Monday, August 13, 2007

The Trads Versus The Rads, 2007

The Trads and the Rads were two factions within the Young Americans for Freedom in the 1960's. The Trads were the traditional conservatives (such as they were at that time), and the Rads were libertarians, seeking a smaller, much less intrusive government. While the Rads were fairly numerous and vocal (and much smarter) they were still vastly outnumbered by the Trads. In the end, the Trads were able to purge the Rads, and YAF became a more uniformly conservative organization. I was never a member of YAF, and thus my recollections come from the outside. Perhaps a member of YAF during that time can fill me in.

Sean Hannity, well-known conservative radio and tv commentator, would have definitely been a Trad.

Now, it looks like Hannity (he's not the only one) has taken yet another page from the leftist news media book of selective reporting: if you don't like the news; if you don't think the public should hear it, spike it!

The leftist media tend to fail to report much of the news that say, suggests that individuals are better at defending themselves (if given the opportunity) than the police are at protecting them. Or that the quasi-military police gang that broke into a suburban house and terrorized the family inside, had a bogus warrant and didn't announce themselves before breaking the door down.

They also fail to report many other suggestions and proofs that leftist-promoted hoaxes, such as the wholesale extinctions of plants and animals (caused by man), global warming (caused by man) and the destruction of the environment (caused by capitalism) are lies perpetrated to increase the power of government over the individual.

I'd also like to see daily reports of the many times elected officials and bureaucrats violate the Constitution they've sworn to uphold.

Mr Hannity is learning from these people. Today, on his radio show, He spoke of the three highest Republican Presidential vote-getters at the Iowa Cauci, then he mentioned three candidates that didn't compete in Iowa. At no point did he mention Congressman Ron Paul.

Now, I'm pretty sure Dr Paul is still a candidate, and I'm pretty sure he was either in Iowa, or he was not. In other words, he has to fit into one of those two categories. Yet, Mr Hannity failed to mention his name in his report.

I know that Hannity is opposed to the candidacy of Dr Paul. I'm pretty sure I know the reason why; based on what I know about Hannity. Dr Paul is a Rad. Hannity's not, for example, very familiar with the US Constitution, whereas Dr Paul follows the Constitution verbatim, as it was written. Hannity tends to pick and choose according to what the more influential members of the Republican Party seem to like. For example, he's totally down with the so-called Homeland Security Act and the Patriot Act.

Hannity ignores the fact that these laws violate the Bill of Rights in a host of ways. I couldn't even begin to list the many ways these laws violate both the Constitution and natural law. Suffice it to say that legal due process is pretty much rendered a shambles by these so-called laws and that the rights that are affirmed and guaranteed by the document are now to be allowed only at the government's convenience.

Of this, Hannity enthusiastically approves. He also approves of the much older War on Drugs, by means of which the Constitution is rendered sterile and irrelevant, and dlegal due process is largely ignored.

Hannity claims to be opposed to military conscription, but he will flip-flop on this if the Republican Party members in office begin calling it necessary. He loves to tell of the many times he's disagreed with President Bush, but in every case he fails to put any barb in his criticism.

In addition, it might be noted that his interview style varies severely depending 'pon whether he's in agreement with the interviewee, or not. When he talks to Rudy Giuliani, it's always politeness, softball questions and they end up singing Kumbaya together. On the other hand, when he interviews Robert F Kennedy, Jr, the extreme leftist environmental wack-job, it quickly becomes a shout-fest, with Hannity accusing Kennedy of all manner of vile leftist debauchery (much of which is true, but irrelevant to the topic under discussion). He calls Kennedy a liberal, as if that seals the discussion (which, of course, Kennedy is most emphatically not. Thomas Jefferson was a liberal. I've read Thomas Jefferson, and Mr Kennedy, you're no Thomas Jefferson--to paraphrase Lloyd Bentson.)

In the end, you find out very little about what Mr Hannity's interviewees actually think about the relevant issues. Not good.

With friends like these, who needs enemas?

Warm regards,

Col. Hogan
Stalag California


Aurora said...

Unfortunately, Ron Paul doesn't even seem to be in the radar. I'm not sure why this is. Like you, I heartily applaud his tax policies. That alone tells me he's an individual who's unafraid of doing what he thinks is right.
As far as interviewing styles, this is so typical of journalists now. They can't just tell the facts. It's always about opinion.
Giuliani is another one I really don't trust. I see him almost as the left's plan B if it looks like Democrats won't win after all. It will be really interesting to see who makes it through the conventions.

Col. Hogan said...

Well, I don't really expect Dr Paul to be the nominee, but I have to advocate for someone I like. What with the really poor crop of candidates this term, I'm on the edge of not voting at all--I can't vote for someone I don't like.

The lesser of two evils is evil.

Ol' BC said...

The lesser of two evils is always bad. We've been faced with that several times recently.