Media Matters for America

Latest Media Matters for America items

URL

XML feed
http://mediamatters.org/

Last update

1 week 21 hours ago

March 16, 2006

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
14:56

In reporting on President Bush's March 14 remarks on the Medicare prescription drug program in Canandaigua, New York, The Washington Post and the Associated Press both uncritically repeated Bush's claim that 26 million senior citizens have voluntarily enrolled in the program. In fact, while there are approximately 26 million senior citizens enrolled in the program, the number of seniors who have voluntarily enrolled is about 5 million -- one-fifth of the number touted by Bush and repeated by the Post and the AP.

On March 13, Bush claimed: "Twenty-six million seniors so far have taken a look and said, I think it's worthwhile to sign up." As the weblog Think Progress noted in a March 14 entry, The Boston Globe reported on February 23 that there are actually far fewer voluntary participants:

Mike Leavitt, secretary of health and human services, said more than 25 million people were receiving benefits under the program, called Part D, and that millions more are signing up monthly.

But according to Medicare's own figures, the actual number of voluntary enrollees is much smaller, about 5 million. Some of the 20 million other participants cited by Leavitt were automatically enrolled in Part D on Jan. 1. Others are counted as Part D enrollees, even though they receive coverage from former employers, unions, or the government.

According to the Globe, those that were automatically enrolled in the Medicare prescription drug program already had some sort of prescription drug coverage, and that the "enrollment of about 5 million people who did not have drug coverage previously falls far short" of the program's initial goal.

Think Progress further noted that Bush and his subordinates have cited the 26 million number several times over the past month.

From the March 15 Washington Post article:

The widespread confusion created by the plan is now giving way to the plan's vision of lowering drug costs for senior citizens, Bush said. To date, 26 million senior citizens have signed up for the benefit. Not only has the benefit reduced drug costs for most enrollees, but federal costs for the plan are also running 20 percent lower than projected, he said.

From the March 15 Associated Press article:

But he said the program is providing 50 percent reductions in drug costs for the average elderly patient, and significantly higher savings for lower-income seniors. And he said the introduction of choice -- though bewildering at first -- is also helping the 26 million who have enrolled so far to benefit from higher quality.

Categories: News
14:56

A March 13 poll released by CBS News showed President Bush's approval rating at 34 percent, unchanged from CBS' previous poll released on February 28, despite a substantial increase in the number of Republicans polled relative to Democrats and independents. As Rolling Stone contributing editor Eric Boehlert noted on the Huffington Post weblog, despite "the nearly 30 percent increase in Republicans, [and] the 10 percent decrease in Democrats" in the new CBS poll, Bush's approval numbers "did not budge one inch." Upon the earlier poll's release, as Media Matters for America noted, conservative media figures attacked the poll's validity, arguing that CBS' sample included a higher percentage of Democrats than they contended accurately reflected the general population. Boehlert noted that the "silence from the Republican noise machine has been deafening" since the updated poll's release.

As Media Matters noted, conservatives launched unfounded attacks on the February 28 CBS poll, which showed that Bush's approval rating had sunk to the lowest of his presidency. Republican strategist Richard A. Galen observed in a column for the conservative Cybercast News Service that the adjusted percentages in the poll -- 37 percent Democrats and 28 percent Republicans -- did in fact reflect the proportion of Democrats and Republicans in the general population. And pollster Mark Blumenthal noted on the Mystery Pollster weblog that, even if the sample were weighted to make it more closely reflect previous CBS poll samples, the results would likely be similar because of Bush's low approval among independents. As Mystery Pollster has also noted, CBS weights its polls based on demographics, not political affiliation.

Now that CBS has released an updated poll showing that a roughly equal percentage of Democrats and Republicans produces the same approval rating for Bush, those same media figures who denounced the prior poll have yet to report on the newest results.* Below are their prior denunciations:

  • Rush Limbaugh, from the February 28 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show: "This is not representative of the -- of the population of the country in any way, shape, manner, or form. Nor is the fact that Bush has 34 percent. ... You just know that's not possible. It simply isn't possible." During the March 14 broadcast of his radio show, Limbaugh again referred to CBS' "bugged poll" showing a Bush approval rating of 34 percent.
  • Fox News host Sean Hannity, from the February 28 edition of Hannity & Colmes: "Look at, for example, you have these polls that came out today in CBS. And if you look at the headline, it says, "Bush lowest number in his presidency." The first thing we find out that nearly two to one they polled Democrats."
  • Fox News host Brit Hume, from February 28 edition of Special Report with Brit Hume: "Yes, there's good reason to be skeptical of this CBS poll. It's wildly oversampled Democrats, it appears, anyway."
  • Fox News host John Gibson, from the February 28 edition of The Big Story with John Gibson: "A new CBS News poll puts the president's job approval number at an all-time low, 34 percent. Of course, it's weighted with more Democrats, so you've got to take that into account."

* Search of Nexis transcripts for "Hume/Gibson/Hannity and Bush and poll"; "Hume/Gibson/Hannity and Bush and approval"

Categories: News
14:56

According the Think Progress weblog, Chris Matthews, host of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews and NBC's The Chris Matthews Show "has received tens of thousands of dollars in exchange for delivering speeches to corporate interest groups." As Think Progress noted, Matthews's collection of these fees "appear[s] to be in direct violation of NBC's policy prohibiting its employees from accepting such fees."

