Hannity interviewed Giuliani but didn't disclose reported appearance at a Giuliani fundraiser
On the October 16 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, co-host Sean Hannity interviewed former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R) and his wife, Judith, but Hannity never disclosed during the 21-minute interview that he has reportedly helped raise money for Giuliani's presidential campaign. On August 19, the New York Daily News reported that Hannity "introduced the Republican front-runner at a closed-door, $250-per-head fund-raiser Aug. 9 in Cincinnati, campaign officials acknowledge." Bill Shine, Fox's senior vice president of programming, was quoted in the article saying, "Sean is not a journalist -- Sean is a conservative commentator."
From the August 19 Daily News article:
It's no secret that Sean Hannity, the conservative Fox News commentator, has helped to raise Rudy Giuliani's profile -- but now he's helped the former mayor raise money, too.
In a little noticed event this month, Hannity -- co-host of Fox News' "Hannity & Colmes" and host of a popular WABC radio show -- introduced the Republican front-runner at a closed-door, $250-per-head fund-raiser Aug. 9 in Cincinnati, campaign officials acknowledge.
In so doing, some believe that Hannity -- while clearly a commentator paid to express his opinions -- crossed the line from punditry into financial rainmaking for a presidential candidate whose bottom line is now better for it.
"Fox's in-kind contribution to Republican politicians in the form of softball coverage is one thing," said Steve Rendall, senior analyst at Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, a left-leaning media watchdog group. "But this is the first time they have crossed this line into fund-raising."
More independent observers said Hannity's appearance underscored the blurring lines between news and advocacy and could be interpreted as a kind of endorsement.
"It signals within that brand of conservatism that they ought to vote for the guy," said Kathleen Hall Jamieson at the University of Pennsylvania's Annenberg School for Communications.
Hannity declined to comment, but his bosses at Fox News Channel and WABC, flagship station for his national radio show, defended their marquee star by arguing that he's not a journalist and shouldn't be judged as one.
"Sean is not a journalist -- Sean is a conservative commentator," said Bill Shine, Fox's senior vice president of programming. "Sean doesn't hide, and never has hidden, his beliefs from anyone."
[...]
Hannity's leanings for Giuliani have been well-documented. The Hotline, a political journal, has noted that through July 15, Giuliani had enjoyed 115 minutes of free face time on Fox -- more than half of that on "Hannity & Colmes." His airtime on Fox was 25% higher than any other Republican candidate, data show.
The Aug. 9 fund-raiser where Hannity worked the crowd for Giuliani, held at Jeff Ruby's Steakhouse in downtown Cincinnati, was closed to the press. No known recording of his comments exist.
But some who were there -- including Hannity's boss at WABC, Phil Boyce -- said Hannity was typically effusive.
"He talked about Rudy's leadership after 9/11, about how Rudy had turned the city around and taken people off the welfare rolls," said Boyce "There wasn't anything he said that I haven't heard him say on the radio."
"Sean is not a journalist -- Sean is a conservative commentator,"
Gee, I wish FOX would run that statement as a disclaimer on every edition of HANNITY & colmes...just so there's no confusion on the part of his viewers.
FOX finally said something correct. Sean is not a journalist, why does he have two shows on a cable news channel? Why does he cover news events from time to time? Breaking stories? If he is not a journalist when there is "Breaking News" they should give it to one of their "journalists". I remember Hannity on the air interviewing about snow storms, tornados. Its disgraceful.
Let's not forget Hannity anchoring Fox's coverage of Terry Schiavo from in front of the hospice on a set worthy of NFL Today.
"Sean is not a journalist -- Sean is a conservative commentator,"
The jury's still out on whether Sean Insanity qualfies as a human being....
I don't know J...
It might be better if this turd just stuck to the weather.
It might be better if this turd went back t slinging burgers ar McDonalds. That's about all he's qualified to do.....
I'd like to see a similar disclaimer heard after each commercial break and news break on Limbaugh's, Hannity's, Savages. Levin's and O'reilly's radio pukefests. The discalimer should clearly state the the host of the show is not a journalist, and the information presented during the program may or may not be factual. Listeners should seek a reputable news source such as a newspaper or a legitimate news program for further information before forming opinions based on the contents of the program.
Laura Schlessinger should have a similar disclaimer, indicating that her doctorate is in psysiology and not a mental health discipline. Michael Savage should have one explaining that his doctorate is in botany.
And Fox Noise should have a disclaimer that its on-air talent is not held to any ethical standards of journalism.
Where is the coverage of lies on Air America about Randi Rhodes being mugged? Lies about the mugging, lies about it being a hate crime, lies about it being perpetuated by the vast Right Wing Conspirisy of Hillary Clintons mind?
I guess if only 3 people are listening to it, Media Matters does not consider it news.
Here's the coverage, Jo Jo - From the NY Daily News:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2007/10/16/2007-10-16_air_america_host_randi_rhodes_wasnt_mugg.html
So like so many others on the right, Jo Jo is wrong. Guess you need to change your user name.......
Media Matters covers CONSERVATIVE media misinformation just like MRC specializes in LIBERAL media. You want to see coverage of LIBERAL media. Check MRC or AIM or newsbusters
"....but he plays one on TV."
Effusive = Unrestrained or excessive in emotional expression; gushy
No, really, Sean Hannity was effusive?! Hard to believe. In all of his interviews,including his hard hitting interview with Bush, Hannity is so transparent that you just want to put your finger down you throat and gag.
Revised: Effusive = to describe an interview with yet another right wing philandering politician that will easily make anyone nauseated.
"...you just want to put your finger down you throat and gag."
Wheeew. thanks for saying that...I thought I was the only one who had that kind of viceral reaction to Hannity.
I loved it when Hannity was once plugging an upcomong interview with George W. Bush as though it was an historic event:
"The President <dramatic pause> of the United States of America <pause> will be on this show tomorrow night"
What a comical fraud. Too bad his viewers are stupid enough to take him seriously.
If it weren't for stupid people, Sean Hannity would HAVE no audience.
I was feeling really sick once, just terrible...
I knew in my heart if I barfed, I would feel a lot better. I thought I better turn on Hannity-- and I did.
Felt better within minutes.
Holy Cow... just figured it out. couldn't figure out what was so familiar about Hannity's "interviews" Hannity is Eddie Haskel! "Good morning Mrs Cleaver, er I mean Mrs. Gulianni - that a very nice perfume you are wearing.
