About us Login Get email updates
Quick Clip
Print

On Hannity, Menin says "the comments that Clarence Thomas made... were the same" as Sotomayor's "wise Latina woman" comment

May 27, 2009 10:12 pm ET

Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.

EMBED

Previously:

Politico ignores history of conservatives' citing importance of empathy in a judge
Politico, Wash. Post omit context of Sotomayor remark about "Latina," "white male" judges

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by big2xrube6146 (May 27, 2009 10:21 pm ET)
      5  
      Just shows you how stupid Hannity is. Pure BS.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by snoopy (May 27, 2009 10:27 pm ET)
      4  
      That's right hannity, clarence thomas is on the court. More hipocracy since y'all had no issue with his similar statement. Anything to play the victim...
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Col. Harlan Sanders (May 27, 2009 11:23 pm ET)
        7  

        Attention all Wingnuts: Invent new phony outrage!

        Remember the hysterics about Michelle Obama's "proud of America for the first time" comment? And then the clip of John McCain saying he never really loved America until he was a POW (which he was, btw)surfaced. And they all moved on to a brand new shiny , phony issue.

        And it's like the last outrage never happened, and the suckers don't seem to notice.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by magnolialover (May 28, 2009 7:46 am ET)
        4  
        Exactly. So if Thomas is on the court, by their own reasoning, there is NO reason as to why Sotomayor should be on the court. Do they even realize that they're destroying their own arguments when they say stupid things like this?
        Report Abuse
    • Author by Seagullbro88 (May 28, 2009 12:13 am ET)
      4  
      This is a great example of compartmentalized thinking. People like Hannity have gross inconsistencies in they way they view the world. This is because he is unable to see how the comments made by Clarence Thomas and Sonya Sotomayor are connected. To make up for this lack of cognition and recognition of similar contexts, he asks questions designed to elicit narrow responses that he wants to hear. If his guest attempts to answer in any format other than that prescribed by Hannity, he often rudely interrupts and bullies him or her until a simpler, less relevant topic can be brought up.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by CountChocul8 (May 28, 2009 11:47 am ET)
        1  
        I agree that Hannity does run his mouth over others on his show. But it is a show...and it's his. Even though I lean more conservative, I can only stomach so much of it at a time. It seems that our media, including this website, has become a profligate with conflict. The media has become a type of intellectual ancient Roman Games. The public is feeding its blood lust through the media, which is all too happy to provide it. Can you imagine Walter Cronkite hosting some of these shows. I can't. Is it any wonder our public officials (both right and left) appear to have no morals? Look who is electing them...us.

        Let's stop promoting bad behavior and start modeling good behavior.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Seagullbro88 (May 28, 2009 1:35 pm ET)
             
          I would definitely agree with you that opposing segments of the media are too busy fighting amongst one another. Certain television hosts all across the political spectrum would rather provide their viewers with the entertainment value of verbally battering their opponents instead of promoting understanding for opposing views. We will never achieve virtue until we understand why we disagree. It seems to me that the media should be informing the public in the clearest, most understandable manner available without sacrificing context and explanation for expediency.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by Seagullbro88 (May 28, 2009 1:35 pm ET)
             
          I would definitely agree with you that opposing segments of the media are too busy fighting amongst one another. Certain television hosts all across the political spectrum would rather provide their viewers with the entertainment value of verbally battering their opponents instead of promoting understanding for opposing views. We will never achieve virtue until we understand why we disagree. It seems to me that the media should be informing the public in the clearest, most understandable manner available without sacrificing context and explanation for expediency.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by SMTDL (May 30, 2009 11:50 am ET)
               
            I agree with both of the above comments but I think it is being driven in a combative direction to try to offset the stuff that comes from the extreme right via talk radio and Fox News.It is very significant that a "News" network(Fox) presents what it does with out a challenge with millions of citizens watching and taking it in as news.A recent example is what Dick Morris said on Hannity about the President siding with Iran on nukes based on no evidence other than tortured logic and his interpretation of "code" speech.Hannity asked him to talk about it and never challenged or explored it just repeating the mock outrage and concern for Israel.This is not reporting News in a fair and balanced way.When you add up the stuff that comes from Limbaugh,Savage,Liddy,Ingraham,Bortz,Beck,O'Reilly,Malkin,etc....there is no equivalent from the left in this volume or intensity.Some networks seem to be trying to balance it out a little.Still there is far more coverage of Republican/Conservative opposition than so called liberal position.Take healthcare reform which should be a neutral issue but most of what you hear is opposition to "Socialized/Government Run" healthcare....few if any alternate ideas presented just opposition.
            Report Abuse
    • Author by dmhack (May 28, 2009 2:01 am ET)
      3  
      Lady, lady... don't muddle my thinking with logic.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by (May 28, 2009 8:27 am ET)
      4  
      I cannot understand why with morons like Hannity, there is any kind of an audience for FoxNews. Doesn't say much for the intelligence level of their viewers does it?
      Report Abuse
    • Author by nerzog (May 28, 2009 8:32 am ET)
      6  
      Fascinating to watch these cretins in action. Hanniterd deftly brushed aside the Clarence Thomas analogy and swerved back to his talking point. I was waiting for him to stick his fingers in his ears and start chanting "Blah blah blah blah... I can't hear you... I can't hear you."

      What a lying sack of dog mess.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by WildcatProgressive (May 28, 2009 10:26 am ET)
        4  
        Come on Nerzog. That's not cool. I've picked up PLENTY of dog mess that is MUCH more intellectual than Sean Hannity.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by MrBrown (May 28, 2009 8:42 am ET)
      5  
      And empathy was also used to describe Clarence Thomas as well.

