Dear Mr. Hannity:

Dear Mr. Hannity:

I've watched your show on Fox News channel for several years, first when you were teamed up with Alan Colmes, and now, by yourself. I have appreciated your efforts to inform Americans about the important issues and challenges confronting our nation--but I do not appreciate the direction that your show seems to be headed.

For most of the Bush Administration, before 9/11 and after the invasion of Iraq, one of the defining aspects of the left was the deeply personal insults that it directed against anyone with whom they disagreed. They turned everything into a personal attack. Instead of arguing that the Iraq War was perhaps a bridge too far, they insisted that it was an attempt to enrich Haliburton for the benefit of puppet master Dick Cheney. The attacks on Governor Palin were even more outrageously in this same vein.

In the last few weeks, I've noticed that your show seems to be relying increasingly on personal ridicule rather than serious policy questioning. The "Liberal Translation" segment is especially offensive. There are also times that going for the cheap laugh is causing you to overlook far more substantive criticisms. For example, last night you spotlighted the profoundly embarrassing interview on 60 Minutes in which President Obama's responses to Kroft involved a lot of giggling and laughs about the economy. Kroft realized that something was wrong, and asked, "Are you punch-drunk?"

Pretty obviously, Obama wasn't. The use of that movie clip got a few laughs, but a little thought would have revealed that Obama's behavior was indicative of someone who is profoundly embarrassed, and not quite sure how to handle an interview involving a crisis that he feels unequipped to solve. Obama is in over his head, because he lacks executive experience--and that is the real story. We can feel sorry for Obama, who was promoted by the mainstream media to a job for which he is clearly unqualified. We can feel sorry for America, which is suffering from a crisis that demands the best possible President right now--and we don't have it. But this is a serious problem--and going for the laughs isn't helping.

I've written before about how Ann Coulter's sometimes cruel personal statements get a cheap laugh--and distract from serious and important points that she makes. Over the last several years, I have become increasingly disappointed by Bill O'Reilly's increasingly confrontational manner of dealing with guests. There's a difference between challenging someone to defend their position, and just talking over them, more loudly and more belligerently. Glenn Beck is a breath of fresh air; he either is a very humble person, or he at least knows how to fake one on the air. When Michelle Malkin or Laura Ingraham substitutes for O'Reilly, I come away with that same positive reaction: here is someone with strongly held conservative views, but who is focused on policy, not personal insults.

I am especially irritated by the cheap personal insult approach from people that purport to be following Jesus. Christians aren't obligated to be milquetoast. We can strongly disagree with our opponents, but the personal insults are outside the pale.

Very Truly Yours,

Clayton E. Cramer

UPDATE: Let me emphasize that questions of personal corruption (exchanging governmental favors for money, gifts, etc.) are legitimate concerns. Hypocrisy as it impinges on public policy is also a legitimate concern. Raising these issues in a dignified and honest manner doesn't qualify as personal insult.