From Sean Hannity's bio on foxnews.com (emphasis mine):
Sean Hannity is simply an innocent little "conservative commentator". He doesn't have to reveal that he raised money for Giuliani because Hannity has no influence on anything. So there.
A fund raiser for a candidate allowed free air time to interview that candidate?
What we have here is an infomercial that the Giuliane campaign isn't paying for.
The FCC should investigate and if the facts are what they seem to be should require Fox to provide free air time so that all the candidates of both parties can be "interviewed" by their fund raisers.
Hannity should also have disclosed his ties to the Giuliani campaign but the fund raiser he appeared at was closed to the press and he probably figured he could get away with it.
Hanity's ties? Crap, you mean FOX corporation ties. Let's be very clear here, FOX is a media component of the Republican party. You are correct, the time for the FCC to investigate this licensee is long overdue. I understand MMFA is just a watch dog, but the mountain of evidence is now overwhelming and the public needs to scream out for a non-partisan FCC that will at least put the brakes on blatant propagandizing disguised as news analysis.
Roger Eugene Ailes (born May 15, 1940) is the president of Fox News Channel and chairman of the Fox Television Stations Group. He was a media consultant for Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, and George H. W. Bush, as well as for presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani’s first mayoral campaign in 1989.[2]
You are right on the dime, Pithaughn. Let me take it further. Rudy Giuliani's firm has business ties with News Corporation. This whole thing is fixed to get Giuliani into the White House. That's why you see a large number of personal attacks against Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama.
It was by design that foolish Sean participate in Giuliani's campaign. And there will be more of this coming. All of them will be closed to the press.
This Huntington, Long Island hypocrite and the rest of the Fox News circus clowns are giving Giuliani more airtime than the other candidates. The Fox News suits don't want Thompson, McCain, Ron Paul, Hucklebee, Hunter and the others in the White House, otherwise they would have given them equal airtime.
I did go to the FCC, but they told me they can't do anything about cable broadcasting (which I don't buy at all).
I'm encouraging everyone to go to your local political organizations and bring this matter to the forefront. Also, write letters to the editor in your local newspapers about this foolishness. If you are supporting a particular presidential candidate, please let them know about this. They have the resources to look into this matter. Besides, they are running for office. I hope all these candidates confront Giuliani about this conflict of interests at the next Republican debate.
Hannity, Shine and Ailes will be steamed about this and will lie and deny it, but the truth is out.
There are some employees at News Corporation who do stand up for the right thing.
A fund raiser for a candidate allowed free air time to interview that candidate?
What we have here is an infomercial that the Giuliane campaign isn't paying for.
The FCC should investigate and if the facts are what they seem to be should require Fox to provide free air time so that all the candidates of both parties can be "interviewed" by their fund raisers.
Hannity should also have disclosed his ties to the Giuliani campaign but the fund raiser he appeared at was closed to the press and he probably figured he could get away with it.
Actually, the Federal Election Commission should be investigating Sean Hannity....
$250 per head????? That is not even worth a mention.... two fitty....what the hay.... that's like flipping a bum a quarter!
$250 a head? Yea, I nooticed that too. Hannity must not be considered much of a heavy hitter. This is tantamount to shaking a can for contributions in front of the grocery store.
Hey, give Fox a little credit. The bum got Hannity, a genuine half-wit, for his little get-together. That's like flipping him two quarters.
Seriously? I've got a paypal account you can flip your extra $250 quarters to. The amount of money does not matter, right? It's the principle of the thing. The ethics, the outright support of a candidate, and then the claim that the FOX news channel is fair and balanced. To be fair, would'nt a clear and repeated disclaimer about Ailes and Hannities ties to Rudy be expected?
I agree 250$ a head isnt NEAR enough to pay someone to have to listen to Hannity,
"There wasn't anything he said that I haven't heard him say on the radio."
Is that supposed to imply that there was a slim chance he might have actually come up with an original idea on the spot? That he might have strung together 3 or 4 words into an original coherent phrase all by himself? Who would be so naive so as to think that? Surely Boyce was misquoted. Perhaps Boyce was talking about someone else.
Shyawn Hannity: Dumbest. Person. In. Broadcasting.
I suspect that Hannity may be suffering the effects of some sort of virus transmitted by birds. When you check out his website you will find so many pictures of eagles that you will surely conclude that Sean lives in a aviary.
Check out his website? Are you serious? I may be a drunken bum living on the street and eating out of dumpsters, but I have standards.
Besides, I hate all those dancing hamsters...
...dancing hamsters?
I thought those were Sean's gerbils. ;>)
...an aviary. <Sorry>
Hannity is free to say whatever he wants but in the interest of full disclosure he ought to reveal if he donated his speaking fee to the Giuliani campaign or if he received a fee to appear.
Either way, appearing on Fox with Giuliani under the guise of an interview raises some pretty serious ethical questions.
"Shyawn Hannity: Dumbest. Person. In. Broadcasting."
For my money, not as long as John Gibson still gets airtime.
Such brilliance, I guess MMFtH decided it was worthy of duplication.
Appropriately flagged, hopefully soon gone...
Congrats, Neon...Hillary and Mr.Soros must have really like your post. ;>)
And now that it's gone, the whole universe (well, at least THIS thread) is out of context. A lesson for all about the awesome power contained in the Neondesert's written - then deleted - words.
Any predictions on how soon we will see the first "Hillary started Media Matters" post?
I predict that you just did. :-)
It took 17 minutes. A little slower than average.
Republicans tout a decades-old study which has reporters saying that they'd probably vote for a liberal as the decisive evidence of the "liberal media bias" ...
and yet, Hannity actually donating $$$ to Giuliani makes him "fair and balanced"? If it were a person on NPR who donated $10 to Hillary, it would be all over the media ...
Just to keep Hannity's appearance at a fundraiser for Giuliani in context:
"And one newspaper has dropped the syndicated column "The Ethicist" by New York Times writer Randy Cohen because of his donation to MoveOn.org, which he said he had thought of as "nonpartisan."
[link to www.msnbc.msn.com]
It doesn't seem Fox News has the same journalistic ethics as the NY Times.
Then again Fox News really isn''t a news organization so why should it.