      Selective outrage, that's worse than phoney outrage.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by captfoster2 (May 28, 2009 9:06 am ET)
      6  
      Something tells me that Mrs. Menin might not ever be invited on Hannity's little puke-fest of a show again because she showed brains and made a point that destroyed Sean's (not that that is a hard thing to accomplish!) ... ?

      It is obvious that Hannity has no idea just how stupid he really is!
      Report Abuse
      • Author by WildcatProgressive (May 28, 2009 10:30 am ET)
        5  
        Thanks a lot, capt. Now in my mind I have an image of Hannity's producers interviewing prospective "liberal" guests.

        "How smart is this one?"

        "Uhhh ... IQ of 80."

        "Nope, too smart. Keep looking."

        "The only thing lower than that I have is Alan Colmes."

        "Perfect! Book him! We'll call it a reunion show!"
        Report Abuse
    • Author by CountChocul8 (May 28, 2009 11:28 am ET)
      1 5
      The following is from MM website debunking the myths about Sotomayor:

      "...as Media Matters has noted, former Bush Justice Department lawyer John Yoo has similarly stressed that Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas "is a black man with a much greater range of personal experience than most of the upper-class liberals who take potshots at him"."

      The differences in these two quotes are that 1. Sonia Sotomayor has actually spoken the words attributed to her and Clarence Thomas has not, but 2. even if he did, there was nothing in the words that attributed a superiority of race/gender. It was merely a statement made at the time that was defending the background of Clarence Thomas from the attacks he was receiving. Sotomayor's quote was unsolicited, judgemental of the abilities of others based on race/sex and should properly be examined and explained - by her.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Easy to refute wingnuts (May 28, 2009 11:56 am ET)
        5  
        You really should try reading whole articles for comprehension and understanding. It works a lot better than cherry-picking sentence fragments for artificial outrage.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by CountChocul8 (May 28, 2009 1:02 pm ET)
            1
          That was a fair assesement of the section of the article dealing with that particular quote. The outrage was real, althought not as vitriolic as the conservative talk shows have been. If anything though, the outrage is not based so much in the statement iteslf, but in the liberal attempts to sweep the quote aside without examining it.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by Brabantio (May 28, 2009 4:36 pm ET)
            2  
            But the statement has been examined. In context, it's perfectly understandable. After it's been defended any number of times with citations of specific passages, I'm not sure where you get "liberal attempts to sweep the quote aside" from.
            Report Abuse
      • Author by captfoster2 (May 28, 2009 12:08 pm ET)
        4  
        "Sotomayor's quote was unsolicited,"

        Um.... CountChocul8.... yes it was... she spoke those words via a question posed to her many years ago at, if I remember right, at a college forum? ... you seem to be to brainless to know the facts before you post... not sure the forum, but the question was posed to her.

        If anything needs explaining... its just how exactly Clarance Thomas became a Supreme court justice in the first place... that and the 2000 decision that the Supreme Court had no legal precedent to listen to, let alone vote on... and possibly... how in the hell does a guy as dumb as Sean Hannity have his own show?
        Report Abuse
        • Author by CountChocul8 (May 28, 2009 1:01 pm ET)
            1
          Please don't call me brainless before stating that you are not sure of the forum. I am sure that her statement was solicited in the sense that she was asked. I merely meant to point out that it was not a part of her confirmation hearing or appointment process. The article I cited was putting the cart before tha horse and has shown that MM has already taken a position on what it thinks about her statement. I just want to know what she thinks.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by CountChocul8 (May 28, 2009 1:17 pm ET)
            1
          I must assume that there are a lot of people that watch Hannity because they either like him or hate him that much. It is highly repetitive and would be easier to tolerate if it could actually foster debate rather than beat people over the head with the same old stick.

          I find that although his is not the best TV show, it does offer a different perspective. But I can't take too much of Chris Matthews or NBC/CBS/ABC either.

          I usually flip back and forth from FoxNews (fair & balanced) to CNN (when viewers want the truth they turn to it) Ha ha to both.

          Don't belive the poiticians and do make up yopur own mind.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by magnolialover (May 28, 2009 12:39 pm ET)
        2  
        Except that Sotomayor's comment was not racist when taken in context. Read the entire exchange, it might prove enlightening.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by Brabantio (May 28, 2009 1:47 pm ET)
        2  
        If a "much greater range of personal experience" doesn't assert superiority, then what is the purpose of the statement? It would seem obvious that it's supposed to be a benefit to his capabilities as a justice.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by pearlene_scott1602 (May 28, 2009 2:42 pm ET)
        2  
        even if he did, there was nothing in the words that attributed a superiority of race/gender.

        Sotomayors statement DID NOT propose ANY superiority, but she did acknowledge that life experiences for Hispanic females who've faced adversity and won are vastly different from white males.

        I'm sure you can find a sufficient number of white males who've experienced discriminated simply because they were white, denied jobs or promotions because they were white, lost better housing opportunities because they were white. Basically life's been a real b**ch for poor white males, JUST BECAUSE THEY WERE WHITE! I'm playing my small violin in sympathy for the rough life white males have had.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by hurricaneyankee52983 (May 28, 2009 12:16 pm ET)
      1  
      More proof that HANNITY is nothing more than a propaganda mouthpiece for the NEO CONSERVATIVE cause.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by tman418 (May 28, 2009 9:08 pm ET)
      1  
      "Clarence Thomas was brutalized"

      Sotomayor was brutalized before she was even chosen as Obama's nominee.
      Report Abuse

Feed IconRSS Feeds

Get personalized rss or email alerts

Connect & Share

Facebook Twitter Digg YouTube MySpace