Hannity branded Emanuel "one of the hardest left-wing ... radicals" -- studies, news reports disagree
SUMMARY: Sean Hannity asserted that Barack Obama's new White House chief of staff, Rep. Rahm Emanuel, is "one of the hardest left-wing ... radicals" and stated that the choice of Emanuel shows that Obama is "hard, hard left." But contrary to Hannity's assertion, a study using every non-unanimous vote cast in the House in 2007 to determine relative ideology placed Emanuel in a tie for the ranking of 126th most liberal Democratic congressman, and news reports have labeled Emanuel as "a centrist," who has "worked at good relations with Republicans."
On the November 5 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, co-host Sean Hannity asserted that Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-IL), who has just been announced as President-elect Barack Obama's White House chief of staff, is "one of the hardest left-wing ... radicals" and stated that the choice of Emanuel shows that Obama is "hard, hard left." Contrary to Hannity's assertion that Emanuel is "one of the hardest left-wing ... radicals," a study by political science professors Keith Poole and Jeff Lewis, using every non-unanimous vote cast in the House in 2007 to determine relative ideology, placed Emanuel in a tie for the ranking of 126th most liberal Democratic congressman with the late Rep. Tom Lantos (CA).
Hannity said of Obama's choice of Emanuel, "He's picked Rahm Emanuel, one of the hardest left-wing -- you know, radicals, you know, on the left, as his chief of staff. There's all the evidence that he's gonna swing to the hard left. And I think they're gonna overreach, and I think we're going gonna see the person that I think Barack Obama is. I think he is hard, hard left."
Even the National Journal 2007 vote ratings, which Hannity has himself cited in attacking Obama and which Media Matters criticized as subjective, rated Emanuel the 128th most liberal Democratic congressman with a composite score of 72.3.
Further, numerous media reports have labeled Emanuel as "a centrist," who has "worked at good relations with Republicans." A November 6 Los Angeles Times article, for example, asserted: "Emanuel's policies, unlike his politics, have always been centrist, in the Bill Clinton mold. In addition, a different Emanuel has emerged in recent years, one who has forged friendships with Republicans and shown an ability to work with them on occasion." The article also quoted GOP strategist John Feehery as saying that Emanuel "understands that if Obama goes too far to the left, it's not going to be good for the Democrats. ... I think he's the kind of guy who can knock some heads and help Obama guide the Congress toward the middle." The New York Times also reported in a November 6 article that "Mr. Emanuel has worked at good relations with Republicans, and has the grudging respect of some."
From the November 5 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes:
HANNITY: Senator Obama's now our president-elect, but his tax plan is sure to have small business owners concerned. So, what does an Obama administration mean for the average Joe? Joining us now with reaction is the man who became the face of the proverbial average Joe. Joe Wurzelbacher is back with us, but you know him as Joe the Plumber. Joe, how are ya?
WURZELBACHER: Hey, I'm doing real good. How about you guys tonight?
HANNITY: Well, all right. You never expect to hear it. You were playing catch with your son, and all of a sudden, Barack Obama walks down the street, one of his few unscripted moments -- and I think it revealed a lot about the real Barack Obama, which is the question that I'm bringing up here tonight. And you asked a question, and lo and behold, now you're out there campaigning with Governor Palin and Senator McCain. And it had a big impact on this campaign. What are your thoughts about the results?
WURZELBACHER: Yeah, I was disappointed. You know, I mean, my guy didn't win, but the same token, you know, Obama ran an incredible campaign. That can't be denied, and he's what the people chose. So, you know, now I gotta get behind him and support him, but in my opinion, though, it doesn't give him a blank check. We still need to hold him responsible and accountable to the people of America.
HANNITY: Yeah, no -- and I agree with that, too. I -- here's my prediction. I think that liberals will misinterpret -- I mean, for example, we have evidence that they're even gonna strip Joe Lieberman of his leadership position in the United States Senate, retribution. He's picked Rahm Emanuel --
WURZELBACHER: Wow.
