News

March 17, 2006

07:30
Did Cruise get "South Park" episode yanked? Are Brad and Angelina getting hitched at Clooney's place? Plus: Neverland never more.
Source: Salon.com
Categories: News
05:30
In the "Polar Bear Capital of the World," vanishing ice is threatening to wipe out the polar bears -- and the town's livelihood. But Churchill's inhabitants say they'll survive.
Source: Salon.com
Categories: News
05:13
U.C. Berkeley journalists traveled the world to report on the front lines of climate change.
Source: Salon.com
Categories: News
05:00
Bush bankrupts the nation paying for a needless war -- while cutting budgets that could protect us against catastrophes like bird flu.
Source: Salon.com
Categories: News
05:00
The pilot goes home again and uncovers the deeper meaning of airports.
Source: Salon.com
Categories: News
05:00
Natalie Portman and Hugo Weaving battle a totalitarian state and its Bill O'Reilly-like mouthpieces in this simplistic adaptation of the pessimistic comic series.
Source: Salon.com
Categories: News
04:51
Now that they're aging, should I just let it go?
Source: Salon.com
Categories: News
04:48
In Part 2 of his report on the press in Baghdad, Orville Schell attends a pathetic "party" at Fox News and endures surreal Bush spin in the Green Zone.
Source: Salon.com
Categories: News
04:29
The great African-American science fiction writer saw herself as a reclusive outsider, but to her peers she was a beloved insider.
Source: Salon.com
Categories: News
04:00
The Department of the Interior may get a flashy new figurehead, but that won't change its drill-and-dig agenda.
Source: Salon.com
Categories: News

March 16, 2006

14:56
March 16: NBC's David Gregory asks White House spokesman Scott McClelland about the timing of the new military assault in Iraq and whether it had anything to do with President Bush’s slumping poll numbers.
Categories: News
14:56

On the March 8 edition of the AFA Report, Donald E. Wildmon, founder and chairman of the American Family Association (AFA), responded to the Equality Ride, a seven-week bus tour of 32 young adults organized by gay rights organization Soulforce "to confront nineteen religious schools and military academies that ban the enrollment of GLBT [gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender] students." Wildmon proposed his own hypothetical trip to "the homosexual bathhouses," saying, "[W]e're going to confront these people ... for what they're doing." In a discussion with Ed Vitagliano, news editor of the American Family Association Journal, Fred Jackson, AFA news director, and Rusty Benson, Journal associate editor, Wildmon also repeated misinformation about average gay incomes -- while falsifying his own -- claiming, "[T]he average homosexual makes four times more than I do." The AFA Report is broadcast daily on the AFA-operated American Family Radio.

From the March 8 broadcast of American Family Radio's AFA Report:

WILDMON: What does -- what does [Equality Ride co-director] Jacob Reitan say? He's one of the spokesmen. "We must cut off the suffering at its source. The source is religion-based opposition -- the religion-based oppression -- and it's taken place for centuries." In other words, we must get rid of the Christian faith. Let's go to these Christian schools. What if we had organized a tour and said, "We're going to the bathhouses in -- in 24 cities -- the homosexual bathhouses -- and we're going to confront these people, you know, for what they're doing," etc. -- etc. -- how would the media play that?

JACKSON: And demand that these bathhouses give us a forum to have our say.

WILDMON: Make them and bring 'em out there and give us -- set us up and -- yeah.

JACKSON: Yeah. Well, we know where the media would have its sympathies in that case. Of course, and it wouldn't be done, anyway. But these people, it just reinforces as you say, Don, what you just said. They regard Christianity, they regard biblical teaching, as the source of their problems. And what they're demanding is no less than you Christians stop teaching that homosexuality is a sin.

WILDMON: Stop -- stop -- stop preaching from the Bible.

JACKSON: That's right.

[...]

BENSON: Yeah, I mean, this is -- this is what you call -- what? -- chutzpah. This is -- this is --

WILDMON: That's a Jewish word, right? Be careful.

[...]

