Nasty slugfest on radio: Sean Hannity vs Alec Baldwin

[Montgomery Burns]

Hollywood liberal Alec Baldwin stormed out of an in-studio radio interview Sunday night after he was confronted on the phone by radio hosts Sean Hannity and Mark Levin. Baldwin was 30 minutes into a planned two-hour-plus sitdown with WABC Radio's Brian Whitman when Hannity called in. The fireworks commenced almost immediately.

HANNITY: Alec, I wanted to give you an official WABC welcome considering you were supposed to come on my program last week and you didn't show up. What happened?

BALDWIN: No, I wasn't supposed to come on your program, Sean Hannity.

HANNITY: No, actually you were supposed to come on the program because a deal was made with your agent that if you were going to come on with Brian, first you'd come on with me.

BALDWIN: I wouldn't dream of coming on your program, Sean Hannity. I'm here with Brian. I'm here with a really talented broadcaster.

HANNITY: [Crosstalk] that you are, you don't tell the truth.

BALDWIN: Why would I want to come on the show with a no-talent, former construction worker hack like you?

HANNITY: Are you the guy that said of our vice president, while we're at war, while we're leading troops in harm's way - are you the reckless, third-rate Hollywood actor who said that Dick Cheney is a terrorist? Are you the guy . . .

BALDWIN: Yes I am.

HANNITY: ... who said to stone Henry Hyde to death? Are you the guy who said our president is a CIA mass murderer? I wanted you to come on the program and defend that, you gutless coward.

Believe it or not, it gets even uglier (about 45 seconds)

[gerryhatrick]

uote]

Believe it or not, it gets even uglier (about 45 seconds)

Newsmax edited it down to 45 seconds? They must have picked off just the parts where Hannity got good licks in. The whole thing is actually over 10 minutes.

Listen here: http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/03/27.html#a7685

[KrustyKidd]

Beauty!

I hate Baldwin cause he is an asshole and Hanitty, while a boring parrot, is effective at what he does. His interviews with peole who support the war range from soldiers to parents of those who have sacrificed their lives. He offers to go one on one with anybody and yet, is experienceing problems with mouthpieces like Baldwin, Moore, Shennan and such being no shows. He offers to debate them at collages where they go anyhow and meet them and donate the proceedes to charity and yet, they chicken out as they know he has them by the gonads with fact trumping rhetoric.

I had no idea Baldwin said crap like that and now, i really won't watch his movies as I'll always remember him as a guy who didn't have the guts to show up.

The real diamond in this though is Levin. He has to be the funniest man on radio! I only get him when I'm down near the big Apple on 790 but man, he is funny.

[Montgomery Burns]

uote]

Believe it or not, it gets even uglier (about 45 seconds)

Newsmax edited it down to 45 seconds? They must have picked off just the parts where Hannity got good licks in. The whole thing is actually over 10 minutes.

Listen here: http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/03/27.html#a7685

I posted the first 30 seconds or so. It took me about 1:15 to read it the whole exchange.

Although they both went overboard, Baldwin threw the first cheap shot.

And when he is going to make good on his promise to move to Canada when Bush won?

Btw, thanks for the link. I listened to the whole thing. Baldwin made a fool out of himself. Even the host was wondering why he wouldn't go on one of the highest rated radio shows. He's chicken to go on Hannity's radio show.

[Nocrap]

uote]

Believe it or not, it gets even uglier (about 45 seconds)

Newsmax edited it down to 45 seconds? They must have picked off just the parts where Hannity got good licks in. The whole thing is actually over 10 minutes.

Listen here: http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/03/27.html#a7685

I posted the first 30 seconds or so. It took me about 1:15 to read it the whole exchange.

Although they both went overboard, Baldwin threw the first cheap shot.

And when he is going to make good on his promise to move to Canada when Bush won?

Btw, thanks for the link. I listened to the whole thing. Baldwin made a fool out of himself. Even the host was wondering why he wouldn't go on one of the highest rated radio shows. He's chicken to go on Hannity's radio show.

Hmmmm...sounds like a battle of wits where both sides are unarmed. Never been a big Alec Baldwin fan, but he speaks for many Americans frustrated with Bush/Cheney. He's just perhaps not the best person to challenge their leadership on air. (Do you really think his IQ would be in the double digits?....I'm guessing 9)

[sharkman]

I love it when these whiny celebrities get challenged by someone who isn't just throwing softball questions at them. Usually they are able to isolate themselves from the fray. Good on Sean to get through to that twit.

