A caller into Sean Hannity’s show on Friday afternoon had a point that left Hannity momentarily speechless. By Hannity’s own admission, that’s a rare thing. The caller’s question was that if Obama is friendly with William Ayers, an unrepentant former member of the Weatherman Underground group that sought to overthrow the US government and capitalist system in favor of socialism, isn’t that at odds with the oath of office to defend the US Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic? Hannity later added to this query by wondering aloud if Obama could even get a basic security clearance. At the very least, a connection like that would raise some serious red flags in the clearance process.

What are Obama’s ties to Ayers and his fellow weatherman, now wife, Bernardine Dohrn?

Apparently, they go back to at least 1995, when Ayers and Dohrn held a meet-the-candidate dinner for Obama in their home. They have also served on a prestigious philanthropy board together and moved in the same Chicago social circles. [Check here]

Obama’s response to cries to clarify the relationship are usually attempts to distance and not explain.  

"This is a guy who lives in my neighborhood. [He's a guy] who's a professor of English in Chicago who I know and who I have not received some official endorsement from. He's not somebody who I exchange ideas from on a regular basis."

"The notion that somehow as a consequence of me knowing somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was 8 years old, somehow reflects on me and my values doesn't make much sense[…]" [qtd. here]

What were those acts? Well, the Weatherman Underground was involved in around a dozen bombings, including that of the Capitol, the State Department and the Pentagon, and led a riot in Chicago. They called their targets ahead of time to allow for evacuation, which is probably why Ayers to this day sees America as the real terrorist, not him. [Check his blog]. Ayers was not convinced for his crimes due to misconduct by the FBI. 

The problem with your connection, Sen. Obama, is that you accepted help from and seem to have no qualms about associating with people who sought to destroy the government you seek to lead. Those people seem to continue to hold views and ideas of change that most Americans probably don’t read into your campaign speeches. The fact that you even move in circles with such people speaks to how far left you truly are. Many people would stay away from the likes of Ayers and Dohrn on principle. The fact that you have those associations does reflect on you and your worldview. It certainly does not mean that you would personally undertake actions, but it means what it is, that you find nothing so inherently appauling about bombing buildings of our country as to stay from those who have undertaken such actions. If you didn’t see this relationship, like that of yours with Rev. Wright, as a liability when you started your political career, sir, that  merely further speaks toward your lack of connection with a large segment of the American people and their principles.

Woo! First post. Ok. Must be dignified. Am new hotshot conservative blogger.

Whatever! This is the pajama media, right? All about being real? Like Obama’s real change? Wait…bad analogy. Ok. Anyhow…

As a longtime listener to the ‘evil’ known as talk radio, I must admit I am sometimes frustrated by how hosts handle their callers. Sometimes they cut off liberals that sound reasonable or at least willing to seriously consider conservative viewpoints. If a liberal can stand to listen to a conservative radio show, that should be taken as an indication of a glimmer of hope. If they can speak calmly, they should be given airtime. Understanding the viewpoints of people in this bracket is key to spreading conservative views.

 On the other hand, sometimes I think hosts tolerate (umm…how should I phrase this?) “dimmer” people for too long. If a person is unable to articulate a clear point within the first minute, they should be cut off. Why waste time trying to lead them to their own point? Generally, I see Gallagher, Preger on the shorter end of the caller tolerance spectrum and Rush and Medved on the more tolerate side. Hannity cuts it both ways. They all, however, have their days. I’d like to see more time given to those who sound like they could see the error in their liberal ways and less given to those who are inarticulate or who seem so radical on either end of the political spectrum as to lose sight of reality.  

Of course, my theory that listening to talk radio can be a glimmer of hope does contain a glaring weak point. Liberals, I know firsthand, often like to pretend to pay head to other views to prove their open-mindedness. Often, they will cite the fact that they flipped passed Rush on their way to NPR as proof. But, hey, at least going to original source even for a fraction of a second is better than merely rehashing Media Matters talk points (Media Matters is a liberal non-profit that frequently attacks conservative media outlets and proponents for “misinformation”, but seems to be prone to decimating it themselves).

Some liberals take this pursuit of “open-mindness” even farther by imbedding themselves within conservative organizations. For instance, my intern class at a right-leaning think tank (our credentials were verified by a code pink protest, thank you) has a few of these. I asked one why she chose to intern here of all places, and she referred to the idea of understanding the conservative psyche. Working here, she said has only reinforced her views. Like she had pre-decided it would, I bet. The problem is, that in the time I’ve spend with her, she seems to make more statements than ask questions. Being open-minded is, as one should infer, a mindset, not merely a change of location. Exposing yourself to other views merely to give yourself additional opportunity to knock them is not being open-minded. It is looking for an argument. That’s fine for what it is, but don’t kid yourself. The physical process of hearing an argument doesn’t count as listening. Another liberal intern wrote that she “works for the devil” on a social networking site. I don’t know her rationale for choosing our think tank. The merit badge for bravery behind enemy lines is all I can think of.

Another case that casts my “glimmer” theory into doubt is one caller I heard today.  One man repeatedly accused Sean Hannity of being a racist because he doesn’t support Obama. Hannity responded by pointing out he also fervently opposes Hillary and thoroughly explaining rational against the messiah candidate and his mentor being a radical preacher who said, “God D*mn America” and his friendly relations with an unrepentant terrorist who bombed the pentagon. The caller’s answer was to merely repeat his original assertion that Hannity “couldn’t stomach the idea of a black president.” He couldn’t explain why he though Hannity was racist; he seemed to think his statement was sufficient. Another prime example of liberal open-mindedness. With callers like this, I’d ok the host toying with them a little longer to prove a point, but the conversation has ended. I can see why having callers like this might frustrate a host, but they should still make every effort to distinguish between the liberal who’s only physically listening and the one who’s actually listening and give the latter his due say. While I love a conservative rant with the best of them, the act of bringing in new conservatives is one of talk radio’s best functions and should not be neglected for the comfort of a echo chamber or fun and humor that can occasionally be found in a fight with the truly unreasonable.