WILDMON: The spokesman [Equality Ride spokesman] says, the source for our -- "We must cut off the suffering." That is, the homosexual suffering. You know, I saw yesterday how much -- how much money the homosexual community has. I mean, good gracious, the average homosexual makes four times more than I do, Ed. Goodness gracious!

VITAGLIANO: Right.

WILDMON: I mean, we could take a professional homosexual salary all four of us --

VITAGLIANO: We could live pretty well on it.

WILDMON: -- and split it up four ways and all of us would get pretty good raises. I mean, they're not -- these people are not in poverty or hurting or denied or anything else.

Though Wildmon did not state specifically "how much money the homosexual community has," according to the Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance, the AFA has, for many years, based its statements on average gay incomes on a discredited 1988 survey by the Simmons Market Research Bureau, which listed the average gay income as $55,430 -- well above the mean income for heterosexuals ($32,286). According to the Ontario group's website, the survey's findings were reported in a 1991 Wall Street Journal article and subsequently repeated by anti-gay conservative groups such as the Heritage Foundation, Focus on the Family, and the AFA.

The survey's findings, however, did not reflect a representative sample of the national gay population. The Simmons survey polled only readers of popular gay-oriented magazines and those who filled out sign-up sheets for the 1993 March on Washington for Lesbian, Gay, and Bi Equal Rights and Liberation. As the National Organization of Gay and Lesbian Scientists and Technical Professionals Inc. (NOGLSTP) noted, "People who buy and read newspapers and magazines tend to have more education and higher incomes. Gay events attract people who can afford to travel or pay an entrance fee." Indeed, as NOGLSTP also noted, a 1989 study by Simmons found that readers of African-American-oriented magazines like Jet, Ebony, and Essence earned 41 to 82 percent more than the average African-American.

A December 1998 study commissioned by the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force's Policy Institute titled "Income Inflation: The Myth of Affluence Among Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Americans," by M.V. Lee Badgett, a University of Massachusetts associate professor of economics, paints a decidedly different picture of gay incomes than does the Simmons survey. Relying on U.S. Census Bureau statistics, exit polls conducted at 300 polling stations on election day in 1992 and 1996 -- which inquired about sexual orientation and family status -- sexual partner questions in the National Opinion Research Center's 1988 General Social Survey, and four other sources, Badgett concluded that gay men earn as much as 25 percent less than their heterosexual counterparts. Further, she reported that gay and lesbian households earn only 4 percent more than heterosexual households.

Yet even if the Simmons survey were accurate, Wildmon's assertion that "the average homosexual earns four times more than I do," would not be. According to the AFA's 2004 990 filing -- the Internal Revenue Service's return for organizations exempt from income tax -- Wildmon paid himself $58,010 plus $13,787 in benefits and a housing allowance of $39,200. He paid his son, Tim, who is president of AFA, $79,000.

Categories: News
14:56

On the March 14 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, co-host Sean Hannity selectively quoted from a speech that Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) gave before the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq to falsely characterize Feingold as a "flip-flopper" on the decision to authorize the Bush administration to use force to remove Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. While Hannity noted that Feingold stated in the October 2002 speech that "Iraq presents a genuine threat" and that Hussein "is exceptionally dangerous and brutal," Hannity ignored the fact that Feingold also provided a series of reasons why he opposed the use of force before concluding that "I cannot support the resolution for the use of force before us."

In a discussion with Democratic strategist Mary Anne Marsh about Feingold's March 13 resolution calling for the United States Senate to censure President Bush over the Bush administration's warrantless domestic wiretapping program, Hannity misrepresented Feingold's October 9, 2002, pre-war comments by highlighting only a selected segment of Feingold's speech that opposed the resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq. Hannity told Marsh: "If you want to vote for a guy [Feingold] that, quote, in the lead-up to the war said, 'I agree Iraq's a genuine threat in the form of weapons of mass destruction, chemical, biological, potential nuclear weapons. I agree he's dangerous and brutal, Saddam Hussein is,' you know, and then turn on the troops the way he did, just the way [Sen. John] Kerry [D-MA] did -- if that's your guy for '08, I'm all in favor."