Members of the media have donated to political campaigns:
Most of the newsroom checkbooks leaned to the left: 125 journalists gave to Democrats and liberal causes. Only 16 gave to Republicans. Two gave to both parties.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19113485/
I think we've been through this before:
[link to mediamatters.org]
and it's not terribly relevant to the Hannity/Giuliani connection.
Let me see if I get this straight. Some of you are arguing that Hannity is a journalist?
If anyone tunes in to Hannity and doesn't yet know Hannity's political leanings, it will only take about 30 seconds to figure it out. My guess is his "Stop Hillary Express" radio promo pretty much covers "full disclosure". :-)
But it happens.
Dan Rather, the longest-serving and most outspoken of the major network news anchors, recently served as the star attraction at a Democratic Party fundraiser.
Donors paid as much as $1,000 for a private evening in Austin with the CBS newsman, according to an invitation obtained by The Washington Post. Rather's appearance at the March 21 gathering generated about $20,000 for the Travis County Democratic Party -- and will undoubtedly provide ammunition to critics who have long accused Rather of leaning to the left.
Rather, who maintains a home in the Austin area, noted that the night before he sat with Texas Gov. Rick Perry at an arts dinner and posed for a picture with the Republican.
"This is part of what I do -- I circulate among politicians," he said. "Over a long period of time, I've met with political groups large and small, Democratic and Republican, Green Party, mugwumps, you name it, because that's what reporters do."
Rather said he "wouldn't be surprised" if critics use the incident to call him a closet Democrat. "I'm going to get that criticism whether I deserve it or not."
[link to www.washingtonpost.com] ps. I'm all for full disclosure.
AA: News flash (you must be a Faux News watcher and that explains why you're a bit behind the times) - Mr. Rather is retired. So is Uncle Walter. And the Spanish American War? It's over...
It happened in 2001 and it was a party fundraiser for a county in Texas.
However:
Mr. Rather has formally apologized for what he called his mistake
[link to www.opinionjournal.com]
Hannity will probably just attack, attack, attack and Fox will back him.
That's the difference between a real news organization and Fox News.
Johnny,
Thanks for providing the dates. My bad.
As I said, "it happens".
In the interest of fairness, I'm sure MMFA will alert us when and if Hannity apologizes.
ps. If you believe that, let me offer you a time share on a particular historic bridge in NYC.
I think the date supported your point.
It's your editing of the article leaving out Rather's explanation and CBS's position (which is 180 degrees different than Fox's position) I object to.
Seems to me Rather made a mistake, admitted it, and CBS didn't back what he did.
Fox is backing Hannity, they're splitting hairs between being a journalist and commentator. I've heard O'Reilly do the same thing when defending Fox News.
However, as I posted, the NY Times fired a columnist (commentator) for donating to moveon.org.
So again, Fox's ethics are at odds with another major news organization even if you accept their rationale.
Fair enough.
April 4, 2001
I think the stereotype of Rather is occasionally unfair, but this feeds the stereotype," said Republican consultant Mike Murphy. "Generally, television anchors should not be in the business of helping political parties raise money. He ought to make it real clear that it was a huge mistake and he should never do that sort of thing."
Said National Review Editor Rich Lowry: "He is perceived as the most buffoonishly biased of any of the anchors, as far as conservatives are concerned. He's the favorite media pinata for people on the right. He arouses their ire. This, obviously, will just increase that. This will enter the lore about Dan Rather."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A34557-2001Apr3
AA why did you edit the article to leave out these parts:
"Rather said yesterday that he hadn't realized beforehand that the event was a fundraiser. "I didn't ask the question, and I should have," he said in an interview. "I take full responsibility for it. I'm responsible and I'm accountable."
But the Texas native stopped short of calling his appearance a mistake or saying he would not have attended had he known in advance that he was being used to raise money."
and...
"Asked for comment last night, CBS News spokeswoman Sandy Genelius said: "Obviously our standards don't allow correspondents to participate in political party fundraisers. No one believes in this and upholds it more fervently than Dan Rather. This was an honest oversight on his part."
Your editing of the article in your post was dishonest leaving one with the idea Rather knew what he was getting into and somehow CBS condoned him being there.
Besides that your link doesn't work so people wanting to read the original article to see if you're portraying it accurately have to do a lot of digging.
CAN YOU SEE HOW THE RESPONSES OF RATHER AND CBS ARE 180 DEGREES DIFFERENT THAN FOX NEWS?
Johnny,
No need to get your shorts in a bunch. But thanks for providing again the link to the WP that I posted in my original comment.
To clarify, I provided a line break and ellipses between quotes thinking people would know that I cut out a different part of the article. Unfortunately the browser put them back in the same line as the original quote.
My intent was only to show that it happens on both sides, not to disparage CBS or Rather. (Lord knows they don't need my help.) As for fairness, I felt the second part of the article, (after the ellipses,) provided for Rather's explanation. Sorry you didn't recognize that.
My statement, "It happens" also was aimed to show my acceptance of this sort of slip whether it be Rather or Hannity.
I hope that helps clarify.
No doubt people make mistakes no matter their politics.
What's at issue here is how Fox is handling the situation compared to CBS and the NY Times.
Fox is saying Hannity is a commentator and not subject to the same ethics that govern CBS and the NY Times.
That's nonsense that could only come from the fertile mind of Roger Ailes himself. The man who sold us Richard Nixon in 1968.
I await Hannity's apology and for him to disqualify himself from any more Giuliani interviews but I'm not holding my breath.
Me neither.
Johnny,
What say you regarding Pearlene's quotes?
I say commentators can commentate on what Rather did. That's their right. I'd like them to be fair and accurate but I'm not always going to get that from them.
I think it's more important Rather explained, apologized and CBS did not condone what he did.
If he did not have some reasonable explanation and did not apologize he should have been removed from the air.
This is not what's happening with Hannity.
I'm betting he'll blame "a far left, Soros/Clinton website" for smearing him and then give the phone number/website for donations to Giuliani.
Johnny,
Thanks for a thoughtful answer to my snarky question.
I was hoping you'd comment how Pearlene has cut out quotes from the same article that made Rather look a lot worse than my quotes. Apparently you didn't see it that way.
Maybe next time. :-)
Here's the link:
[link to www.washingtonpost.com]
You can decide for yourselves if AA's editing gives an accurate pictures of the events.
"Dan Rather..."