HANNITY: -- one of the hardest left-wing -- you know, radicals --
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Radical?
HANNITY: -- on the left -- as his chief of staff. There's all the evidence that he's gonna swing to the hard left. And I think they're gonna overreach, and I think we're going gonna see the person that I think Barack Obama is. I think he is hard, hard left. We'll see. We'll give him an opportunity. But I --
WURZELBACHER: My --
HANNITY: Go ahead.
WURZELBACHER: I was going to say, well, you know, SecureOurDream.com is a website I started up. I don't know -- I know you haven't gotten to that yet. But, you know, that's kind of why I'm starting it up, is one, to hold the elected officials accountable for, you know, who voted them in, be you Democrat or Republican, and hopefully be able to head off things like that to a degree and bring it out in the media.
HANNITY: Well, you know, if you picture a guy like Rahm Emanuel -- who said about Republicans, "They can go blank themselves" -- if you pick a guy that voted with the Democratic Party 99 percent of the time, you know, it seems like Chicago politics is moving to Washington. That's my interpretation.
Well, Sean, your liberal slur days are over for you. Even McCain's internal polling revealed that 60% of the people considered Obama a liberal and they still gave him an anazing mandate.
Because you see Sean, thanks to extremists like you and your failed ideology, this nation has become center left nation.
While it's true that Obama received a liberal mandate to govern, he seems intent on making sure that moderates run the place.
He's even reaching out to Republicans and allowing the idea to get around that they, too, will be part of his administration.
It's a mistake. There's two words that describe what happens when you play nice with these Republicans.
Linda Tripp.
Perhaps you confuse pragmatism with playing nice? And I think that entrenched partisan warfare frame of reference is what lost it for Hillary. I'll bet Barack knows just exactly what a bunch of nasty backstabbers Republicans can be, but I think he's going to try diplomacy first with them. I also think he might just take us with him into the White House and put us to work when we need to pressure those who would stand in the way of progress.
I get it, though. We have to organize ourselves for real change. I'm a populist progressive and I know I'll be disappointed by Obama, after all, America is a business society and the interests of the wealthy almost always come first as they are burrowed in the halls of power in the U.S.
Sean Hannity's job depends on slurring liberals. As does much of talk radio. Last night, Dennis Miller called Barack Obama "the most liberal senator." (Because The National Journal said so.) I believe that was probably meant as a slur.
Now, I expect talk radio -- mostly divorced, middle-aged (or older) white males as far as I can tell -- to continue to a) play up Sarah Palin (see, we are not really sexist) and b) bash the media for telling the truth about Sarah Palin (see, it's the liberal media that is really sexist). As if they needed an excuse for bashing the so-called liberal media.
I have to agree wtih your take, roundhouse. I think so-called conservative talk radio (really, extremist hate radio) is partly responsible for Barack Obama's success. As voters we cannot do much about the choices available on our radios, but we can certainly voice our disapproval indirectly by selecting as our leaders the very people we hear maligned on a daily basis.
What would we do without Seanny telling us who all of the far leftists are or O'Reilly to point out the pinheads?
And Sam, don't you have a business to buy and snakes to drain or something?
Here we go. EVERYONE Obama even has lunch with will be labeled as "hard-left-radicals" by this no-talent-ass-clown. I'm waiting for this assbag to say that about JIm Webb. (And am I dreaming to hope that Webb would proceed to put his boot up Insanity's...?)
At this very moment, 52.7% of Americans are "hard-left-radicals" - through in the 1% who voted for Nader and we're 53.7% of the US. Sean "Yeah, no -- and I agree with that, too" Hannity is toast.
put his boot up Insanity's..."blank"! Sorry, Old Benjamin has me thinking of how perfect SissyBoy would be hosting Match Game '08. Are Fannie Flagg & Charles nelson Reilly still alive?
