Tag Archives: Sean Hannity

Smerconish begins to show his true stripes

Embed from Getty Images

Smerconish interviewing President Barack Obama


An article for the Philadelphia Inquirer, as politically liberal a rag as exists anywhere in America today, titled “Sorry, but for me, the party is over“, written by local quasi-celebrity Michael Smerconish was published in that paper’s Sunday, February 21st edition ‘Currents’ section.

In this article, Smerconish reveals what every true local Philadelphia Republican has known for more than a year.

The man who has billed himself as THE local Republican voice, who glommed onto the popularity of programs such as Fox News’ “The O’Reilly Factor“, and who attached themselves at the hip to commentators such as Sean Hannity, is in fact not a Republican after all.

The article, which carried a secondary headline where it continued on page C3 titled “Parting ways with the party, after 30 years”, reveals that Smerconish recently had an epiphany of sorts. And he had it while standing in line at, of all places, the DMV.

The Inquirer, of course, then bent over backwards to advertise this alleged political change away from conservatism. But is it really a change at all?

Smerconish goes to get his license renewed and the clerk asks him at one point as to whether he would also like to change his voter registration party affiliation.

Why this is an appropriate question for some clerk at the DMV to be asking in the first place is never revealed, nor ever fully explored by the allegedly dogged journalist.

Smerconish then goes on to reveal that this was his “hallelujah” moment. One can imagine a mystical light shining down on him from above and revealing that he is actually not a Republican, nor is he a Democrat, but instead he is that most cherished of ideals. He is an “Independent” thinker, beholden to no party values! Hallelujah!

He has the clerk switch his voter registration status from ‘Republican’ to ‘Independent’, leaving behind his party of the past three decades. Smerconish writes that in doing so he is better reflecting his personal values. He claims that actually, he is “not sure if I left the Republican Party or the party left me. All I know is that I no longer feel comfortable.”

Now let me state before I go on that I myself have switched my formally registered political affiliation a few times over the years. As I have explained in full detail before here at this blog, during my 20’s in the 1980’s I was a fully-indoctrinated liberal Democrat.

It was at some point during the first Clinton administration where I had my own ‘hallelujah’ moment, realizing that my values and positions had evolved to conservative ones. I made the switch to Republican and have not looked back.

During the time that I was a registered Democrat, however, I switched my party affiliation from Dem to Republican a couple of times. Each time I did so at the request of, and specifically for, my father.

My Dad was involved in the political process and publicly supporting Republican candidates such as John Egan for Mayor of Philadelphia. I would always switch back to Dem following the election cycle, and remained so until making the permanent switch during the mid-90’s.

However, unlike the spineless Smerconish, I did not ever try to paint myself with the brush of mediocrity that is the act of being a registered Independent. Smerconish tries to make himself out to be some sort of victim to the system. “Where political parties used to create coalitions and win elections, now they seek to advance strict ideological agendas.”

Malarkey! Political parties have existed in America since the earliest decades of our founding, particularly in the years following George Washinton’s first Presidency.

From those early parties like the Whigs through to Teddy Roosevelt’s “Bull Moose” Party to today’s liberal-dominated Democrats, political parties have displayed polarizing differences in their platforms and in their personalities.

Smerconish tries to defend his decision by pointing to a handful of examples of party inclusion of disparate ideas and visions. In every party there will always be individuals who are slightly moderated from the main party platform and ideals. But you rarely, if ever, can find a full-on conservative Democrat or a full-on liberal Republican, especially among the politicians.

That may prove Smerconish’s point, that the parties are indeed ideological, but the fact of the matter is that situation has been in existence since those early years of our Founding Fathers. It didn’t suddenly happen in the last election cycle. It didn’t slowly develop in recent decades. Political party ideology has been around forever.

The fact is that Smerconish began broadcasting full-time in the early years of the George W. Bush administration in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. He took up the Republican mantle fully, supporting most Bush policies and positions vocally and publicly, including the use of torture on terrorist suspects.

Over the next half-dozen years, Smerconish became a quasi-celebrity, his public conservative positions landing him gigs as a guest host for O’Reilly and Glenn Beck and his largely conservative writings leading to New York Times best-sellers. Smerconish made a lot of money and gained a measure of celebrity in these years thanks to what were perceived to be his intact, well thought-out, mature political and social positions.

