Media Matters for America

On February 7, nationally syndicated radio host Rush Limbaugh said he "kind of like[s]" a caller's statement that Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) "is the Donovan McNabb of the U.S. Senate." The exchange followed Limbaugh's discussion of the recent dispute between Obama and Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) over lobbying reform and was an apparent reference to Limbaugh's controversial comments about McNabb, who plays quarterback in the National Football League for the Philadelphia Eagles.

In 2003, Limbaugh resigned from his job as an ESPN commentator after saying about McNabb:

LIMBAUGH: Sorry to say this, I don't think he's been that good from the get-go. I think what we've had here is a little social concern in the NFL. The media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well. There is a little hope invested in McNabb, and he got a lot of credit for the performance of this team that he didn't deserve. The defense carried this team.

Limbaugh frequently discusses the controversy surrounding his 2003 McNabb remarks -- most recently on his February 3 show.

On February 7, a caller told Limbaugh: "Barack Obama is the Donovan McNabb of the Senate. He's overrated, and he's going to get a free pass by the media. If you listen to him talk, nothing comes out of his mouth -- it's spin. He was on a show a couple of weeks ago. He just got back from Iraq. And they put this guy on a pedestal. He says nothing at the end of the day -- nothing at all. And he's the rising star."

Asked by Limbaugh, "Why do you think he's the rising star?," the caller responded: "Oh, they're putting him up because he's well spoken, he's well mannered, he gets in front of the camera, he has a presence, but he says nothing." The caller added: "He looks -- he's like a Bill Clinton, but just a different shade, that's all."

Limbaugh then stated: "I kind of like that analogy that he's the Donavan McNabb of the U.S. Senate ... in the sense that he is being propped up ... because they want to see him do well."

From the February 7 broadcast of The Rush Limbaugh Show:

CALLER: Well, I -- my point was, Barack Obama is the Donovan McNabb of the Senate. He's overrated, and he's going to get a free pass by the media. If you listen to him talk, nothing comes out of his mouth -- it's spin. He was on a show a couple of weeks ago. He just got back from Iraq. And they put this guy on a pedestal. He says nothing at the end of the day -- nothing at all. And he's the rising star.

LIMBAUGH: Well, the reason --

CALLER: And --

LIMBAUGH: Why do you think he's the rising star?

CALLER: Oh, they're putting him up because he's well spoken, he's well mannered, he gets in front of the camera, he has a presence, but he says nothing. He looks -- he's like a Bill Clinton, but just a different shade, that's all. And you know, you were right about [Sen. Joe] Lieberman [D-CT]. In this Connecticut area, there's a groundswell now with some local senators and representatives in his district saying, "Based on his stance on the war, let's not re-elect Joe Lieberman." So, if you're a Democrat, you go against it, so now Lieberman is, by his own party in Connecticut -- the groundswell is starting. But they'll put him -- Barack Obama -- on a pedestal.

LIMBAUGH: Yeah, well, I don't know. I kind of like that analogy that he is the Donavan McNabb of the U.S. Senate --

CALLER: Don't say too much about him, Rush.

LIMBAUGH: -- in the sense that he is being propped up. He's being --

CALLER: Oh, yeah.

LIMBAUGH: Yeah, because they want to see him do well. Well, they've already invested in -- I mean, you just heard [CNN senior political analyst] Bill Schneider. He's the star of the party. He's the star of the Democratic Party.

On the February 7 edition of CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight, congressional correspondent Ed Henry and senior political analyst Bill Schneider reported on the dispute over lobbying reform between Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) -- uncritically touting McCain's "years of work" on lobbying reform. Apparently purporting to read between the lines of a letter from McCain to Obama, Schneider said: "Who is this freshman pipsqueak to challenge McCain's years of work on his signature issue?" In a separate report, Henry stated: "McCain, who's long pushed reform, didn't take kindly to the lecture from a freshman [Obama]." Henry then played an audio clip of Stuart Rothenberg, editor and publisher of The Rothenberg Political Report, who asserted that the dispute could allow McCain to "reassert his ownership of the ethics issue."

McCain does indeed have a history of pushing for lobbying related reforms in the Senate, but he also has a different history that was not mentioned by the CNN commentators, aspects of which would presumably be of interest to viewers considering Schneider, Henry, and Rothenberg's seemingly unanimous view of McCain's "ownership of the ethics issue."

McCain, who chairs the Senate Indian Affairs Committee and has led its investigation into some of former Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff's activities, is perhaps best known for his sponsorship of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (often called McCain-Feingold) that banned "soft money" contributions to national political parties. In 1995, McCain sponsored a successful effort to amend Senate rules to bar senators from accepting gifts over $50 or privately funded travel to "recreational" events. McCain co-sponsored 1995 legislation to toughen disclosure requirements for congressional lobbyists. In 1996, McCain -- along with Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) -- tried unsuccessfully to lengthen the one-year time period during which former congressional staffers are prohibited from lobbying their former bosses and committees, and former members of Congress are prohibited from lobbying their colleagues. A September 5, 1996, article in Roll Call quoted McCain as saying the bill would "stop the revolving door and restrict former staff and Members from lobbying the Hill until after a decent cooling-off period elapses."

But McCain's career also includes a number of activities rarely mentioned by those touting McCain's reformer credentials.

McCain steered his Abramoff investigation away from fellow lawmakers

As Media Matters for America noted -- and, earlier, blogger Joshua Micah Marshall had noted -- McCain's own Senate investigation into Abramoff's activities avoided any examination into the possible culpability of his fellow lawmakers. According to an article (subscription required) in the March 10, 2005, issue of Roll Call, McCain "assured his colleagues that his expanding investigation into the activities of a former GOP lobbyist [Abramoff] and a half-dozen of his tribal casino clients is not directed at revealing ethically questionable actions by Members of Congress." According to Roll Call:

McCain's comments to Republicans, made at the weekly lunch of the GOP's Steering Committee, came on the same day a trio of stories landed in Washington newspapers raising questions about the legislative actions taken by two GOP Senators and political donations to an interest group established in 1997 by Interior Secretary Gale Norton.

Because of those stories - and several other news reports touching on Abramoff's relationship with Members - McCain said he wanted to let Senators know that he was not trying to air any of their dirty laundry.

[...]

His disclaimer came as two Senators involved in the latest round of Abramoff stories, Conrad Burns (R-Mont.) and David Vitter (R-La.), said they welcomed any investigation and promised to help McCain in any way.

In addition, the Center for Responsive Politics has documented that McCain received $5,000 in campaign contributions from the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians while Abramoff was the group's lobbyist. Although such contributions do not in themselves constitute wrongdoing, Media Matters has noted that Henry has previously highlighted tribal contributions made to Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND), the ranking Democrat on the Senate Indian Affairs Committee, while ignoring those made to McCain.

Senate Ethics Committee found McCain "exercised poor judgment" in Keating Five scandal

In 1990 and 1991, the Senate Ethics Committee investigated allegations that McCain -- along with four Democratic senators, together called the Keating Five -- had exerted improper influence when he met with federal bank regulators on behalf of developer Charles H. Keating Jr., a McCain campaign donor and the central figure in a $2 billion savings and loan failure. The committee ultimately exonerated McCain but found that he had "exercised poor judgment" in the scandal. As The New York Times explained in a November 21, 1999, article:

Senator McCain had taken $112,000 in Keating-related campaign donations, trips aboard Mr. Keating's corporate jet and family vacations at the executive's Bahamas hideaway. While legal, these gifts made his attendance at the meetings with federal regulators all the more questionable. (The other four senators had also taken large contributions from Mr. Keating, some of them far more than Mr. McCain.)

McCain's presidential campaign relied on lobbyist connections

During his campaign for the 2000 Republican presidential nomination, McCain relied heavily on the fundraising efforts of lobbyists connected with industries that McCain oversaw as chairman of the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee. On February 4, 2000, The Wall Street Journal reported that "the McCain campaign is crawling with lobbyists ... raising money for Mr. McCain's campaign, helping him formulate policies and representing well-heeled clients in Washington." The Journal added: "Of every $10 the McCain campaign raised last year, $1 came from the Washington area or from political action committees, a bigger ratio than that at the Bush, Gore or Bradley campaigns."

Though an April 28, 1999, Washington Post article noted that "McCain said in an interview ... that his public identification with the cause of campaign finance reform poses no conflict with the fund-raising assets of his chairmanship," the Post suggested that lobbyists saw no downside to supporting his presidential campaign: either McCain won, in which case he would be grateful for their support, or he continued as commerce committee chair, in which case he would be grateful for their support.

From the Post article:

To McCain's lobbyist backers, however, his chairmanship is the key to his appeal here under what one called "the Wilbur Mills rule" of presidential campaign giving.

Mills, the Ways and Means Committee chairman best known for his Tidal Basin dip with a stripper, waged a short-lived 1972 presidential campaign underwritten by lobbyists with business before him. Now, he's become Washington shorthand for the practice whereby "the highest-ranking member of Congress" running for president benefits -- whether front-runner, like Senate Majority Leader Robert J. Dole (R-Kan.) four years ago, or long shot, like McCain today.

"People like to give under the theory that no matter what happens, he's still chairman of the Commerce Committee," said J. Steven Hart, whose firm Williams & Jensen has represented clients such as Time Warner Inc. and Continental Airlines with interests before McCain's panel.

The Post article also described a $120,000 McCain fundraiser hosted by a number of industry lobbyists, including McCain's former legislative director, John W. Timmons:

Hart was one of more than a dozen Republican lobbyists who lent their names for a March 23 [1999] McCain fund-raiser at the downtown restaurant Red Sage. A dinner for the "host committee" followed the reception; the sea bass drew raves. Despite leaving early for a television appearance, McCain "talked to everybody and worked the room," said Mary E. McAuliffe, a former Commerce aide who is now head of Union Pacific's Washington office.

[...]

Among the lobbyist-hosts listed on the invitation was perhaps McCain's most prominent D.C. backer, former Reagan White House chief of staff Kenneth Duberstein, whose firm represents such Commerce-regulated businesses as United Airlines, Time Warner, Comsat, CSX and the National Cable Television Association.

Others hosting the event included John W. Timmons, McCain's former legislative director, now lobbying for Arizona-based America West Airlines; ex-representative Vin Weber (R-Minn.), a House GOP leadership insider who lobbies for Microsoft and other big-name clients; and Will Ball, president of the National Soft Drink Association. Former Republican National Committee chairman Haley Barbour, now a major lobbyist, serves on Bush's exploratory committee but gave $1,000 to McCain as well.

In addition, the Post reported on a later fundraiser to be hosted by the business partner of McCain's campaign manager, also a telecommunications lobbyist:

Lobbyist Timothy P. McKone will host another McCain Washington fund-raiser, a May 11 dinner at the steakhouse Morton's of Chicago. A partner of McCain campaign manager Rick Davis, whose firm emphasizes telecommunications lobbying, McKone said the invitees are a cross-section of K Street.

The guest list "is not industry-specific," he said. "I've got a whole mix -- health care, banking, insurance. You name it." Response for the $500-a-person, $1,000-a-PAC event has been good, he said. "It's probably hard to find somebody in Washington who hasn't worked closely with McCain."

McCain received significant contributions from the telecommunications industry. According to the Post, "PACs that have given McCain the maximum $5,000 are tilted toward those run by Commerce-interested businesses -- transportation interests such as Burlington Northern Santa Fe and Federal Express, telecommunications companies such as Bell Atlantic, BellSouth and GTE, and casinos such as Mirage Resorts."

McCain used corporate jets while serving as Commerce chair

The February 7, 2000, edition of CNN's Inside Politics featured a report in which correspondent Bob Franken noted then-Gov. George W. Bush's charge that, in Franken's words, "McCain has a double standard, talking campaign finance reform, for instance, while accepting private jet transportation from corporations who do business before his Commerce Committee." McCain acknowledged using the jets, telling CNN: "We had almost no money when we were using the corporate jets. I could not get around from one place to another and meet my campaign schedule without it. Now we have a lot of money, thanks to the Internet and our successes, and we're able to charter a jet."

On the February 15, 2000, broadcast of CBS Evening News, anchor Dan Rather reported that according to Federal Election Commission records, McCain had accepted "35 flights from 13 companies." (Rather noted that despite Bush's criticism of McCain, Bush had accepted "79 flights on jets from 35 companies.")

McCain's staff has made use of "revolving door"

As noted in the April 28, 1999, Washington Post article, Timmons -- who served as McCain's legislative director and senior counsel to the Commerce Committee in the 1980s -- was working as a lobbyist for America West Airlines when he co-hosted a 1999 McCain fundraiser. According to a December 27, 1990, Business Wire article, Timmons was elected by the airline's board of directors to serve in "the newly created position of vice president of government affairs" and would be "responsible for establishing a Washington office and representing America West in the nation's capitol."