[scribblet]

I love it when these whiny celebrities get challenged by someone who isn't just throwing softball questions at them. Usually they are able to isolate themselves from the fray. Good on Sean to get through to that twit.

Me too, they think because they are 'stars' their opinion counts more than others. I saw that clip on Hannity and Colmes, Baldwin did throw the first punch, don't think he expected Hannity to call in as he did. Mind you, Hannity can get a bit much sometimes, and Colmes isn't a strong enough debator to take him on.

[Montgomery Burns]

Anybody see Sean Hannity vs Ward Churchill last night on Hannity & Colmes? It was supposed to be David Horowitz (Front Page Magazine) vs Ward Churchill, but it turned out to be Hannity who got into it bigtime with Churchill and gave him a major butt-kicking. Churchill resorted to pretending that he couldn't hear Hannity (typical leftist--la la, I can't hear you; Saddam wasn't involved in terrorism!).

I admit I enjoy watching Hannity whupping liberals on a near nightly basis.

How could you not love the Fox News Channel? Nowhere else in the MSM do you see such a diversity of opinion.

If you want to watch the Hannity/Churchill scrap, here is the link.

Enjoy.

[KrustyKidd]

I admit I enjoy watching Hannity whupping liberals on a near nightly basis.

Monty, Sean ain't that good and, he isn't whupping Liberals. He's going up against some of the lamest morons whom the fringe perscribe to for their dogma. Sean is niether an intellectual nor a strategic thinker. Simply a guy who has it straight and debates well on his feet with well known facts, benifit of quick thinking and good old USA down to earth charm.

His opponents are the likes of Michael Moore, Baldwin and this moron. None of them could hold their own in this or any of my forums so is it any surprise he make mince meat of them on his show?

Real Liberals are sometimes for the war as well. The guys he takes on are jsut morons for publicities sake and for various reasons (money, fame, misguided faith) lack facts, understanding of the issues can only compete on one stage - their own.

Now, would really like to see him against Chomsky. If Noam would spare the time. Bet if it was equal time mike that Noam would leave him flip flopping through an open book quick search throughout the entire debate. And the funny thing is, both of them would be right for different reasons.

[Montgomery Burns]

Sean is niether an intellectual nor a strategic thinker.

I've never been terribly impressed by many intellectuals (with the exception of Victor Davis Hanson); they tend to overthink and debate things endlessly. Ever noticed that intellectuals generally make poor leaders?

Simply a guy who has it straight and debates well on his feet with well known facts, benifit of quick thinking and good old USA down to earth charm.

That's what I like about him. O'Reilly is more rhetorical but Hannity has his facts down and he is a bulldog. However that Mark Levin guy contributed nothing. All he did was insult Baldwin.

His opponents are the likes of Michael Moore, Baldwin and this moron.

Moore and Baldwin exert a lot of influence. And that moron is a tenured professor who claims that the 300 innocents, including 24 Canadians, deserved their death because they were "little Eichamanns".

One of the things I like about the FNC is that they expose these radicals that have hijacked the Democrat Party. The other channels "hide" them. Do you recall any prominent Democrat standing up to Ward Churchill?

[scribblet]

Anybody see Sean Hannity vs Ward Churchill last night on Hannity & Colmes? It was supposed to be David Horowitz (Front Page Magazine) vs Ward Churchill, but it turned out to be Hannity who got into it bigtime with Churchill and gave him a major butt-kicking. Churchill resorted to pretending that he couldn't hear Hannity (typical leftist--la la, I can't hear you; Saddam wasn't involved in terrorism!).

I admit I enjoy watching Hannity whupping liberals on a near nightly basis.

How could you not love the Fox News Channel? Nowhere else in the MSM do you see such a diversity of opinion.

If you want to watch the Hannity/Churchill scrap, here is the link.

Enjoy.

I did see it, but I do agree with others that Hannity isn't exactly an intellectual giant, but I do love to watch him give it to them. I wasn't sure whether or not Churchill was really having trouble with his mike, Hannity didn't seem to think so. That Ward Churchill is something else, from what I've read he's also misrepresented himself as having native ancestry.

