First-class ticket and private jet not good enough for
October 9, 2004 3:57 AM Subscribe
First-class ticket and private jet not good enough for "regular guy" Sean Hannity Less than a week before he was scheduled to speak to students at Washington University in St. Louis, ABC Radio Networks host and FOX News Channel host Sean Hannity -- who regularly casts himself as an "average American" while attacking Senator John Kerry's "elitist lifestyle" -- reportedly canceled the appearance because flight arrangements were not made to his liking.
sorry for that. he just gets to me, like almost noone else.
posted by mr.marx at 5:23 AM on October 9, 2004
posted by mr.marx at 5:23 AM on October 9, 2004
Give me a break. Anyone who thinks Hannity isn't elitist must also be an undecided voter. He's King of the Obfuscation Machine.
posted by fleener at 7:04 AM on October 9, 2004
posted by fleener at 7:04 AM on October 9, 2004
From what we read, he's really a Diva ..what do they say in some streets again...a queen ?
posted by elpapacito at 7:23 AM on October 9, 2004
posted by elpapacito at 7:23 AM on October 9, 2004
There's a peculiar sleight-of-hand around the whole issue of class-membership in this election. Bush is from a line of old-money bluebloods -- keeping the cash and the connections in the family. Kerry's dad, by contrast, was the son of poor Hungarian immigrants, and what blueblood connections he has are decidedly black-sheep. (His grand-daddy Forbes apparently made a killing in the Chinese opium market.) (Trivial aside: Kerry is GWB's 19th cousin, twice removed....)
So Bush becomes the icon of the "common man", and Kerry the icon of the patrician elitist. It's not really a mystery how this happens -- Bush has aggressively and probably intentionally underachieved for more or less his entire life ('gagging on that silver spoon', to paraphrase C.F. Kane). And Kerry's family and later Kerry himself made early decisions that he would do what was necessary to climb to an appropriate level of society, through going to the right schools and giving the right level of performance. (Ralph Nader makes a great contrast to both of these models, BTW...)
British Mefites, please offer opinions: I recall reading many moons ago of socioeconomic studies that compared self-identification in America and Britain. Roughly, the finding in comparison was that British tended to identify upward more or less consistently -- if they were close to a bracket boundary, they'd identify themselves as belonging to the higher bracket. But Americans would identify themselves as belonging to the lower bracket. As an example, someone earning $150K/yr might describe themselves as "middle class" (and I can't tell you how many people I've heard do that).
[Aside: Anybody else irritated by the President's insistence on referring to the British as "the Brits" on national TV?]
Compare also O'Reilly's insistence on a lowly background, and the instant credibility that seems to stick to anyone in America who talks about having "started low." It's a peculiar thing; in America, we identify with the next bracket up, but identify as a lower bracket. Is it a cultural issue, with trust, or something?
posted by lodurr at 7:31 AM on October 9, 2004
So Bush becomes the icon of the "common man", and Kerry the icon of the patrician elitist. It's not really a mystery how this happens -- Bush has aggressively and probably intentionally underachieved for more or less his entire life ('gagging on that silver spoon', to paraphrase C.F. Kane). And Kerry's family and later Kerry himself made early decisions that he would do what was necessary to climb to an appropriate level of society, through going to the right schools and giving the right level of performance. (Ralph Nader makes a great contrast to both of these models, BTW...)
British Mefites, please offer opinions: I recall reading many moons ago of socioeconomic studies that compared self-identification in America and Britain. Roughly, the finding in comparison was that British tended to identify upward more or less consistently -- if they were close to a bracket boundary, they'd identify themselves as belonging to the higher bracket. But Americans would identify themselves as belonging to the lower bracket. As an example, someone earning $150K/yr might describe themselves as "middle class" (and I can't tell you how many people I've heard do that).
[Aside: Anybody else irritated by the President's insistence on referring to the British as "the Brits" on national TV?]
Compare also O'Reilly's insistence on a lowly background, and the instant credibility that seems to stick to anyone in America who talks about having "started low." It's a peculiar thing; in America, we identify with the next bracket up, but identify as a lower bracket. Is it a cultural issue, with trust, or something?
posted by lodurr at 7:31 AM on October 9, 2004
lodurr : The Economist recently averred an opinion which (for once) I think agree with.
