Sorry for the long rant, thought I'd post it here.

I posted the following at Schlussel's blog. It appeared, then promptly disappeared, then appeared again briefly when I checked with a different browser, then disappeared seemingly for good. This, along with a disproportionate preponderance of comments vilifying Hannity and fawning over Schlussel for "great reporting," leads me to the obvious conclusion that the blog is being scrubbed or moderated diligently and stringently to maintain "proper balance."

Here's my post that disappeared over there:

******

Let me see if I get this straight.

(BTW, I am not a Hannity fan -- I stopped watching his show years ago when I found myself sympathizing with a despicable liberal simply because Hannity kept browbeating him with the "answer yes or no" premise and wouldn't even let the guest state their argument in their terms. That kind of debate tactic only weakens the position.)

Anyway, let me see if I get the gist of all this.

Schlussel claims Hannity and the charity are basically corrupt. She makes allegations that Hannity was basically living high on the hog jetting around on the charity's dime. Not much was paid out, she says. There are a lot of allusions to maimed UNNAMED soldiers receiving insultingly low amounts of "aid." There are also various other accusations couched in scathing language, some talk about overhead, consultants, and what Schlussel insists are not just questionable, but damnably bad practices for a charity.

The charity answers in very simple fashion by saying unequivocally that Hannity pays out all his own travel expense, donates his time basically without recompense. It also says a lot of money has not been paid out, because it remains in a pool that is earmarked for college funding for children of veterans, and a large percentage of these children are not yet of college age, hence the money is still undistributed.

Shclussel calls this response "weak."

Hannity-hating liberals foam at the mouth.

Am I missing any major points, or misrepresenting anything? Do I have the gist of it?

Then there's the American Spectator.

The American Spectator, which, apparently, initially rushed to embrace Schlussel's claims with open arms, is backpedaling faster than a bribed Democrat.

For instance, from American Spectator's website: "ANOTHER UPDATE: Further exculpatory information here. Schlussel's story seems to be falling apart."

Reference link:
(don't think BH's filter will allow the address here; see original American Spectator "Big Ripoff" story)

And it's a hard blow to the American Spectator's credibility to flip-flop this way.

Add to it, Hannity is presumably a wealthy man with, presumably, solvency. And, oh, I don't know, presumably Hannity has some moral conscience. Just saying, love him or hate him, he does come across as someone with some genuine strength of convictions. Just going by my own ability to judge character, but I can usually read a person well. I didn't need Rush Limbaugh to tell me Al Gore was a charlatan.

Just saying. When you got commenters reacting to this story by gleefully ridiculing Palin and sanctimoniously bringing up Limbaugh's past narcotic addiction as "part of the fun," you have to wonder which "nerve" you're making tingle.

The frothing Hannity-haters might want to wait to see how this holds up before passing judgment.

I expect both parties will dig their heels in. Woe betide the one in the wrong.

******

Sorry for the long rant, thought I'd post it here.

I posted the following at Schlussel's blog. It appeared, then promptly disappeared, then appeared again briefly when I checked with a different browser, then disappeared seemingly for good. This, along with a disproportionate preponderance of comments vilifying Hannity and fawning over Schlussel for "great reporting," leads me to the obvious conclusion that the blog is being scrubbed or moderated diligently and stringently to maintain "proper balance."

Here's my post that disappeared over there:

******

Let me see if I get this straight.

(BTW, I am not a Hannity fan -- I stopped watching his show years ago when I found myself sympathizing with a despicable liberal simply because Hannity kept browbeating him with the "answer yes or no" premise and wouldn't even let the guest state their argument in their terms. That kind of debate tactic only weakens the position.)

Anyway, let me see if I get the gist of all this.

Schlussel claims Hannity and the charity are basically corrupt. She makes allegations that Hannity was basically living high on the hog jetting around on the charity's dime. Not much was paid out, she says. There are a lot of allusions to maimed UNNAMED soldiers receiving insultingly low amounts of "aid." There are also various other accusations couched in scathing language, some talk about overhead, consultants, and what Schlussel insists are not just questionable, but damnably bad practices for a charity.

The charity answers in very simple fashion by saying unequivocally that Hannity pays out all his own travel expense, donates his time basically without recompense. It also says a lot of money has not been paid out, because it remains in a pool that is earmarked for college funding for children of veterans, and a large percentage of these children are not yet of college age, hence the money is still undistributed.

Shclussel calls this response "weak."

Hannity-hating liberals foam at the mouth.

Am I missing any major points, or misrepresenting anything? Do I have the gist of it?

Then there's the American Spectator.

The American Spectator, which, apparently, initially rushed to embrace Schlussel's claims with open arms, is backpedaling faster than a bribed Democrat.

For instance, from American Spectator's website: "ANOTHER UPDATE: Further exculpatory information here. Schlussel's story seems to be falling apart."

Reference link:
http://spectator.org/blog/2010/03/19/hannitys-big...

And it's a hard blow to the American Spectator's credibility to flip-flop this way.

Add to it, Hannity is presumably a wealthy man with, presumably, solvency. And, oh, I don't know, presumably Hannity has some moral conscience. Just saying, love him or hate him, he does come across as someone with some genuine strength of convictions. Just going by my own ability to judge character, but I can usually read a person well. I didn't need Rush Limbaugh to tell me Al Gore was a charlatan.

Just saying. When you got commenters reacting to this story by gleefully ridiculing Palin and sanctimoniously bringing up Limbaugh's past narcotic addiction as "part of the fun," you have to wonder which "nerve" you're making tingle.

The frothing Hannity-haters might want to wait to see how this holds up before passing judgment.

I expect both parties will dig their heels in. Woe betide the one in the wrong.

******