Syndicate content
This link is for use by RSS-enabled software to retrieve the latest Media Matters for America items.
Updated: 5 min 36 sec ago

Hannity repeatedly attacked Reid as "a propaganda minister for our enemies"

Wed, 2007-04-25 15:57

On the April 24 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, co-host Sean Hannity attacked Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) for his remark during an April 19 press conference that "the [Iraq] war is lost." Hannity said to former Republican vice presidential candidate Jack Kemp: "I think [Reid is] a propaganda minister for our enemies. He's emboldening our enemies, and he's taking away the morale of our troops. They're out there fighting that war, and he said it's lost." Kemp replied: "[T]here's got to be a penalty for saying dumb things," adding: "You know, talk is cheap. But once you say something, you can't buy it back." Neither Hannity nor Kemp noted Reid's subsequent statement during the press conference that "the war, at this stage, can only be won diplomatically, politically, and economically." As Media Matters for America has noted, numerous media outlets have similarly ignored this portion of Reid's remarks while highlighting his assertion that "the war is lost."

On the April 23 edition of the program, Hannity also claimed that Reid is "serving as a propaganda minister for America's enemies" and selectively cited his statement that "the war is lost." Hannity further argued that Reid "should resign for this -- for emboldening our enemies in this particular case, for demoralizing the American soldiers there."

As Media Matters documented, following House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's (D-CA) trip to Syria in early April, Hannity repeatedly claimed that she had "allow[ed] herself to be used for propaganda purposes" by meeting with Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad in Damascus.

From the April 24 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes:

HANNITY: Here we're at war. Harry Reid and his friends send these guys to war. He declares to our enemies that we've lost the war. I don't know what it could do to the morale of the troops. What do you think of that?

KEMP: I was in Congress when Vietnam War was going on, and this is exactly what happened in early 1970s. They cut off -- they cut the legs off from underneath the troops in the mission.

I think, having sent General [David] Petraeus into Iraq with a mission, the surge of troops, I believe, to bring pacification to Baghdad and Anbar province so we can work out some political solutions, some diplomatic solutions that I think [former Reagan foreign policy adviser] Jeane Kirkpatrick would have supported. This totally negates that. And I think Vice President Cheney was exactly right in saying it's going to be vetoed. It should be vetoed, and it's the wrong course at the wrong time.

HANNITY: It is pretty disgraceful. I mean, I actually think Republicans should demand he resign. 'Cause -- and tell me if I'm wrong. I think he's a propaganda minister for our enemies. He's emboldening our enemies, and he's taking away the morale of our troops. They're out there fighting that war, and he said it's lost.

KEMP: You know, in a democracy, he can say anything he wants on the floor of the Senate. And I wouldn't call on him to resign. I would call on people in Nevada to --

HANNITY: They could force him.

KEMP: -- not to force him to resign. But there's got to be a penalty for saying dumb things. You know, talk is cheap. But once you say something, you can't buy it back.

From the April 23 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes:

KAREN HANRETTY (Republican strategist): Harry Reid -- Harry Reid has a responsibility legislatively that these other men do not. They have not been elected to office. He has a responsibility for ushering through a bill that is either going to provide funding or not provide funding. And that is the sole distinction --

JANE FLEMING (Democratic strategist): We're providing funding, Karen.

HANNITY: Hang on. Let me -- let me explain.

HANRETTY: But why? Why, Jane? Why are you providing funding if the war is lost?

HANNITY: Hang on a second.

FLEMING: We are providing funding --

HANNITY: No, they're not.

FLEMING: What we're saying is that we are providing funding for the troops. We put every dime in there that the president has asked for. What we're also saying is that we want --

HANRETTY: But why? You don't believe in the president. You think he's a liar. You think he's disingenuous.

HANNITY: All right. Hang on a second, Karen. Let me get in here --

HANRETTY: You've always thought that --

FLEMING: I think President Bush hasn't listened --

HANNITY: Let me explain the difference here, Jane Flem --

HANRETTY: You think he's a liar --

HANNITY: Let me explain --

HANRETTY: and yet you're playing politics with him.

HANNITY: Karen, help me out here. Let me explain the difference -- is that Harry Reid is the No. 1 Democrat in the United States Senate, who voted to send these troops into harm's way. And he's serving --by saying that America lost while these troops are still fighting here. He's serving as a propaganda minister for America's enemies here.

FLEMING: No, he's not.

HANNITY: -- and Harry Reid should resign for this, for emboldening our enemies in this particular case, for demoralizing the American soldiers there --

FLEMING: Sean, give us some examples of how this is emboldening our enemies.

HANRETTY: Well, maybe -- maybe this --

[crosstalk]

FLEMING: -- always says that, and you always say in this emboldens the enemy --

HANNITY: That's right.

FLEMING: -- and it demoralizes our troops.

HANNITY: That's right.

FLEMING: Give us some concrete examples of that.

HANNITY: If you're -- imagine -- put aside your liberal talking points for five seconds --

FLEMING: No. You put aside your talking points, Sean. You always say it.

HANNITY: Put aside your liberal talking points --

FLEMING: Just because you say it doesn't make it true.

Categories:

Fox's Gibson: U.S. invasion "unmasked" Iraqis as "knuckle-dragging savages from the 10th century"

Wed, 2007-04-25 15:08

On the April 23 broadcast of his Fox News Radio show, John Gibson argued that the Iraqi people -- whom he described as "knuckle-dragging savages from the 10th century" -- are at "fault" for the situation in Iraq. While discussing Iraq, Gibson said: "The one thing that drives me up the wall is [people] saying, 'Look at all the deaths you Americans have caused in Iraq.' No! 'Scuse me? We invaded the place, we knocked over Saddam, and then Iraqis began killing each other." Later in the show, Gibson agreed with a caller that the Coalition Provisional Authority's 2003 decision to purge the civil service of all former members of Saddam Hussein's Baath Party and disband the Iraqi army "was a mistake." Gibson then stated: "[B]ut who is doing this killing? Give me a break. These are Iraqis killing each other. So what did we do? If you're saying it's our fault that we unmasked them as knuckle-dragging savages from the 10th century -- fine! I'll take credit."

Gibson made his comments while criticizing Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's (D-NV) April 19 statement that "[t]his war is lost." (Reid went on to say that "the war, at this stage, can only be won diplomatically, politically, and economically.") Gibson was asking listeners to call in and help "expand my vocabulary of nasty things I can characterize Harry Reid as."

From the April 23 broadcast of Fox News Radio's The John Gibson Show:

GIBSON: Harry Reid, help me with my vocabulary. [Caller] in Cleveland. [Caller], you're on the air.

CALLER 1: Hey, how are ya?

GIBSON: Dandy. I'm looking to expand my vocabulary of nasty things I can characterize Harry Reid as. Are you here to help me?

CALLER 1: Yeah, he's a punk.

GIBSON: Ehh -- four letter words, [caller], are a little on the funky side.

CALLER 1: Well, you know, I -- the one thing I can say is that I supported this war from the beginning and I --

GIBSON: Me, too.

CALLER 1: -- I really thought -- I really, about six months ago or so, I started saying, "It's unwinnable," and I, you know, I just figure, well, maybe we ought to start pulling out, but you have to, right now, say, they're doing this surge, I don't know if it's going to work or not, I'm not a military tech, you know, person --

GIBSON: [Caller], let me just tell you. This is the real deal: If this war is lost, it's Iraqis who lost it. The one thing that drives me up the wall is saying, "Look at all the deaths you Americans have caused in Iraq."

No! 'Scuse me?

We invaded the place, we knocked over Saddam, and then Iraqis began killing each other. They didn't go to the U.S. commander and say, "Pretty please, may I go kill some Sunnis?" "Your commandership, sir, may I go kill some Shia?"

No. They just went on a killing spree of their own and it's not our fault. And the war is lost --

REID [audio clip]: This war is lost.

GIBSON: -- are contemptible words. Contemptible. You got a new word? [phone number]. I need more words. Gibson on Fox.

[...]

GIBSON: [Caller] in Kentucky.

CALLER 2: Look, Harry Reid's a buffoon, but I think you're being a bit disingenuous --

GIBSON: All right.

CALLER 2: -- when you say that we're not responsible for the chaos in Iraq. I mean, who was it that disbanded their security forces and left that country in an unstable state?

GIBSON: Look, good point. The Bremer period is going to take the fall on the Iraq story -- dismantling the Baathist organization, not letting anybody who was a Baathist run the electric system or the sewage system or the garbage pickup or any of that stuff. They're going to take the hit on it. And the Bremer period where they disbanded the army, that's going to take the hit on it -- I guarantee you.

But, and that's a mistake, I agree that was a mistake, but who is doing this killing? Give me a break. These are Iraqis killing each other. So what did we do? If you're saying it's our fault that we unmasked them as knuckle-dragging savages from the 10th century -- fine! I'll take credit. But thanks -- but thanks for the observation, [Caller].

Categories:

CLIPS: Savage called Clinton's Rutgers speech "Hitler dialogue," added, "Goebbels would be proud of you"

Wed, 2007-04-25 14:40

On the April 23 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Michael Savage played an audio clip of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's (D-NY) April 20 speech at Rutgers University in which Clinton commented on the April 18 Supreme Court ruling that upheld the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. In the clip, Clinton asked, "What message does it send when the Supreme Court decides that women's health doesn't matter?" In response, Savage stated: "That's rubbish. That's Hitler dialogue. [Joseph] Goebbels [information minister in Nazi Germany] would be proud of you, Hillary Clinton. I know [former Chinese communist leader] Mao Zedong would have been proud of you." Savage also referred to Clinton as a "liar" and a "sickening person," and added, "[T]his is life and death you are talking about. It's not about women's health."

However, statements by experts on gynecology and obstetrics contradict Savage's assertion that the ban is "not about women's health." In a dissent to the Supreme Court's majority opinion, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg noted that the court's decision "tolerates, indeed applauds, federal intervention to ban nationwide a procedure found necessary and proper in certain cases by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG)." Ginsburg also wrote: "Retreating from prior rulings that abortion restrictions cannot be imposed absent an exception safeguarding a woman's health, the Court upholds an Act that surely would not survive under the close scrutiny that previously attended state-decreed limitations on a woman's reproductive choices."

Ginsburg went on to cite experts opposed to the ban who said that the procedure "is significantly safer for women with certain pregnancy-related conditions, such as placenta previa and accreta, and for women carrying fetuses with certain abnormalities, such as severe hydrocephalus."

Furthermore, an April 18 press release from the ACOG quoted its president, Dr. Douglas W. Laube, saying that the decision to uphold the ban is "shameful and incomprehensible." The statement also reiterated the ACOG's assertion that the ban "gravely endanger[s] the health of women in this country."

As Media Matters for America has noted, Savage often lashes out against prominent Democrats and progressives. He has referred to Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) as "a loud-mouthed, foul-tempered woman," and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) as a "dirty socialist" who should "go to hell." Savage also "doubt[ed]" that Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) "would take our side" after a terrorist attack. Savage has also provided a platform for InsightMag.com's Jeffrey Kuhner to repeatedly smear Clinton with false and debunked claims.

Talk Radio Network, which syndicates Savage's show, says that Savage is heard on more than 350 radio stations. The Savage Nation reaches more than 8 million listeners each week, according to Talkers Magazine, making it the third most-listened-to talk radio show in the nation, behind only The Rush Limbaugh Show and The Sean Hannity Show.

From the April 23 broadcast of Talk Radio Network's The Savage Nation:

CLINTON [audio clip]: We've all seen it, and we have all heard it. When women and girls are objectified and devalued in popular culture, when a young black man can't get a cab at night, when a Muslim-American is a victim of a hate crime in the aftermath of 9-11, when a gay person is harassed at school or in the workplace. It even happens in a broader context, when people are silenced because they don't adhere to a particular --

SAVAGE: All right, turn her off. Hillary Clinton has and always will be a divider. Hillary Clinton has and always will be a race-baiter, a class-baiter. Hillary Clinton, plain and simple, has not changed at all. She may believe she did. And the fools in New York City were fooled by her. They like to think they're smarter than everybody. They're not smarter than anybody. They're rubes. I've found people in New York to be the biggest rubes in America because -- for one reason: They think they're smarter than everybody. And those who think they're smarter than everybody are usually the rube, by the way. And so they objectify anybody who lives west of the Hudson [River], ya hear? That's not objectification?