Basically, 'middle class' in Britain means moderately well off or better, up to being prosperous; 'middle class' in America means moderately well off or a bit worse without being poor. In Britain, the 'middle swathe' think of themselves as being middle class or working class, with a small number of rich/upper class people at one extreme and a small number of poor people at the other.
(I should probably qualify this by saying that the concept of class in Britain is not just an economic thing but is partly cultural and to some extent self-defined; home ownership, education and family background are also factors, so a not very wealthy librarian with a degree may consider himself to be 'middle class' whereas a somewhat more financially comfortable plumber without a degree might think of himself as being 'working class').
posted by plep at 9:14 AM on October 9, 2004
Basically, 'middle class' in Britain means moderately well off or better, up to being prosperous; 'middle class' in America means moderately well off or a bit worse without being poor. In Britain, the 'middle swathe' think of themselves as being middle class or working class, with a small number of rich/upper class people at one extreme and a small number of poor people at the other.
(I should probably qualify this by saying that the concept of class in Britain is not just an economic thing but is partly cultural and to some extent self-defined; home ownership, education and family background are also factors, so a not very wealthy librarian with a degree may consider himself to be 'middle class' whereas a somewhat more financially comfortable plumber without a degree might think of himself as being 'working class').
posted by plep at 9:14 AM on October 9, 2004
I'd love nothing better than to totally kick this windbag piece of shits' ass. I can't stand this lying motherfucker. And I'm a very calm, non-violent person. Well non-violent at least.
posted by damnitkage at 9:33 AM on October 9, 2004
posted by damnitkage at 9:33 AM on October 9, 2004
I think he's just a chicken shit who wouldn't want to speak in front of a college audience and balked out an excuse as to why. Wuss!
posted by Peter H at 9:39 AM on October 9, 2004
posted by Peter H at 9:39 AM on October 9, 2004
actually, plep, I think your qualifying parenthesis pretty much nails it. (I say this from a Swedish perspective, but we tend to have adopt all kinds of foreign standards, so I think this is true for much of Europe).
it's very much a social status thing, not necessarily just an economical thing. if you have a college education: bam! middle class. if you get promoted to boss/manager: bam! middle class. if you make a living doing something that might be perceived as influential (in my case journalism): bam! middle class.
on preview: damnitkage, you and me together could cause some serious damage.
on 2nd preview: peter h: the best part of al franken's book is when he challenges hannity to a FITE.
posted by mr.marx at 9:42 AM on October 9, 2004
it's very much a social status thing, not necessarily just an economical thing. if you have a college education: bam! middle class. if you get promoted to boss/manager: bam! middle class. if you make a living doing something that might be perceived as influential (in my case journalism): bam! middle class.
on preview: damnitkage, you and me together could cause some serious damage.
on 2nd preview: peter h: the best part of al franken's book is when he challenges hannity to a FITE.
posted by mr.marx at 9:42 AM on October 9, 2004
But Americans would identify themselves as belonging to the lower bracket. As an example, someone earning $150K/yr might describe themselves as "middle class" (and I can't tell you how many people I've heard do that).
I've never heard of this. Wasn't there a study recently that said that the top 15% of american income earners believed themselves to be in the top 5%?
posted by Stynxno at 9:47 AM on October 9, 2004
I've never heard of this. Wasn't there a study recently that said that the top 15% of american income earners believed themselves to be in the top 5%?
posted by Stynxno at 9:47 AM on October 9, 2004
For further reading:
The Document Sean Hannity Doesn't Want You To Read
(Stupid page title, but interest quotes from Hannity.)
posted by jca at 10:11 AM on October 9, 2004
The Document Sean Hannity Doesn't Want You To Read
(Stupid page title, but interest quotes from Hannity.)
posted by jca at 10:11 AM on October 9, 2004
Perhaps we should go cause a scene on the douche bag's Hannity's message board?
posted by monju_bosatsu at 10:52 AM on October 9, 2004
posted by monju_bosatsu at 10:52 AM on October 9, 2004
jca: interesting bunch of quotes indeed. Notice the repetition frequency rate of the various memes (hate america, inherited recession) which suggests me he's "wired" and very satisfied of that..as being "wired" requires little person tought and analysis
posted by elpapacito at 10:55 AM on October 9, 2004
posted by elpapacito at 10:55 AM on October 9, 2004
Wasn't there a study recently that said that the top 15% of american income earners believed themselves to be in the top 5%?