But what also was going on is that Smerconish was doing all of this while working at a local Philadelphia radio station. He was not a nationally syndicated host with a vast network of listeners supporting him, he was broadcasting in one of the most liberal cities in America. His stated positions made him a number of political enemies, and shut him out of a number of local sources.

Realizing over time that he was not going to break out nationally as had people like Beck and Hannity, Smerconish saw himself stuck in Philly and treading water. Then suddenly it happened, the savior, Barack Obama, came along with his glib tongue and his two faces.

Smerconish began earlier than most to sense the momentum of the Obama campaign, and the alleged Republican talk radio host did the unthinkable in endorsing Obama for President.

It was in this moment that those of us who had suspected for years that Smerconish was simply a charlatan opportunist, using 9/11 and the Republican Party popularity of the early part of the last decade to his advantage, got our proof of that as fact.

There is no way that anyone who took any time to evaluate a politician’s actual record before endorsing them, as a public personality with a radio talk show in a major market should, could ever find anything other than the facts. Those facts were that simply from his voting record and previous public associations, Barack Obama was one of the most, if not the single most, liberal members of the United States Senate.

Michael Smerconish threw in with Obama because he saw the momentum switch, believed strongly that Obama was going to win, saw that Obama was articulate and intelligent, and further believed that the sun was setting on the ideology of conservatism. Smerconish basically glommed on to the next big thing to maintain his local audience relevancy.

In the beginning it was actually a good thing to say that he was a Republican who was supporting Obama. In that way, Smerconish could actually try to portray himself as not being ideological himself, despite what was out there in the public purvey for the past half dozen or so years.

But as time has gone on, Smerconish has become more and more enamored with the Obama celebrity himself, tossing aside the substance of the issues for increased access to the administration.

Thanks to his position as ‘the Republican talking head who supports Obama’, Smerconish was actually given the first live radio broadcast, interview, and listener question-answer session from inside the White House with the new President in August of 2009.

A man whom I happen to admire, Glenn Beck, has been an outspoken registered Independent for some time now. But with Beck there is a major difference. He legitimately sees and eloquently expresses his own ideology of American exceptionalism, pointing out with detailed precision how leaders of both parties have been led astray by political and social ‘progressivism’ and calling for a return to the Constitutional direction of the Founders.

Whatever their motivations, I still believe that whether it be in Beck’s principled stand against progressives or in Smerconish’s unwillingness to publicly embrace either his change to liberalism or that he has no political backbone, registering as and championing oneself as a registered ‘independent’ is a bit disingenuous.

There is no doubt that Beck’s conservative lean would, for example, find him in the voting booth ever pulling the lever next to the name of any current Democrat, while there are any number of Republicans who share his basic ideals.

In contrasts to Beck’s independence status, Smerconish is simply a fraud. He is an opportunist who now sees his best opportunity at continued celebrity by casting in with Obama and his liberal followers. Smerconish is waiting for this type of characterization. He is waiting for it and expecting it so that he can use it as well. He is waiting for conservatives to let loose on him for his alleged betrayal.

No, this indictment of Michael Smerconish and his allegedly changed political positions and resulting party registration change do not stem from feelings of betrayal. They come from a long-held belief that the man is all about himself, not any true, bedrock values or political positions. He has no political backbone whatsoever, and has only proven his irrelevancy with this registration switch. That is one man’s opinion based on what I have seen and heard.

It is also my opinion that this move to alleged ‘independence’ is only itself a temporary move. Right now, Smerconish senses the unsure direction of the future political winds as Obama’s plans prove to be the socialist failures that many of us predicted.

I predict here that Michael Smerconish’s political independence itself will not last, and that it is only a matter of time, and more security in the direction of those future political winds, before the big ‘R’ is back, or before the big ‘D’ takes a permanent place on his voter registration.

For local Philadelphia morning drive-time radio listeners, you do indeed have a choice. The intelligent, articulate, personable Bill Bennett can be heard by sliding your radio dial over to 990AM weekdays from 6am-9am. There, Bennett’s ‘Morning in America’ program is a part of the “intelligent, conservative talk” that local station WNTP offers each weekday.

The one thing that Bill Bennett will never be accused of by anyone is being spineless, and you won’t ever see him change his political affiliation for career or financial expediency.

Express ’em if you got ’em

There is an old saying that usually comes into play when some group, often a military platoon, is about to take advantage of a brief lull before some important, heated, restrictive battle: “Smoke ’em if you got ’em” is how it goes.

