Hannity falsely suggested lawmakers cited in CQ article on PMA campaign funds are "all Democrats"
SUMMARY: Citing a Congressional Quarterly article about the relationship between House members and lobbying firm The PMA Group, Sean Hannity falsely suggested that current or former House members who received PMA funds and inserted earmarks that benefited PMA clients into a 2007 bill are "all Democrats." In fact, according to CQ, 44 of 91 current or former House members who received campaign contributions from the PMA Group's political action committe or its employees from 2001-2008 and "secured earmarks for clients of The PMA Group in the fiscal 2008 defense appropriations law," are Republicans.
Citing a February 19 Congressional Quarterly article about the relationship between House members and lobbying firm The PMA Group, Fox News host Sean Hannity stated during the February 19 edition of his show that "[n]inety-one of the 104 lawmakers who granted earmark requests for PMA clients -- well, they just so happened to receive sizable campaign contributions from PMA." After naming Rep. Peter Visclosky (D-IN), Rep. John Murtha (D-PA), and Rep. James Moran (D-VA), Hannity stated, "Oh, yeah, they're all Democrats. Welcome to President Obama's brand new Washington." In fact, according to a chart accompanying the CQ article Hannity cited, 44 of 91 current or former House members who, according to CQ, received campaign contributions from the PMA Group's political action committe or its employees from 2001-2008 and "secured earmarks for clients of The PMA Group in the fiscal 2008 defense appropriations law," are Republicans.
From the February 19 edition of Fox News' Hannity:
HANNITY: And tonight in Hannity's America, with the Democrats securely in the majority, Washington's culture of corruption continues to thrive.
Now, the latest scandal falls on the doorstep of none other than John "my constituents are racist" Murtha. Now, the Congressional Quarterly reports that more than a hundred House members secured earmarks for clients of The PMA Group.
Now, that is a lobbying firm famous for its ties to Representative Murtha. Now, the group's offices were raided by the FBI, which is investigating suspicious campaign contributions that PMA made to Murtha and others. Ninety-one of the 104 lawmakers who granted earmark requests for PMA clients -- well, they just so happened to receive sizable campaign contributions from PMA.
Now, Representative Peter Visclosky, who earmarked almost $24 million for PMA -- well, he received $219,000 in campaign donations from the group. Murtha, who has earmarked a whopping $38.1 million for PMA -- well, he got $143,600 in campaign donations from them. And Representative James Moran, who earmarked 10.8 million for PMA clients -- well, he raked in more than $125,000 from them since 2001.
Oh, yeah, they're all Democrats. Welcome to President Obama's brand new Washington.
i'm sure mr. hannity just sort of missed the other 88 members on the list. however, in fairness, it should be noted that the top republican beneficiary of PMA's election campaign largesse would only rank 5th on the democrat's list.
most likely, that was the point mr. hannity, in his normal, inept fashion, was trying to make, assuming he had a point at all.
i suspect that a good % of those contributions to the democrats were made after the 2006 mid-term elections. unfortunately, the schedule doesn't break them down on a year-by-year basis.
"most likely, that was the point mr. hannity, in his normal, inept fashion, was trying to make, assuming he had a point at all."
This one might have been accidental. Hannity seems to be referring to the three people he specified when he says they're all Democrats. Of course, it creates the impression that the 91 are all Democrats. And it's misleading anyway because 47 to 44 is not a tremendous disparity, while his remark about Obama's Washington suggests that it is.
It's not possible to give Hannity the benefit of the doubt, though. Even if it wasn't intentional, it's probably an unconscious impulse for him to frame things dishonestly.
I'm with you. I think Hannity deserves the benefit of the doubt. He's being quite straightforward with his audience by qualifying everything to follow, stating:
Would it make MMFA any more satisfied if he began his show with "once upon a time..." or "meanwhile, back on Krypton..."
WITH?
I still think the producers of Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood have a pretty solid case against Hannity. From the switch to more casual clothes, to the obvious Beyond Belief/Neighborhood of Make-Believe rip-off, Hannity's America is MRN aimed at a slightly less intellectually curious audience.
But Brab's right, Hannity isn'y lying when he says "They're all Democrats". All three that he singled out, surprisingly, are Dems.
If it were NOT someone who's made a career smearing liberals and Democrat's, then they would probably get the BOTD. But Hannity has worked hard over the years to insure that his comments would be interpreted this way.
He'll calim that MMFA misquoted him, or was out of context or whatever, but he knows darn well what he was implying. And you don;t have to be a mind reader to detect the contempt he feels for the thinking half of america. (That would liberlas and democrats for those who need to be filled in on that point.)
you're correct, of course.
for a brief moment, i thought i was talking about a normal person, not the sole inhabitant of "hannity world". of course it was his intent to imply that all 91 were democrats; leaving out the pertinent breakdown, while not technically a lie, was certainly the sin of omission.
Sean Hannity falsely suggested that...
I stopped reading right there. The rest is just a few new lyrics to Hannity's ad hominem old song. How does this man live with himself? I sure hope his children are smarter than he is and when they are old enough they see what a dishonest man he is and how despicable his crusade is to divide the country and promote hatred of fellow Americans. And over what? Politics.