While that would be logically inconsistent with high-income people self-describing as middle class, I would not find it surprising if many people were found to exhibit both views. We are talking about Americans, after all. We're not the most self-examined or mathematically literate population in the first world.
posted by lodurr at 11:08 AM on October 9, 2004
While that would be logically inconsistent with high-income people self-describing as middle class, I would not find it surprising if many people were found to exhibit both views. We are talking about Americans, after all. We're not the most self-examined or mathematically literate population in the first world.
posted by lodurr at 11:08 AM on October 9, 2004
[Aside: Anybody else irritated by the President's insistence on referring to the British as "the Brits" on national TV?]
It bothers me. Not that it's derogatory, necessarily, but it seems out-of-place familiar. Maybe he called Blair's countrymen 'Brits' in front of him, and figures it's cool to repeat it, over and over...Everytime he does so, I hear him following up with 'Frogs, Polacks, Krauts...they all love me', though. Then I give him props for not being so offensive.
And who the hell are you to question the President's language? He knows how these people think, remember?
posted by Busithoth at 12:24 PM on October 9, 2004
It bothers me. Not that it's derogatory, necessarily, but it seems out-of-place familiar. Maybe he called Blair's countrymen 'Brits' in front of him, and figures it's cool to repeat it, over and over...Everytime he does so, I hear him following up with 'Frogs, Polacks, Krauts...they all love me', though. Then I give him props for not being so offensive.
And who the hell are you to question the President's language? He knows how these people think, remember?
posted by Busithoth at 12:24 PM on October 9, 2004
Hannity's that odious kid from childhood who kisses the asses of all the teachers, but when he's alone tortures small animals (Frogs, squirrels, Stray dogs etc...) . A sociopath. Yes that's the word I'm searching for.
posted by Skygazer at 12:45 PM on October 9, 2004
posted by Skygazer at 12:45 PM on October 9, 2004
From what we read, he's really a Diva ..what do they say in some streets again...a queen ?
I've only heard that about Shep Smith, not Hannity, but i wouldn't be surprised in the least--O'Reilly too.
posted by amberglow at 2:02 PM on October 9, 2004
I've only heard that about Shep Smith, not Hannity, but i wouldn't be surprised in the least--O'Reilly too.
posted by amberglow at 2:02 PM on October 9, 2004
I've only heard that about Shep Smith, not Hannity, but i wouldn't be surprised in the least--O'Reilly too.
News flash. They're all divas. Bush has nothing to do with the common man, neither does kerry, nor hannity, nor dan rather, nor michael moore.
Somethings are black and white, this is one of them. Take off your liberal goggles for once.
sean hannity is a fucking fuck, fuck him and the fucking horse he fucking rode in on my least favorite person
Hannity is a douchebag.
I'd love nothing better than to totally kick this windbag piece of shits' ass. I can't stand this lying motherfucker.
I think he's just a chicken shit
Perhaps we should go cause a scene on the douche bag's Hannity's message board?
Ahh, the intelligent, mature, left. Watch out or you'll become just as hateful as the far right. Best of the web indeed.
posted by justgary at 4:28 PM on October 9, 2004
News flash. They're all divas. Bush has nothing to do with the common man, neither does kerry, nor hannity, nor dan rather, nor michael moore.
Somethings are black and white, this is one of them. Take off your liberal goggles for once.
sean hannity is a fucking fuck, fuck him and the fucking horse he fucking rode in on my least favorite person
Hannity is a douchebag.
I'd love nothing better than to totally kick this windbag piece of shits' ass. I can't stand this lying motherfucker.
I think he's just a chicken shit
Perhaps we should go cause a scene on the douche bag's Hannity's message board?