Think Progress reported that three trade associations -- The National Venture Capital Association (NVCA), The National Association of Chain Drug Stores (NACDS), and The American Hospital Association (AHA) -- "independently confirmed" that Matthews collected fees for speeches he gave at their meetings and that the NVCA confirmed that Matthews "received a [speaking] fee of approximately $35,000" for one speech he gave to the group. Think Progress also reported that "[i]n an email ... MSNBC President Rick Kaplan said information that Matthews was paid to speak to outside groups was '[t]otally untrue ... totally,' " adding that Kaplan "provided no evidence to support his claim."

A Media Matters for America review of the political contributions of the three trade associations' Political Action Committees (PACs) -- as reported in The Center for Responsive Politics' Open Secrets online database -- has revealed that in each election cycle since 1998, each PAC has given more money to Republicans than to Democrats. The Open Secrets database does not include information on the PACs' contributions prior to the 1998 election cycle.

The findings of the review include:

  • NVCA's PAC has given at least 64 percent of its political contributions to Republicans in every election cycle since 1998. So far during the 2006 election cycle, 65 percent of the PAC's donations have gone to Republicans.
  • NACDS's PAC has given at least 60 percent of its contributions to Republicans in every election cycle since 1998. So far during the 2006 election cycle, 88 percent of the group's donations have gone to Republicans.
  • AHA's PAC has given at least 52 percent of its contributions to Republicans in every election cycle since 1998. So far during the 2006 election cycle, 61 percent of the group's donations have gone to Republicans.

Additionally, a March 15 article in The Hill noted that NACDS president and CEO Craig Fuller "is a high-profile, veteran Republican lobbyist who worked in the White House under President Reagan and Vice President George H.W. Bush." According to the Hill article: "In addition to serving as Bush's chief of staff during his second term as vice president, Fuller co-directed his transition team when Bush won the presidency in 1988 and chaired the 1992 Republican National Convention. Before joining Bush's staff, Fuller worked under Reagan on the White House's Cabinet-affairs staff." The article also noted that although Fuller "has helmed [NACDS] since November 1999," a spokeswoman said on March 14 that he "has offered to resign after being notified of the board of directors' decision to make changes within the organization."

Categories: News
14:56

On the March 14 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews, host Chris Matthews again characterized Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) as "a maverick," adding that "everyone knows he's a solo fighter pilot out there." Matthews also asked Republican strategist Ed Rogers, who served as deputy assistant to former President George H.W. Bush and worked in the Reagan White House in the Office of Political Affairs, if Rogers's description of Republicans as "a pretty conservative lot, when it gets down to our ... activists and our workers," would "exclude John McCain." Media Matters for America has previously noted other examples (here and here), in which Matthews and his guests repeatedly characterized McCain as a "maverick," without providing any justification.

Matthews made his comments during a discussion of the March 9-12 Southern Republican Leadership Conference (SRLC), at which McCain expressed support for President Bush and asked attendees voting in a presidential straw poll to not vote for him but to cast ballots for Bush instead. Matthews's "solo fighter pilot" comment echoed a similar statement made by Cook Political Report editor and publisher Charlie Cook on the March 10 edition of Hardball. In response to Matthews asking if "Republicans don't trust McCain" because of his "lone-gunning," Cook remarked that "the Navy didn't put him in a single-seat fighter for nothing."

From the 7:00 p.m. ET hour of the March 10 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews:

MATTHEWS: During the 5 o'clock show, a couple of young people here said -- I said, "Well, if your guy [Senate Majority Leader Bill] Frist [R-TN] doesn't win, would you vote for McCain if he won the nomination?" "No."

COOK: Well, the thing is, this is a party that's despondent. Their president is not doing well. He's disappointed them a little bit. They want to be up about something. And the idea of the 2008 race, all these new contenders, they were getting up for something, and now someone snatches the ball away from them and, as you said a few minutes ago, throws it out of bounds. I mean, so it's a little, "Oh, gosh, why did he do that?" This was going to be fun. Why don't we look forward rather than backwards?

MATTHEWS: Is this, Charlie, why Republicans don't trust McCain?

COOK: Yeah. Yeah.

MATTHEWS: This lone-gunning.

COOK: Well, you know -- look, the Navy didn't put him in a single-seat fighter for nothing. I mean --

MATTHEWS: You are cruel.

From the March 14 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews, which featured CNBC and MSNBC business and political commentator Hilary Rosen:

MATTHEWS: What was interesting, Ed Rogers, and you're the Republican at this panel here, was that John McCain, who everyone knows is a maverick, and everyone knows he's a solo fighter pilot out there, was the biggest lovey-dovey there was there with the president [Bush did not actually attend the SRLC]. What's the peppermint twins all about here?

ROGERS: In case you didn't notice, that's the maverick position right now. I mean, for better or for worse, everybody running for president right now --

MATTHEWS: -- is running away from (inaudible) --

ROGERS: -- is trying to show their independence and trying to show that they're not just more of the same, but they have some sort of independent bearing and presence. McCain is probably the only person with the self-confidence to not have -- and the credibility to not have -- and the history to not have to do that.

MATTHEWS: You know, a nice big dog comes up against your side and rubs up against you, that's what he was doing this weekend with the president.

[...]