I love Fox news, partly because the left hates it so much, too bad we don't have an equivalent Canadian station. And yes, contrary to left wing belief, it really does have a variety of opinions and opposing views.

[Liam]

Never been a big Alec Baldwin fan, but he speaks for many Americans frustrated with Bush/Cheney.

Correction: Baldwin thinks he speaks for those of us who don't like the current administration, but he's a horse's @ss. And the conservative media types keep putting him out there as the ordained spokesman for anyone slightly to the left of the hard right. It is a common tactic: find the easy person to pillory and set him or her up as the opposition's mouthpiece. When you easily shoot him down, it appears to eviscerate the arguments that oppose your own position.

[Liam]

I've never been terribly impressed by many intellectuals (with the exception of Victor Davis Hanson); they tend to overthink and debate things endlessly. Ever noticed that intellectuals generally make poor leaders?...

One of the things I like about the FNC is that they expose these radicals that have hijacked the Democrat Party. The other channels "hide" them. Do you recall any prominent Democrat standing up to Ward Churchill?

I disagree -- I think what has changed is our perception of intellectualism. JFK was most certainly an intellectual and he was a pretty good leader. (It's often said that the last time it was cool to be smart was during the JFK years.) FDR, likewise, was an intellectual, and he was perhaps the rgeatest leader in US history after Lincoln. I'd even say that Bush I was kind of an intellectual. Not the best leader, but certainly a better leader and a better man than his homespun offspring. Nowadays, we equate intellectualism with effetism -- it's just not cool to be an intellectual "weenie/wimp" -- meanwhile the two are mutually exclusive traits.

Ward Churchill... okay, you've got me. I am a Democrat, but I've never heard of the guy. I had to google him to find out. Honestly, this guy is a crackpot and has absolutely no impact on the Democratic party. He's the left wing equivalent of Rev. Fred Phelps. A firebrand, a hater, someone whose politics might put him at one end of the spectrum, but certainly not someone who speaks for Democrats.

[Black Dog]

IOne of the things I like about the FNC is that they expose these radicals that have hijacked the Democrat Party. The other channels "hide" them. Do you recall any prominent Democrat standing up to Ward Churchill?

I love how some partisan right wingers take obscure/irrelevant figures of the "left" like Churchill and Alec fucking Baldwin and drastically inflate their importance and reach in order to smear the whole left. Meanwhile, prominent right wingers like Ann Coulter make imflammatory, rascist and downright ugly statements as part of their schtick, with little or no censure from the right (in fact quite the opposite: the more extreme Coulter gets, the more she is lauded for her "wit".) So it's pretty hypocritical for them to jump up, eyes welling and lips quivering, to demand Democrats or leftists denounce fringe figures like Churchill, when they coddle the extremists in their own midst.

[KrustyKidd]

I love how some partisan right wingers take obscure/irrelevant figures of the "left" like Churchill and Alec fucking Baldwin and drastically inflate their importance and reach in order to smear the whole left. Meanwhile, prominent right wingers like Ann Coulter make imflammatory, rascist and downright ugly statements as part of their schtick, with little or no censure from the right (in fact quite the opposite: the more extreme Coulter gets, the more she is lauded for her "wit".) So it's pretty hypocritical for them to jump up, eyes welling and lips quivering, to demand Democrats or leftists denounce fringe figures like Churchill, when they coddle the extremists in their own midst.

Absolutely right. Ann Coulter, while some what she says I agree, with is only an entertainer. And, a very irritating one at that. As I stated before, Hannity would not find such an easy debate with real Democratic intellectuals as real ones don't parrot the Micahel Moore talking points. Rather see things from perspectives that take more into account than USA bad, rest of world good. I believe I also said that there would be no clear winner in that debate either but, it sure would be educational for the people watching.

[Black Dog]

Absolutely right. Ann Coulter, while some what she says I agree, with is only an entertainer. And, a very irritating one at that.

I think you're missing my point: Coulter, entertainer or no (and I have little doubt she considers herself a serious political commentator and an expert on that of which she speaks) both shapes and reflects the views of the Republican/conservative core. Unlike Ward Churchill and Baldwin, Coulter and her ilk (ie. the entire right-wing talk radio machine), matter.

