Fastest Flip-Flop In History?

Kevin Drum awards the world record for fastest flip-flop to Sean Hannity in a show yesterday commenting about the North Korea deal:

HANNITY: The news today brings a clear foreign policy victory for the Bush administration. But will the press report it that way? Joining us now for analysis, former ambassador to the U.N. and a Fox News contributor, John Bolton. What do you think this means?

BOLTON: I think it’s actually a clear victory for North Korea. They gain enormous political legitimacy….In return, we get precious little. I think this is North Korea demonstrating again that they can out-negotiate the U.S. without raising a sweat.

HANNITY: Boy I tell you they’ve done it time and time again, and I’m sorta perplexed, Mr. Ambassador, to understand why we keep going back to the well knowing that they haven’t kept the agreements in the past. Whatever happened to Reagan’s “trust but verify”?

That’s just funny right there. You’d think someone who makes a living spouting their opinions to the world could stand up for them for at least 30 seconds. Or, at the very least, acknowledge that he’s changed his mind.

Just one more reason why I don’t bother watching news or political opinion on TV. Except for Stewart and Colbert, of course.

FILED UNDER: Media, , , , , ,
Alex Knapp
About Alex Knapp
Alex Knapp is Associate Editor at Forbes for science and games. He was a longtime blogger elsewhere before joining the OTB team in June 2005 and contributed some 700 posts through January 2013. Follow him on Twitter @TheAlexKnapp.

Comments

  1. anjin-san says:

    Wow. Hannity was able to tear his lips away from Bush’s butt long enough to plant one on somebody else’s backside? Thats news!

  2. Hoodlumman says:

    No Olbermman, Alex?

    I figured he’d be a staple in the Knapp household…

  3. Bithead says:

    Point of order;

    It being a victory for NORK doesn’t preclude it being one for the White House, does it?

  4. anjin-san says:

    This sounds like a good thing to me. A rare win for the Bush White House. And I agree with Bit, there is such a thing as a win/win.

    Nukes are a fact of life. So are governments we do not approve of. We have to seek ways to deal with them that do not involve violence… Speak softly and carry a big stick. Words of wisdom.

  5. DL says:

    I stopped listening to Hannity when he openly declared his Catholicism, and almost in the same breath gushingly tells Joe Liberman (the pro-partial-birth abortion liberal) that he’ll support him anytime and do anything I can do to help you.

    Just because we have a temporary friend (because he’s the enemy of my enemy- Joe hates terrorism and supports the WOT) doesn’t mean he’s not also my enemy – Soviet Russia and FDR cost Eastern Europe many years of unforgivable grief.

    I wont mention Hannity’s being ignorant enough to call people he doesn’t even know a “great American”

  6. David Harris says:

    That’s a darn funny post, Alex. I can’t stand Sean Hannity. I think he was just looking for a chance to enter Reagan’s name into the discussion as quickly as possible.

  7. Mark Jaquith says:

    It being a victory for NORK doesn’t preclude it being one for the White House, does it?

    It does in the Bush/Hannity mind.

  8. Wayne says:

    It was a clear foreign policy victory for the Bush administration. They receive most of what they wanted and show his policy of six way talks work. The left wanted much less so from their point of view it should be a clear foreign policy victory. Having the responsibility of enforcement put on China could be considered a victory. Acknowledging someone had a policy victory doesn’t mean you have to agree with that policy.

    Do you think all those at CNN that reported Bush’s election victory thought it was a good thing?

    IF Hannity said it was a clear victory and “he” thought it was a great policy with no weaknesses then said it suck, he would be flip flopping.

    Personally, I think it was victory but only as a start. The devil is in enforcing it. It puts pressure on China to help enforce it. However, if the next administration doesn’t follow though then it is a waste of time.

  9. Christopher says:

    Alex,

    Just because you are a flaming liberal who believes in government control and intervention, and socialistic economic policy, don’t think you can hold a candle to Hannity. He can spout better commentary than you in his sleep.

    Now go get yourself all excited and watch those shows that FOX programs trounce in ratings EVERYday:
    A)Keith Countdown-to-no-ratings or
    B)CNN or
    C)CBS/NBC/ABC

  10. anjin-san says:

    Christopher has a man crush on Hannity… now there is a shocker.

  11. James says:

    Let’s be fair just about every commentator on the major networks including both libs and conservatives are know to spin or flip flop. I don’t trust any of them. They all are out for themselves and most importantly there precious ratings.

  12. Alex Knapp says:

    No Olbermman, Alex?

