Media Matters for America

Following Dubai Ports World's (DPW) March 9 announcement that it would divest its leases to terminals at six U.S. ports, news outlets and media figures depicted Republicans as having neutralized the issue of port security. In other cases, they portrayed the Democratic opposition to the state-owned Arab firm's acquisition of the ports as purely political. But such characterizations take a narrow view of the political issues involved in the controversy, entirely ignoring differences between the two parties' broader records on this issue. Indeed, congressional Democrats have in recent years repeatedly stressed the need for greater port security and have urged Congress and the administration to act on the issue, as Media Matters for America has noted. By contrast, Republicans have regularly resisted Democratic efforts to secure U.S. ports

Since the Bush administration's approval of the DPW deal became public on February 11 and both parties declared their opposition, the media have often cast Democrats as "Johnny-come-lately's" to the issue of port security. The characterization ignores congressional Democrats' substantial track record of promoting port security. Lawmakers such as Sens. Charles Schumer (NY), Hillary Rodham Clinton (NY), Bill Nelson (FL), Patty Murray (WA), Robert Byrd (WV), Ernest Hollings (SC), Rep. Jane Harman (CA) and Gov. Jon Corzine (NJ) have all put forward legislation to bolster port security.

Congressional Republicans, meanwhile, have regularly defeated these efforts to secure U.S. ports, as the Senate Democratic Policy Committee documented. In fact, many of the Senate Republicans who opposed the DPW port deal -- including Sens. Rick Santorum (PA), George Allen (VA), Susan Collins (ME), Norm Coleman (MN) and Lindsey Graham (SC), among others -- have continually voted against previous Democratic attempts to strengthen port security.

Despite this stark contrast in the two parties' records on port security, several news outlets responded to DPW's March 9 announcement by asserting that Republicans, in their opposition to the deal, appeared to have neutralized any benefit the Democrats might have stood to receive from the controversy. For example, in a March 10 article on how the port controversy exacerbated the divide between President Bush and the GOP-led Congress, Washington Post staff writer Peter Baker wrote that it was doubtful the Democrats would be able to reap any political benefit from "that issue," given that Republicans were "every bit as vocal as their opponents in standing against the port deal":

The port deal has provided ammunition to Democrats who have begun making the case more broadly that Bush is in over his head. Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) yesterday called the port situation a "case study in the administration's incompetence," and Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.) said the administration "was clearly asleep at the switch" and "bungled the oversight of this deal."

But it's not clear whether Democrats will be able to turn that issue to their benefit in the fall. Republicans on Capitol Hill were every bit as vocal as their opponents in standing against the port deal, making it harder to draw a clear distinction come campaign time. By turning against Bush, some GOP strategists believe Republican leaders may have saved themselves a worse fate.

Viewed narrowly, Baker might be right that congressional Republicans were as vociferous on the DPW issue as Democrats. But viewed more broadly, the issue of port security -- the central issue raised by critics of the DPW deal -- is one in which Democrats and Republicans have vastly different records. Baker's article entirely ignored these differences.

Appearing on the March 10 edition of NBC's Today, NBC News Washington bureau chief Tim Russert similarly depicted Republicans as having disposed of the port deal as an issue for this year's congressional election:

KATIE COURIC (co-host): But eight months is a long time, Tim. Can the Democrats really continue to use this as a hot button issue? Do you think this really has legs?

RUSSERT: They will use it as a metaphor for incompetence. And what the Republicans and the Democrats say to me is that when they go out in the field and -- and poll and say, "What do you think of your congressman?" -- when they ask about a Republican congressman, they say three things: Iraq, corruption, and the ports. They have now taken care of the port deal. Corruption -- they may fine tune some legislation. Iraq is out of their control. Those three issues are front and center confronting this president and this Republican Congress.

Other news outlets singled out specific Democrats' opposition to the deal as motivated by political opportunism. A March 10 New York Post editorial questioned whether Schumer and Clinton would "show the same concern" over the broader issue of port security:

Those who worked so feverishly to block the Dubai ports deal have won.

Now let's see whether those same pols who were fulminating over foreign ownership -- Chuck Schumer? Hillary Clinton? -- show the same concern over the reality of what passes for port security.

But as noted above, both Schumer and Clinton have previously supported efforts to strengthen port security. In 2005, Clinton co-sponsored a successful amendment that provided $150 million for port security grants. She also co-sponsored a 2005 amendment to provide an additional $450 million for such grants. In 2004, Schumer proposed an amendment to provide $70 million for research and development to stop nuclear materials from entering U.S. ports.

Nonetheless, a March 10 Washington Times editorial characterized Schumer as a "new supposed convert to national security":

As a vignette, this episode nicely captures what we've come to observe about Mr. Schumer. In a Congress where lawmakers regularly do just about anything to get attention, he stands out for his singular capacity for self-promotion.

This new supposed convert to national security is an embarrassment. His actions discredit people who see genuine security problems with handing ports-management contracts over to a government-owned company from Dubai.

Further, on the March 9 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, co-host Sean Hannity asserted that Schumer and Clinton's opposition to the port deal "was never about homeland security or national security," but rather "about scoring some political advantage":

HANNITY: But it's interesting -- if you listen to, for example, Harry Reid and Schumer and Hillary Clinton, and the rest of them, they are still -- even though it's gone away as an issue -- well, they're still demanding a vote. Does that not prove that, for them, this was never about homeland security or national security; this was about, and always continues to be about, scoring some political advantage?

On the March 8 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Bill O'Reilly stated: "You know, in a sane world, every country would unite against Iran and blow it off the face of the earth. That would be the sane thing to do." O'Reilly made the remark during a discussion of Iran's recent threat to cause "harm and pain" to the U.S. if it pursues sanctions against Iran in the U.N. Security Council because of Iran's developing nuclear program.

As Media Matters for America has documented, O'Reilly recently declared that "it's just a matter of time ... before we have to bomb" Iran.

From the March 8 edition of Westwood One's The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly:

O'REILLY: And let's do the No-Spin News. In Vienna, Iran has threatened the U.S.A. with, quote, "harm and pain" for its role in trying to get the United Nations to discipline Iran over the nuke issue. OK. It's the usual saber-rattling. You know, we'll hurt you, we'll do this, that, and the other thing. Now, what Iran is doing is they perceive that America is weakened because of the conflict in Iraq and the division at home, OK? So they're saying, "Hey, we'll just push the envelope as far as we can push it and see what happens. So we think that Bush is a damaged president, his approval ratings are low, Iraq is chaos -- we're helping that out, by the way." Iran is helping Iraq to be in chaos by allowing the terrorists to go through that country and arming them and teaching them how to make bombs and all of that.

You know, in a sane world, every country would unite against Iran and blow it off the face of the earth. That would be the sane thing to do, just go in and remove the government, because this is a terrorist state. But we can't do that, and now, the U.S.A. is basically has to take this kind of rhetoric. I mean, there's nothing else we can do but go to the United Nations and say to the Security Council, "Look, you can't let these people have nuclear weapons. If you do, there's going to be a war." So it's between war and sanctions.

In a March 10 editorial on the reported demise of the deal that would have let Dubai Ports World (DPW) -- a company owned by the government of Dubai, a member state of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) -- assume control of terminal operations at six major U.S. ports, The Washington Post adopted the Bush administration's false suggestion that there is no difference between DPW and Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co. (P&O), the British company that controlled the ports, which DPW purchased. The Post, like the Bush administration, suggested that criticism of the deal was based on DPW's Arab ownership and was therefore discriminatory. In fact, there is a key difference as a matter of law between DPW and P&O: DPW is a state-owned company, whereas P&O was not, prior to its acquisition by DPW.

On March 9, DPW announced it would divest its leases to terminals at six U.S. ports after the House Appropriations Committee voted overwhelmingly to block the deal. As The New York Times reported on March 10: "The action averted a showdown with Congress that Mr. Bush was all but certain to lose, as signaled on Wednesday by a 62-to-2 vote of the House Appropriations Committee to reject the transfer, because it allowed the sale of some terminal operations to an Arab state company."

According to the March 10 Washington Post editorial:

No one should underestimate the potential damage. Any government in a Muslim-majority country will have to ask itself: Why take the risk of friendship? If governments find no good answer to that question, the fight against radical Islamic terrorism will suffer. Meanwhile, Arab investors may think twice before putting their money in a country where their companies risk expropriation. With the price of oil so high, Arabs are rapidly becoming a major supplier of foreign capital. This isn't a good moment for Americans to discourage foreign investment, given the nation's dependence on foreign capital (see: Congress, drunken spending by). Nor will the message -- that foreign ownership was unobjectionable when it was British but intolerable when it was Arab -- do much to advance U.S. efforts to promote equitable investment rules for its own companies abroad.

This language strongly echoes comments President Bush made at a February 28 press briefing: "[W]hat kind of signal does it send throughout the world if it's okay for a British company to manage the ports, but not a company ... from the Arab world."