[KrustyKidd]

Coulter and her ilk (ie. the entire right-wing talk radio machine), matter.

Ya I did miss it, sorry. I don't agree though. I listen to Hannity, Rush, Oreilly, Frankin, Levine, Savage, Rhodes and whomever else when I'm on the road, for entertainment and, as an extended news/information sort of thing as I'm interested in politics and whatever. They don't bring forth much in the way of new news or arguments nor shape my views as the information they give out is pretty basic as are the arguments they bring forth. Often I wonder how or why they don't get lambasted for cetain arguments they have or stances they take on certain issues but, it's entertainmet and they have the mic control and I have the off button.

Another point I would like to make is that Rush Limbaugh is also no intellectual giant and, most of his points are pure republican boot licking. Nothing wrong with that if you love the Republican party just as randi Rhodes has her following. Dangerous? Hardly, no serious person would place their ability to gather information, mull it over and decide the fate of the free world from these people. I find that most people just make a decision and take a stand for reasons that are almost akin to flipping a coin.

[Black Dog]

Ya I did miss it, sorry. I don't agree though. I listen to Hannity, Rush, Oreilly, Frankin, Levine, Savage, Rhodes and whomever else when I'm on the road, for entertainment and, as an extended news/information sort of thing as I'm interested in politics and whatever. They don't bring forth much in the way of new news or arguments nor shape my views as the information they give out is pretty basic as are the arguments they bring forth. Often I wonder how or why they don't get lambasted for cetain arguments they have or stances they take on certain issues but, it's entertainmet and they have the mic control and I have the off button.

Another point I would like to make is that Rush Limbaugh is also no intellectual giant and, most of his points are pure republican boot licking. Nothing wrong with that if you love the Republican party just as randi Rhodes has her following. Dangerous? Hardly, no serious person would place their ability to gather information, mull it over and decide the fate of the free world from these people. I find that most people just make a decision and take a stand for reasons that are almost akin to flipping a coin.

Okay, but that doesn't disprove my point.

Again:

Coulter, entertainer or no (and I have little doubt she considers herself a serious political commentator and an expert on that of which she speaks) both shapes and reflects the views of the Republican/conservative core.

Note I said "Republican/conservative core", and not "Krusty Kidd". In other words: they may not matter to you, but tell me this: if they didn't matter at all, why are they so very popular?

[KrustyKidd]

Okay, but that doesn't disprove my point.

It does though. The people who make the decisions do not use these people to base their rationale on. In the 'normal Joe' world, Oprah gets just as much coverage as these people do as does Letterman. And, Baldwin and Moore and so on and forth. The listenership proportions reflect the demographics for each theism I believe. Also, take a look at the proof supplied on just this forum - the right types give Fox and opinion pieces from right wing blogs and the Left from Truthout and the Guardian. Not exactly where the State Department gets their intelligence from but, each gravitates to their own well of comfort I suppose.

[Liam]

The people who make the decisions do not use these people to base their rationale on.

I agree and disagree. I do not think Rush Limbaugh has any influence over, say, the decisionmaking of the career bureaucrats at the State Department, but I am positive he has influence over voters who elect the Congressmen and Senators whose committees oversee the decisionmaking of those career bureaucrats at the State Department.

Just look at the Terry Schiavo case. Limbaugh, Coulter, Hannity, Scarborough, etc. were foaming at the mouth over the issue and got their listeners all riled up and, sure enough, every bootlicking GOP politician lined up to invade the privacy of the Schiavo family home.

[Black Dog]

It does though. The people who make the decisions do not use these people to base their rationale on.

Can you clarify: who are these decision makers? The audience?

Also, take a look at the proof supplied on just this forum - the right types give Fox and opinion pieces from right wing blogs and the Left from Truthout and the Guardian. Not exactly where the State Department gets their intelligence from but, each gravitates to their own well of comfort I suppose.

Which, again, supports my position. Niobosy cares what Ward Churchill thinks. A helluva lot of people turn to Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh for confirmation of their own worldview and for the latest "information". I think you're giving the average Joe far too much credit.

[KrustyKidd]

Can you clarify: who are these decision makers? The audience?

Parliament, congress, the senate, the UN.