According to The Center for Public Integrity, by the end of 1999, Timmons had become a "top lobbyist" for AT&T -- a company whose interests were deeply tied to McCain's Commerce Committee work.

Similarly, a June 6, 2002, Washington Post article noted that "[i]n one of the neater recent revolving-door moves, Sonya D. Sotak left the office of Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), where she was his legislative assistant for health care issues, to become a lobbyist for the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America."

From the February 7 edition of CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight:

HENRY: John McCain was furious that after privately agreeing they'd work on a bipartisan ethics proposal, Barack Obama went public with a letter suggesting McCain was slow-walking it. McCain, who's long pushed reform, didn't take kindly to the lecture from a freshman.

In a letter to Obama, he accused him of "self-interested partisan posturing," "disingenuousness," and noted sarcastically, "I concluded your professed concern for the institution and the public interest was genuine and admirable. Thank you for disabusing me of such notions." Obama insisted he was puzzled by McCain's reaction. "The fact that you have now questioned my sincerity and my desire to put aside politics for the public interest is regrettable but does not in any way diminish my deep respect for you nor my willingness to find a bipartisan solution to this problem."

Political analysts say this is a twofer for McCain as he ponders another presidential run.

ROTHENBERG: He could reassert his ownership of the ethics issue, and, at the same time, score some points with Republicans by taking on Barack Obama, the golden boy of the Democratic Party.

[...]

SCHNEIDER: McCain felt betrayed. He fired a letter back at Obama.

McCAIN: Senator Obama said that he would work with us and then decided not to.

SCHNEIDER: It was the tone of McCain's letter that raised eyebrows. He accused Obama of "self-interested partisan posturing."

McCAIN: Straight talk. People don't like straight talk.

SCHNEIDER: Who is this freshman pipsqueak to challenge McCain's years of work on his signature issue? Maybe Democrats don't like the idea of a bipartisan taskforce because they want to use the issue to bash Republicans.

Obama professed to be puzzled by McCain's response. He said he always believed the Democratic bill should be the basis for a bipartisan solution. In other words, put down your saber.

Following Fox News' and The Washington Times editorial board's leads, a February 9 Associated Press article by staff writer Katherine Shrader adopted a variation of the White House's terminology for its warrantless domestic surveillance program, referring to it as the "anti-terrorist surveillance program." Bush first used the term "terrorist surveillance program" publicly in a January 23 speech at Kansas State University in which he defended his authorization of the National Security Agency (NSA) to intercept communications of U.S. residents without court warrants. Bush said of the NSA's activities, "It's what I would call a terrorist surveillance program." The article also referred to the monitored communications as "terror-related," even though the vast majority of them have reportedly led to "dead ends or innocent Americans."

As Media Matters for America has noted, the term "terrorist surveillance program" appears to have originated with the right-wing news website NewsMax.com on December 22; operators of right-wing weblogs began to pick up the term on January 20, according to a timeline by the weblog Think Progress. On January 22, the White House press office released a backgrounder on the NSA program, in which the term appeared 10 times in reference to the domestic eavesdropping.

Beginning on January 25 (noted here and here) -- during a week that saw the administration go on the offensive to defend its practice of wiretapping U.S. residents without obtaining warrants -- Fox News began slipping the term "terrorist surveillance program," or a variation thereof, into its news reports and commentary to describe the National Security Agency's (NSA) program. Since then, Fox News reporters and anchors have continued to use the term "terrorist (or terror) surveillance program" in their reporting. A February 2 Washington Times editorial on President Bush's State of the Union address also adopted the White House's terminology for its warrantless domestic surveillance program, as did several regional newspapers and editorial boards.

Reporting on the Bush administration's decision to brief full Congressional intelligence committees on the NSA spy program, Shrader used the term "anti-terrorist surveillance program" to describe the program:

At least one Democrat left saying he had a better understanding of legal and operational aspects of the anti-terrorist surveillance program. But he said he still had a number of questions.

The article also uncritically described the NSA program's intercepted communications as "terror-related." But, as a Media Matters previously noted, The Washington Post reported on February 5 that out of thousands of Americans whose communications have been monitored by the NSA without a court order, "fewer than 10" U.S. citizens or residents "aroused enough suspicion during warrantless eavesdropping to justify interception of their domestic calls, as well." The Post report followed a December 17, 2005, New York Times article, which noted that "virtually all" of the phone conversations monitored by the NSA have "led to dead ends or innocent Americans," according to "[m]ore than a dozen current and former law enforcement and counterterrorism officials."

Most news outlets noting the moniker have placed it in quotes or disclosed it is a term the Bush administration has promoted. The AP article has been picked up by the websites of numerous news outlets, including CNN.com, the San Francisco Chronicle, the Houston Chronicle, ABCNews.com, the Jackson News-Tribune (Wyoming), Newsday, Forbes.com, The Oregonian, the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, the San Diego Union-Tribune, and The Cincinnati Post.

During the February 8 edition of Christian Broadcasting Network's The 700 Club, CBN News senior reporter Dale Hurd concluded a news report by claiming that controversial cartoons perceived as anti-Islamic "seem to have unified the Muslim world against the West," but that "[i]t remains to be seen whether they [the cartoons] will also unify the West in defense of its civilization."

But, contrary to Hurd's suggestion of the unanimity in the Muslim world, many of the religious leaders and government officials who represent the world's more than 1 billion Muslims have condemned the widespread rioting that followed publication of the cartoons. Muslim leaders including the chairman of Britain's Muslim Public Affairs Committee, America's Muslim Public Affairs Council, Germany's Central Council of Muslims [Agence France-Presse, 2/6/06], Azerbaijan's Board of Muslims of the Caucasus [BBC Worldwide Monitoring, 2/7/06], Lebanon's senior Shiite cleric Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah, scores of Muslim groups and community organizations in Ottawa and Montreal, leading imams in Kosovo [Agence France-Presse, 2/7/06], top Iraqi Shiite leader Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, and the international Organization of The Islamic Conference have all expressed displeasure with the cartoons but have nonetheless called for an end to the violence and urged protesters to employ peaceful means.

Officials from many governments have joined religious leaders in appeals for calm, including King Abdullah of Jordan, Saudi Arabia's U.S. ambassador, Prince Turki bin al-Faisal, a spokeswoman for Pakistan's Foreign Ministry, Kuwait's parliament, and Afghan President Hamid Karzai.

From the February 8 edition of CBN's The 700 Club:

HURD: The cartoons seem to have unified the Muslim world against the West. It remains to be seen whether they will also unify the West in defense of its civilization.

A February 8 Washington Post article characterized a February 7 Senate vote to consider proposed asbestos legislation as "a setback for Democratic foes" of the bill. In fact, as the Post's coverage has previously noted, there is bipartisan opposition to the asbestos bill, as well as bipartisan support. The article, by staff writer Shailagh Murray, characterized the opposition as "Democratic foes" even though it noted in the next paragraph that the sole senator to vote against considering the asbestos bill was a Republican, James M. Inhofe (OK).

Asbestos, a material once commonly used in construction because of its strength and heat resistance, has been linked to serious types of cancer and lung diseases, prompting large lawsuits by workers exposed to asbestos who later got sick. One company, W.R. Grace & Co., was indicted a year ago for allegedly exposing the town of Libby, Montana, to asbestos through a mining operation there, then allegedly covering up the exposure. The current version of the asbestos bill would, according to a February 3 Post article, "remove damage claims of workers and others injured by exposure to asbestos from the courts, sending them instead to a privately financed $140 billion trust fund for adjudication and payment."

In contrast with Murray's description, previous coverage in the Post of the asbestos bill debate has reported the bipartisan character of opposition to the current asbestos legislation. A February 7 Associated Press article that the Post published on page A4 noted that "A coalition of companies and unions has begun a campaign against the measure, saying, among other things, that the fund would not support the number of claims made against it. Democrats and several Republican senators also worry that taxpayers might have to pay if claims drained the trust fund." A February 3 Post article reported that "some Republicans who voted for it [the bill] in committee said they would not support it on the floor without substantial changes," although their objections center on claims that those who do not deserve compensation will still receive it because the eligibility criteria to receive compensation are too broad and, also, that the bill will not stop all asbestos litigation.

In addition, a February 8 New York Times article noted that many Republicans oppose the bill as well, based on concerns about the bill's cost:

While the bill has gained the support of major business interests, it has come under attack from Democrats and Republicans.

Liberal Democrats and consumer groups, as well as trial lawyers, say the legislation would unfairly bail out corporations and restrict compensation to victims. Conservative Republicans say the trust would take too much money from industry and could require a federal bailout. As a result, lawmakers such as Senator Judd Gregg, the New Hampshire Republican who heads the Budget Committee, are threatening to raise points of order against the bill on the ground that it violates the Senate budget rules. The budget committee's ranking Democrat, Senator Kent Conrad of North Dakota, has said that asbestos claims could exceed contributions to the fund by $150 billion over 50 years.

From the February 8 Washington Post article, headlined "Asbestos Settlement Advances":

Legislation to settle tens of thousands of asbestos lawsuits cleared a major Senate hurdle yesterday, in a setback for Democratic foes and their trial lawyer allies, who are waging a feisty opposition.

Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) said Monday that he would take steps to prevent the Senate from debating the bill and predicted that some Republicans would join him in the effort. But Reid reversed his position when it became clear he had little backing, and last night the Senate voted 98 to 1 to move forward, with Sen. James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.) casting the lone negative vote.

[...]

Even with Reid strongly opposed to it, the bill has bipartisan support. It was co-authored by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) and that panel's ranking Democrat, Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (Vt.).

[...]

Opponents, including the Association of Trial Lawyers of America, the AFL-CIO, numerous insurers and some companies, maintain that the fund is poorly constructed. They say it would provide unfair levels of compensation and is based on shaky cost analysis. "More needs to be done before the bill can fulfill its promise to provide fair and timely compensation," AFL-CIO President John J. Sweeney wrote in a Feb. 2 letter to senators.

But supporters, including asbestos companies and some unions and trial lawyers, contend the status quo is unsustainable. "I'm worried that men and women who have legitimate claims are running out of options," said Richard Scruggs, a Mississippi trial lawyer who has represented thousands of asbestos victims and supports the Specter-Leahy bill. "Many of my close friends are mad at me right now." But Scruggs added: "It's time to get this one over with."

Following civil rights leader Coretta Scott King's January 7 funeral, numerous media figures highlighted the purportedly "partisan" nature of the event, in some cases describing it as a "Democratic pep rally," a "Bush bashathon" and a "Democratic convention." The controversy stems primarily from tributes delivered by civil rights activist Rev. Joseph Lowery and former President Jimmy Carter, which included a reference to prewar intelligence failures in Iraq and what many interpreted as Carter's reference to President Bush's warrantless domestic surveillance program. But many of those same media figures accusing speakers of politicizing the King funeral did not show the same aversion to the politicization of the 2004 death of a figure of a different political stripe: former President Ronald Reagan. Nor did they apparently think it worth noting that the Reagan funeral included no Democratic speakers, but a long roster of Republicans, including President Bush, who was running for re-election and was reportedly trying to attach himself to the Reagan legacy.

Held near Atlanta and attended by 15,000 people, King's funeral included speeches from four U.S. presidents -- George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George H.W. Bush, and Carter -- as well as numerous civil rights leaders and friends. In his speech, Carter mentioned that King and her husband, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., had been the subjects of "secret government wiretapping," which many interpreted as a veiled criticism of Bush's surveillance program:

CARTER: It was difficult for them personally, with the civil liberties of both husband and wife violated as they became the targets of secret government wiretapping, other surveillance.

Lowery's speech -- like Carter's -- included a passage that provoked controversy (and a prolonged standing ovation):

LOWERY: We know now there were no weapons of mass destruction over there. But Coretta knew, and we know, that there are weapons of misdirection right down here. Millions without health insurance. Poverty abounds. For war billions more, but no more for the poor.

In an interview that evening on MSNBC's The Situation with Tucker Carlson, Lowery responded to the uproar over his comments by explaining that they were intended as a tribute to King and "what she stood for":

LOWERY: My remarks were not about the president, nor about me. They were about Mrs. King and what she stood for and conversations we had had about war and the weapons of mass deception. ... And she was very much opposed to war and talking about her life in the context of civil rights and human rights and the movement.

[...]

I certainly didn't intend for it to be bad manners. I did intend for it to -- to call attention to the fact that Mrs. King spoke truth to power. And here was an opportunity to demonstrate how she spoke truth to power about this war and about all wars.

[...]

So, I'm comfortable with the fact that I was reflecting on Mrs. King's tenacity against war, her determination to witness against war and to speak truth to power.

Indeed, King was a lifelong peace activist whose anti-war views extended most recently to the war in Iraq. In early 2003, she spoke out against the Bush administration's plans to invade Iraq, noting in a Martin Luther King Day speech that her husband had "warned us that war was a poor chisel for carving out a peaceful tomorrow." Later that year, at a rally to commemorate the 40th anniversary of the March on Washington, she "condemned the war in Iraq," according to an August 24, 2003, Washington Post article.