MATTHEWS: You know what I saw, Ed, that might concern Republicans? I saw a lot of fundamentalism on politics, hard line on abortion, hard line on gay rights, gay marriage, hard line on immigration, hard line on taxes. I heard a lot of fundamentalism down there that might exclude a lot of the "middle-of-the-roaders" and independents, even against [Sen.] Hillary [Rodham Clinton] [D-NY]. I mean, your party may be making the tent too small.

ROGERS: Chris, you have to have enough time with Republican primary precinct workers if that was -- if that was news to you, that we're a pretty conservative lot, when it gets down to our -- our activists and our workers, no question about it.

MATTHEWS: Does that exclude [former New York Mayor] Rudy [Giuliani], does that exclude John McCain?

ROGERS: I don't think it excludes anybody at this point in time. We've got about 10 months before a front-runner emerges, and so, we'll see.

Categories: News
14:56

On the March 13 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews, Chuck Todd, editor in chief of the National Journal's The Hotline weblog, asserted that, for Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), "right now, rallying around the president is the maverick thing to do." The next day, Republican strategist Ed Rogers, who served as deputy assistant to former President George H.W. Bush and worked in the Reagan White House in the Office of Political Affairs, also appeared on Hardball, echoing Todd's statement and host Chris Matthews's characterization of McCain as a "maverick." Rogers stated that McCain's self-alignment with President Bush is "the maverick position right now."

Todd made his comments in response to Matthews, who asked him to comment on McCain's urging of attendees at the March 9-12 Southern Republican Leadership Conference (SRLC) to vote for President Bush in the SRLC presidential straw poll sponsored by The Hotline and McCain's defense of the Bush administration's decision to allow a company owned by the government of Dubai to take over port operations in six U.S. cities. Todd cited an article in the March 13 issue of Newsweek magazine by chief political correspondent Howard Fineman that touted McCain's "maverick history" and "maverick's campaign," while noting that the " '08 strategy that [McCain] and his circle have decided to pursue" is to "build out their campaign with members of the Bush circle." Fineman's article quoted an unnamed "McCain strategist" who asked: "Is there a playbook for how to run as an insider and outsider, establishment and anti-establishment? ... If you find it, let me know."

Rogers also made his statements in response to a question by Matthews, who asked Rogers to comment on how "John McCain, who everyone knows is a maverick ... was the biggest lovey-dovey there [at the SRLC] with the president." Rogers stated: "In case you didn't notice, that's the maverick position right now." He added that "everybody running for president right now ... is trying to show their independence" from Bush, but "McCain is probably the only person with the self-confidence ... and the credibility ... and the history to not have to do that."

From the March 13 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews:

MATTHEWS: But what is he [McCain] up to? He's almost the peppermint twins now with the president. He defends him on the Dubai ports. Nobody defends him. He defended him this weekend to the point of saying, "Vote for him not me." What's all this sacrificial "I love Bush" about?

TODD: Well, you know, it's interesting, and it was something that Howard Fineman put in his Newsweek piece that was on MSNBC.com. And it was from a McCain strategist talking about how hard it is to try to figure out how McCain is trying to be both a front-runner and an insurgent still, right?

Still sort of keep his maverick image while still trying to be -- also create the aura of inevitability and be a front-runner. He's never been a front-runner before. He was always the insurgent. So, right now, rallying around the president is the maverick thing to do.

From the March 14 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews, which featured CNBC and MSNBC business and political commentator Hilary Rosen:

MATTHEWS: What was interesting, Ed Rogers, and you're the Republican at this panel here, was that John McCain, who everyone knows is a maverick, and everyone knows he's a solo fighter pilot out there, was the biggest lovey-dovey there was there with the president [Bush did not actually attend the SRLC]. What's the peppermint twins all about here?

ROGERS: In case you didn't notice, that's the maverick position right now. I mean, for better or for worse, everybody running for president right now --

MATTHEWS: -- is running away from (inaudible) --

ROGERS: -- is trying to show their independence and trying to show that they're not just more of the same, but they have some sort of independent bearing and presence. McCain is probably the only person with the self-confidence to not have -- and the credibility to not have -- and the history to not have to do that.

MATTHEWS: You know, a nice big dog comes up against your side and rubs up against you, that's what he was doing this weekend with the president.

Categories: News
14:56

In the lead paragraph of a March 15 article, New York Times staff writers David D. Kirkpatrick and Patrick Healy reported that the Bush administration had recently challenged plans put forth by "Republican lawmakers" to reform the review process for foreign investment. But they noted later in the article that Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (D-CT) has backed such a proposal, contradicting their initial characterization of these efforts as exclusively Republican.

Kirkpatrick and Healy's article concerned the current debate between Congress and the Bush administration over the Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States (CFIUS), the interagency panel charged with reviewing foreign acquisitions of U.S. assets. CFIUS has come under increased scrutiny since its January approval of a deal to transfer terminal operations at six U.S. ports to a company owned by the government of Dubai, a member state of the United Arab Emirates (UAE). Lawmakers from both parties criticized the panel for failing to conduct a full investigation of the state-owned company, despite what many described as the UAE's mixed record on terrorism. Several lawmakers have since proposed various measures to overhaul or replace CFIUS in order to ensure that security concerns are not overlooked in favor of encouraging foreign investment. CFIUS is currently controlled by the Treasury Department. In a March 14 speech, Treasury Secretary John W. Snow said that the administration is willing to discuss reform but defended the CFIUS process, stating that "national security is our only priority."