The saying relates to cigarettes, and the idea that if you are going to want one, now is the time to light up, because you may not get another chance for awhile.

Today’s online edition of the Washington Times features a poll asking whether the Obama administration should have contacted Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’s supreme religious leader, before the Iranian elections.

The poll is in response to a lead article at the paper’s website which reports that the Obama administration sent a letter to Khamenei calling for an improvement in relations between the U.S and Iran. Khamenei referenced the letter last week during a sermon in which he accused the U.S. of fomenting dissent following the Iranian elections.

My problem or point here is not the article itself, the poll, or even the issues of Iran and the so-far feeble Obama administration response to Iran. Our new President is mad. Really, really mad, darn it.

You can tell, because yesterday he “strongly” condemned the Iranian regimes unjust actions towards the street protesters of the rigged elections. Strongly.

No, my problem is with the supporters of America’s first socialist President.

When you answer the poll question, it takes you to the updated poll results and a commentary page. Anyone who is registered with the site can make comments about the poll, and anyone at all can read these comments, even if not registered.

There is one answer that encapsulates the liberal, progressive, socialist mindset towards anyone who expresses Obama-dissent. One respondent calling themselves ‘TheProgressiveTruth’ says that “conservative ideas are discredited and are not taken seriously by serious people.”

Fair enough. That statement is showing obvious political bias. But this is America, and they are free to express their political views. The big problem comes with his next statement: “My advice, again: shut up!” Here the respondent shows their true stripes. Anyone with differing opinions needs to be silenced.

There are many liberal politicians and partisans who subscribe to this line of thinking. They call for a radio ‘Fairness Doctrine’ that would silence conservative talk radio hosts like Rush Limbaugh, Bill Bennett, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Glenn Beck and others, simply because they disagree with these conservative commentators but cannot come up with liberal commentators to draw a sustainable audience.

Bottom line is, liberals and progressives cannot win the battle of ideas in the public square, just as they cannot win at the polling booth on social ideas such as the farcical gay marriage issue. They lose every time one of these issues is balloted and put directly to the voters. Instead, they seek to “shut up” conservatives and force their own views through controlled media used as propagandists, and through the courts.

Barack Obama, his administration, and his colleagues in Congress have been seriously over-reaching in their valuation of their recent electoral victories. The American people voted for a change, but absolutely did not vote for the type of change that weakens or cheapens democracy and capitalism, or that calls for silence from its opponents.

Do you perhaps have some opinions on the issues that matter to you and your family, opinions that are different than the Obama administration and the former mainstream media are trying to force down the throat of the American public? Then I have just one message for you: express ’em if you got ’em!

What a hateful liberal bigot looks like

They have always existed, but they have become more emboldened with the recent leftward lurch in American political direction.

I am talking today about liberal bigots, those lefties who are not only obstinately or intolerantly devoted to their own opinions and prejudices, but who also regard and treat those who disagree with them with vitriolic hatred.

You frequently hear them harping about wanting freedom of speech, the right to express their opinions and viewpoints publicly, even the right to have their alternative lifestyles accepted by the mainstream public as ‘normal’ or at least ‘acceptable’.

But this freedom of speech, this right to express opinions and viewpoints, can never, ever extend to those who disagree with them.

Perfect case in point came this past weekend with the Miss USA pageant questioning incident. As I previously discussed in another recent post, Miss California, Carrie Prejean, was a contestant in the pageant. She is a beauty queen, a model, and she had a simple goal, to win a beauty pageant title.

She wasn’t looking to change the world on Sunday night, and certainly when it came to the question-answer stage she did not expect a controversial question on an epic hot-button sociological and moral topic.

In any event, that is exactly what she received from pageant judge Mario Lavandeira, who goes by the professional name of ‘Perez Hilton’. Lavandeira is a gay activist and celebrity blogger, and basically asked Prejean whether she supported ‘gay marriage’, and to give the reasons behind whatever her feelings were on the issue.

Carrie Prejean simply replied from her heart, basically saying that she did not support the idea, that she believed marriage should only be between a man and a woman, and that this was how she was raised, taught, and now fundamentally believed.

In the immediate aftermath of the pageant, at which she nearly won, finishing as the first runner-up, Hilton said that Prejean was a “cunt“, and then took to the internet and video-blogged that Hilton lost because she was “a dumb bitch.