Nonetheless, in the 24 hours after King's funeral, conservative commentators expressed outrage over Lowery's and Carter's comments, some even going as far as to claim that King herself would have disapproved:

• National Review Washington editor Kate O'Beirne said, "Liberals don't seem to be able to keep politics away from funerals." [MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews, 2/7/06]

• Radio host Rush Limbaugh claimed that "the Democratic party now crashes funerals ... trying to pick up votes" and said, "I think Coretta Scott King and Martin Luther King -- if there was to be any anger from above looking down at that -- it would be from them." [Fox News' Your World, 2/8/06]

• Fox News host Sean Hannity said the comments were "inappropriate" and "designed to stick it to George W. Bush and to embarrass the president." [Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, 2/7/06]

• MSNBC host Tucker Carlson described the comments as "rude as hell" and "completely graceless." [MSNBC's Scarborough Country, 2/7/06]

• Fox News host Bill O'Reilly said, "When I die, I don't want my demise to be used as a political rally, and that's what happened yesterday." [Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, 2/8/06]

• Wall Street Journal opinionjournal.com editor James Taranto called Carter's comment a "moment of true malice."

• National Review Online editor-at-large and Los Angeles Times columnist Jonah Goldberg noted Carter's "mildly ghoulish exploitation of Coretta Scott King's funeral."

• MSNBC host Joe Scarborough deemed the remarks "unfortunate" and claimed Democrats "exploit[ed] a funeral to make partisan attacks." [MSNBC's Scarborough Country, 2/7/06]

• Conservative columnist Michelle Malkin described Carter and Lowery's "Bush-bashing sermons" as "absolutely ungodly."

• Radio host Mike Gallagher called the funeral "one of the most despicable displays of ugly political partisanship that we have ever seen" and claimed that liberals "think a memorial service is an opportunity to eviscerate Republicans and condemn this current administration." [Fox News' DaySide, 2/8/06]

• Weekly Standard editor Fred Barnes said, "[T]his happens to be Jimmy Carter's style right now. He is a cheap partisan, very petty man, picking at George Bush." [Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume, 2/8/06]

These depictions of the funeral as inappropriately political have been further advanced by media figures' framing of the event:

• MSNBC host Chris Matthews asked, "Was this the Democratic convention or a funeral?" [MSNBC's Hardball, 2/7/06]

• CNN political analyst Jeff Greenfield noted, "I think for a lot of people the idea is, do you really do this at a funeral?" [CNN's American Morning, 2/8/06]

• CNN anchor Miles O'Brien asked "Do these speakers need to go to eulogy school or something?" [CNN's American Morning, 2/8/06]

• Fox News host Steve Doocy claimed that the funeral "turned into a 'George Bush bashathon.' " [Fox News' Fox & Friends, 2/8/06]

• Fox News host Brian Kilmeade said, "Instead of a place of worship, a place of tribute to this woman's incredible life, they're using the pulpit for politics." [Fox News' Fox & Friends, 2/8/06]

• Fox News host Neil Cavuto said, "I was thinking of President Bush and how he must have felt yesterday at the Coretta Scott King funeral. A lot of people were dumping on him, including a couple of former presidents." [Fox News' Your World, 2/8/06]

Media didn't highlight political elements of Reagan funeral

While the media have devoted substantial coverage to Carter and Lowery's purported politicization of the King funeral, the June 11, 2004, funeral for Reagan did not provoke similar scrutiny, despite clear political overtones. For example, the media largely ignored the fact that no Democrats were invited to speak at either the funeral at the National Cathedral or at a ceremony held on Capitol Hill two days earlier. (President Clinton had even delivered a eulogy at former President Richard Nixon's funeral a decade earlier). According to a June 10, 2004, Washington Post article on the congressional ceremony:

No Democrats were asked to speak at last night's event, although Senate Minority Leader Thomas A. Daschle (D-S.D.) said they would have been honored to do so. Republicans said the program was set by the Reagan family, following protocol for such events.

A June 12, 2004, Guardian article further noted that the funeral at the National Cathedral was "exactly as the Reagans had planned it":

The restrained solemnities, the high-powered assembly, was exactly as the Reagans had planned it. The Episcopalian service, which also included readings from Catholic, Greek Orthodox, Jewish and Muslim religious leaders, unfolded according to instructions drawn up by Reagan and his widow, Nancy, more than 20 years ago.

Soon after Reagan entered the White House, he approached Mr. [then Vice President George H.W.] Bush, to deliver a eulogy, and selected a reading for Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who he appointed to the Supreme Court. No Democrats were asked to speak, but accommodation had been made for a serving US president.

The King funeral, by contrast, included speeches by two Republican presidents and two Democratic presidents, as noted above.

Further, during Reagan's funeral, Bush -- then in the midst of his re-election campaign -- took time in his eulogy to note that Reagan "was optimistic about the great promise of economic reform" and that when "he saw evil camped across the horizon, he called that evil by its name":

BUSH: He came to office with great hopes for America. And more than hopes. Like the president he had revered and once saw in person, Franklin Roosevelt, Ronald Reagan matched an optimistic temperament with bold, persistent action.

President Reagan was optimistic about the great promise of economic reform, and he acted to restore the rewards and spirit of enterprise. He was optimistic that a strong America could advance the peace, and he acted to build the strength that mission required.

He was optimistic that liberty would thrive wherever it was planted, and he acted to defend liberty wherever it was threatened.

And Ronald Reagan believed in the power of truth in the conduct of world affairs. When he saw evil camped across the horizon, he called that evil by its name.

There were no doubters in the prisons and gulags, where dissidents spread the news, tapping to each other in code what the American president had dared to say. There were no doubters in the shipyards and churches and secret labor meetings where brave men and women began to hear the creaking and rumbling of a collapsing empire. And there were no doubters among those who swung hammers at the hated wall that the first and hardest blow had been struck by President Ronald Reagan.

But the media figures who covered the funeral did not call into question the propriety of a Republican presidential candidate celebrating Reagan's economic and foreign policies in this setting. To the contrary, analysts such as CNN's Greenfield -- among those who have highlighted the purported politicization of the King funeral -- commended Bush for allaying suspicions that "he might in some subtle way want to link up to Ronald Reagan's politics or philosophy":

GREENFIELD: And you shouldn't ignore President George W. Bush, who actually chose to talk about the biography of the man more, I think, than the politics. That may have surprised some of us who thought that he might in some subtle way want to link up to Ronald Reagan's politics, or philosophy. The greatest line from Bush, I want to just mention: "His convictions were as strong and straight as the columns of this cathedral." Nice line.

Further, Limbaugh -- who accused the Democrats of "crash[ing] funerals ... to pick up votes" -- used the Reagan funeral to attack Bill and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY). On the day of the National Cathedral event, web gossip Matt Drudge published a frame from C-SPAN's broadcast of the funeral in which the Clintons' eyes were closed, accompanied by the headline "CLINTONS REST EYES DURING REAGAN EULOGY." On his June 11 show, Limbaugh informed his audience that the Clintons had simultaneously fallen asleep during the funeral, as Media Matters for America noted.

Conservatives media figures supported politicization of Reagan's death

The same conservatives outraged over Carter and Lowery's remarks, as well as those media figures who questioned the propriety of the comments at the King funeral, found nothing to criticize in the politicization of Reagan's passing. In the days following Reagan's death on June 5, 2004, it was reported that Republican strategists intended to capitalize on parallels between Reagan and Bush in the hopes of bolstering his re-election campaign. The New York Times noted that Bush aides had claimed that Reagan "was the role model for this president, and ... talked of a campaign in which Mr. Reagan would be at least an inspirational presence." A Los Angeles Times article with the headline "Reagan nostalgia may aid Bush" cited Republican strategists as saying that "the nation's outpouring of nostalgia and respect for Reagan may have offered Bush an opportunity to improve his flagging popularity -- if he can find a way to don the mantle of his well-loved predecessor."

As this strategy began to manifest itself on Bush's campaign website and in attack ads against Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry (D-MA), prominent conservative media figures repeatedly used the coverage of Reagan's death to draw favorable comparisons between Reagan and Bush. For example, on the June 13, 2004, edition of Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday, Weekly Standard editor William Kristol argued that the "Bush doctrine is the son of the Reagan doctrine" and that Reagan, if alive, would vote for Bush:

KRISTOL: Who would Ronald Reagan vote for in this election, if we can be simple-minded about this?

JUAN WILLIAMS (National Public Radio senior correspondent and Fox News contributing political analyst): Who would he vote for?

KRISTOL: George W. Bush. That's who.

WILLIAMS: I don't think he would vote for someone who's involved in nation-building, put Americans at risk under questionable circumstances.

KRISTOL: Reagan would support Bush.

[...]

KRISTOL: The Bush doctrine is the son of the Reagan doctrine.

On the same show, Washington Times White House correspondent Bill Sammon highlighted the similarities between the two presidents and said he didn't "hear anybody comparing Kerry to Reagan":

SAMMON: Also reminds me that, you know, we look at so many similarities with Bush. I don't hear anybody comparing Kerry to Reagan, but I hear a lot of people comparing George W. Bush to Reagan. And you wonder whether 30 or 40 years from now, a lot of the disputes about whether it was a good idea to democratize the Middle East will fall away, and it'll seem obvious that, of course, we should have done so.

And on the June 10, 2004, edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume, syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer noted that both Reagan and George W. Bush were "interested in the big ideas":

KRAUTHAMMER: And you know, what's important, I think, is that people understand that he was a large man with large ideas. He slipped a lot of the times. He had his difficulties, but in the end he was vindicated by history, if you get the big ideas right.

And I think there's a lot of application to President Bush, who also is interested in the big ideas in the war on terror, the war in Iraq, changing the economy, all of this.

Not only did conservatives repeatedly draw such parallels, they explicitly endorsed the politicization of Reagan's death. For example, on the June 13 edition of Fox News Sunday, Kristol conceded that "no one wants to politicize the death of a recent president," but said that the Bush campaign nonetheless "should":

KRISTOL: I think [Reagan] could have an impact if the Bush campaign has the nerve to make it have an impact. John Kerry said at the 1988 Democratic convention, speaking on behalf of his fellow Massachusetts liberal Democrat Michael Dukakis ... that the Reagan presidency was a period of "moral darkness". Now ... no one wants to politicize the death of a recent president. But you know what? The Bush campaign should. And they should, in my view, they should go up with an ad next week -- a very respectful ad about President Reagan and say: "We have a disagreement. George W. Bush was a Reaganite. John Kerry thought that the Reagan presidency was a period of 'moral darkness.' "

[...]

KRISTOL: And the president should say, at some point, someone should say this -- the president can't say this -- someone should say at the Republican convention, "Win one more for the Gipper. Win one more for the Gipper."

On the June 9, 2004, edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, Malkin and O'Reilly -- both of whom have expressed outrage over comments made at the King funeral -- agreed that Bush should play up his purported similarities with Reagan:

MALKIN: Of course, there's been a lot of sniping by The New York Times and a lot of liberal press that Bush is going to exploit this. They're talking about how Bush's campaign website now has a lot of Reagan quotes on it. Well, what do you expect the Republican president to do? What else do you expect him to do than to honor, you know, this major figure in American history?

O'REILLY: Sure. And I would do it, too, if I were President Bush, as long as it's done in the context of the man, and as long as it's done with dignity. I think Bush is a soul mate ideologically of Ronald Reagan. And why wouldn't he point that out, that Ronald Reagan was a controversial president, but history proved his policies to be correct? I would do the same thing.

Moreover, O'Reilly not only endorsed the politicization of Reagan's death, he used the president's passing to criticize groups with whom he -- O'Reilly -- disagreed. As Media Matters noted, on the June 7, 2004, edition of The O'Reilly Factor, O'Reilly claimed that "Reagan would have been appalled" by progressive financier, philanthropist, and political activist George Soros; the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU); and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP).

From the February 7 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes:

HANNITY: When the Reverend Lowery mentioned no weapons of mass destruction, Jimmy Carter brought up surveillance and wiretapping, it was basically designed to stick it to George W. Bush and to embarrass the president, who had taken time out to celebrate the life of Coretta Scott King.

And if you don't see that that's inappropriate, there's nothing I can do to convince you. But the Democrats didn't benefit when they did this at Paul Wellstone's memorial, and you're not going to benefit by politicizing the death of a civil rights leader in the case of Coretta Scott King. And if you don't see that, I think you're missing why the Democrats are failing nationally.

From the February 7 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews:

MATTHEWS: Well, there you have it, Kate. What do you make of this day? Was this the Democratic convention or a funeral? What was it?

O`BEIRNE: Both were completely inappropriate. Just because politicians are present and they're present as former presidents, they're representing the country. President Bush explained he's there on behalf of all Americans.