In the lead paragraph of the article, "Bush Official Calls Review for Deals Adequate," Kirkpatrick and Healy wrote that the administration had "pushed back ... against Republican lawmakers' plans to change the review process for foreign acquisitions." But it is not only "Republican lawmakers" who have put forth such proposals, as Kirkpatrick and Healy later noted:

On Monday, Senator Susan Collins, Republican of Maine and chairwoman of the Senate homeland security committee, and Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut, the ranking Democrat on the committee, introduced legislation to replace the existing review committee with a new committee that would be headed by the secretary of homeland security and include a special role for the director of national intelligence.

Indeed, while Collins is the primary sponsor of the bill -- and Lieberman a co-sponsor -- they jointly proposed the legislation. Moreover, Collins said in a March 14 floor statement that Sen. Daniel Akaka (D-HI) had also signed on as a co-sponsor.

Categories: News
14:56

On the March 14 broadcast of the Christian Broadcasting Network's (CBN) The 700 Club, news anchor Lee Webb and host Pat Robertson asserted that recent public opinion polls indicating that the majority of Americans believe that Iraq is "heading for civil war" show that Americans "don't have a clue." Commenting on how "the so-called mainstream media is playing up these polls that show the majority of Americans believe that Iraq is heading for civil war," Webb added: "I'm not sure if the rank-and-file American is an expert on whether civil war is going to happen there." Agreeing, Robertson twice stated of the American public: "They don't have a clue." In fact, far from not "hav[ing] a clue," American public opinion is in line with numerous military and Middle East experts who agree that Iraq is either in a civil war or on the brink of one.

Several recent public opinion polls, to which Webb and Robertson were apparently referring, indicate a majority of Americans believe Iraq is nearing civil war. For instance, a CBS News poll conducted March 9-12 found that 71 percent of respondents felt that right now, "there is a civil war going on in Iraq among different groups of Iraqis." Similarly, an Associated Press/Ipsos poll conducted March 6-8 reported that 77 percent of those surveyed believed it was likely that "civil war will break out in Iraq," and a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll (subscription required) conducted February 28-March 2 found that 73 percent believed "major civil war involving ethnic or religious groups in Iraq" was likely to occur within the next year.

While Pentagon officials have denied that Iraq is in civil war, Army General John P. Abizaid, the top U.S. commander in the Middle East, testified before the Senate Appropriations Committee on March 9 that "[t]here's no doubt that the sectarian tensions are higher than we've seen," and added that "sectarian violence is a greater concern for us security-wise right now than the insurgency."

But numerous military and regional experts have joined the American public in assessing that Iraq is on the verge of a civil war; some have even gone a step beyond, asserting that Iraq is already engaged in civil war. ABC News reported on March 5 that, despite Pentagon officials' "optimistic assessments that the sectarian violence in Iraq had dissipated," other military experts contended that the "Sunni and Shiite groups in Iraq already are engaged in a civil war, and that the Iraqi government and U.S. military had better accept that fact and adapt accordingly." For example, retired Army Maj. Gen. William L. Nash, a former military commander in Bosnia-Herzegovina, told ABC that Iraq is "in a civil war now" but that "[t]he failure to understand that the civil war is already taking place...means that our counter measures are inadequate and therefore dangerous to our long-term interest." Anthony H. Cordesman, holder of the Arleigh A. Burke Chair of Strategy at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, told ABC: "If you talk to U.S. intelligence officers and military people privately, they'd say we've been involved in low level civil war with very slowly increasing intensity since the transfer of power in June 2004."

According to a March 12 report in the San Francisco Chronicle, Larry Diamond, Hoover Institute senior fellow and former senior advisor to the Coalition Provisional Authority in Baghdad, declared: "In academic terms, this is a civil war, and it's not even a small one." Further, a March 12 Newsday reported that W. Patrick Lang, the Pentagon's former top Middle East intelligence official under presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, said: "It's just political rhetoric to say we are not in a civil war. We've been in a civil war for a long time." The report continued, noting:

Other experts said Iraq is on the verge of a full-scale civil war with civilians on both sides being slaughtered. Incidents in the past two weeks south of Baghdad, with apparently retaliatory killings of Sunni and Shia civilians, point in that direction, they say.

New York University law professor Noah Feldman reportedly told Newsday, "I think we are really on the edge" of civil war in Iraq. Stating that the insurgent violence was "getting stronger every passing day," Feldman also claimed, "[w]hen the violence recedes, it is a sign that they are regrouping." Feldman formerly served as a senior adviser to the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq and helped draft Iraq's constitution.

From the March 14 broadcast of CBN's The 700 Club:

WEBB: Pat, have you noticed the so-called mainstream media are playing up these polls that show a majority of Americans believe Iraq's headed for a civil war? I mean, they're interesting surveys, but I'm not sure if the rank-and-file American is the expert on whether civil war is going to happen there.

ROBERTSON: They don't have a clue. But I do remind you, Lee, that some years ago, as we were thinking about this, I had grave misgivings in my heart about this whole endeavor, and I still do. But I do believe by summer, like it or not, we're gonna start pulling troops out of that place because we're coming into an election, and the president is going to be forced to do it. And, we don't cut and run, but at the same time, we've got to send a message to those Iraqis, like, "Fellas, you get yourself a government and get your troops in order, and it's your country, and you run it." And we just can't stay there forever, and I believe the American people are going to say, "We want at least some of our troops home." I think the British populace is saying the same thing.