Ahh, the intelligent, mature, left. Watch out or you'll become just as hateful as the far right. Best of the web indeed.
posted by justgary at 4:28 PM on October 9, 2004
The thing with the Hannity situation is that he allegedly likes to fly commercial (bottom of page). So Hannity is one of those flip-floppers that he decries.
I have to admit I like Sean Hannity. He asks a lot of good questions and is less sycomphatic of the Republican party line than a Rush Limbaugh, but not off the wall loony like Michael Weiner. He's funny and witty and has a public persona of being a nice guy. After all, he basically catapulted Alan Colmes from the doldrums of evening radio into stardom as the Fox News house liberal. I really don't get this hatred for him. He's not a racist or a felon. He's not pompous, but is grateful for all the breaks he's gotten. But, he's a conservative, so he must be evil.
posted by calwatch at 4:31 PM on October 9, 2004
I have to admit I like Sean Hannity. He asks a lot of good questions and is less sycomphatic of the Republican party line than a Rush Limbaugh, but not off the wall loony like Michael Weiner. He's funny and witty and has a public persona of being a nice guy. After all, he basically catapulted Alan Colmes from the doldrums of evening radio into stardom as the Fox News house liberal. I really don't get this hatred for him. He's not a racist or a felon. He's not pompous, but is grateful for all the breaks he's gotten. But, he's a conservative, so he must be evil.
posted by calwatch at 4:31 PM on October 9, 2004
I am a talk radio junky, and not because I'm a kool-aid drinker, I am an avid listener of NPR, BBC, O'Reilly, Alan Colmes, even Limbaugh occasionally. I enjoy listening to all of their viewpoints and feel enriched and informed as a citizen being so exposed.
But Hannity is just terrible. It's 3 hours a day of him taking calls where him and the caller exchange 2 minutes of talking about what "Great Americans" each other are, in between horrible patriotic modern country bumper music. It's unbelievably tedious and insipid. O'Reilly is a million times more listenable and interesting.
posted by glenwood at 5:12 PM on October 9, 2004
But Hannity is just terrible. It's 3 hours a day of him taking calls where him and the caller exchange 2 minutes of talking about what "Great Americans" each other are, in between horrible patriotic modern country bumper music. It's unbelievably tedious and insipid. O'Reilly is a million times more listenable and interesting.
posted by glenwood at 5:12 PM on October 9, 2004
I agree with glenwood. Hannity is terrible. Compared to him, Limbaugh actually sounds more like a principled conservative than a Republican shrill like Hannity. Plus, Limbaugh's show is so much more entertaining.
posted by gyc at 6:07 PM on October 9, 2004
posted by gyc at 6:07 PM on October 9, 2004
Most talk radio callers are terrible, and most radio hosts can't turn these lemons into lemonade. (There are a few exceptions, like Phil Hendrie and Mr. KABC, that handle the callers like they deserve.)
Limbaugh's shtick got old years ago. Limbaugh's parody songs were great in the Clinton era but became old hat once Bush got elected, and his skills declined as his hearing went down the tubes. His bumper music and "special updates" also got dated. I also won't forgive Rush for character assassinating John McCain in the 2000 primary season.
I find O'Reilly's blatant arrogance entertaining, and he often surprises me with his viewpoints. The main problem with O'Reilly is that he doesn't shut up and let the guests talk. He does keep the callers on for the right amount of time (about 10-20 seconds), because no one wants to listen to a caller talk about the same issue yet again.
For conservative talkers, Hannity is articulate. His beliefs are genuinely held, unlike a certain Weiner who went hard right when his ratings started dropping. His guest list is amazing, and he usually lets them talk. Even liberals like Howard Dean, Dennis Kucinich, and Janeane Garofalo appear on his show for some reason. Occasionally he pulls a joke like on April Fools' Day when he announced an endorsement for John Kerry. And, everyone likes Marty at the end of the show, and the side stuff like Flipper and the Friday quizzes weren't the same old shtick. The main knocks are he can't reign in his callers and make them get to the point, and that his radio show often seems like a plugfest for the main event on TV (in contrast to O'Reilly where he keeps the plugging relatively restrained).
posted by calwatch at 7:25 PM on October 9, 2004
Limbaugh's shtick got old years ago. Limbaugh's parody songs were great in the Clinton era but became old hat once Bush got elected, and his skills declined as his hearing went down the tubes. His bumper music and "special updates" also got dated. I also won't forgive Rush for character assassinating John McCain in the 2000 primary season.
