During the 10 a.m. ET hour of the April 20 edition of MSNBC Live, New York Sun national and foreign editor Nicholas Wapshott told host Chris Jansing that he "should think" that members of the Rutgers University women's basketball team "feel pretty terrible about what's happened to [New Jersey] Governor [Jon] Corzine [D], who was racing to attend a totally unnecessary meeting of reconciliation where these women are paraded as inadequate." Wapshott was referring to an April 12 meeting between Don Imus and the basketball team held at the New Jersey governor's mansion following Imus' April 4 comments, in which he referred to the team as "nappy-headed hos." According to an April 13 Reuters article, Corzine was on his way to the meeting when the vehicle in which he was riding "swerved to avoid another car and crashed through a guard rail."

Wapshott made his comments during a discussion with Jansing about Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's (D-NY) planned attendance at a Rutgers forum on women and political leadership. She is also scheduled to meet with the women's basketball team and its coach, C. Vivian Stringer. During the segment, Wapshott also claimed that Imus' "drive-by insult" was "blown out of all proportion by the coach who had them all paraded as victims on television. That's not good for them."

Wapshott concluded by advocating that Clinton "advise" the team members: "Grow up. Be mature. If somebody says something horrible to them -- to you, just shrug and move on because that's the way in life you're going to have to get on with it, and don't choose your five minutes of fame as they've done." Jansing responded: "Now, I have to say, I think in the appearances that they have made and the interviews I've seen, they've been extremely mature and thoughtful."

Earlier in the segment Jansing had asked Wapshott: "Does [Clinton's] campaign seek political advantage in this whole Imus controversy?" Wapshott replied: "I think so," later adding that Clinton is "jumping on the bandwagon" by meeting with the Rutgers team. Jansing did not host any other guests during the segment.

From the 10 a.m. ET hour of the April 20 edition of MSNBC Live:

JANSING: Nicholas Wapshott is the national and foreign editor with The New York Sun -- good morning.

WAPSHOTT: Good morning.

JANSING: Hillary is scheduled to meet with the women's basketball coach, Vivian Stringer, among other things. It should be interesting, given that Hillary was herself in the past the target of some of Imus' jokes or rants, if you prefer. The Senator also sent an email to thousands of supporters urging them to send messages of encouragement to the team. Does her campaign seek political advantage in this whole Imus controversy?

WAPSHOTT: I think so. One of the interesting things to have emerged from The Washington Post poll that came out yesterday was that, actually, Hillary Clinton is much more popular among African-Americans and women than she -- than Barack Obama. And I think that she's going to shore up that lead that she has in this very important section of the community, particularly in this race with Barack Obama.

JANSING: And not only is she making this appearance but, yesterday, her husband, the former president, met with Al Sharpton, of course who was on the forefront of asking for Imus to resign. She herself is going over there to talk to him later today. How important would her campaign see an endorsement from Al Sharpton as being?

WAPSHOTT: Well, I mean, Al Sharpton is sort of a mixed blessing because he's -- himself has said a number of things, including anti-Semitic remarks, which I'm sure that he regrets. So, Al Sharpton is not the stature of leader that one might hope among the African-American community -- on the other hand, he's significant. And, of course, all of this has to do with the fact that Bill Clinton is such a popular person among all African-Americans and therefore Hillary is trying to, as she will in all fronts, try to take advantage of Bill's popularity and hope that it reflects on her, which, so far, it seems to be working.

JANSING: We should also say that, at Rutgers, today, Senator Clinton is at a forum on women and political leadership and, in fact, she was invited long before the controversy broke out, but does she maybe have to be a little bit careful about what she says today? How open could she be to charges of opportunism?

WAPSHOTT: There's no doubt she's jumping on the bandwagon. Although the invitation was long-standing, that she took up on Monday and as you say it was delayed. But I would -- you know what I hope that she does say to them is that these are good African-American women and some that are not African-American, but what she should be saying to them is: "Don't have yourself painted as victims."

So, you had a drive-by insult from Don Imus. It was blown out of all proportion by the coach who had them all paraded as victims on television. That's not good for them. That's made their situation worse and the relationship, too, when it then went on to the Governor's mansion. I should think that they feel pretty terrible about what's happened to Governor Corzine, who was racing to attend a totally unnecessary meeting of reconciliation where these women are paraded as inadequate.

The best answer I think is to advise them: Grow up. Be mature. If somebody says something horrible to them -- to you, just shrug and move on because that's the way in life you're going to have to get on with it, and don't choose your five minutes of fame as they've done.

JANSING: Now, I have to say, I think in the appearances that they have made and the interviews I've seen, they've been extremely mature and thoughtful. Nicholas Wapshott, thanks so much, appreciate your time.

According to an April 20 Philadelphia Daily News* article on Philly.com, "The Big Talker 1210 AM morning show of Daily News columnist Michael Smerconish is to be simulcast Monday through Wednesday on MSNBC." The article noted that Smerconish will fill the slot previously held by Imus in the Morning. MSNBC announced on April 11 that it would no longer broadcast Imus in the wake of comments made by host Don Imus on the April 4 edition of that show, during which he referred to the Rutgers University women's basketball team as "nappy-headed hos."

In addition to hosting his own radio talk show, Smerconish has been a guest host for MSNBC's Scarborough Country and Westwood One's The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly, and has opined on a number of issues, including alleged detainee abuse, immigrants, and Muslims.

• On the June 20, 2006, edition of Scarborough Country, Smerconish trivialized reports of detainee abuse at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, referring to the alleged abuse as "naked pyramid pictures." He also referred to alleged mistreatment at the Pentagon detention facility at Guantánamo Bay as "play[ing] Christina Aguilera music a bit too loud."

• On the April 10, 2006, edition of Scarborough Country, Smerconish suggested that "maybe law enforcement ought to step in" at pro-immigration demonstrations and consider "gathering ... up" illegal immigrants. Smerconish wondered why there was "zero discussion" of "gathering them up" at the demonstrations, when "[a]ll I keep hearing is how would we ever find them?" He then suggested that law enforcement officials are being hypocritical by refusing to "gather[] ... up" illegal immigrants because they would "step in and do something about" a rally of "pot smokers," who "wanted decriminalization" of marijuana, or "scofflaws" with unpaid parking tickets.

• Substituting for host Bill O'Reilly on the April 4, 2006, broadcast of The Radio Factor, Smerconish repeatedly discussed "the sissification of America," claiming that political correctness has made the United States "a nation of sissies." Smerconish also claimed, several times, that this "sissification" and "limp-wristedness" is "compromising our ability to win the war on terror."

• On the November 23, 2005, broadcast of The Radio Factor, while guest-hosting, Smerconish took issue with a decision by the New Jersey Sports and Exposition Authority to provide a designated prayer area at Giants Stadium. The decision was in response to a September 19 incident involving the FBI's detention and questioning of five Muslim men who were observed praying near the stadium's main air duct during a New York Giants football game. Smerconish stated: "I just think that's [the men's public praying] wrong. I just think they're playing a game of, you know, mind blank with the audience. And that they should know better four years removed from September 11." Smerconish defended the comments in an April 15 column, stating: "When five Muslim men in attendance at the Meadowlands in September 2005 for a Giants-Saints game that was also a Hurricane Katrina fund-raiser, with George H.W. Bush in attendance, saw fit to pray in an area near food preparation and air duct work, I think it was a case of mind blank. That's a form of terrorism in itself."

