Reply #5: As far as I can tell, he's a sports columnist. So WTF he's doing writing a political article is [View All]

[SemiCharmedQuark]

is anyone's guess.


Update: He's also a professor of history at Suffolk, but a longtime McCain supporter.

"I was reading an article today by Dave Hannigan, adjunct-professor of history at Suffolk Community College, New York, rebuking the national broadcaster RTE for its open advocacy of the Democratic Party in the American presidential election. Mr. Hannigan is a Republican supporter, which is clear from the outset of the article.

This is how he states his case: "The scene was a train trundling between Dublin and Cork one Friday morning last month. Three middle-aged passengers were passing the journey in casual conversation and eventually the talk turned to the American presidential election.

There followed half an hour during which each member of the trio agreed whole-heartedly that whatever happened in the race for the Democratic nomination, the USA would be much better off once Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama reaches the White House. They offered no specific reasons for this, just a lot of ill-informed platitudes about both candidates being wonderful, talented and vastly superior to John McCain". Mr. Hannigan was not pleased but, apparently, remained mute although he's made the following points in his article:

l. "There is a large constituency which sincerely believes strong and often overbearing government is what has prevented further terrorist attacks on America over the past seven years.

2. "That McCain is vastly more experienced in life and politics than the former First Lady or the junior senator from Illinois offers yet another reason for preferring his candidacy. He may be thrilling to listen to but Obama's own supporters struggle to name a single legislative achievement in his short career.".

Hannigan also claims that Chuck Schumer has been a far better and more diligent representative of New York's interests in Washington than Hillary Clinton has been. He says that Clinton's and Obama's "notions about introducing universal health care are fanciful and misguided", although he doesn't explain why this is so, mentioning only that he pays l,200 dollars a month for "bells-and-whistle" healthcare for his family."

http://letters.salon.com/opinion/walsh/election_2008/2008/04/18/debate/view/index26.html