As Media Matters for America noted, critics of the deal have argued that the administration ignored a federal law governing the transfer of American assets to foreign, government-owned companies. Enacted in 1988, the Exon-Florio provision established the Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States (CFIUS), the interagency panel that oversees all foreign acquisitions of American assets. As amended by Congress as part of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1993, the law requires an additional 45-day review if "the acquirer is controlled by or acting on behalf of a foreign government" and the acquisition "could result in control of a person engaged in interstate commerce in the U.S. that could affect the national security of the U.S."

In its initial 30-day review of the deal, CFIUS determined that it did not raise national security concerns. But critics of the deal have noted that the UAE does not recognize Israel as a sovereign state and was one of only three countries to recognize the Taliban-led government in Afghanistan prior to the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Also, they have cited a discovery by U.S. investigators that more than $120,000 was funneled through UAE bank accounts to the 9-11 hijackers, and the 9-11 Commission's finding that the UAE "ignored American pressure to clamp down on terror financing until after the attacks." These critics contend that because DPW is controlled by a member state of a country with what is arguably a "mixed" record on terrorism, CFIUS' review of the transfer was not in accordance with the law.

On March 9, MSNBC host Keith Olbermann interviewed "Mike from Orlando," the man who called into the March 2 edition of Fox News host Bill O'Reilly's nationally syndicated radio program and was threatened by O'Reilly with "a little visit" from "Fox security" simply for mentioning Olbermann's name on the air. Olbermann aired a recording of a voicemail "Mike" received from a man identifying himself as "Tony" from "Fox News security," and "Mike" explained that he is not the only person to have called into O'Reilly's radio program and subsequently been contacted by "Tony."

From the March 9 edition of MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann:

OLBERMANN: Erich Maria Remarque will forgive me, I hope, but it is all quiet on the Bill O'Reilly front. Quiet, too quiet. Our No. 2 story on the Countdown: haven't heard a word from Ted Baxter since the last Thursday [March 2], when, chillingly, he revealed that he really believed he could summon local police to pay a visit to callers to his radio program who disagreed with him or said bad words, like my name. Of course, if he's been quiet, others like [talk show radio host] Howard Stern and [talk show radio host] Al Franken have not been -- that, and one of the callers who actually got an O'Reilly-ordered phone call from Fox security in a moment. First, a refresher; though we can't be certain how much of the call actually got on the air. This was what was posted on Bill O'Reilly's website.

[begin audio clip]

O'REILLY: Orlando, Florida -- Mike, go.

CALLER: Hey, Bill, I appreciate you taking my call.

O'REILLY: Sure.

CALLER: I like to listen to you during the day. I think Keith Olbermann's show --

O'REILLY: There you go. Mike is -- he's a gone guy. You know, we have this -- we have your phone numbers, by the way. So, if you're listening, Mike, we have your phone number, and we're going to turn it over to Fox security, and you'll be getting a little visit.

E.D. HILL (co-host): Maybe Mike is from the mothership.

O'REILLY: No, maybe Mike is going to get in big trouble, because we are not going to play around. When you call us, ladies and gentlemen, just so you know, we do have your phone number. And if you say anything untoward, obscene, or anything like that, Fox security then will contact your local authorities, and you will be held accountable. Fair?

HILL: That's fair.

O'REILLY: So, just, all you guys who do this kind of a thing -- you know, I know some shock jocks, whatever, you will be held accountable. Believe it. We'll be right back.

[end audio clip]

OLBERMANN: And they'll hit you real hard. The caller insists he used no foul language, but the host used the dump button to cut him off. By the way, their entire exchange was later scrubbed from the website. Last Friday, we addressed Mr. O'Reilly's notion that the caller was doing something illegal, or something constituting harassment. He was not. We explored the possibility that when Fox security calls callers, that that itself could amount to harassment. And it might. As mentioned, there has been some talk about this elsewhere. From the Denver newspaper, The Rocky Mountain News, TV writer Dusty Saunders expressed amazement that talk radio is being used to threaten talk radio callers.

"My first thought," he wrote, "was that the former Denver broadcaster, O'Reilly, had his tongue tucked firmly in his cheek, particularly in regard to Fox security and calling local authorities. But a self-deprecating sense of humor is not one of O'Reilly's strong points," end quote. Then there was the one-two radio punch. First Howard Stern on Tuesday [March 7], from his broadcast on Sirius Satellite Radio, besides getting a good laugh from the references to Fox security, Mr. Stern had this to say.

STERN [clip]: I think O'Reilly's getting crazy. The fact of the matter is, you are allowed to call into a radio show and say whatever you want. The radio show is soliciting for phone calls. That's the idea of the show. Just because the host doesn't like what the caller is saying, you can't alert the authorities. You can't contact authorities when you have a call-in show.

OLBERMANN: And my friend, Al Franken, on Air America, who got wind of O'Reilly's threat, and has experienced them of his own, during yesterday's broadcast, he aired his Fox security recruitment promo.

[begin audio clip]

VOICEOVER: Join the proud, the few, join Fox security. Boys, we just got a phone number from O'Reilly. Let's roll!

[doorbell rings]

FRANKEN: Yes.

VOICEOVER: O'Reilly and Fox say hello.

[sound effects: punching and body hitting floor]

VOICEOVER: Join Fox security and be part of the No. 1 security team in cable news. You'll learn how to pat down [former Secretary of State] Madeleine Albright. You'll learn how to stretch [Fox News host] Greta Van Susteren's face to the breaking point. And most importantly, you'll learn how to trace a phone number to its source.

[doorbell rings]

FRANKEN: Oh, hi.

VOICEOVER: Fox security: fair --

[sound effects: punching and body hitting floor]

FRANKEN: Oh, my God! Stop! Oh, please!

VOICEOVER: -- and balanced.

[end audio clip]

OLBERMANN: And then there is the real Fox News security, which, as the big giant head himself promised, would be calling Mike from Orlando. Last Friday, it actually happened. Fox News security left this message on his answering machine.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE [audio clip]: My name is Tony [name & phone number deleted], from Fox News security. I was wondering if you could give me a phone call? I'd appreciate it. So long. See you.

OLBERMANN: He did not swear there, by the way. We bleeped his last name and his phone number for his own protection. And speaking of his own protection, joining me now is so-called Mike from Orlando whose name is actually Mick, we're withholding his last name to protect his identity. And obviously, that's not bad lighting, we're obscuring that picture deliberately. Good evening to you, sir.

"MICK": Hi, Keith, how are you doing?

OLBERMANN: Tell us what you -- what you said on that call to Mr. O'Reilly that we never got a chance to hear.

"MICK": Well, what I said was: "Hey, Bill, thanks for taking my call. I like to listen to you in the afternoons because Keith Olbermann has the best show at 8 o'clock. Why are you always smearing him?"

OLBERMANN: That was it. There was no swearing? There was no --

"MICK": Nothing.

OLBERMANN: Wow. And why did you -- why did you call?

"MICK": Well, there's a -- you may or may not be aware of it. There's actually a petition up on Bill O'Reilly's website trying to get you fired.

OLBERMANN: Yeah, we heard a little something about that.

"MICK": There's' a website, it's www.callingallwingnuts.com, that has basically said that both sides should be heard. And if Bill O'Reilly wants to try and get you kicked off the air, well, then I think we have the right to call Bill O'Reilly and say that that's not a very good idea, because we like you.

OLBERMANN: Well, thank you for that. What do you do for a living, by the way? Can you tell us that without giving away too much of your identity?

"MICK": Well, I can say hi to my students at Fairview and leave it at that.

OLBERMANN: So, you're a teacher at some school somewhere in America.

"MICK": Something like that.

OLBERMANN: The Fox News security guy who left you a message, did you call him back?

"MICK": No, I didn't, actually. He called on Friday evening [March 3], and I was actually out. And I missed your segment Friday evening as well, and I actually did not even hear about this until Sunday [March 5], when my wife alerted me that there was actually a voicemail message for me.

OLBERMANN: But you know of others who have been called by someone identifying themselves as Fox News security?

"MICK": Correct. The www.callingallwingnuts.com, there were several people -- we decided that we were going to call Bill O'Reilly's show, and we all agreed we were going to be polite, nice, but just voice our opinion, that we disagreed with what he was saying, what he was trying to do. And another caller did manage to get through. She did say your name on the air and she said, 15 minutes later, her cell phone rang. She was actually in the car with her daughter, and it was the gentleman who identified himself on my answering machine; and he was with Fox security. And she actually was reduced to tears, she was so concerned. Her daughter was in the car.

OLBERMANN: I've had a lot of perverse fun with this, but honestly, even if that were, I don't know, [talk show radio host] Rachel Maddow, or another liberal on the air threatening callers, it makes me shiver for the democracy. Mick, alias Mike from Orlando, thanks for putting yourself at such great personal risk from the -- also now from the Fox security video squad by joining us here tonight.

"MICK": All right. Thanks, Keith. Thank you very much.

OLBERMANN: Thank you, sir. Stay safe.

"MICK": OK.