Although you're exactly right, Lee. The American people take a poll of what's going to be civil war. They don't have a clue. But nevertheless, the insurgents are giving trouble. But what's going to happen, and the danger is, is that Iran with the Shiite majority will be linking up -- they're already sending agents in the border to Iran. They probably control the area around Basra -- that's now an Iranian territory. And little by little, the majority Shiites will turn the screws on the Sunnis. Unless they will be willing to give the Sunnis a decent shot at the key positions in the government and a fair shake of the oil revenues -- if they'll do that, they'll probably have some peace. If they won't do it, then it's going to be a civil war. And who knows whether the United States needs to stay in it to, you know -- you can't win a civil war of that nature, a religious insurgency, with the kind of modern troops we have. Lee?

Categories: News
14:56

Washington Times editorial page editor Tony Blankley, in his March 15 Times column, claimed: "It is odd that the same senators who believe in water torture for the president of the United States vigorously oppose similar water-related interrogation techniques when used on captured enemy terrorists." Blankley contrasted the actions of Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI), who he claimed "jumped the [Democratic] que [sic]" on March 13 by introducing a resolution to censure President Bush over his authorization of warrantless domestic surveillance, with those of "more seasoned, team-playing Democrats," who he said want to "use the old Chinese water torture on the president" and "drag[] out the agony for months and months." Blankley added: "But then I suppose the president is not covered by what [right-wing radio host] Michael Savage calls the Democratic Party's 'Terrorist Bill of Rights.' " Absent from Blankley's column was any distinction between the metaphorical "water torture" he claimed that Democrats want to use against Bush and the very real interrogation tactic known was "water boarding," whereby a prisoner is made to feel as though he is drowning.

From Blankley's March 15 Washington Times column:

[Senator] Russ Feingold [D-WI] is notoriously not a party man. This may play well in his conscience and in the countryside, but it is a non-starter in this two-team town. The Senate Democrats may well agree in principle that the president should be censured or keelhauled, or de-trousered or short-sheeted or inflicted with some other indignity.

But there is a long line of more senior Democrats who have been waiting patiently to get their licks in. Sen Feingold jumped the que [sic] -- if not the shark. The more seasoned, team-playing Democrats want to use the old Chinese water torture on the president -- dragging out the agony for months and months. Or, as they call it in Washington, the issue "would spark a worthwhile debate."

It is odd that the same senators who believe in water torture for the president of the United States vigorously oppose similar water-related interrogation techniques when used on captured enemy terrorists. But then I suppose the president is not covered by what Michael Savage calls the Democratic Party's "Terrorist Bill of Rights."

Categories: News
14:56

In a March 14 article by staff writer Alexander Bolton, The Hill made a poorly substantiated claim that "tax experts" believe that Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), a nonprofit government ethics watchdog group, may have violated Internal Revenue Service (IRS) regulations governing nonprofit organizations by filing ethics complaints with the Justice Department and Federal Elections Commission against mostly Republican members of Congress, including former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX) and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN). In fact, Bolton's article quoted a total of three "experts" -- including one who demonstrated inaccurate knowledge of the issue and another who acknowledged not knowing enough about CREW's conduct to render a definitive opinion. Only one of the three, a professor at an Ohio law school,who said he thought there could be a "good case" against CREW, hedged those comments, saying "at least preliminarily." The Hill is a Washington-based newspaper that covers Congress.

The headline of the article -- "Watchdog's tax status, politics are questioned" -- gives no hint of the partisan nature of those asking the questions; the report appears based only on statements by National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) spokesperson Brian Nick, who told The Hill that Republican lawmakers are "weighing ... options" for a such complaint.

CREW is classified by the IRS as a 501(c)(3) organization, meaning contributions to it are tax-deductible. Although the IRS released new procedures for the 2006 election cycle governing nonprofit organizations, to date, CREW has not been identified by the IRS as the subject of any scrutiny. Nonetheless, the Hill article suggested that, by filing ethics complaints with the Justice Department and Congressional ethics committees, CREW may have violated a prohibition on 501(c)(3) organizations engaging in activity that aims to influence the outcome of federal elections.

Bolton's article quoted three people to support the premise that CREW may have violated that prohibition, two of whom either acknowledged not knowing enough about the case to render a judgment about it or demonstrated that they did not know enough about the case by getting the basic facts of the case wrong.

Rosemary Fei, a lawyer at the San Francisco law firm Silk, Adler & Colvin, acknowledged in the article that the IRS would have to investigate "all the facts and the circumstances" before determining whether CREW violated the prohibition against influencing elections. And Miriam Galston, co-chairwoman of the American Bar Association's political and lobbying subcommittee on tax-exempt organizations and a professor at George Washington University Law School, told The Hill, "the fact that they [the ethics complaints filed by CREW] are all on one side could create the foundation for a claim like that [of the NRSC]." However, that assertion is refuted by Bolton's own reporting, which shows that CREW has filed ethics complaint against members of both parties, and listed Democrats and Republicans among the "13 Most Corrupt in Congress" in 2005.

The third "tax expert," Richard J. Wood, said in the article that the NRSC "is probably right" to believe that CREW may be violating IRS regulations, reportedly citing a memo written by the IRS general counsel saying that a group's "long-term strategy can be used to determine that it is engaging in prohibited behavior," although neither he nor Bolton indicated any knowledge of CREW's "long-term strategy" or suggested how it could be used to determine that CREW "is engaging in prohibited behavior." Wood is a former employee of the IRS Office of Chief Counsel who is currently a law professor at Capital University in Columbus, Ohio, which according to its website is the largest university affiliated with the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America.