In fact, Feingold's comments, made days before he voted against the October 11 war resolution, contained a multi-faceted argument against the resolution. From Feingold's October 9, 2002, speech on the floor of the Senate:

Many of us have spent months reviewing the issue of the advisability of invading Iraq in the near future. Now, after many more meetings and reading articles and attending briefings, listening to my colleagues' speeches, and especially listening to the president's speech in Cincinnati on Monday, I still don't believe that the president and the administration have adequately answered the critical questions. They have not yet met the important burden to persuade Congress and the American people that we should invade Iraq at this time.

[...]

Both in terms of the justifications for an invasion and in terms of the mission and the plan for the invasion, the administration's arguments just don't add up. They don't add up to a coherent basis for a new major war in the middle of our current challenging fight against the terrorism of Al Qaeda and related organizations. Therefore, I cannot support the resolution for the use of force before us.

[...]

None of this is to say that I don't agree with the president on much of what he has said about the fight against terrorism and even what he has said about Iraq. I agree that Iraq presents a genuine threat, especially in the form of weapons of mass destruction: chemical, biological and potentially nuclear weapons. I agree that Saddam Hussein is exceptionally dangerous and brutal if not uniquely so, as the president argues. And I agree, I support the concept of regime change. Saddam Hussein is one of several despots from the international community -- whom the international community should condemn and isolate with the hope of new leadership in those nations. And, yes, I agree, if we do this Iraq invasion, I hope Saddam Hussein will actually be removed from power this time.

[...]

But, Mr. President, I am increasingly troubled by the seemingly shifting justifications for an invasion at this time. I believe that this practice of shifting justifications has much to do with the troubling phenomena of many Americans questioning the administration's motives in insisting on action at this particular time. I'm talking about the spectacle of the president and senior administration officials citing a purported connection to Al Qaeda one day, weapons of mass destruction the next day, Saddam Hussein's treatment of his own people on another day, and then on some days the issue of Kuwaiti prisoners of war.

[...]

Mr. President, we need an honest assessment of the commitment required of America. If the right way to address this threat is through internationally-supported military action in Iraq and Saddam Hussein's regime falls, we will need to take action to ensure stability in Iraq. This could be very costly and time-consuming, could involve the occupation -- the occupation, Mr. President, of a Middle Eastern country. Now, this is not a small matter. The American occupation of a Middle Eastern country. Consider the regional implications of that scenario, the unrest in moderate states that calls for action against American interests, the difficulty of bringing stability to Iraq so we can extricate ourselves in the midst of regional turmoil. Mr. President, we need much more information about how we propose to proceed so that we can weigh the costs and benefits to our national security.

Hannity has previously distorted other Democratic politicians' positions on the Iraq war, as Media Matters for America has noted (here, here, and here).

From the March 14 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes:

HANNITY: Well, but -- look, I actually think this is a good thing. Mary Anne Marsh, you can have Russ Feingold. If you want to vote for a guy that, quote, in the lead-up to the war said, "I agree Iraq's a genuine threat in the form of weapons of mass destruction, chemical, biological, potential nuclear weapons. I agree he's dangerous and brutal, Saddam Hussein is," you know, and then turn on the troops the way he did, just the way Kerry did -- if that's your guy for '08, I'm all in favor. Let's bring the next flip-flopper on, and he's going to lose just like the last flip-flopper, the friend of yours.

Categories: News
14:56

Advocating drilling for oil off the U.S. coast, Wall Street Journal editorial board member Stephen Moore falsely claimed on the March 14 edition of MSNBC's Scarborough Country that there is "more oil offshore in America than there is in Saudi Arabia." In fact, according to the U.S. government, Saudi Arabia has more oil resources than the entire United States, not just "offshore" -- up to 10 times more, according to one assessment.

According to the Energy Information Administration (EIA), a statistical agency of the U.S. Department of Energy, the United States has between 21.4 and 29.3 billion barrels of proved oil reserves, while Saudi Arabia possesses between 262.1 and 266.8 billion barrels of proved oil reserves. "Proved oil reserves" are defined by the EIA as "estimated quantities that analysis of geologic and engineering data demonstrates with reasonable certainty are recoverable under existing economic and operating conditions."

