by Alan Colmes
Scott
Columbus, OH
From: Vera
Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2003 10:00 PM
To: Colmes
Subject: I Can't stand you!
... Why don't you take a Poll and find out how many people . like you. On a scale of I to 10,1 give you a 3. And that's only because I have had a couple of drinks. Make something out of that, you always do.
Seriously,
Vera
Silver Spring, MD
From: Colmes
Sent: Friday, February 28,2003 2:35 AM
To: Vera
Subject: RE: I Can't stand you!
only a "couple" of drinks?
From: Steve
Sent: Wednesday, January 08,2003 9:15 AM
To: Colmes
Subject: Vanishing H&CT-Shirt
Alan—For a Christmas gift I received a Hannity & Colmes t-shirt... After laundering the t-shirt once or twice, I noticed that the logo lettering was beginning to fade. Finally, after the third laundering, the words "and Colmes" had totally faded from the t-shirt... I submit to you that this incident... proves the existence of a vast right-wing conspiracy in our nation's garment industry.
Steve
Appleton.WI
From: Catherine
Sent: Monday, March 17,2003 8:50 PM
To: Colmes
Subject: To Alan
Dear Alan,
You are so wrong so often it is sometimes painful to hear you BUT, you are so gracious that it is possible to watch you and to listen to you. Can't ask for more than that. And, your are cute, too.
Catherine, Seattle, WA
From: Edward
Sent: Sunday, February 21, 1999 12:03 PM
To: Colmes
Subject: Why are you un-American?
Mr. Colmes, According to you:
Good: gun control (2nd amendment, what 2nd amendment?) Bad: honest citizens using arms to defend themselves (concealed carry laws)
Good: black racism (quannel x, sharpton, etc.)
Bad: the police (imagine that, human beings sometimes make a mistake!)
Good: killing babies (choice?! Whose choice, not the babies!) Bad: killing murderers (anti death penalty except for the victims death that is)
Good: Sean Hannity
Bad:Alan Colmes
S.
P.S. you are ugly too!
ELEVEN
Where Right Is Right
I don't wake up in the morning, try to figure out what a good liberal would say about whatever is in the news that day, and then spout the party line. I strive to look at each issue and then figure out where I stand. It's true that in most cases I fall left of center, but not always. Someone who is always liberal or always conservative is a nonthinking person. And, let's face it; we live in a world that tends to polarize. There is a rush to define every issue in left versus right terms, even when an issue may defy categorization. Is it liberal or conservative to want our children to have a better future, for our loved ones to have better health care, for our taxes to be as low as possible, and for our country to be protected? If you are a conservative, I hope you'll give some thought to where some of your beliefs may be "liberal."
The truth is that most rational people, regardless of ideology, want what's best for America. There are wingnuts on both sides who do a disservice to the many committed liberals and conservatives they purport to represent. And in the center are the vast numbers of Americans who don't define themselves as either left or right, just as good Americans. A Harris poll conducted from January through December of 2002 shows that 34 percent of Americans regard themselves as Democrats, 31 percent Republicans, and 24 percent Independents. But when it's couched in liberal versus conservative terms, 35 percent say they're conservative, only 17 percent admit to the liberal moniker, and 40 percent of respondents say they're moderate. A similar survey by the Republican-oriented Winston Group, conducted on December 29 and 30, 2002, had 33 percent claiming to be conservative, 19 percent liberal, and 46 percent regarding themselves as moderate.
No side has the market cornered on truth, and no truthful person could believe that his or her side is always correct. Yes, I believe that left is right. Usually. But I also strive to be, as we say at Fox News, "Fair and Balanced."
He's My President,Too
Even though Bush 43 has had to endure the "Reagan II" moniker, that branding is unfair. With Rumsfeld, Cheney, former Treasury secretary Paul O'Neill and his replacement, John Snow, as key players in this White House, let's call this group by its rightful name: the Ford administration. Gerald Ford is the best president we never elected. (We also never elected Chester A. Arthur, Millard Fillmore, Andrew Johnson, and John Tyler.) Ford was the only president who was never elected to either the presidency or the vice presidency. Unfortunately, many liberals continue to try to argue that President Bush is an illegitimate president who, like Ford, was never elected. It's a shame that some on the left feel compelled to devote their time to tearing down a president, even if it was the Supreme Court of the United States that made the ultimate decision that resulted in his White House residency. But he is and should be called the "President," not the "Resident," as some liberals insist on doing. I have been castigated by my fellow liberals for daring to suggest that their energies are best spent fighting on the issues and not on the bitter aftertaste of Election 2000. We should be looking forward, not backward, and liberals do themselves a disservice with their lack of graciousness in defeat.
During the antiwar demonstrations before and during the 2003 war with Iraq, many liberals held placards with the vilest language toward our president. Outside the UN office in Damascus, signs called Bush 43 a "criminal" and a "butcher." In Bahrain's capital, Manama, some banners read, "Death to America." Outside the Edwin Andrews Air Force Base in the Philippines, where hundreds of U.S. troops are stationed, one sign read "Bush No. 1 Terrorist." Walking along Broadway during a peace march on March 22, 2003, I blanched when I saw a sign that read, "Bush: The Real Butcher of Baghdad."