    I figured he’d be a staple in the Knapp household…

    I only watched him once, and found him pompous and annoying.

    Just because you are a flaming liberal who believes in government control and intervention, and socialistic economic policy, don’t think you can hold a candle to Hannity.

    For the record:

    1) I am not a liberal.
    2) I do sometimes support government intervention, that’s true. I like it when, for example, the government intervenes and controls rapists and murderers and prevents them from raping and murdering.
    3) I support a free-market economy, and generally oppose socialism.
    4) Why would I hold a candle to Sean Hannity? To burn him or something?

  13. Christopher says:

    Why is it liberals can never admit who they are? A mystery of our time to be sure.

  14. bains says:

    I suspect that last bit about Stewert and Colbert was in jest, but several of my friends actually do get all their “news” from those comedy shows… that and Crooks and Liars. They are, of course, all Obama supporters.

  15. Grewgills says:

    I suspect that last bit about Stewert and Colbert was in jest, but several of my friends actually do get all their “news” from those comedy shows… that and Crooks and Liars. They are, of course, all Obama supporters.

    I am sure their opinions are at least as well informed as someone who gets all of their news from Fox, and Red State, Powerline, or talk radio who would certainly vote against Obama.

    Stewart and Colbert are nearly my sole source of ‘television news’. From recent experience in California and Alabama they are about as informative as other ‘television news’ not on PBS and are much funnier.

  16. bains says:

    I am sure their opinions are at least as well informed as someone who gets all of their news from Fox, and Red State, Powerline, or talk radio who would certainly vote against Obama.

    And I believe you are mistaken. FNC, aside from blatherers such as Sean Hannity and Alan Combs and the bombastic opinions of O’Reilly and the morning crew, offers real news. It is offered with a content bias no different than any other networks’ programing. I am constantly amazed by folks who condemn FNC as a propaganda outlet all the while lapping up all that Keith Olbermann, Bill Moyers or Christiana Amanpour spout. The institutional bias of FNC leans less right than do all the other news organizations left lean.

    Websites such as this, Powerline, Instapundit, Talkleft, Washington Monthly rely upon one thing to keep readership up – intelligent and honest noting and analysis of current events. While I, at times, differ with all bloggers at these sites, I know that they are trying to be as factual as possible, and when they make factual mistakes they post corrections. There are dishonest websites certainly, but the people that visit them are not concerned with truth, they want to a story told in a way that comforts their own preconceptions and prejudices.

    Most talk radio offers informed opinion and rational debate. The Randi Rhodes and Michael Savages are the exception to the rule. Furthermore, talk radio has nested within, regular news updates provided by ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, Fox, etc. On balance, I’d trust any hour of Dennis Prager over an hour of Stewart/Colbert for accuracy. That said, I do enjoy both Stewart and Colbert, they are mostly funny. But to pretend that they are a news source reveals more of ones own acumen and veracity.

  17. anjin-san says:

    FNC, aside from blatherers such as Sean Hannity and Alan Combs and the bombastic opinions of O’Reilly and the morning crew, offers real news

    Yea, those updates on the Natalee Holloway case are pretty essential…

  18. bains says:

    Yea, those updates on the Natalee Holloway case are pretty essential…

    As are all those other breathless updates on CNN NBC, CBS, ABC, etc., telling us that irrespective of Armitage’s admissions, Richard Cheney or George Bush must be behind Dick leaking Plame.

    While the right notes leftist bias of virtually all news sources, the left seeks to censure, even silence the few national voices of the right. I’m sure that seems fair to you anjin-san.

  19. DavidTC says:

    This isn’t a win for the Bush administration. It’s more a tie, or turning a major failure into a minor one. Although admittedly some of that aren’t Bush’s fault, some of it was the Republicans in Congress in 1996 onward.

    We had a perfectly reasonable agreement with NK in 1994. Republicans fought it and succeeded in delaying payments and the removal of sanctions, and NK started ignoring it also, until by 2003 it had completely fallen apart, at which point the problem was ignored by the Bush administration for another four years.

    The fact it has been ‘fixed’ does not change the fact that, during that time, NK has processed who knows how much uranium, and gained the knowledge to build the bomb. We (and by ‘we’ I mean Republicans) screwed around for a decade by ignoring actual agreements, and instead making strong threats we couldn’t actually follow through on, giving them a decade of research and manufacture.

    This is not a victory, it’s just less of a loss. For all we know, they now have six nukes hidden in a military base somewhere now, or, worse, have smuggled them into South Korea as the ultimate determent to invasion.