Skip navigation.

Sean Hannity comes to ROCK - Rocky Anderson (yah!)

Tonight at 8:30pm Sean Hannity a popular radio host and Rocky Anderson will debate the war in Iraq and whether the President Bush is acting properly in his office (or if not should he be impeached). Along with several other political issues that both men feel so passionate about. Personally I'm not a fan of Rocky Anderson, not sure how he was voted in the 1st time, let alone a second time. In such a conservative state like Utah how did he slip through the cracks? Anyway, I think Sean Hannity will ROCK - Rocky Anderson in the debate. Rocky just isn't a fast enough thinker to really debate well with a professional debater. Sean may be extreme sometimes, and not fair all the time when people disagree with him, but he really is quite patriotic (which I think is an OK thing as these days it seems people in the spotlight aren't showing that too much).

You can see the Deseret Morning News Article on this by visiting a link to the story written by Doug Smeath.

Seriously, how exactly did Hannity Rock Rocky?

Repeating over and over that if you don't support the war, you don't support the troops is not exactly a winning argument. There are plenty of troops coming home, who have seen much more than Sean Hannity will ever see, who no longer agree with Bush's war policy, and who, in fact believe we have no business occupying Iraq at all (see www.ivaw.org, for example). A group of Iraq war vets recently marched to the Pentagon to demand an end to the war.

Additionally, there are a growing number of retired officers who served in Iraq, and who are now adamently against the war. Officers who have actually retired or resigned in protest of the war. Do you really think that they don't support the troops?

It's a shame that Rocky Anderson cited nobody but Brent Scowcroft, there are plenty of ex-White House, ex-State Department, ex-Pentagon, and ex-Iraq War officials who disagree strongly with the president's repeatedly failed policy. Most of them we would consider conservative, and many of them voted for Bush in 2000.

It was also a disgrace to see Sean continually avoiding the topic: is President Bush conducting this war in a competent manner? He avoided it because there is no way to argue that he has. The only thing you can do in the face of such a question is repeat the old lines about troop support, 9/11, and if we don't fight them there they will follow us home. All hogwash.

By the way, who the hell is Sean Hannity, anyway? What makes him an expert in foreign policy and international law? He's a college dropout who got a sweet deal at Fox News because he knows how to call people witty names--that's all.

In the end, Rocky made a much stronger case, one that dealt with real facts and statistics, for ending our occupation of Iraq. Hannity, on the other hand used our troops to present a spectacle showmanship, one frought with empty rhetoric and bereft of any fact. But just like President Bush, it wasn't ever clear if Hannity even listened to anything Rocky had to say.

For more on Hannity, just listen to his shows. He continually, just as Rocky pointed out, uses language that divides, as if the world is made up of only two groups, liberals (America-hating terrorist sympathizers) and conservatives (America-loving freedom fighters). Why does anyone pay attention to guys like him?

Rocky Fans are just as Lame...

Ok this whole thing seems to be more of a joke then anything, the moderator just had to come out and tell the crowd to shut up.

Im not taking sides

Im not going to take a side on this but jeff did you really claim

Rocky just isn't a fast enough thinker, nor well enough educated to really debate with a professional debater.

It may be interesting for you to find out that Sean Hannity is a college dropout

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sean_Hannity

It may also be interesting for you to find out that Rocky not only graduated college but went on to complete law school.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocky_Anderson

Im not saying that college is the only measure of a persons education but to call the man uneducated seems ignorant. He has plenty of experince arguing, lobbying, and debating.

I really don't care that much about this but i always appreciated that "mason" tried to be unbiased as a moderator, it seemed to make provo pulse a non partisan, unbiased forum.

you make a good point

Mad dog,

You make a good point about Sean Hannity. When I spoke of ROcky being un-educated I was talking about the issues he usually argued (at least in the past). I only was able to see the first part of the debate (with Rocky speaking) - and I will give him credit for doing his research. He didn't come across as bad as he has in the past. I'm just not a Rocky fan - thats really what it comes down to - or more importantly his views.

As far as formal education I guess we can't argue that Rocky was un-educated.

And towards your comment about provopulse being non partisan...i would disagree. However, no doubt I have expressed my opinions more than Mason might have. One of the reasons actually is the need to create more content. So when I talk I tend to get up on my soap box. Thus if you want more non partisan articles I might recommend submitting a few periodically about things you think should be on here. If it passes my quick review then I'll likely publish it. I'll have to send mason on here to comment on whether he was non partisan or not, I'd rather not speak for him. But I'll keep your comment in mind and maybe try and let others post their opinions.

I do agree though in what little I saw of the debate that the crowd was out of control and didn't give either party enough room to speak.

bad crowd

it was exciting to see the crowd at first...however it got annoying after not too long. People need to learn respect for speakers no matter who you side with. I was impressed to learn that both men were polite with eachother prior to the debate. At least they know how to be professional.