CREW executive director Melanie Sloan is also quoted in the article pointing out that CREW's complaints are "solidly grounded," given that several of the lawmakers that the organization has targeted have either been indicted (as in the case of DeLay and Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham (R-CA)), are widely expected to be (as in the case of Rep. Bob Ney (R-OH)), or are still under investigation (as in the cast of Frist).

On the day The Hill published the article, Fox News anchor Brit Hume repeated the article's claims on Special Report with Brit Hume, using its thinly supported premise to state that "an advocacy group that claims to be a nonpartisan ethics watchdog here in Washington could soon be in serious trouble with IRS." He then repeated the charge that the majority of CREW's ethics complaints have been filed against Republicans, and quoted Sloan's defense of the organization, noting that she is "a regular guest on the left-wing network Air America."

From the March 14 edition of The Hill:

Tax experts say the activities of a controversial government watchdog group that has publicized four ethics complaints against Republican lawmakers since the beginning of this year raise red flags at a time when the IRS has renewed its focus on the political activities of tax-exempt groups.

In the past few weeks, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) has filed complaints with the Senate and House ethics panels against Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) and Rep. Sam Johnson (R-Texas). It has filed more ethics complaints against congressional lawmakers than any other prominent advocacy group in the past two years.

[...]

Republican Party officials say they are weighing a tax complaint against CREW for engaging in partisan activity.

[...]

Since its inception, CREW has prepared ethics complaints against or demanded probes by the ethics panels or the Justice Department of 12 sitting Republican lawmakers: Frist, Santorum, Sen. Ted Stevens (Alaska), Sen. Richard Shelby (Ala.), Sen. Saxby Chambliss (Ga.), Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.), Rep. Bob Ney (Ohio), Rep. Marilyn Musgrave (Colo.), Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham (Calif.), House Appropriations Committee Chairman Jerry Lewis (Calif.), House Majority Whip Roy Blunt (Mo.) and Johnson.

In addition, the group has filed Federal Election Commission (FEC) complaints against Frist, House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.), the leadership PAC of then-House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (Texas), then-Senate candidates Mel Martinez and Alan Keys, both Republicans, and the Bush 2004 presidential campaign.

Republican Party officials say that CREW's activities violate regulations for tax-exempt organizations and that they are weighing filing a complaint with the IRS.

"It's certainly a possibility. We're weighing our options on that," said Brian Nick, spokesman for the National Republican Senatorial Committee.

Tax experts say that CREW's seemingly lopsided focus on Republicans will raise flags at the IRS, but they caution that determining violations of tax status so depends on the specific facts and circumstances of each case that it is impossible to predict how the IRS will act.

"At least preliminarily, I think they have a good case," said former IRS official Richard J. Wood, referring to the concerns of Republican officials. "It looks to me that they're probably right."

Wood is a professor at Capital University Law School, teaching about tax issues and business associations. He worked at the IRS from 1980 to 1990.

He cited the legal case pitting the New York City Bar against the IRS in which a court found that the bar violated its tax-exempt status by rating the qualifications of judicial candidates facing election. He also cited a memo from the IRS general counsel, GCM 39811, which states that even if a group does not intervene in the election of a candidate its long-term strategy can be used to determine that it is engaging in prohibited behavior.

Rosemary Fei, who represents tax-exempt and nonprofit groups as a lawyer with Silk, Adler & Colvin, said that the apparent one-sidedness of CREW's activities raises concerns but that it is impossible to know how the IRS would act without knowing all the facts and circumstances of the group's activities.

"If I were at the IRS, the imbalance in complaints would certainly cause me concern about whether the organization might have violated the political-intervention prohibition, but on the other hand that prohibition is based on an evaluation by the IRS of all the facts and the circumstances," she said. "While a single fact like this looks pretty bad, the IRS would need to investigate to see if the charity had legitimate public-policy or public-education or civic duties in mind when it brought these complaints."

But Sloan said she has criticized Democrats, including Reps. Neil Abercrombie (Hawaii) and Norm Dicks (Wash.), for ethically questionable conduct -- in quotes appearing in Capitol Hill publications, in The American Prospect magazine, and in the Los Angeles Times. She also noted that her group included two Democrats, Reps. William Jefferson (La.) and Maxine Waters (Calif.), on its list of the 13 most corrupt members of Congress, released last year. The list included 11 Republicans.

Sloan said that CREW's ethics complaints are solidly grounded. She noted that Cunningham recently pleaded guilty to accepting bribes, that DeLay was indicted in Texas in a campaign-finance investigation and that the Justice Department is widely expected to indict Ney in the near future. She also said that Frist, the target of a complaint CREW filed with the FEC, is struggling to resolve with the agency questions about his fundraising activity.

[...]

Miriam Galston, an associate professor at George Washington University Law School and the co-chairwoman of the American Bar Association's political and lobbying subcommittee on tax-exempt organizations, said that the IRS would likely look at how an organization handles its drafted complaints.

"Filing those complaints would not constitute, taken by themselves, intervening in a political campaign," Galston said. "If they went further and publicized the list and publicly tried to make some political mileage out of fact of the allegation and tried to sully campaign prospects using their own complaints, they could be said to be intervening in a political campaign."

Galston said that a group could be found to be engaging in improper political activity even if an election is not on the horizon.