It's not a convention or a campaign event, just because former presidents are there. It's a funeral. It's completely inappropriate for both Reverend Lowery to have made the remarks he did, and for former President Jimmy Carter to do what he did, which is a cheap, political shot. Liberals don't seem to be able to keep politics away from funerals.

[..]

O'BEIRNE: Whether or not people who tuned in, owing to this legacy, owing -- in order to on honor this woman who, as Oprah Winfrey said, "left an America far better than the America of her own childhood," if this is what they wanted to be witnessing and having the talking heads talk about, I think they're in for sort of a rude surprise. Jimmy Carter is so graceless. You know, there must be -- maybe he belongs in a minority protected class, a southerner with no graciousness.

From the February 7 edition of MSNBC's Scarborough Country:

SCARBOROUGH: It reminds me so much of that [Sen. Paul] Wellstone [D-MN] funeral in 2002. Democrats out there maybe saying, Scarborough, you need to get over it. Let the Democrats attack the president. But doesn't that turn off millions and millions of Americans when you exploit a funeral to make partisan attacks?

CARLSON: Well, it's completely graceless. It's also rude as hell, by the way, since the president is sitting right there.

I mean, you know, these are people that -- many of the speakers are people who have pulpits, literally, in some cases, figuratively in all cases, where they can make their case against the president. And they have the right to do it, and I never begrudge them that. But a funeral is not the place to do that.

A funeral is a place to make transcendent points about the nature of life and death and to celebrate the person who has died. It's not the place to talk about the politics of the moment, and to do so, again, in a pretty graceless and heavy-handed way. I think it's a reflection, without drawing too large a point from this, that there are people in America for whom politics is the most important thing. And I think some of them spoke today. I don't think most Americans feel that way.

For the average American, politics is not the most important thing. And so, that's why most Americans don't go on political rants at funerals.

[...]

SCARBOROUGH: The bottom line is, again, I saw Coretta Scott King in speeches with President Bush. I saw her being very graceful. We all knew that she disagreed with George Bush on many issues, but she never behaved the way they behaved today at her funeral. It was unfortunate.

From the February 8 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends:

KILMEADE: And all of the sudden they're taking shots at the president of the United States. If you don't agree with the president, what about the sanctity of the office and your own administration? What about some common courtesy and respect?

E.D. HILL (co-host): Well, what about being in a church. When you're at a funeral -- you know [Fox News general assignment reporter] Kelly Wright, who's a minister, he just said -- shocked -- because you're using a pulpit instead of -- you know, a place of worship, a place of tribute to this woman's incredible life -- they're using the pulpit for politics.

[...]

DOOCY: Yesterday the funeral for Coretta Scott King turned into a "George Bush bashathon." Our question for you is "pulpit gor politics?" What this a tribute -- because she was a woman who stood for change and maybe these pointed remarks would get some change -- or do you find it troubling that they would pick this time?

From the February 8 edition of CNN's American Morning:

O'BRIEN: I don't know if you were looking at President Bush there during that. It seemed like he had a bit of a grimace there. Do these speakers need to go to eulogy school or something?

[...]

GREENFIELD: We're now in early February. The idea that this is going to have some political implication, you have to really be overcommitted to endless analysis, which some of us on cable news are to think that. I do, however, think that in a more subtle way, this actually rebounds to the credit of President Bush. I mean, he came to the funeral, changed his plans, made a gracious speech. And I think for people who are not politically committed -- I mean, if you don't like George Bush, this was fine. If you like George Bush, this was horrible. I think for a lot of people the idea is, do you really do this at a funeral?

From the February 8 edition of Fox News' DaySide:

GALLAGHER: I think it was one of the most despicable displays of ugly political partisanship that we have ever seen. Although it is nothing new for Democrats, who did this with Paul Wellstone's funeral as well. They seem to think that a memorial service is an opportunity to eviscerate Republicans and condemn this current administration. It was shocking, it was vile, it was so out of bounds.

From the February 8 edition of Fox News' Your World with Neil Cavuto:

CAVUTO: You know, I was thinking of President Bush and how he must have felt yesterday at that Coretta Scott King funeral. A lot of people were dumping on him, including a couple of former presidents.

LIMBAUGH: I will tell you how he felt, happy. These people are embarrassing themselves. These people, the Democratic Party, that funeral yesterday was -- it had everything -- it had everything in it. It had a Brokeback Mountain moment in it, when Bishop Eddie [Long] embraced Bush, or Bush embraced him, gave him a kiss on the cheek.

Then, you had a bunch of Wellstone memorial moments. I think -- do you remember the movie the Wedding Crashers? Two guys crash weddings to pick up dates. The Democratic Party crashes weddings -- or funerals. They are now the funeral crashers. And they are out there trying to pick up votes. And it's absurd, if they think behavior like that, disrespecting a sitting president while he is there.

[...]

LIMBAUGH: But I will tell you that I think Coretta Scott King and Martin Luther King Jr., if there was to be any anger from above looking down at that, it would be from them. That is a sacred event, a funeral to -- to memorialize and honor this woman.

From the February 8 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume:

BARNES: This was a six-hour funeral service to celebrate the life of Coretta Scott King, and it was mostly that, celebrating that life. But, you know, you had some people who were really cheap partisans, and this happens to be Jimmy Carter's style right now. He is a cheap partisan, very petty man, picking at George Bush.

From the February 8 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:

O'REILLY: Using Coretta Scott King's funeral to make political points. That is the subject of this evening's "Talking Points Memo." You know, when I die, I don't want my demise to be used as a political rally, and that's what happened yesterday to Coretta Scott King.

The February 8 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume featured an edited video clip of civil rights leader Rev. Joseph Lowery's address at the February 7 funeral of civil rights activist Coretta Scott King, during which Lowery mentioned the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. While Lowery's remarks were greeted with 23 seconds of applause and a standing ovation, the clip Fox News aired presented nine seconds of applause and little hint of the standing ovation -- and no indication that the clip had been doctored. The clip was aired during a segment in which guest host Chris Wallace asked his "Fox All-Star" panel to comment on Lowery's remarks. Fox's editing of the clip apparently had some effect on Wallace's own guest, Roll Call executive editor Morton M. Kondracke, who while apparently having formed one impression based on what he had heard about the crowd's response to the remarks, concluded from the curtailed video that "it wasn't exactly uproarious in its response."

After the clip aired, Kondracke stated:

KONDRACKE: What was interesting to me was, when I saw it -- and on this tape, the crowd did not go as wild as you -- as it sounded as though it did at the time and as various people have represented. I mean, I thought that the crowd basically treated President Bush very respectfully, and it wasn't exactly uproarious in its response to either Lowery or to President Carter. So I thought it -- on the whole -- it was a -- it was quite a dramatic and sensitive tribute to Mrs. King.

Media Matters for America previously noted that CNN similarly spliced out the majority of the applause following Lowery's "weapons of mass destruction" comment, also with no indication that it had done so.

Lowery's unedited comments, as broadcast live by Fox News on February 7:

LOWERY: We know, now, there were no weapons of mass destruction over there --

[23-second standing ovation]

LOWERY: -- but Coretta knew, and we know that there are weapons of misdirection right down here.

From the February 8 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume:

[begin video clip]

PRESIDENT BUSH: Coretta Scott King showed that a person of conviction and strength could also be a beautiful soul.

JIMMY CARTER (former president): It was difficult for them, personally, with the civil liberties of both husband and wife violated as they became the targets of secret government wiretapping.

LOWERY: We know now there were no weapons of mass destruction over there --

[applause]

LOWERY: -- but Coretta knew, and we know that there are weapons of misdirection right down here.

[end video clip]

WALLACE: Those were some of the comments at yesterday's six-hour long funeral for Coretta Scott King, and people are still talking about it today, including our panel.

[...]

KONDRACKE: What was interesting to me was, when I saw it -- and on this tape, the crowd did not go as wild as you -- as it sounded as though it did at the time and as various people have represented. I mean, I thought that the crowd basically treated President Bush very respectfully, and it wasn't exactly uproarious in its response to either Lowery or to President Carter. So, I thought it -- on the whole -- it was a -- it was quite a dramatic and sensitive tribute to Mrs. King.

During the February 8 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Glenn Beck repeatedly referred to former President Jimmy Carter as a "waste of skin" during a rant that culminated in Beck's taking votes from his executive producer Steve "Stu" Burguiere and producer Dan Andros on whether Carter was a "bigger waste of skin" than singer Britney Spears.

Responding to Carter's eulogy during the February 7 funeral for civil rights activist Coretta Scott King, Beck said that former President Bill Clinton, who had "roll[ed] around on the bathroom floor with a fat intern and a cigar," looked "like the classy one" during the funeral.

Beck, a recent hire of CNN Headline News, concluded that Spears' "accomplishments" in bringing "the Catholic schoolgirl uniform" back into prominence made her less of a waste of skin than Carter. He also concluded that North Korean leader Kim Jong Il was not a bigger waste of skin because "[a]t least evil is using that skin."

As Media Matters for America previously noted, Beck referred to anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan as a "pretty big prostitute," later amending, at the behest of Burguiere, that "tragedy pimp" would be "the most accurate description."

From the February 8 broadcast of Premiere Radio Networks' The Glenn Beck Program:

BECK: Is there a day that God ever says, "What was I thinking?" Here's what I mean: Do you think God ever says, "I could've used that skin making somebody of value, you know? I could have used that skin in such a -- just a better way." You know? And its not -- the reason why I bring this up is: Is there a bigger waste of skin than Jimmy Carter? Ya know, I don't mean to, you know, I don't mean to look the maker in the eyes and say, "Eh, kind of a waste," but I'm asking, do you think he ever thinks, "I don't know, man, I could've used that skin someplace else." You know? Who's the bigger waste of skin, can you name a bigger -- you know, and you could immediately go to people like Kim Jong Il. OK, there's a big waste of skin, but not really, because his skin's being utilized by evil. At least evil is using that skin. Who's using the skin of Jimmy Carter? What purpose does the skin of Jimmy Carter -- it's like an empty suit walking down the street.

I'm telling you, I think Jimmy Carter is the luckiest man on earth, because he's still walking around. And he was president of the short-term memory country, you know what I mean? Here we are, we have no long-term memory at all, we've got -- we're sitting here with short-term memory, we're like, "Hey, he was a president or something, wasn't he? Heh-heh-heh -- yeah, a peanut farmer, I remember that." You don't seem to remember anything -- here he is, a guy who's, you know, busting on us on Iraq, saying that we should negotiate with Hamas and listen to them and blah-blah-blah-blah-blah. You know, maybe, Jimmy, we wouldn't be in this problem if, I don't know, you didn't have the helicopters burn in the middle of the desert. If you wouldn't have let the whole Islamic revolution thing happen in the first place. What do you say, James? Is there a bigger waste of skin than Jimmy Carter? Here's how much of a waste of skin this guy is. Bill Clinton -- a guy who had sex in the Oval Off -- not just sex, was down rolling around on the bathroom floor, not the Oval Office with the nice carpeting and curtains and stuff, rolling around on the bathroom floor with a fat intern and a cigar. OK, got that beautiful picture in your head? That -- standing next to Jimmy Carter giving one speech after another -- Bill Clinton looks like the classy one. How's that possible? That's what a waste of skin Jimmy Carter is -- Bill Clinton looks classy!

I'm trying to put a list together, you know, and the people that came to mind: Ben Affleck -- Ben Affleck, bigger waste of skin than Jimmy Carter? I gotta tell you, I -- I don't think so. I don't think I'd go to the Ben Affleck well. Pam Anderson -- there's a lotta skin. Sometimes more skin and sometimes less skin. I'm not sure how that works, ever expanding skin. Who's a bigger waste of skin -- Jimmy Carter or Pamela Anderson? I gotta go -- I gotta go with Jimmy Carter. Britney Spears. We're down to Britney Spears. Whew. Stu, I think I need -- Dan, I need a -- I need a vote, Britney Spears or Jimmy Carter? Bigger waste of skin.

ANDROS: I mean, I think Britney Spears has done a lot for this country, to be perfectly honest with you. She's -- she's brought back the Catholic schoolgirl uniform into prominence.

BECK: I gotta give it -- you're -- Jimmy Carter.

BURGUIERE: Britney, though, has, Glenn, just kind of devalued herself with this baby incident yesterday.

ANDROS: True, but look at her accomplishments --

BECK: But that -- look at her accomplishments. The Catholic schoolgirl outfit.

STU: Good point.

In a February 9 speech, President Bush disclosed details of what he described as a foiled Al Qaeda plot to fly a commercial plane into the tallest building in Los Angeles. Shortly after his speech concluded, Fox News aired numerous images from the 1996 film Independence Day (Twentieth Century Fox) showing the reported target of the attack -- the Library Tower, now known as the U.S. Bank Tower -- being destroyed by alien invaders.