One thing I noticed is how each one seemed to over look the others strong points. Maybe I'm wrong - but did anyone else get that vibe?

My take

Last night I watched the debate (or as FOX 13 termed it, the “smackdown”) between Sean Hannity and Rocky Anderson. It was two hours of heated debate (if you can call it that) and partisan bickery.

The entire thing smacked of double standards. It was nothing more than putrid partisanship and personal insults.

Luckily, I didn’t expect much more of it. I knew that it would be an entertaining “death match” of sorts between these two personalities, diametrically opposed to one another.

I must say, however, that I was sorely disappointed with Sean Hannity. Instead of answering simple questions and sticking to the subject matter, he consistently made personal attacks (even though some were valid), repeatedly labeled Rocky and members of the audience as liberals, used fearmongering to validate foreign policies, and talked up the troops in order to belittle any opposition to war policy.

Rocky had a hard time formulating questions as he repeatedly cited statistics and statements to build up his case, while Hannity towed the Republican party line and refused to answer valid questions posed him, instead using videos to smear Democrats and create further political divisiveness.

It was actually very tiring to watch. It’s the same rhetoric you see on CNN, FOX, most radio programs, and all other major media outlets. It’s harming our nation. It’s deepening our seemingly bottomless quagmire. It doesn’t aid in coming to a solution at all.

The highlight of the evening was after Hannity continually referred to John Kerry as “the president Rocky voted for”, in a continued effort to insult and demean his political opponents, the Democrats, by associating Rocky with them. After numerous times of making this connection, Rocky finally threw it back in Hannity’s face and informed him that he had voted for Ralph Nader. This was yet one more example of Hannity’s typical tactic to smear his opponents using statements that may or may not be true. I was glad to see him put in his place, for he did indeed deserve it.

So who won the debate? Neither of them. This mud-flinging match served for nothing else than to further polarize the issues brought up.

http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/rocky-vs-hannity

Hannity Fans are Lame...

Whether you like Rocky or Hannity so far in the debate the hannity fans won't shut up long enough for rocky to say anything. It seems like more of them are there to try to talk over the speakers then to listen to what they have to say.

Random Thoughts on the Debate

The real star of the debate was Ken Verdoia, the moderator.

Rocky Anderson's first mistake was agreeing to a debate with a man who is largely an entertainer.

The liberal yahoos in the audience were far more disruptive than were the Hannity fans.

On personal attacks, it was all fine and dandy for the Mayor to accuse Hannity of dividing people, or to put the president's picture in a montage of tyrants and dictators, and to call him on his long vacations, but when Sean Hannity points out the Mayor's own long absences from the state's business somehow that crosses the line.

It delights me to no end to see that calling someone "liberal" is now considered by some to be a personal attack.

The Mayor's opening and closing remarks were smoother and more organized than was Hannity's, but during the Q&A he got destroyed. Most of his evidence for the President's impeachment was baseless. Don't believe me? Cast your mind back to the Democratic Presidential Candidates Debate on 4/27/07 when the moderator asked which of the candidates supported Dennis Kucinich in the same call for the Pres/VP to be impeached and exactly zero of them raised their hands. OH SNAP.

During the Q&A Rocky was able to stop onslaught when said he voted for Ralph Nader, but what he didn't say was that the real reason for that was to "trade" his vote for Kerry with someone voting for Nader in a swing state. The Mayor supported Kerry, but seeing as how he was getting served during the Q&A he decided to leave out that little bit of exculpatory information.

I like the "ROCK-Rocky Anderson"

I think Rocky really is going to be Rocked by Sean. I was just watch Fox 13 news and I guess they were saying something like over 90% of the people who are attending the debate up at the University of Utah are Hannity fans.

that doesn't supprise me. I also wonder how Rocky got into his office. Anyway, they are both crazy but I think Rocky is 'more wrong' as you might say.

You're exactly right

and well put.

you're right about hannity

you're right about hannity. however Rocky is guilty of the same thing to a point.

Hannity DOES divide the people. you're either on HIS side (the right side) or the 'other' side (the wrong side).

but he gets a lot of attention, makes good money, and i'm sure sways voters opinions.

Rocky presented good facts, but also avoided questions posed by hannity. And he also divides the people. I don't think he's all that good of a mayor and really is looking for attention. Impeach the president? A bit over board don't you think? This isn't Bill Clinton, and it isn't a 1970's white water scandall. I support President Bush, not all his policies, but I think that at the time he did what the country wanted, even if they now have changed their minds.

my advise to anyone; don't listen to hannit, but don't listen to rocky either. read the newspapers, books, articles, testimonials, etc (conservative and liberal) and make your own decisions in an educated way.