A U.S. Geological Survey analysis, which uses a different methodology to assess the "ultimate oil resources" available to each country, found that the United States has up to 255.2 billion barrels, while Saudi Arabia has up to 374.2 barrels.

Stephen Moore is also a financial columnist at National Review Online, a former senior fellow at the Cato Institute, the founder and former president of the pro-Republican Club for Growth, and former president of the conservative Free Enterprise Fund. Media Matters for America has identified other false and misleading claims made by Moore (here, here, and here).

From the March 14 edition of MSNBC's Scarborough Country:

MOORE: Now that the oil prices are high, they want to come back and say, "You know what? We want to take that [federal oil-drilling subsidy for oil companies] away from you." The contract has already been made. You can't break a contract 10 years after it was made. Now, the real problem is something that Pat [Buchanan, MSNBC political analyst] said. I just want to repeat this. We cannot drill any new oil in the United States because of all of the environmental regulations. Congress won't allow us to drill in Alaska. They won't allow us to drill offshore. Joe, we have more oil offshore in America than there is in Saudi Arabia. We just can't get at it.

Categories: News
14:56

On the March 16 edition of NBC's Today, co-host Matt Lauer asked NBC News Washington bureau chief Tim Russert if President Bush's record-low approval numbers -- as reported in a new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll -- are "in some ways a blessing in disguise for Republicans" heading into the 2006 congressional elections. Lauer reasoned that Republicans might benefit from Bush's dismal poll numbers "[b]ecause, basically, they can look and say, 'Look, I don't have a popular president here. I can turn my back on that president, or even oppose that president going into these elections and stem the tide of this voter anger.' "

The March 10-13 poll Lauer and Russert discussed showed a 37 percent job approval rating for Bush, compared to 58 percent disapproval. Twenty-six percent of respondents said they felt the country was "[h]eaded in the right direction," compared with 62 percent who said the country was "[o]ff on the wrong track." Additionally, 26 percent of respondents said they felt that "Bush is facing a short-term setback from which things are likely to get better for him," compared to 58 percent who said they felt that "he is facing a longer-term setback from which things are unlikely to get better for him" and 11 percent who said they felt that "he is not facing a setback at this time."

As a March 15 NBC News online article noted, these numbers represent "the lowest job approval rating of [Bush's] presidency [and] the lowest percentage of Americans who believe the country is headed in the right direction."

From the March 16 edition of NBC's Today:

LAUER: Thirty-seven percent job approval rating is dismal for the president, but you know what, Tim? I was struck even more, as we see that number, by the question of "Do you think this country is moving in the right direction?" And only 26 percent of the people -- one in four, basically -- say yes to that question.

RUSSERT: And 62 percent say "wrong track -- wrong direction." That is a very important question to pollsters, Matt, because it detects the mood of the country as they look at this presidency, and it's very dismal news for George W. Bush.

LAUER: And if you look at this presidency with three years to go, and you ask people, "Do you think the problems the president has had in the last couple of months" -- and I guess you'd break that down to the ports deal and Iraq -- "are they short-term problems or long-term problems?" A lot of people -- 58 percent -- say, "These are long-term problems."

RUSSERT: That are going to confront this president. Almost systemic, Matt.

[...]

LAUER: These approval numbers, Tim, are they in some ways a blessing in disguise for Republicans in these midterm elections? Because, basically, they can look and say, "Look, I don't have a popular president here. I can turn my back on that president, or even oppose that president going into these elections and stem the tide of this voter anger."

RUSSERT: It's pretty tough to do, Matt, because they are in lockstep with the president on so many issues.

LAUER: But they've shown their disputes in the last couple of weeks.

RUSSERT: They have. They separated themselves on the ports issue. But on the primary issue driving these numbers, driving this midterm election -- Iraq -- it's the situation on the ground, and not what's discussed in Washington.

