Sean Hannity fans know that Friday night marked the much awaited debate between him and Salt Lake City’s outspoken Democrat Mayor Rocky Anderson.
The event took place at the University of Utah, and featured multiple barbs by each contestant, and a great deal of fireworks.
As reported at the KUTV website:
Anderson and Hannity were each given 30 minutes to make a presentation supporting their positions on the two topics of debate [the war in Iraq and whether President Bush should be impeached]. Anderson’s presentation included documents and videos outlining his case. Hannity focused his speech on criticizing dissenters.
The wrap-up article continued (multi-part videos of the entire debate available here):
“If Rocky Anderson will not be equally intelligent, honest and open and criticize the very same people that made the very same arguments, it’s not George Bush who should be impeached or removed from office. It’s your mayor,” Hannity said.
[…]
Anderson has led protests against Bush during each of the president’s past two visits to Utah and travels the country frequently to call for Bush’s impeachment. He has come under frequent criticism from Republicans who say he is embarrassing the city and the state.
What precipitated this event? Well, according to Deseret News:
The debate, hosted by the the Associated Students of the University of Utah, came about after the Fox cable news network canceled a scheduled appearance by Anderson on the "Hannity & Colmes" show. Hannity made an off-the-cuff challenge in response to Anderson's reaction to the cancellation, sparking the debate.
[…]
Tickets to the event sold out in two hours. Kingsbury Hall has a capacity of more than 1,900, and ticket sales brought in nearly $25,000, minus the debate's operating costs. The money is to be distributed to such charities as the Guadalupe Schools, Primary Children's Medical Center and a scholarship fund at the university.
From what I’ve seen so far, and read, the event was a huge success except for the seemingly endless crowd interruptions.
Enjoy.
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters.



















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
“If Rocky Anderson will not
May 5, 2007 - 18:37 ET by bigtimer“If Rocky Anderson will not be equally intelligent, honest and open and criticize the very same people that made the very same arguments, it’s not George Bush who should be impeached or removed from office. It’s your mayor,” Hannity said.
Well, that about sums it all up right there.
Period.
Bingo. I find it incredibl
May 5, 2007 - 19:03 ET by GregEBingo. I find it incredibly interesting (not to mention stupid, unbelievable, nonsensical, asinine, etc) that liberals can do something one day, then later when things are seen as not popular and a chance for them to act like they never did what they did in the first place, they jump all over it and separate themselves completely from their own words, votes, etc. And the sad thing for America is, the media helps them squash their former actions. America is much worse off by having a media so biased toward one agenda. And until Americans do something about that, it will only get worse.
I've said it before - without the media and their massive influence and everyday free advertising for the liberal agenda, liberals would be lucky to win 30% of any vote for any office. Take away that constant advertising and suddenly their agenda isn't being spewed out of many American's mouths just because they heard it on TV and are now believers in whatever it is they have no clue they're believing in. But they "heard it on the news so it must be true."
America is worse off because of this inability of news to be objective anymore, and will only get moreso unless it begins to reverse.
Rocky Anderson:"Althou
May 5, 2007 - 19:31 ET by WhichWingRocky Anderson:
"Although Congress was certainly complicit, that does not diminish President Bush's culpability for deceiving the American people."
WW...Hi Cutie Pie.Support thi
May 5, 2007 - 19:36 ET by bigtimerWW...
Hi Cutie Pie.
Support this country someday.
Be thankful.
As quoted by Anderson in hi
May 5, 2007 - 19:52 ET by WhichWingAs quoted by Anderson in his opening statement:
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public"
Theodore Roosevelt
So, I return your advice to you - support this country someday.
WW...You are just so precious
May 5, 2007 - 19:59 ET by bigtimerWW...
You are just so precious sweetheart.
I appreciate it, thank you.
May 5, 2007 - 20:04 ET by WhichWingI appreciate it, thank you.
No appreciation necessary.
May 5, 2007 - 20:06 ET by bigtimerNo appreciation necessary.