Liberals, and anyone else in the antiwar movement, need to do a better job of distancing themselves from these whack jobs and make sure that their political adversaries understand that this does not represent the liberal position. Let the conservatives do the name-calling. I'd rather be angry at the other side for their behavior than at my own side. Let the conservatives be the ones who are perceived as mean-spirited and overly emotional. Liberals need to base their opinions on fact and logic, not emotionalism. That is the only way they will disabuse a large number of their fellow Americans of their antiliberalism.
Some antiwar liberals decided to go to Iraq and proclaim themselves "human shields." They thought that by positioning themselves at hospitals and schools they could put human faces on war and prevent casualties. But when they got to the land of the not-free, they were ordered to do their shielding at water, power, and oil installations because that served Iraq's purposes better. Did these useful idiots believe they'd really be useful to the United States or to the effort to stop war? When they couldn't act as shields in their chosen locations, many of them left Iraq, complaining about Iraqi interference with their mission. Did it ever occur to them that freedom of movement and assembly didn't exist in Iraq? Just some things to think about the next time you want to go to a hostile nation without the guarantees of the U.S. Constitution.
The 2003 antiwar movement also spawned protesters who decided that lying down in front of traffic in San Francisco or staging a "die-in" to disrupt rush hour in New York would make some brilliant statement about the evils of war. Instead, these wrong-headed exercises in futility used up valuable resources at a time of high terror alerts, and prevented hardworking Americans from going about their daily business. Much as I opposed this war, I couldn't live with myself if my actions resulted in a sick child or an elderly person unable to get to a hospital quickly because their ambulance was caught up in a demonstration. Why not protest an illegal and immoral war by doing something posit
ive for America? Go en masse and feed the homeless, bring meals to invalids, or mentor a child. The opposition would then have little ground upon which to denounce your cause.
Reasonable conservatives want a loyal opposition, but when that opposition is perceived as disloyal there can be no honest debate. When the other side sees only irrational and illogical behavior and rhetoric, we make it easy for them to rail against what they see as the paucity of liberal ideas.
The Message Is the Message
Frankly, I think the Democrats are not as smart as the Republicans at using talk radio and cable news to get their message out. Hannity & Colmes in particular and Fox News in general historically have had a more difficult time getting Democrats to come on our shows than we've had getting Republicans to come on. Even if we were as biased as some Democrats claim, they'd be much smarter to come into the lion's den than to avoid the zoo entirely. Republicans have been braver about going on shows and fighting the good fight. Trent Lott; Newt Gingrich, even when he was Speaker; Lynn Cheney; Denny Hastert; and other top Republicans have never shied away from us. I won't embarrass the guilty by telling you the laundry list of people who say things like, "Well, is Sean going to be nice to me?" Sean gets the same questions about me from some on his side, too, but this is more of a Democrat whine. Some Democrats came on only after long weeks and months of requests; others have still yet to appear. I hope they'll come to realize that you accomplish more when you preach in the other church than to your own choir.
A good attitude about this was expressed to me by then candidate Bush. While running for president, the Texas governor addressed the Talkers magazine New Media Seminar in New York City. In the middle of a tough campaign, he took a Saturday, flew to New York to talk to a bunch of radio hosts, and then went back to Texas. Lots of travel for a half-hour talk to a cynical crowd. Michael Harrison, the publisher of Talkers, introduced me to the man who would become the next president, and I told him that I hoped he'd consider coming on Hannity & Colmes. I offered that I was a reasonable liberal and would give him a fair shake. "If I can't face you on television," Bush told me, "I have no business being president." And he was right. Let's see, who's tougher to face down: Alan Colmes or Saddam Hussein?
Good Enemy Lines
I've spent enough time showing you things conservatives have said that I deem inappropriate at best and false at worst. Here are some things I agree with that have been said by my otherwise political opposites.
That old joke that even a stopped clock is right twice a day applies here. It has to if I'm going to agree with Jesse Helms. In fact, it's the far right that is often correct on our misuse of power abroad and the need to prioritize our resources toward our domestic needs.
In 1991, during the Gulf War, the Los Angeles Times reported on the issue of our formerly pro-Iraq policies: "Ultraconservative Helms said that Iraq's ability to rapidly develop such a dangerous arsenal is attributable to 'unbelievable greed . . . and bureaucratic bungling'."
It's really invigorating to cheer on someone with whom you usually vehemently disagree. It causes you to check your pulse and then rejoice when you discover you're still alive. All I can say in this case is, "Go, Jesse, Go."
Here's another wonderful quote from a man who may very well have rehabilitated himself by living up to its spirit: "Always give your best, never get discouraged, never be petty; always remember, others may hate you. Those who hate you don't win unless you hate them. And then you destroy yourself." Richard Nixon said these eloquent words during his farewell address on August 8, 1974. What more wonderful advice could there be than to never hate back, and what better person to offer it than a man who was reviled by many at the time he said it, but who gained more respect through the adjusted lens of history?