C-SPAN's Q&A will feature an interview with Olbermann that will air on March 12. Excerpts of the interview, in which Olbermann discusses his relationship to O'Reilly, can be read on the TVNewser weblog of Mediabistro.com.

On March 9, nationally syndicated radio host Rush Limbaugh characterized congressional opposition to the proposed transfer of operational control of six U.S. ports to Dubai Ports World -- a company owned by the government of Dubai -- as "a lynch mob." Discussing bipartisan efforts to block the deal, which had been approved by the Bush administration, Limbaugh said: "It is just a lynch mob, and the Democrats and the Republicans are in a race here to see who can be more opposed to the port deal. The best and the fastest." He added, "And in this contest, the Republicans have won, and they're sitting there beating their chests like a bunch of Tarzans."

From the March 9 broadcast of The Rush Limbaugh Show:

LIMBAUGH: I am not kidding. Outsource Congress. They've gone from playing politics, and then they go to panic. Then they go to a stampede. Now it's a lynch mob. It is just a lynch mob, and the Democrats and the Republicans are in a race here to see who can be more opposed to the port deal. The best and the fastest. And in this contest, the Republicans have won, and they're sitting there beating their chests like a bunch of Tarzans. And everybody's watching this.

In a March 10 Washington Post article, staff writer Peter Baker wrote the following: "A senior White House official, speaking not for attribution in order to discuss political strategy, expressed relief that on the biggest policy issues -- Iraq above all -- most congressional Republicans still back [President] Bush."

Baker gave no indication of how "express[ing] relief" constitutes "discuss[ing] political strategy." Nor did he say why a White House official required -- or deserved -- anonymity in order to say something positive about his boss.

A March 9 Wall Street Journal editorial described a recent agreement between GOP Senate Intelligence Committee members and the Bush administration concerning its warrantless domestic surveillance program as a "White House mugging by Republicans." Under the proposed legislation, the administration would be required to subject the program to occasional scrutiny by House and Senate subcommittees and, in cases of extended warrantless eavesdropping, explain to Congress why the surveillance should be exempt from judicial review. Far from a "mugging," however, the agreement essentially legitimizes the controversial program, which currently operates in apparent violation of the law.

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA) requires a warrant for all domestic surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes. Shortly after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the Bush administration authorized the National Security Agency (NSA) to intercept the international communications of U.S. residents without seeking FISA warrants. Since the program became public in December 2005, the president has argued that he derives authority to circumvent FISA from two sources: the Constitution and the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) passed by Congress in 2001. But lawmakers from both parties, as well as officials within the Bush Justice Department, have criticized this legal argument as unsound.

On March 7, all eight Republicans on the Senate Intelligence Committees voted down a Democratic proposal to launch a full investigation into the NSA program. That same day, Republican committee members announced that they had reached an agreement with the White House to carve out legislation allowing the warrantless surveillance to continue under the law. As detailed by Sen. Mike DeWine (R-OH), one of the lead authors of the legislation, the proposed measure would allow the NSA to conduct domestic eavesdropping for up to 45 days without a warrant. (FISA allows warrantless surveillance for up to 72 hours under exigent circumstances.) Under the proposal, if the administration seeks to conduct this surveillance for a period longer than 45 days, they can then request a warrant from the FISA court, assuming they possess enough evidence to satisfy FISA's probable cause standard. If they do not seek a FISA warrant -- presumably because they cannot meet the probable cause standard - the administration must explain to Congress why the continued warrantless surveillance is nonetheless "in the national security interest."

Unlike the FISA court, which has the power to deny a warrant -- if the administration chooses to seek one -- the legislation would apparently not give Congress the authority to shut down any specific surveillance. As Media Matters for America noted, when asked by a reporter "what leverage" Congress would have over administration decisions to continue warrantless surveillance after 45 days, DeWine responded, "[I]t's the same leverage we have in any other type of oversight." He noted that Congress would have the "power of the purse" and the power to "change legislation ... de-authorizing the program, altering the program."

In its March 9 editorial, "President Gulliver," the Journal responded by describing this development as a "White House mugging by Republicans":

Less explicable is this week's White House mugging by Republicans on the Senate Intelligence Committee over warrantless wiretaps of al Qaeda by the National Security Agency. On this one, Republicans were winning, the polls showed public support, and everyone outside the fever swamps had dropped their "impeachment" fantasies.

Nonetheless, a couple of GOP Senators forced the White House into conceding more Congressional oversight of wartime intelligence programs. Olympia Snowe of Maine and Chuck Hagel of Nebraska vowed to join Democrats in voting for a full-scale Senate probe of the NSA wiretaps unless President Gulliver bent to their wishes. Such a vote would have humiliated their Chairman, Kansas Republican Pat Roberts, at a minimum. But it would also have risked exposing intelligence sources and methods in a way that could have made the wiretap program less effective, if not entirely worthless.

In contrast to the Journal's characterization, however, the White House -- the purported victim of this so-called "mugging" -- responded to the proposal by calling it "generally sound" and expressing support for "legislation that would further codify the president's authority," as a March 8 New York Times article reported:

A spokeswoman for the White House, Dana Perino, called the Republican senators' proposal "a generally sound approach."

"We're eager to work with Congress on legislation that would further codify the president's authority," Ms. Perino said. "We remain committed to our principle, that we will not do anything that undermines the program's capabilities or the president's authority."

Moreover, in their coverage of the agreement, news outlets and legal experts have characterized it as favorable to the administration. A March 9 New York Times article reported experts' claim that the proposal provides "legislative sanction" for the warrantless domestic surveillance authorized by the president. The Times editorial page similarly criticized the proposed GOP legislation.

During the "All-Star panel" segment of the March 8 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume, Weekly Standard executive editor Fred Barnes asserted that former Rep. Nick Lampson (D-TX) is "vulnerable to attack as a carpetbagger" in his race against Rep. Tom DeLay (R-TX) in Texas' 22nd Congressional District. It is true that, as Barnes noted, Lampson "used to represent a different district" and "moved into" the 22nd to run against DeLay. But in attacking Lampson, Barnes ignored the highly relevant fact that Lampson previously represented nearly one-fifth of what is now DeLay's district. In 2003, a controversial Texas redistricting plan spearheaded by DeLay moved more than 100,000 largely Democratic voters out of Lampson's district and into DeLay's; as a result, Lampson was defeated in the 2004 election. In addition, Barnes asserted that the 22nd District is a "working-class district, suburban-middle-class and working-class district that's very, very Republican." In fact, according to figures from the 2000 census, the current 22nd District has the second-highest median household income in the state.

DeLay, who won the Republican primary for the seat on March 7, will face Lampson in the general election.

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

BARNES: I mean, this is a suburban Houston, Texas, district. I mean, who do you think lives there? Pointy-headed intellectuals from Ivy League colleges? No. There's a bunch of -- it's a working-class district, suburban middle-class and working-class district that's very, very Republican, you know? Mega-churches, the whole bit. And 62 percent is pretty good. Now, the Democrat who has moved into the district, Nick Lampson, used to represent a different district in Texas. And he's vulnerable to attack as a carpetbagger. And I'm sure that's occurred to the campaign. The Republicans, yeah. So I think DeLay looks a lot better than he did just a couple of days ago.

From 1997 to 2005, Lampson -- then living in Beaumont, Texas -- represented Texas' 9th Congressional District, which was immediately east of the 22nd District. The 2003 redistricting plan pushed by DeLay moved several Democratic-leaning areas -- including parts of Galveston County -- out of the 9th District and into DeLay's 22nd District. Lampson was left with a heavily Republican district (renamed the 2nd District) and was defeated in the 2004 election.

In 2005, Lampson moved into the adjacent 22nd District to challenge DeLay. As Dallas Morning News columnist Todd J. Gillman noted on October 16, 2005: "Mr. Lampson already enjoys a toehold in the district. He represented nearly a fifth of the electorate during his four House terms."

Lampson's campaign biography says that as a child, he spent "a great deal of time" working on his grandparents' farms in Stafford, Texas -- much of which is in the 22nd District:

Nick has a long family history in Texas's 22nd congressional district. His grandparents came to this country from Italy and settled in Stafford, Texas nearly 100 years ago, where they had farms and were founding members of their church. Nick's parents grew up, met and married in Fort Bend County, and the Lampson children spent a great deal of time on their grandparents' farms working the fields and learning what it meant to be part of a community larger than themselves.

In addition, Barnes asserted that the 22nd District is a "working-class district, suburban-middle-class and working-class district that's very, very Republican." In fact, according to figures from the 2000 census, DeLay's largely Republican district had a median household income of $57,932 in 1999 -- the second highest in the state and more than $18,000 above the statewide median household income of $39,927. Nationwide, the median household income was $41,994. (The median household income in Sugar Land -- where DeLay lives -- was $81,767.)