Appreciation withdrawn, apo
May 5, 2007 - 20:19 ET by WhichWingAppreciation withdrawn, apology offered in its place. :)
...accepted....
May 5, 2007 - 20:29 ET by bigtimer...accepted....
Of course, Roosevelt was a bi
May 6, 2007 - 16:58 ET by zfOf course, Roosevelt was a big government control freak who hated criticism so his words on the matter are meaningless.
Here is a typical liberal ploy, hide behind undermining the country by using high-minded mantras of dissent.
"Hey, when I said Islamic fascists should take over the country I was only being a patriotic dissenter!"
P.S. Conservatives have been far more critical of Bush than liberals ever have been about Presidents who think like them (cough, cough Bill Clinton cough) so Wingless here has a perfect .000 batting average.
Roosevelt was a big governmen
May 6, 2007 - 17:00 ET byRoosevelt was a big government control freak
you talking Teddy or Frankie?
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
Teddy in this case, but frank
May 6, 2007 - 17:14 ET by zfTeddy in this case, but frankly (no pun intended) it applies to both.
WWCriticism of the president
May 6, 2007 - 17:12 ET byWW
Criticism of the president is one thing. Lying about him is another. Until YOUR statements are backed up by YOU, I can not take them as truth. Free Stinker has all kinds of links in the Forums which back up the decision to go to Iraq.
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
maybe this will help?http://w
May 6, 2007 - 18:08 ET by M J Bmaybe this will help?
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/lieofthecentury.html
Oh, right. Conspiracy nut Michael Rivero as a "source"
May 6, 2007 - 18:22 ET by RJOh, right. Conspiracy nut Michael Rivero as a "source." He never met a conspiracy theory he didn't fall in love with....
MJB since you are too lazy or
May 6, 2007 - 18:33 ET byMJB
since you are too lazy or foolish to find it:
http://newsbusters.org/node/11907
check ALL the Clinton quotes BEFORE W was even president
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
M J B Will you share your opinion--
May 6, 2007 - 18:59 ET by misterbillM J B Will you share your opinion-- re: Roosevelt memo
If I accept that our entry in WW2 was planned---
What do you think would have happened had we not entered the war??
Should be interesting..
Where’s the coward that would not dare to fight for such a land? Sir Walter Scott
And the parent that wouldn't be honored by the sacrifice? Noel Sheppard
If it was deceit--it was the
May 6, 2007 - 07:33 ET by Andrew H.If it was deceit--it was the same deceit passed on by the clintonistas. Your darling left have successfully twisted the facts in history and laid it all on the President--way to go. Doesn't matter if its true or not--lies are the DNA of the left. The issue is power. The motivation is collectivism.
Liberalism is a convenient lie.
Quotes?
May 6, 2007 - 10:58 ET by ArcherBGeorge Orwell:
"Pacifismis objectively pro-fascist. This is elementary common sense. If you
hamper the war effort of one side, you automatically help out that of
the other. Nor is there any real way of remaining outside such a war as
the present one. In practice, 'he that is not with me is against me.'""
GREAT QUOTE, ARCHER!
May 6, 2007 - 11:06 ET by RJ"...if you hamper the war effort of one side, you automatically help out that of the other...."
GREAT QUOTE, ARCHER! quote, Archer, and it perfectly describes the consequences of the behavior of today's left
And yet Rockhead Anderson onl
May 6, 2007 - 16:51 ET by zfAnd yet Rockhead Anderson only focuses on the President and doesn't call for the removal of congressman and woman.
Hannity went with his normal
May 5, 2007 - 19:00 ET by ding7777Hannity went with his normal strawmen early and often:
Hi ding.See you are up to you
May 5, 2007 - 19:04 ET by bigtimerHi ding.
See you are up to your usual self.
Btw...Hillary is in the race.
hey bigtimer - Hannity was de
May 5, 2007 - 19:15 ET by ding7777hey bigtimer - Hannity was debating with the Mayor regarding Bush's Iraq War - he wan't debating 2008 Presidential candidates
..whatever...
May 5, 2007 - 19:17 ET by bigtimer..whatever...