"You could easily see that any kind of good-citizen or civic group would want to file complaints, but the fact that they are all on one side could create the foundation for a claim like that," she said.

CREW has publicized its complaints against Republican lawmakers on its website and through press releases.

Sloan said that she has filed complaints almost exclusively against Republicans because they control both branches of Congress and the White House and, as a result, are more likely to be the recipients of corrupting gifts and contributions.

"Republicans are the ones in power," she said. "You're stupid to pay off a Democrat. They can't do a whole lot for you."

Sloan also pointed out that CREW signed a letter from the Congressional Ethics Coalition, a group formed in 2004 to reform the congressional ethics process, that called for the House ethics panel to investigate six lawmakers, including three Democrats: Reps. Jim McDermott (Wash.), Conyers and Jefferson. She did not cite an instance when CREW on its own drafted an ethics complaint against or called for an ethics or Justice Department investigation of a Democratic lawmaker other than Lincoln.

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

HUME: The Hill newspaper reports that an advocacy group that claims to be a nonpartisan ethics watchdog here in Washington could soon be in serious trouble with the IRS. Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, or CREW's, status as a tax-exempt group bars political activity, but The Hill found since its creation more than three years ago CREW has filed at least 20 complaints against Republican lawmakers, only one against a Democrat. Melanie Sloan, who runs CREW, disputes any claims that the group is biased and claims the current number of complaints against Republicans on the current balance of power in Congress, saying, quote, "You are stupid to pay off a Democrat. They can't do a whole lot for you." She, by the way, is a regular guest on the left-wing network Air America.

Disclosure: CREW deputy director & communications director Naomi Seligman was previously communications director at Media Matters for America.

Categories: News
14:56

On the March 13 edition of MSNBC's Hardball, host Chris Matthews suggested that if Republicans choose Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) as their 2008 presidential candidate, they will have "vote[d] for somebody who is not actually one of them." Matthews made his comments during a discussion with Chuck Todd -- editor in chief of National Journal's The Hotline weblog -- about the recent Southern Republican Leadership Conference (SRLC) in Memphis, Tennessee, which featured speeches by McCain and other Republican presidential hopefuls. Matthews asserted that the five issues he said "came out of" the meeting -- same-sex marriage, abortion, illegal immigration, taxes, and judicial nominees -- "aren't the issues he [McCain] talks about."

But while Matthews may be right that McCain did not talk about those issues in his SRLC speech -- he reportedly focused on his support for President's Bush's foreign policy and called for cuts in congressional spending -- he is wrong to suggest that McCain is out of the Republican mainstream on most of those issues. Indeed, on three of the five issues Matthews mentioned -- abortion, judicial nominees, and taxes -- McCain has recently taken positions that are very much in line with those of conservative Republicans.

  • Abortion

According to Matthews, the SRLC participants' position on abortion rights was "no abortion."

On February 28, McCain said through a spokesman, quoted by The Hotline (subscription required), that if McCain was governor of South Dakota, he "would have signed" South Dakota's recently passed law banning all abortions except in cases in which the mother's life is at stake. Doctors who violate the law could be sentenced to as many as five years in prison. In the statement, McCain's spokesman added that McCain "would also take the appropriate steps under state law -- in whatever state -- to ensure that the exceptions of rape, incest or life of the mother were included." But as Media Matters for America has noted, there were no "rape" or "incest" exceptions included in the bill that McCain would have signed, and McCain made no attempt to reconcile this apparent contradiction.

As The Washington Post noted on February 23, the South Dakota law that McCain supported "was designed to challenge" Roe v. Wade, the 1973 landmark Supreme Court decision that established the constitutional right to an abortion. The Post explained that the bill's "sponsors want to force a reexamination of the ruling by the court, which now includes two justices appointed by President Bush."

In a January 25 appearance on CBS' The Early Show, McCain told anchor Julie Chen that he had never supported Roe and suggested that it "wouldn't bother" him if abortion were banned:

CHEN: Do you think with him [Supreme Court Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr.] sitting on the bench, we're going to see this nation shift to the right on social issues? For example: abortion. Do you see it one day being banned?

McCAIN: I don't know. In his testimony, he intimated, as did [Chief] Justice [John] Roberts [Jr.], that they would not change the status quo. But I don't know the answer to that. I've never agreed with Roe v. Wade, so it wouldn't bother me any.

In 2003, McCain voted against an amendment to the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act (which McCain supported) expressing the sense of the Senate that "the decision of the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade ... was appropriate and secures an important constitutional right; and such decision should not be overturned."

In 2003-2004, McCain received an 82-percent rating from the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC). McCain's only two votes against the NRLC position came from his opposition to the Medicare Modernization Act, which was supported by NRLC but had nothing to do with abortion. (McCain received a 100-percent NRLC rating in 2005, but the rating included only one vote.) In those same years, McCain received a 0-percent rating from NARAL-Pro Choice America.

  • Judicial Appointments

According to Matthews, SRLC participants would support a candidate who would "keep appointing conservative justices."

On the July 21, 2005, edition of Hardball, McCain told Matthews that he is "to the right" on the spectrum of judicial selection politics because he "believe[s] that we should have judges that strictly interpret the Constitution of the United States." McCain added that "the American voter was very well aware of what kind of judge the president of the United States was going to appoint and they decided to re-elect him."