Hey everyone, look over there.
Dan Rather is the new "But Bill Clinton...."
There's nothing new here. Sheer Insanity campaigned for Bush and Cheney - while providing softball interviews with both of them. Of course this is an in-kind campaign contribution by Faux News. And they need to be called on it.
The next time the FCC license for Sheer Insanity's "flagship" station in New York is up for renewal. listeners should submit comments to this effect.
The next time the FCC license for Sheer Insanity's "flagship" station in New York is up for renewal. listeners should submit comments to this effect.
It may be coming up pretty soon. Disney is selling a lot of the ABC Radio Network to Citadel Communications - I'm not sure if WABC is included in the sale.....
Let me get this straight. MM is blowing the whistle on Shawn Hannity. He has been fooling us all along. He secretly supports a Republican for President! He spends his off time attending Republican fund raisers! I'm shocked! I have to admire MM for shining the light of day on this one. From now on, when I listen to Hannity, I'll be sure to take his words with a grain of salt, knowing now that he's secretly supporting the Republicans. You definately caught him stepping over the line this time. Good work!
Try to keep up. IF he wants to even PRETEND to journalistic ethics, which he should aspire to if he is interviewing political candidates whether he is seen as a journalist or NOT. He should DISCLOSE that he is interviewing someone he has supported to the point of speaking at a fundraiser.
Solon, you're probably right. Hannity should have told us about introducing Rudy at the Ohio fund-raiser. But the left dismisses Shawn for his "softball" interview of Rudy and everyone knows he supports a Republican in the Whitehouse. My point is, was anyone fooled by this interview? Am I suppose to be shocked that Shawn brings a bias to the interview? I agree he should have said something about the fund-raiser. But what is the news here? I suppose it's that Shawn supports Rudy. But I don't think it's the same as someone in the media who pretends to be nutral but secretly wants Bush to fail.
Thats all true. However someone who doesnt KNOW any history about an interviewer OUGHT to be able to expect to KNOW such connections. IF he had disclosed his relationship then they would have understood a softball interview. For those who KNOW Hannity is dumber than dirt and a GOP Propagandist they really ougt to know what to expect. My issue isnt with the softballing. I expect as much but I also expect a bare level of journalistic ethics.
No, he's not a journalist. And I don't know why he is a commentator. When I want an opinion on why my car is not running, I prefer to ask someone who has some education and/or experience on cars.
Why is it that a political commentator is not expected to have any education or experience in what he commenting on?
When I want some advice about hair products, I'll ask for Sean's opinion.
Good points, New... Hannity does not demonstrate any particular insight or expertise in the world of politics. He is not even informative. What "information" he does transmit is not reliable. The only qualification that Sean Hannity possesses to maintain his job with FOX is that he is a rabid, always attacking, "the truth be damned" partisan right winger.
I find it very interesting that Sean Hannity spent his early years in a seminary studying for the priesthood.
I honestly wish that most journalists would be as honest as Hannity and at least admit their political bias. Obviously, most of the major 'news' reporters and broadcasters are going to be very liberal.
Now, would the MMFA "staff" be as open, honest, and truthful as Hannity and admit their deep and longstanding connections between MMFA, the HRC campaign, and George Soros?
Let's shine a light!
Billy says "Let's shine a light!" How much brighter does the light have to be? Can you not make out the black text on a white backround? It does not matter who is "behind" MMFA, because they post the actual quotes of the liars and tricksters, the lies and tricks would be the same no matter who is behind MMFA, that's the point! The media is not liberal, it is biased towards easy profits.
Obviously, BILLYJOEJIMBOB can shine that light in one ear and out the other. : )
What is OBVIOUS is you believe whatever your hivemind TELLS you to believe and the liberal media ignorance is one of your propaganda parrot assignments. You did your hivemind duty go get your cookie
BilliyBobJones:
"Obviously, most of the major 'news' reporters and broadcasters are going to be very liberal."
Obviously, since that's what Rush and Faux News keep telling you.
BilliyBob, can you explain exactly WHAT would be the issue if MMFA did have any connection to Soros?
Sean is conservative... Who knew? Why do you think Alan Colmes is on the show.
I don't see the issue here. Atleast Sean is honest about where he stands.
Kieth Olbermann is liberal and call himself a journalist. What's the difference?
Giving a candidate support then interviewing him WITHOUT disclosing that is a violation of journalistic ethics. I dont care if he is liberal or conservative. If Olbermann ever did the same thing cough up the evidence. Otherwise stop wasting out time. Hannity is dumber than tree bark. I cant imagine why anyone would watch the bumbling fool
So Hannity, a conservative talk show host, attends and speaks at a $250 per mplate dinner and you folks are up in arms. Meanwhile, Dan Rather, while he was still the anchor at CBS in 2001, attends and speaks at a $1000 a plate dinner for the Travis County Democratic Party in Austin Texas. Should he have been made to announce that prior to talking to any democrat?
The following from a Washington Post article writen at the time: "Asked for comment last night, CBS News spokeswoman Sandy Genelius said: "Obviously our standards don't allow correspondents to participate in political party fundraisers. No one believes in this and upholds it more fervently than Dan Rather. This was an honest oversight on his part."
I don't know Dan, didn't all of the Buddist Monks tip you off.
You've got to love the hypocrisy on the left. Oh, there's hypocrisy on the right too, it's just not as funny.
Amazing... the "censors" here at MM have decided not to allow comments on the MOST HORRIBLE statements from a US Congressman from California spoken today on the House floor... MM's will allow days and days of idiotic comments about what a private citizen RUSH says, but not the HORRIFIC display from a US LIBERAL CONGRESSMAN... This is typical liberal bias and spin control...
We'll see if this gets past the "lib censors" and if they try to hide the truth fro meven moderate Democrates.
You Commie Libs want to talk about Ann Coulter and Rush... Look at one of your own, NOT just a "private citizen" speaking on TV or Radio, but on the Floor of the House today... You can HEAR and SEE this dispickable display at Rushlimbaugh.com ! I bet you folks here at MM will NOT condem this hate speach from a Congressman, but crucify Ann & Rush, you Commie Hypocrites !
STARK: They sure don't care about finding $200 billion to fight the illegal war in Iraq. Where you gonna get that money? You gonna tell us lies like you're telling us today? Is that how you're going to fund the war? You don't have money to fund the war or children, but you're going to spend it to blow up innocent people if we could get enough kids to grow old enough for you to send to Iraq to get their heads blown off for the president's amusement.RUSH: They have lost it. If there is any doubt, they have totally lost it. This is probably -- I don't know for sure, I'm going to speculate, since he brought children into this -- that this is some the debate, the speeches prior to the override vote on the SCHIP bill. Because he said, "You don't have money to fund the war or children, but you're going to spend it to blow up innocent people, if we can get enough kids to grow old enough..." meaning to hit 18, because they're going to die because we're not going to pass the SCHIP program, is the implication. "...for you to send to Iraq to get their heads blown off for the president's amusement." Since he didn't single out any particular Republican by name, the remarks were not taken down. But he was talking about the Republicans -- you gotta play this again. I know you want to hear this again. Listen to it again.
STARK: They sure don't care about finding $200 billion to fight the illegal war in Iraq. Where you gonna get that money? You gonna tell us lies like you're telling us today? Is that how you're going to fund the war? You don't have money to fund the war or children, but you're going to spend it to blow up innocent people if we could get enough kids to grow old enough for you to send to Iraq to get their heads blown off for the president's amusement.
Libs, does this sound like a Christian, or what Christ would want said ?This is one of your wack jobs spouting this vile hatered !THIS IS TYPICAL OF WHAT COMMIES BELIEVE AND FEEL ABOUT OUR TROOPS AND PRESIDENT ! This is beyond partisanship, beyond parties, this is HORRIBLE !What LIB is calling for this bafoon to appoligize, where is a "letter" from Reid calling for this horrible man to be removed and silenced ?
Republicans that read this must wonder WHAT THE HELL KIND OF PEOPLE IN CALIFORNIA WOULD ELECT SUCH A PERSON, REMEMBER THIS PARTY IS THE SAAME GROUP THAT RUN THIS MEDIA MATTERS ! Who will call for an appology ? Will MM ? HELL NO, they all FEEL THIS WAY ! They all truly believe, no matter if you oppose this war or not, YOU ALL KNOW THIS DOES NOT AMUSE OUR PRESIDENT to see OUR soldiers killed and wounded...
I WOULD NOT EVER HAVE ACCUSED CLINTON NOR ANY DEMOCRATE PRESIDENT of such a thing, EVEN IF I dissagreed with thier policies...
This is FAR beyond the normal that we ALL should expect from Congress.
Just think folks, OUR OWN PEOPLE elected this ass ! These are the kinds of things that FIRE US CONSERVATIVES UP !
Thanks Libs
"Libs, does this sound like a Christian, or what Christ would want said ?"
Hey, M. I don't really know what a Christian sounds like, there are all types of them. Jesus , from what I know, was actually not very violent, so he may have had some harsh words for those who kill large numbers of people unnecessarily.
Which part of that gets you the most "fired up"?.Remember, there are a lot of non-dittoheads here who may need something besides a Pavlovian trigger to get fired up. Maybe , in your own words, a point you disagree with.That may hlep the rest of us understand.
Also keep in mind that I'm in California, and we're all crazy. ;0)
Another point I missed, MGarnett. I didn't recognize the name as Pete Stark. He is, as far as I know, the only openly non-religious person at that level of politics, so that may explain why he doesn't sound like a Christian to you.
See, he was criticizing the President for taking all of our money to spend on killing people, while resisting putting some of that money towards providing health care.
Anybody who sounds that much like Christ probably doesn't fit into your idea of what a "Christian" is.
"YOU ALL KNOW THIS DOES NOT AMUSE OUR PRESIDENT to see OUR soldiers killed and wounded..."
He invaded an unarmed nation and caused the deaths of 3800+ Americans and countless Iraqis. Anything is possible with this guy.
My GOD you are ignorant. MMFA doesnt DO politicians. When the media talks about it lets see how they cover it. Until then your stupidity hurts my head. You are so ignorant you must be left over from the primordial oooze of stupidity. You are like a black hole of ignorance where no cogent thought can escape the gravity of your stupidity. Your rants kill brain cells. Stew in your ignorance and stop pretending you make any sense at all.
Well, go ahead and be 'fired up'. You cons know that this horrible period in our history is coming to a close and that there will be changes coming. So go ahead and scream your heads off... it won't make any difference whatsoever.
As far as Stark... I'm glad he said what he said. I just hope that there will be more of it. You cons can be outraged all you want... I really couldn't care any less.
Okay, which one of you guys is Pete Stark? I've seen that speech written a hundred times here at MMFA.
Your capacity to remember to breathe while displaying such an astonishing level of ignorance contiuously amazes me.
So what? I don't understand this. The democrats have vastly more "commentators" on a daily basis that pedal their filth. So now the right does the same thing and "boo hoo it's not fair" So you are telling me that Katie Couric has never opened a fun raiser or some sort of political happening, well aside from virtually whoreing herself out with the democrats.
You better come up with more then this because so far it's quite obvious you have nothing to say!
Grow up seriously
Hey moron the issue isnt that he is conservative its that he failed to disclose he supported the guy by speaking at his fundraiser. Try to keep up
Why would that be pertinent to the interview? The story wasn't what Hannity the story was about Guilliani and his wife.
So apparantly you know NOTHING about journalistic ethics is that your point? It is relevant because it is unethical to POSE as a journalist and NOT disclose exactly those kinds of connections.
So if a journalist donates to a campaign then ends up interviewing them on tv then that means they have to disclose their donation?
I bet that happens a lot more than you think on both sides of the aisle. Ethics has nothing to do with it, HANNITY NEVER CLAIMED TO BE A JOURNALIST.
Obviously Hannity did not hide anything since apparently people know about it.
Solon you are the perfect example of why we Conservatives come here to MM, we want to watch a melt down of Libs when we point out the hypocricies, the level of American hatred, the un-American way you folks approach things. I would not, nor have I ever spoken about a Democrate President in this manner... Even if I hated his policies I would NEVER accuse a sitting President of killing American soldiers for HIS OWN PLEASURE OR AMUSMENT. That has to be one of the most horrible statments I have ever seen from EITHER side. But you don't address his comments, you ATTACK me. Interesting... Maybe it's because there IS NO defense for such profane statments, but yet he's ONE OF YOURS so he must be supported at all costs, even your own moral fiber. I do not know you, I do know your feelings towards assholes like Stark... He's a HERO to your side, while condemming, sending a Congressional letter from Reid and 41 other Libs (which has now back-fired), and posting here about how horrible Hannity, Coulter and Rush are... It lends NO credibility to any of you arguments when you are SO blatently biased.
I dont care about Pete Stark. It is fun to read one of your ranting insulting and frankly ignorant posts calling us names then whining like a little girl that YOU get treated the way you treated us. So Stark has an opinion you dont like. TOUGH. The president is not GOD he is not Pharoah he works for us and deserves no more respect than he earns. Cry me a river after the rightwing attacks on Clinton that were FAR WORSE. Calling him a murderer and a Drug dealer. I didnt see you in here whining about Hannity continuing with the Vince Foster was murdered slander. NOW you are whining and calling US on a double standard. If you dont LIKE having people posting insults to YOU then why dont you try leaving YOUR insults to us out of your posts. YOU are the reason liberals love this site. Reading your ignorance and snivelling is very amusing.
And YOU aren't 'blatently' biased???
That's it. Keep whining. As Solon has said... people like YOU are reason why we come here.
mgarnett251924, liberals are not un-American, no matter how much you want it to be so.
Such a concept is obviously way beyond mgarnett's intellectual capacity.
We will WIN next year, Americans will turn AGAINST this type of HATE of America... You wonderfull, brillant leader Harry Reid stepped into a Rush trap again, and the 41 morons who signed the SMEAR LETTER that has now raised over 4 MILLION dollars for the Marine Corps Charity. The doofas Reid gets up today on the floor of the Senate and claims "credit" for the funds raised ! What a total moron, and folks like me calling Senators and TV sataions getting this story TONS of coverage only assists our cause.
So who's gonna win it for you? Braindead Thompson, who sounds as if he's ready for life support? Romney, a major-league flip-flopper who will lose because of his religion? Giuliani, the so-called 'hero' of 9/11... the same hero who didn't do his homework on that s**t Kerik and who isn't exactly appealing to those 'social conservatives'? McCain, who is way past his prime and thinks that bombing Iran is a comedy skit? How about Paul, who frankly doesn't have a snowball in hell's chance? Or Huckabee, whose last name is enough to sink him? What about Brownback... whoops, he dropped out! Awww... Tancredo? Anyone? Bueller?
Your choices have higher negatives with the Americans then positives, maybe Billery who offers a NEW hand-out to every group she speaks in fromt of... $1000 foe everyone, $500 savings bond, socilized medical... Who's gonna pay for all this ? The "rich", rofl, come on your too smart to believe that there are even enough rich to squeez. And as the rich, that CREATE the jobs, fold under, unemplyment will rise and more of you Libs social programs will be needed. Get ready to pay alot more no matter what CLASS your in...
And you feel those are winning issues ?
Higher Taxes
Staying in Iraq (all your folks have said they would have to)
Socilized Medical
*** Please DO run on those points...
I asked you who is going to win it for you. You obviously either refused to answer or you could not answer because you brought in the Democratic candidates. I did not ask you about them - I asked you about those on your side.
Now let's try this again... I asked you a question. Are you going to answer it or not?
Heck, I'm not sure yet who I will even vote for... I think Rudy, even though I do not agree with his stances on some issues is the one with the best shot at Billery. Not sure yet, just know that I will do everything I can, talk, write, donate, get involved to STOP Hillery from winning. It does me no great good to admit that we do NOT have anyone that I could whole-heartedly endorse, I just know I can not afford Hillery.
Now, may I ask you a question ? In NJ a poll was taken this week that showed 74% of folks here would LEAVE the State if they could... High Taxes topped the reasons, but yet thses same people VOTE for Dems to run NJ and continue to fund HUGE mandated give aways, corruption and bloated budgets.
These are the same issues that your party will bring under Hilliary to Washington. Not just on the "rich", but on us all... NJ, MASS, CON, NY are perfect examples of "flight" from high Gov taxes and controls... NY, NJ, all the NE is facing looming debts and deficits under Dem control, while Republican states have budget surpluses and booming growth...
Any guesses why ?
And btw, this MAINLY effects the poor and middle class that you folks always say you want to help. The old, the poor the less fortunate can not afford property taxes, State fees, regulations and rising costs forced upon them bu Liberal give-aways... These folks are your very base, why are you running them out, where is you compassion, your type are forcing folks out of family homes some have had for decades but can no longer afford. Wow, only the "rich" that you guys hate, will be able to live here in the NE. Dem policies lead to huge budget woes and force poor and middle folks out. Proof is in the NE.
Uh, it's actually those under 50 and those making between $50,000 and $100,000 who want to leave AND it's 58% of those polled - NOT 58% of the entire state population AND of that 58%, 33% cited high taxes as the reason.
http://halfdone.wordpress.com/
So correct the poll results but do NOT answer the reason behind the flight... Ncie, maybe it's because it backs you Libs and your higher and higher taxes and give-aways into a corner. People are sick and tired of higher taxes PERIOD ! No matter what it's for...
Republicans are as guilty of spending OUR money as Dems are, but where the Gov has been under Dem control DOES have higher taxes, DOES have flight, DOES have deficites.
Hmmm... so I guess that the $127 billion surplus Clinton left to W in 2001 doesn't count.
And I also guess that the $106 billion deficit W had in 2002 doesn't count either, right?
ROFL, nice, go to well of Clinton and drink from it... I asked about all the NE States under LIB DEM controls, you go to Clinton. However, you refuse to remember the higher unemployment, now lowest in 60 years. We understand that by giving tax incentives to those that ACTUALY create jobs, as opposed to the Gov that never creates anything but "wards of the State"... Again, nice side step of the flaws in the notion that you can TAX THE RICH for everything you plan to "socilize"...
Not enough rich, it will "trickle" down to the middle class paying the burden for all the freebies you give to every special group.
Oh, of course, lower unemployment now. Guess it's good to know that all those minimum-wage burger-flipping jobs, janitor jobs, and lettuce-picking jobs have been filled. As long as the positions are filled - never mind what they pay - then everything is A-OK, right?
Ever thought about why we have such low unemployment? Hint: two words... one starts with 'i' and the other ends in 's'.
CREAT JOBS? Are you insane? Bush is the WORST president in creating jobs since the Great Depression. Clinton created 235,000 jobs per month over his ENTIRE 8 YEAR TERM. Bush lost three million then created some jobs. Meanwhile the median income which ROSE under Clinton has been stagnant as good paying jobs left the country and burger flipping jobs were created. The economy is great if you own an oil company and sux if you work for a living.
It is not the governments job to create jobs.
Your Ebeneezer Scrooge approach is NOT popular. Sure a majority of people think EVERYTHING costs too much including taxes being too high but they LIKE social programs to help the needy.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0309-03.htm
''The American public as a whole takes a fairly coherent position. They favor redirecting a portion of defense spending to deficit reduction and social spending and look for savings by cutting spending on large-scale Cold War style capabilities,'' said PIPA director Steven Kull.
Defense spending received the deepest cut--an average of 31 percent or the equivalent of around $134 billion--with 65 percent of survey participants doing the cutting. The second largest area to be cut was the supplemental spending for U.S. operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, with two out of three respondents opting to cut the funding, by an average of $29.6 billion or 35 percent.
Some 63 percent of respondents said they favored rolling back tax cuts for people with incomes in excess of $200,000. Opposition to the tax cuts was strongest among the 62 percent of respondents who said the budget deficit was large. The survey found there would be greater support for the tax cuts were they not specifically limited to the wealthy.
The largest increases were for social spending. Education was increased $26.8 billion or 39 percent and respondents proposed boosting job training and employment by $19 billion--or 263 percent.
Medical research was given an additional injection of $15.5 billion or 53 percent. Veterans' benefits were raised 40 percent or $12.5 billion and housing was buttressed with a 31 percent budget raise, or $9.3 billion.
In most cases, PIPA said, clear majorities of respondents backed those increases: education drew extra support from 57 percent of survey participants; job training, from 67 percent; medical research, from 57 percent, and veterans' benefits, from 63 percent. Only 43 percent of respondents favored increases for housing.
In percentage terms, by far the largest increase was for conserving and developing renewable energy--a boost of 1090 percent or $24 billion, supported by 70 percent of respondents.
The environment and natural resources received an increase of 32 percent or $9 billion, with 42 percent of respondents favoring increases, PIPA said.
Ebeneezer Scrooge may be YOUR role model but he isnt for most Americans. They WANT the needy to be taken care of they WANT tax cuts to the rich to be rolled back. It is YOU not Dems that is out of step with American opinion.
Dropping taxes and becoming fiscaly conservative does not mean to stop welfare programs nor does it mean to drop defense spending. It means all the pork that gets put into bills should be halted. Government budget should be limited to essentials. Congressman should not be allowed to add riders to bills being passed that have nothing to do with the bill's original purpose.
So basically your strategy is to 'stop Hillary' then? Wow, how original!
I think it's hilarious when the bloviators spew that the Dems have no ideas so everyone should vote Republican when, in reality, it's the other way around. Just stop Hillary! LOL! Priceless!
It's a better way to go then "SOCILIZED" everything... The left in America can not be honest, they would not win if they were...
The "left" wants to Commie America.
Cradle to grave, womb to tomb... Big Gov tells you where to live, where to work, what to eat, what school you attend, when you can see a Doctor... I'll take MY chances with Republicans. At least they are LESS wastefull spenders and would protect America...
And BTW, Bush sucks, his policies are hurting America, he is NOT a Con nor a good President, but he is NOT getting amused by our soldiers deaths. Bush has been a discrace as a President.
You MORONS keep saying that but its pure projection. It was BUSH who knew absotlutly he could NEVER sell his real agenda and LIED his ass off when running for office. The rightwing realized after they ran Barry Goldwater that America wanted nothing to do with their FASCIST agenda. So its YOUR side not Dems that lie early and lie often. Only the fact you are so incredibly stupid allows them to keep getting away with it. Bush LOST the popular vote the first time took office on a fluke then if we hadnt been at war would have been beaten the second time. YOU may be stupid enough to keep being fooled by the Cold War rhetoric. Its your ignorance and hivemind training. You are like pavlovs dogs. They say socialist and you drool. Reality doesnt matter, FACTS dont matter, nothing matters but your Limborg brainwashing. I dont know what is more pathetic your stupidity or your inability to think for yourself. Here is a hint. Ignorant, brainwashed and selfish beyond belief is no way to keep living your life.
Harry Reid deserves credit for the eBay episode. Simply put, if the letter never was written then there would never have been any auction and we wouldn't be talking about it.
Looks like it backfired on the pill-popper...
ROFL, you must be on those "pills" ! He used a smear letter and ginned up the most devastating attak on a private citizen in history. He lied to everyone and most have now seen thru the lie, and now the moron helped raise over 4 Million for the charity that Rush serves... RUSH WINS, hands down.
Again, if you would use your brain - assuming that you even have one in the first place - you would see clearly that if the letter was never written then there would not have been an auction and there wouldn't have been a $4 million catch from it.
Now... the letter was written by Reid... correct? Yes it was sooooo... ultimately, HE gets the credit for this. If HE didn't pause after hearing the EIB dumbass make his stupid statement then none of this would have happened. Period.
Nice spin, sure he wrote the letter, the smear, the perfect examle of a heavy handed Gov. It has allowed us to point to the moronic Reid as a poster board for Libs.
Ok, y6ou WIN, Reid gets credit for helping us raise money for Rush's favorite charity. So thanks Harry.... ROFL, thanks for making RUSH who used Reid to make a HUGE point on who is helping and who is hurting the US Military...
BTW, Rush has made several appeals to Reid and the 41 other LIBS who signed to make CONTRIBUTIONS to the non-political charity also, they being tight with their mony, while spending ours, have NOT offered a dime to help our troops children...
I thought you LIBS wanted to do stuff for the "childeren" all the time... here's your chance.
Thank you. I knew I was correct all along but thanks anyway for your acknowledgement of the truth. :)
Oh, we DID try to do something for the 'childeren' called SCHIP but your dumbass president apparently seemed to care more for his precious piece of s**t war instead.
If States choose to do so under the LIBS plan they "could" allow upto age 25 to be covered. That is NOT a child, the GAO report shows that it would remove 25% that ALREADY have private health insurance and put them on the dole... Also 80k is NOT poor children or families. Bush offered to expand by 5 Million the program, but NOT 35 Million more. SCHIPs is originaly a Republican program.
$80K/year ***COULD*** be considered 'poor' depending on how many children are involved and where the family lives. Certainly not ALL $80K/year households would qualify but your Rush-riddled brain doesn't seem to grasp that fact.
If someone makes $80,000 a year but keeps pumping out kids so that not even that salary can support their family why should I pick up the slack. Tell them to keeps there pants on....literally.
Ah, so now you want to limit the number of children born and regulate the sexual practices of consenting adults. Tell me, how do you propose to do those? And even more importantly, who's gonna pay for it?
That was sarcasm and you know you know it. All I was saying that the cases of people making that much money and still not be able to support their family are few and far between. And the reason they can't support their family would most likely be self induced: i.e. credit card debt. Why should I have flip the bill for the children's health care because they get themselves into that position. No one making that much money deserves or should need government assistance for normal everyday cost.
You are not thinking for yourself and parroting ignorant propaganda. A house in many large cities can cost upward of 400,000 for a bare minimum that is 3 grand a month just for RENT. WHERE you live can easily be a factor in how much money it takes to live but you go right to the propaganda that anyone not wealth is somehow a few rungs lower on the evolutionary ladder than YOUR exhalted self. Must be nice to be SO pious that you can so easily judge people you know NOTHING about.
If you cannot afford more children you do what it takes not to have more than you can afford. If you cannot afford to live in a certain area you can move. I should not have to be responsible because you made bad choices.
I make less than $23,000 a year before taxes and depend on the government for nothing.
You wingnuts LOVE to spew ignorant and heartless propaganda. Of course that is the ONLY reason a family might not be flush on 80 grand right? Try THINKING for one second and tell me if you think a family with TWO KIDS in New York City is FLUSH making 80 grand a year.
They may not be flush but they aren't hurting. If they can't afford to live in the city then maybe they should move.
How long does it take for a kid to get through college and graduate school? How will they pay their healthcare until they do. My insurance pays for my kid until she is out of school. It costs a whole lot more to live in some states than others. Do you think someone making 80,000 a year living in New York City with three kids is flush? In Maryland the median income for a family of four is almost 90,000$ a year.
http://mlsc.org/Income.Eligibility07.htm
The following income levels are based on household income information contained in the Federal Register, February 28, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 39, which states that the median income for a Maryland family of four is $87,972.
Try thinking about these things for a second instead of just spewing the propaganda you heard from whatever screechmonkey you are parroting.
Why is it you assume I am parroting any propaganda? I do not say anything I do not believe.
Every time you do this you turn a debate into a childish insult game and it needs to end NOW!
No smear, no lies. Just the factual reality you hivemind morons are allergic to.
Ignorant, moronic, CRETINS like you, DEFINE hate. What a hypocrite you are. Coming in here with a hatefilled diatribe like you posted then talking about how Americans will turn away from hate. You hivemind morons OWN hate. Among your many, MANY, delusions is thinking the GOP will win ANYTHING next election. You will lose MORE seats in Congress and most likely the White House. Your sort of ignorance and hateful stupidity has had its 15 minutes and America is putting the grown ups back in charge. Enjoy your spiral trip down the porcelain drain. If you are LUCKY maybe America will try far right stupidity again in a generation or so.
Again, is this hate filled diatribe necessary to make your point. If it is then your argument must not be that good.
"The "left" wants to Commie America.
Cradle to grave, womb to tomb... Big Gov tells you where to live, where to work, what to eat, what school you attend, when you can see a Doctor... I'll take MY chances with Republicans. At least they are LESS wastefull spenders and would protect America..."
Oh bulls**t.
No-one in the government has ever told me where I have to live, where I have to work, what I can eat, what school I can attend (with the exception of public schools, oh well... I guess it's unreasonable for a kid who lives in NYC to attend junior high in LA, lol!), and when I can see a doctor.
You are just paranoid and listening to Rush on a day-to-day basis is obviously having an adverse effect on you and your mental health. You've been brainwashed into believing that if Hillary (or any Dem) wins the White House then it's gonna be like '1984' in 2008. Never mind that we had TWO TERMS of Bill and NONE of that garbage ever happened. We were not a 'Commie' nation then and we will never be one so just calm yourself down.
Want some advice? Pull your head out of your ass and clean it up.
Cradle to grave, womb to tomb... Big Gov tells you where to live, where to work, what to eat, what school you attend, when you can see a Doctor... I'll take MY chances with Republicans. At least they are LESS wastefull spenders and would protect America...
Wonderful strawmen you built there. How can you lecture someone like Solon about credibility when your own argument mis-characterizes everything on the left because you DISLIKE them? Isn't that bias?
And the issue is? What does Sean Hannity's personal political donations have to do with the interview of a potential presidential candidate? Fox has no control of what he does on his own. Are they supposed to disallow an interview because the interviewer and interviewee might have a personal relationship or a financial one?
I really think you are reaching with this one.
Let me spell this for you SLOWLY since you are not getting it:
U-N-E-T-H-I-C-A-L
Not to mention that it is sleazy as hell and that any intelligent person could see that this was rigged.
Got it now?
Rigged? How can you rigg an interview? You can ask softball questions but the answer is the answer........if he is going to be fake during a FOXNEWS interview then he will be fake in other interviews as well.
As for unethical how is that? He is a political pundit that has made no secret of who he likes in this primary season. He is also friends with the man. What is wrong with a friend helping out a friend? I bet Hannity would be willing to interview any candidate from any side of the aisle if they were willing to do his show.
How is what Hannity doing any different than a newspaper endorsing a candidate?
You obviously know NOTHING about jornalistic ethics. People who watch interviews have a right to think they will be informed by the interview and not manipulated for THAT reason the kind of connection Hannity had with Guiliani are supposed to be disclosed so people KNOW that he is interviewing someone he supports enough to speak at his fundraiser, that he has an ox to be gored. That is BASIC journalistic ethics 101. I would have FIRED one of the reporters on my high school paper had they written an article about someone they had such a relationship with and DIDNT disclose it.
First, Hannity never claimed to be a journalist and FOX has never claimed he is a journalist.
Second, every interview is fake. They have canned answers for every possible question.
Third, personal political leanings and funding is none of mine or your business. If FOXNEWS was state run and paid for by taxes you might have a point. But it is a company beholden to it's stockholders not the American people.