Ding, Hillary had nothing to do wit
May 5, 2007 - 19:23 ET by RJHillary had nothing to do with voting for the war? She has not and will not be making statements about it in her campaign? If elected she will have nothing to do with it? Oh, wait, ding, I get it. Democrat rules. Hillary's off limits.
RJ - Did Hannity show all D
May 5, 2007 - 19:51 ET by ding7777RJ - Did Hannity show all Democratics who voted for Bush's Iraq War? Of course not - just proves Hannity uses the Hillary card as a strawman.
Well ding...
May 5, 2007 - 20:06 ET by RJWell, we'll have to make sure that every pundit mentions ALL the candidates or NONE of the candidates from here on out, ding. Otherwise.....
not just candidates, RJ, all
May 5, 2007 - 20:14 ET bynot just candidates, RJ, all democrats, in fact Hannity should check with ding to learn what facts are allowed in as evidence
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
I'm just about all the way
May 5, 2007 - 20:17 ET by WhichWingI'm just about all the way through Hannity's opening statement, and so far, Democrats are the only people he has mentioned.
are you contradicting the Din
May 5, 2007 - 20:19 ET byare you contradicting the Ding?
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
I would never do such a thi
May 5, 2007 - 20:21 ET by WhichWingI would never do such a thing. (Or did I already do it?)
Did Hannity show all Democrat
May 5, 2007 - 20:28 ET byDid Hannity show all Democratics
Ding implied that Sean singled out Hillary, you said he spoke of lots of democrats
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
Ah, indeed, I guess I did c
May 5, 2007 - 20:45 ET by WhichWingAh, indeed, I guess I did contradict him. But my point stands on its own, he spent almost the entire opening statement and ensuing debate pointing at liberals and Democrats. How many times did he refer to Anderson as a "part-time mayor and full-time protester"? Honestly, I think Hannity made some good points, but he lacks the ability to make his points without attacking someone, and that's too bad.
It could be that part of his
May 6, 2007 - 07:38 ET by Andrew H.It could be that part of his reason for doing so is because the left is destructive to our country. It is. The mindless drones who make up the left are people who believe in killing babies, hope and opportunity--but don't touch a tree.
Liberalism is a convenient lie.
LOL, try again.Hannity doesn'
May 5, 2007 - 20:10 ET by Del DolemonteLOL, try again.
Hannity doesn't need to go after the other Democrats who voted for "Bush's War". Two of them ran and lost in 2004 (Jean-Claude Kerry and John Edwards). Hillary is THE Democrat front-runner for the 2008 nomination. So he should totally ignore her?
By the way, if you look at the (D) Senators who voted against the Iraq War (the Senate Vote was 77-23, so Bush musta lied to a LOT of people LOL), most of their votes were totally predictable. Both far-left looney toons from Hawaii voted against, as did Vermont, Rhode Island, Chappaquiddick Fats from the Bay State, and Feingold and Wellstone from Minnesota (of course, Wellstone was later murdered by Halliburton for doing so).
Question Ding
May 5, 2007 - 20:10 ET by acumenAre you suggesting all the Democrat(ic)s that voted for freedom for the Iraqi people are running for President in 2008? If not, your supposed strawman argument seems a bit hollow, don't you think?
Dingbat:Hannity showed clips
May 6, 2007 - 10:19 ET by TheProfDingbat:
Hannity showed clips of not only Hillary but also of Kerry ( "Vietnam Hero"), Dodd, (The sandwich with his buddy Teddy) and also the great one himself Kennedy (the swimmer) all saying in 2002 the same things as Pres Bush said about WMD.
Sorry, Ding-Dong School, but
May 5, 2007 - 19:58 ET by Del DolemonteSorry, Ding-Dong School, but it was Clinton, not Bush who said there was a working relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda first. Read his Justice Dept.'s 1998 indictment of bin Laden sometime.
And it was Bubba, not Dubyah, who did the pre-emptive bombing of Iraq first, just days before his impeachment in December of 1998. He never asked Congress for approval for that one.