On the February 9 edition of CNN Live Today, anchor Daryn Kagan also noted that the tower "was depicted as being blown up" in Independence Day, but, unlike Fox, CNN did not show movie images of the building being attacked.

From the February 9 edition of Fox News Live:

BRIGITTE QUINN (Anchor): And again, back to what the president was saying a little while ago, this morning, in his speech on the "war on terror." He talked about the U.S. Bank Tower -- otherwise known as the Library Tower. We've been showing you pictures of that throughout the morning. A little background on that building that was apparently the target of a second wave of attacks that was to have been perpetrated by Al Qaeda. There are some pictures; and that's one from the movie -- the 1996 movie Independence Day. You might remember that. It was the -- I guess the first building to be destroyed by the alien invaders in that movie, so, certainly a landmark. A couple of other factoids about it. The building was designed to withstand an earthquake; unclear how it would've withstood an attack by an airplane.

Apparently referring to some of the speakers at Coretta Scott King's February 7 funeral, Republican political strategist Mary Matalin stated that "these civil rights leaders are nothing more than racists." Continuing, Matalin claimed that "they're keeping constituency, they're keeping their neighborhoods and their African-American brothers enslaved ... by continuing to let them think that they're -- or forced to think that they're victims." Matalin's comments came during the February 8 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes.

Several speakers at the funeral included political messages, some critical of President Bush, in their addresses, drawing sharp criticism from numerous conservative figures.

From the February 8 edition of Fox News's Hannity & Colmes:

MATALIN: Well, when you're -- have no facts -- you know, there's no facts, there's no vision. Therefore, there's no hope, it's all hate, and it's all anger. So it's -- I'll say again, it's sad. Look, this -- we're at a time in our nation's history where we need all the best brains involved in the process, and one whole party has taken itself out of the game here.

SEAN HANNITY (co-host): Yeah.

MATALIN: And the reason that -- it's not their face. It's not their message. There's no policy, there's no facts. I mean, the attacks on the president yesterday completely missed the progress that's been made in the African-American community, which can be credited to President Bush. African-American homeownership at an all-time high --

HANNITY: Well --

MATALIN: -- the achievement gap between the white and black students at a high, closing, narrowing. I mean, you know, I think these civil rights leaders are nothing more than racists. And they're keeping constituency, they're keeping their neighborhoods and their African-American brothers enslaved, if you will, by continuing to let them think that they're -- or forced to think that they're victims, that the whole system is against them. Articulate it better, Sean; it's so sad to me.

On the February 6 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume, chief Washington correspondent Jim Angle repeated as fact President Bush's and Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales's explanation for Bush's April 20, 2004, remarks on wiretap authorization. Bush stated that "any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires ... a court order," and that "[w]hen we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so." Critics have argued the 2004 statement indicates Bush falsely suggested that the administration would not conduct domestic surveillance without a warrant, even though that is what the administration was secretly doing. Bush and Gonzales have defended the 2004 statement, claiming it applied only to roving wiretaps in the context of the USA Patriot Act. Although Bush made the 2004 statement in the context of defending the Patriot Act's authorization of roving wiretaps, as Media Matters for America previously noted, Bush's statement was unqualified as it referred to all wiretapping activity. In his report, Angle did not inform viewers that Bush's explanation of his 2004 remarks is contradicted by his own words; Angle stated only that Bush said "warrants are always obtained in domestic wiretaps under the Patriot Act."

Angle repeated Gonzales's defense of Bush's 2004 statement while reporting on an exchange between Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Gonzales, during Gonzales's February 6 testimony at the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on the secret warrantless eavesdropping program Bush authorized. Angle stated:

ANGLE: Senator Feinstein even accused the president of lying in a statement he made in 2004, saying warrants are always obtained in domestic wiretaps under the Patriot Act. Gonzales said that has nothing to do with international intercepts of terrorist communications.

Angle's report echoed Gonzales's defense of Bush's 2004 statement, made in response to a question from Feinstein:

FEINSTEIN: Mr. Attorney General, in light of what you and the president have said in the past month, this statement appears to be false. Do you agree?

GONZALES: No, I don't, Senator. In fact, I take great issue with your suggestion that, somehow, that the president of the United States was not being totally forthcoming with the American people.

I have his statement, and in the sentence immediately before what you're talking about, he said -- he was referring to roving wiretaps.

And so, I think anyone --

FEINSTEIN: So, you're saying that statement only relates to roving wiretaps, is that correct?

GONZALES: Senator, that discussion was about the Patriot Act. And right before he uttered those words that you're referring to, he said, "Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talk about wiretaps, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order."

So, as you know, the president is not a lawyer, but this was a discussion about the Patriot Act, this was a discussion about roving wiretaps. And I think some people are trying to take part of his statement out of context, and I think that's unfair.

FEINSTEIN: OK, fair enough. Let me move along.

Gonzales's statement echoed remarks Bush made at a January 1 White House press conference. When a reporter asked Bush if he was "in any way misleading" when he stated in 2004 that wiretaps require warrants, Bush responded that he "was talking about roving wiretaps ... involved in the Patriot Act," which, he said, is "different from the NSA program":

QUESTION: In 2004, when you were doing an event about the Patriot Act, in your remarks, you had said that any wiretapping required a court order, and that nothing had changed. Given that we now know you had prior approval for this NSA program, were you in any way misleading?

BUSH: I was talking about roving wiretaps, I believe, involved in the Patriot Act. This is different from the NSA program. The NSA program is a necessary program. I was elected to protect the American people from harm.

But as Media Matters noted, although Bush's 2004 statement was made in the context of defending the Patriot Act's authorization of roving wiretaps for which warrants are obtained, it referred to all wiretapping activity, not just "roving wiretaps ... involved in the Patriot Act" as Bush later claimed. From Bush's "Conversation on the USA Patriot Act" in Buffalo, New York, on April 20, 2004:

BUSH: Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution.

From the February 6 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume:

ANGLE: The questioning also got rather personal as Senator [Russ] Feingold [D-WI] flatly accused Gonzales of having lied in his confirmation hearing.

FEINGOLD: Look, this is what you said: "It's not the policy or the agenda of this president to authorize actions that would be in contravention of our criminal statutes." And when you said that, you knew about this program.

ANGLE: Gonzales said his answer stands that what the president authorized was not illegal, but Feingold said Gonzales knowingly misled the Senate.

FEINGOLD: Of course, if you had told the truth, maybe, that would have jeopardized your nomination.

GONZALES: Senator, I told the truth then. I'm telling the truth now. You asked about a hypothetical situation of the president of the United States authorizing electronic surveillance in violation of our criminal statutes. That has not occurred.

ANGLE: Senator Feinstein even accused the president of lying in a statement he made in 2004, saying warrants are always obtained in domestic wiretaps under the Patriot Act. Gonzales said that has nothing to do with international intercepts of terrorist communications -- all prompting this observation from Senator Lindsey Graham [R-SC].

GRAHAM: Well, I would think if you believed that our president was breaking the law, you'd have the courage of your convictions and you'd bring -- you'd stop funding for it.

During an interview with Vice President Dick Cheney on the February 7 edition of PBS' The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, anchor Jim Lehrer missed numerous opportunities to challenge assertions Cheney made in defense of the Bush administration's domestic surveillance program, in which the National Security Agency (NSA) eavesdrops on calls involving parties in the United States without court-approved warrants.

Below are suggestions for how Lehrer could have followed up on some of Cheney's assertions:

Cheney claimed administration has "all the legal authority we need" to conduct warrantless domestic surveillance

LEHRER: Is the president willing to work with Congress to settle some of the legal disputes about the NSA surveillance program?

CHENEY: We believe, Jim, that we have all the legal authority we need. He indicated the other day he's willing to listen to ideas from the Congress, and certainly they have the right and the responsibility to suggest whatever they want to suggest. We'd have to make a decision as an administration whether or not we think it would help and would enhance our capabilities. But as I say, we believe firmly that based on the Constitution, based on the authorization for the use of force Congress passed in the immediate aftermath of 9-11, that we have all the legal authority we need with respect to the NSA program.

Possible follow-up: Lehrer could have noted that numerous lawmakers and legal scholars of all political stripes question the administration's assertion that it has the legal authority to bypass the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to conduct warrantless wiretapping.

Even conservative lawmakers and legal scholars have criticized the administration's legal argument. For example, Bruce Fein, former associate deputy attorney general under President Reagan, recently said that the administration's justifications for the program's constitutionality "would permanently shift the political and constitutional landscape towards one-branch government contrary to the intent of the Founding Fathers." Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Arlen Specter (R-PA) similarly stated that no "fair reading" of the 2001 resolution would justify the surveillance and that the administration's interpretation of FISA "just defies logic and plain English." The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service (CRS) published a January 5 report concluding that the Bush administration's legal justification for the program "conflicts with existing law and hinges on weak legal arguments."

Cheney claimed administration did not seek legislation altering FISA because of "consensus" that such action "would disclose the program in ways that would potentially be damaging to it"

LEHRER: There were two Republican senators at the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing yesterday who made the strong point -- Senator [Mike] DeWine of Ohio and Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina said it would be in the interests of the country, interests of the president and interests of everybody involved for Congress and the president to sort this out and get it behind it, get it off the table. You don't agree with that?

CHENEY: Well, I don't think it would necessarily be in the interests of the country, especially if we get into a situation where the legislative process leads to the disclosure of sensitive operational matters with respect to this program. If we end up destroying the effectiveness of the program by broadcasting far and wide operational details that would allow our enemies to in effect negate it or neutralize its effectiveness, that's not in anybody's interests. That clearly is not in the national interest, and the concern in the past when we had had discussions with those members of Congress that had been briefed into the program about the possible amendment, if you will, or additional legislation on this issue, there was a consensus that, in fact, proceeding to do that would disclose the program in ways that would potentially be damaging to it.

So there was a consensus between those of us in the administration who were involved as well as the leaders on Capitol Hill that were briefed on the program that legislation would not be helpful.

Possible follow-up: Lehrer could have noted that, contrary to Cheney's version of events, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales initially claimed that the administration did in fact seek legislation altering FISA, but that it was rebuked by Congress. As The New York Times noted on February 7:

Mr. Gonzales also clarified again a statement he made on Dec. 19, a few days after the spying program was disclosed by The New York Times. At the time, he said the administration had not sought an amendment to the 1978 law because "certain members of Congress" had "advised that that would be difficult, if not impossible." Since then Mr. Gonzales has said the real problem is that such legislation could not be enacted without compromising the program.

Lehrer also could have mentioned that, even as it was already bypassing FISA in 2002, the Bush administration resisted a congressional effort to amend FISA to make it easier to obtain warrants. As Media Matters for America has noted, the Justice Department issued a statement opposing proposed legislation by Sen. Mike DeWine (R-OH) to loosen the standard for surveillance under FISA from "probable cause" to "reasonable basis" for non-U.S. persons, who are not entitled to the same constitutional protections as U.S. persons. The Justice Department statement noted that the change was likely unnecessary and, even with the bill's limitation to surveillance of non-U.S. persons, possibly unconstitutional.

Cheney claimed that Justice Dept. assessment of legal authority for spy program was "thoroughly exhausted"

LEHRER: But there has not been any new conversations about that with Congress just in the last two or three days since this thing has really mushroomed into a controversy?

CHENEY: Not that I've been -- not that I've been involved in. But some of the controversy -- Jim, again let me emphasize here, when we briefed the chairman and ranking members of the committee on this program which we've done at least a dozen times -- I presided over most of those briefings -- there was no great concern expressed that somehow we needed to come get additional legislative authority. In fact, the program has operated for four years, Congress has been informed, a few members of Congress, informed throughout that period of time, and everything was fine until there was publicity in The New York Times. Somebody leaked the program to The New York Times, then there was public disclosure of it, and at that point now we've had some members head for the hill, so to speak, and forget perhaps that they were in the briefings and fully informed of the program.

But in terms of the legal authority, there is a very solid analysis that includes the Office of Legal Counsel in the Justice Department, the counsel in the White House, the attorney general of the United States, and this has been reviewed 30 times now, more than 30 times, because it's had to be renewed every 45 days since we started the program. So the legal issues have been thoroughly exhausted.

Possible follow-up: Lehrer could have asked Cheney about reports that indicate there was not universal support for the domestic surveillance program within the Justice Department. As Newsweek reported on February 6, then-deputy attorney general James B. Comey, who was serving as acting attorney general while then-Attorney General John Ashcroft was in the hospital, was one of several Justice Department officials who objected strenuously to the continuation of the program, prompting White House chief of staff Andrew H. Card Jr. and then-White House counsel Gonzales to visit Ashcroft's hospital room to obtain Department of Justice approval.

Lehrer also could have mentioned that even conservatives such as Fein and former Rep. Bob Barr (R-GA) have questioned whether Gonzales could provide an independent legal analysis of the program from the White House. From a February 4 Times report:

Some legal experts see Mr. Gonzales as little more than a surrogate for President Bush, whom he has served in a variety of capacities since 1997, when Mr. Bush was governor of Texas.