[...]

SAVAGE: Listen again to clip 10 now.

CLINTON [audio clip]: What message does it send when the Supreme Court decides that women's health doesn't matter? Now that Justice --

SAVAGE: Hold it, hold it. Women's health? You liar. You know, you are really a sickening person, Hillary. I've got to tell you, I've kept my hands away from this. But I will not stand idly by while you're talking about killing embryos up to the ninth month and call it women's health. That's rubbish. That's Hitler dialogue. Goebbels would be proud of you, Hillary Clinton. I know Mao Zedong would have been proud of you. But this is life and death you are talking about. It's not about women's health. It's about killing babies in the womb up to the ninth month.

Categories:

Wash. Times: "[H]as political correctness turned Robert E. Lee into a villain?"

Wed, 2007-04-25 14:33

An April 25 front-page Washington Times article by Robert Stacy McCain asked, "[H]as political correctness turned Robert E. Lee into a villain?" The article, headlined "Symposium to honor Lee, villain or 'the noblest ever'?" reported that six historians will debate the question at a "symposium commemorating the bicentennial of the Confederate commander's birth," which "[m]ore than 200 have registered to attend." McCain also quoted Brag Bowling, a "Richmond resident who helped organize" the symposium, saying, "Hostility to Confederate heritage 'has really gotten bad in the last decade.' " McCain has also written articles for the Times with the headlines, " 'Gentle ladies' of South keep Lee's legacy alive; Will mark Confederate leader's birthday" and "How the Democrats made loving Dixie a hate crime."

As Media Matters for America noted, Washington Times Editor-in-Chief Wesley Pruden is outspoken in his sympathy for neo-Confederate causes. According to the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), in 1998 he made a speech to the United Daughters of the Confederacy, in which he declared, "Southerners ... hold loyalty to two countries in our hearts." The second country is one "baptized 137 years ago on this very field in the blood of First Manassas, a country no longer at the mercy of the vicissitudes in the tangled affairs of men, a country that lives within us, a country that will endure for as long as men and women know love. ... God bless America, God bless the Confederate States of America, and God bless you all."

Further, Media Matters has noted that McCain, who is the assistant national editor at the Times, is a member of the League of the South, which the SPLC called "rife with white supremacists and racist ideology." The league's leader, J. Michael Hill, once declared: "The day of Southern guilt is over -- THE SOUTH WAS RIGHT -- and let us not forget that salient fact. NO APOLOGIES FOR SLAVERY should be made. In both the Old and New Testaments slavery is sanctioned and regulated according to God's word." As the SPLC has noted, in 1998 McCain wrote a glowing obituary of former segregationist politician George Wallace for the Times in which he cited three history professors, not disclosing that all of them belonged to the League of the South.

In one of many examples of McCain's postings on right-wing discussion sites that journalist Michelangelo Signorile has documented, McCain wrote the following in 2005 on a website called Reclaiming the South:

[T]he media now force interracial images into the public mind and a number of perfectly rational people react to these images with an altogether natural revulsion. The white person who does not mind transacting business with a black bank clerk may yet be averse to accepting the clerk as his sister-in-law, and THIS IS NOT RACISM, no matter what Madison Avenue, Hollywood and Washington tell us.

From the April 25 Washington Times article:

Winston Churchill called him "one of the noblest Americans who ever lived," and Theodore Roosevelt called him "the very greatest of all the great captains that the English-speaking peoples have brought forth."

But has political correctness turned Robert E. Lee into a villain? That will be the question explored by six historians this weekend at a symposium commemorating the bicentennial of the Confederate commander's birth.

"We were afraid that Lee would not receive the honors he should get because of the prevailing political correctness," says Brag Bowling, a Richmond resident who helped organize Saturday's event at the Key Bridge Marriott Hotel in Arlington.

The symposium will be the largest event of its kind this year honoring Lee, who was born Jan. 19, 1807.

The event site was chosen in part to be near the former Lee family home in Arlington (which now overlooks Arlington National Cemetery). He and his wife, Mary Custis Lee, were married there in 1831, and Mrs. Lee inherited her grandfather's mansion on his death in 1857.

The symposium site was chosen because of its proximity to Washington.

"We wanted to take this to the nation's capital," says Mr. Bowling, a national board member of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, which is hosting the symposium. More than 200 have registered to attend.

"They're coming in from all over the country," he says. "I had one phone call ... from some guy in Norway. We've got people coming from California, Texas, Massachusetts -- all over the country, and from Canada."

Lee, the son of Revolutionary War hero "Light Horse Harry" Lee, was born in Westmoreland County, Va., and graduated from West Point. He served more than 30 years in the U.S. Army, distinguishing himself in the Mexican War as an aide to Gen. Winfield Scott.

Lee, who freed the slaves his wife inherited from the Custis family, called slavery "a moral and political evil" and opposed secession. After Virginia seceded in 1861, he resigned his commission in the U.S. Army rather than bear arms against "my native state."

Hostility to Confederate heritage "has really gotten bad in the last decade," says Mr. Bowling, who says that political correctness in academia and in the press often leads to "dishonoring Confederate soldiers and ignoring the true reasons why the South wished to secede."

Categories:

CLIPS: Limbaugh gave baseless interpretation of Clinton speech to claim she was "demeaning" blacks

Wed, 2007-04-25 12:53

On the April 23 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Rush Limbaugh claimed that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) made a "demeaning reference to the fact that [African-Americans are] janitors, or custodial workers, or cleaning people" during her April 20 speech at the National Action Network annual convention by saying the following: "The abuses that have gone on in the last six years -- I don't think we know the half of it yet. You know, when I walk into the Oval Office in January 2009, I'm afraid I'm going to lift up the rug and I'm going to see so much stuff under there! You know, what is it about us always having to clean up after people?"

Limbaugh did not air the subsequent lines from Clinton's speech: "But this is not just going to be picking up socks off the floor. This is going to be about cleaning out the government." According to an April 21 article in The Journal News (Westchester County, New York), Clinton's audience was "composed largely of black women." There is no evidence in either the excerpt Limbaugh aired or in what he left out that Clinton was talking to audience members as though they were "janitors, or custodial workers, or cleaning people." Rather, she appeared to be referring to the fact that women have traditionally borne the responsibility of housecleaning. Indeed, the News reported that this portion of Clinton's speech "got some of her loudest applause." Limbaugh acknowledged that Clinton received a "big standing 'O' and so forth."

Limbaugh went on to compare Clinton to former radio talk show host Don Imus, who was fired from CBS Radio and MSNBC after referring to the Rutgers University women's basketball team as "nappy-headed hos." Limbaugh said of Clinton's speech: "It's no different than when Don Imus called Gwen Ifill [then] of The New York Times, 'a cleaning lady.' " He added, "[T]he liberals are sharing [with] us their perception, their vision of what black America is all about. And -- downtrodden, maids, custodians, janitors, chauffeurs. You know, this kind of thing." Limbaugh then said of "black American[s]," "[T]hat's how they want to see themselves -- as constantly downtrodden."

From Clinton's April 21 speech to the National Action Network:

CLINTON: We have to reform our government. The abuses that have gone on in the last six years, I don't think we know the half of it yet. You know, when I walk into the Oval Office in January of 2009, I'm afraid I'm going to lift up the rug and see so much stuff under there. You know, what is it about us always having to clean up after people? But this is not just going to be picking up socks off the floor, this is going to be cleaning up our government. Cleaning out the deadwood and the political cronies, the people who left all of our fellow citizens along the Gulf Coast to fend for themselves, and to this day, have not made a commitment to rebuild New Orleans. We're going to get to the bottom of these no-bid contracts, and all these special interests, and all these favors that have transferred billions of dollars into the pockets of all of these big companies in Washington, the most prominent of which is Halliburton.

From the April 21 Journal News article:

The Democratic front-runner said the Bush administration had squandered the progress made during the 1990s and skewed the government toward helping only those who were already privileged or powerful. She got some of her loudest applause when she promised to reform government and joked about being afraid to "lift up the rug" in the Oval Office.

"I'm going to see so much stuff under there," Clinton said to the audience, which was composed largely of black women. "You know, what is it about us always having to clean up after people? But this is not just going to be picking up socks off the floor. This is going to be about cleaning out the government."

The context of Clinton's remarks was reported by several media news outlets, including The New York Times' weblog The Caucus and the New York Daily News.

The National Action Network is a civil rights organization founded by Sharpton.

From the April 23 broadcast of Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show:

LIMBAUGH: All right now, on to Reverend Sharpton's National Action Network convention. Last Friday, this is Mrs. Clinton.

CLINTON [audio clip]: The abuses that have gone on in the last six years -- I don't think we know the half of it yet. You know, when I walk into the Oval Office in January 2009, I'm afraid I'm going to lift up the rug and I'm going to see so much stuff under there! You know, what is it about us always having to clean up after people?

LIMBAUGH: Oh, hardy-har-har-har. You're the last person, Mrs. Clinton, that ought to be talking about what anybody would find on the Oval Office rug. Of all the things to say! Not only do we not want to know what we'd find -- if anybody knows what's on the Oval Office rug, it would be Mrs. Clinton -- on it or under it.

But here she is, using this black dialect again -- and, by the way, this demeaning reference to the fact that they're janitors, or custodial workers, or cleaning people. Yeah, I mean this is -- she sits there and says, "You know, what is it about us always having to clean up after people?" When's the last time you cleaned up after anybody but your husband in those assorted messes of his? And we're not talking about dirt, soil, that kind of thing.

But I mean this is just -- it's just so -- it's demeaning. It is -- it's pandering. It's no different than when Don Imus called Gwen Ifill of The New York Times, "a cleaning lady," getting the White House or something. What, Mr. Snerdly? What? What? What do you mean, not if you believe it? What -- well, I know -- do you really think -- oh.

Snerdly says that that's her view -- that America looks as black -- that black people as cleaning. I think she's telling us her view, not America's view. Is that what you mean? OK. It's her view. All right, then the liberals are sharing [with] us their perception, their vision of what black America is all about. And -- downtrodden, maids, custodians, janitors, chauffeurs. You know, this kind of thing. That's how they see them. And that's how they want them to see themselves -- as constantly downtrodden. And, of course, [she] gets this big standing "O" and so forth.

Categories:

ABC's Tapper, Politico's Allen -- citing "juicy" issue for GOP -- didn't mention Pelosi's attempted meeting with Petraeus

Wed, 2007-04-25 10:39

In an April 24 ABCNews.com article, in what ABC characterized as "Breaking News," ABC News senior national correspondent Jake Tapper reported that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) "will not attend" an April 25 briefing on Capitol Hill with Gen. David Petraeus, commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, but noted that a "Pelosi aide said the speaker on Tuesday requested a one-on-one meeting with Petraeus but that could not be worked out," and that Pelosi and Petraeus had spoken on the phone for 30 minutes. However, when Tapper reported on this matter on the April 25 broadcast of ABC's Good Morning America, he stated only that Pelosi "spoke to Petraeus on the phone for about half an hour yesterday and was briefed that way." Tapper made no mention of Pelosi's request for "a one-on-one meeting," as he had the previous day on the ABC News website.

Additionally, in the April 25 edition of his "Politico Playbook," Politico chief political correspondent Mike Allen cited Tapper's April 24 article in writing: "House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has given the beleaguered Republicans an issue so juicy that GOP aides tell the Playbook they can't believe their good fortune." Allen wrote that Tapper quoted a "Democratic aide" saying that Pelosi "spoke with the general via phone today at some length." He did not mention Pelosi's reported request for a one-on-one meeting, nor did he note how long Pelosi's conversation with Petraeus lasted, as reported by Tapper. Allen went on to quote from several emails sent by congressional Republicans attacking Pelosi for not attending the Petraeus briefing.

