As far as the immigration question, I don’t know what the answer is, but I stopped watching Hannity and Colmes a couple years ago when it was clear that it was not intending to be a forum for the expression of different viewpoints (which it claimed to be), but rather a platform for Hannity to bully his guests, and for Colmes to basically sit back most of the time and watch it happen. Not every show can be “The McLaughlin Group,” but it became obvious to me very early on that Hannity has no interest in probing the issues. He wants people to come down squarely on his side, or else they’re “the enemy.”

Most Neo-Cons seem to want the world drawn with very clear lines of right and wrong, good and evil. Unfortunately, the world is not that simple. There are so many shades of gray, and it can get exhausting looking at them I know. True conservatism is not something I have a real problem with — personal accountability, balancing the budget, smaller government (and government that stays out of your personal business).

Trouble is, the people in charge today are not really conservatives, are they… Sean is probably more of a traditional conservative than so many others on television and radio — I like the fact that he rarely brings up religion in conjunction with patriotism, and I also was very pleased that he confronted the author of the recent anti-Hillary book on some of the lies contained therein.

Still, he shills for this administration on a daily basis. A true conservative, I think, would have a very hard time doing that.

Sean has his moments when he is truly trying to get a straight answer out of a person being evasive, but the problem lies with the fact that he practices the same “bulldozing” conversational tactics even when his guests ARE giving a straight answer.

I found myself flabbergasted one night (this was during he and Colmes’ TV show) when I found myself siding with Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee in an argument with Hannity. The discussion was on immigration, and Lee was being practical about the matter, freely admitting the simple fact that we just don’t have the resources to up and deport a 12 or so million illegal aliens. Sean would have none of it. Lee certainly wasn’t expressing a desire to let illegal aliens off Scott free as a matter of desirable policy – but just that we approach it from a realistic standpoint, recognizing the unfortunate reality. Sean wouldn’t let her flesh out her point without DEMANDING that she give a “yes” or a “no” to the question of whether or not she wanted to let law breakers get away with it. She approached the issue with a reluctant recognition of reality, but he wanted to force her into a recharacterization of her position as being “pro-lawbreaking” or “pro-illegal immigration.”

One can readily and honestly disagree with the prudence of Congresswoman Lee’s approach – the issue of immigration itself is not the subject of my point. I didn’t get to hear enough of what she thought to really know if I agreed with her overall plan or not– and that’s exactly the point isn’t it ?! Sean was so intent on pinning her to the wall that he stiffled what could have been a real discussion.

And this is coming from someone who can’t remember EVER agreeing with Sheila Jackson Lee on ANYTHING. I don’t know much about this site, heck I’ve only read one thing on here so far, but from the title I gather I’m not in similar political company. And I’m sure that when it comes to the substance of the issues themselves, I agree with Hannity a great deal more than with those on this site. But I will grant without question that Sean Hannity does a disservice to this country and conservatism by conducting himself the way he does. I could go on forever, as “bulldozing” is not the only drawback to Sean’s approach, but I’ve written enough already.

Matt