On the March 8 edition of MSNBC's Hardball, host Chris Matthews praised conservative Philadelphia-based radio host Michael Smerconish, declaring: "You talk to a huge audience on the East Coast, Michael. I've listened to you, all my family listens to you." Despite Smerconish's controversial statements, he has appeared on Hardball four times in recent weeks. Smerconish has returned the favor, allowing Matthews air time on the March 3 broadcast of The Michael Smerconish Morning Show, during which Matthews criticized the "one-sided, to some extent liberal propaganda" of the film Good Night, and Good Luck, which Matthews suggested presented a "revisionist history" of McCarthyism. But as Smerconish has continued to appear on Hardball, neither he nor Matthews has mentioned that Matthews's brother Jim, who is the Republican candidate for lieutenant governor in Pennsylvania, appeared at a political event in Pennsylvania that Smerconish moderated.

According to a letter by the Young America political action committee (PAC):

The Young America PAC is proud to be a co-sponsor of the Philadelphia Young Republican's event featuring the 2006 Republican Candidates for Pennsylvania Governor, on Tuesday January 17th.

The event will take place at the Crystal Tea Room from 6:30 - 9 pm. Each of the candidates will be given an opportunity to speak, with Michael Smerconish serving as moderator. Jim Matthews, Republican candidate for Lieutenant Governor, will also be in attendance.

Matthews has mentioned his brother's candidacy on Hardball. On the February 13 edition of the program, Matthews aired a clip of Jim Matthews accepting the Republican endorsement for lieutenant governor, and declared: "a special nod to my brother Jim Matthews, my little brother, my younger brother, who this weekend won the Republican endorsement for lieutenant governor of Pennsylvania."

Smerconish is a major presence in Philadelphia's talk radio market. He is also a columnist for the Philadelphia Daily News and a frequent guest host for Bill O'Reilly on Westwood One's nationally syndicated The Radio Factor; he also recently served as guest host on MSNBC's Scarborough Country. Smerconish has notably argued that the government needs to encourage racial profiling to enhance the nation's security, especially at airports. As Media Matters for America has documented, in commenting on a September 19, 2005, incident involving the FBI's detention and questioning of five Muslim men who were observed praying near the stadium's main air duct during a New York Giants football game, Smerconish stated: "I just think that's [the men's public praying] wrong. I just think they're playing a game of, you know, mind blank with the audience. And that they should know better four years removed from September 11."

Further, as Media Matters has also noted, in November 2005, guest-hosting on The Radio Factor, Smerconish interviewed Soo Kim Abboud, author of Top of the Class: How Asian Parents Raise High Achievers -- and How You Can Too (Penguin, 2005). Smerconish asserted that "if everyone follows Dr. Abboud's prescription ... you're going to have women who will leave the home and now get a great-paying job, because you will have gotten them well educated." He continued, "But then they're not going to be around to instill these lessons in their kids. In other words, it occurs to me that perhaps you've provided a prescription to bring this great success to an end."

Smerconish has appeared four times on Hardball in recent weeks: February 21, February 27, March 6, and March 8.

From the March 8 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews:

MATTHEWS: Welcome back to Hardball. This coming weekend, Hardball heads down to Memphis, Tennessee, for the first major showdown of Republican presidential wannabes. Let's see where they stand right now. In a recent CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll, [former New York City Mayor] Rudy Giuliani leads the pack among Republicans with 33 percent. He may or may not run, followed by [Arizona Sen.] John McCain at 28 percent. [Virginia Sen.] George Allen takes a distant third, followed by [Senate Majority Leader] Bill Frist [TN], and Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney.

You talk to a huge audience on the East Coast, Michael. I've listened to you, all my family listens to you. Who has the hot hand in this early going to replace the president?

Fox News host Brit Hume continued to tout the Associated Press' misleading March 3 "clarification" of a previous article about a pre-Katrina presidential briefing as justification for President Bush's claim -- debunked even at the time -- that "I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees." The president made that claim to co-host Diane Sawyer on the September 1, 2005, edition of ABC's Good Morning America, two days after Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans. Hume referenced the AP clarification for a second consecutive day on March 6, citing it on Fox News' Special Report to declare that "experts merely warned the president that the levees could be overtopped," not breached. But Hume did not report that Bush had been warned by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) on the morning of August 29, 2005, that Katrina could cause levee breaching as well as overtopping, and omitted other facts undermining Bush's claim that he did not think anyone anticipated the breach of the levees.

Hume referred to the March 1 Associated Press report and subsequent March 3 clarification that highlighted videotaped discussions involving Bush and other officials -- including Max Mayfield, director of the National Hurricane Center -- on hurricane preparations. The original report noted, contrary to Bush's claim that the levee breaches were completely unanticipated, that "the transcripts and video show there was plenty of talk about that possibility -- and Bush was worried too."

AP's clarification, as Media Matters for America has documented, echoed the latest version of the Bush administration's explanation of why the AP video did not contradict Bush's claim about not anticipating a breach of the levees. It noted, "The story should have made clear that Bush was warned about floodwaters overrunning the levees, rather than the levees breaking." However, the AP clarification made no reference to other evidence indicating that, Bush's claim two days later to the contrary notwithstanding, numerous members of his administration were well aware of the threat of a breach.

According to a January 26 New Orleans Times-Picayune article, in the early morning of August 29, 2005, just before Katrina made landfall, the Department of Homeland Security warned the White House that, based on the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) July 2004 "Hurricane Pam" planning exercise, Katrina could cause levee breaching as well as overtopping. The exercise modeled the impact of a direct hit on New Orleans by a Category 3 hurricane -- one with weaker winds than Katrina. In the exercise, authorities anticipated that such a storm would cause a surge that would overtop the levees, drowning New Orleans in 20 feet of water.

As reported in a March 2 New York Times article, then-Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) director Michael D. Brown stated at an August 29, 2005, midday videoconference that "he had spoken with President Bush twice in the morning and that the president was asking about reports that the levees had been breached." Additionally, in the videotaped discussion, while Mayfield did not specifically warn that the levees might be breached, he is shown clearly warning attendees of the catastrophic damage that ultimately resulted: "I don't think any model can tell you with any confidence right now whether the levees will be topped or not, but that is obviously a very, very grave concern." He further cautioned, "I'm sure [Katrina] will be the top 10 or 15 when all is said and done."

The debate over whether Bush was ever warned of actual "breaches" in the levee system or whether he was only warned of "overtopping" represents something of a change in the Bush administration's explanation for Bush's statement, made on the September 1 broadcast of ABC's Good Morning America, that "I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees."

As Media Matters has documented, the administration initially explained Bush's September 1 statement on September 4, when Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff appeared on NBC's Meet the Press. After host Tim Russert asked Chertoff how the president could "be so wrong, be so misinformed," Chertoff suggested that Bush had been referring to newspaper reports the morning after the storm that New Orleans had "dodged a bullet" because the eye of the storm had passed to the east of the city. But in fact, as Media Matters has repeatedly noted (here, here, and here), more than 12 hours before the appearance of those headlines in print, a post on the weblog of the Times-Picayune -- dated August 29, 2 p.m. CT -- reported, "City Hall confirmed a breach of the levee along the 17th Street Canal at Bellaire Drive, allowing water to spill into Lakeview." This initial report on the Times-Picayune weblog was followed throughout the afternoon and evening of August 29 by reports of other levee breaks and massive flooding.

Further, the AP overstated the distinction between "topping" and "breeching" of levees; preliminary engineering findings from the National Science Foundation, Louisiana State University, and the American Society of Civil Engineers stated that erosion from overtopping in fact caused many of the levee breaches.

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

HUME: And now the most fascinating two minutes in television, the latest from the political "Grapevine." The AP continues today to insist that footage it put out from a White House briefing on Hurricane Katrina was confidential video, despite the fact that the relevant events depicted on the tape were open to the press and transcripts of the event were released to reporters and members of Congress.

But the AP is backing off its original report, which suggested that the tape caught President Bush in a lie. Seizing on that story, Democrats claimed the tape directly contradicted the president's claim that, quote, "I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees in New Orleans."

But in what it called a clarification Friday, the AP notes that experts merely warned the president that the levees could be overtopped, not that they might be breached.

During an interview on the March 8 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, Focus on Family founder James C. Dobson accused Harper's Magazine of "say[ing] the most crazy things" for reporting that Dobson is "in favor of people who want to execute abortionists." The May 30, 2005, Harper's article, to which Dobson is apparently referring, reported that Dobson "has backed political candidates who called for the execution of abortion providers." But Dobson's suggestion that the Harper's assertion is false is itself false: Dobson has in fact endorsed at least two political candidates, Randall Terry and Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK), who have expressed support for the execution of "abortionists."

The Harper's article, written by Chris Hedges and titled "Soldiers of Christ II: Feeling the hate with the National Religious Broadcasters," featured a brief biography of Dobson, whom Hedges describes as "perhaps the most powerful figure in the Dominionist movement." While profiling Dobson, Hedges wrote:

He calls for a constitutional amendment to permit prayer in the public schools. He sponsors a group called "Love Won Out," which holds monthly conferences around the country for those "suffering" from same-sex attraction. He likens the proponents of gay marriage to the Nazis, has backed political candidates who called for the execution of abortion providers, defines embryonic stem-cell research as "state-funded cannibalism," and urges Christian parents to pull their children out of public-school systems.