I wish the video had the rest of this segment , in which Sam the Socialist gets so confused by the hard-hitting interrogation of Colmes that he says he backed McCain because Obama's plan didn't raise his taxes enough.
Its sort of like how every Democrat in the Senate is the most liberal in the Senate.
I had the correct feeling in 99 about bush. I have this feeling based on what I have seen about Obamas background and how he can deal with people that he will command respect from the other world leaders (whereas bush was a laughing stock) and America will be restored. I realize this is very simplistic but, By the middle of 2009, everything will be on track and the economy will come back. It won't be long before inshannity has nothing to say about Obama. Mark these words.
No, he'll just keep making things up like he always does. Its just that, hopefully, there will be less people paying attention.
This is the kind of open government Republicans like Hannity fear.
Change.gov
It's hard to defend yourself from the characterizations of "left-wing" and "radical", due mainly to the fact that those words do not state specifically a single Public Policy opinion you have, or any other single and specific thing you might think or believe.
But that's the stupid position you'd be put into, defending yourself from those names, if you were stupid enough in the first place, to trade in such worthless and undefined currency, as are coined by the words "left" and "liberal".
I know, it's hard to actually express in words what your Public Policy opinions might actually and specifically be... and I know, it's easy to just say (senselessly) you are "left" or "liberal"... but by taking the easy way out, and not actually expressing your specific Public Policy opinions, and by adopting the senseless labels of "left" and "liberal"...
...you end up being accused of something...
...without actually knowing what it is.
I think Hannity just likes saying "hard" and Obama in the same sentence. In truth, he's probably got a man-crush on Obama.
Once again, Hannity shows that he defines everybody he doesn't agree with as "hard left-wing."
Bait and switch.
You are correct. Emmanuel is a big proponent of the DLC, which believed that only by tacking to the center could Democrats get elected. This was the basis of Clinton's triangulation strategy that Rahm helped implement while in the White House. Essentially, Clinton learned to knee-cap fellow Democrats in Congress by undermining their progressive causes with watered-down more centrist versions of policy.
Since then, there have been two warring factions in the Democratic party. Emmanuel's DLC Republican-light strategy and Howard Dean's 50-state strategy. The election of Obama was a vindication for Dean's vision of a emboldened progressive movement that is competitive in every region of the country.
In light of this, it's highly ironic that Hannity claims that Emmanuel is "hard left". I don't think he even knows what that means.
Well, considering Obama campaigned on more centrist issues, I am not so sure your analysis is correct. He was to the right of Hillary's health care plan. His Pakistan and Afghanistan policies are not liberal by any means. He is cutting taxes for most Americans. He gave speeches on parental responsibility, and how government can't solve all your problems. He advocated reaching bipartisan consensus. He is not an entrenched partisan and I believe he is too smart to sqaunder away all of the red state swing voters he received by moving to the Howard Dean liberal wing of his party. He will govern more like Clinton, he has too, the country is not far anything, they want pragmatism and results, not sniping from political fringes.
The problem lies in your skewed understanding of liberalism.
Liberals know that parents have to be responsible and that government can't solve all your problems. Liberals want to reach bipartisan consensus. Liberals want to get Bin Laden and Al Qaeda.
You suffer from the same problem Hannity does. When you think of a liberal, you picture Peter, Paul and Mary singing protest songs and holding candlelight vigels. It simply isn't true anymore. I'm not even sure if it was ever true. That's why Obama is such an important figure because he can be a proponent of progressive ideas without being chained to the hopeless idealism of the 60's. He can demonstrate the pragmatism behind true liberalism and combat the incorrect stereotypes exhibited in your post.
I don't know how someone stressing parental responsibility and admitting that govt. cannot solve ALL of our problems means they can't be liberal or have to be a centrist. It seems like your falling into the golden mean\middle ground fallacy, where you assume the position between two extremes must be correct just by virtue of it being in the middle. Can you explain your reasoning, please?