From Tapper's April 24 ABCNews.com article:

As the House and Senate prepare to vote this week on the final conference report on the $124 billion troop funding bill -- which would also mandate that U.S. combat troops begin withdrawing from Iraq on Oct. 1 at the latest -- Gen. David Petraeus is scheduled to come to the Hill tomorrow to brief lawmakers on the progress of the recent troop escalation.

ABC News has learned, however, that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., will not attend the briefing.

"She can't make the briefing tomorrow," a Democratic aide told ABC News Tuesday evening. "But she spoke with the general via phone today at some length."

A Pelosi aide said the speaker on Tuesday requested a one-on-one meeting with Petraeus but that could not be worked out. He said their phone conversation lasted 30 minutes.

From the April 25 broadcast of ABC's Good Morning America:

TAPPER: Also on the Hill today, General David Petraeus, the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, is here to brief lawmakers on the status of the troop escalation. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi will not be attending the briefing. She spoke to Petraeus on the phone for about half an hour yesterday and was briefed that way. Petraeus will be making the case to lawmakers that they need to give the surge time to work.

From Allen's April 25 "Politico Playbook":

A 10 ON THE TALK-RADIO RICHTER SCALE: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has given the beleaguered Republicans an issue so juicy that GOP aides tell the Playbook they can't believe their good fortune. ABC's Jake Tapper broke the news last night, setting off a memorable after-hour scramble among House aides. "Pelosi Won't Attend Petraeus Briefing": "As the House and Senate prepare to vote this week on the final conference report on the $124 billion troop funding bill -- which would also mandate that U.S. combat troops begin withdrawing from Iraq on Oct. 1 at the latest -- Gen. David Petraeus is scheduled to come to the Hill tomorrow to brief lawmakers on the progress of the recent troop escalation. ABC News has learned, however, that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) will not attend the briefing. 'She can't make the briefing tomorrow,' a Democratic aide told ABC News Tuesday evening. 'But she spoke with the general via phone today at some length.'" The Republican statements cascaded into reporters' "in" boxes: House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) called the decision "shameful." Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas), chairman of the Republican Study Committee, called it an "insult" to "American servicemen and their mission." A top GOP aide said: "This will rally our base tremendously -- and we need rallying." A Democratic strategist close to Pelosi expressed exasperation with the Republicans: "Members who are briefed regularly tend to skip those because you're so up on things you learn more from leaks in the paper."

Categories:

Blitzer falsely claimed Social Security will "run[] out of money" in 2041

Tue, 2007-04-24 16:57

On the April 23 edition of CNN's The Situation Room, host Wolf Blitzer falsely claimed that, according to the April 23 Social Security trustees' report, Social Security will "run[] out of money in 2041." As Media Matters for America has repeatedly explained (see here, here, here, here, and here), Blitzer's description is false: Social Security will not "run[] out of money" when its trust fund becomes depleted, as the trustees' report makes clear.

As the Social Security trustees' report explains, "Even if a trust fund's assets are exhausted ... tax income will continue to flow into the fund." For Social Security, under current law, "Present tax rates would be sufficient to pay 75 percent of scheduled benefits after trust fund exhaustion in 2041 and 70 percent of scheduled benefits in 2081."

From the April 23 edition of CNN's The Situation Room:

BLITZER: And trustees for Social Security and Medicare are now saying the funds that back the programs will last about a year longer than previously thought, with Social Security running out of money in the year 2041 and Medicare going broke in 2019. The reason? Small changes in projected benefits and tax collections.

According to the April 23 Medicare trustees' report, Medicare's Hospital Insurance (HI) trust fund will be depleted as of 2019. At that point, the report states, Medicare payroll taxes would cover 79 percent of HI expenditures in 2019, 38 percent in 2050, and 29 percent in 2082. HI is also known as Part A.

Other parts of Medicare are funded differently: Medicare Part B (physician and outpatient care) and Part D (prescription drugs) are funded by participants' premiums and general revenues through the Supplemental Medical Insurance (SMI) trust fund. According to the Medicare trustees' report, those premiums "are reset each year to match expected costs." Medicare Part C is a private insurance-based system, and its financial status was not covered in the April 23 report.

Categories:

Matthews repeated false claim that Clinton called for "permanent" U.S. presence in Iraq

Tue, 2007-04-24 16:45

On the April 23 edition of MSNBC's Hardball, host Chris Matthews acknowledged that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) "doesn't use the term 'permanent bases' " to describe her support for a continuing U.S. military presence in Iraq, but nevertheless repeated his false claim that Clinton has called for keeping troops in Iraq "permanently." Matthews asked: "Why is she so sensitive every time I say she wants to keep a permanent base there? What's the difference between keeping forces there permanently ... and having a permanent base? Is there a distinction without a difference here?" Matthews also falsely claimed that a March 15 New York Times article supported his account of Clinton's position.

As noted in the March 15 article, Clinton explained in a lengthy March 13 interview with the Times that she would "keep a reduced military force there [in Iraq] to fight Al Qaeda, deter Iranian aggression, protect the Kurds and possibly support the Iraqi military" as part of her troop-withdrawal plan. Clinton did not, in the Times interview or elsewhere, say she wanted to keep U.S. troops in Iraq "permanently."

Moreover, Clinton's proposal for a limited number of troops to remain in Iraq after a substantial withdrawal is similar to the provision included in the Democratic conference report on the Iraq war spending bill expected to be voted on in the House and Senate this week. On April 23, CQ.com reported: "The conference report would allow some U.S. troops to remain in Iraq to protect U.S. personnel and infrastructure, train and equip Iraqi troops, and engage in targeted counterterrorism operations -- exemptions that were included in both the House and Senate versions of the bill."

Clinton's position is also consistent with the recent Democratic Senate resolution on troop withdrawal, which, as The New York Times reported on March 16, "would have redefined the United States mission in Iraq and set a goal of withdrawing American combat troops by March 31, 2008, except for a 'limited number' focused on counterterrorism, training and equipping Iraqi forces, and protecting American and allied personnel." Clinton voted for the binding resolution on March 15, which was defeated 48-50, largely along party lines. Clinton's own withdrawal proposal, introduced February 16, provides for a "limited presence" of U.S. troops without specifying number or duration, similar to the Senate resolution. In January, Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) introduced legislation that "allows for a limited number of U.S. troops to remain in Iraq as basic force protection, to engage in counter-terrorism and to continue the training of Iraqi security forces."

From the April 23 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews:

MATTHEWS: Thank you, [MSNBC correspondent] David Shuster. Senator Dick Durbin [D] of Illinois is the majority whip in the U.S. Senate. He visited Iraq late last year. Senator Durbin, are we going to get anywhere with this back-and-forth between the Democrats in Congress and the president on the war date? Is anything going to happen here?

DURBIN: I hope we can make some progress, Chris. But I have to tell you something. I don't think that the Bush administration is really envisioning any change. They just want to send more troops, more American soldiers, into the midst of this civil war. We've lost 3,324 American soldiers, as your lead-in said. This war has gone on longer than World War II. This president does not have a plan, and that's what we're trying to force, a new plan, a new direction in Iraq.

MATTHEWS: What would you like it to be?

DURBIN: Well, I think the president should take an honest look at it. We'll use the benchmarks he's given us, see how Iraq is doing. If they're doing well, then we can start bringing our troops out slowly and turn this war over to them. If they're refusing to respond to their own deadlines, their own benchmarks, then I think the writing is on the wall. At some point, the Iraqis have to stand up and defend their own country, and American soldiers need to start coming home.

MATTHEWS: You just set up an option plan where both options call for removal of U.S. troops.

DURBIN: That's right. That's right. And --

MATTHEWS: Well, then, why do conditions matter, if under any condition, you want to bring troops home? If things are going swimmingly over there, we bring the troops home. If they're going disastrously, bring the troops home. So why even look at conditions? Just bring them home.

DURBIN: If things are going well enough, we would continue, of course, our troops for obvious purposes, to hunt out Al Qaeda terrorists, to train the Iraqis and to make sure that the force removal is safe. But honestly, if there are people within the Bush administration who now want to accept the permanent presence of 100,000 or more military troops in Iraq, I think they're just -- in a policy or at least pushing a plan --

MATTHEWS: Well, that's where --

DURBIN: -- that's indefensible.

MATTHEWS: -- Hillary Clinton is, isn't she? She said she wants to keep a residual force.

DURBIN: Well, everybody's talking about some residual force.

MATTHEWS: But Hillary's talking about -- your party's probable candidate is talking about keeping troops in Iraq indefinitely. She doesn't use the term "permanent bases," but she damn well says keep troops over there after this surge.

DURBIN: But the Democrats have been consistent about bringing the combat troops home, leaving behind those troops necessary to hunt out Al Qaeda terrorism, train the Iraqis and to protect our troops as they're leaving, but not a permanent military force. I haven't heard her say that, nor many Democrats, if any.

MATTHEWS: Well, you ought to check her statement out because she talks about a residual force to protect U.S. vital interests in the region, including Israel. It's a very clear statement about enduring interest and an enduring force to meet those interests. I mean, she's not -- maybe this is politics on her part, but she's not talking about getting out of there. She's talking about staying there.

DURBIN: Well, Chris, I haven't heard Senator Clinton's plan. I know Senator Obama's plan, and it's a plan that would start bringing these troops home.

MATTHEWS: Are you for Obama over Hillary?

DURBIN: Yes, I am.

[...]

MATTHEWS: What do you think is the reaction in the Arab world to the following? Because I think they're always suspicious -- and you tell me if I'm wrong -- that we're back to recolonize east of Suez, that the Brits pulled out; they -- we want to go in there and take over those parts of the world with all the oil.

Hillary Clinton -- and this I'm reading from The New York Times, her paper, March 15th of this year, just a month ago -- she foresees a remaining military, as well as political mission in Iraq, remaining -- because we have remaining vital national interests in the country. And she says that, if we don't stay there, it will be a vital -- it will be a failed state. It's in the heart of the oil region. She said it's directly in opposition to our interests to pull out. It's in the interests of regimes, to Israel's interest for us to stay there, to keep a force of -- a military force in Iraq.

Why is she so sensitive every time I say she wants to keep a permanent base there? What's the difference between keeping forces there permanently --

DAVID IGNATIUS (Washington Post columnist): Yeah.

MATTHEWS: -- and having a permanent base? Is there a distinction without a difference here?

IGNATIUS: You know, well, you know, bases sound permanent, sound colonial.

But I think you're -- you're dismissing too easily the realities that she's describing there. We do have interests. This part of the world is really --

MATTHEWS: Well, I'm just -- I just want to know her policy.

IGNATIUS: Well --

MATTHEWS: She's the front-runner for president. Does she want to keep a permanent force in Iraq or not? And, if so, let's get it clear.

IGNATIUS: Well, I -- you know, it's a good question. It's a good question.

MATTHEWS: Her own -- her own colleague, Durbin, Senator Durbin, didn't seem to know about this statement she has put out. She hasn't corrected it. She wants -- I know that they negotiated back and forth between her people and The New York Times --

IGNATIUS: Don't do a gotcha if you discover that she wants to keep troops there for -- you know, because, you know, we have -- we have --

MATTHEWS: No, I think -- because the Democratic majority, most Democrats don't like the idea of being there, and they like even less the idea of staying there.

IGNATIUS: Let me -- let me tell you something that an Arab ambassador --

MATTHEWS: Don't you think?

IGNATIUS: -- an Arab ambassador --

MATTHEWS: OK.

IGNATIUS: -- told me last week. He said there are two kinds of land mines. There's one kind that detonates when you step on it, and there's another kind that detonates when you take your foot off of it.

And what is Hillary is thinking about is, maybe this is the land mine that detonates when we take our foot off.

MATTHEWS: OK. So, that's her policy, not to take her foot off?