• On the November 23, 2005, edition of The Radio Factor, Smerconish interviewed Soo Kim Abboud, author of Top of the Class: How Asian Parents Raise High Achievers -- and How You Can Too (Penguin, 2005). Smerconish asserted that "if everyone follows Dr. Abboud's prescription ... you're going to have women who will leave the home and now get a great-paying job, because you will have gotten them well educated." He continued, "But then they're not going to be around to instill these lessons in their kids. In other words, it occurs to me that perhaps you've provided a prescription to bring this great success to an end."

Smerconish has also been a frequent guest on MSNBC's Hardball, where he has appeared on at least four occasions in March and April of 2007, including March 1, March 8, March 21, and April 5. Hardball host Chris Matthews declared on the March 8, 2006, edition of the program that "You talk to a huge audience on the East Coast, Michael. I've listened to you, all my family listens to you." As Media Matters also noted, Smerconish reportedly moderated a January 17, 2006, political event in Pennsylvania, sponsored by the Philadelphia Young Republicans and attended by Matthews' brother, who was then the Republican candidate for lieutenant governor in Pennsylvania. GOP gubernatorial candidate Lynn Swann and Jim Matthews were defeated by Democrats Ed Rendell and Catherine Baker Knoll.

On the April 19 edition of Fox News' Your World with Neil Cavuto, Chicago Sun-Times columnist and National Review contributor Mark Steyn commented on the April 16 mass shooting at Virginia Tech, saying that "when one man is able to kill dozens of people in the same location over a period of several hours, that reflects a systemic failure." Steyn continued: "So we need to understand what caused that failure. And I think part of the problem is a general culture of passivity, which Virginia Tech exemplifies."

As Media Matters for America documented, Steyn is just one of several media figures who have faulted Virginia Tech victims for not fighting back.

In an April 19 weblog entry, Salon.com editor-in-chief Joan Walsh noted that Steyn "mock[ed] the male students as somehow not quite being men" when he wrote in an April 18 National Review Online article: "They're not 'children.' The students at Virginia Tech were grown women and -- if you'll forgive the expression -- men." As Think Progress documented, Steyn further wrote that "this awful corrosive passivity is far more pervasive, and, unlike the psycho killer, is an existential threat to a functioning society."

From the April 19 edition of Fox News' Your World with Neil Cavuto:

NEIL CAVUTO (host): Meanwhile, do massacres like this happen because younger Americans are unwilling to confront evil? Kind of like Bo [Dietl, private investigator and former New York City Police Department detective] was just saying. Our next guest kind of agrees with that. He says it is a big, big red flag that the first person to act was an elderly Holocaust survivor. With us now is Mark Steyn, he is the author of America Alone. So Mark, you think there are a lot of red flags here. Start spelling them out.

STEYN: Well, I think -- and I should say that I am not blaming any individuals here -- but I think, clearly, when one man is able to kill dozens of people in the same location over a period of several hours, that reflects a systemic failure. So we need to understand what caused that failure. And I think part of the problem is a general culture of passivity, which Virginia Tech exemplifies. If you look at its disruptive behavior manual, for example, it tells you you should never confront people. It tells you if someone produces a weapon, that you should ask them to calmly put the weapon in a neutral position, and then advise them that violent behavior will have consequences.

On the April 18 edition of Fox News' Special Report, during a report on the mass shooting at Virginia Tech, Fox News chief Washington correspondent Jim Angle falsely suggested that, in the wake of the shooting, Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine (D) specifically criticized "activists" and "politicians," who "rush forward to say there should be some new effort at gun control," citing Rep. Jim Moran (D-VA) in particular, as one of those "politicians," who "did that." Angle asserted that "Democratic governor of Virginia, Tim Kaine, said this is not the time to raise the issue of gun control" and aired a clip of Kaine saying: "People who want to take this within 24 hours of the event and make it, you know, their political hobby horse to ride, I've got nothing but loathing for them." Angle presented Kaine's quote as a response to Moran, who, in a clip aired by Fox News, said on the floor of the House, "The proliferation of handguns -- the kinds of guns that were used in this tragic incidence -- that has to be brought under control." In fact, Kaine was not responding to Moran or even addressing gun control advocates in general. Rather, he was answering a reporter, during an April 17 press conference in Blacksburg, Virginia -- before Moran made the statement Fox aired -- who appeared to be asking about the argument by "pro-gun lobbyists" that Virginia Tech students should be allowed to carry guns.

In response to the question, Kaine made a blanket assertion that the shooting in Blacksburg was not "a political hobbyhorse or a crusade or something for a campaign or for a fundraising mailing."

Later, during the same press conference, which was broadcast on the April 17 edition of MSNBC's Hardball, a reporter asked Kaine: "Are you concerned that the gunman may have used a high-capacity magazine that would not have been legally available to him prior to the expiration of the federal assault weapons ban?" In response, Kaine stated that an "after-action review" into the shooting spree "will focus on those issues as well." When pressed on the subject, Kaine added: "Dealing with families is first. The careful and independent assessment of what occurred is second. Once that is done, there will be ample time to discuss whether there need to be any changes made to policy here or elsewhere."

From the April 18 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume:

ANGLE: Hello, Brit. Well, that's right. Every time there is a shooting, some activists and some politicians rush forward to say there should be some new effort at gun control, and one of those who did that today was Representative Jim Moran of Northern Virginia. Here's what he had to say.

MORAN [video clip]: The proliferation of handguns -- the kinds of guns that were used in this tragic incidence -- that has to be brought under control. And it is we, the people's representatives, who have to stand up and do something about this.

ANGLE: It is time, he said, no matter how politically difficult it is, to reduce the number of weapons in our society. But the Democratic governor of Virginia, Tim Kaine, said this is not the time to raise the issue of gun control.

KAINE [video clip]: People who want to take this within 24 hours of the event and make it, you know, their political hobby horse to ride, I've got nothing but loathing for them. To those who want to, you know, try to make this into some little crusade, you know, I say take that elsewhere. Let this community deal with grieving individuals and be sensitive to those needs.

From the April 17 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews:

QUESTION: Mr. Kaine, some gun lobbyists -- or pro-gun lobbyists have said that if students were allowed to carry arms, somehow [inaudible] it wouldn't have been as bad as it was.

KAINE: Look, I think that, you know, people who want to take this within 24 hours of the event and make it, you know, their political hobby horse to ride, I've got nothing but loathing for them. This is not a political hobbyhorse or a crusade or something for a campaign or for a fundraising mailing.

At this point, what it's about, is comforting family members, doing what can be done to make sure that they have the ability to see their family members, that bodies can be released to families, and helping this community heal. And, so, to those who want to, you know, try to make this into some little crusade, you know, I say take that elsewhere. Let this community deal with grieving individuals and be sensitive to those needs.

[...]

QUESTION: Are you concerned that the gunman may have used a high- capacity magazine that would not have been legally available to him prior to the expiration of the federal assault weapons ban? And is there anything that Virginia or the federal government can do to make that not available?

KAINE: Christina, the after-action review that I mentioned earlier will focus on those issues as well.

I don't know enough about the -- you know, the precise components of the ban that expired and the weaponry used here to be able to comment on that now, but, certainly, the facts will be out, and, at that point, that can be discussed.

But, at this point, that is not something I know enough facts to wade into.

QUESTION: Are you going to [Inaudible] for some changes in state law?

KAINE: Before we talk about any policy changes, we have to get our best assessment of what occurred. That is first.