Categories: News
14:56

During the "All Star Panel" segment on the March 14 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume, Roll Call executive editor Morton. M. Kondracke falsely claimed that "depending on who you listen to," it will take Iran "between six months and two years" to produce "the material that they need for a nuclear weapon." In fact, many estimates -- including those within the U.S. Intelligence Community -- suggest that it could take Iran significantly longer to develop a nuclear weapon.

The New York Times reported on March 5 that "[e]stimates of just when Iran might acquire a nuclear weapon range from alarmist views of only a few months to roughly 15 years." The Times further reported that "American intelligence agencies say it will take 5 to 10 years for Iran to manufacture the fuel for its first atomic bomb."

During a February 2 Senate Intelligence Committee hearing, committee chairman Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS) stated: "The intelligence community assesses that ... Iran, if it continues on its current path -- and we hope we could see some action by the [United Nations] Security Council and others working on this -- but they will likely have the capability to produce a nuclear weapon within the next decade." Roberts repeated this assessment in a March 1 op-ed in The Hill.

In an August 2, 2005, article, The Washington Post reported that a recently completed National Intelligence Estimate -- representing a "consensus among U.S. intelligence agencies" -- "projected that Iran is about a decade away from manufacturing the key ingredient for a nuclear weapon."

In a January 12 issue brief on Iran's nuclear program, David Albright and Corey Hinderstein of the Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS) stated that "Iran could have its first nuclear weapon in 2009." They noted, however, that "[t]his result reflects a worst case assessment, and thus is highly uncertain." Albright and Hinderstein added that intelligence community analysts believe that Iran will not develop a nuclear weapon by 2009 because of the likelihood that Iran will encounter significant "technical difficulties":

Given another year to make enough HEU [highly enriched uranium] for a nuclear weapon and a few more months to convert the uranium into weapon components, Iran could have its first nuclear weapon in 2009. By this time, Iran is assessed to have had sufficient time to prepare the other components of a nuclear weapon, although the weapon may not be deliverable by a ballistic missile.

This result reflects a worst case assessment, and thus is highly uncertain. Though some analysts at the IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency] believe that Iran could assemble centrifuges quicker, other analysts, including those in the US intelligence community, appear to believe that a date of 2009 would be overly optimistic. They believe that Iran is likely to encounter technical difficulties that would significantly delay bringing a centrifuge plant into operation. Factors causing delay include Iran having trouble making so many centrifuges in that time period or it taking longer than expected to overcome difficulties in operating the cascades or building a centrifuge plant.

On March 9, retired Lt. Gen. Moshe Ya'alon, former chief of staff of the Israeli Defense Forces, spoke at the Hudson Institute about the possibility of an Israeli military strike against Iran's nuclear program. According to a March 10 article by French news agency Agence France Presse, Ya'alon "maintained that in six to 18 months Tehran would have the knowledge to produce nuclear weapons, and within three to five years it would have such weaponry if its plans went unchecked."

From the March 14 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume:

KONDRACKE: And -- and let the thing go through and then, you'd be on your way to sanctions. And there -- there is a potential that sanctions -- as I've said before -- that if the Europeans really don't invest in the Iranian oil facilities that it could cause them some trouble because they do need that foreign investment. But, you know, the question is how far -- how long does it take for the Iranians to get the material that they need for a nuclear weapon? And it varies depending on who you listen to -- between six months and two years. And that's the short time.

Categories: News
14:56

On the March 15 edition of MSNBC's Countdown, host Keith Olbermann awarded nationally syndicated radio host Rush Limbaugh first place in his daily "Worst Person in the World" segment for Limbaugh's March 13 reference to married journalists Jay Carney and Claire Shipman as "slave master and ... husband." As Media Matters for America documented, Limbaugh, during the March 13 broadcast of his radio show, initially referred to Carney and Shipman as "slave owner and husband," before thinking better of it and changing "slave owner" to "slave master."