IGNATIUS: And you do have to think about that.

MATTHEWS: That's her policy?

IGNATIUS: Well, it's to keep enough troops that, if that land mine goes off, it doesn't blow us all up.

MATTHEWS: So, why is she and her people so sensitive to being reminded that she supports the policy that you --

IGNATIUS: They're --

MATTHEWS: -- that you admire here?

IGNATIUS: Well, I think it's -- I think it's responsible to say that we may need to keep troops in that part of the world for a while.

MATTHEWS: In Iraq?

IGNATIUS: Well, in -- in -- if the Iraqis -- I mean, at the end of the day, this is about what the Iraqis want. We're not going to force our troops on anyone.

MATTHEWS: OK.

Categories:

Ignoring recent speeches, MSNBC's Alexander claimed Obama "hasn't really been all that specific about policy"

Tue, 2007-04-24 16:31

In discussing the upcoming Democratic presidential debate on the April 24 edition of MSNBC Live, anchor Peter Alexander claimed that "the conventional wisdom on Barack Obama is that he's a great speaker, a terrific orator, but hasn't really been all that specific about policy," and asked Washington Post staff writer Chris Cillizza: "Is his performance likely to be the most scrutinized? Does he have the most to win or lose, perhaps?" Neither Alexander nor Cillizza noted that Obama gave a detailed foreign policy speech the previous day and offered an energy policy proposal on April 20.

An April 24 New York Times article reported on Obama's April 23 speech in Chicago:

Presenting himself as a presidential candidate ''who can speak directly to the world,'' Senator Barack Obama on Monday outlined his approach to foreign policy, vowing to double foreign aid, expand and modernize the military, and rebuild fractured alliances.

In a speech before the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, Mr. Obama combined a harsh critique of the Bush administration with a call for the United States to resist the temptation to turn inward. A robust engagement in world affairs, he said, will help reduce the threat of terrorism and repair what he characterized as the nation's bruised image across the globe.

''America cannot meet the threats of this century alone, but the world cannot meet them without America,'' Mr. Obama said. ''We must neither retreat from the world nor try to bully it into submission -- we must lead the world, by deed and example.''

[...]

If elected, he said, he would double foreign aid to $50 billion by 2012, which would be the final year of his first term.

"I know that many Americans are skeptical about the value of foreign aid today," Mr. Obama said. "A relatively small investment in these fragile states up front can be one of the most effective ways to prevent the terror and strife that is far more costly both in lives and treasure to the United States down the road."

The United States also must build a 21st-century military, Mr. Obama said, in addition to "showing wisdom in how we deploy it." He called for expanding ground forces, adding 65,000 soldiers to the Army and 27,000 to the Marines. Less than 1 percent of the military can speak foreign languages like Arabic, Mandarin or Korean, he said, calling for additional training and recruitment to address the problem.

Mr. Obama said he would lead an effort to secure nuclear stockpiles and materials across the world within four years.

To prevent countries from building weapons programs, Mr. Obama endorsed the concept of an international nuclear fuel bank, proposed last year by former Senator Sam Nunn, who now advises the Nuclear Threat Initiative. As president, Mr. Obama said he would provide $50 million to get the fuel bank started and urge Russia and other countries to join.

The Times further noted that Obama's April 23 speech "was the first of several policy speeches that Mr. Obama, Democrat of Illinois, is to deliver in coming weeks as he works to define his candidacy with specific proposals to pursue if elected."

The Associated Press reported on Obama's April 20 energy proposal:

Obama's approach echoes California's. The state's Republican governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, issued an executive order this year requiring all fuels sold in the state to contain less carbon. The goal is to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from passenger vehicles 10 percent by 2020.

The Obama campaign said its effort would take that plan nationally. Specifically, Obama wants to cut greenhouse gas emissions from cars by 5 percent in 2015 and 10 percent in 2020.

"It will take a grass-roots effort to make America greener and end the tyranny of oil," Obama said two days before Earth Day.

Obama's plan counts on new limits to stimulate increased production of renewable biofuels, such as corn and cellulosic ethanol, which naturally have lower emissions. The plan would create incentives for increased research, investment in cleaner fuels and flexible-fuel vehicles that can run on ethanol.

The campaign says a national fuel standard would reduce greenhouse gas emissions by about 200 million tons in 2020, compared with 2007 levels -- the equivalent of taking about 32 million cars off the road in 2020. The campaign also estimates the annual consumption of gasoline derived from foreign oil imports would drop by about 30 billion gallons in 2020.

Furthermore, as Media Matters for America noted, Obama delivered what the Chicago Tribune described as a "major policy speech on U.S.-Israel policy" on March 2 and has offered specific policy proposals on Iraq, education, and health care.

From the April 24 edition of MSNBC Live:

ALEXANDER: Chris, we're at less than a minute left, the conventional wisdom on Barack Obama is that he's a great speaker, a terrific orator, but hasn't really been all that specific about policy, and some say he's gotten a little bit of a free pass from the media. Is his performance likely to be the most scrutinized? Does he have the most to win or lose, perhaps?

CILLIZZA: Well, I think probably the most scrutinized because she's always the most scrutinized is Senator [Hillary Rodham] Clinton [D-NY]. I think every word that she says will probably be parsed. But yes, absolutely, Barack Obama's going to be watched closely. Remember, this is someone who was in the state Senate four years ago, is very new to the national stage. So everything that he does is sort of his first time debating, his first time, you know, going to New Hampshire and Iowa. So we're going to be watching him real closely.

Categories:

MSNBC's Culhane uncritically reported GOP claim that Democrats are not funding the troops in Iraq

Tue, 2007-04-24 16:16

On the April 24 edition of MSNBC Live, during a report on the standoff between President Bush and Congress over emergency spending for the war in Iraq, MSNBC correspondent Patty Culhane uncritically reported that Republicans say "that the Democrats are putting the troops in danger because they're not giving them the funding." In fact, as Media Matters for America has noted, both houses of Congress have passed legislation providing funding for the troops in the field. Moreover, the House and Senate are set to vote on a compromise bill that provides $124 billion in funding and requires that the Pentagon begin withdrawing troops from Iraq by October 2007, with the goal of having most U.S. forces redeployed six months later. However, Bush has promised to veto the bill if it includes a withdrawal timeline. So while Congress has demonstrated a clear intention to fund the troops, Bush has said he will veto the bill -- thereby denying funding to the troops -- if it doesn't meet his conditions.

From the 3 p.m. ET hour of the April 24 edition of MSNBC Live:

CULHANE: They did, you know, and both sides talking about the November election. And the reason they keep doing that is both sides are saying this is what the voters want, this is the best way to win the war in Iraq. The Democrats say that they were voted into power in Congress because the American people decided that they wanted a change in the war in Iraq, and for the Democrats, a change is withdrawal. That's why you've seen this bill that they've passed that starts the withdrawal by October 1st of this coming year. So that is the reason why the Democrats are citing that. The president says, "OK, November, I understand the election was about a change. But I gave you a change; I came up with the surge plan, I put a new commander in place."

And both are arguing over really what's best for the troops. The Republicans say that the Democrats are putting the troops in danger because they're not giving them the funding. The Democrats say that the president and the Republican Party are putting the troops in danger by putting them in the middle of a civil war.

Categories:

MSNBC's O'Donnell failed to challenge false claim that Clinton haircut held up LAX

Tue, 2007-04-24 14:10

On the April 24 edition of MSNBC Live, anchor Norah O'Donnell failed to challenge Republican strategist Alex Johnson's false claim that former President Bill Clinton "h[e]ld up the tarmac at LAX [Los Angeles International Airport] for four hours" while getting a haircut. As Media Matters for America noted, a June 30, 1993, Newsday article reported that the reports of delays at the airport "were wrong," adding that the haircut "caused no significant delays of regularly scheduled passenger flights -- no circling planes, no traffic jams on the runways."

From the 1 p.m. ET hour of the April 24 edition of MSNBC Live:

O'DONNELL: Alex, let me ask you about [presidential candidate and former Sen.] John Edwards [D-NC]. He has been kind of struggling this week under a lot of news that he apparently got a $400 haircut.

JOHNSON: Right.

O'DONNELL: He -- he addressed the issue yesterday, managed to make a joke about it. Let's take a listen.

EDWARDS [video clip]: You can come from nothing to spending $400 on a haircut. There are great opportunities -- so embarrassing, by the way, so embarrassing.

O'DONNELL: You know, Alex, how damaging -- I mean, I know Republicans are already making fun of it. They've been making fun of it on the Fox News Channel, for instance, but you know, John Edwards has been trying to present this message of the two Americas, you know, where there is gap between rich and poor. I mean, how much does it hurt him that he himself is getting a $400 haircut?

JOHNSON: Well, at least he didn't hold up the tarmac at LAX for fours like Bill Clinton did, but --

O'DONNELL: To get his --

JOHNSON: -- you know, in due respect, the best way he can handle that is with a joke, because the bottom line for John Edwards is he's a very wealthy man, and he's running sort of as the mantle of the poverty candidate. And so, how he reconciles those two should be interesting, but he's got his work cut out for him on that -- on that token.

O'DONNELL: Well, I know you will both be watching MSNBC Thursday night.

Categories:

O'Reilly purported to chart an intricate web leading to "vile propaganda outfit" Media Matters

Tue, 2007-04-24 12:39

Discussing the political influence of philanthropist and progressive financier George Soros during the April 23 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, host Bill O'Reilly attacked Media Matters for America as a "vile propaganda outfit, which specializes in distorting comments made by politicians, pundits, and media people," a claim that echoes several of his previous attacks on Media Matters. O'Reilly opened the segment with a "chart" purporting to depict Soros' "complicated political operation" in which "Soros and a few other wealthy radicals who help him are funneling money into the political process" by funding Media Matters, which "feeds its propaganda to some mainstream media people."

O'Reilly claimed that Soros "wants to impose a radical left agenda on America" and that he does so by funding organizations that then pass on money to "a variety of radical hatchet men." He asserted: "Soros has set up a complicated political operation designed to do two things -- buy influence among liberal politicians, and smear people with whom he disagrees." O'Reilly added: "If a liberal politician doesn't toe the Soros line, he or she will be denied funding and brutally attacked. Just ask Senator Joseph Lieberman [I-CT] about what MoveOn and Media Matters did to him." O'Reilly also claimed that Soros-funded organizations "don't stop at you. They'll go for your family."

Later in the program, conservative talk-radio host Monica Crowley echoed O'Reilly's attack on Media Matters, stating: "So he [Soros] can finance websites like you mentioned, Media Matters, other organizations, that will go out there and smear right-wing politicians, smear right-wing pundits and commentators and so on."

As previously indicated, Soros has never given money to Media Matters, either directly or through another organization. If he wanted to fund Media Matters, he or Open Society Institute (OSI), a grant-making foundation he established in 1993 to conduct his philanthropy, could simply write a check directly to Media Matters, as he and OSI do to numerous entities.

O'Reilly also attacked Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, stating during his nightly "Talking Points Memo" segment: "Now 'Talking Points' has reason to believe John Edwards is taking orders from the Soros group right now. And other Democratic politicians may be as well." O'Reilly did not cite any evidence for his claim. Later, during his with exchange with Crowley and author Phil Kent, O'Reilly noted that he had no evidence for such an assertion but nevertheless maintained: "Now, we believe that John Edwards has forged some kind of an arrangement with Soros. I can't prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, but his actions are pretty much dictated by MoveOn. He's absolutely right in with those people."

As Media Matters documented, during an appearance on the Irish talk show The Late Late Show on April 13, host Pat Kenny asked O'Reilly whether he had referred to the poor as "irresponsible and lazy" and the Iraqi people as "prehistoric." When Kenny said he found that information on a "website," O'Reilly responded by calling Media Matters "an assassination website" that frequently takes him "out of context." However, Media Matters provided full documentation of O'Reilly's references to the poor as "irresponsible and lazy" and the Iraqi people as "prehistoric." O'Reilly has previously attacked Media Matters as being "smear merchants," "assassins," and "the most vile, despicable human beings in the country," among other things, despite claiming not to "do personal attacks here."