In response, Dobson pointed to Hedges's article as evidence that "secular progressives" are becoming "more and more angry," and "are determined to lash out at those of us who are most visible in that area." Dobson continued, stating, "Harper's Magazine actually said that I am in favor of people who want to execute abortionists. I mean, they just say the most crazy things."

But in endorsing the political campaigns of Coburn and Terry, Dobson endorsed candidates who support the execution of "abortionists." In 2004, Dobson endorsed Coburn in his bid for Oklahoma's open Senate seat. Coburn told the Associated Press on July 10, 2004, "I favor the death penalty for abortionists and other people who take life." In announcing his endorsement, Dobson called Coburn the "single best leader I have ever worked with on the critical moral and family issues that have been at the heart of my own work." Coburn won the election.

In 1998, Dobson endorsed the failed candidacy of Randall Terry, founder of the anti-abortion group Operation Rescue and the Society for Truth and Justice, for New York's 26th Congressional District seat. Terry has repeatedly called for the "salvation or the death" of Dr. Warren Hern, director of the Boulder Abortion Clinic in Colorado. A February 2, 1992, report on CBS' 60 Minutes showed Terry and his followers praying outside the clinic. On the video, Terry stated: "But pray that this family will either be converted to God or that calamity will strike him." The New York Times reported on August 14, 1993, that "[i]n his radio appearances, Mr. Terry said of Dr. Hern: 'I hope someday he is tried for crimes against humanity, and I hope he is executed.' " Another 60 Minutes segment, airing on August 7, 1994, showed Terry again entreating his followers "to pray for either the salvation or the death" of Hern.

According to a September 28, 1998, profile of Terry in The Nation by David Corn, during a campaign speech, Terry reportedly stated, "When I or people like me are running the country, [abortion providers] better flee because we will find you, we will try you, and we will execute you." Corn noted that Terry "has received the official blessing of James Dobson ... who does not usually endorse candidates." According to a May 14, 1998, Roll Call report by Norah O'Donnell, Dobson "endorsed half a dozen firebrand Republicans" in the 1998 elections, including Terry, and "provided Terry with a 30-second radio endorsement." Terry lost in the Republican primary. He is currently running for a seat in the Florida state Senate.

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

O'REILLY: I have never seen the level of hatred coming at -- you know, basically, there is some from the traditionalists to the secular progressives. There is some; we have to be honest. But, overwhelmingly, the hatred coming from the SP's [secular progressives] to the -- to people like you and me, who they perceive to be enemies, I've never seen anything like it.

DOBSON: Well, my interpretation of that is that they are losing, generally, throughout the culture, and they're getting more and more angry all the time. I mean, they obviously have somebody different in the White House than they wanted, and leadership in the House, and leadership in the Senate. And now, the Supreme Court's changing. The culture is shifting, I believe, to the right. And -- and they are more and more angry, and they are determined to lash out at those of us who are most visible in that area. Harper's Magazine actually said that I am in favor of people who want to execute abortionists. I mean, they just say the most crazy things.

The Los Angeles Times editorial page claimed that President Bush has publicly opposed a South Dakota law banning all abortions except in cases in which a woman's life is threatened by a pregnancy. Similarly, MSNBC host Chris Matthews claimed that Bush and Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) "keep saying it isn't the time to make changes in the law" to outlaw abortion. But, contrary to the Times' assertion, White House press secretary Scott McClellan refused to state Bush's position on the South Dakota law. And belying Matthews's claim that McCain "keep[s] saying it isn't the time to make changes in the law," McCain, through a spokesman, said that the senator "would have signed" the South Dakota bill but added that McCain "would also take the appropriate steps under state law -- in whatever state -- to ensure that the exceptions of rape, incest or life of the mother were included" -- without explaining how he could do both.

In a March 8 editorial, the Los Angeles Times stated that "Bush publicly disagrees with the South Dakota law, saying he favors abortion rights in cases of rape or incest (although not necessarily to protect a woman's health)." But at a March 7 White House press briefing, McClellan repeatedly declined to say whether Bush supported the South Dakota law, characterizing the law as "a state matter." From the press briefing:

REPORTER: So, again -- now it's going to wend its way through the courts. Will the administration weigh in, in the appeals process that is going to inevitably --

McCLELLAN: Again, this is a state -- this is a state law.

REPORTER: No, but it's going to become a federal matter --

McCLELLAN: It's a state matter.

[...]

REPORTER: He is opposed to abortion laws that forbid it for rape and incest --

McCLELLAN: Les, look at the president --

REPORTER: Isn't that true, Scott? That's what you said.

McCLELLAN: Les, let me respond. Look at the president's record when it comes to defending the sanctity of life. That is a very strong record. His views when it comes to pro-life issues are very clearly spelled out. We also have stated repeatedly that state legislatures, when they pass laws, those are state matters.

At a February 27 press briefing, McClellan also declined to say whether Bush supported the South Dakota bill, but stated Bush's opposition to abortion except in cases of rape, incest, or a threat to a woman's health. From the press briefing:

REPORTER: The state legislature of South Dakota has just passed a new law which allows abortion in case of threat to the mother's life but denies it to all ages in cases of rape and incest. My first question: Does the president believe that rape and incest victims should be denied the right to an abortion?

McCLELLAN: The president believes we ought to be working to build a culture of life in America. And we have taken practical, common-sense steps to help reduce the number of abortions in America. It is a strong record that is based on building a culture of life, and the president has made very clear that he is pro-life with three exceptions.

On the March 7 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews, Matthews stated that "President Bush and John McCain, two leaders of the Republican party, keep saying it isn't the time to make changes in the law" to outlaw abortion. In making the assertion about McCain, Matthews ignored a statement by a McCain spokesman, quoted by The National Journal's weblog The Hotline (subscription required), that if McCain were the South Dakota governor, he " 'would have signed the [South Dakota] legislation, but would also take the appropriate steps under state law -- in whatever state -- to ensure that the exceptions of rape, incest or life of the mother were included.' " While McCain's spokesman's statement is inconclusive in that it contains two assertions that, without more detail, make little sense together (the spokesman did not say that McCain would sign only if he secured the desired amendments, merely that he would sign -- and he would seek to amend -- the bill) McCain did take a position on a highly controversial and restrictive bill that was different from what Matthews claimed McCain "keep[s] saying."

From the March 8 Los Angeles Times editorial:

Bush publicly disagrees with the South Dakota law, saying he favors abortion rights in cases of rape or incest (although not necessarily to protect a woman's health). But his recent Supreme Court appointments have certainly made opponents of abortion rights more audacious, if not more hopeful. At this point, it's unlikely that he or his party will be able to distance themselves from this mangled bit of lawmaking -- disastrous in both its intent and its potential political fallout.

From the March 7 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews, which featured Family Research Council president Tony Perkins:

MATTHEWS: Let me ask you about the politics. I know you're concerned about the moral issue here, Tony, but the political issue -- it seems to me that all these years since `73, the conservatives, the pro-life people, have benefited from the fact that the courts have intervened and said you have the right to an abortion, so therefore a person could be voting Republican and not worry about abortion, because it's basically off the table. Bringing it back on the table, is that good for the Republican Party and conservatives?

PERKINS: I think it's good for those policymakers who want to actually make policy.

MATTHEWS: President Bush and John McCain, two leaders of the Republican Party, keep saying it isn't the time to make changes in the law like that. We have to have the country's heart ready for it. It isn't right to outlaw it now.

Reporting in the March 9 edition of the Wall Street Journal on the constitutionality of South Dakota's recently passed ban on most abortions in the state, staff reporter Deborah Solomon wrote that Supreme Court Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. "expressed skepticism about abortion rights while working for the Reagan administration." However, the suggestion that Alito merely "expressed skepticism" about abortion rights mischaracterizes his view -- which he articulated clearly in a 1985 application for the position of assistant attorney general in the Reagan Justice Department -- that there is no constitutional right to abortion: Alito wrote of his "personal satisfaction" in helping "to advance legal positions in which I personally believe very strongly," adding that he was "particularly proud of his contributions in cases in which the government has argued in the Supreme Court ... that the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion."

As Media Matters for America noted in the days leading up to Alito's confirmation hearing, some conservative commentators sought to downplay Alito's statements in opposition to a constitutional right to abortion by invoking the criticism by several prominent liberal jurists and constitutional scholars that the landmark 1973 abortion rights case Roe v. Wade was decided on the wrong constitutional basis. But the comparison was flawed: While the legal scholars they cited -- including Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, who was then an judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, and Edward Lazarus -- criticized the court's reasoning in Roe, their writings and statements made clear that they agreed with the holding in the case establishing a constitutional right to abortion. By contrast, as evident by his 1985 statement, Alito did not agree that the Constitution provides a right to abortion.