"Nothing in Al Gonzales's public statements, legislative proposals or anything else suggests that this is an individual who operates outside of the political gyroscope of President Bush," said Bruce Fein, an associate deputy attorney general in the Reagan administration.

Bob Barr, a former Republican House member from Georgia, said Mr. Gonzales's role in developing and defending the program "does raise questions about what is the role of attorney general."

"Clearly," Mr. Barr added, "people know his testimony reflects the same view as the White House counsel, and that it's not so much reflecting anything approaching an independent legal analysis. He's there as a lawyer for the president, as opposed to being an advocate for the Constitution and the laws of the country. It's a fine line, and I'm not so sure in his current capacity he has a great deal of credibility."

Cheney claimed Hamdi case provides "ample precedent" for warrantless domestic surveillance

LEHRER: What do you make of Senator Graham's argument that he made yesterday in public to the attorney general, which is using the force resolution which is one of the legal justifications, you decided and it has been decided by the administration -- said if you go down that road, the future when the next president or this president or the next president comes and asks for a force resolution from Congress, there could be all kinds of exceptions -- you can do this, this and this, but you can't wiretap, you can't do this, you can't do that -- and he said if we don't settle this issue now, you will open up a difficult situation for the future. You don't agree with that?

CHENEY: I think people are straining here to try to find an issue to some extent. Remember what's happened since the authorization of the use of force was approved in the aftermath of 9-11, and we've used it extensively in Afghanistan and so forth. We also had a Supreme Court decision in the Hamdi [v. Rumsfeld] case, where the court in effect found that there was implicit in the authorization of the use of force, the authorization for the president to hold an American citizen, and clearly that's a more intrusive, if you will, use of power and authority than surveillance of the enemy.

Incident to the authorization of the use of force, military force, clearly I would expect would be a decision that that implies as well the ability to intercept the communications of the enemy. That's an inherent part of warfare. There's ample precedent we believe on the books based on the Supreme Court decision, based on the statute, based on the president's constitutional authorities, for us to do exactly what we're doing.

Possible follow-up: Lehrer could have noted that numerous legal scholars have expressed strong objections to Cheney's claim that the high court affirmed in Hamdi presidential authority to eavesdrop on the international communications of U.S. citizens without a warrant.

As Media Matters has documented, Robert A. Levy, a senior fellow in constitutional studies at the libertarian Cato Institute and member of the conservative Federalist Society, has noted that the Supreme Court's plurality opinion in Hamdi imposed numerous limitations on the powers originally sought by the Bush administration. Moreover, in a February 2 letter to Democratic and Republican congressional leaders, 14 legal experts noted that in Hamdi, the Supreme Court stated that the administration's authority to detain enemy combatants is broader than it is on issues that Congress has explicitly considered and addressed -- such as the circumstances under which the government can intercept communications involving U.S. persons. The scholars wrote that a specific provision of FISA, which limits authorization for warrantless surveillance to 15 days after war is declared, "plainly distinguishes" warrantless surveillance from the detention issue, which "Congress had not specifically regulated" for U.S. citizens during wartime.

A January 5 CRS report similarly noted that "the Court [in Hamdi] appears to have relied on a more limited interpretation of the scope of the AUMF [the use of force resolution] than that which the Administration had asserted in its briefs."

Cheney claimed Rockefeller "never had any questions that weren't answered" and that the "process of briefing just a few members of Congress is well established"

LEHRER: What about the points that were made yesterday that all the things you just outlined are all within the executive branch with the exception of the members of Congress, these eight members, four Democrats, four Republicans, one of whom wrote you a letter afterward raising concerns about, Senator Rockefeller.

CHENEY: Wrote a letter three years ago and never raised any concerns after that, sat through numerous briefings, never had any questions that weren't answered.

LEHRER: And nobody else of those eight -- none of those other eight did either?

CHENEY: Correct.

LEHRER: So what's going on here, do you think?

CHENEY: Well, I think a lot of people decided after it became public that they wanted to take a different position than they had in private. This process of briefing just a few members of Congress is well established, Jim. I've been involved one way or another in the intelligence operations of our government going back 30 years to the Ford administration, or when I was on the Intelligence Committee myself in the '80s, or when I was secretary of defense in the early '90s. The practice of the president deciding to brief only a few members of Congress on really sensitive programs is well established. We've operated that way now for a very long time, and this program was treated in that fashion. It's important we preserve that capability.

Possible follow-up: Lehrer could have noted that Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (D-WV) has disputed Cheney's claim that Rockefeller "never had any questions that weren't answered" about the spy program. Lehrer also could have mentioned that the limited briefings that the administration provided to Congress, which Cheney described as "well established," are in apparent violation of the law.

In a letter to Cheney dated July 17, 2003, Rockefeller wrote that the surveillance program "raise[s] profound oversight issues" and that he was "unable to fully evaluate, much less endorse" the program until he received more information about how the program functioned and the nature of its legal underpinnings. Upon publicly releasing the letter on December 19, 2005, Rockefeller said that "these concerns were never addressed, and I was prohibited from sharing my views with my colleagues.''

A January 18 CRS report concluded that "limiting congressional notification of the NSA program to the Gang of Eight," which includes the majority and minority leaders and intelligence committee chairmen and ranking members of both the Senate and House of Representatives, "appear[s] to be inconsistent with the law." Even those members of Congress who were briefed on the program may not have been briefed to the extent required by law. As Media Matters has noted, Rockefeller, Graham, Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-MI), and Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) have all stated that they did not receive written reports from the White House on the surveillance operation, as required by the National Security Act of 1947, although Hoekstra has since criticized CRS for concluding that the congressional intelligence committees were not adequately informed of the program.

Cheney claimed "reason to believe that it's Al Qaeda related" is a "very important and very clear-cut" criterion for what calls are monitored under NSA program; claimed he's "never seen as much care and caution exercised" as in NSA program

LEHRER: As vice president of the United States, can you assure any American who's out there, an innocent American who has no connections to Al Qaeda, absolutely none, that his and her rights are not being violated by this NSA surveillance program?

CHENEY: I can.

LEHRER: In any way whatsoever?

CHENEY: Let me emphasize again: People call it domestic surveillance; no, it's not domestic surveillance. The requirements for this authorization to be utilized are that one end of the communication has to be outside the United States, and one end of the communication has to involve reason to believe that it's Al Qaeda related or affiliated or part of the Al Qaeda network. Now those are two very important and very clear-cut criteria, and for this presidential authorization to be used in this way, those two conditions have to be met.

LEHRER: Do you understand why some average Americans might say, wait a minute, whose definition is it of an Al Qaeda possibility or whatever, that they would ask serious questions and want accountability?

CHENEY: Well, I can assure them that the program is operating in a very cautious and prudent manner. As I said, I've been involved off and on for more than 30 years in various aspects of the government's intelligence business as a consumer, as somebody who was responsible for part of the community at one time. I've never seen as much care and caution exercised as there is in this program. It has been done with immaculate concern to guarantee that we protect the civil liberties of the American people, but at the same time that we're able to collect intelligence that will allow us to defend the country against further terrorist attacks.

Possible follow-up: Lehrer could have noted that almost all of the communications intercepted by the domestic surveillance program have reportedly led to innocent Americans, not terrorist suspects, according to intelligence and national security officials cited in investigative reports by The Washington Post and The New York Times. Lehrer also could have asked Cheney about the administration's contradictory statements about whether the NSA program requires a lower standard of proof to conduct surveillance than that required by FISA.

Citing "current and former government officials and private-sector sources with knowledge of the technologies" used to conduct the eavesdropping, the Post reported on February 5 that out of thousands of Americans whose communications have been monitored by the NSA without a court order, "fewer than 10" U.S. citizens or residents "aroused enough suspicion during warrantless eavesdropping to justify interception of their domestic calls, as well." The Post report followed a December 17, 2005, article by the Times, which noted that "virtually all" of the phone conversations monitored by the NSA have "led to dead ends or innocent Americans," according to "[m]ore than a dozen current and former law enforcement and counterterrorism officials."

As Media Matters has documented, while the Justice Department has maintained that the operative standard required for the NSA to conduct warrantless surveillance is "essentially the same" as the "probable cause" standard required under FISA, Gen. Michael V. Hayden previously stated that the standard of proof under the NSA program is "a bit softer than it is for a FISA warrant," and directly acknowledged, in response to a question from a reporter, that the warrantless domestic surveillance had adopted a "lower standard" than required under FISA. Hayden is the former head of the NSA and was the first official put forth by the administration to defend the program.

Cheney claimed that the "vast majority of the American people support this program"

CHENEY: I think, Jim, that I'd make a couple of more points. I think the vast majority of the American people support this program, and I also think when ultimately the history is written about this period, the relevant reaction of the Congress will be the reaction of the leadership when we briefed them into the program in years past, and they signed up to it, and they agreed that it was an extraordinarily important program, and they urged us to continue.

Possible follow-up: Lehrer could have noted that polls have consistently shown that public opinion is, and continues to be, split over the domestic surveillance program.

Most recently, a January 30 NBC/Wall Street Journal poll found that a slight majority of Americans support the Bush's administration use of warrantless wiretaps to date but, by a slightly greater margin, also believe the administration should be required to get a court order to do so:

As you may know, since 2002, the Bush administration has been using wiretaps to listen to telephone calls between suspected terrorists in other countries and American citizens in the United States without getting a court order to do so. Do you approve or disapprove of the Bush administration's approach on this issue?

Approve

51

Disapprove

46

Not sure

3

Do you think that the Bush administration should conduct wiretaps of American citizens who are suspected of having ties to terrorists without a court order, or do you think that the Bush administration should be required to get a court order before conducting these wiretaps?

Should be able to wiretap without court order

41

Should be required to get a court order before wiretapping

53

Depends (VOL)

4

Not sure

2

The February 8 edition of CNN's The Situation Room featured a video clip of part of civil rights leader Rev. Joseph Lowery's address at the February 7 funeral of civil rights activist Coretta Scott King, during which Lowery mentioned the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Lowery's WMD remarks were greeted with 23 seconds of applause and a standing ovation. But during the CNN segment, in which host Wolf Blitzer asked his panelists -- Democratic strategist Paul Begala and former Bush administration official Victoria Clarke -- whether they thought Lowery's remarks were appropriate, CNN played the clip of Lowery, but cropped 18 seconds of applause -- more than three fourths of the time -- and footage of the standing ovation, without any indication that the clip had been doctored. Viewers who were watching Lowery's remarks for the first time would not have known that they actually drew a standing ovation -- not the perfunctory five seconds of applause CNN's edited clip conveyed -- and that the 23 seconds of applause prevented Lowery from continuing his eulogy.

Lowery's comments, as broadcast by CNN on February 7:

LOWERY: We know, now, there were no weapons of mass destruction over there --

[23-second standing ovation]

LOWERY: -- but Coretta knew, and we know that there are weapons of misdirection right down here.

The edited clip featured only five seconds of applause, showing footage of the very end of Lowery's standing ovation, after most in attendance had already sat down.

Blitzer introduced the discussion about Lowery's comments as follows:

BLITZER: Let's talk about the funeral yesterday. The Reverend Joseph Lowery was among those eulogizing Coretta Scott King. Among other things, he said this.

[edited footage of Lowery's comments]

BLITZER: I don't know if that was a direct reference to the president of the United States, who was there, but was it appropriate?

In a February 8 Wall Street Journal opinion article (subscription required), David B. Rivkin Jr. and Lee A. Casey, former Justice Departments officials under presidents Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush, defended President Bush's National Security Agency (NSA) warrantless domestic wiretapping program by repeating the claim made by former NSA director Gen. Michael V. Hayden that the program monitors only the communications involving "Al Qaeda operatives" either out of or into the United States. Like Hayden, Rivkin and Casey also asserted that media reports of the program show that its "domestic footprint" was "minimized."

However as Media Matters for America previously noted, media reports about the program indicate that the program is far from limited to "Al Qaeda operatives" and far from having a minimal domestic scope. Rather, it has reportedly cast a broad net, monitoring the communications of thousands of people with no relationship to Al Qaeda. Most recently, a February 5 Washington Post report quoting "current and former government officials" said that "[i]ntelligence officers who eavesdropped on thousands of Americans in overseas calls under authority from President Bush have dismissed nearly all of them as potential suspects after hearing nothing pertinent to a terrorist threat." The New York Times similarly reported on January 17 that "[m]ore than a dozen current and former law enforcement and counterterrorism officials," some of whom knew of the domestic spying program, "said the torrent of tips [from NSA wiretapping] led them to few potential terrorists inside the country they did not know of from other sources and diverted agents from counterterrorism work they viewed as more productive."

Notwithstanding those reports, Rivkin and Casey echoed Hayden's January 23 description of the program, saying that "communications entirely within the U.S. are not targeted, and only those international communications involving al Qaeda on one end are collected and analyzed," adding, "All else is speculation (or wishful thinking) by the administration's political opponents."

