I don’t feel like getting into an argument with you guys, because I agree on principle: yes, Hannity should have done due diligence and researched his source before he brought him on. However, a couple things stand out in my mind:

1. Re: Hal Turner claiming to be a friend of Hannity’s. I Google’d it, and found a lot of liberal blogs talking about it, but not a lot of unbiased evidence. Why are we assuming that Turner is telling the truth? If his credibility is so low in other areas, why is his credibility so high when it comes to people he claims to be “pallin’ around” with?

2. Re: CPAC. How many people here have actually gone there? I have gone *expecting the down-ding already*, and maybe I’m just not going to the right speakers, but last year, Michelle Malkin, Newt Gingrich, D’Souza, etc. were the main speakers. A lot of the speeches are simultaneous, or at least overlapping, in different rooms. Do I think Buchanan should be there? No. Do I think Ron Paul should be there? No. Should Huckabee be there? Debatable. But if we’re tarring the entire franchise because of a few bad apples, then Malkin, Miloy, Morrissey, townhall.com, etc. are all being tossed out. Instead of disowning entire swaths of the political right because members of the fringe exist, why not disown the fringe and keep the sane ones?

3. This is probably going to raise some rackles, but my first thought when I read this was: bump bump another one gets thrown under the bus. I agree it’s good to point out that Hannity used a bad source, but to imply that Hannity agrees with everything CAP says and he should be shunned for having a bad source on his show, and make an issue of his personal religious beliefs that are different from some of yours, that’s a liberal tactic. We’re better than that.

I know I’m probably going to be tarred and feathered, accused of apologizing for/supporting Nazism, etc. However, those of you who know me who that I’m not that way, and I have nothing to fear. Flame away.