McCain voted to confirm both Roberts and Alito. In a January 25 floor statement announcing his decision to support Alito, McCain said that during the 2004 presidential campaign, Bush "stated plainly and often that, if given the opportunity, he would nominate conservative judges to the Supreme Court. True to his promise, the President nominated John Roberts to become the 18th Chief Justice of the United States. Just as true, he nominated Samuel Alito to serve as an Associate Justice of the Court." McCain added, "I was pleased that the President nominated Judge Alito."

On the May 15, 2005, edition of ABC's This Week, McCain told host George Stephanopoulos that he "wanted to see every one of George Bush's nominees confirmed":

McCAIN: I believe that as reasonable people as we have in the past in the Senate, we should sit down together and work this out. The Democrats never should have filibustered all of those judges that they did. It was an abuse of the filibuster. I think they recognize that. I think that that's why compromise is in the air. And I wanted to see every one of George Bush's nominees confirmed.

And in an article in the May 30, 2005, issue of The New Yorker magazine, Connie Bruck wrote that during McCain's campaign for the 2000 Republican presidential nomination, he privately assured Gary Bauer -- who had dropped out of the race -- that as president, he would nominate judges opposed to abortion rights:

McCain had hoped that South Carolina's large veteran population would help him win there; but the Christian Coalition, deeply entrenched in the state, became the decisive constituency. Somewhat surprisingly, McCain had the support of Gary Bauer, the social conservative, who had dropped out of the race by that time. "I wanted a commitment from either George Bush or John McCain that if elected he would appoint pro-life judges to the Supreme Court," Bauer told me. "Bush said he had no litmus test, and his judges would be strict constructionists. But McCain, in private, assured me he would appoint pro-life judges."

  • Taxes

According to Matthews, SRLC participants wanted a presidential nominee who would "keep cutting taxes."

McCain opposed many of Bush's first-term tax cuts. But in February, McCain voted to extend $70 billion worth of tax cuts -- including cuts in the dividends and capital gains taxes -- an action that New York Times columnist Paul Krugman wrote (subscription required) "will worsen the budget deficit while mainly benefiting people with very high incomes." In a February 27 article, Washington Times chief political correspondent Donald Lambro described McCain's support for tax cuts as "a move conservatives say is a political flip-flop intended to further his White House ambitions." Lambro quoted Americans for Tax Reform president Grover G. Norquist saying of McCain: "It's a big flip-flop, but I'm happy he's flopped."

From the March 13 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews:

MATTHEWS: And the question's: What comes out of it all? My feeling is issues came out of it, not winners and losers. And all I heard, Chuck, this weekend, were marriage, the sanctity of marriage -- male and female, no gay marriage; abortion -- no abortion; immigration -- lock it up, stop the illegal coming into this country; and keep cutting taxes; and keep appointing conservative justices. I'm not sure John McCain meets that bill in terms of passion.

TODD: Well, it doesn't and that's --

MATTHEWS: Those aren't the issues he talks about.

TODD: And that's why that the most important things for McCain are coming up in the future, and that is: Do the Republicans win or lose the 2006 elections? If they have a poor night in November 2006, John -- that's a good night for John McCain for president of 2008.

MATTHEWS: Why?

TODD: Because then Republicans are going to worry about electability. Suddenly, that's going to jump.

MATTHEWS: So, they are going to vote for somebody who is not actually one of them?

TODD: If that's the case. That's how George W. Bush was able to break away from the pack in '98.

Categories: News
14:56

In a front-page March 15 article on Sen. Russ Feingold's (D-WI) call to censure President Bush for "authoriz[ing] an illegal program to spy on American citizens on American soil," Washington Post staff writer Shailagh Murray reported that Feingold's fellow Democrats are "wary of polls showing that a majority of Americans side with the president on wiretapping tactics." In fact, polls consistently show that a majority of Americans disapprove of the wiretapping tactics the administration has used -- specifically, conducting surveillance without seeking or obtaining a warrant.

From Murray's March 15 Post article:

GOP leaders who had been reeling from the impact of Republican political scandals, an unpopular war and Bush's mishandling of the port-security issue sensed that Feingold overplayed his hand and denounced the censure resolution as a political stunt by an ambitious lawmaker positioning himself to run for president in 2008. Many Democrats, while sympathetic to Feingold's maneuver, appeared to be distancing themselves from his resolution yesterday, wary of polls showing that a majority of Americans side with the president on wiretapping tactics.

In fact, most polls show the opposite. A Quinnipiac University poll conducted February 21-28 found that while 79 percent of "American voters say the government should continue monitoring phone calls or e-mail between suspected terrorists in other countries and people in the U.S.," 55 percent say "that the government should get court orders for this surveillance." A CBS News poll conducted February 22-26 asked respondents: "Regardless of whether you approve of the President authorizing the wiretaps, do you think the President has the legal authority to authorize wiretaps without a court warrant in order to fight terrorism, or doesn't he?" Fifty-one percent said the president does not have the legal authority to do so. A CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll from February 9-12 reported that 50 percent of respondents believed the Bush administration was "wrong" to wiretap "conversations without a court order," while 47 percent said it was "right."

Murray appears to have conflated public approval of spying on suspected terrorists with approval of the means through which the Bush administration has conducted the eavesdropping. Approving of the surveillance and approving of the tactics are two very different things. As the polls show, one can believe the president should conduct surveillance on suspected terrorists and at the same time believe that he should obey the law in doing so.

Categories: News