Of course, we all know that in the fever swamp you reside in, recorded history didn't begin until January of 2001. The very instant Bush was sworn in, Mohammed Atta illegally entered the US and started his flight training in Florida. And Halliburton started planting the explosive charges in the WTC towers.
To be fair, Ross is the Mr.
May 5, 2007 - 20:09 ET by WhichWingTo be fair, Ross is the Mr. Anderson's real first name. I'm not sure why Hannity chose to use Ross instead of Rocky.
And what straw-men do you use
May 6, 2007 - 07:35 ET by Andrew H.And what straw-men do you use? Part and parcel--the democrats lie and spin. You have to be dumb to buy the act.
Liberalism is a convenient lie.
Hey Dingbat:1. Did you watch
May 6, 2007 - 10:10 ET by TheProfHey Dingbat:
1. Did you watch all the videos? He was just answering Ross's question as to why Pres Bush didn't do something about Ben L. before 9/11 and Hannity told him about the 5 chances that Clinton had to get him in the 90's; and,he just said what Clinton publicly stated why he didn't take him when offered by the government of Sudan.
2. Rocky is just a nick name .....his name is Ross.
3. He didn't throw in the Hillary card ...he mentioned her to show in a video clip that she said the same thing in 2002 as Pres. Bush said about WMD.
what Clinton has to do with
May 6, 2007 - 17:29 ET by Tom1969caHmm ... maybe the following will ring a few bells:
These are all your people, Ding. Were they all lying too?
~~~
If Hillary is the answer, it must've been a stupid question...
Tom,Ding knows that Free has
May 6, 2007 - 17:46 ET byTom,
Ding knows that Free has put this up here at NB don't confuse him with facts
http://newsbusters.org/node/11907
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
Impeach George Bush for remov
May 5, 2007 - 20:00 ET by stanleygoodspeedImpeach George Bush for removing a genocidal dictator and his political party from power and for keeping the United States safe from terrorist attack for almost 6 years now?!
What a colossal idiot ... Anderson is the same kind of Pharisee that would have screamed for Barabbas' release instead of Jesus Christ's.
Thank God for this truth ...
Deuteronomy 19:16-19
(16) If a false witness rise up against any man to testify against him that which is wrong;
(17) Then both the men, between whom the controversy is, shall stand before the Lord, before the priests and the judges, which shall be in those days;
(18) And the judges shall make diligent inquisition: and, behold, if the witness be a false witness, and hath testified falsely against his brother;
(19) THEN SHALL YE DO UNTO HIM, AS HE HAD THOUGHT TO HAVE DONE UNTO HIS BROTHER : SO SHALL THOU PUT THE EVIL AWAY FROM AMONG YOU.
Anyone know why Hannity is
May 5, 2007 - 21:28 ET by WhichWingAnyone know why Hannity is so attached to his pen? I noticed he came out with it already in his hand, and didn't remove it to shake Anderson's hand. (See picture above.) He always has it on his show on Fox too. Anyone know?
WW...Ohhh ... Ohhh!Wait til B
May 5, 2007 - 21:34 ET by bigtimerWW...
Ohhh ... Ohhh!
Wait til BOR has that so-called body language expert on and submit your big quest in life to her/him.
She will set you straight...just ask her.
What do you think she would
May 5, 2007 - 23:54 ET by WhichWingWhat do you think she would say about this? Is it a security blanket of sorts?
(Isn't it a little silly to downplay the "science" of global warming while touting your "body language expert"?)
No WW, it's a common; subtle
May 6, 2007 - 18:04 ET by tracheostomyNo WW, it's a common; subtle prop used in the debate process.
Hannity knows how to communicate on different levels to the widest audience that he can. One example of this same prop "tactic" that I can recall off the top of my head was used in a murder trial that I served as a juror on.
The defense attorney used every trick at hand to his achieve his goals. One of these was a thick law book that he always had lying closed on his desk; with the spine facing away from the jury, and the pages facing toward them--with his last name written in marker along the cut. It was very subtle. He never touched it or pointed it out, as if to say, "Oh this is simply the book that belongs to me, nothing more."
