Sean Hannity, Ed Schultz, Huffington Post

EATING THEIR OWN

HuffPo Dems Get Nasty With Lib Talkers, Guests





Are Sean Hannity's left- leaning guests little more than washed- up Beltway or Hollywood dupes who are desperate for the kind of publicity his show can provide?

And is one major lib- talker consistently being outsmarted by the Democrat Party's "conservative" wing and talking points?

In two seperate pieces by Steve Young and R J Eskow, that's the kind of rough treatment Huffington Post contributors are reserving for fellow Dems this weekend.

Why do they seem to be eating their own?

In both cases, these Friends- Of- Arianna (FOA) have their knives sharpened both for Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT) and anyone who would dare to defend him. With his supportive stances on the issue of troops in Iraq, he's been a particular target for the the Dean / Sheehan left, as he runs for re-election this year.

In Young's piece, Lieberman is described as "...the only elected Dem who regularly wades into the Hannity mire, which should tell you a lot."


Meanwhile, Eskow uses his space to attack syndicated liberal talker Ed Schultz, for supposedly succumbing to Lieberman's talking points:

...today Ed Schultz - who I always figured would make a great fishing buddy - swallowed Lieberman's nonsense hook, line, and sinker.

Ed can support Lieberman, and we'll still be pals. The problem is that he bought a talking point that was custom-made by Lieberman's handlers, and by the Republicans (if, in fact, the two are different). A savvy talk radio guy should know better.

While I don't have a transcript of Ed's radio show on Air America today, he kept repeating this talking point: "Joe Lieberman says he's voted with the Democrats 90% of the time. If that's true, why isn't that enough? What is enough? 95%? 98%?"

Ed, Ed, Ed. This is wrong in so many ways. First, what does the statement even mean? Is Joe saying he voted with ALL the Democrats 90% of the time? Or is he saying that when all the OTHER Democrats voted one way, he went along with them nine times out of ten? And how many times is that?

If you don't understand a spin point, don't repeat it.

These guys despise Lieberman so much these days, they've almost forgotten to hate Bush!

Eskow repeats many recent leftist criticisms of Schultz: that he's a closet Republican who can't be trusted. Hobnobbing with the likes of Lieberman has probably done much to reinforce that view.


Young, meanwhile, reserves his anger primarily for those "dumb enough" to appear on Hannity's show, essentially calling Susan Estrich, Bob Beckel, Lanny Davis and others foolish for supposedly playing into Sean's hands:

So pounded by the Right, with Hannity and Fox News mate O'Reilly leading the way, it's become a given, even by many of those in the media. Want proof? Watch the MSM™ Sunday morning talk shows.

The Formula is perhaps the top reason why liberal talk radio that mimics the right just doesn't work - certainly not any way near as well. The liberal audience scoffs at anything that plays one note. That song doesn't pass the whole truth smell test and gets boring very quickly. A little like disco or so-called patriotic country western.

But the Right eats it up.

For a Democrat to appear at all on Hannity it feeds right into this equation and Sean's hands. Although ridiculed by many on the Left, it might just be that Alan Colmes handles it best because, by show rule, Sean doesn't get to interrupt (that much). But even for Alan to reveal some distortion Sean has hammered into place, it takes being on every night.

That Democrats who continue to come on Hannity don't get the math is unfathomable. They can't be that stupid. That they've traded their principles for a piece of the Right side of the pie is unforgivable, and if nothing else, they should have their Democratic credentials pulled.

I'm not saying that we should drop fighting the good fight intellectually, but if you're bent on using it on Hannity, the stupid one will not be Hannity.

In the subsequent comments section, some have challenged Young over his admission that he's no longer invited to be a guest on Hannity's show. Is it a case of sour grapes?

At the same time, he never answers the question of how Democrats would improve their fortunes by boycotting Sean's program. Isn't some presence better than none at all?

And of course, the (GOP) elephant in the room in Young's piece is the indirect admission that Democrat opponents simply can't beat Hannity in a debate.

Even if his contention is that the forum provides a stacked deck against liberal guests, it's really up to the left to hone their skills in order to counteract it, rather than taking their marbles and heading home.

NOTE: R J Eskow responds below, click the reader responses section to see it.

Your Amazon orders that begin with clicks here, regardless of your final purchases, are vital to supporting the Radio Equalizer's efforts. Thanks again!

Hannity / Davis / KABC photo: HuffPo