So in other words, Hilton as a gay activist has a right to voice his opinion on the issue, and the mainstream American public is supposed to tolerate not only that viewpoint, but also Hilton’s blatantly profane and toxic public expression of it.

But the right to a differing opinion, expressed thoughtfully and respectuflly, is not extended to Carrie Prejean.

Why not? Because she disagrees with Hilton on this issue, and because she had the audacity to answer his question with honesty. For that sin, this exemplary young woman is pilloried as some sort of bigot and neanderthal thinker, and then called profane names as well?

How far does this freedom of expression, this right to your own viewpoints go, Mr. Hilton?

And it wasn’t just Perez Hilton, but also most of the ‘gay rights’ movement, and in fact most liberals as well, who ganged up on Carrie Prejean. In doing so they exposed themselves publicly for what they really are, a group of hateful bigots, everything that they claim to be against.

This is the United States of America, and we are supposed to celebrate, support, and grow from the expression of differing opinions, not denounce them with hatred, ignorance, and profanity.

It isn’t as if Carrie Prejean said that any gay who actually got married should go to hell. She didn’t say they should be arrested, tortured, or even publicly embarrassed if they tried to marry. She did not express that she didn’t like gay people in general, and didn’t call them any names.

In short, she said nothing that would incite hatred or intolerance of gays. She simply answered the question put to her regarding the issue of marriage, stating that it should be between a man and a woman.

Which, by the way, it should.

Not an opinion, but a fact since the earliest days of man. One that has only gained any public forum at all since the fringe gay element of society began imposing it’s radical views on the vast mainstream ‘straight’ majority just a few decades ago.

Carrie Prejean simply answered a direct question without lambasting or profaning anyone, but the response that she received in reply has been what we have come to typically expect from the liberal community.

We conservatives love an open debate, love ideas expressed in public, and embrace the notion of having them put to the test of a vote. That is the true spirit of American freedom and diversity and exceptionalism at work.

There are groups who have wanted such freedom of speech repressed in the past: Nazis, Communists, and brutal dictators of all stripes go this way. Add now to their repressive ranks these ultra-liberal bigots who want anyone shut up and shut down who does not agree with them, from Rush Limbaugh to Sean Hannity to Ann Coulter to Carrie Prejean.

For anyone out there who agreed with Perez Hilton’s response to Carrie Prejean, not his view on the topic of gay marriage, but with his response to Sunday night’s question-answer session, then you can count yourself in that group of liberal bigots.

NOTE: As with every entry at this Blog, there is a ‘Comments’ button below. You can do so anonymously, but it would be appreciated if you had the courage of your convictions to add at least a real name.

Obama’s Partisans Go After Limbaugh, Specter

There is a new political radio commercial airing frequently on local stations, particularly those with news and news talk formats.

In the commercial a smarmy female voice sulks at the audacity of Republicans and in particular the popular talk show host Rush Limbaugh to oppose President Barack Obama’s economic stimulus package.

The commercial highlights that every single Republican in the House of Representatives voted against the package. It also plays a clip from Limbaugh’s show wherein Rush says “I hope he fails!“, in relation to the Obama stimulus bill.

The commercial equates opposition to the Obama stimulus bill with being against jobs. The evil, rich Republicans with their ‘big business’ allies lining up against the ‘little guy’ to keep him down.

Do Democrats really believe that most people are as shallow as to believe that Republicans don’t care about people having jobs? About people having the ‘American dream’ of home ownership and security?

Here is what Obama and his liberal Democratic Party partisans want done. They won the election, and so they want Republicans to roll over and take it. They want Republicans in the House and Senate, all of whom were freely elected by their constituents in their home communities, to throw away their own values and beliefs and just cave in to Obamamania.

Unfortunately for President Obama the simple fact is that while he won the election comfortably, almost 60 million Americans voted against him. Large sections of the country in no way support the radical liberal agenda that he wants to pursue.

In fact, millions of Americans stated that they cast their ballot as a protest against the George W. Bush administration as much as for Obama and his plans.

The Democrats and their media allies are incensed at Limbaugh for his stand. Why should they be surprised? People like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck, and many others are diametrically opposed to everything that liberals stand for.

These people’s names are known to everyone who reads this for a reason. That reason is because almost every single one of those 60 million who voted against Obama, and some of those who voted for him as a protest, see these talk show hosts and authors as their own voice. They have made these people popular by agreeing with and supporting their programs, articles, and books.