The jury always remembered his name during closed deliberation, but never the prosecutor. Hm, wonder why?
Moving stagecraft makes use of effective props.
-PJ
Wanna understand the entire liberal thought process in under an hour?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaE98w1 (h/t to W0TM @ NB)
I agree with one comment I
May 5, 2007 - 22:44 ET by Howard_BealeI agree with one comment I read elsewhere on the web: It was nice just to see Hannity debate someone whose microphone he couldn't turn off.
Try posting something non-lef
May 6, 2007 - 02:16 ET by owlpelletsTry posting something non-leftwing-dingbat on DU and see how long your " mic" stays on.............
I always wanted to get into politics, but I was never light enough to make the team.
Yeah, it's amazing how non-
May 6, 2007 - 10:05 ET by Howard_BealeYeah, it's amazing how non-rightwing nuttery comments never get blocked or deleted at right-wing sites.
But hey, if Hannity wants to challenge DU to an open debate, I'm for that too!
"To announce that there
May 6, 2007 - 10:12 ET by jcrapes4"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public"
Theodore Roosevelt
I dont have problem with criticising any sitting President but calling for his impeachment, saying he lied to get us into this war, he knew about the attacks on 9/11 before they happened, etc etc. To me those types of statements are beyond criticism. Rush said it best one day. He stated something to the effect you can't enter the arena of political ideas and not expect someone to challenge them. Liberals it seems do not like their viewpoints challenged. If you say Bush lied then prove it, if you say Bush caused 9/11 or had implimicit knowledge of the attacks beforehand then fing prove it. If you think I am raving nutcase well you don't need to prove that:) I've always been 50 cards short of a deck:):):)
And as we all know Teddy was
May 6, 2007 - 17:01 ET by zfAnd as we all know Teddy was a shrinking violent who always ignored criticism and turned the other cheek...
Why would Hannity debate _thi
May 6, 2007 - 18:09 ET by balboaWhy would Hannity debate _this_ guy?
Balboa
May 6, 2007 - 18:13 ET by Noel SheppardB,
Well, first off, because it raised money for charity. Secondly, because he was challenged to do so, and, unlike folks like soon-to-be-Dr. Al Gore, Hannity is actually willing to debate his beliefs wherever and whenever asked to.
Don't you find it refreshing? :-) ns
It's nice I guess. But I don'
May 6, 2007 - 18:17 ET by balboaIt's nice I guess. But I don't think Hannity would win many debates with, you know, more rational folk. This seems too easy.
B
May 6, 2007 - 18:23 ET by Noel SheppardB,
So, are you suggesting that Rocky isn't a rational person? Exactly which of the positions that he espoused during this debate would you consider irrational?
I'm just curious given how much of his diatribe closely mirrored what I hear from Democrat leaders and presidential candidates on virtually a daily basis. :-) ns
I think the impeachment bit i
May 6, 2007 - 19:40 ET by balboaI think the impeachment bit is a little premature. There isn't enough hard evidence to suggest that yet.
Yet? There is no evidence, pe
May 6, 2007 - 19:54 ET by ThisnThatYet? There is no evidence, period. You imply that there is evidence, but not yet hard, thereby leaving us to believe that someone's got something, and it's only a matter of time.
If you have something, then come clean. We all want to be able to review and comment.
I'm not saying I have somethi
May 6, 2007 - 19:59 ET by balboaI'm not saying I have something hidden or someone else does. I think there have been mistakes made by this administration, and I think they've been costly, but I don't think they're the kind of thing you impeach for.
His agenda is clearly to appe
May 6, 2007 - 18:25 ET by tracheostomyHannity's agenda is clearly to appeal to the common man; using simple, plain language, and having detailed citations to back them up (if needed).
For my taste, he's not "Dennis Miller" enough, but you really need conservatives like Hannity for those times when you need some staple conservative arguments to refer to.
-PJ
Wanna understand the entire liberal thought process in less than an hour? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaE98w1 (h/t to W0TM @ NB)