Additionally, some media figures defended Alito's Reagan-era job application by claiming that Alito was not expressing his personal views when he wrote that "the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion." In fact, Alito made clear in the application that he "strongly" and "personally" believed in the legal arguments in question:

Most recently, it has been an honor and a source of personal satisfaction for me to serve in the office of the Solicitor General during President Reagan's administration and to help to advance legal positions in which I personally believe very strongly. I am particularly proud of my contributions in recent cases in which the government has argued in the Supreme Court that racial and ethnic quotas should not be allowed and that the Constitution does not protect the right to an abortion.

From Solomon's article in the March 9 edition of The Wall Street Journal:

The South Dakota debate, in which advocates emphasized their desire to lead the anti-Roe charge, has sparked other states to follow. At least three states introduced legislation after South Dakota's ban; one was Mississippi, where lawmakers amended legislation that began not as a ban but rather as an attempt to require ultrasound screening before an abortion could take place.

"There's definitely a sense of 'me-too,' " says Jackie Payne of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, which plans a lawsuit to block implementation of the South Dakota ban.

Whether their effort will succeed remains unclear. A majority of the Supreme Court's justices are still expected to uphold Roe v. Wade.

The efforts to ban abortion have also galvanized state lobbying campaigns by activists who support abortion rights. In South Dakota, the local chapter of Planned Parenthood ran a newspaper advertisement against the abortion ban.

But antiabortion forces say their legal hand now is stronger. They are encouraged by the Supreme Court's newest members, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, who both expressed skepticism about abortion rights while working for the Reagan administration.

On the March 8 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume, Fox News White House correspondent Wendell Goler falsely claimed that "[s]tories in The Washington Post today and Monday accused the Army Corps of Engineers of using substandard soil to rebuild the levees" in New Orleans, sections of which were damaged or destroyed by Hurricane Katrina. He then noted that the Corps of Engineers has denied that it is using substandard materials to rebuild the New Orleans levee system -- suggesting that the Post omitted the Corps' side of the story. In fact, the Post, in three news articles, merely reported the concerns of two teams of engineering experts, one from the National Science Foundation (NSF) and another from Louisiana State University (LSU), who have monitored the levee rebuilding effort; the Post did not "accuse" the Army Corps of Engineers of anything. And contrary to Goler's suggestion, the Post's reports all included statements from the Corps of Engineers denying the scientists' accusations that the Corps had used substandard materials.

Citing "engineers from a National Science Foundation-funded panel and a Louisiana team appointed to monitor the rebuilding," a front-page Post article on March 6 reported:

These experts say the Corps, racing to rebuild 169 miles of levees destroyed or damaged by Katrina, is taking shortcuts to compress what is usually a years-long construction process into a few weeks. They say that weak, substandard materials are being used in some levee walls, citing lab tests as evidence. And they say the Corps is deferring repairs to flood walls that survived Katrina but suffered structural damage that could cause them to topple in a future storm.

The newspaper published follow-up stories on March 7 (Page A4, "Washington in Brief") and March 8 (Page A8). The March 8 article reported that a member of the NSF team, University of Berkeley engineering professor Raymond Seed, had written a letter to the Army Corps of Engineers commander, Lt. Gen Carl A. Strock, expressing the team's concerns. Seed told the Post that "the problems were observed in at least three locations along an 11-mile earthen levee near Lake Borgne, east of New Orleans, that was nearly washed away by Hurricane Katrina on Aug. 29."

As of March 9, the Post has published no editorials on the subject.

Furthermore, Goler's suggestion that the Post articles omitted the Corps of Engineers' side of the controversy is false. All three of the articles on the controversy prominently included the Corps' denials:

• March 6, third paragraph:

The Corps strongly disputes the assertion [by the NSF and LSU engineering teams] that substandard materials are being used in construction. Agency officials maintain that the new levees are rigorously inspected at each step.

• March 7, first paragraph:

The White House yesterday defended the quality of materials being used to rebuild the levees around New Orleans, as President Bush got assurances from the Army Corps of Engineers that it was on track to restore the system by the start of hurricane season.

Lt. Gen. Carl Strock, head of the Corps, told Bush in a private briefing that 100 miles of the 169 miles of levees damaged by the Aug. 29 hurricane have been restored. He repeated the briefing later for reporters at the White House.

• March 8, fourth paragraph:

Corps and White House officials disputed the findings by Seed's group and another expert panel monitoring the rebuilding. Strock specifically sought to rebut the groups' conclusions at a White House news conference Monday, saying Corps engineers were "giving tremendous scrutiny" to construction practices.

"We are using the right material," Strock said, "and we're putting it down the right way."

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

GOLER: Mr. Bush also accused Congress of shortchanging the rebuilding of New Orleans' levees by diverting to other states money he had earmarked for reinforcing the levees, for adding floodgates, and raising pumping stations above sea level. He said that's another key to reviving the city.

BUSH [video clip]: We fully understand that, if people don't have confidence in the levee system, they're not going to want to come back.

GOLER: The Bush administration was already denying charges of substandard repairs on the levees. Stories in The Washington Post today and Monday accused the Army Corps of Engineers of using substandard soil to rebuild the levees. Not so, says Lieutenant General Carl Strock.

STROCK [video clip]: We are actually importing a great quantity of material from Mississippi, because there are not -- there are not suitable soils sufficient in the areas.

In a viewer mail segment on the March 8 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, host Bill O'Reilly again denied that he engages in "personal attacks" and defined his use of the word "villain" as "a designation based upon provable facts" rather than a personal attack. In addition, O'Reilly defended his use of the term "pinhead" as "a casual expression we use to amuse." O'Reilly was responding to correspondence from a viewer who challenged O'Reilly's February 23 claim that "I don't do personal attacks here," which, as Media Matters for America noted at the time, is contradicted by O'Reilly's long track record of engaging in just such behavior.

O'Reilly added that "[n]utty ideological websites are run by villains." O'Reilly has previously equated Media Matters with the Ku Klux Klan, Cuban dictator Fidel Castro, and the Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels. O'Reilly has also described Media Matters as "these creeps -- and they really are the most vile, despicable human beings in the country -- who listen to every word of the program [O'Reilly's radio show]. And then they try to feed stuff out to the mainstream media to discredit me."

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

O'REILLY: Kris Lee, Piqua, Ohio: "O'Reilly, you told [actor and activist] Mike Farrell you don't engage in personal attacks, yet time and time again you call people pinheads and villains."

Hanging out on those far-left websites again, are you, Kris? Of course you are. The word "villain" is a designation based upon provable facts. Nutty ideological websites are run by villains. "Pinhead" is a casual expression we use to amuse. I've called myself a pinhead. Don't you be one.

On the March 7 broadcast of the CBS Evening News, contributor Gloria Borger apparently misrepresented the terms of new legislation, reportedly agreed to by Senate Republicans and the White House, that would establish some congressional oversight of the Bush administration's warrantless domestic surveillance program. Specifically, Borger reported that in order to conduct surveillance without a warrant under the new legislation, the president would first be required to "explain why he needs to eavesdrop to a newly created congressional subcommittee." In fact, the legislation as reported would let the president authorize warrantless surveillance of Americans for up to 45 days without informing Congress. More generally, Borger uncritically repeated the Republican claim that the legislation "sets firm new limits" on the administration's surveillance program. Viewers would not know it from Borger's report, but the claim that she reported as fact is sharply disputed by Senate Democrats, who said after the Senate Intelligence Committee vote effectively ratifying the agreement that it was little more than a capitulation to the White House.

In December 2005, The New York Times revealed that shortly after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, President Bush began authorizing the National Security Agency to conduct warrantless surveillance of the international communications of U.S. residents -- an apparent violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). Under FISA, the administration is normally required to obtain a warrant from the FISA court in order to conduct such surveillance.

Voting on March 7 along party lines, the Senate Intelligence Committee rejected an investigation of the warrantless surveillance program, opting instead to embrace new legislation proposed by Sens. Olympia J. Snowe (R-ME), Mike DeWine (R-OH), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), and Chuck Hagel (R-NE). A March 8 press release issued by Snowe noted that she "joined with" the other three Republicans "in introducing" the bill, but as of this writing, it was not publicly available.

Without noting that Republicans had blocked an investigation into the program, Borger falsely reported on the Evening News that the Republican bill would require the administration to inform Congress before conducting warrantless surveillance:

BORGER: The Republican plan sets firm new limits. First, the president must explain why he needs to eavesdrop to a newly created congressional subcommittee and renew approval for those secret wiretaps every 45 days. If at any time there is probable cause that a suspect is an agent of a foreign power, the attorney general must get a warrant from a secret intelligence court to continue.

In fact, the so-called "Terrorist Surveillance Act of 2006" does not require the administration to notify Congress until 45 days after beginning surveillance on a U.S. resident. Snowe's release stated that "[t]he Act permits warrantless surveillance for up to 45 days if ... [t]he President determines that it is necessary to protect the United States against known terrorist groups that are planning or have engaged in attacks against the United States." The legislation simply requires that that the president give Congress a list of such terrorist groups -- not a list of individuals being monitored in the United States.