Of course Rush Limbaugh wants Barack Obama to fail, and for the exact same reasons that I want Barack Obama to fail, and fail miserably. Because we understand that Obama and the liberals solution to every problem is more government. Create a new agency, a new level of bureaucracy. Create a new department. Finance some new project.

All of these things will create new jobs. Sure they will, but who is paying for those new jobs? Those salaries, those benefits? We the people, that’s who. And these jobs won’t last. They are partisan jobs set up by a partisan liberal administration.

The next time that a conservative Republican administration comes to power, and trust me that will be in our lifetimes (possibly as soon as four years from now), many of those jobs will go out the window.

We understand that the real key to significant, long-term job creation comes from keeping taxes low, reducing spending in certain areas, keeping the size and scope of Federal government to a minimal level, and allowing the free market to create lasting private sector jobs.

Making businesses strong results in their expanding and hiring new workers with jobs that last, and that are paid for by those businesses, not we the people.

In the political commercials now airing, the real target is Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter. The commercial asks whether Specter is going to ‘support Rush Limbaugh’ and vote his way when the Obama stimulus package goes to the Senate. It is an obvious threat to Specter: vote against us, and you will pay the next time you are up for election.

The fact is that Pennsylvania Republicans would be far better off with Specter out and a real, true, conservative-leaning Republican in office. Specter has been called a ‘RINO’ (Republican In Name Only) for years, and for good reason.

The American Conservative Union (ACU) tracks and rates all members of the Congress on their actual voting records. Senator Specter is consistently one of the 2-3 lowest rated Republicans in the entire Senate. He already votes with the Democrats about half the time. For them to threaten him after all the support that he has given them over the decades is political partisanship at its worst.

But that appears to be what the Obama folks want. President Obama speaks of breaking down barriers, reaching across the aisle, being inclusive, wanting bipartisanship, ending the political rancor. Then he accuses any Republican who does not support his programs of exactly that.

How about this, President Obama? How about you and all of your liberal allies supporting the Republican plans instead? That would show a bipartisan spirit and end political rancor. But it isn’t realistic, is it President Obama?

The fact of the matter is that the United States remains a divided country. Divided between those who see capitalism and the free market as the best solution, and those who believe that government should be a ‘nanny’ who takes care of us all. Those who believe that America is the greatest power and force for good that mankind has ever seen, and those who believe that we should be more ‘European’ and gentile.

We are divided as those who believe that life is important at every stage and age, and those who believe we should have the choice to selfishly kill another human being when it doesn’t suit our lifestyle. Those who believe that the Constitution does not provide freedom from religion, but freedom of religion.

We are divided as those who don’t believe in throwing hundreds of billions of dollars of tax-payers hard-earned money at every problem and burdening our grandchildren with paying off that debt, and those who are trying to force this exact ‘stimulus’ program down our throats. Those who dare to take up the mantle of American greatness, and those who fear and even loath its responsibilities.

President Obama and his political partisans can go right on attacking Rush Limbaugh, the Republicans in Congress, and conservatives in general. Go ahead, give it your best shot. We’re big boys, we can take it.

But count on the one thing we absolutely will not do, and that is roll over for the President when we whole-heartedly believe that he is wrong and his program will ultimately hurt America. Barack Obama is overplaying his hand and resorting to the very political partisanship that he claims he is trying to put to an end.

As with most people who overplay their hands in any contest, he will find in the end that he wasted a valuable opportunity.

Dhue do that voodoo so well






Some of the best, most informative television is put on each night on the Fox News network. Shepard Smith does an outstanding job presenting the news, and then the real fireworks begin. 

Bill O’Reilly comes first with his “The O’Reilly Factor”. He is followed by the ultra-conservative, ultra-liberal duo of Sean Hannity and Alan Colmes on “HannityColmes“. Finally, Greta keeps us up to date on Natalie Holloway…it’s all Aruba, all the time with Greta Van Susteren

One young woman that I personally hope never turns up missing is the real star of the night, however. 

During the brief “Fox News Breaks” which come on both during and between each show, the updates and highlights are presented by Fox News resident brains and beauty combo Laurie Dhue. This young woman may be the single most attractive newswoman that I have ever seen on television. 

Here’s to the current official “babe” of this blog, Laurie Dhue – that she will keep on doing that voodoo that she do so well on FNC for many years to come!