From the February 8 edition of The Wall Street Journal:

Although enhanced congressional oversight of the NSA program may well be constitutionally permissible and even sensible as a policy matter, the requirement of a warrant for this type of surveillance would trench upon the president's constitutional power as commander in chief to monitor enemy communications in wartime. Far from being a "pervasive" domestic spying program, the NSA has simply intercepted the communications of al Qaeda operatives into, or out of, the U.S. As described by former NSA director, Gen. Michael V. Hayden, communications entirely within the U.S. are not targeted, and only those international communications involving al Qaeda on one end are collected and analyzed. All else is speculation (or wishful thinking) by the administration's political opponents.

Even the NSA program's fiercest foes don't claim that it was designed or administered for snooping on the president's "enemies" or critics. Surveillance is conducted by career intelligence officials at an agency renowned for discretion and professionalism. Nor has the administration ignored privacy interests and congressional prerogatives. According to media accounts, administration officials have minimized the program's domestic footprint -- effectively limiting it to the collection of battlefield intelligence, or the practical equivalent, which is squarely within the president's constitutional authority.

From the January 17 edition of The New York Times:

"We'd chase a number, find it's a school teacher with no indication they've ever been involved in international terrorism -- case closed," said one former FBI official, who was aware of the program and the data it generated for the bureau. "After you get a thousand numbers and not one is turning up anything, you get some frustration.

From the February 5 edition of The Washington Post:

Intelligence officers who eavesdropped on thousands of Americans in overseas calls under authority from President Bush have dismissed nearly all of them as potential suspects after hearing nothing pertinent to a terrorist threat, according to accounts from current and former government officials and private-sector sources with knowledge of the technologies in use.

Bush has recently described the warrantless operation as "terrorist surveillance" and summed it up by declaring that "if you're talking to a member of al Qaeda, we want to know why." But officials conversant with the program said a far more common question for eavesdroppers is whether, not why, a terrorist plotter is on either end of the call. The answer, they said, is usually no.

Fewer than 10 U.S. citizens or residents a year, according to an authoritative account, have aroused enough suspicion during warrantless eavesdropping to justify interception of their domestic calls, as well. That step still requires a warrant from a federal judge, for which the government must supply evidence of probable cause.

The Bush administration refuses to say -- in public or in closed session of Congress -- how many Americans in the past four years have had their conversations recorded or their e-mails read by intelligence analysts without court authority. Two knowledgeable sources placed that number in the thousands; one of them, more specific, said about 5,000.

The program has touched many more Americans than that. Surveillance takes place in several stages, officials said, the earliest by machine. Computer-controlled systems collect and sift basic information about hundreds of thousands of faxes, e-mails and telephone calls into and out of the United States before selecting the ones for scrutiny by human eyes and ears.

As Media Matters for America has previously noted, not long after the Bush administration adopted new rhetoric to describe its warrantless domestic surveillance program, Fox News reporters and anchors began using the White House's terminology -- referring to it as a "terrorist surveillance program" or "terror surveillance program." Beginning on January 25 -- during a week that saw the administration go on the offensive to promote its practice of spying on U.S. residents without obtaining warrants -- Fox News began slipping the term, without qualification, into its news reports and commentary. Since then, Fox News reporters and anchors have continued to use the term "terrorist [or terror] surveillance program" in their reporting. Further, some regional newspapers appear to be following Fox News' lead, also adopting, without qualification, the White House's preferred nomenclature to describe the National Security Agency's (NSA) warrantless domestic spying program.

Fox Broadcasting Co. followed its cable news partner in picking up the terminology on Fox News Sunday, where host Chris Wallace claimed that a Washington Post article reported: "... the government's top-secret terror surveillance program has yielded few suspects from the thousands of Americans who have been monitored in overseas calls." But, while Wallace suggested that "terror surveillance program" was the Post's wording, the article explicitly stated that "terrorist surveillance program" was an administration phrase, noting: "[President] Bush has recently described the warrantless operation as 'terrorist surveillance,' and summed it up by declaring that 'if you're talking to a member of al Qaeda, we want to know why.' "

Later, while introducing guest Gen. Michael V. Hayden, deputy director of national intelligence, Wallace again used the term "terror surveillance program" to describe the NSA program.

As Media Matters has noted, the term "terrorist surveillance program" appears to have originated with the right-wing news website NewsMax.com on December 22, 2005; operators of right-wing weblogs began to pick up the term on January 20, according to a timeline by the weblog Think Progress. On January 22, the White House press office released a backgrounder on the NSA program, in which the term appeared 10 times in reference to domestic eavesdropping.

In a January 23 speech, Bush said of the NSA's activities, "It's what I would call a terrorist surveillance program." He and other administration officials have since used the term in numerous speeches and interviews. While most news outlets that have referred to this wording have placed it in quotes or disclosed it as a term the Bush administration has promoted (as the Post did in its February 5 article), Media Matters noted that Fox News began to use it on January 25, without qualification, in news reports and commentary.

From January 30 to February 6, Fox News increased its usage of the term "terrorist surveillance program" or "terror surveillance program" in reference to the NSA's warrantless domestic spying. During that period, Media Matters found that Fox News and Fox Broadcasting Co. used the term or a variation at least 26 times on 15 different programs throughout its coverage of the NSA's controversial program.

Date

Show

1/30/06

Fox News Live, Studio B With Shepard Smith

1/31/06

Big Story with John Gibson

2/1/06

Fox & Friends First, Fox & Friends

2/4/06

Fox News Live Weekend, The Line-Up, The Journal Editorial Report

2/5/06

Fox News Live, Fox News Sunday

2/6/06

Fox & Friends, Fox News Live, Your World with Neil Cavuto, Big Story with John Gibson, Hannity & Colmes

During the same period (January 30-February 6), while Fox News increased its usage of the term "terrorist surveillance program," some regional newspapers also adopted Bush's terminology in their commentary and reporting of the NSA spy program: The Arizona Republic (Phoenix), The Honolulu Advertiser, San Antonio Express-News, The Greenville News (South Carolina), and The Washington Times (as Media Matters previously noted here). With the exception of the San Antonio Express-News, all of the papers used the term in editorials defending or praising Bush's January 31 State of the Union address. The San Antonio Express-News used the phrase in a news article. Four of the five newspapers -- The Arizona Republic, San Antonio Express-News, The Greenville News and The Washington Times -- endorsed Bush in the presidential election of 2004.

From the February 5 broadcast of Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday:

WALLACE: I'm Chris Wallace. New revelations about that controversial NSA surveillance program, next on Fox News Sunday.

Terrorist surveillance: Can attacks be prevented while civil liberties are protected? We'll find out in a rare interview with the architect of the NSA spy program, General Michael Hayden, now the deputy director of national intelligence.

[...]

WALLACE: And good morning again from Fox News in Washington. Here's a quick check of the latest headlines. The Washington Post reports today the government's top-secret terror surveillance program has yielded few suspects from the thousands of Americans who have been monitored in overseas calls.

Only about 10 citizens or residents a year have raised enough suspicion to prompt more surveillance. We'll talk about that with General Hayden in a moment.

[...]

WALLACE: Well, tomorrow, here on Capitol Hill, hearings begin on that controversial terror surveillance program. Our first guest, General Michael Hayden, started the program as head of the National Security Agency. Now he's the principal deputy director of national intelligence. General Hayden joins us live from Detroit.

On the January 6 edition of MSNBC's The Abrams Report, host Dan Abrams failed to challenge Kris W. Kobach's assertion that President Bush's controversial warrantless domestic spying program dealt only with "very targeted" calls. Kobach, a constitutional law professor and former counsel to former Attorney General John Ashcroft, defended the program against the criticism of Gerald B. Lefcourt, a defense attorney and past president of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. Kobach claimed that the warrantless surveillance program monitored "only on those communications between a known Al Qaeda source or a suspected Al Qaeda source." In fact, according to recent media reports citing current and former government officials, the program is far from being "very targeted"; it has cast a broad net, monitoring the communications of thousands of people with no relationship to Al Qaeda.

A February 5 Washington Post report quoting "current and former government officials" stated that "[i]ntelligence officers who eavesdropped on thousands of Americans in overseas calls under authority from President Bush have dismissed nearly all of them as potential suspects after hearing nothing pertinent to a terrorist threat." The New York Times similarly reported on January 17 that "[m]ore than a dozen current and former law enforcement and counterterrorism officials," some of whom knew of the domestic spying program, "said the torrent of tips [from NSA wiretapping] led them to few potential terrorists inside the country they did not know of from other sources and diverted agents from counterterrorism work they viewed as more productive."

From the January 6 edition of MSNBC's The Abrams Report:

KOBACH: Well, yeah, that is that -- look, the surveillance here is only on those communications between a known Al Qaeda source or a suspected Al Qaeda source, I should say, and someone inside the United States. These are very targeted. And the critics of this program who have been claiming, "Oh, it's domestic surveillance of U.S. citizens," have been deliberately, I would say, misleading by making it seem as if all of our phone calls are subject to surveillance. No, not at all. Only if we happen to be making an international call to someone whose number is a known Al Qaeda number, yeah, then we might.

In his February 8 nationally syndicated column, L. Brent Bozell III, president of the conservative Media Research Center, drew a false comparison between the Bush administration's warrantless domestic surveillance program and former President Bill Clinton's call for expanding anti-terror legislation following the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing. Bozell specifically faulted CBS News, claiming: "CBS didn't shriek about 'domestic spying' or commission a poll then questioning Clinton's commitment to civil liberties." Bozell, however, ignored a key distinction between Clinton's and Bush's attempts to expand the government's ability to investigate suspected terrorists. Clinton publicly called for the legislation; Bush secretly authorized a clandestine surveillance program without informing the public or seeking congressional approval. Additionally, the April 25, 1995, CBS report Bozell pointed to did, in fact, note that there was public concern at the time over possible threats to civil liberties posed by Clinton's proposed legislation, and following Clinton's proposal, CBS did commission a poll asking if the government should have more authority to combat terrorism, even if Americans' constitutional rights were violated.

From Bozell's February 8 column:

In April of 1995, after the Oklahoma City bombing, President Clinton called for more agents to investigate domestic terror suspects, and more power to infiltrate terrorist plots and examine suspects' "phone, hotel, and credit card records," as CBS explained at the time. CBS didn't shriek about "domestic spying" or commission a poll then questioning Clinton's commitment to civil liberties. They noted Clinton's handling of Oklahoma City "sent his approval ratings soaring."

As Bozell himself noted, however, Clinton "called" for this legislation on April 23, 1995 -- publicly announcing his plans and urging Congress to carry them out. The New York Times reported on April 26, 1995, that "Administration officials said today that the Federal Bureau of Investigation and its parent agency, the Justice Department, wanted new authority to monitor, investigate and infiltrate groups suspected of planning terrorist attacks," and "members of Congress said there was widespread support for such changes on Capitol Hill, where lawmakers appear eager to move quickly." Bush, however, never made a public call for the authority to monitor domestic communications without a warrant, nor did he petition Congress for legislative approval. Rather, the administration assumed it had the authority and exercised it without consulting with Congress or the courts. During his February 6 testimony at the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing into the domestic surveillance program, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales was asked by Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA) why the administration did not consult with Congress when implementing the program; Gonzales responded: "Sir, the short answer is -- is that we didn't think we needed to, quite frankly."

Also, Bozell's claim that CBS did not "commission a poll then questioning Clinton's commitment to civil liberties" is false. According to The Roper Center for Public Opinion Research at the University of Connecticut, an April 25, 1995, CBS poll (available via the Lexis-Nexis database) asked respondents about the expansion of governmental authority to combat terrorism and the potential risk to civil liberties. Though the poll's question did not mention Clinton by name, it did reference the authority to "plant undercover agents in possible terrorist groups" -- one of the powers Clinton requested. From the CBS poll:

"Do you think that in order to fight terrorism, the Federal government should have MORE authority to investigate and plant undercover agents in possible terrorist groups or would this violate Americans constitutional rights?"

 

Total

Republicans

Democrats

Independents

Yes

76%

81%

78%

70%

No

16%

13%

13%

21%

DK/NA

8%

6%

9%

9%

Moreover, Bozell's suggestion that CBS did not question "Clinton's commitment to civil liberties" is false. From the April 25, 1995, CBS report:

BILL PLANTE (correspondent): The president urged Americans to stand up to the people he called promoters of paranoia, saying freedom of speech makes silence in the face of hatred unforgivable.

CLINTON: So, exercise yours, my fellow Americans. Our country, our future, our way of life is at stake. I never want to look into the faces of another set of family members like I saw yesterday and you can help to stop it.

PLANTE: Mr. Clinton also wants new legislation to combat terrorism, making it easier to infiltrate terrorist groups and examine their phone, hotel, and credit card records. Some worry that that could mean FBI harassment of any unpopular group.