Other aspects of the proposed legislation also call into question Borger's assertion that it "sets firm new limits." Though Borger noted that the president must "renew approval for those secret wiretaps every 45 days," she did not make clear that under the act, it is apparently the administration -- not Congress -- that would reauthorize surveillance. Snowe's release noted that after 45 days, the attorney general would be required either to seek a warrant from the FISA court or to explain to Congress why the administration cannot seek a FISA warrant; but the release does not indicate that Congress would have the authority actually to reject continued surveillance:

If the Attorney General needs to continue surveillance without going to the FISA Court, he must certify that the surveillance is necessary to protect the United States and explain why continued surveillance will result in the acquisition of foreign intelligence information. The Attorney General must also provide a justification to Congress as to why he cannot take an individual case to FISA and keep Congress updated every 45 days on the status of any cases that have not yet been moved to FISA.

In a March 7 press conference, DeWine offered a similar description of the reauthorization process:

DeWINE: It provides that in an international call involving a designated terrorist organization, that there can be surveillance without a warrant. It provides that this program must be reviewed every 45 days. That after the 45-day period of time the executive branch must really do one of three things. The executive branch, if it has enough information to go for a FISA warrant, they must go for the FISA warrant. They can stop the surveillance. Or, the third thing that they can do is, if they do not want to do one of those two things, they must go to the United States Congress and explain why it is in the national security interest to continue that surveillance and why they cannot go to the FISA court to get a warrant.

When asked by a reporter "what leverage" Congress would have over administration decisions to continue warrantless surveillance after 45 days, DeWine responded, "[I]t's the same leverage we have in any other type of oversight." He noted that Congress would have the "power of the purse" and the power to "change legislation ... de-authorizing the program, altering the program." He did not say Congress would have the authority to approve or reject individual cases of surveillance.

As Borger noted, under the proposed legislation, "If at any time there is probable cause that a suspect is an agent of a foreign power, the attorney general must get a warrant from a secret intelligence [FISA] court to continue." This is true, but it does not appear -- as Borger's report suggested -- to constitute a "firm new limit." According to Snowe's press release, "A FISA Court warrant must be sought by the Attorney General for any individual target who meets the requirements for a FISA warrant." In other words, it appears that the administration must seek a warrant only when it has enough evidence to obtain one; Snowe's release suggests that the administration would not have to seek a warrant if it was unable to meet the evidentiary requirements for that warrant.

As The Washington Post reported in a March 8 article, the bill "would permit warrantless surveillance of calls between the United States and another country involving 'a designated terrorist organization' for 45 days, after which the government can stop the eavesdropping, seek a warrant, or explain to Congress why it wants to continue without a warrant."

In addition, Borger uncritically repeated Republican claims that the legislation represented a successful effort by Senate Republicans to place -- in Snowe's words -- "a constitutional check on presidential power." Borger told viewers that "[a]fter weeks of fighting over whether the administration overstepped its bounds by wiretapping Americans without court-ordered warrants, an influential group of Senate Republicans today told the White House, 'Enough.' "

But Borger's report -- which included footage of both Graham and Snowe touting the deal -- omitted Democratic arguments that the Senate Intelligence Committee's refusal to investigate the program represented little more than capitulation to White House demands.

By contrast, the Los Angeles Times reported on March 8 that following the Senate Intelligence Committee's votes, Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (D-WV), the vice-chairman of the committee, complained about what he said was the Bush administration's control over the committee's vote against an investigation:

Emerging from a closed-door session in which Democrats lost two party-line votes, Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), the vice chairman of the committee, said the outcome pushed the panel "further into irrelevancy" and reflected the influence of the Bush administration.

"The committee is, to put it bluntly, basically under the control of the White House," said Rockefeller, who had campaigned for a committee investigation and argued that all members of the panel ought to have full access to information on the program.

Moreover, in reporting that "some Republican senators threatened to join Democrats in calling for a public investigation into the wiretap program if the White House did not support congressional oversight," Borger ignored the fact that Hagel and Snowe -- members of the Senate Intelligence Committee who on March 7 voted against an investigation of the program -- had already called for an investigation and were apparently backing away from that demand. Both Hagel and Snowe signed a December 19, 2005, letter calling for a joint inquiry by the Intelligence and Judiciary committees:

We respectfully request that the Select Committee on Intelligence and the Committee on the Judiciary, which share jurisdiction and oversight of this issue, jointly undertake an inquiry into the facts and law surrounding these allegations.

In a press release announcing the letter, Snowe added:

Revelations that the U.S. government has conducted domestic electronic surveillance without express legal authority indeed warrants Congressional examination. I believe the Congress -- as a coequal branch of government -- must immediately and expeditiously review the use of this practice.

And in a January 29 appearance on ABC's This Week, Hagel said of the surveillance program: "So I would hope and we're going to get into these hearings as you know in the next few days, both in the Judiciary Committee and in the Intelligence Committee, that we can find some common ground."

From the March 7 broadcast of the CBS Evening News, with anchor Bob Schieffer:

SCHIEFFER: The White House got a message today with the bark off. Key Senate Republicans told administration officials that unless the White House agreed to some limits and more congressional oversight, they would push for a full-scale investigation into eavesdropping on Americans suspected of having ties to terrorists. Well, apparently the message got through for the first time. The White House did agree to do just that. Here's Gloria Borger.

BORGER: After weeks of fighting over whether the administration overstepped its bounds by wiretapping Americans without court-ordered warrants, an influential group of Senate Republicans today told the White House, "Enough."

GRAHAM [video clip]: I think the administration has looked at legitimate power of the -- of the executive during the time of war and taken it to extremes, to the point that where we'd lose constitutional balance.

BORGER: Under pressure, the White House today agreed to some congressional oversight as part of a plan that still allows the president, in a time of war, to order unwarranted wiretaps of suspected terrorists.

The Republican plan sets firm new limits. First, the president must explain why he needs to eavesdrop to a newly created congressional subcommittee and renew approval for those secret wiretaps every 45 days. If at any time there is probable cause that a suspect is an agent of a foreign power, the attorney general must get a warrant from a secret intelligence court to continue.

CBS News has learned that Republicans argued their case all the way up the chain of command, including the vice president's office, and some Republican senators threatened to join Democrats in calling for a public investigation into the wiretap program if the White House did not support congressional oversight.

SNOWE [video clip]: I think today we're setting a constitutional marker and also a constitutional check on presidential power. Because you can't allow the president to move forward in unfettered fashion.

A March 8 Reuters article on former Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff's disclosure to Vanity Fair magazine that he "worked closely with many top Republicans, despite their claims to the contrary" ignored Abramoff's claims, in the same magazine article, of close ties with President Bush, White House senior adviser Karl Rove, and Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), all of whom have denied personal connections to Abramoff.

Excerpts of the Vanity Fair article, appearing in the magazine's forthcoming April issue, are available on the magazine's website. According to those excerpts:

An insider tells [contributing editor David] Margolick that Abramoff blames competing Republican lobbyists and Arizona Senator John McCain -- with whom Abramoff says he's had a contentious relationship -- for his downfall. Abramoff tells Margolick that McCain staffers deliberately humiliated him, doling out embarrassing e-mails to the press.

"Mr. Abramoff flatters himself," Mark Salter, McCain's administrative assistant, tells Margolick. "Senator McCain was unaware of his existence until he read initial press accounts of Abramoff's abuses, and had never laid eyes on him until he appeared before the committee."

Abramoff says, "As best I can remember, when I met with him, he didn't have his eyes shut. I'm surprised that Senator McCain has joined the chorus of amnesiacs."

[...]

[Abramoff discussed his relationship with] President Bush, who claims not to remember having his picture taken with Abramoff. According to Abramoff, at one time, the president joked with Abramoff about his weight-lifting past: "What are you benching, buff guy?"

Reuters reported that in the Vanity Fair article, Abramoff "complains that many of those who used to work closely with him now claim that they never knew him," but made no mention of Abramoff's claims of ties to Bush, Rove, and McCain. According to the Reuters article:

The magazine features photographs of Abramoff with former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and former President Ronald Reagan, whom he met when he was president of the College Republicans.

Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman ate dinner at Abramoff's house and forced a Democratic appointee out of the State Department for him, Vanity Fair said.

[...]

Abramoff also said Montana Republican Sen. Conrad Burns was especially cooperative.

"Every appropriation we wanted we got," he said. "Our staffs were as close as they could be."

Spokesmen for Burns and DeLay were not immediately available for comment.

By contrast, a March 8 Associated Press article reported that Abramoff "says President Bush knew him well enough to joke with him about weightlifting." The AP article also noted that, according to Vanity Fair, "Rove's relationship with Abramoff was deeper" than the White House has previously acknowledged, and that "Rove dined several times at Abramoff's former restaurant in Washington, Signatures, and was Abramoff's guest in the owner's box of the NCAA basketball playoffs a few years ago, sitting for much of the game at Abramoff's side." A separate March 8 AP article was devoted entirely to Abramoff's claim that McCain "deliberately humiliated him."