Dealing with families is first. The careful and independent assessment of what occurred is second. Once that is done, there will be ample time to discuss whether there need to be any changes made to policy here or elsewhere.

On the April 18 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume, during a report of the standoff between congressional Democrats and President Bush over supplemental funding for the Iraq war, Fox News White House correspondent Wendell Goler uncritically reported that Bush recently "warned [that] the delay in approving the funding risks keeping troops longer in the field." In fact, as Media Matters for America has noted, not only has the administration already forced extended tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, but also, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates announced on April 11 that, effective immediately, the tours of duty for all Army units in Iraq and Afghanistan will be extended by three months.

Goler reported that both sides of the debate "use[] soldiers and their families to bolster their argument," airing a clip from a soldier's mother urging the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq and then noting that Bush, "surrounded by servicemen and women and family members," held "the opposite view." Goler then added uncritically that Bush "warned the delay in approving the funding risks keeping troops longer in the field."

But the administration also has forced extended tours in Iraq and Afghanistan and has curtailed thousands of soldiers' time at home, away from a war zone -- and reports indicate that this will continue. In addition, on April 11, Gates announced: "Effective immediately, active Army units now in the Central Command area of responsibility and those headed there will deploy for not more than 15 months and return home for not less than 12 months." According to Gates, the decision came as a direct result of Bush's so-called troop "surge": "[T]his policy is a matter of prudent management, will provide us with the capacity to sustain the deployed force." As the weblog ArchPundit noted, following Gates' announcement, Democratic Caucus chairman Rep. Rahm Emanuel (IL) recognized the contradiction in Bush's accusation immediately preceding Gates' announcement: "What a difference a day makes. Yesterday, extending tours of duty was 'unacceptable' to the President. Today, it is Pentagon policy. American troops and taxpayers are paying the price for a war with no end in sight."

Further, as Media Matters has noted, the previous two supplemental spending bills for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan passed by a Republican-led Congress have taken longer to reach Bush's desk.

From the April 18 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume:

GOLER: Each side uses soldiers and their families to bolster their argument. Democrats began the day with some who opposed the war.

SUE DINSDALE (mother of soldier): I asked my son before I came here today, does this demoralize you, does it bother you? And he said to me, "No, Mom." He says this is what we need to do. We need to get the troops home.

GOLER: On Monday, the president was surrounded by servicemen and women and family members with the opposite view. He warned the delay in approving the funding risks keeping troops longer in the field. And Army Specialist Kate Norley, who served as a medic in Iraq, said the uncertainty takes a toll.

NORLEY: To be kind of left in this state with so much room for doubt is not fair. And it actually, you know, it's going to worsen, again, any of our productiveness over there.

GOLER: Democrats expect a House/Senate conference version of the funding bill to be passed by the end of next week. President Bush has said he'll veto it and that Democrats know they don't have the votes to override the veto. The next bill is likely to replace troop withdrawal deadlines with benchmarks for the Iraqis to meet, which the president seemed to indicate Monday he'll consider.

On the April 19 edition of MSNBC Live, Boston radio host Michael Graham told NBC News chief White House correspondent David Gregory that "the entire story" of the mass shooting at Virginia Tech "is a story of people just freezing, of just letting him [the gunman] have their way, except for that one brave professor who put himself in between the gunman and his students." Graham stated:

GRAHAM: And there's going to be a disturbing conversation coming up, David Gregory, about what -- how is it possible for 200 people to encounter a lone gunman, in one classroom 25 to 1, and yet the entire story is a story of people just freezing, of just letting him have their way, except for that one brave professor who put himself in between the gunman and his students. He sticks out in this story. And I think that's a conversation we're going to have in the future.

Gregory did not respond to Graham's assertion.

Media Matters for America has documented several examples of media figures faulting the victims at Virginia Tech:

• In her April 18 syndicated column, Fox News analyst Michelle Malkin wrote: "Instead of encouraging autonomy, our higher institutions of learning stoke passivity and conflict-avoidance. And as the erosion of intellectual self-defense goes, so goes the erosion of physical self-defense."
• In an April 18 National Review column, Chicago Sun-Times columnist Mark Steyn suggested that Virginia Tech students were guilty of an "awful corrosive passivity" that is "an existential threat to a functioning society."
• In an April 17 weblog post on National Review Online's The Corner, contributor John Derbyshire asked: "Where was the spirit of self-defense here? Setting aside the ludicrous campus ban on licensed conceals, why didn't anyone rush the guy? It's not like this was Rambo, hosing the place down with automatic weapons. He had two handguns for goodness' sake -- one of them reportedly a .22." Time.com Washington editor Ana Marie Cox criticized Derbyshire in an April 17 post on Time magazine's political weblog, Swampland.
• In the April 18 edition of his daily program notes, nationally syndicated radio host Neal Boortz asked: "How far have we advanced in the wussification of America?" Boortz was responding to criticism of comments he made on the April 17 broadcast of his radio show regarding the mass shooting at Virginia Tech. During that broadcast, Boortz asked: "How the hell do 25 students allow themselves to be lined up against the wall in a classroom and picked off one by one? How does that happen, when they could have rushed the gunman, the shooter, and most of them would have survived?" In his April 18 program notes, Boortz added: "It seems that standing in terror waiting for your turn to be executed was the right thing to do, and any questions as to why 25 students didn't try to rush and overpower Cho Seung-Hui are just examples of right wing maniacal bias. Surrender -- comply -- adjust. The doctrine of the left. ... Even the suggestion that young adults should actually engage in an act of self defense brings howls of protest."

In the April 19 edition of his daily program notes, Boortz endorsed Steyn's column, but added:

Mark Steyn has it right. We have produced a culture of passivity. Some listeners brought up a very good point yesterday in that self defense is absolutely not allowed in today's government schools. Almost all of those Virginia Tech students went through a government school system where a person who uses physical force in self defense on school grounds is punished at the same level as the aggressor. In this we teach our children that there is something wrong with acting to defend yourself. This lesson can be carried into adulthood. It's a valid point, one that I wish I could have made in a more appropriate manner yesterday. I failed, and for that I apologize.

On MSNBC, Graham failed to note reports that students and faculty did, in fact, act against the gunman. The New York Times reported:

Then, with gunshots ringing down the hall, Mr. [Derek] O'Dell, who had been shot in the arm, and other students shut the classroom door and pushed themselves against it to prevent the gunman from getting back in.

A few minutes later, the gunman tried to force his way back inside the classroom, where Mr. [Trey] Perkins was using his jacket and sweatshirt to stanch the wounds of bleeding students. Mr. Cho [Cho Seung-Hui, the gunman] managed to open the door a crack, but the students pushed back hard enough to stop him.

"I sprinted on top of the desk to the door, because the aisle was clogged with people, and I used my foot as a wedge against the door," recalled Mr. O'Dell. "It was almost like you had to fight for your life. If you didn't, you died."

Mr. Perkins said he was struck at how Mr. O'Dell managed to help hold back the gunman, given his injury.

"It was just amazing to me that he was still up and leaning against the door," he said. "Derek was able to hold him off while I was helping other people."

[...]

Mr. O'Dell said others helped him block Mr. Cho from re-entering. "Trey and Erin helped keep the door closed," he recalled, referring to another student. "One helped while the other went to the window and yelled for help. There was also another student who was shot in the hand who helped keep the door closed."

The Washington Post reported on a computer class composed of a "small group of 10":

One student, Zach Petkowicz, was near the lectern "cowering behind it," he would later say, when he realized that the door was vulnerable. There was a heavy rectangular table in the class, and he and two other students pushed it against the door. No sooner had they fixed it in place than someone pushed hard from the outside. It was the gunman. He forced it open about six inches, but no farther. Petkowicz and his classmates pushed back, not letting up. The gunman fired two shots through the door. One hit the lectern and sent wood scraps and metal flying. Neither hit any of the students. They could hear a clip dropping, the distinct, awful sound of reloading. And, again, the gunman moved on.

Moreover, The Washington Post reported that there were at least two professors -- not one, as Graham stated -- who lost their lives while trying to protect students.

The Post reported:

Granata, a military veteran, was in his office on the third floor. He walked out and across the hall to a classroom, where 20 frightened students were wondering what to do. He directed them into his office, where he ushered them to safety -- in close quarters but behind the locked doors. Then, aware that other students might be in danger on the second floor, he and another professor, Wally Grant, went downstairs to investigate, Slota said.

Cho spotted them and shot them both. Grant was wounded but survived; Granata was killed. If the students in the classroom had tried to run out, they would have confronted the killer, too, Slota said.

"All those in that class, they all made it," Slota said. "They were locked up until the police came. [Granata] couldn't sit around and do nothing. He had to help out, find out what was going on."

The Post also noted:

Room 204, Professor [Liviu] Librescu's class, seems to have been the gunman's last stop on the second floor. The teacher and his dozen students had heard too much, though they had not seen anything yet. They had heard a girl's piercing scream in the hallway. They had heard the pops and more pops. By the time the gunman reached the room, many of the students were on the window ledge. There was grass below, not concrete, and even some shrubs. The old professor was at the door, which would not lock, pushing against it, when the gunman pushed from the other side. Some of the students jumped, others prepared to jump until Librescu could hold the door no longer and the gunman forced his way inside.

Matt Webster, a 23-year-old engineering student from Smithfield, Va., was one of four students inside when the gunman appeared. "He was decked out like he was going to war," Webster recalled. "Black vest, extra ammunition clips, everything." Again, his look was blank, just a stare, no expression, as he started shooting. The first shot hit Librescu in the head, killing him.

From the 8 a.m. ET hour of the April 19 edition of MSNBC Live:

GREGORY: Is there something that we should take away from all of this? If it wasn't on a college campus -- I don't mean just the gun debate, I mean this terrible rampage -- if it weren't on a college campus, you would especially say, "Look, I mean, what are you going to do? There's wackos out there. There's people who are so disturbed that this is going to happen." But there's something about being in a closed society, that is a college campus, this is where we send our kids, where they're supposed to be safe -- what should we be talking about out of all this?

GRAHAM: I think there are three things. In Boston, where I live and work, we have an incident like this every six months. It's just spread out over six months. Seventy-five people murdered last year, and local law enforcement very slow to react to it. Second year in a row of murders that high. And yet that every-six-month-Virginia Tech death toll gets basically ignored. It's just, "Oh, it's just another shooting on a Friday night in Dorchester or Roxbury," and that's one lesson.

The other lesson, I think, though -- and this is the hard one, particularly for those of us in the media because, you know, I get on the air and scream and yell and rant and say, "Oh, we've got to do something today." There are some things in the world that aren't fixable. You can't fix the fact that there are broken people. And to try -- whether it's implementing draconian gun laws or screening every future college student for, you know, any unusual behavior -- there is no free -- there is no filter in a free society that can filter out people like this.

What we need to do is, I think, focus on what we can do when we are confronted by situations like this. And there's going to be a disturbing conversation coming up, David Gregory, about what -- how is it possible for 200 people to encounter a lone gunman, in one classroom 25 to 1, and yet the entire story is a story of people just freezing, of just letting him have their way, except for that one brave professor who put himself in between the gunman and his students. He sticks out in this story. And I think that's a conversation we're going to have in the future.

GREGORY: All right, we're going to take a quick break here. Michael Graham, radio talk-show host out of Boston, joining us. Twelve minutes to the hour. We're coming right back. Don't go away.

On the April 19 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, host Rush Limbaugh declared that the perpetrator of the April 16 Virginia Tech shootings "had to be a liberal," adding: "You start railing against the rich, and all this other -- this guy's a liberal. He was turned into a liberal somewhere along the line. So it's a liberal that committed this act." Limbaugh then complained, in a possible reference to Media Matters for America, that "Now the drive-bys will read on a website that I'm attacking liberalism by comparing this guy to them. That's exactly what they do every day, ladies and gentlemen. I'm just pointing out a fact. I am making no extrapolation." Limbaugh regularly describes mainstream media sources as "the drive-by media."

From the April 19 broadcast of Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show:

LIMBAUGH: If this Virginia Tech shooter had an ideology, what do you think it was? This guy had to be a liberal. You start railing against the rich and all this other -- this guy's a liberal. He was turned into a liberal somewhere along the line. So it's a liberal that committed this act. Now, the drive-bys will read on a website that I'm attacking liberalism by comparing this guy to them. That's exactly what they do every day, ladies and gentlemen. I'm just pointing out a fact. I am making no extrapolation; I'm just pointing it out. They try -- whenever -- I can tell you from the history of this program, starting way back in the early '90s, when there was any kind of an incident, crime or what-have-you that attracted national attention, in the early days of this program, the drive-by media went out and they tried to connect the perpetrator to this program. They did everything they could. In fact, it went so far as Bill Clinton blaming me for influencing Timothy McVeigh to blow up the bureau building [sic: Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City]. These are the people sponsoring lies and distortion for the purposes of dividing this country and creating hatred. These are the people that invented this kind of tactic, if you will.

Five days after the Oklahoma City bombing, in an April 24, 1995, speech in Minneapolis, Clinton criticized "loud and angry voices in America today whose sole goal seems to be to try to keep some people as paranoid as possible and the rest of us all torn up and upset with each other. They spread hate. They leave the impression that, by their very words, that violence is acceptable." Clinton followed up on that comment the next day in a speech in Ames, Iowa, stating: "We must stand up and speak against reckless speech that can push fragile people over the edge beyond the bounds of civilized conduct and take this country into a dark place. I say that no matter where it comes from, people are encouraging violence and lawlessness and hatred. If people are encouraging conduct that will undermine the fabric of this country, it should be spoken against whether it comes from the left or the right, whether it comes on radio, television or in the movies, whether it comes in the schoolyard, or, yes, even on the college campus."

An April 26, 1995, Washington Post article reported that Clinton's comments in Iowa "were aimed at blunting criticism from Republicans and others that he had unfairly blamed conservative talk radio Monday when he denounced 'the loud and angry voices in America today' and lamented 'the things that are regularly said over the airwaves.' Rush Limbaugh and other conservative radio hosts interpreted those comments as aimed at them, although Clinton hadn't singled out individuals in his Minneapolis speech or even mentioned talk radio in his speech."

During an April 18 interview on his nationally syndicated radio show, Bill O'Reilly asked former Wisconsin governor and Republican presidential candidate Tommy Thompson about an April 17 Milwaukee Journal Sentinel editorial condemning remarks Thompson made during an April 16 speech, in which he said "earning money" is "sort of part of the Jewish tradition." O'Reilly asked: "Why would the Milwaukee paper take a shot at you like this?" Thompson claimed in response: "[T]he Milwaukee paper has never supported me in anything ... and I feel bad." On the April 18 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, O'Reilly again brought up the Journal Sentinel editorial. He suggested that they were "try[ing] to hurt the governor" and repeated Thompson's claim regarding the newspaper: "I know they don't like him. The Milwaukee paper is liberal, and the governor is a moderate."

But contrary to the assertions that the Journal Sentinel does not "like" Thompson because he is a "moderate," the newspaper actually endorsed Thompson during his final re-election campaign for governor in 1998. From the Journal Sentinel's October 25, 1998, endorsement, headlined "An effective governor, Thompson merits 4th term":

It's easy to quarrel with the political brawn of Tommy Thompson, but not with his success. He has proved to be a highly effective, dynamic, popular governor who has dared to make Wisconsin a laboratory for social change. For those reasons, Thompson, a Republican, has earned re-election Nov. 3 to a fourth term.

When Thompson took office in January 1987, the state's economy was practically on life support; today, it is thriving. Much of the credit must go to Thompson, who set out to overhaul Wisconsin's high-tax, anti-business reputation. While Thompson rarely hits the pause button when it comes to partisanship, he has shown an admirable tendency to be politically pragmatic, to embrace ideas no matter where they originate.

He has also shown a willingness to experiment. The best example is his welfare replacement program, Wisconsin Works, which has attracted a keen national following. While it's still too early to declare W-2 a success, Thompson deserves credit for attempting to do what few others have even tried fix a public assistance program that was hopelessly broken. Thompson also deserves kudos for his innovative BadgerCare program to provide quality health care to the working poor, and for his support of state plans to reshape the way Wisconsin provides long-term care to the elderly and disabled.

Until recently, the Journal Sentinel continued to show support for Thompson. Even the editorial condemning Thompson's April 16 comments acknowledged that the newspaper had expressed optimism about his presidential campaign two weeks earlier. From the April 2 editorial:

It will take a bizarre set of circumstances for Thompson (Wisconsin's) to win the GOP nomination, but there is actually more than a bit to commend his candidacy.

He could bring some Midwestern pragmatism to a campaign much in need of it. It seems that the burning debate in GOP circles is who is most conservatively pure.

Sigh. The nation likely has had it with politics by ideology. It is more in the market for someone willing to take good ideas wherever he or she can and who's not afraid of a little creativity.

Under Thompson's watch, W-2 welfare reform, school choice and BadgerCare were born. Yes, closer scrutiny might uncover some flaws in these programs and in the Thompson years (a budget hole Gov. Jim Doyle is still trying to dig out of). But at least Thompson, also a former Health and Human Services secretary, had the gumption to try new things.

This might be a novel concept for presidential candidates. We can attest. This Thompson's different.

The April 17 Journal Sentinel editorial described Thompson as "ill-suited to the presidency," citing comments he made during an April 16 speech to the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism. Thompson said: "I'm in the private sector and for the first time in my life I'm earning money. You know, that's sort of part of the Jewish tradition and I do not find anything wrong with that." As the editorial noted, Thompson then made a "feeble" attempt at an apology:

He later made a feeble attempt to explain the inexplicable. "I just want to clarify something because I didn't (by) any means want to infer or imply anything about Jews and finances and things," he said. "What I was referring to, ladies and gentlemen, is the accomplishments of the Jewish religion. You've been outstanding business people, and I compliment you for that."

So an accomplishment of the Jewish religion is business acumen? Surely, a presidential candidate who would represent all Americans would know how hurtful stereotypes are. Surely, such a candidate would know, given this country's experience with anti-Semitism, that Jews as fixated on money ranks up there among the most hurtful of them.

Gaffes are nothing new to Thompson. But this was said to give him the aura of the average Wisconsin guy. No. The average Wisconsin guy deserves more credit.

On the April 18 edition of The O'Reilly Factor, O'Reilly defended Thompson's statements, asserting that Thompson "was basically giving the crowd a compliment and saying, 'You're good businesspeople' " and agreeing that people deserve "the benefit of the doubt." O'Reilly also asked of the Journal Sentinel: "[I]s it fair to take a guy's remarks, which aren't designed to be hateful, and ram them right down his throat?"

Additionally, O'Reilly likened the newspaper's condemnation of Thompson to the firing of former MSNBC host Don Imus, saying: "We are in the age of Imus. ... We are now under siege by people who are going to take what we say -- all right -- whatever the intent, all right, and try to hurt us with it." O'Reilly also claimed: "The hatred of the Internet is driving this."

From the April 18 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:

O'REILLY: "Personal Story" segment tonight. Speaking before a Jewish group in Washington, presidential candidate Tommy Thompson said, quote, "I'm in the private sector, and for the first time in my life, I'm earning money. You know, that's sort of part of the Jewish tradition, and I do not find anything wrong with that. "

Well the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel pounced on Thompson's remarks saying they were inexcusable. Thompson replied on The Radio Factor today.

[begin audio clip]

THOMPSON: I feel terrible about it, because I have worked for Israel and been involved in Israel for a long time. And any time, you know, I say something that's hurtful to anybody, it bothers me. I guess it's my Irish --

O'REILLY: But isn't that almost impossible, though. If you are going to run for president, you're gonna have to give hundreds of speeches, probably thousands of speeches.

THOMPSON: And I do.

O'REILLY: And sometimes you're going to make a mistake in the way you phrase things.

THOMPSON: That is true. And I made a mistake and apologized.

[end audio clip]

O'REILLY: All right. With us now, Rabbi Irwin Kula, president of the National Jewish Center for Learning and Leadership and author of the book Yearnings: Embracing the Sacred Messiness of Life. So, Rabbi, are you offended by that?

KULA: You know, I'm not offended by it. But you have to understand that canard, that stereotype of Jews and money has been used for hundreds and hundreds of years to justify persecution, justify oppression. So it's very, very hurtful. It has a legacy of real hurt. And not just in general, but personally.

Many people, in fact people probably in that room, remember someone throwing coins into a corner and whoever bent down they said, "Jew, Jew." So Jews and money is a very serious stereotype.

Now, once we understand it can be used dangerously and has been. You know, by Nazis, American anti-Semites in the 1920s, Islamic fascists today across the Islamic world. Google "money and Jews" and your hair will stand up.

So there's a lot of hate in the world, and stereotypes actually can be used to create more hate. Now, given that --

O'REILLY: Right. I was -- I mean, I was basically going to say that, obviously, Governor Thompson's remarks -- right -- were not intended to be either controversial. He was basically giving the crowd a compliment and saying, "You're good businesspeople."

So why would the Milwaukee Sentinel go and try to hurt the governor? I know they don't like him. The Milwaukee paper is liberal, and the governor is a moderate.

But is that fair? Is it fair to take a guy's remarks, even though we understand -- and I think what you said is right on. But is it fair to take a guy's remarks, which aren't designed to be hateful, and ram them right down his throat?

KULA: No, of course not, Bill. Here is where we are right now. We're in a culture in which, both on the right and the left, however you define extremists, everyone is out to kill each other.

O'REILLY: Right, right.

KULA: And all that does, all that does is it assures that those of us who actually have some wisdom -- and wisdom is making distinctions -- don't get heard. Here is what making distinctions are here. What was his motivation and intent?

O'REILLY: And it was obviously not malevolent.

KULA: My God, he came to a Jewish group, a liberal Jewish group.

O'REILLY: All right, so then the question becomes: We are in the age of Imus --

KULA: Post-Imus.

O'REILLY: All of us who are in the public eye, whether it's politicians or commentators or even a rabbi, even when you're preaching to your congregation.

KULA: Right.

O'REILLY: We are now under siege by people who are going to take what we say -- all right -- whatever the intent, all right, and try to hurt us with it.

KULA: Correct.

O'REILLY: So that's not a good place to be, Rabbi.

KULA: That is the end of a culture that can actually grow and evolve and learn. Because here's what we needed to do here.

O'REILLY: Right.

KULA: Great, the guy misspoke. Obviously, he misspoke, was a compliment to people. He was going to a liberal group. That's what we want.

O'REILLY: Just explain the history of it so everybody learns what the history is, but don't vilify the governor.

KULA: Exactly. Learn the history.

O'REILLY: Right.

KULA: An apology happens -- benefit of doubt.

O'REILLY: Last question: What can we do to fight against this political correct madness? What can the folks do?

KULA: There are two things. First of all, we have to be careful and not say about someone else what we wouldn't want said about us. That's just rule No. 1.

O'REILLY: Thompson wants to a good businessman.

KULA: No, that's rule No. 1. Now second, we have to begin to give people the benefit of the doubt.

O'REILLY: Yes! Yes, Rabbi! The benefit of the doubt.

KULA: I'm telling you, if we don't --- I'm telling you where did that common sense go that we don't give people the benefit of the doubt and just use a little common sense?

O'REILLY: Dissolved in the hatred of the Internet.

KULA: Yes.

O'REILLY: The hatred of the Internet is driving this. Rabbi, your book is great. We appreciate you coming in.

KULA: Thank you.

O'REILLY: Thanks very much. When we come back, Dennis Miller on the Virginia massacre and gun control.

From the April 18 edition of Westwood One's The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly:

O'REILLY: Yeah. Why would the Milwaukee paper take a shot at you like this?

THOMPSON: Well, the Milwaukee paper has never supported me in anything. And --

O'REILLY: All right. So it's a political thing.

THOMPSON: I don't know why they -- and I feel bad.

An April 18 entry on ABCNews.com's Political Radar weblog, titled "Edwards Flattens Coif Controversy," noted that a "report filed with the Federal Election Commission last weekend revealed that former Sen. John Edwards' D-N.C., presidential campaign twice shelled out $400 for haircuts he received from a Beverly Hills salon," adding, "ABC News has learned the money will be returned." The blog post went on to say that the "hair cut revelation did little to minimize what some call Edwards' 'Breck Girl' image."

Similarly, on the April 18 edition of Fox News' Special Report, host and Fox News Washington managing editor Brit Hume reported:

HUME: And Beverly Hills hairdresser Joseph Torrenueva has confirmed that he did indeed give Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards two haircuts at $400 apiece. A report from the Federal Election Commission says the haircuts were paid for out of Edwards' campaign funds, along with $250 in services to a spa in Dubuque, Iowa, and $225 from the Pink Sapphire in New Hampshire, which is described on its website as a, quote, "unique boutique for the mind, body and face," that caters mostly to women.

The Pink Sapphire's owner says the fees were for doing TV makeup, not facials or cucumber peels. Edwards has been teased a lot for his looks, and is shown on this famous YouTube video primping his hair, and sitting for a hair stylist to help him. The video is set to the music "I Feel Pretty," and goes on for more than two minutes. The campaign has had no comment on the new reports about those $400 haircuts.

As Media Matters for America noted, bloggers Greg Sargent and Glenn Greenwald criticized media outlets such as the Associated Press and The New Republic, which also seized on the haircut story in labeling Edwards "pretty," for "playing the 'pretty boy' game in stories about Edwards, given the degree to which it's become a tried-and-true GOP and winger talking point," as Sargent wrote. Greenwald added that reporting like ABC's and Hume's is devoid of "substantive criticism," and instead "is all just mindless gossipy shorthand intended to fuel right-wing caricatures and platitudes that have nothing to do with substance and everything to do with demonizing the personality of these political figures in order to render them ugly and embarrassing -- hence, Edwards is a girlish fop."

From ABCNews.com's April 18 Political Radar entry:

ABC News' Raelyn Johnson Reports: You can tell it's political season when people are putting a fine tooth comb to, well hair. A report filed with the Federal Election Commission last weekend revealed that former Sen. John Edwards' D-N.C., presidential campaign twice shelled out $400 for haircuts he received from a Beverly Hills salon.

Just as fast as gossip spreads in the fashion salon, ABC News has learned the money will be returned. "As for the haircuts, the bill was sent to the campaign, it was paid in error, and Edwards will be reimbursing the campaign," says campaign spokesperson Eric Schultz.

The hair cut revelation did little to minimize what some call Edwards' 'Breck Girl' image. Earlier this year, YouTube showcased a video of Edwards fixing his hair before a televised interview, demonstrating the unforgiving power of the site[.]

In an April 19 New York Times article on the political impact of the Supreme Court's recent decision to uphold the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003, staff writer Robin Toner reported that Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani "said the court 'reached the correct conclusion.' " But while the article noted that Giuliani is "a longtime supporter of abortion rights," it did not mention that, in 2000 when running for a Senate seat from New York, Giuliani agreed with President Clinton's veto of similar legislation, the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 1997, saying that had he been in the Senate when it was considering the bill, he would have "vote[d] to preserve the option for women." By contrast, in related April 19 articles, the Los Angeles Times, The Washington Post, and Newsday all noted the apparent contradiction in Giuliani's statements.

As Media Matters for America noted, an April 18 post on The New York Times' political weblog, The Caucus, also printed Giuliani's statement applauding the court's decision but omitted his prior opposition to the ban.

The April 19 New York Times article reported that the Supreme Court's decision pushes abortion rights issues "squarely into the 2008 presidential election" and later noted Giuliani's approval of the Supreme Court's decision upholding the ban:

Both sides in the abortion struggle predicted that the Supreme Court's decision on Wednesday would escalate the drive for new abortion restrictions in state legislatures and push the issue of abortion rights -- and the Supreme Court -- squarely into the 2008 presidential election.

[...]

Rudolph W. Giuliani, the Republican former mayor of New York and a longtime supporter of abortion rights, said the court "reached the correct conclusion."

As Media Matters has noted, on the February 5 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, when Giuliani expressed support for the current law banning "partial-birth abortion," co-host Sean Hannity pressed him about his apparent reversal from his position articulated in 2000 against the ban. Giuliani attempted to reconcile his two positions by stating that he supports the current ban because it contains a "provision for the life of the mother." But as Media Matters detailed, several federal bills banning "partial-birth abortion" proposed from 1997 through 2000 -- including the one Clinton vetoed in 1997 -- also provided "an exception to save a mother's life who is endangered by a physical disorder, illness, or injury." So, while the presence of a life-of-the-woman exception was previously not enough to win Giuliani's support for a ban, such an exception is apparently now sufficient.

Yet, just as the April 18 post on The Caucus did not mention this apparent conflict, the April 19 Times article also omitted any reference to Giuliani's shifting position and his attempted reconciliation, which rests on the false premise that the ban he previously opposed and the current ban differ on the issue he cited.

By contrast, other print outlets reported Giuliani's seemingly contradictory statements. For example, the Los Angeles Times published an entire article highlighting the contrast:

The Supreme Court decision Wednesday upholding a ban on a controversial abortion procedure heightens the issue's visibility in the 2008 presidential race and spotlights a shift in position by Republican candidate Rudolph W. Giuliani.

The former New York mayor and other top Republicans vying for the White House welcomed the ruling while leading Democratic contenders said they deplored it.

Giuliani, the only major GOP candidate who supports abortion rights, has tried for months to mollify conservative critics.

On Wednesday, he praised the court for upholding the ban on the midterm procedure. "The Supreme Court reached the correct conclusion in upholding the congressional ban on partial-birth abortion," Giuliani said in a statement. "I agree with it."

His praise for the ruling contrasts his position while seeking reelection as mayor in 1997. On an abortion rights group's questionnaire, he circled "yes" next to the question of whether he would oppose "legislation that would make criminals of doctors who perform intact D&X abortions" -- the technical term for what critics call "partial-birth" abortions.

In an article highlighting the ramifications of the court's decision on the 2008 presidential election campaign, The Washington Post mentioned Giuliani's conflicting statements:

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.

New York's Newsday also reported Giuliani's support for the court's decision, further noting that Giuliani has previously "spoken in favor of allowing some so-called partial birth abortion procedures to be allowed under the law."

While the April 19 New York Times article omitted this fact, the newspaper has previously published an article focusing solely on the change in Giuliani's position on certain abortion issues. In a February 10 article headlined "Giuliani Shifts Abortion Speech Gently to Right," the Times reported:

On the issue of a disputed abortion procedure called "partial-birth abortion" by opponents, he told Mr. Hannity that a ban signed into law by President Bush in 2003, which the Supreme Court is reviewing, should be upheld. And on the issue of parental notification -- whether to require minors to obtain permission from either a parent or a judge before an abortion -- he said, "I think you have to have a judicial bypass," meaning a provision that would allow a minor to seek court permission from a judge in lieu of a parent.

"If you do, you can have parental notification," he said.

Both appear to be shifts away from statements he made while he was mayor and during his brief campaign for United States senator in 2000. Asked by Tim Russert on "Meet the Press" in 2000 if he supported President Bill Clinton's veto of a law that would have banned the disputed abortion procedure, Mr. Giuliani said, "I would vote to preserve the option for women." He added, "I think the better thing for America to do is to leave that choice to the woman, because it affects her probably more than anyone else."

And on a 1997 candidate questionnaire from the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League of New York, which Mr. Giuliani completed and signed, he marked "yes" to the question: Would you oppose legislation "requiring a minor to obtain permission from a parent or from a court before obtaining an abortion."

In an April 19 report on MSNBC Live regarding a meeting the previous day between congressional leaders and President Bush to discuss an emergency war supplemental spending bill, NBC News White House correspondent Kelly O'Donnell uncritically reported, "He [Bush] wants what they [the White House] term a 'clean bill,' meaning no timetables, and no extra spending for things that don't deal with the war." During an April 3 press conference, Bush called for a "clean bill that funds our troops on the front lines." However, O'Donnell made no mention of the fact that, as Media Matters for America has noted, every previous supplemental war funding bill contained money for unrelated projects. Indeed, in previous years, the Republican-led Congress, in some cases acting at the behest of the White House, added funding for "pet spending projects," as an April 4 Washington Post article reported:

To President Bush, they are "pork-barrel projects completely unrelated to the war," items in the House and Senate war-spending bills such as peanut storage facilities and aid to spinach farmers that insult the seriousness of the conflict and exist only to buy votes.

But such spending has been part of Iraq funding bills since the war began, sometimes inserted by the president himself, sometimes added by lawmakers with bipartisan aplomb. A few of the items may have weighed on the votes for spending bills that have now topped half a trillion dollars, but, in almost all cases over the past four years, special-interest funding provisions have been the fruits of congressional opportunism by well-placed senators or House members grabbing what they could for their constituents on the one bill that had to be passed quickly.

[...]

The president's own request last year for emergency war spending included $20 billion for Gulf Coast hurricane recovery, $2.3 billion for bird flu preparations, and $2 billion to fortify the border with Mexico and pay for his effort to send National Guardsmen to the southern frontier.

[...]

The 2005 emergency war-spending bill included $70 million for aid to Ukraine and other former Soviet states; $12.3 million for the Architect of the Capitol, in part to build an off-site delivery facility for the Capitol police; $24 million for the Forest Service to repair flood and landslide damage; and $104 million for watershed protection -- the lion's share meant for repairing the damage to waterways in Washington County, Utah, at the request of the state's Republican senators.

Additionally, O'Donnell uncritically reported, "[T]his is now day 73, which is a device that the White House is using, saying that it's been that long since the president has asked Congress to fund the war, and there's been no action." However, as Media Matters previously noted, the weblog Think Progress has documented that in 2006, with Republicans in control of Congress, it took 119 days for Congress to pass a supplemental funding bill after Bush requested it, and in 2005 (with Republicans also in control), it took 86 days to pass such a bill.

From O'Donnell's report during the 8 a.m. ET hour of the April 19 MSNBC Live:

DAVID GREGORY (host): Hey, Kelly, what's going on at the White House today? Because I know the president is on the road, and he's going to be talking about Iraq today.

O'DONNELL: Well, we hope, we'll keep the tone civil here as best we can, David.

GREGORY: Yeah.

O'DONNELL: A number of things are sort of moving through the White House today. The president is really getting back to some of the more bare-knuckle politics of trying to struggle with Congress over how to get funding for the war. He'll be the visiting Ohio in the Dayton area, he'll be talking about the war on terror, as he likes to term it, and talking about, this is now day 73 -- which is a device that the White House is using, saying that it's been that long since the president has asked Congress to fund the war, and there's been no action. So, that's part of what we're seeing.

And of course, [Attorney General] Alberto Gonzales will be before the Senate today. That's something that has a big reflection on the White House, raising credibility issues, raising questions about can he save his job as some people have said that his neck is on the line. So that's happening.

We've also heard from some of the members of the House and the Senate after that leadership meeting yesterday. Trying to get a gauge on where is this with the war supplemental. Everybody was talking about it being a friendly meeting, a productive meeting, but when reporters asked, did anything change? The House minority leader [John Boehner (R-OH)] said no. And we all were sort of surprised by that brief moment of candor. We didn't quite expect that. And they're really talking now about expecting a bill to go to the president next week that he would likely veto, and then they get back together again and try to sort something out.

[House Majority Leader] Nancy Pelosi [D-CA] seemed to indicate she is willing to work with the president. The White House has been careful to say, "We don't want to negotiate." He wants what they term a clean bill, meaning no timetables, and no extra spending for things that don't deal with the war. So, this is gonna keep going. A lot of the lawmakers acknowledge, yes, there's an urgency, that's something the White House is saying as well about making sure that money keeps going through the system to keep the current war plan that the president is behind, moving.

In an April 18 weblog entry, right-wing pundit Debbie Schlussel responded to a Media Matters for America item that highlighted her "speculat[ion]" in an April 16 post (since removed) that Cho Seung-Hui, identified as the Virginia Tech gunman, might have been a "Paki" Muslim and part of "a coordinated terrorist attack." As Media Matters pointed out, "Paki" is a disparaging term for a person of Pakistani descent. Schlussel attacked Media Matters, writing: "Media Matters bragged to the Wall Street Journal that it was responsible for taking down Don Imus. I suppose now that Don Imus is gone, they've assigned the vegan lesbian transsexual 'interspecies erotica' devotee they had monitoring the Imus show to monitor my site." She also attacked "nutty, angry" MSNBC host Keith Olbermann, who awarded Schlussel third place in his April 17 "Worst Person in the World" segment for her "Paki" statement. In addition, Schlussel falsely claimed that billionaire philanthropist George Soros "is the funder of Media Matters."