Tommy voted for Obama. Tommy doesn't want to admit that he voted for a liberal, nor that the country is really center left. Denial just ain't a river in Egypt.
Tommy, surely you know that Obama isn't the first liberal of his kind to preach about "personal responsibility" while being a strong advocate for government intervention. If one goes back and read the speeches made by Dr. King and Malcolm X, you'd get the same thing (actually Malcolm X was far more conservative and anti-government than King, which was one of the reasons why William F. Buckley, Jr. praised Malcolm X after his death in the pages of The National Review. Buckley admired Malcolm X's do-for-yourself-the-government-can't-save-you philosophy far more than King's pragmatic approach of stressing both personal responsibility and role of government). Even Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton give speeches about parental responsibility.We can even go back to Lyndon Johnson, the most liberal president in terms of domestic policies since FDR, who gave speeches about the same thing, notably his speech at Howard University.
I do agree with you to a degree that Obama is a centrist and has many similarities with Bill Clinton, however, unlike Clinton, there doesn't seem to be this resistance or opposition to the liberal base of the party; there doesn't seem to be this need to ostraizce and silence the liberal base in order to curry favor with conservatives. Unlike Clinton, Obama is willing to listen to everyone, welcomes everyone at the table, decide what will be the right choice, rather than trangulate his way out of something and give vague answers. I think Obama has more in common with FDR (also a centrist when campainging but a liberal when governing) than Clinton.
The Hell he did, tommy. You just have no idea what a liberal really looks like.
He told crowd after crowd that he'd had enough of the you're on your own society and that trickle down does not work. He very clearly articulated that while government cannot solve all our problems, we are all in this together. He said, "part of my job is to make government cool again." That is not the language of a centrist. He ran on a foreign policy platform of diplomacy and alliance building. He ran as a regulator of the financial sector. He ran as a pro-choice candidate. It goes on and on but I suspect you just want to attach yourself to a winner but can't bear the fact that conservatism was thoroughly rebuked. The Republicans put forth their best effort to paint Barack as a liberal. In fact, the internal polling by the McCain campaign showed that 60% of the electorate viewed Obama as a liberal, but the actual vote shows people embracing liberalism instead of rejecting it. Nice try, Tommy but you are dead wrong.
The thing Obama did was express his liberal values of effective government, mutual responsibility, broad prosperity, smarter defense and better future in terms of common American values.
And by the way, Howard dean was the originator of the 50 state strategy. Get your facts straight before you attempt to distort them with your "liberal wing" bs.
You'll do well to get through your skull that pulling out liberal as a slur does not have the juice it once did. So use it sparingly in the way you always admonish people here to use the race card sparingly, lest it loose its meaning.
So, based on your post and the three or four preceding, is BHO a liberal or a centrist?
Good observation. I've been less than consistent in my posts about Obama in this thread.
I think he is able to communicate liberal values in terms of common American values that connect with conservatives.
I think he campaigned as a liberal, sometimes a progressive. Sometimes I recognized a few conservative themes, but on the whole he was much more liberal than conservative, he was center left not centrist.
Will his actions match his words? I think that has a lot to do with how active the grassroots remains. Those who went door to door, made calls, donated and carried him to power need to stay involved.
Good points, Roundhouse. I happen to think Obama's far more progressive than his campaign let on, which is why I'm happy to see populist progressives like David Sirota and folks such as yourself remind him of that and hold his feet to the fire when necessary.
That's interesting. I think the opposite, that he will run a very moderate ship. He got a lot of crossover votes, including mine, and he has the opportunity to really bring people together if he governs like he campaigned.
I don't see the upside in throwing that away.
Well, I have to ask, what in his campaign spoke to your conservative sensibilities? Because what i saw him do was rally a movement around a progressive agenda under the blanket of the American Dream.
It is possible that you are like so many other conservatives; you are far more progressive than you know. It's OK. It's time to come home, Bruce.