Despite numerous requests to appear on The O'Reilly Factor, O'Reilly still has not extended an invitation to Media Matters President and CEO David Brock to discuss his accusations and ad hominem attacks, nor has O'Reilly offered any evidence for his claims that Media Matters has "distorted comments" made by him or any other media figure.

The weblogs Crooks and Liars and News Hounds also documented O'Reilly's April 23 assertions.

From the April 23 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:

O'REILLY: Hi, I'm Bill O'Reilly. Thanks for watching us tonight. We have a powerful and important program, so I hope you stay through the whole thing. You won't be sorry.

Buying political power, that is the subject of this evening's "Talking Points Memo." The Factor has been investigating far-left billionaire George Soros, a man who wants to impose a radical left agenda on America. And under the radar, he is making great progress.

Soros has set up a complicated political operation designed to do two things -- buy influence among some liberal politicians, and smear people with whom he disagrees.

Now, here's a chart of how Soros and a few other wealthy radicals who help him are funneling money into the political process. Stay with me on this. Most of Soros' political money flows through his Open Society Institute -- you see it there on the left -- which is almost unlimited funding. Since 2001, according to federal documents, the Open Society Institute has given nearly $20 million to the Tides Foundation -- right below that. An astounding amount.

Now, Tides, in turn, funnels the money to a variety of radical hatchet men, who are all well paid. For example, Tides has donated millions to the vile propaganda outfit Media Matters, which specializes in distorting comments made by politicians, pundits, and media people. Media Matters is an Internet site, but directly feeds its propaganda to some mainstream media people, including elements at NBC News, columnist Frank Rich and Paul Krugman at The New York Times, columnist Jonathan Alter at Newsweek, and Bill Moyers at PBS.

In fact, as president of the Schumann Center Foundation, Moyers oversaw at least a half-million-dollar transfer of money to Media Matters. We'll have more on that tomorrow.

Now, George Soros is also pouring money into the Center for American Progress, run by former Clinton aide John Podesta, and the Democracy Alliance Group, both of which fund Media Matters as well. So you can see, an enormous amount of money this Media Matters has control of.

Finally, George Soros has given the radical left organization MoveOn many, many millions of dollars. This group actively supports liberal politicians like [Democratic National Committee chairman] Howard Dean and John Edwards. It also organizes demonstrations promoting left-wing causes.

So you can see how powerful this guy Soros has become. He can smear anyone he wants in a variety of ways. His organizations can raise millions for politicians, who will do his bidding. Thus, he can demand that politicians running for office do what he tells them to do.

If a liberal politician doesn't toe the Soros line, he or she will be denied funding and brutally attacked. Just ask Senator Joseph Lieberman about what MoveOn and Media Matters did to him.

Now "Talking Points" has reason to believe John Edwards is taking orders from the Soros group right now. And other Democratic politicians may be as well.

The goal of George Soros, [Progressive Insurance chairman] Peter Lewis, [Esprit clothing company founder] Susie Tompkins Buell, and other radical financiers is to buy a presidential election. By that, I mean find and fund a candidate who will tacitly do what he or she is told to do.

In the past, big business has been accused of doing just that. Now it is the likes of George Soros, an extremist who wants open borders, a one-world foreign policy, legalized drugs, euthanasia, and on and on.

My book Culture Warrior documents the Soros policy and his tax-evading businesses located in Curacao and Bermuda.

The really frightening thing about all this is that most Americans have never even heard of George Soros. This is off-the-chart dangerous, but completely legal under the McCain-Feingold Act.

In the weeks to come, we'll have more on Soros and his operations, including naming more of the mainstream media that is actively helping him, which includes Rosie O'Donnell. And that is the "Memo."

Now for the top story tonight, reaction to our investigation. Joining us now from Atlanta, Phil Kent, author of the book Foundations of Betrayal: How the Liberal Super Rich Undermine America [Zoe Publications, May 2007]. And here in the studio, conservative radio talk show host Monica Crowley.

Monica, begin with you. Did I leave anything out?

CROWLEY: No, I think you were right on. And you know what? This is an incredibly well-oiled, brilliantly orchestrated machine. And as you pointed out, it's also a brilliant way to get around the campaign finance laws in this country.

You have one guy in George Soros. You had mentioned big business had been criticized for this stuff before. Here you've got all of this power in the hands of one guy because he's got a billion-dollar fortune, where he can put his money wherever he wants.

The problem is twofold. Number one, transparency. This guy has been able to fly under the radar for a long time before you just exposed him because the mainstream media protects him, because they're on the same ideological page.

O'REILLY: OK. And also because it's a complicated -- you see where the money flow goes. Can you put that chart up again? Because it goes through three or four places --

CROWLEY: Right.

O'REILLY: -- before it gets to the intended source.

CROWLEY: Exactly. But, you know, this is a web, but it's not a particularly tangled web. Because as you pointed out --

O'REILLY: It's clean.

CROWLEY: -- you can trace it back two or three organizations away from George Soros. He's not even making an attempt to keep his fingerprints off of this.

And the other point, too, Bill, is accountability. So you have transparency, OK, which he's trying to obfuscate with this kind of web, but also accountability. So he can finance websites like you mentioned, Media Matters, other organizations, that will go out there and smear right-wing politicians, smear right-wing pundits and commentators and so on. And there's no accountability because it's floating out there on the Web.

O'REILLY: Yeah, but, we live in a thing of freedom of speech. Now, Mr. Kent, you know, you've got to admire Soros for coming up with this organization. I mean, you know, he's made billions by doing this in business, by being in Curacao and Bermuda and France, where he was convicted of a felony. And he knows how to do this. He knows how to move the money around and use it to gain influence. And now he's set his sights on changing the basic fabric of this country.

KENT: Well, that's right. George Soros is really the Dr. Evil of the whole world of left-wing foundations. In fact, one of his most chilling quotes a few years ago was that the main obstacle to a stable and just world is the United States.

He really hates this country. And he funds these things, as your chart points out, and open borders and even radical Islamic groups that defend suicide bombers. So this guy is all over the map.

O'REILLY: I didn't have that on there. Now what's the radical Islamic group that defends suicide bombers?

KENT: The American Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee Research Institute is a Soros recipient. And they've actually defended suicide bombers. And I've got this in my book. And how he funds La Raza, the race, the open borders advocacy group.

O'REILLY: Yeah, he funds La Raza. We know that. Now what is the intrusion of the mainstream media? Because you've got some pretty big names. Bill Moyers. Wednesday night, he's going to take a big shot at the press on PBS. We know he's in bed with Soros. Rosie O'Donnell, not taken seriously, but certainly a platform every day on ABC. New York Times, two of their main columnists. Newsweek magazine Jonathan Alter. And NBC News, where it's pitiful, but they have commentators that basically take exactly what Soros gives them and spit it out over the airwaves. That's a lot of power, is it not?

KENT: It's a lot of power. Soros really does believe wealth controls culture. And he wants to really control the political scene in the United States and the media. And as your chart points out, it's very chilling the groups that he is funding through the Open Society Institute.

You know, the assets alone of this private tax-exempt foundation, over $175 million.

O'REILLY: Wow.

CROWLEY: And as you point out, he loves the Tides Foundation, a big left-wing tax-exempt foundation.

O'REILLY: Yes. Oh, I didn't know it was that high right now. $175 million tax-free.

KENT: Absolutely.

O'REILLY: Now, Monica, if you're like Lieberman and you're a moderate Democrat, Soros can put a big hurt on you fast.

CROWLEY: That's right. I mean, I mentioned right-wing commentators, right-wing politicians. But if you are a moderate, responsible Democrat who happens to take a different point of view than George Soros, you are just as much of a target.

O'REILLY: Now, we believe that John Edwards has forged some kind of an arrangement with Soros. I can't prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, but his actions are pretty much dictated by MoveOn. He's absolutely right in with those people. Have you seen that?

CROWLEY: I have heard that reported, Bill. And you know, that's the real danger here is that these -- there are campaign finance laws on the books to prevent exactly this, to prevent a politician from being held in the pocket by a fabulously rich guy like George Soros.

O'REILLY: Yeah, I mean, this is off the chart. It really is.

CROWLEY: Again, if you don't -- that's right. And then if you don't toe the line, you run the risk of being cut off by somebody like this.

O'REILLY: And attacked.

CROWLEY: And attacked.

O'REILLY: And attacked, and attacked. And you know, ripped up --

CROWLEY: And you do not want that danger, not if you're running for president.

O'REILLY: Right. And they don't stop at you. They'll go for your family. They'll go for anyone.

Mr. Kent, I'm going to give you the last word. But are there any Republican or conservative groups that rile Soros' -- rival Soros'?

KENT: You know, I tell you, the research that I compiled in my book, if you take the top three conservative tax-exempt foundations, they're totally dwarfed by Soros and the radical Ford Foundation. It's probably 15 times more the assets. Remember, MoveOn.org and Soros spent $5 million alone in anti-Bush ads in 2004. They have got clout.

O'REILLY: Yeah, it'll be four times, five times that much --

KENT: Absolutely.

O'REILLY: -- in the 2008 election. Monica, Mr. Kent, thanks very much. We appreciate it.

Next on the rundown, once again, the mayor of San Francisco says he will not obey the law.

And later, the Factor did not use the Alec Baldwin tape. We will explain why we decided not to use it, upcoming.

Categories:

Citing Bush's dismal approval ratings, Pinkerton claimed he is "hanging in there" and not in "such bad shape"

Tue, 2007-04-24 11:28

In his April 17 column, Newsday columnist James P. Pinkerton asked: "If [President] Bush is falling apart so dramatically that he is in danger of simply vanishing, how come he's hanging in there in the polls?" Pinkerton noted that "Bush's average approval rating" in April 2007 is 34.6 percent and was 35.6 percent in April 2006. He then added: "Neither number is impressive, but what's clear is that Bush is hanging in there, approval-wise." But in characterizing Bush as "hanging in there," Pinkerton -- exhibiting a tendency on the part of many in the media, repeatedly documented by Media Matters for America, of presenting Bush's low poll numbers in as positive a light as possible -- ignored Bush's polling status relative to that of other recent presidents.

Further, Pinkerton claimed that Bush's approval ratings look better when viewed relative to "the Democrats who now control Congress." Pinkerton wrote: "The president doesn't look so good. But if the Congress doesn't look so good either -- then the president isn't in such bad shape." However, the two Democratic leaders he cited in the column -- House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (CA) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (NV) -- both have significantly higher approval ratings than Bush.

From Pinkerton's April 17 Newsday column:

The pundits seem to agree: George W. Bush is toast, kaput. So how come the president's holding steady, even rising, in the polls? And what does that mean for 2008?

[...]

So here's a question: If Bush is falling apart so dramatically that he is in danger of simply vanishing, how come he's hanging in there in the polls?

But don't take my word for it. According to pollingreport.com, a nonpartisan compendium of polls, Bush's average approval rating for April 2007 is 34.6. And what was his approval exactly a year ago, for all of April 2006? It was 35.6. Neither number is impressive, but what's clear is that Bush is hanging in there, approval-wise -- no "epic collapse."

Pinkerton acknowledged that Bush's average approval ratings have declined by a point in the last year, while taking the position that the drop is insignificant -- an indication that Bush is "hanging in there, approval-wise." But he offered no evidence to support his claim in the first paragraph that Bush is "even rising[] in the polls." Nonetheless, Pinkerton's column appeared in Newsday under the headline "Dems boost Bush's sagging approval ratings." The column was also published in the San Francisco Chronicle and headlined "Democrats lift Bush's approval ratings."

