Kirsten Powers objected to Hannity doing a segment on the Chrysler workers who were drinking and toking on their lunch break. She confronts him over it, saying that he just got these workers fired, and they have families, and blah blah blah. But she went on to say, interestingly enough, that instead of going after these workers in Detroit, he should be going after Wall St bankers who drink on their lunch breaks, etc. Heh. You know, I could have sympathized with her more if she didn’t turn it into a ‘I hate the rich’ argument. This whole class warfare thing is really getting old and I think it’s stupid and unfair to say ‘hey why are you picking on the working class people but not the Wall St. bankers?’, especially after we just bailed them out too. As Ed Morrissey pointed out yesterday:
Nomally this kind of story wouldn’t be of much interest in politics. If a company’s workers start drinking and smoking marijuana on their breaks, it should be an issue for ownership and management. In this case, though, we are ownership, thanks to the huge government bailout that kept this Chrysler plant in operation.
UPDATE: I’d just like to make one more point. If Hannity had done a report on Wall St bankers tokin it up on lunch break, do you really think Kirsten would have objected to it, suggesting that he need to also go after the ‘working class’ people? Yeah, I doubt she would have too, which completely undermines her ‘double standard’ argument. Ok, update over.
Enjoy!
CLICK THE LINK TO WATCH:
http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/checker.aspx?v=hdkUSUkUkU
UPDATE: I mischaracterized Kirsten’s argument to some degree, as she noted on twitter, so I’ve corrected it above. This is the portion that I replaced:
This whole class warfare thing is really getting old and I think it’s stupid and unfair to say ‘hey go after that Wall St. banker dude, but don’t go after the factory worker dude’, especially after we just bailed them out.
But it’s still a class warfare argument dressed up as hypocrisy.