I do not think Rush Limbaugh has any influence over, say, the decisionmaking of the career bureaucrats at the State Department, but I am positive he has influence over voters who elect the Congressmen and Senators whose committees oversee the decisionmaking of those career bureaucrats at the State Department.

Certainly. I doubt he changed anybody's mind though as everybody that listens to him is already predisposed to a certain mind set anyhow. I mean, the guy is mind candy for Republicans.

Just look at the Terry Schiavo case. Limbaugh, Coulter, Hannity, Scarborough, etc. were foaming at the mouth over the issue and got their listeners all riled up and, sure enough, every bootlicking GOP politician lined up to invade the privacy of the Schiavo family home.

And what were Oprah, Al Frankin, Randy Rhodes, Katie Couric saying? Didn't Michael Moore 'wiegh in' on this? Point being, all people go to the well they are afamiliar with. I'm sure you didn't listen to Rush to get the skinney on the case. Or did you?

To say that the Right Wing talk shows can mobilize more action than the Left is indicitive of either more people being listeners of their shows than the Left ones, more people being Right Wing to begin with, the Right has more of a base audience due to the political spread or, Left Wing talk show hosts and producers are idiots that have no idea of how to run a show.

Which, again, supports my position. Niobosy cares what Ward Churchill thinks. A helluva lot of people turn to Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh for confirmation of their own worldview and for the latest "information". I think you're giving the average Joe far too much credit.

I agreed with you totally and, gave the average Joe little credit. People vote what they always vote. Swing voters get the bug up their ass from other sources than these people. Then, once that bug is there and they begin to lean in an opposite direction, they may tune in for reinforcement of those views but there is generally a reason why they do before they do.

[Black Dog]

Parliament, congress, the senate, the UN.

So you're saying policy makers don't take their cues from Rush Limbaugh. I sure hope not, nor was that even considered.

I agreed with you totally and, gave the average Joe little credit. People vote what they always vote. Swing voters get the bug up their ass from other sources than these people. Then, once that bug is there and they begin to lean in an opposite direction, they may tune in for reinforcement of those views but there is generally a reason why they do before they do.

That's Media 101. What I'm saying is different: Rush draws an audiences of millions and Coulter is a fixture on the talk show and lecture circuit. Both of these individuals harbour views and have made statements that can be considered on the extreme end of the political specturm, yet seldom do you hear "moderate" Republicans standing up to denounce them. On the contrary: they remain popular and influential figures on the right. On the other hand, unless the comments of some obscure college prof are denounced (or not denounced loudly enough) the lack of such denunciation is considered evidence that the Democratic Party and the left shares such views. It's a ridiculous double standard.

[KrustyKidd]

Both of these individuals harbour views and have made statements that can be considered on the extreme end of the political specturm, yet seldom do you hear "moderate" Republicans standing up to denounce them.

Extreme? They simply Parrot the Republican lines. If your idea of extreme is Rush, what is Savage? Really really really extreme? Or, can we just call Rush right wing? BTW, what would Roberts be? So extreme he's off the charts?

unless the comments of some obscure college prof are denounced (or not denounced loudly enough) the lack of such denunciation is considered evidence that the Democratic Party and the left shares such views. It's a ridiculous double standard.

Only fools think this hate mongerer represents the Left. Picture him as a left wing Pat Roberts.

[Black Dog]

Extreme? They simply Parrot the Republican lines.

In a sane world, defending torture and calling for the suppression or execution of political opponents (positions that both Rush and Ann Coulter share) would be considered extreme. That these are now "the Republican line" speaks volumes.

If your idea of extreme is Rush, what is Savage? Really really really extreme? Or, can we just call Rush right wing? BTW, what would Roberts be? So extreme he's off the charts?

Savage is definitely on the fringe. But then, IMO, he's just saying what Rush and his "dittoheads" think but dare not say.

Only fools think this hate mongerer represents the Left. Picture him as a left wing Pat Roberts.

Well, I can't disagree with you there...

Moore and Baldwin exert a lot of influence. And that moron is a tenured professor who claims that the 300 innocents, including 24 Canadians, deserved their death because they were "little Eichamanns".

One of the things I like about the FNC is that they expose these radicals that have hijacked the Democrat Party. The other channels "hide" them. Do you recall any prominent Democrat standing up to Ward Churchill?