Moreover, absent from Pinkerton's column was any discussion of Bush's approval ratings in a historical context. On April 17, Gallup News Service released its most recent quarterly average approval rating for Bush: 35 percent between January 20 and April 19. Gallup further noted:

George W. Bush's presidency reaches a milestone of sorts on Thursday as he completes his 25th quarter in office. But his 25th quarter is not one on which he will look back fondly, given that he averaged only a 35% job approval rating, the lowest quarterly average of his presidency to date. His previous low was the 36% he averaged in the quarter spanning April-July 2006.

[...]

Gallup has computed quarterly averages for 246 presidential quarters since 1945. Bush's most recent quarter ranks near the bottom, placing 228 out of 246, putting it in the 7th percentile.

Only four other presidents besides Bush have served 25 quarters or more since Gallup began tracking approval ratings in 1945. Not surprisingly, Bush's 25th quarter average does not compare favorably to the other presidents' at the similar points in their presidencies.

Similarly, an April 8 USA Today article noted:

Since the advent of modern polling, only two presidents have suffered longer strings of such low ratings. One was Harry Truman, whose popularity sank during the final 26 months of his tenure as the Korean War stalemated. The other was Richard Nixon during the 13 months leading up to his resignation amid the Watergate scandal.

Pinkerton went on to argue that the reason Bush is purportedly "hanging in there" is because "he is being compared and contrasted" to the Democratic-led Congress, who he claimed "doesn't look so good either":

So what gives? The answer would seem to be that Bush is not being evaluated in isolation: Instead, in the public mind, he is being compared and contrasted to the rest of Washington, D.C. - specifically, the Democrats who now control Congress.

One might ask: Has House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) acquitted herself well in her nearly four months in office? Democratic partisans will, of course, loyally defend her recent trip to Damascus, Syria, but Republican partisans, demoralized for so long, now have a tempting Democratic target.

Meanwhile, Americans in the middle, influenced by centrist voices such as The Washington Post's editorial page, probably think there's something a little inappropriate in Pelosi's crowding onto the foreign-policy turf of the executive branch.

And how about Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), who has worked so hard to impose a timetable on American involvement in Iraq?

Reid wanted to use congressional budget authority to oppose Bush's war plans, but instead he has gotten himself crosswise with the Pentagon service chiefs, all four of whom joined on April 9 to write a "16-star" letter to Congress, warning, "Further delay in congressional approval of money to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan . . . will have a profoundly negative impact on current combat operations."

In wartime politics, it's risky to go against the wisdom of the warriors. And yet, that's exactly what the Democrats are doing. That is, many Americans who oppose the Iraq war are nonetheless inclined to see something squirrelly about congressional attempts to "micromanage" the fighting.

So here's the bottom line: In politics, popularity is relative. The parties are judged not by themselves, but in relation to each other. The president doesn't look so good. But if the Congress doesn't look so good either - then the president isn't in such bad shape.

In fact, recent polling shows that significantly more Americans approve of the performance of Reid and Pelosi than that of Bush. Indeed, an April 12-15 Washington Post-ABC News poll found that 46 percent of respondents approved of Reid's job performance, 53 percent approved of Pelosi's job performance, and more generally, 54 percent approved of "the way the Democrats in Congress are doing their job." The same poll found that 35 percent approved of Bush's performance.

Media Matters has repeatedly noted a tendency in the media to tout a purported silver lining to Bush's low polling or to ignore bad polling numbers. For example:

  • In an April 10 Washington Post article, staff writer Chris Cillizza wrote that an "interesting" aspect of a Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll of likely Republican presidential primary voters in South Carolina was "the sky-high approval ratings registered by President Bush:" 70 percent. But recent nationwide polling of self-identified Republicans regarding Bush's job performance had yielded similar results, a significant decline in support for Bush among Republicans since his 2004 re-election.
  • In a November 11, 2006, Newsweek online article, a caption to a picture accompanying the article compared Pelosi's favorability ratings with Bush's approval ratings, to suggest that the two were similarly unpopular. The caption asked, "Can They Work Together?" and noted that "Pelosi has 34 percent approval [favorability] ratings, slightly better than Bush's 31 percent [approval]." But the article left out the fact that, according to the then-most recent Newsweek poll, Bush's job disapproval ratings were more than three times Pelosi's "unfavorable" ratings.
  • On September 19, 2006, USA Today/Gallup released a poll that found 44 percent of respondents said they approve of the way Bush "is handling his job as president"; the results represented a 5-percentage-point increase in Bush's approval rating from the previous USA Today/Gallup poll. Throughout that day, many television news outlets -- such as CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, and NBC -- touted the poll as a success for Bush, describing Bush's "bounce" in the poll as "good news," asserting that his rating is "the highest it's been in a year," claiming the poll is "bolstering GOP spirits and rattling Democrats" while illustrating that Bush is "gaining in popularity" with the American public, and stating that the poll demonstrates how Bush "has rebounded." But four days before the release of the USA Today/Gallup poll, all four news organizations completely ignored a Pew Research Center poll showing Bush's approval rating at 37 percent, unchanged from Pew's previous poll and the lowest of all polls conducted within the previous month.
  • In August 2006, NBC's Today and The New York Times reported the assertion, made by numerous Republican officials, that the arrests in the United Kingdom of several suspected terrorists reportedly on the verge of executing an attack on U.S.-bound international flights would play to the Republicans' advantage in the midterm elections because the issue of terrorism is a weakness for Democrats. But missing entirely from their reports was any reference to polling that showed an erasure in the advantage Bush and congressional Republicans once held on the issue.
  • During the "All-Star Panel" segment on the July 4, 2006, edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume, Washington Post staff writer Jeffrey Birnbaum baselessly asserted: "I don't think there's any question ... but if you compare Americans' view of the war in Iraq and the war against terrorism this Fourth of July compared to last Fourth of July, the president and his policies are in a much better position." Contemporaneous polling did not support Birnbaum's assertion.
Categories:

Limbaugh claimed Media Matters "fell for" his "liberal" gunman "joke" "hook, line, and sinker"

Mon, 2007-04-23 17:25

On the April 23 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, host Rush Limbaugh claimed "I was making a joke" when he said on his April 19 broadcast that Virginia Tech gunman Cho Seung-Hui "had to be a liberal, " and "it's a liberal that committed this act" before adding on April 23, "I do believe that it was liberalism that got a hold of this guy and made him hate things, professors and this sort of thing." Limbaugh also lashed out at Media Matters for America, claiming that he had made the comments about Cho "as a means of illustrating on this show how the words of conservative talk show hosts are twisted and taken out of context," before adding, "And sure enough, Media Matters fell for it hook, line, and sinker. They had it up all over the place."

In an April 19 item, Media Matters noted both Limbaugh's statement that Cho "had to be a liberal" and his subsequent comment that "the drive-bys will read on a website that I'm attacking liberalism by comparing this guy to them." In addition, Media Matters provided transcript and audio of Limbaugh's statements. Limbaugh regularly describes mainstream media sources as "the drive-by media."

From the April 23 broadcast of Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show:

LIMBAUGH: Last week, as a means of illustrating on this show how the words of conservative talk show hosts are twisted and taken out of context, I blamed the liberals for the Virginia Tech shooting. I said the guy had to be a liberal. And I went through and I said, "You watch, there's going to be a website that picks this up, and a bunch of people are going to read it, and they're going to be outraged that I would possibly say this." And I said, "Yeah, you got a guy that hates the rich, you got a guy that thinks that American culture's debauched. Who is it telling us all this, and who is it that's doing all this? It's the liberals." And sure enough, Media Matters fell for it hook, line, and sinker. They had it up all over the place. But yet, Friday at the National Action Network conference, Senator Joe Biden, Democratic Party presidential candidate, blamed Republicans for the V-Tech shootings and a string of events that have made news in the past few years. Biden said Bush, Gingrich and Karl Rove are responsible for what he called the politics of polarization. I would argue, said Biden, since '94 with the Gingrich revolution, just take a look at Iraq, Venezuela -- Venez -- Katrina? --what's gone down at Virginia Tech, Darfur, Imus. Take a look. This didn't happen accidentally, all these things are the fault of Bush, Gingrich, and Karl Rove. I'm -- was depressed when I read this. He left my name out of it. Usually I get blamed for this stuff. But nobody said a word, there's no website out there chronicling Biden, blaming -- he was serious. He was serious. I was making a joke about the -- I was just setting everybody up to see how this stuff works, although I do believe that it was liberalism that got a hold of this guy and made him hate things, professors and this sort of thing. But hell's bells, have you heard anybody complaining about Biden blaming Repub -- for Katrina?

Categories:

Newsweek's Meacham: "[L]ong time" since Dems have let Americans know they share their values

Mon, 2007-04-23 16:53

On the April 22 edition of NBC's Meet the Press, Newsweek managing editor Jon Meacham repeatedly suggested that Democrats are out of step with "American value[s]." Meacham claimed that Democrats "are still struggling to find out how do they signal to the broad American public that they share their values ... whether it's religion or guns or life" and that "Democrats are living in terror of ... look[ing] as though they're being unsupportive of the troops, because ... that's an American value." In fact, recent polling indicates that Americans think that Democrats are more in line with their "values" than Republicans.

Following is Meacham's response to host Tim Russert's assertion that "Democrats seem to have been relatively careful in their response" to the Supreme Court's 5-4 decision upholding the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003:

MEACHAM: I think you have Democrats who are still struggling to find out how do they signal to the broad American public that they share their values, that it's a party that understands and believes -- whether it's religion or guns or life -- that they, too, are in tune with the public. And it's -- the Democrats have a long history of being able to do this, but it's been a long time since they have.

Later, Meacham again invoked the idea of "American value[s]" while discussing Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's (D-NV) April 19 statement that "the war is lost, and that the surge is not accomplishing anything":

MEACHAM: I think we're in this odd moment where everyone wants to support the troops, but move away from the mission. And the Democrats are living in terror of -- and I think that's the reaction to Senator Reid's comments -- is to look as though they're being unsupportive of the troops, because that is a -- to link all these things together -- that's an American value. That's something we should all share.

But as Media Matters for America noted, a March 7-11 poll by The New York Times and CBS News found that 46 percent of respondents said the Democratic Party "comes closer to sharing [their] moral values," while 41 percent favored Republicans. Furthermore, recent polls show more Americans agreeing with Democrats on specific issues such as gun control and the Iraq war:

  • Guns. As Russert noted on Meet the Press, an April 17-19 Associated Press/Ipsos poll found that 55 percent of respondents would be "more ... likely to support a candidate for president who favors stricter gun control laws." The same poll found that 47 percent of respondents favored making "gun laws" "more strict," 11 percent of respondents wanted the laws to be "less strict," and 38 percent wanted laws to "remain as they are." Additionally, according to Gallup: "Fifty-one percent of Americans in a January 2007 poll say gun laws in the country should be more strict, while 14% say less strict, and 32% say they should remain as they are now."
  • Iraq. An April 5-9 Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll found that 48 percent of respondents said that President Bush "should sign a funding authorization [for the war in Iraq] that includes a timetable for withdrawal," while 43 percent said he should veto the bill. Similarly, when asked whether Congress should respond to a veto by either continuing to demand a timetable or passing a bill without one, a narrow plurality of respondents -- 45 percent versus 43 percent -- opted for the former. As Media Matters noted, the Times/Bloomberg poll yielded these results despite skewed wording that benefited the White House position on Iraq. More broadly, an April 9-12 CBS News poll found that 58 percent of respondents believed that Congress should "allow funding for the Iraq war only for a finite period of time," while 29 percent of respondents said Congress should "allow all funding for the war in Iraq without a time limit." Nine percent of respondents "want[ed] all funding for the war blocked no matter what."

Additionally, Meacham asserted that "Democrats are very touchy about" the issue of gun control because the Republican victories in the 1994 midterm election were, "in some quarters, blamed on ... President [Bill] Clinton's anti-crime legislation," which included an assault-weapons ban. Meacham further asserted that "people close to the Gores blame the loss of Tennessee in 2000 ... on the gun issue." While Meacham cited analyses of the 1994 and 2000 elections, he ignored Clinton's re-election in 1996. As Media Matters noted, Clinton campaigned on -- and even ran ads touting -- the ban on assault weapons. Moreover, the ban remained popular right up to the Republican Congress' decision to let it expire in 2004. An NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll conducted at the time found that 61 percent of Americans were "dissatisfied" with the expiration, while only 12 percent were "satisfied."