From the March 15 edition of MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann:

OLBERMANN: But tonight's winner -- comedian Rush Limbaugh! Another friendly word from the master of courteous political debate. Referring to our former colleague Claire Shipman, now an ABC News correspondent, and her husband Jay Carney, the deputy Washington bureau chief of Time magazine, quote: "Claire Shipman and Jay Carney are, uh, slave owner and husband. Well, husband and wife, if you prefer that, and, and slave master. I take it back, slave master, not slave owner. Slave master and wife!" Unquote. Uh, yeah, pharmacy? I'd like to order some refills for Mr. Limbaugh. Rush Limbaugh, today's Worst Person in the World.

Categories: News
14:56

On the March 14 edition of C-SPAN's Washington Journal, Washington Examiner senior White House correspondent Bill Sammon falsely claimed that the U.S. Supreme Court halted the Florida recount in the 2000 presidential election by a 7-2 margin; and that a study of the 2000 presidential vote in Florida, commissioned by a consortium of major media outlets, "concluded essentially that [George W.] Bush would have won even if the Supreme Court hadn't stopped the counting."

Hosted by Peter Slen, the broadcast featured Sammon and David Boaz, executive vice president of the Cato Institute, discussing the state of the Republican Party in light of President Bush's low approval ratings and the failed deal for control of shipping terminals at six U.S. seaports by Dubai Ports World (DPW). During the discussion, a caller questioned the results of the 2000 presidential election in which the Supreme Court issued a decision on December 12, 2000, reversing the Florida Supreme Court and stopping the recount of ballots in that state, thus allowing Bush, then governor of Texas, to narrowly defeat then-Vice President Al Gore in that state.

Sammon told the caller that "there's this sort of lingering myth ... that somehow the Supreme Court, in a narrowly divided decision, stopped the counting and thereby handed the election to George W. Bush" and claimed falsely that the Supreme Court decided the case of Bush v. Gore by a vote of 7-2. In fact, while the court issued a per curiam opinion in which the individual vote breakdown was not given, a review of the separate opinions written or joined by individual justices indicates that five voted to stop the recount and four voted to let it go forward. Slen did not challenge Sammon's assertion.

Sammon's claim that the court decided the case 7-2 was a reference to opinions by two of the dissenting justices -- David H. Souter and Stephen G. Breyer -- agreeing with the majority that the recount as ordered by the Florida Supreme Court violated the Equal Protection Clause. But, contrary to Sammon's claim, their position was not that the recount should be halted, but that the case should be remanded to the state court to correct the constitutional infirmity.

Sammon's assertion of a Bush victory in a model recount conducted by mainstream media outlets was similarly misleading. Apparently referring to a study conducted by the University of Chicago's National Opinion Research Center (NORC) -- organized by a consortium that included The Washington Post, The New York Times, CNN, the Associated Press, the Tribune Co. (publisher of the Chicago Tribune and the Orlando Sentinel), and The Wall Street Journal -- Sammon misrepresented the results. The NORC researchers "examined all ballots that were initially rejected by voting machines" and then applied "different standards for determining voter intent and tallied results based on several scenarios that sought to approximate conditions on the ground in Florida."

Contrary to Sammon's claim that the media recounts "all concluded" that Bush would have emerged victorious, different recount scenarios yielded different winners, as Media Matters for America has previously documented. According to the Post, when the recount tallied ballots in which "at least one corner of a chad was detached from punch-card ballots," Gore won Florida by 60 votes. "[U]nder the least-restrictive standard for interpreting voter intent, which counted all dimpled chads and any discernible optical mark (which in the case of optical ballots Florida's new election law now requires to be counted as votes)," the Post reported, "Gore had 107 more votes." One recount with a "more restrictive interpretation of what constitutes a valid mark on optical scan ballots" -- and in which chads had to be "fully punched" -- saw Gore win by 115 votes. And a recount that replicated "the standards established by each of the counties in their recounts" gave Gore 171 more votes than Bush.