I'd like to add that I am seriously reconsidering my views about the Fairness Doctrine. Consider how dynamics would change if for just one hour each day immediately following Sean Hannity's radio show there was a rebuttal show that was the radio equivalent of MMFA. If for one hour every lie that Hannity had just told was specifically picked apart, day after day, how do you suppose Hannity would react? I am sure that a great deal of his time would be spent attempting to rebut the rebuttal from the day before. It's not that I would like to see Hannity or anyone else silenced...I just want to see radio broadcasters act responsibly and tell the truth. In my city there is a right wing radio channel that is advertised as Rush Radio on which the shows of Beck, Limbaugh and Hannity are broadcast back to back. Not counting local programming, that's about nine straight hours of right wing lying...and the lies they tell remain unchallenged, at least for their audiences. Some of their audience would stay tuned in, I am sure, simply out of curiosity. It might actually be the first time any of their audiences actually heard intelligent, fact-based rebuttal. I know one thing...Beck, Limbaugh and Hannity would not like it one damn bit.
Thanks Snoop. As they say, one pic is worth a thousand words.
hee hee! I agree, republicans should stop using all those social services like the fire department.The house fire will eventually burn out by itself, right? ;)
Cartoon friday!
That's the capper. Snoop, save that one anytime someone posts about "pork" in the stimulus bill....
Hey Mary, I just got a peek at Obama's plan to wrap up this stimulus bill! ;)
If anyone can enter the matrix, it'd be him ;-)
I misread the tag there for a second (serially) - thought it said "marxist." If it were Faux Noise, it would have.
Oh!!! so true.
99.9% of what he is is partisan garbage
So, in other words, only .1% of Hannity's show is substantive? I would rather watch re-reuns of Two And A Half Men if I want to watch something remotely funny. Isn't FOX News supposed to be a legitmate news channel? Or is it just entertainment?
If Hannity could find 2 other men to join him, you wouldn't have to watch re-runs...
HAAAAHAAAAahaaahaaahaaaa....
Okay. I'm done.
Casey, I think I'll just have to let this one go on the subjective nature of the word "charming".
What could possibly be more charming than Tony Danza and Shyawn Cassidy...er...I mean Hannity? It's like Starsky and Hutch. It's like Alias Smith and Jones. It's like Flintstone and Costello.
Different strokes, I guess. Somehow, when I think of a screechy-voiced,whining half-wit lying and suckering average Americans into subsidizing his undeserved, lavish lifestyle at their expense, "charming" isn't the first word that pops into my mind.
I heard Vannity say within the last week or two that unemployment in 1976 was 12%. When you hear a self-proclaimed expert say that, it's time to find another information source. Or not, if you're into blind faith and/or feel-good "news."
Amazing anyone still believes that uninformed fool.
Why is it so shocking that Hannity is making an inaccurate, dishonest, stupid, and rabble-rousing point about someone who he disagrees with? It would be more of a shock if he said something that rang true.
I am calling it the way it is with Hannity, " A lying liar that lies."
When is Hannity going to produce a bank draft,check etc for $10,000,000 that he said he donated to Freedom Alliance in '07? At the following site: premierspeakers.com/sean_hannity/bio read the 3rd paragraph from the bottom.
Receiving a copy of Freedom Alliance's Tax Form 990 (a 501c3 Charity) for 2007 in Sept of '08 there wasn't any mention of Freedom Alliance receiving any $10 million donation from anybody. Freedom Alliance collected about $1,300,000 more than the previous year (2006 $9,600,000 roughly) or about $10,762,256, in '07. There is no mention anywhere in the Form 900 report for '07 of anybody and certainly Hannity donating $10,000,000!
So my question for Hannity is, "Where's the money?"
He probably rolls around naked in 10,000,000 dollar bills every night before bed.
Ugh...that image almost made me lose my lunch...
No one has to work to make Hannity look foolish. He just opens his mouth so carelessly always in anti-Democratic rhetoric. Then automatically regarding his wild anti-Democrat statements, one needs to check out the facts because 9 chances out of 10, Hannity is so careless of facts that he will be wrong. He somply cannot stick to the truth when discussing Democrats. Any old half-truth or outright lie seems to be fine with Hannity so long as it totally exaggerates anti Democratic rhetoric. Poor thing simply cannot keep his fibs straight when he posts like he does. No one has to down-play his intelligence, he handles that very nicely all on his own. Thanks for once again holding him accountable for his untruths.
mdaddymort, Absolutly brilliant idea. I'd pay to see HANNITY, LIMBAUGH, OR LEVIN actually debate some LIBERAL like OLBERMANN or MADOW with non partisian fact checkers right there. Those RIGHT WING LOONS would be totally lost and get put in their proper place,(the cr--per).
He is an untrained mouth piece for the Conservative wing of the Republican liers! I listened to this guy, Allen Keys(another in the vain of Hannity)...he has never won anything...yet he is spewing the Republican "talking Points"! He was beaten unmercifully in Illinois by President Obama...yet he continues to spew all kinds of allegations, some bordering on threats to our President....saying, he must be stopped...that could be construed as a THREAT! Back to Hannity, this party insist on allowing its mouth pieces be untrained, uneducated college drop-outs, No one with any intelligence at all would ever take these people seriously!
No one with any intelligence at all would ever take these people seriously!
That's the problem. Bush & Co. scared too many people after 9/11 in trying to eliminate critical thinking. But the country woke up, thankfully.