Re: nobody supports impeachment?

Ok, every one of the presidential candidates is a politician first. You have to understand that. Why anyone would want that kind of power is beyond me.

But you can't just say that because none of the democratic candidates admitted that they support impeachment that it is baseless. There are plenty of violations that should be taken seriously, but aren't.

First is the violation of treaties. Treaties, when signed by the United States, become part of the supreme law of our land. President Bush broke several of them when he decided to invade Iraq. You can look it up.

Second, you have to deal with the fact that in condoning torture, conducting extraordinary rendition, pushing for and signing the Military Commissions Act, and ignoring FISA laws all are at odds with the Constitution and how it has traditionally been interpretted in court. President Bush swore to uphold the constitution. And again, anyone can look this up.

And third, he has submitted an unprecedented number signing statements (over twice as many as BushI and over three times as many as Clinton), most of which state that he does not have to obey certain parts of the bills that he is signing into law. Before Bush, the vast majority of signing statements were used to submit the president's interpretation of bills he signed into law. That is quite a different thing than saying that you have the right to ignore or even break the law. The American Bar Association has come out in strong opposition to Bush's signing statements, saying that they are a gross violation of the Constitutional separation of powers, and checks and balances. And, once again, you can look it all up.

article edit

after a little more thought rather than spark a huge debate over whether Rocky is educated or not I just went in and edited the article to remove that statement. thanks for being bold enough to call me on my mis-information.

who won? Maybe you're right ....no one

I actually side with Hannity. But I agree with what Jeff said before about how Hannity isn't all that fair when it comes to his arguing tactics. He's pretty mean to his opponents.

When watching the debate (especially the first part with ROcky's presentation) I noticed things that I actually agree with (though I'm far from Liberal). So I must say that Rocky did a good job of presenting, and sounded better that what he usually sounds like. Like the original article said about Rocky being too slow to really argue a point - that may be true - but if he's given a chance he can make some good points.

The problem is that both guys are sooooooooo extreme that they don't really help their side. I don't usually like liberal views so listening to Rocky (most of the time) tends to make me just dislike their views even more.

However, listening to Hannity bully people makes me wonder how right the republicans really are....
I'll stay conservative - and keep listening to Hannity in the mid-afternoon when his shows airs on 102.7 - but I'll always have to keep in mind that sometimes facts are left out (but that goes for both sides!)

Wikipedia

Wikipedia...now that is a reliable source of information. Okay Micheal Scott!

Teacherman becomes Studentman

There are plenty of violations that should be taken seriously, but aren't.

I would like you to answer RC's question above: do you know something they (Congress, presidential hopefuls) don't?

President Bush broke several [treaties] when he decided to invade Iraq

Saddam was in violation of over a dozen UN Security Resolutions the consequence of which should have been forcible disarmament (You can look it up --ZING!). France, Germany, and Russia worked hard to block any military action by the U.S. before we said screw 'em and invaded anyways. We only found out later that the reason they blocked the action was not because of diplomacy or pacifism, but because they were dealing with Saddam under the table (see Oil-for-Food Scandal) and didn't want to be cut out of their lucrative deals.

Second, you have to deal with the fact that [all this crap] are at odds with the Constitution...

Just about every law passed by Congress today undermines the Consitution in one way or another. Surely you must realize that things like habeas corpus will have to be reinterpreted in an era where you can habeas three thousand corpuses when these kind of attacks aren't stopped.

[Bush] he has submitted an unprecedented number signing statements (over twice as many as Bush I and over three times as many as Clinton)

A point of concern, I agree. However, Clinton had a version of line-item veto for much of his administration, which precluded the need of a signing statement. Also, I scoff at your mention of 'Clinton' and 'Constitution' in the same breath. You think the American Bar Association was mad at Bush? The entire Supreme Court boycotted Clinton's state of the union address for his propensity to wipe himself with the law of the land. Nobody wants to piss of a bunch of lawyers, but how about 1/3 of the federal government?

According to an AP/IPSOS

According to an AP/IPSOS poll released today, people despise Congress just as much as they do President Bush, as the approval rating for both hovers right around 35%.

The ABA is not a governmental entity. Frankly, their hue and cry doesn't bother me.

While YOU may think he should be impeached, your duly elected leaders, despite being from an opposition party, do not. Do you know something they don't?

Dwight...

Your Thursday Night Television Prowess aside, i don't see you stepping in to actually discredit my sources on this one. Keep up the beat farming.

Fact!

Bears eat beets...MICHEAL!

Dwight...

Dwight, you Ignorant SLUT!

What beat?

Learn how to spell!

Get over yourself

Im srry i jest kint hab as good a laerning as you to spill everytin wright. Seriously are you only here to point out trivial misspellings?