From the March 14 edition of C-SPAN's Washington Journal:

SAMMON: President Bush won the state of Florida in 2000 by 537 votes. There were many recounts that were instituted by Al Gore. At some point, the Supreme Court got involved, and there's this sort of lingering myth to this day that somehow the Supreme Court, in a narrowly divided decision, you know, stopped the counting and thereby handed the election to George W. Bush. First of all, it was a 7-to-2 decision. Secondly, even the press, which cites this continuously -- for example, The New York Times led a consortium of mainstream media news outlets -- CNN, The Washington Post -- on what I call "the mother of all media recounts." There were many media recounts of the ballots after the Supreme Court stepped in, and they all concluded essentially that Bush would have won even if the Supreme Court hadn't stopped the counting. So, to continuously talk about how Bush stole the election and the Supreme Court handed him the election when the press itself -- which is certainly no fan of President Bush -- demonstrated that if you actually counted all the ballots, every which way you cut it, Bush would have won, I think, is silly.

Categories: News
14:56

In a March 15 entry on his ABC News weblog, Down and Dirty, ABC News correspondent Jake Tapper blasted "Awe-Inspiring, Soul-on-firing Democrats" for distancing themselves from Sen. Russ Feingold's (D-WI) resolution to censure President Bush over his warrantless domestic wiretapping program. Citing excerpts from a March 15 Washington Post column by Dana Milbank, which featured quotes from several Democratic senators who were asked to comment on Feingold's proposal, Tapper asked: "Is this what a majority party looks like to you?"

Tapper's ABC News online bio describes him as "an ABC News correspondent based in the network's Washington, D.C., bureau," not as a political commentator.

From Tapper's March 15 blog entry:

The Democrats!!! Those Awe-Inspiring, Soul-on-firing Democrats!!! With their courageous lion's faces and their pants held up by braces and their empty black briefcases!!! THE DEMOCRATS!!!

The inability of the opposition party to capitalize on one of the most horrible years President George W. Bush has even known is nothing short of remarkable.

Is this what a majority party looks like to you? The Washington Post's Dana Milbank paints a vivid sketch of Democratic Senators wanting to avoid answering questions about Sen. Russ Feingold's censure proposal:

"I haven't read it," demurred Barack Obama (Ill.).

"I just don't have enough information," protested Ben Nelson (Neb.). "I really can't right now," John Kerry (Mass.) said as he hurried past a knot of reporters -- an excuse that fell apart when Kerry was forced into an awkward wait as Capitol Police stopped an aide at the magnetometer.

Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) brushed past the press pack, shaking her head and waving her hand over her shoulder. When an errant food cart blocked her entrance to the meeting room, she tried to hide from reporters behind the 4-foot-11 Barbara Mikulski (Md.).

"Ask her after lunch," offered Clinton's spokesman, Philippe Reines. But Clinton, with most of her colleagues, fled the lunch out a back door as if escaping a fire.

[Sen. Charles E.] Schumer [D-NY] had no comment (someone please check the temperature in Hades). Feingold said he didn't understand why his fellow Dems were "coweing."

More later on an ABC News poll that shows that while very skepical of the war in Iraq more Americans think the Democrats lack a clear plan to win the war than think Bush does.

Categories: News
14:56

On the March 14 edition of MSNBC's Countdown, host Keith Olbermann awarded 700 Club host Pat Robertson runner-up in his daily "Worst Person in the World" segment for saying that "the goal of Islam ... is world domination." As Media Matters for America noted, Robertson's comments, made on the March 13 broadcast of Christian Broadcasting Network's (CBN) The 700 Club, were scrubbed from the CBN website "out of concerns they could be misinterpreted if taken out of context," according to a Robertson spokeswoman who was cited in a March 14 Associated Press report. Robertson also claimed that Muslims who protested controversial cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad were "satanic" and "crazed fanatics" who were "motivated by demonic power."

From the March 14 edition of MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann:

OLBERMANN: The runner-up, the televangelist Pat Robertson, again, telling his by-now-benumbed TV audience that, quote, "the goal of Islam, ladies and gentlemen, whether you like it or not, is world domination." He later clarified this by saying he only meant radical Islamist extremists. Details, schmetails, right, Pat?

Northwest Airlines beat out Robertson for the top spot after announcing that it would begin charging passengers extra for aisle seats.

Categories: News