From the April 22 edition of NBC's Meet the Press:

RUSSERT: One of the reactions in Washington was a discussion of gun control. Subdued discussion, I might add. Here's the poll of the American people by the Associated Press. "Do you support a presidential candidate who favors stricter gun control?" More likely, 55; less likely, 32. Look at this breakdown by party: Democrats 69 to 21, Republicans, less likely, 50 to 34; independents, 50 to 34. And yet, neither party seemed to be very enthusiastic this week, Jon Meacham, about gun control. Rudy Giuliani, the former mayor of New York, this is an article from Newsday, the Long Island newspaper:

"Rudy Giuliani this week issued statements on gun control and late term abortions that differ sharply from his previous positions, opening him up to flip-flop charges by activists. The gun control switch seems particularly stark. As New York mayor, Giuliani didn't just support tough controls -- he became former President Bill Clinton's go-to Republican to lobby a GOP Congress to back an assault-weapons ban. Later, Giuliani joined a lawsuit against gun makers and called for a" quote " 'uniform law passed by Congress' to regulate handgun ownership."

That's not part of his agenda now.

MEACHAM: No, and I think you saw what the Democrats -- there was a lot of a kind of a deafening silence, in a way, on the gun issue most of the week. You know that in 1994 the Republican blowout was to some extent, and in some quarters, blamed on the crime bill, on President Clinton's anti-crime legislation. I know that people close to the Gores blame the loss of Tennessee in 2000, and therefore the loss of the presidency, on the gun issue. And so I think the Democrats are very touchy about this, and the Republicans are, rather predictably at this point, playing to the base. It's an inevitable conversation that comes up after one of these horrible things. We have a piece in Newsweek this week by [New York City Mayor] Mike Bloomberg [R], who is -- argues, "Let's enforce what's on the books. Let's crack down on illegal guns." And I think you'll see more of that moderate Bloomberg-[California Gov. Arnold] Schwarzenegger [R] wing of politics taking the lead on this.

RUSSERT: Doris Kearns Goodwin, in fact, The Washington Post reports this:

"With the Virginia Tech shootings resurrecting calls for handg-- tighter gun controls, the NRA has begun negotiations with senior Democrats over legislation to bolster the national background-check system and potentially block gun purchases by the mentally ill."

[...]

RUSSERT: Jon Meacham, perhaps it was Virginia Tech and other issues that captured the news attention, but this decision by the Supreme Court was significant, and yet again, the Democrats seem to have been relatively careful in their response to it.

MEACHAM: Well, you're right. We had a week where some of the most fundamental questions in our national life, in our politics were changed to some extent. The -- this is the first Roberts court sign that the long-feared liberal -- liberal fears that the court was going to turn right on these issues -- this is the first time that there's actually evidence that they will. Although, as you know, the country is against this procedure, and there's popular -- against that. The people are against it. I think you have Democrats who are still struggling to find out how do they signal to the broad American public that they share their values, that it's a party that understands and believes -- whether it's religion or guns or life -- that they, too, are in tune with the public. And it's -- the Democrats have a long history of being able to do this, but it's been a long time since they have.

[...]

RUSSERT: A Democrat got in some hot water with his fellow party members as well. Harry Reid, the leader of the Democrats, talked about the war in Iraq and the funding, and this is what he had to say.

REID [video clip]: I believe, myself, that the secretary of state, secretary of defense, and you have to make your own decision as to what the president knows -- that this war is lost.

RUSSERT: Several Democrats called me, Jon Meacham, and said, "We don't want -- we do not want to be debating whether the war is lost or not."

MEACHAM: Right.

RUSSERT: Senator Reid went to the floor and tried to fix it the next day. But what is the significance of that comment, and what's the state of the debate?

MEACHAM: I think we're in this odd moment where everyone wants to support the troops, but move away from the mission. And the Democrats are living in terror of -- and I think that's the reaction to Senator Reid's comments -- is to look as though they're being unsupportive of the troops, because that is a -- to link all these things together -- that's an American value. That's something we should all share. We should be -- in the political culture at the moment, we should be supporting the troops in the field. We should be taking care of them when we come home. That's become a very live political question.

Categories:

Reporting bipartisan desire to fix AMT, Wash. Post left out Bush budget's reliance on it

Mon, 2007-04-23 16:42

An April 23 Washington Post article by staff writer Lori Montgomery on House Democrats' plan to shift the burden of the alternative minimum tax (AMT) onto wealthier Americans reported that Republicans "also advocate repealing or substantially rewriting the AMT." Yet the article did not mention that President Bush's Fiscal 2008 budget goal of, in Bush's words, "balanc[ing] the budget by 2012 without raising your taxes," relies on revenues raised from not adjusting the AMT after FY 2008. The White House's prediction that the budget will reach balance or surplus by 2012 rests, in part, on the assumption that Congress will stop raising the exemption level of the AMT -- although the Bush administration proposed that Congress increase of the exemption level again for FY 2008. Without a continuation of this temporary fix, the AMT would increase the income taxes of millions of middle-class Americans in the years to come, as Media Matters for America has noted.

From the Post article headlined "Democrats Craft New Tax Rules, New Image":

Republicans, who also advocate repealing or substantially rewriting the AMT, dismiss Democratic ideas as "class warfare." Wisconsin Rep. Paul D. Ryan, senior Republican on the House Budget Committee, said raising taxes for the wealthiest Americans would punish small-business owners. He dubbed the idea a "job killer."

Republicans also question the potency of the tax as a political issue, given that most of the people Democrats hope to rescue have yet to feel its bite.

While asserting that Republicans (whom Montgomery did not name) also want to repeal or change the AMT, Montgomery did not tell readers that Bush's budget relies on the AMT's not being repealed or altered -- the plan to eliminate the budget deficit by 2012 rests on the notion that after FY 2008 the increases in the AMT's exemption level will cease, therefore generating more revenue from middle-class earners.

As the Post article explained, when the AMT was enacted in 1970, it was designed to keep wealthy individuals from using loopholes and shelters to pay little or no income taxes. But because the AMT's exemption level is not indexed for inflation, it has in recent years threatened to affect an increasing number of middle-income taxpayers. However, Congress has spared many middle-class taxpayers from the AMT by passing temporary patches that have raised the exemption level at the cost of tens of billions of dollars in annual revenue, as the article also noted. The Bush administration's new budget proposes yet another one-year patch. But, according to a March 12 report by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service (CRS), the administration's long-term projections assume that beyond FY 2008 the government will receive an increasing amount of revenue from the AMT as it affects more and more taxpayers. According to the CRS report, Bush's budget "stop[s] the expanding coverage of the Alternative Minimum tax (AMT) in FY 2007 and FY 2008 (but not in subsequent years)" and the $170 billion surplus in 2012 and a $249 billion surplus in 2017 in Bush's budget "assumes ... relief from the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) is not provided." The report explained further:

The Administration's proposals includes extending the current relief from the alternative minimum tax (AMT) for fiscal years 2007 and 2008. Without further extensions of or a permanent fix to the AMT, a growing number of middle-class taxpayers will be subject to it. The FY2008 budget estimates that "fixing" the AMT for the two years will cost $9.1 billion in FY2007 and $47.9 billion in FY2008. CBO estimates that it would cost on average about $55 billion a year over the next 10 years to index the AMT for inflation. Although the President's budget calls for fixing the AMT expansion, it does not include the five-year cost of doing so. This, in effect, increases the Administration's receipt estimates by $50 to $60 billion a year (after FY2008) above what they would be if they included an AMT fix.

Categories:

Limbaugh falsely accused Media Matters of not providing context for his "Obama Osama" comment

Mon, 2007-04-23 15:08

On the April 20 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, host Rush Limbaugh asserted that Media Matters for America "takes everything that we say here out of context". The example Limbaugh provided was an incident on his July 11, 2005, broadcast in which he repeatedly referred to Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) as "Obama Osama" and "Osama Obama." Limbaugh argued that he was just engaging in a "parody because Senator [Edward] Kennedy [D-MA] at the National Press Club was asked about Obama and said, "Well, we need to ask Osama about that." In fact, as Media Matters documented at the time, while Limbaugh mentioned Kennedy's gaffe during the broadcast, he also repeatedly referred to Obama as "Osama Obama" or "Obama Osama" in criticizing Obama and Democrats in general.

Limbaugh's comments on the April 20 broadcast came while he was introducing an impersonation of Kennedy as he was taking requests to air parodies from his archive in exchange for donations to his Cure-A-Thon 2007, a drive to raise money for victims of blood cancer:

LIMBAUGH: All right. Now, the second one he requested is the Ted Kennedy-Obama name mess-up. I want to set this one up because after we played this, the drive-by media, going to Media Matters, whatever -- that website, the front organization for the Clinton campaign, bought and paid for by George Soros and the Clinton people. Media Matters for America, which takes everything that we say here out of context and puts it up there. They are the supply source for the drive-by media of what is said on this program and a number of others. The drive-bys don't actually listen to this program.

And so we played this business of Ted Kennedy, and afterwards, word spread like wildfire through the Democrat [sic] blogs that I was calling Obama Osama, Barack Osama. And it was never I who did it, it was Senator Kennedy. Now, that was a parody because Senator Kennedy at the National Press Club was asked about Obama and said, "Well, we need to ask Osama about that."

In fact, contrary to Limbaugh's assertion that Media Matters did not provide context for his "Obama Osama" comment, Media Matters noted:

In criticizing a July 10 speech by Obama in Eatonville, Florida, Limbaugh added "Osama" to the senator's name seven times. Limbaugh justified his use of the phrase by explaining that Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-MA) had once done so.

As Limbaugh acknowledged on his show, Kennedy did correct himself after mistakenly saying "Osama bin" instead of "Obama" at a January 12 press conference at the National Press Club. The Associated Press reported on January 12, "Kennedy also mangled the name of the Democrats' new star, Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, calling him 'Osama bin ... Osama ... Obama.' "

Limbaugh has referred to Obama as "Obama Osama" or "Osama Obama" several times since the January press conference, generally to mock Kennedy's misstatement. But on his July 11 show, Limbaugh also repeatedly used the phrase in criticizing Obama and Democrats in general.

In addition, Media Matters provided transcript and audio of Limbaugh's statements.

In his presentation of the parody on his April 20 broadcast, Limbaugh also repeated his false claim that Media Matters is a "front organization for the Clinton campaign, bought and paid for by George Soros and the Clinton people." In fact, Media Matters -- which is a progressive nonprofit organization unaffiliated with any political party or campaign -- has never received funding from progressive philanthropist George Soros.

Categories:

Ignoring polling, Matthews claimed "[t]wo-thirds" of Americans say leave [Gonzales] alone

Mon, 2007-04-23 14:17

Discussing Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales' April 19 appearance at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing into the firing of eight U.S. attorneys on that day's edition of MSNBC's Hardball, host Chris Matthews baselessly asserted that "[t]wo-thirds of the American people say -- I mean, they don't like it, but they don't think he's [Gonzales] telling the truth -- but they say leave him alone." In fact, several polls have indicated that a plurality of respondents believe Gonzales should resign, while other polls show the public divided on the subject. During the program, Matthews also did not challenge the false assertion by guest David Rivkin, a Justice department official under President George H.W. Bush, that senators "did not talk about specific U.S. attorneys" with Gonzales during the hearing.

While Matthews asserted that "[t]wo-thirds of the American people say -- I mean, they don't like it, but they don't think he's telling the truth, but they say leave him alone," numerous polls have found that at least a plurality of respondents want Gonzales to resign, while other polls show the public divided on that question.

