About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Hannity asked Freeh, Giuliani's Delaware chair: "Do you see any strength on national security in the Democrats?"

January 10, 2008 3:44 pm ET
image

SUMMARY: On Hannity & Colmes, Sean Hannity asked Louis Freeh, Rudy Giuliani's "Senior Homeland Security Advisor" and Delaware campaign chair: "Do you see any strength on national security in the Democrats?" Freeh replied, "No, I don't see any strength on that side." Additionally, as in previous interviews with Giuliani himself, Hannity did not disclose that he has reportedly raised money for Giuliani.

31 Comments

On the January 9 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, co-host Sean Hannity asked Louis Freeh, former FBI director and current "Senior Homeland Security Advisor" and chair of Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani's campaign in Delaware: "I wonder, I guess, one question that will come up before November: If something horrible happens to this country, who do you want as president? That's got to be asked, and I don't see one Democrat that shows any strength." Hannity then asked: "Do you see any strength on national security in the Democrats?" Freeh responded: "No, I don't see any strength on that side." During the interview, Hannity did not disclose that he has reportedly raised money for Giuliani presidential campaign.

On August 19, 2007, the New York Daily News reported that Hannity "introduced the Republican front-runner at a closed-door, $250-per-head fundraiser 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." As Media Matters for America documented, Hannity also failed to disclose his reported involvement with the Giuliani campaign in a January 3 interview with Giuliani, a December 17, interview with Giuliani, and an October 16, 2007, interview with Giuliani and his wife, Judith.

From the January 9 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes:

HANNITY: Well, Director, first of all, there's a lot of rank-and-file policemen and firemen that aren't beholden to the Clinton machine and the Clinton union supporters that are feeding those false stories, 'cause he is loved by a lot of the rank and file. I've got to tell you something, Director, that I could look at any scenario, anybody that's telling our audience on radio and television that they know what's going to happen, they don't know.

I could make a case for Romney, Rudy, Fred Thompson, Mike Huckabee, or Senator McCain. But the fact is that in the larger states, in the bigger states, that Mayor Giuliani does hold a significant lead in many of them. So he sort of is out of this until January 29th when this starts. So it is a different strategy that he's adopted. Time will tell if it pays off.

But so far he seems to be holding his lead in many of those states, right?

FREEH: No, he's holding his lead for sure. He's in Florida today. You heard his tax plan, which was probably one of the most ambitious tax-reduction plans that anybody has proffered. And I think it's clear from Iowa and it's clear from New Hampshire, there is no leader in either party to date, and it's a wide-open race. And he wants to compete nationally in that wide-open race.

HANNITY: One of the things that surprised me a little bit in the exit polls that we saw in New Hampshire, Director, is that many of us thought that this race would be run almost entirely on national security. Economics is playing a very big part, in terms of what is on the minds of the people that are going into the voting booth here this year. So perhaps Rudy is spelling out that plan specifically in response to that?

FREEH: Well, I mean, he's been talking about taxes for a long time. He reduced taxes 23 times as the Republican mayor of New York City. So what he's doing now is focusing on a national tax-reduction plan, but he's also talking about health care. He's talking about education. He's talking about free choice with respect to health care. So I think he is hitting the issues that are most important to people, but we should not become complacent about our national security just because we've been very fortunate since September 11th.

HANNITY: Director, I wonder, I guess, one question that will come up before November: If something horrible happens to this country, who do you want as president? That's got to be asked, and I don't see one Democrat that shows any strength, but we only have about 15 seconds. Do you see any strength on national security in the Democrats?

FREEH: No, I don't see any strength on that side. We've got a candidate talking about pulling out in 10 months, including stopping our police and military training missions in Iraq. And I think, I think those are very reckless things to be promoting.

HANNITY: Director, thank you for being with us. And coming up tonight, New Hampshire and Iowa are behind us, and now several prominent states are on deck. We're going to gauge who's likely to be left standing on Super Tuesday. That's all coming up next, straight ahead.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by worrierking (January 10, 2008 3:52 pm ET)
         
      "If something horrible happens to this country, who do you want as president?' I want some barely literate, brush clearing, bible thumper who will respond by attacking the wrong country. Do we have one of those running this time?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by nerzog (January 10, 2008 4:07 pm ET)
           
        Interestingly, each of the Regurgicon candidates exhibits at least one of those qualities, but you have to put them all together to accomplish the stupidity and lack of competence which collectively reside in our current Moron in Chief.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by tex (January 10, 2008 4:35 pm ET)
             
          NERZOG: You make an interesting point. It's as if George W. Bush were dissected, and his traits distributed amongst the current candidates as their defining characteristic. His phony cowboy side, the brush-clearing rugged individualistic work-with-my-hands everyman, that is Thompson's image transfusion. The born-again, GOD trumps the Constitution, evangelical religious "God speaks to me directly" zealotry, that's Huckabee's part. The take-no-prisoners, tough as nails, shoot first and never ask a question WARRIOR/warmonger (who never actually, darnit, saw combat himself) ... that's Rudy's role. The tax cutting supply side economic genius and best friend a CEO ever had boardroom hero ... Romney got that piece. Oddly, the GW Bush CONSERVATIVE RHETORIC, about accountable government, NO nation building, protect our borders, fiscally responsible small government advocate ... the RHETORIC GW used to court the conservative base ... that's left to Ron Paul (who doesn't have a prayer of winning). (McCain gets to inherit the albatross around the neck, lost at sea like the Flying Dutchman, forever, for the next 100 years, chanting "the surge is working.") Piece together today's field of GOP candidates, sew them together a la the Frankenstein Monster, and ... viola'! ... you've got an entire GW Bush. Pretty funny, if not so tragic.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by nerzog (January 10, 2008 4:53 pm ET)
               
            I fear that if one of them gets elected, he'll quickly morph into the twin of President Nukmbnuts.
            Report Abuse
    • Author by nerzog (January 10, 2008 3:55 pm ET)
         
      One more time... continuing to occupy Iraq enhances our national security in what way?
      Report Abuse
    • Author by anotheramerican (January 10, 2008 4:05 pm ET)
         
      If they are going to attack Hannity on the same point in every thread they run, how come you don't disclose that Hillary's husband was impeached every time you run a story on her? Or that her campaign received illegal campaign donations? Oh yeah.. MMFA's unstated purpose is to be ridiculously partisan. Never mind.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by tommy (January 10, 2008 4:10 pm ET)
           
        HaHa, Good point AA - darn that selective outrage.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by friedbergboy1422 (January 10, 2008 4:44 pm ET)
             
          Hi Tommy, I would hope that some media watchdog outlet would let us know if some reporter/pundit was working for Hillary and not disclosing it while interviewing her or her staff. I think AA's point is definitely apples to oranges, don't you? MMFA is just watching the media folk, not the affiliation of the candidates.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by tommy (January 10, 2008 5:29 pm ET)
               
            I am not so sure Fried, MMFA is for full disclosure - as if anyone isn't aware of Hannity's political leanings......so let them disclose a little of their own. Actually, AA's point be a little tongue in cheek, he would have to tell you, but it's food for thought nonetheless.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by mefirst (January 10, 2008 7:45 pm ET)
                 
              i'm sure no one remembers bill clinton was impeached.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by solon (January 10, 2008 8:50 pm ET)
                   
                Clintons impeachment has little to do with conservative media misinformation. Failing to comply with the most basic journalistic ethics from a conservative giving interviews to a Presidential candidate or anyone in his campaign IS a form of misinformation. IF he had a shred of ethics he would tell those listening to his interviews he was goring his own ox.
                Report Abuse
            • Author by solon (January 10, 2008 8:46 pm ET)
                 
              Political leanings arent what we are talking about. He can have a man crush on Guiliani for all I care. RAISING MONEY for him is a whole new kettle of fish and journalistic ethics demand THAT connection be disclosed. Its not that he is conservative it is he has worked to RAISE MONEY for Guiliani. It deserves to be brought up EVERY time he interviews Guiliani or anyone working for his campaign because each time he does so without disclosing it is a whole new violation of basic journalistic ethics. IF he has none he shouldnt be giving interviews.
              Report Abuse
      • Author by friedbergboy1422 (January 10, 2008 4:11 pm ET)
           
        AA, They don't require Hillary to disclose anything because she is not a member of the media. You know that this is not a candidate watch site, but rather a media watch one.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by nerzog (January 10, 2008 4:11 pm ET)
           
        But Clinton was only impeached once...Hannity is a lying jerk every day.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by FNC Liberal (January 10, 2008 9:54 pm ET)
             
          NERZOG, This is just another hit piece against Clinton and free public relations boost for Rudy Giuliani by Roger Ailes.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by dbeden4153 (January 10, 2008 4:15 pm ET)
           
        I think you know the answer to this AA, I think you're just being difficult. But, for clarity's sake, MMfA's purpose is to find conservative MISINFORMATION.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by dbeden4153 (January 10, 2008 4:20 pm ET)
             
          sorry, accidentally hit post without finishing. Sean Hannity, as a member of the media, has the obligation to disclose that he raised money for Giuliani's campaign. Every time he discusses Giuliani or interviews him, he is supposed to disclose this fact, because the lens with which you see his questions changes if you know he's a supporter. Therefore, he is misinforming the viewers by propping himself up as neutral.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by tex (January 10, 2008 4:43 pm ET)
               
            Hannity's overt support for Rudy ... I wonder if that advocacy could be considered a "campaign contribution" and therefore reportable to the FEC? FOX claims to be "fair and balanced", and so their advocacy for the Republican Party is covered by "free speech" and "free press" exemptions. But when a personality like Hannity throws away the veil of impartiality, and directly supports and endorses a candidate in the field, that pushes his airtime into the same category as paid political advertising. It should, anyway. And at the least, whenever Hannity appears on camera or is heard on the radio, there should be a Guilliani disclaimer, "I'm Rudy Guilliani, and I approved this message."
            Report Abuse
          • Author by FNC Liberal (January 10, 2008 10:02 pm ET)
               
            dbeden4153, Sean supports Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney. This silly man won't disclose anything to the public. The only way to force crooked Sean to disclose all his political deals is by court order or you can look it up at www.fec.gov.
            Report Abuse
      • Author by tex (January 10, 2008 7:38 pm ET)
           
        AA: I've got no problem with the media reminding America of the Republican's expensive and FAILED attempt at removing America's very popular President. That they wasted millions of taxpayer dollars and crippled our government's responsiveness to American citizen's problems, choosing rank partisanship in place of doing the job they were sent to accomplish, that's a great thing for Americans to be reminded of. If they reminded the American People of the Republican's petty vindictiveness, incompetence, and craven negativity every time they mentioned Hillary, I'd be ecstatic. Great suggestion, but I doubt it'll happen.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by thomp.steve9098 (January 10, 2008 4:29 pm ET)
         
      Hannity should disclose his public support for Rudy and the campaign, although if anyone watches his show it's not too hard to figure out. It's been kinda funny lately, because he hates Mccain, and has been seething at all the praise the latter's been getting.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by williebtoo4638 (January 10, 2008 5:18 pm ET)
         
      How come so many respected and famous New Yorkers think so little of Rudy?It's all going to come out in the end.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by atheist (January 10, 2008 6:03 pm ET)
         
      Uh, no offense to you Delawareans, but isn't it a pretty unimportant state having only 18 delegates and being in that mash of states doing primaries on Super Tuesday ? It's the lowest ranking state on that date, are the candidates even going to make appearances there ?? Freeh's position is therefore quite unimportant. Relevant to his opinions, yes, but relevant to Guiliani's success as a presidential candidate, no.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by magnolialover (January 10, 2008 6:12 pm ET)
         
      The funny thing is that polls indicate that in the USA today, more Americans think that the democrats can do, and will do a better job of protecting America. Contrary to the popular notion that attacking Afghanistan and Iraq was the "right" thing to do, by most republicans, it only enflamed the Islamic world, and all of the highly heated and crazy rhetoric that radicals had been espousing for years suddenly came true, and hence, the best recruiting tools that Osama Bin Laden and his ilk could have ever hoped, and dreamed, and prayed to Allah for. Also, I like to keep pointing out that when we were attacked on 9/11; who was in the White House, and who was running Congress? Yes, republicans. How are they "strong" on national security again? Because they say things like, "Bring 'em on." or "We're gonna smoke 'em outta their holes." and other stupid mindless drivel that makes things even worse.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by hogprint (January 10, 2008 11:01 pm ET)
           
        Those crazy "enflamed"[sic] islamists! I guess they quickly forgot the U.S. was protecting Muslims during the Bosnia and Kosovo conflicts? They really showed us the love during 9/11...I was feeling the appreciation from them for our work in the Balkans... As you like to keep pointing out about 9/11, you are correct Bush was in the WH, but had not been there a year yet. I know this will be hard to swallow, but OBL didn't just put that plan into action overnight (or in nine months for that matter). If you really want to know the truth, US intel had known that those types of attacks were being planned as far back as '95. Who was in the WH in "95? See how this game can be played? So if we continue with the game, then the blood is on Clinton's hands for the Somalia debacle (it was). The left likes to forget that little mess.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by MHK (January 10, 2008 11:20 pm ET)
             
          Aren't you missing the point? This item is about saying that one "party" has a lock on keeping the country secure. If you want to go tit for tat on intelligence blunders and forgien policy mistakes I'm sure people would be happy to play that game. For example if Sadam Hussien is truly the big bad boogy man of terrorism, who helped put him in power in the first place?
          Report Abuse
          • Author by hogprint (January 11, 2008 8:48 am ET)
               
            No, that's exactly the point I was trying to make. There was a lot of blame to be spread around for 9/11. I'll go one further and not say blame, just missed opportunities from both administrations. Magnolia has made this 9/11 link several times on this forum and I was trying to show the error of his/her way. I think we can agree that hindsight is 20/20 and going back and pointing fingers for not reading the tea leaves just right doesn't advance anyones cause.
            Report Abuse
        • Author by foghornleghorn (January 11, 2008 3:13 pm ET)
             
          Yeah, but being told repeatedly in the summer of '01 that "chatter" was up and something "big" was going to happen, what did the Decider do? He went on vacation. (Before that he fired Richard Clarke, I believe). Then when told that the country was under attack, what did our Fearless Leader do? He sat in that classroom. Now which is more impeachable, getting a bj or being asleep at the wheel when lives are in the balance?
          Report Abuse
    • Author by Clevenative (January 10, 2008 6:25 pm ET)
         
      I wish Hannity would have expounded on what he meant by “something horrible” - A Category 5 hurricane, a California Earthquake, a major western wildfire, a major recession or market crash, a wingnut bombing, … WHAT Sean??? Inquiring minds want to know!
      Report Abuse
    • Author by eniobob2631 (January 11, 2008 4:44 pm ET)
         
      I guess hannity didn'tget the message by the folks who ran him out of that resturant that nobody is listening to him anymore and don't value his opinion or the people who side with him.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by jmh (January 11, 2008 6:01 pm ET)
         
      hmm,

      so what expertise does Mr Hannity have to even ask a question regarding national security, foreign policy, and national politics

      ?

      If Sean Hannity had any _Strength_ he himself would admit his abject ignorance, his inability to think rationally, and resign from broadcasting. He has sullied broadcasting ,and natioal debate, with his lowest-common-denominator style of intellect and his malicious , disingenuous intensions...shame on you Hannity!
      Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.