I find O'Reilly's blatant arrogance entertaining, and he often surprises me with his viewpoints. The main problem with O'Reilly is that he doesn't shut up and let the guests talk. He does keep the callers on for the right amount of time (about 10-20 seconds), because no one wants to listen to a caller talk about the same issue yet again.
For conservative talkers, Hannity is articulate. His beliefs are genuinely held, unlike a certain Weiner who went hard right when his ratings started dropping. His guest list is amazing, and he usually lets them talk. Even liberals like Howard Dean, Dennis Kucinich, and Janeane Garofalo appear on his show for some reason. Occasionally he pulls a joke like on April Fools' Day when he announced an endorsement for John Kerry. And, everyone likes Marty at the end of the show, and the side stuff like Flipper and the Friday quizzes weren't the same old shtick. The main knocks are he can't reign in his callers and make them get to the point, and that his radio show often seems like a plugfest for the main event on TV (in contrast to O'Reilly where he keeps the plugging relatively restrained).
posted by calwatch at 7:25 PM on October 9, 2004
It's been my experience that those who boast about being of the upper crust generally aren't... and evidently the same is true of those who never tire of talking about their "humble origins".
Look at Dubya, for instance: a "common Texan" who was born and educated in the northeast, and a "rancher" who'd never set foot on a ranch until 1999...
posted by clevershark at 7:42 PM on October 9, 2004
Look at Dubya, for instance: a "common Texan" who was born and educated in the northeast, and a "rancher" who'd never set foot on a ranch until 1999...
posted by clevershark at 7:42 PM on October 9, 2004
Hannity is blustering, boorish, and poorly informed. He appears to have the sense of humor of a particularly crabby cockroach.
I would personally love to launch him and Michael Moore into space together for a steel-cage match to the death.
posted by Sidhedevil at 8:18 PM on October 9, 2004
I would personally love to launch him and Michael Moore into space together for a steel-cage match to the death.
posted by Sidhedevil at 8:18 PM on October 9, 2004
Weiner a/k/a "Savage" doesn't seem to be "hard right" anymore--I don't listen to his show, but the teasers I hear on the radio for it basically have him lambasting Bush for not preserving the racial purity and precious bodily fluids of our nation or something like that.
It's a long road from hippie herbalist to head of the Monster Screaming Loony Party, US division...
posted by Sidhedevil at 8:23 PM on October 9, 2004
It's a long road from hippie herbalist to head of the Monster Screaming Loony Party, US division...
posted by Sidhedevil at 8:23 PM on October 9, 2004
As Romanesko put it in his link, Hannity apparently has found a jet he likes--to Utah Valley State College.
posted by croutonsupafreak at 8:33 PM on October 9, 2004
posted by croutonsupafreak at 8:33 PM on October 9, 2004
Justgary, I don't think Hannity is a douchebag for his political beliefs. He's just a douchebag. There's a difference.
posted by psmealey at 8:00 AM on October 10, 2004
posted by psmealey at 8:00 AM on October 10, 2004
psmealey, I'm with you. I couldn't agree with, say, Bill Kristol any less than I agree with Hannity. But I respect Kristol a kajillion times more than I respect Hannity.
Similarly, Michael Moore probably votes for the same people I do more often than not (well, maybe not in primaries, because I seem to be more likely to take a Republican ballot for various reasons). However, I would much rather be cast away on a desert island with Kristol because he, at least, seems like a sane human being.
posted by Sidhedevil at 8:23 AM on October 10, 2004
Similarly, Michael Moore probably votes for the same people I do more often than not (well, maybe not in primaries, because I seem to be more likely to take a Republican ballot for various reasons). However, I would much rather be cast away on a desert island with Kristol because he, at least, seems like a sane human being.
posted by Sidhedevil at 8:23 AM on October 10, 2004
« Older Round Two in the Town Hall | No, we can't have nice things Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
a fucking fuck, fuck him and the fucking horse he fucking rode in onmy least favorite personposted by mr.marx at 4:59 AM on October 9, 2004