Now that Rand is a GOP heavyweight...

[Sayzak]

Should we call/email-bomb Hannity and ask him if he remembers us telling him, "This is OUR party now!" (just after the snowball incident)? I'd love to get him stirred up, get him thinking, get him angry.

[twomp]

Why tear down bridges now?

[Anti-Neocon]

Why tear down bridges now?
Because self-satisfaction is more important than our country's future.

[Sayzak]

Because self-satisfaction is more important than our country's future.

So... you think Hannity is essential to our country's future?

[itshappening]

No. Leave Hannity alone. Don't screw things up. He's been on there about 20 times in the last few years

[aclove]

I think getting Rand regular access to Hannity's large television audience is essential to our country's future. Kindly don't screw that up for us.

[rubioneocon]

Should we call/email-bomb Hannity and ask him if he remembers us telling him, "This is OUR party now!" (just after the snowball incident)? I'd love to get him stirred up, get him thinking, get him angry.

I wouldn't want you to screw anything up but . . .
Hannity thinks he will trick us . . .

maybe a courteous, "Why are you so two-faced Hannity . . . are you bipolar or something ? (but asked in a nice way -LOL)
And the way you belittled Rand when Giuliani was on the next day or so . . . makes you look crazy Hannity . . .
So Sean, try a more consistent message and then you won't look so crazy from day to day man.

And Sean, I can save the snowballs/iceballs for Joe Biden's head or Hilary instead of wasting them on your fathead
just kiddy Hannity, but you may not want to take the chance, 'cause our radar is on you.

OK moving on from that now

[FSP-Rebel]

As long as Hannity is being overtly cordial and saying that Rand is one of the new leaders of the GOP, there's nothing to get all bent out of shape about. Going forward, we need to spread honey and never vinegar. It's one thing if someone just doesn't like someone, it's totally different if that turns to hate and then all bets are off as to what lengths someone will go to to spite at that point. Like mom always said, if you don't have anything nice to say then stfu.

[ctiger2]

I fully expect Hannity to turn on Rand.

[Cowlesy]

Should we call/email-bomb Hannity and ask him if he remembers us telling him, "This is OUR party now!" (just after the snowball incident)? I'd love to get him stirred up, get him thinking, get him angry.

Thanks. This is probably the worst idea I've read yet today. Please return to not posting.

[Slutter McGee]

I am trying to back off from being so offensive, so I won't attack you personally, but I will attack your idea.

This is one of the dumbest suggestions I have ever read in my entire life. It is completely idiotic. So take a step back. Breathe. And try to think something that would actually help.

Slutter McGee

[tennman]

Why tear down bridges now?

Exactly. We need to make friendships that will help us get liberty-minded candidates elected, not destroy them. There's nothing to gain in rubbing it in someone's face - especially Hannity who seems to really like Rand and seems to be on the side of liberty more and more these days. How about we not shoot ourselves in the foot?

[Kotin]

Great idea.. Burn bridges.. :sarcasm:

[dannno]

Can we wait until Rand is President?

[Anti-Neocon]

So... you think Hannity is essential to our country's future?
The people that listen to and watch Hannity are essential to our country's future, cause they're voters just like us.

They're also the most likely to vote in GOP primaries, which isn't going to be easy.

[Bastiat's The Law]

I fully expect Hannity to turn on Rand.

Heard this a million times. So what? The media is going to do what their going to do regardless so why fret over it like scared chihuahuas?

[Uriah]

Like mom always said, if you don't have anything nice to say then stfu.
Yep, she said it just like that.

[deadfish]

I must advise the OP to leave this to the professionals... ie Rand.

[PatriotOne]

I see this has been handled nicely by others and ditto the comments.

[seapilot]

Heard this a million times. So what? The media is going to do what their going to do regardless so why fret over it like scared chihuahuas?

Exactly. There was a Gallup poll last September that had 60% of respondents did not trust the media. http://www.gallup.com/poll/157589/distrust-media-hits-new-high.aspx

They can talk all they want, by the time 2016 rolls around that number that distrusts the media is going to be a lot higher. People are noticing the media is transparently full of it.

[alucard13mmfmj]

I fully expect Hannity to turn on Rand.

we will cross that bridge when we come to it. no need to ruin "good" publicity for now.

[BlackTerrel]

Exactly. There was a Gallup poll last September that had 60% of respondents did not trust the media. http://www.gallup.com/poll/157589/distrust-media-hits-new-high.aspx

They can talk all they want, by the time 2016 rolls around that number that distrusts the media is going to be a lot higher. People are noticing the media is transparently full of it.

Yes but they all define "the media" differently. Hannity's audience doesn't trust the media (CNN, MSNBC, HuffingtonPost etc.) and the other guys don't trust newsmax and Hannity and Limbaugh. Most of Hannity's audience does trust Hannity.

Sean Hannity gets 14 Million weekly listeners according to Wiki

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most-listened-to_radio_programs

That's a hell of a lot more people than post on RPF. And most of them vote.

Let's not be dumb please.

[MrGoose]

So... you think Hannity is essential to our country's future?He is more important than most people realize.

Also what's the story behind "this is our party now"?

[Anti-Neocon]

Exactly. There was a Gallup poll last September that had 60% of respondents did not trust the media. http://www.gallup.com/poll/157589/distrust-media-hits-new-high.aspx

They can talk all they want, by the time 2016 rolls around that number that distrusts the media is going to be a lot higher. People are noticing the media is transparently full of it.
And most GOP Fox sheeple also don't "trust the media" except for when it's fair and balanced coming from Fox "News".

[Natural Citizen]

When I read all of the stuff about what the main stream pundits have to say and how important everyone thinks their view on things (never the important issues of the day, btw) I always get the vision of everyone standing out in the rain with their umbrella closed. They're soaking wet. But they simply won't open the thing until they hear some dolt on the tube tell them it's raining out....better open the umbrella...so and so seems to think it may be raining. The thing with the founders is that they didn't need nor want someone to tell them what to think, when to think it and who to look to for approval. They were their own authority figure. They thought and acted on their own watch. Decided their own path and leadership. Which is why things got done. I think people know what is happening but are just too adapted to the narrative of main stream nothingness speak. Which in effect simply means "shut up!...listen!"...and then all of the important issues and speak of the day are lost in favor of the dumbing down at the hand of these platforms. The Hannitys, the Ingrahams, the O'Reillys, the Levins..the whole brood of pay no attention to the man behind the curtain crowd.

[Uriah]

Exactly. There was a Gallup poll last September that had 60% of respondents did not trust the media. http://www.gallup.com/poll/157589/distrust-media-hits-new-high.aspx

They can talk all they want, by the time 2016 rolls around that number that distrusts the media is going to be a lot higher. People are noticing the media is transparently full of it.

But how many of those that distrust the media actually vote?