JAMES DEMPSEY (Center for National Security Studies): We could see a return to the time of the '60s and '70s, when the FBI was investigating people based purely on ideology.

PLANTE: The administration shrugs that off -- says those disputes over civil liberties can be worked out. They're also very well aware that the call to be tough on terrorists is a political winner. And although no one around here would have the bad taste to mention it, the White House staff is very much aware that Mr. Clinton's handling of the crisis in Oklahoma City has sent his approval ratings soaring.

On the February 6 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume, Fred Barnes, executive editor of The Weekly Standard, remarked that in the recent violent protests over cartoons that caricatured the prophet Mohammed, "We see Muslims' contempt for democracy, for freedom of speech, for freedom of the press and particularly for freedom of religion." The cartoons first drew criticism after their original September 30, 2005, publication in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten. After initial criticism of the cartoons, which included one that depicted the prophet Mohammed wearing a turban fashioned into a bomb, several European newspapers reprinted them on February 1.

From the February 6 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume:

HUME: What about this controversy? Where is it going? What does it tell us? Fred?

BARNES: It tells us a lot. It tells us that our enemy or -- is not just Al Qaeda. That there's -- that Muslims all over Europe and all over the world are certainly enemies of Western civilization. Look what the showing of these cartoons, which I do -- originally thought was a mistake. They shouldn't have run them. Now, I think we've learned a lot from this. We see the Muslims' contempt for democracy, for freedom of speech, for freedom of the press, and particularly, for freedom of religion.

Freedom of religion doesn't mean, just, you have the right to practice your own religion. It means that you can reject, and criticize, and even insult other religions if you want to. And that's what's happened. And it doesn't mean that you have to die or should be threatened or have your hand cut off or anything like that as a result.

In a February 7 article, USA Today reported that "[t]he Bush administration has briefed congressional leaders on the details" of its warrantless domestic surveillance program, but the article failed to note that many of the Democrats who said they had been informed about the program contend that they were not told about its actual nature and extent.

The USA Today article, by staff reporter John Diamond, echoed Bush's own misleading assertion in his State of the Union address that "[a]ppropriate members of Congress have been kept informed" about the program as well as a misleading rhetorical question Bush asked in a January 23 speech: "[I]f I wanted to break the law, why was I briefing Congress?"

In fact, as Media Matters for America has noted, several Democratic leaders have challenged the claim that they were briefed "on the details of the surveillance program." For example, Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA), the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said in a December 21, 2005, statement: "I have been briefed since 2003 on a highly classified NSA foreign collection program that targeted Al Qaeda." She added: "Like many Americans, I am deeply concerned by reports that this program in fact goes far beyond the measures to target Al Qaeda about which I was briefed."

Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (D-WV), the ranking minority member on the Senate Intelligence Committee, wrote a letter to Vice President Dick Cheney on July 17, 2003, expressing his "lingering concerns" raised by a briefing on the program he had received that day. In the secret handwritten letter, Rockefeller cited a lack of information that left him "unable to fully evaluate, much less endorse these activities." From Rockefeller's letter:

Clearly, the activities we discussed raise profound oversight issues. As you know, I am neither a technician, nor an attorney. Given the security restrictions associated with this information, and my inability to consult staff or counsel on my own, I feel unable to fully evaluate, much less endorse these activities.

[...]

Without more information and the ability to draw on independent legal or technical expertise, I simply cannot satisfy lingering concerns raised by the briefing we received.

Former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-SD) has said there were "omissions of consequence" in the briefings he received in 2002 and 2004. And former Sen. Bob Graham (D-FL), chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee at the time Bush first authorized the program, has claimed that he was never informed "that the program would involve eavesdropping on American citizens."

A December 23, 2005, New York Times article noted that Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) -- along with Harman and Graham -- "have all suggested in recent days that they were not provided with a complete accounting of the program, and that they might have raised objections if they had understood its scope."

In addition, Graham and Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-MI), the Republican chairman of the House Intelligence Committee -- along with aides to Rockefeller and Reid -- have all said that the briefings did not constitute written reports about the program, which are required of the White House under the National Security Act of 1947 (as amended in 2001).

A January 18 report by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service concluded that the Bush administration's limited notification of Congress about the domestic surveillance program "appear[s] to be inconsistent with the law."

From the February 7 USA Today article, headlined "Lawmakers doubtful on surveillance defense":

The Bush administration has briefed congressional leaders on the details of the surveillance program, but [Attorney General Alberto R.] Gonzales said it did not seek an act of Congress because that would have risked exposure of the details of the program.

"Our enemy is listening, and I cannot help but wonder if they aren't shaking their heads in amazement" and "smiling at the prospect that we might now disclose even more," Gonzales said.

On the February 7 edition of MSNBC's Hardball, host Chris Matthews promised viewers "straight talk" from Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), but instead provided a friendly forum for McCain to attack fellow Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL). McCain and Obama recently exchanged correspondence over congressional efforts on lobbying reform.

Matthews directed the following set of "hardball" questions and statements to McCain:

• What was your original relationship with Senator Obama on congressional reform?
• Did he, well, welsh on the deal?
• Did he welsh on the deal? Did he double-cross you by going partisan after promising to go bipartisan with you, senator?
• Let me ask you about the original [letter from Obama to McCain]. It seems to me looking at the exchange of letters between yourself and Senator Obama, the Democratic senator from Illinois, that you initially put together a bipartisan effort and then he withdrew from the deal and went back and said -- and then told you in no uncertain terms, "I'm not dealing with you anymore in a bipartisan fashion, I'm going off and going to do this as a Democrat."
• Do you stand by your letter back to Senator Obama?
• Well, let's take a look at it [McCain's letter to Obama] because I think the people will learn a lot from this about -- I know you're being nice now, but the way in which Obama treated you. The first line of the letter -- I thought we were going to see this on prompter here -- "I'd like to apologize to you for assuming that your private assurances to me regarding your desire to cooperate in our efforts to negotiate bipartisan lobbying reform legislation were sincere." You're basically saying what here?
• Well, I concluded -- more here. "I concluded your professed concern for the public interest was genuine and admirable. Thank you for disabusing me of such notions." You're saying to the guy," I thought you were a gentleman and a civil servant and now you're obviously not."
• Let me ask you, I know I love to do this -- you know, Senator, I have to do this now. Ken Mehlman, the chairman of your party, has gone after [Sen.] Hillary [Rodham] Clinton [D-NY] for being angry, as if there's something wrong with it. This is the letter of a very sophisticated, angry senator. What's wrong with being angry?
• Well, this letter is brilliantly angry.
• You know, I worked on the Hill for many years, and I used to notice there was a big difference between the Senate and the House of Representatives. The Senate was bipartisan by its nature. It was people that found common ground where they could and didn't waste a lot of time. The House of Representatives was mainly about taking party positions and seeing who won. Do you think that Obama is behaving like a House member here rather than a senator?
• OK, we're hoping to get Senator Obama to come on and talk about how you're going to work together. But are you -- have you any confidence now that he will join your bipartisan effort?
• That letter that you sent, and we were beginning to -- I'm not going to quote any further from it. I think we caught the gist or tone of it. Senator, do you stand by this letter?
• OK, great.

From the February 7 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews:

MATTHEWS: On the Republican side, popular John McCain whacked Democratic Senator Barack Obama as "self-interested," "posturing" and "disingenuous." My kind of day. Let's play Hardball.

[...]

Good evening, I'm Chris Matthews. Welcome to Hardball. The biggest political story in Washington tonight is the battle between Senators John McCain and Barack Obama. In a blistering letter, Senator McCain accused Obama of "using the ethics reform issue for self-interested partisan posturing" and apologized for thinking Obama was sincere. This is the first time any prominent national politician has publicly criticized superstar Obama. Why did Senator McCain go after the freshman senator? We'll get the straight talk from Senator McCain himself in just a moment, but one of the lessons here might be: Don't mess with John McCain.

[...]

MATTHEWS: But first, Senator John McCain. Senator McCain, are you with us?

McCAIN: Chris.

MATTHEWS: Thank you for joining us. What was your original relationship with Senator Obama on congressional reform?

McCAIN: Well, my relationship is fine with him. We had a difference of viewpoints because he sent me a letter that basically said that he wasn't, as I read it, wasn't going to be -- we weren't going to work together, and he'd been at a meeting with me and the chairman and ranking member, Senator [Susan] Collins [R-ME], Senator [Joseph I.] Lieberman [D-CT], as we worked towards lobbying reform, which we have to do, and then I received a letter that basically said that he wasn't going to do that. Actually, I didn't receive the letter before I got press reports, and so I responded with a little straight talk.

MATTHEWS: Did he, well, welsh on the deal?

McCAIN: Say that again.

MATTHEWS: Did he welsh on the deal? Did he double-cross you by going partisan after promising to go bipartisan with you, senator?

McCAIN: You know, I'm sorry, it's garbled, Chris, you're going to have to try to repair it, because I'm, you're, you're garbled.

[...]

MATTHEWS: We'll go right back now to Senator John McCain. Senator McCain, can you hear me now?

McCAIN: All right.

MATTHEWS: Can you hear me now, senator?

McCAIN: Yes, I do.

MATTHEWS: Let me ask you about the original. It seems to me looking at the exchange of letters between yourself and Senator Obama, the Democratic senator from Illinois, that you initially put together a bipartisan effort and then he withdrew from the deal and went back and said -- and then told you in no uncertain terms, "I'm not dealing with you anymore in a bipartisan fashion, I'm going off and going to do this as a Democrat."

McCAIN: Well, I had a conversation with Senator Obama, and he said that was not his intention, but the way I read the letter, after I heard from the press that it was on its way, that indeed that was the case, including touting Senator [Harry] Reid's [D-NV] proposal, which has no Republican sponsors and will not, and we all know that we have to work together and so I responded and Senator Obama and I had a conversation, and we agreed to move on.

MATTHEWS: Do you stand by your letter back to Senator Obama?

McCAIN: Sure.

MATTHEWS: Well, let's take a look at it because I think the people will learn a lot from this about -- I know you're being nice now, but the way in which Obama treated you. The first line of the letter -- I thought we were going to see this on prompter here -- "I'd like to apologize to you for assuming that your private assurances to me regarding your desire to cooperate in our efforts to negotiate bipartisan lobbying reform legislation were sincere." You're basically saying what here?

McCAIN: I'm saying that I believed that his efforts were sincere at the time. The letter that I received contradicted that, at least my reading of it -- and I don't know how you read it any other way -- and so therefore I -- that's exactly what I said. It was a little straight talk, Chris.

MATTHEWS: Well, I concluded -- more here. "I concluded your professed concern for the public interest was genuine and admirable. Thank you for disabusing me of such notions." You're saying to the guy," I thought you were a gentleman and a civil servant and now you're obviously not."

McCAIN: Well, I thought it was pretty well written; didn't you?

MATTHEWS: I think it was tough. Let me ask you, I know I love to do this -- you know, Senator, I have to do this now. Ken Mehlman, the chairman of your party, has gone after Hillary Clinton for being angry, as if there's something wrong with it. This is the letter of a very sophisticated, angry senator. What's wrong with being angry?

McCAIN: I'm not angry. I --

MATTHEWS: Well, this letter is brilliantly angry.

McCAIN: Well, I wasn't angry when I wrote it. Look, I wrote the letter because I was very disappointed in the letter that I received from Sen. Obama and was told to me by the press. Look, this is a pressing issue. We have to move forward in a bipartisan fashion. You know and I know that if -- the only way you resolve one of these issues is in a bipartisan fashion, and so that's why I felt strongly about it. In the room were Sen. Collins, the chairperson of the oversight committee and Sen. Lieberman and we had all agreed to move forward with her committee as quickly as possible, and there was reference in the letter to a task force, that frankly we had committed to moving forward with the committee process.

MATTHEWS: You know, I worked on the Hill for many years, and I used to notice there was a big difference between the Senate and the House of Representatives. The Senate was bipartisan by its nature. It was people that found common ground where they could and didn't waste a lot of time. The House of Representatives was mainly about taking party positions and seeing who won. Do you think that Obama is behaving like a House member here rather than a senator?

McCAIN: I hope not. I hope that he made a mistake and we can move forward, and I continue to work with Joe Lieberman and many other senators because they realize that we've got to get work done on a bipartisan basis. Have times changed? Of course, they have changed and for the worse.

MATTHEWS: OK, we're hoping to get Senator Obama to come on and talk about how you're going to work together. But are you -- have you any confidence now that he will join your bipartisan effort?

McCAIN: Well, I hope so. We have agreed to move forward and that's what's important at this point, and we've probably provided enough entertainment for a while.

MATTHEWS: That letter that you sent, and we were beginning to -- I'm not going to quote any further from it. I think we caught the gist or tone of it. Senator, do you stand by this letter?

McCAIN: Sure.

MATTHEWS: OK, great.