine the format of call ins with such technology as message boards, comments, and chat rooms. Most importantly, with the internet, listeners will no longer be forced to arrange their schedule to listen to their favorite personality. Internet broadcasts will also allow for income opportunities in new technologies like MP3 downloads as well.

The best part for the personalities is that almost all already have a website and most already broadcast their shows via streaming sound on the internet. The only reason that the internet hasn't taken off as mass vehicle for talk radio is perception. The internet, as a means of audio broadcast, has only been available for a few years. AM radio has been around for generations. All it would take is one personality who would see this as an opportunity to dominate a new media and the rest would immediately follow.

The ultimate irony of all of this is this. The Fairness Doctrine is the most extreme example of the government attempting to replace the free market. Yet, it would be the free market itself that would guide the players after it is imposed. The ultimate irony is that all the Fairness Doctrine would do is more quickly kill off the technology of the AM frequency. The personalities currently on it would merely adapt and follow where the free market would lead them, the internet. The Fairness Doctrine is one of those laws that the public would only really despise after its effects are felt. As such, if the Democrats then attempted to control the internet, they would roundly be rejected by the public after they had seen what it did to AM. As such, don't fear for the Rush Limbaugh's of the world. They will adapt to anything the politicians throw at them.