What I heard was a call for more regulation for the financial and insurance sector, for providing healthcare for all, a progressive tax rate, greater investment in infrastructure (public, not private), aggressive investment in a green economy, the empowerment of employees through union participation, tough direct diplomacy and withdrawing form Iraq.
And at this very moment the new administration has launched a website, change.gov, that lays out the plan for building a better future and invites us all to participate. I think we may have the real deal with Obama. He is asking us to join and serve the greater good. That ain't no centrist agenda.
But I am curious to hear what spoke to you.
I liked the overall tone of the campaign. I didn't hear anger, I didn't hear blame, I didn't hear division.
He won because he was speaking to everyone, not just his base.
He wants a shared solution, he wants everyone contributing to help turn this thing around. That's what I heard.
He strikes me as a very effective leader, he has the quality. He was not a partisan campaigner, in my view.
You are right. He wasn't partisan, he was inclusive, like a good progressive. However, he did offer a great deal of sharp criticism for the you're on your own ideology. He blasted the market fundamentalist view of economics. He promoted the ethic of peace through co-operation, not military dominance. And like it or not, most folks viewed him as a liberal and still gave him their vote.
I agree with you Bruce, Obama will govern from a pragmatic centrist pedestal. He received many votes from places that haven't voted for a Democrat in decades, they were all but given up, but Obama showed that he can appeal to them and the party needs those people to win, again. He isn't stupid enough to move to far to the left and alienate them back to the Republican party again.
The rightwing tried to paint him as a screeching liberal, but he diffused it and won big. He isn't about to prove them right.
Well, you are wrong. Do you think Reagen went to the center because he got support from so-called "Reagen Democrats"? Either you believe in the policies Barack stated in the campaign (a liberal platform) or you don't. If you didn't, you shouldn't have voted for him.
The center in American politics is really mainstream liberalism. Policy by policy, polls show Americans agree with almost all of the "liberal agenda". They've only been tricked to think "liberal" is a bad word and somehow "the other" by the right. It's time to reclaim the word.
Pitch perfect response. I agree.
What Tommy and Bruce will not allow themselves to understand is that Barack spoke to the middle and the right the same way he spoke to his base. That leant him an air of authenticity that stirred the emotions of voters of all political stripes. He did exactly what progressive strategists like George Lakoff, Drew Westen et al prescribed. He reclaimed the language of the American Dream, patriotism, national security and community and framed them in progressive language of participation, active government and collective empowerment.
Now, if all these right leaning people here still think he needs to govern from a center right position I invite them to visit Change.gov, review his plans and list for me elements of conservatism that they recognize. I think they 'll be hard pressed to find much they can even label center right.
You are correct. I'm beginning to see the parallels with Reagen. Reagen promoted conservatism but wrapped it in patriotism and pragmatism. This endeared him those swing voters who judged his character as sound and thus were willing to go with him.
Our goal as liberals should be to never let the malaise of the 70's Democratic party to set it in which would pave the way for another charismatic conservative such as Reagen. I think Obama is a giant leap towards that goal. I believed from the beginning that Obama represented an opportunity to remake the Democratic party in a way that will allow us to dominate for at least a generation. I think the endorsement of Bruce, Tommy, and Jeter are testaments the rightness of this approach.
Good points. Our goals, as a grassroots progressive movement, will probably continue to be realized up to and until the time the movement calcifies into an organization that would sell its influence for power and money.
I never said he would govern from a center right position. I said he would run a moderate ship. Center left is more moderate than left.
True. You said that. Moderate. My bad.
And I said he campaigned as a left liberal who framed liberal values as common American values. if it makes you feel better to think you're not a liberal at heart, so be it, you're a moderate.
I really think it depends on the issue, but if you are ready to label me a liberal after reading my posts on here for the past 3+ years then I wasn't as far off as most of you said I was.
LOL
I'm just sayin' you heard a liberal talk like a liberal. You heard the call for shared sacrifice and collective problem solving. Those are classic liberal themes and they spoke to you.
You may repeat conservative dogma, but in your heart you have a liberal waiting to be freed.
"We will give him (Obama) an opportunity." As though it is up to Hannity to give Obama "an opportunity." Gee, I thought the election was two days ago, and that was mandated by the American electorate.
But I guess in Hannity's mind, how he spins is how the world goes around.
I only look at Hannity's show when he has a guest that interests me...other than that, his opinion means nothing to me.
However, here's what the American Conservative Union thinks of Emanuel.
During the three years of 2005-2007 he received an average rating of 1.3...he supported the ACU's position only 1 time during those years.
Liberal? Damn skippy.
The most liberal? I don't know...but it doesn't take long to call the roll in his group of liberal representatives.
Nice binary thinking you've got going there. It's exactly that sort of thing that stands in the way of making progress. It also continues the mistake of equating liberal/conservative and Democrat/Republican. One set is a general philosophy of how government should work. The other is a political party.
The ACU ratings more accurately measure adherence to the Republican platfrom more than they do some standard of "conservatism."
-- The ACU ratings more accurately measure adherence to the Republican platfrom more than they do some standard of "conservatism. -- moonbat
"The American Conservative Union is the nation's oldest and largest grassroots conservative lobbying organization. ACU's purpose is to communicate and advance the goals and principles of conservatism" says the ACU.
They say this about rating politicians, "The ratings are designed to show how members voted on all the major issues in order to gauge their adherence to conservative principles."
That should clear up your misunderstandings about the ACU...no thanks necessary.
No thanks forthcoming. I actually went to the ACU site and looked at their rating system before saying that. While not as blindly party motivated as the ridiculous National Journal ratings they still have far too many votes evaluated on principles that are more Republican than they are conservative, especially when they consider cloture votes, which are neither liberal nor conservative but procedural votes to get to the point of making votes that actually matter.
It's relative. Is he "far left"? I don't think any thinking human being who is being honest can say that. Let's face it, "far left" is a communist. Hannity and his ilk want "far left" to be anyone who is pro-choice, effectively. Sorry to burst their bubble but most people in America are pro-choice which I guess makes them "far left".
Hmmm, it seems he has a lifetime rating of 13.09 which seems high for a Democrat. Why are you only referring to the last 3 years?
Hannity is living proof that propagandists can still make a lot of money.
Liberal, Conservative, Left, Right are all relative, fluid labels that can mean anything the speaker says and the listener wants to hear.
What does it mean to be hardest left wing radical liberal? He does not provide any proof. But it is good enough for ignorant people.
Hello, DanGrady. I was thinking of you this election. I used your tag line more than a few times when talking politics to workmates and friends and family.
WOW! TIN FOIL HAT ALERT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
oh look, the same booby with the 'tin foil hat' reparte--beneath stupid, really.
Repeat after me...repartee...
Poor SEANIE, he realizes that the majority of AMERICANS dont buy his FAR RIGHT WING positions He is now regulated to the CONSERVATIVE UNDERGROUND movement. May him and the movement go down the drain.
I wonder if Sean ever read The Boy Who Cried Wolf? Every time Sean mentions a Democrat he says they are a hard left-winger. He really needs to figure out who the most left person is in Congress. I've heard him say Kennedy, Obama, Pelosi, Gore and Kerry to name a few. I think his scripts are like Mad Libs. They are prepared in advance and he just puts the names and and a few other words in. The problem is he has been using the same sheet over and over for years.
Seriously? You can't get your own blog instead of appropriating MMFA's?
I didn't read it, but I'll give you props for finding a way around your usual lack of paragraph breaks.
In reply to writingindependence since the reply window wouldn't open for me:
Sheesh, and I have to have my comments here vetted, and said comments don't appear for hours or days. Don't they vet this guy's comments? I couldn't get halfway through that little manifesto and what little I did slog through was borderline psychotic, incomprehensible, rambling. What a waste of space.
Syl