Ronald Reagan succeeded not just on the issues, but because he presented a soaring spirit with his "morning in America" approach. In his first inaugural address on January 20, 1981, he proclaimed, "No arsenal or no weapon in the arsenals of the world is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women." This is the kind of statement that truly inspires one to think about possibilities. For me, these mean possibilities other than war to achieve our aims. Reagan was far brighter than the left ever acknowledged.
My side does itself and the country a disservice when it positions itself as smarter than highly respected conservative icons like Ronald Reagan. We come off as intolerant and arrogant, everything a liberal isn't supposed to be.
Right Is Right on Reparations
Many of today's black Americans are from countries other than America, and many white taxpayers are not descendants of slave owners. There is an argument put forth by those who want recompense for slavery that we did the same thing for Japanese held in internment camps and Nazi-era slave laborers. But these monies went to the actual aggrieved parties and their families, not to people who happened to be the same race two hundred years later.
Many white Americans are descendants of those who fought and died to end slavery. Should they be compensated? Should we compensate women because of years of American misogyny? Indeed, if we're going to start compensating anyone, shouldn't we repay the American Indians for taking their land? How much money is going to make everything okay? Won't the cost of reparations take a huge amount of money out of our treasury that could be put to use for the good of all Americans, especially the most needy, many of whom are in the very group reparations purport to help?
And here is the overriding principle: according to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, "Inheritance of the guilt of the dead is not compatible with the standards of criminal justice in a society governed by the rule of law."
Where Left Is Right and Right Is Left
Kathy Ireland may claim to be liberal about the rights of the unborn child, but I claim to be conservative on the abortion issue. Conservatives say they want less government, but they want to dictate what medical procedures a woman can have. They want to tell a woman that even if she is raped or the victim of incest, her body becomes a ward of the state for nine months. I'm conservative on abortion. I don't believe it's any of the government's business.
I'm also conservative on quotas and set-asides, but not affirmative action. They're too often lumped together, but the Supreme Court did a nice job of neatly separating them in the University of Michigan decision it reached during the 2003 term.
I'm for free trade. That's a conservative position. But it conforms to liberal ideals. Free trade promotes jobs for the poor and forces the hand of democracy in countries that would otherwise be more isolated. Protectionism reeks of special interests.
"The 'War' on Drugs"
Both liberals and conservatives are wrong on drugs. They should be legal. Insanity is denned as doing the same thing repeatedly and hoping for a different result. Our drug laws don't work. Never did; never will. And most politicians of both parties, with the courageous exception of former governor Gary Johnson of New Mexico, don't have the courage to admit this, because it's not politically correct. Legalizing drugs would take the profit motive out of the equation. Our resources could be better spent focusing on treatment rather than interdiction. It costs $30,000 a year to keep someone in jail, versus $20,000 for the most intensive drug treatment program. The social costs of drug abuse, like health care, incarceration and lost productivity, exceed $110 billion per year, and take fifty-two thousand American lives a year. U.S. drug users spend more than $63 billion annually to purchase drugs. Conservatives complain that liberals have a tendency to throw money at a problem and hope it will be solved. I'm against throwing money at a program that has proven not to work, "The 'War' on Drugs."
So call me a conservative. Amazingly, some of our viewers have done just that.
From: Dennis Y.
Sent: Friday, November 22,2002 9:57 PM
To: Colmes
Subject: Are you a liberal?
I have been watching your show for 2 years but I have never heard yo
u say anything that sounds all that liberal.
In what way are you a liberal?
Dennis Dennis, there's a new book out I'd like you to read.
Right Is Right on America's Boundaries
The columnist Michelle Malkin has done some good work pointing out how vulnerable our borders are. It was Ms. Malkin who discovered that an illegal alien was able to secure a job putting up tents at the White House. This person worked there for two years, even after being tagged by the Immigration and Naturalization Service for deportation, hoodwinking both his employer and the Secret Service. Malkin has pointed out how easy it is to borrow or steal someone's identity and use it to create a life for oneself in the United States. I certainly don't agree with everything she says about illegal immigration. For example, foreign nationals contribute to our economy, particularly farming, and often take jobs Americans won't. They are responsible for the success of the $1.2 billion fruit industry in Washington State. In Georgia 99 percent of illegals are employed. I also believe they deserve certain services. After all, they are granted tax IDs by the IRS and pay $1 billion in taxes in New York State alone. That's why Ronald Reagan signed the 1986 Amnesty Act that gave residency status to immigrants who were here prior to 1972.
However, as Malkin pointed out in National Review Online, "The United States is one of the few industrialized countries in the world that has not tightened immigration and entrance policies in response to the Sept. 11 attacks. Temporary visas for Middle Eastern students, tourists, and businessmen remain plentiful; immigrant visas continue to be given away at random or for the right price; the borders remain porous; the welcome mat for illegal aliens is expanding; and the deportation system is in shambles."