  • An April 13-15 USA Today/Gallup poll asked, "Do you think Attorney General Alberto Gonzales should or should not resign over his handling of these dismissals?" Forty-one percent of respondents said Gonzales should resign, compared to 37 percent who said he should not, while 22 percent had no opinion.
  • An April 12-15 ABC News/Washington Post poll asked, "Given this issue do you think Gonzales should (lose his job) as attorney general, or (remain in his position)?" Forty-five percent of respondents said Gonzales should "lose his job as attorney general," while 39 percent said he should "remain in his position"; 16 percent said they had no opinion.
  • An April 10-12 CNN/Opinion Research Group poll asked, "Do you think Alberto Gonzales should or should not resign as Attorney General?" Thirty-eight percent of respondents said Gonzales should resign and 37 percent said he should not; 24 percent said they were unsure.
  • An April 5-9 Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll noted, "As you may know, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales first said that he did not discuss the firings of some U.S. Attorneys, but documents released showed that he had attended meetings and saw recommendations on the subject," before asking: "Based on what you know about the matter, do you think Alberto Gonzales should resign his post as Attorney General, or not?" Fifty-three percent of respondents said Gonzales should resign, compared with 29 percent who said he should not; 18 percent said they "don't know."

Matthews also allowed Rivkin to assert that the committee "did not talk about specific U.S. attorneys" with Gonzales and that the hearing "was all about generalities" and contained "very little substance." In fact, according to a Washington Post transcript of the hearing, senators questioned Gonzales about his role in and the reasons for the firing of several specific U.S. attorneys, including Carol Lam of California, H.E. "Bud" Cummins III of Arkansas, David Iglesias of New Mexico, John McKay of Washington, Margaret Chiara of Michigan, and Daniel Bogden of Nevada. Several of these firings were the subject of questions from multiple senators.

Later during the segment, Rivkin asserted, "Look, do you tell me when [former Attorney General] Janet Reno, in my opinion, everybody's opinion, seriously mishandled the Waco siege, was she pilloried like this?" Robert Raben, an assistant attorney general during the Clinton administration, noted that Reno "was pilloried like this by [Rep.] John Conyers [D-MI]," but Rivkin dismissed that notion, saying "I don't remember such hearings." In fact, the hearings did take place. A May 10, 1993, Time article described a portion of Conyers' exchange with Reno:

During a House Judiciary Committee hearing on the Waco disaster last week, Reno found herself under fire from Congressman John Conyers Jr. The outcome at Waco, Conyers declaimed, was "a profound disgrace to law enforcement in the United States of America." As for Reno, he continued, "You did the right thing by offering to resign. And now I'd like you to know that there is at least one member of Congress that isn't going to rationalize the death of two dozen children."

Listening to Conyers' attack, the 54-year-old, 6-ft. 2-in. Reno thrust out her jaw and glared. Then, her voice quavering, she replied, "I haven't tried to rationalize the death of children, Congressman. I feel more strongly about it than you will ever know. But I have neither tried to rationalize the death of four ((Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms)) agents, and I will not walk away from a compound where ATF agents had been killed by people who knew they were agents and leave them unsurrounded." Then she added, "Most of all, Congressman, I will not engage in recrimination."

Additionally, Matthews asked Rivkin, "Was this the biggest bad thing in the world, or is it a fundraising campaign for [Sen. Charles] Schumer [D-NY] and the Democrats?" Schumer is chairman of the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee. Later in the program, Matthews noted evidence that the U.S. attorney scandal was more than an alleged Democratic fundraising campaign, citing "all these conservatives" -- Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), Former Rep. Bob Barr (R-GA), conservative activist Richard Viguerie, American Conservative Union chairman David Keene, Reagan administration associate deputy attorney general Bruce Fein, and Sen. John E. Sununu (R-NH) -- who "want [Gonzales] to go."

Matthews added, "But they're not part of the campaign committee of Chuck Schumer." But later in the program, during a discussion about the hearings with Newsweek's Michael Isikoff and the Chicago Tribune's Jill Zuckman, Matthews asserted, "To be very blunt and political, has Chuck Schumer had enough of this case? He's raised enough money on this for Democratic Campaign Committee, that there's not much more to get out of this stone?"

From the April 19 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews:

MATTHEWS: David, put it in perspective from your perspective. Was this the biggest bad thing in the world --

RIVKIN: Of course not.

MATTHEWS: -- or is it a fundraising campaign for Schumer and the Democrats?

RIVKIN: Pretty much. It's enormous hyperbole. Look at what they have not said. There was very little substance. They did not talk about specific U.S. attorneys. They did not say, "This email reveals some prohibited conflict or some prohibited reason." This was all about posturing. This was all about generalities. Everybody agrees that the back end stuff was handled badly, but they kept hammering at him to try to force him to admit that something was wrong.

[...]

MATTHEWS: Dana Rohrabacher, pretty conservative former Reagan speechwriter, congressman from California, wants him to go. Bob Barr -- he's hardly a moderate. He wants him to go. Viguerie wants him to go. Keene wants him to go. Bruce Fein, John Sununu Jr. -- all these conservatives want him to go.

RIVKIN: It doesn't mean that he -- that they are right. But more importantly --

MATTHEWS: But they're not part of the campaign committee of Chuck Schumer.

[...]

MATTHEWS: Did you see the latest polling?

RABEN: -- who cares about due process.

MATTHEWS: Two-thirds of the American people say -- I mean, they don't like it, but they don't think he's telling the truth, but they say leave him alone.

[...]

RIVKIN: -- and some mismanagement. Look, do you tell me -- when Janet Reno, in my opinion, everybody's opinion, seriously mishandled the Waco siege, was she pilloried like this? She said --

RABEN: Yes, she was pilloried like this by John Conyers --

[crosstalk]

RIVKIN: But I remember --

RABEN: -- the Democratic chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.

[crosstalk]

RIVKIN: -- taking responsibility for it, but I don't remember such hearings. It's unfortunate. It really is. There's nothing there. This is utterly smokeless crisis. There is nothing there.

MATTHEWS: OK.

[...]

MATTHEWS: To be very blunt and political, has Chuck Schumer had enough of this case? He's raised enough money on this for Democratic Campaign Committee, that there's not much more to get out of this stone?

ISIKOFF: Well, I don't think that --

[crosstalk]

MATTHEWS: Does he really want him to fire him?

Categories:

Smerconish: "It almost seems like" VA Tech shooter "wasn't hooking up enough"

Mon, 2007-04-23 13:56

Discussing Cho Seung-Hui -- the 23-year-old student who killed 32 people and himself at Virginia Tech -- on the April 23 edition of Michael Smerconish's radio show, simulcast on MSNBC, Smerconish asserted, "It almost seems like, you know, this guy wasn't hooking up enough, and it allowed him to build up these frustrations that he might not otherwise have had."

Smerconish was interviewing Camille Paglia, professor of humanities and media studies at the University of the Arts in Philadelphia, who was quoted in the April 22 edition of the Sunday Times of London as saying, "Young women now seem to want to behave like men and have sex without commitment. The signals they are giving are very confusing, and rage and humiliation build up in boys who are spurned again and again." Smerconish noted Paglia's comment before making his assertion that Cho "wasn't hooking up enough."

Paglia, who claimed to be from the "pro-sex wing of feminism, whose patron saint is Madonna," asserted that "this 'hooking up' culture that is going on on campus where these girls just have sort of casual, random sex with guys and never see them again" is, "over the long run, degrading to women." In response, Smerconish asserted, "[B]ut none of them were hooking up with him," and added that Cho "wasn't partaking in any of that." Paglia concurred, and added: "Also, our sex-permeated mass culture, popular culture makes it seem to a marginal and socially inept person like Cho as if everybody's getting it."

MSNBC is simulcasting Smerconish's show April 23-25, as Media Matters for America has noted.

From the April 23 edition of Smerconish Live:

SMERCONISH: You were quoted as saying, "Young women now seem to want to behave like men and have sex without commitment. The signals they are giving are very confusing, and rage and humiliation build up in boys who are spurned again and again."

It almost seems like, you know, this guy wasn't hooking up enough, and it allowed him to build up these frustrations that he might not otherwise have had.

PAGLIA: Well, I think this Cho was probably psychotic, and the signs of it were missed for a long time. But he seems to have been functional and to be able to get into college and so on. I'm of the pro-sex wing of feminism, whose patron saint is Madonna, all right, so I'm not coming from a conservative perspective here, but I do feel that this "hooking up" culture that's going on on campuses where girls just have sort of casual, random sex with guys and never see them again. I mean, I think that is kind of, over the long run, kind of degrading for women, OK? They're playing a male game, and I don't think they understand the psychological consequences.

SMERCONISH: Yeah, but none of them were hooking up with him. I mean, he wasn't partaking in any of that.

PAGLIA: No. Exactly. So you see all this going on around you. Not just in college, but in high school, it's going on. I mean, girls are servicing boys, and going either -- they're starting at age 10 and 11. And this is a kind of chaos that is going on right now in education. Also, our sex-permeated mass culture, popular culture makes it seem to a marginal and socially inept person like Cho as if everybody's getting it.

Categories:

NBC News producer uncritically gives Giuliani campaign's explanation for inconsistency on abortion

Mon, 2007-04-23 13:28

On the April 20 edition of MSNBC Live, NBC News producer Jen Yuille reported that 2008 presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani's (R) "critics say" that recently released Giuliani statements on the Supreme Court's 5-4 decision upholding the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 "highlights his inconsistencies on both issues, because it's different from what he said in the past." Yuille then added that Giuliani's "campaign will tell you that ... he hasn't changed, but that the laws have changed, and therefore he has kind of evolved over time with them." In fact, Giuliani's reversal on the "partial-birth abortion" ban cannot be explained as the result of a "change[]" in the law as Giuliani's campaign has asserted.

As The New York Times reported, "Giuliani's campaign aides" do indeed "say his positions on abortion have not changed ... saying he opposed a ban [on 'partial birth abortion'] only if it failed to include an exception to protect the life of the mother." However, as the Times article noted and as Media Matters for America has repeatedly documented, Giuliani opposed a ban that contained such an exception in 2000. Nevertheless, Giuliani stated on April 18: "The Supreme Court reached the correct conclusion in upholding the congressional ban on partial birth abortion. I agree with it."

An April 18 Washington Post article also noted Giuliani's conflicting statements on the issue of abortion rights:

For Republicans, the ruling helped to obscure the varied records on abortion held by the party's presidential contenders.

"The Supreme Court reached the correct conclusion in upholding the congressional ban on partial birth abortion. I agree with it," former New York mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani, who supports abortion rights.

When he ran for the Senate in 2000, Giuliani expressed support for President Bill Clinton's veto of a similar ban that included an exception for cases in which the life of the pregnant woman was in danger. Giuliani has since expressed support for the 2003 ban, which included an exception to protect the life of a pregnant woman.

From the 1 p.m. ET hour of the April 20 edition of MSNBC Live:

YUILLE: Well, Norah, what was interesting here was the two biggest wedge issues for Republicans, gun control and abortion, both took center stage this week. And what's interesting is Senator John McCain [R-AZ] -- it was interesting to see, like, how the campaigns reacted in getting their messages out.

NORAH O'DONNELL (anchor): To what were the two big news stories of the day, the Virginia Tech massacre and the abortion ruling by the Supreme Court.

YUILLE: Exactly. So, Senator John McCain was the first to get his statement out in support of the Second Amendment following the tragedy at Virginia Tech. He was also the first top-tier Republican candidate to get his statement out following the Supreme Court's decision on so-called partial-birth abortion.

Now, for Rudy Giuliani, it was a bit trickier. He did release a statement saying the Second Amendment should not be altered. He also released a statement applauding the Supreme Court's decision on so-called partial-birth abortion. But once again, his critics say this highlights his inconsistencies on both issues, because it's different from what he said in the past. Now, that campaign will tell you that his positions haven't changed -- he hasn't changed, but that the laws have changed, and thererfore he has kind of evolved over time with them.

O'DONNELL: The Supreme Court decision was huge.

Categories: