Hannity raises Kennedy "marital issues" rumor, but denounced NY Times McCain article as "nothing but innuendo, rumor"
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
SUMMARY: Announcing a "Fox News Alert" on the "sordid details" behind Caroline Kennedy's withdrawal from consideration for New York's Senate seat, Sean Hannity reported that "there are even rumors tonight of marital issues." But Hannity previously accused The New York Times of trafficking in "innuendo [and] rumor" about Sen. John McCain's personal life.
During the January 22 edition of Fox News' Hannity, while announcing a "Fox News Alert" concerning the "sordid details" behind Caroline Kennedy's declared withdrawal from consideration for New York's vacant Senate seat, host Sean Hannity reported that "there are even rumors tonight of marital issues." However, Hannity previously accused The New York Times of trafficking in "innuendo [and] rumor" about Sen. John McCain's personal life. On the February 20, 2008, edition of Hannity & Colmes, while discussing a Times article about McCain's relationship with lobbyists, including Vicki Iseman, set to be published the next day, Hannity said: "I have read this New York Times piece now three times, and what I see here is nothing but innuendo, rumor; they want the reader to draw conclusions." Later, speaking with attorney Robert Bennett, Hannity said: "You know what I'm concerned about, Bob, is -- and this goes back to Raymond Donovan, former Labor secretary under Ronald Reagan, is if this all turns out to be false -- this is Senator McCain's good name, his reputation. This would be designed to hurt him in a presidential campaign and hurt his presidential chances and aspirations here."
Additionally, Hannity said of the Times story: "This story as I read it, both The Washington Post story, but it's really The New York Times, is a disgrace. There is nothing here. There's no evidence. This is about innuendo."
In contrast with his criticism of the Times for trafficking in rumors, on January 22, Hannity said of Kennedy: "Now, according to reports from The New York Times and The New York Post, problems arose from Miss Kennedy's vetting over the past couple of months. Apparently, the heir to all things Camelot has some tax issues, a problem with a nanny, and there are even rumors tonight of marital issues."
From the January 22 edition of Fox News' Hannity:
HANNITY: And this is a "Fox News Alert": We are learning more tonight about the sordid details behind Caroline Kennedy's abrupt withdrawal from consideration for the open New York Senate seat.
Now, according to reports from The New York Times and The New York Post, problems arose from Miss Kennedy's vetting over the past couple of months. Apparently, the heir to all things Camelot has some tax issues, a problem with a nanny, and there are even rumors tonight of marital issues.
Now the Post reports that, as a result, Governor Paterson never intended to appoint her to this open seat.
Now, meanwhile, it appears that last night's statement from Miss Kennedy simply didn't tell the whole story. An aide told The New York Times today that Miss Kennedy became aware of a, quote, "personal issue" that would prevent her from serving in the United States Senate.
But it's still unclear tonight what that means. Now, we're following the details of this developing story. We're going to bring you more during our "Great American Panel" a little later in the show.
[...]
HANNITY: And this is a "Fox News Alert": New details are emerging about Caroline Kennedy's decision to withdraw her bid for Hillary Clinton's Senate seat.
A source close to New York Governor David Paterson told both The New York Post and The New York Times the reason that Kennedy dropped out was because of issues of her taxes and a nanny issue. Now aides to the former first daughter have denied these rumors, but Kennedy has yet to make a public statement since the new allegations have surfaced.
From the February 20, 2008, edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes:
HANNITY: Bob [Bennett], I have read this New York Times piece now three times, and what I see here is nothing but innuendo, rumor; they want the reader to draw conclusions. And as we come on the air here, the McCain campaign has, in fact, responded, and let me tell our audience what they said -- that "The New York Times has lowered their standards to engage in a hit-and-run smear job." Do you agree with that, having read this piece?
[...]
HANNITY: You know what I'm concerned about, Bob, is -- and this goes back to Raymond Donovan, former Labor secretary under Ronald Reagan, is if this all turns out to be false -- this is Senator McCain's good name, his reputation. This would be designed to hurt him in a presidential campaign and hurt his presidential chances and aspirations here.
BENNETT: Right.
HANNITY: But this is as close as The New York Times get, quote, "convinced the relationship had become romantic, some top advisers intervened to protect the candidate from himself, instructing the staff members to block her access," et cetera, et cetera.
And then there's innuendo: for example, that Senator McCain had written letters to government regulators on behalf of lobbyists. When it's -- when an article is written this way, they want people to draw a conclusion, don't they?
[...]
HANNITY: Michael [Steele, chairman, GOPAC], I want to start with you. I'm going to tell you something: This story as I read it, both The Washington Post story, but it's really The New York Times, is a disgrace. There is nothing here. There's no evidence. This is about innuendo. This seems to me, more than anything else, an attempt by The New York Times to regurgitate a 20-year-old story that Bob Bennett, who we just had on, said he recommended no further action be taken. He said, as a Democrat, it was pure politics by the Democrats and that Democrats wouldn't cut McCain any slack on the whole thing.
HANNITY: And this is a "Fox News Alert": We are learning more tonight about the sordid details behind Caroline Kennedy's abrupt withdrawal from consideration for the open New York Senate seat.
Sordid details? Sordid...? Excellent choice of words for someone completely devoid of integrity pretending to be a journalist.
Once you get past the pomposity Hannity is basically TMZ.
Deflect much?
What is the deflection? is it not the truth? Are the rumors not coming from Governor Pattersons office?
I don't know. No question the hypocrisy is coming from Hannity, though.
I would agree but that is what we would expect from Hannity. I would not expect a Democratic Governor to treat a good woman like this , trashing her name through the mud and picking a pro gun nut.
I would not expect a Democratic Governor to treat a good woman like this , trashing her name through the mud and picking a pro gun nut
You make it sound as if Governor Patterson went on a press conference to air out Kennedy's dirt. Surely, "trashing he rname through the mud" is a bit melodramatic. Not to mention that the whole issue is off topic.
The topic is Caroline Kennedy not sure how that is off topic, unless we only must trash Hannity, which I have done countless times. Ok Hannity liar, hater, FOX Noise.
No. The topic is Hannity's hypocrisy reagrding whose private details can be reportedon and whose can't. He is a typical Republican who revels in unfounded rumors regarding Democrats' private lives but then seems to think that Republican's private lives are off limits.
I would agree with you on that. I am just outraged at how she has been treated.
then if hannity said the "sordid details" on her were coming out, then why did you say that the outrage should be at the governor, "not hannity". saying there are "sordid details" is treating her rather badly, no?
I have addressed that , care to answer my address on that or will you take over another thread with your petty arguments?
i'm asking you why you said in your original post that the outrage should be at the governor, "not hannity". did the governor say anything about "sordid details", as hannity did? if you "addressed that", i missed it.
I am asking why you won't answer my address of that? I have stated Hannity is a liar and hate , how many more times do you want me to say it? You feel it is ok to treat Caroline Kennedy like she is a piece of garbage? Never mind Hannity what about the NY Post printing the marriage story?
quote me where i said anything that you could possibly construe as "it is ok to treat caroline kennedy like she is a piece of garbage".
quote me where I approve of the sorid details that Hannity talks about when I have called him a liar and hater? I know you want to play games and make these threads about you, but I refuse to play . Move on
the thread is not about me, but the fact that you say one thing and then feel you don't have to explain it. i did quote you. i quoted you saying that the outrage should be at the governor, "not hannity". those are your words?
now, quote me anything i said that made you write "you feel it is ok to treat caroline kennedy like she is a piece of garbage?" you can or you can't provide the statement. if you can't then it's you who needs to "move on".
I am not responding to you anymore. If you will not discuss how I feel Hannity is a liar and hater , i have nothing else to say to you. Obviously you want to paint me as some Hannity lover.
i asked you to explain a contradictory statement. i quoted your words. then i asked you to quote anything i said that would make you say i feel it's ok to treat caroline kennedy like a piece of garbage. you can't come up with the quote because i didn't say or even imply anything remotely like that. if you're going to be on your high horse about supposedly having your views misconstrued, you need to back up your own insinuations a little better. maybe next time.
if you will not respond to my feelings on Hannity we have NOTHING else to say.
Do you promise you have nothing else to say until mefirst responds to you, because I will gladly pay him not to.
Caroline Kennedy was hardly trashed by the media. Lots of people said horrible things about her and many others buried her under praise. Truthfully she probably wouldn't have been considered for the appointment at all if she was "New York activist Mary Jenkins."
and I asked you if you feel it is ok to treat Ms Kennedy like a piece of garbage? I never said you said it. Your games amaze everyone.
"i never said you said it". then what made you ask me if i "feel it's ok" to do that. again, quote me anything that would make you ask the question. did i even suggest anything of the sort?
So you think it is ok for the Cardinals to be picked to win the SuperBowl?
Mefirst- " Why are you sugggesting I said it was ok for the Cardinals to be picked to win the Superbowl"
Get off your high horse. Talk about Hannity or STFU.
this is the way it works. you don't get to make up a quote, attribute it to me, and then answer for me. i asked for something i actually said. got anything?
this is the way it works. you don't get to accuse someone of saying something when they are asking a question. I learned the difference between a "?" and a direct quote. It is sad you want to play games.
i'm talking about you making up the quote about the super bowl. it's obviously an attempt to deflect from why you asked me if it feel it's ok to treat her like a piece of garbage. the questions i asked you actually had a basis in statements you made. and the playing games stuff is so old it has whiskers on it. you used it yesterday on another thread. i don't have to play games. i make statements and then defend them. you've made several on this thread that you have offered no explanation for.
and as far as hannity, i've asked you half a dozen times why our outrage should be directed at the governor, "not hannity". since hannity is a liar, as you claim, exactly why is it that we're supposed to more mad at the governor and "not hannity"? nor have you even remotely explained how patterson was "trashing her name through the mud".
i think it's far worse to portray someone as saying something, such as that person feels it's ok to treat caroline kennedy as a piece of garbage, and offer absolutely no proof.
Asking a question is portraying you as saying something? amazing.
When it's asked in a "Fox news" kinda way, then yes it is.
Like, "Do the Democrats Hate Ameica?"
No, the Democrats love America.
Casey, I don't think an answer to that question was expected. It was an example of a lame' leading question. I think the problem here might be "focus".
Sorry, i had to answer it. I think we have seen FOX get away with that garbage before the Iraq War. I will never apologize for standing up to these dividers.
Who cares from where the rumors orginated? The point is that for schmucks like Hannity, it is perfectly okay to report rumors when it concerns a Democrat, but he gets his panties in a bunch when another news source reports the same kind of sleazy rumors about a Republican. Typical.
And yes, Governor Patterson's pick to fill Clinton's seat is pathetic.
What is even more funny is Rush today blasting McCain because the "Maverick" is back. The GOP is having another civil war.
What is even more funny is Rush today blasting McCain because the "Maverick" is back.
He must be on the pills again.
He looked like he was on pills when he was on Hannity last night
I'm wondering if he's even going to survive Obama's two terms. He sure looks like he's ready to keel over. Time for a new pic on your site, Rush.
Can't wait for Monday when he will blow his gaskets over Obama's "I won" declaration today.
I never even realized how fat he has gotten.
Deflection from the issue at hand - Hannity's double standard.
I have addressed that, so not sure how it is defleciton.
this thread is NOT about analyzing Patterson's (or his staffs) behavior. Its about analyzing Hannity's double standard of loving innuendo and gossip about Dems and decrying innuendo and gossip (and facts) about repubs.
your refusal to deal with the issue and insistence on talking about some other topic makes you look like a tool, IMHO.
where in the mmfa article is it said that the rumors are coming from Gov office? If you can point me to it, thanks.
Otherwise, you have wasted 15 minutes of my life.
it's quite possible that someone in his office did speak to the press. that doesn't mean that patterson approved, or exactly what was said. this stuff happens all the time. as for rumors about her marriage, that is nothing new. they hardly just started when she began seeking the senate seat. i really have to see some evidence that patterson was involved in some plot to smear her before i get all outraged at him. casey's word is not good enough. casey simply has a history of not wanting to explain statements. when casey said on another thread that "the media will blame bush" if there is another terrorist attack, he/she accused jjamele of "lying" for questioning that statement.
And I'm aware this is an off-topic, ad hominem attack, but the jerkwad deserves it.
He actually does, and I am not a off topic nazi like a few .
Off-topic Nazis are just partisan haters, IMO.
Could be IMO also. Who am I to think what others thing?
think not thing
Col., it's comments like these that made me join this site. You make me laugh.
Same here. And the partisan breaded chicken is to die for!
I understand that all off topic Nazis are partisan haters, but does that mean that all off-topic partisan haters are Nazis?
Couldn't some be commie bastards?
Sort of a waste of time if you ask me but any excuse to kick a Kennedy I guess.
-- And yes, Governor Patterson's pick to fill Clinton's seat is pathetic. -- medusas laugh
That strikes me as a bit odd...when the American Conservative Union gave her a paltry rating of 8.
Gillenbrand supported minimum wage hikes...stem cell research...unions...troop withdrawl from Iraq...Planned Parenthood...expanded health care and Schip.
She opposed off-shore drilling...the troop surge...and the border fence.
It seems to me that using the description of pathetic would be more in line coming from a conservative...
This might surprise you, Wesley, but some people are able to form their own opinions without consulting an organization that gives them a rating according to their ideology.
And some people fall for a sales pitch from Ron Popeil and purchase a dunce-o-matic. It easily renders one into a one-line mumbler...with little to offer in rational discourse.
Gillenbrand is clearly no conservative. You must have had the volume turned down on your radio today...while running your endless errands...and were unable to "catch" that news.
I'm pretty sure the dunce-o-matic comes with a money back guarantee if you read the fine print.
I agree; from her voting record Gillenbrand appears to me to be a good liberal who will do the state and the nation proud; however, there are liberals trashing the pick. One of them is Randi Rhodes.
To my mind, if Randi Rhodes opposes Gillenbrand, Gillenbrand's probably a good pick. And I say that as a committed liberal.
I don't think anyone said that Gillenbrand's a conservative. The problem seems to be an upstate vs. the City problem.
I don't get the vitriol aimed at Gillenbrand either; she strikes me as a pretty far-left Democrat who happens to enjoy hunting and supports gun ownership. She's from a pretty rural district, after all.
My only objection is that now there will be a special election for her seat that a Republican may well win.
And I'm very grateful that Caroline was not the pick; if she wants a Senate seat, let her go out and run for one. Since she said before not being picked that she intended to run for the Senate in 2010, I guess that's what she's going to do now.
Hannity, like Limbaugh, does have a gift to gab....but he has no training in any field of science, social studies, math, geology, or georgraphy...yet he and Rush will gladly give forth info on any of those issues!!!!What a Ignorant phoney!
Hannity is an idiot. The lying bastard will say anything that suits him at that particular time.
It's been said before but bears repeating:
IOKIYR
So let me get this straight: Hannity says it's outrageous if the New York Times has an article which implies that John McCain had an affair, but then based only on rumors he implies that Caroline Kennedy may have had an affair, and uses the New York Times as his source. Sadly, I am not surprised in the least with Sean. That's the saddest part of it all.
THANK YOU.
njguy93@yahoo.com