Quantcast

«

»

Nov 25 2013

Hannity’s Hypocrisy on Hypocrisy

Sean Hannity, who is nothing if not a blind partisan hack, went all meta in response to the Senate’s changing of the rules to forbid filibusters on judicial nominees, accusing liberals of hypocrisy (and in many cases he’s right) while engaging in it himself in spades. Here’s the graphic he had up:

hannityhypocrisy

He began his show by declaring the rule change “one of the most lawless power grabs in the history of the U.S. Senate. And here he is in 2005:

There are seven specific instances in the Constitution where they call for a supermajority. I believe it’s unconstitutional to filibuster. It is not about advice and consent now to ask for a supermajority on judicial nominations. I believe that is not constitutional.

8 years ago the filibuster was unconstitutional. Now it’s a “lawless power grab” for the Senate to change the rules to prevent that unconstitutional thing from happening. How convenient for you, Sean.

10 comments

Skip to comment form

  1. 1
    Hercules Grytpype-Thynne

    I don’t know which liberals you’re referring to, Ed, but I don’t think that it’s necessarily hypocritical to have engaged in judicial filibusters in the past and oppose them now. Circumstances alter cases, and what was once a tool that was employed only in exceptional cases had become a mechanism for constant and unremitting obstruction.

  2. 2
    raven

    Reuters:

    Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat, led the charge on the rules change, accusing Republicans of record obstructionism and saying the American public is right to believe that “Congress is broken.”

    Reid said that of the 168 filibusters against presidential nominees in U.S. history, half were held against Obama’s picks.

    1. Half of all filibusters in US history have been recently, to hold up Obama’s nominees.

    2. The GOP has no plan or philosophy any more.

    It’s mostly obstructionism. Obstruct Obama any way they can and if the USA goes down the tubes, that is just collateral damage.

    Their other activity is just selling hate. Cutting food stamps for the poor, beating up on those mobile baby factories sometimes called “women”, beating up on minorities, beating up on illegal immigrants. Hate for anyone who isn’t an angry, rich, white old man.

  3. 3
    raven

    It’s estimated by Krugman and other economists that the USA should be growing GDP around 3% a year.

    And GOP obstructionism has cut that by 1% to 2%. And if they were better at it, they would cut it to a negative number, what they tried during the government shutdown.

    And 47% of the population voted for these nihilists. Who knew national suicide would be so popular?

  4. 4
    doublereed

    Now I want to find some hypocrisy of Ed on the filibuster so that I can make an article called Ed’s Hypocrisy of Hannity’s Hypocrisy on Hypocrisy.

  5. 5
    Michael Heath

    When talking to one’s elders who are Fox News watchers and its impacting their behavior and relationship with other family members, don’t be surprised if you get the same type of reasoning you get from people who abuse drugs and deny there’s a problem.

    For example, one elder told me he doesn’t watch Sean Hannity, that he knows he’s a moron apologist for the GOP. But he swears by Greta Van Sustern. OK, so you’re not mainlining, just snorting. But if it wasn’t harming your family relationships I wouldn’t be asked to intervene by other family members.

    And like drug abusers who falsely deny they have a problem, such people are also lying about how they watch Fox. All one has to do is let them go and they’ll be splitting out idiocies exactly like the Hannity, Bill O’Reilly, or the departed Glen Beck disciples that they are. Oh they’re mainlining all right.

    In this forum we joke about the dog whistle, “Benghazi”, as if that alone proves the Fox News narrative against reality. Well I’ve unfortunately encountered people who’ve done exactly that. Spit out that word alone as is it’s proof or a talsmanic defense against reason.

  6. 6
    patricksimons

    The decision to change the filibuster rule did not happen in a vacuum. As Lawrence O’Donnell pointe out on his program last week, nearly half of all the judicial filibusters in American history have come under the Obama administration. People have become so blinded by their hatred of this president, that they completely ignore the outrageous abuse of the filibuster that has taken place.

  7. 7
    cptdoom

    All the GOP has to do to counter his move by Reid is “reach across the aisle” and get a few Democrats to agree with them. What, that’s hard?

    Of course, it’s not just judicial nominations that are being obstructed. Rachel Maddow has been tracking for years now the GOP’s unprecedented use of the filibuster on nearly every bill in front of the Senate.

  8. 8
    Larry

    Ah, but Hannity’s comment on the filibuster was made long ago, in a land far, far away. Things are very different now. For instance, the current President is black.

  9. 9
    coffeehound

    “one of the most lawless power grabs in the history of the U.S. Senate.”
    Exactly. That’s my term for the GOP filibuster takeover of the executive authority to appoint judges.
    Sean of course thinks it lawless of the Senate to make rules that run the Senate, as established in the bylaws of the Senate.
    I presume he’s aware that words have meaning, right?

  10. 10
    Michael Heath

    Sean Hannity states:

    . . . “one of the most lawless power grabs in the history of the U.S. Senate.

    coffeehound responds:

    Sean of course thinks it lawless of the Senate to make rules that run the Senate, as established in the bylaws of the Senate.
    I presume he’s aware that words have meaning, right?

    Perhaps, but I’d put Mr. Hannity in the same class as Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck. That’s the class that don’t know the definition of words used by informed grown-ups.

Leave a Reply

Switch to our mobile site