Hours after the Associated Press reported that disgraced former Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff told Vanity Fair magazine he had close ties with President Bush and White House senior adviser Karl Rove, New York Times reporter Anne Kornblut said on the March 8 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews: "I would say for the White House, there is one good piece of news, which is no one's talking about Jack Abramoff anymore." Abramoff -- who in early January pleaded guilty to charges of conspiracy, mail fraud, wire fraud, and tax evasion -- is at the center of an influence-peddling scandal on Capitol Hill.

Kornblut made her comments during a live 5 p.m. ET edition of Hardball as part of a panel discussion on the Dubai Ports World takeover deal:

KORNBLUT: What I find so amazing is: Where has -- where has the White House been these last -- what is it now -- two, three weeks? I mean, there is no evidence that they've changed a single mind. If anything, the resistance has only hardened. But I would say for the White House, there is one good piece of news, which is no one's talking about Jack Abramoff anymore.

The AP, however, had reported hours earlier that Abramoff, in an interview that will be featured in Vanity Fair's April issue, claimed: "President Bush knew him well enough to joke with him about weightlifting. 'What are you benching, buff guy?' Abramoff said Bush asked him." The AP also reported that "[a]ccording to Vanity Fair, Rove's relationship with Abramoff was deeper" than Rove and the White House had previously acknowledged, and that: "Rove dined several times at Abramoff's former restaurant in Washington [D.C.], Signatures, and was Abramoff's guest in the owner's box of the NCAA basketball playoffs a few years ago, sitting for much of the game at Abramoff's side." The weblog Think Progress linked to the AP article cited above at 11:21 a.m. ET -- nearly six hours before Kornblut's appearance on Hardball. Excerpts of Abramoff's Vanity Fair interview can be viewed here.

Neither Matthews nor any of Kornblut's fellow panelists -- including Vanity Fair columnist Christopher Hitchens -- brought up the Vanity Fair interview or the AP article.

In her March 8 nationally syndicated column, right-wing pundit Ann Coulter took issue with actor George Clooney's remark that those in the film industry "talked about AIDS when it was just being whispered." Coulter wrote that Hollywood actually "got caught with its pants down" on the issue of AIDS and "got it right in the end." Coulter then noted that she should "hire two more interns to screen hate mail." The column was picked up by Yahoo News, Jewish World Review and David Horowitz's FrontPageMag.com.

Clooney made the remark on March 5 during an acceptance speech at the 78th annual Academy Awards. In response, Coulter commented that AIDS "is something you'd expect people like Clooney to know something about" and claimed that Hollywood was in fact "seven years behind" on the issue. As evidence, she noted that attendees "didn't start wearing AIDS ribbons to the Oscars until 1992."

From Coulter's March 8 column, "It's hard out here for a wimp":

George Clooney made the only stand for liberal Hollywood, smugly declaring:

"We are a little bit out of touch in Hollywood every once in a while. I think it's probably a good thing. We're the ones who talked about AIDS when it was just being whispered, and we talked about civil rights when it wasn't really popular. ... (T)his group of people gave Hattie McDaniel an Oscar in 1939 when blacks were still sitting in the backs of theaters. I'm proud ... to be part of this community, and proud to be out of touch."

Forget about Hollywood being ahead of the big issues: Hollywood has never even been on time for the big issues. This is why, for example, in the middle of an epic war with Islamic fascists, Hollywood is still making movies about the Nazis. Now and then, just for variety, they tackle a more current topic, like the Jim Crow era.

Even on AIDS -- which is something you'd expect people like Clooney to know something about -- Hollywood was about seven years behind. Wait, no -- bad choice of words. Even on AIDS, Hollywood got caught with its pants down. Still no good. On AIDS, Hollywood got it right in the end. Oh, dear ... Note to self: Must hire two more interns to screen hate mail.

The point is: The Hollywood set didn't start wearing AIDS ribbons to the Oscars until 1992: 10 years after The New York Times described AIDS; seven years after AIDS was the cover story on Life magazine; seven years after AIDS was in People magazine; five years after Oprah did a show on AIDS.

A March 8 New York Times article by staff writers David D. Kirkpatrick and Scott Shane reported that the recent agreement between the White House and Republican members of the Senate Intelligence Committee concerning the Bush administration's warrantless domestic surveillance program "would reinforce the authority of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court," which is often referred to as the FISA court. But far from reinforcing what many say should be the FISA court's authority over the program, the reported agreement, if it is introduced as legislation, would codify the program's status outside the reach of the court.

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), as passed by Congress in 1978, requires a warrant from the FISA court to conduct domestic surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes and allows warrantless surveillance for up to 72 hours under exigent circumstances. Shortly after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, President Bush authorized the National Security Agency (NSA) to bypass the court, and the agency has since reportedly intercepted the communications of U.S. residents in apparent violation of the law. President Bush claims that he derives authority to circumvent FISA from two sources: the Constitution and the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) passed by Congress in 2001. Since the program's public disclosure, Democratic lawmakers -- along with numerous Republicans -- have contested this legal argument.

On March 7, Republican members of the Senate Intelligence Committee announced that they had reached an agreement with the White House on legislation that would allow the warrantless domestic surveillance program to continue under the law. As detailed by Sen. Mike DeWine (R-OH) at a press conference that day, the proposed measure would allow the NSA to conduct warrantless eavesdropping for up to 45 days without a FISA warrant. If the administration seeks to conduct this surveillance for a longer period, they would be able to either request a warrant from the FISA court or go before a newly formed, seven-member Senate subcommittee for approval. From DeWine's press conference:

DeWINE: It provides that in an international call involving a designated terrorist organization, that there can be surveillance without a warrant. It provides that this program must be reviewed every 45 days. That after the 45-day period of time the executive branch must really do one of three things. The executive branch, if it has enough information to go for a FISA warrant, they must go for the FISA warrant. They can stop the surveillance. Or, the third thing that they can do is, if they do not want to do one of those two things, they must go to the United States Congress and explain why it is in the national security interest to continue that surveillance and why they cannot go to the FISA court to get a warrant.

What this does is it provides for a case-by-case examination and oversight by the United States Congress, through its Intelligence Committee, of what the executive branch is doing.

The second part of this bill is, we provide for very vigorous oversight through the Intelligence Committee. We set up a statutory authority to do this through the subcommittee of both the Senate committee and the House committee. We spell out in detail what that oversight will be. And really will bring it into the normal oversight of the Senate Intelligence Committee.

[...]

We think we have set up a mechanism that provides vigorous oversight through this committee, very detailed oversight, as I have already outlined. And we think also it involves the FISA court, it does involve the FISA court.

DeWine stated that, following the 45-day period, the administration must seek approval from the FISA court if it "has enough information to go for a FISA warrant." In this context, "enough information" clearly means enough evidence to satisfy FISA's probable cause standard. DeWine further stated that if "they cannot go to the FISA court to get a warrant" -- presumably because they cannot meet the probable cause standard -- they can alternatively explain to the subcommittee why the surveillance is nonetheless "in the national security interest." The Times article made no effort to explain how a law requiring that the administration go to the FISA court whenever possible -- if it has sufficient evidence to obtain a warrant -- but allowing the administration instead to go to the subcommittee for further authorization if it cannot meet FISA's standard of proof "would reinforce" the authority of the FISA court, as Kirkpatrick and Shane reported that it would:

The agreement would reinforce the authority of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which was created in 1978 to issue special warrants for spying but was sidestepped by the administration. The measure would require the administration to seek a warrant from the court whenever possible.

If the administration elects not to do so after 45 days, the attorney general must certify that the surveillance is necessary to protect the country and explain to the subcommittee why the administration has not sought a warrant. The attorney general would be required to give an update to the subcommittee every 45 days.

Blogger and attorney Glenn Greenwald had a very different take on whether the agreement strengthens the FISA court: "What the legislation does, on its face, is replace FISA judges with Republican Senators in approving the government's eavesdropping activities," Greenwald wrote in a March 8 post.

In their March 9 Times article on the agreement, Kirpatrick and Shane cited legal experts' complaints that the resulting legislation would "give legislative sanction" for long-term unwarranted domestic surveillance. They further noted that the 72 hours of warrantless surveillance allowed under FISA -- a restriction that the Bush administration apparently decided did not apply to the NSA program -- would be extended to 45 days and possibly longer under the proposed GOP measure:

In an emergency, the existing FISA statute permits the government to eavesdrop for 72 hours before getting a warrant, and for 15 days after a declaration of war. The Republican proposal would permit eavesdropping with no warrant for 45-day periods, with no limit on how many times they could be renewed.

But Kirpatrick and Shane did not note, much less correct or offer no further explanation for, their previous assertion that the proposed legislation "would reinforce the authority" of the FISA court.