Schlussel went on to attack Soros at length, writing that "the Jewish Soros is a fake Holocaust survivor, who--instead of 'surviving' the Holocuast [sic] --helped the Nazis perpetrate it" and that "Soros bragged on CBS' '60 Minutes' of helping his adopted father round up Jews to send them to their deaths at the camps and confiscate their property." Schlussel added: "Yes, this war criminal and proud Jewish Nazi is the money bags behind America's new self-anointed 'Media Watchdog.' " The only source Schlussel offered for these claims was David Horowitz and Richard Poe's thoroughly discredited book, The Shadow Party: How George Soros, Hillary Clinton and Sixties Radicals Seized Control of the Democratic Party (Nelson Current, 2006). As Media Matters has noted, several conservative media figures have distorted Soros' experience as a 14-year-old boy in Nazi-controlled Hungary to suggest that he collaborated with the Nazis.

Schlussel went on to reprise three of her comments highlighted by Media Matters and Colorado Media Matters: her false statement on the June 14, 2006, edition of MSNBC's Scarborough Country that "there wasn't a peep" from Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) when Suha Arafat, wife of former Palestinian National Authority president Yasir Arafat, stated that Israelis "poison Palestinian water and air and cause cancer for them"; her argument in a December 18, 2006, column that Sen. Barack Obama's (D-IL) "loyalties" must be called into question because his middle name is Hussein, his estranged father was of Muslim descent, and he has shown interest in his father's Kenyan heritage; and her claim during the February 16 broadcast of 630 KHOW-AM's The Caplis & Silverman Show that "[e]ven though some [Muslims] are nice and some may seem moderate, everybody is part of a religion where the dominant spokespeople ... are extremists who support terrorism."

From Schlussel's April 18 post:

Yesterday, Keith Olbermann--MSNBC resident uber-left crank and bizarro--picked me for the bronze for his daily "Worst Person in the World Award." Damn--Only bronze?

Yes, with all the terrorists, murderers, and assorted other malefactors in the world, I am the third worst person in the world. As usual, the nutty, angry Olby's got his priorities and sense of proportion straight. Well, at least, his puppet masters at the aprocryphally [sic] named, far-left "Media Matter for America" have their priorities straight. When they say jump, Olbermann asks "how low." (And FYI, in case you haven't heard, there are all kinds of rumors that Olbermann stalked then-WNBA player Rebecca Lobo, when she was no longer interested in him. Only a girlie-man would stalk a manly-girl.)

Media Matters bragged to the Wall Street Journal that it was responsible for taking down Don Imus. I suppose now that Don Imus is gone, they've assigned the vegan lesbian transsexual "interspecies erotica" devotee they had monitoring the Imus show to monitor my site.

For like the fourth time or so in the last year, yesterday, Media Matter decided to send out a mass conniption, er . . . e-mail attacking me. I'm quadruply honored. More on that later.

But first, a little note on who's behind Media Matters. It's run by David Brock--you know, the "journalist," who wrote a whole book attacking the Clintons and exposing Clintonesque free love, courtesy of the Arkansas State Troopers. Then, he said he lied and made the whole thing up. Hmmm . . . Interesting that this lying media member is now the self-anointed media watchdog. Hey, David Brock, you can't be a Pitbull, when you've always been a bitch. The same bitch tried to join my "friends" list at my Facebook account. (FYI, he's a close friend of pseudo-conservative Laura Ingraham. You can tell a lot about people by the company they keep.)

Then, there is the funder of Media Matters, billionaire George Soros. As my friend David Horowitz has painstakingly detailed in his book, "The Shadow Party: How George Soros, Hillary Clinton, and Sixties Radicals Seized Control of the Democratic Party," the Jewish Soros is a fake Holocaust survivor, who--instead of "surviving" the Holocuast--helped the Nazis perpetrate it.

Horowitz details how Soros bragged on CBS' "60 Minutes" of helping his adopted father round up Jews to send them to their deaths at the camps and confiscate their property. Before that, he enjoyed his job as a "courier" delivering notices to Jews instructing them to pack up food for a two-day retreat, which was really their round-up for the death camps. He found this "exhilarating."

Yes, this war criminal and proud Jewish Nazi is the money bags behind America's new self-anointed "Media Watchdog."

The first time they attacked me, the folks at Media Matters for attacking Hillary Clinton for doing nothing while Suha Arafat, then the Palestinian first "lady" (I'd call her the Palestinian first artifically[sic]-inseminated) spouted off about how Jews infect Palestinians with cancer. The nerve of me to mention one of future Prez Rodham Cankles' most memorable moments.

Then, they got upset when I pointed out B. Hussein Obama's Muslim background and loyalties--all of which have since been borne out in spades. Gee, the chutzpah of someone to point out the loyalties of a man who wants to be President to the Religion of the 19 Hijackers. And since I wrote the piece in question, more and more and more and more has come out about Obama's Muslim background, all of which he keeps trying to cover up.

Then, the Media Matters people got upset that I gave an interview to a Colorado radio station attacking the media for covering up the Muslim background of the Trolley Square terrorist, who murdered several people, execution-style, while they were picking out Valentine's Day cards at a Salt Lake City mall. How dare I point out the Muslim attacks on America. Why, everyone knows the Samoans and Fijians committed 9/11. They're the real security threat to America. Just ask Vijay Singh (he's a native Fijian, and he's always swinging these long dangerous metal sticks at such nice manicured lawns).

And a-day-and-a-half after I speculated who the VTU massacre perpetrator might be--a full day after I corrected the info with updated links and new reports that it was a South Korean student, Media Matters was on my case about that, too. And, in fact, they claimed I reported that the shooter was a Chinese national on a student visa. Uh, no, I didn't report that--I linked to a Chicago Sun-Times report which reported that. Did Media Matters mention that or condemn the Sun-Times or any of the many mainstream media outlets that picked up on that report? Of course, not. It wouldn't fit into their agenda of sliming conservatives.

And, thus, Olby got his latest Reichstag marching orders from "former" Nazi George Soros' regime. Heil Soros!

From the April 17 edition of MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann:

OLBERMANN: The bronze to right-wing columnist Debbie Schlussel. Between her references to quote, "Hoprah Winfrey," unquote, she first wrote yesterday that authorities did not immediately identify the shooter at Virginia Tech, so he might have been a, quote, "Paki," and part of a coordinated terrorist attack by Muslims. She later updated this to conclude that he was a Chinese national, then a South Korean national, quote, "yet another reason to stop letting in so many foreign students." The shooter, of course, had been a resident alien who had been here since he was 8 and a half years old.

On the April 18 edition of his nationally syndicated radio show, Rush Limbaugh suggested that the attendance of Democratic presidential candidates at Rev. Al Sharpton's National Action Network convention is "similar" to Republican presidential candidates' attending a hypothetical convention of "The Rev. David Duke's -- whatever, whatever organization."

Limbaugh stated, "[E]verything you need to know for 2008 is encapsulated in this little blurb from ABC News' The Note: 'The Rev. Al Sharpton's National Action Network begins its annual convention at the Sheraton New York Hotel. Every 2008 Democrat presidential candidate expected to address the convention over the next four days.' " Limbaugh then asked, "Can I give you a similar headline that would cause havoc? 'The Rev. David Duke's -- whatever, whatever organization -- begins its annual convention at the Sheraton New York Hotel, and every 2008 Republican presidential candidate expected to address ... '"

According to his "official website," David Duke is a former national director of the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan. He left the group in 1978 and founded the National Association for the Advancement of White People. Duke is the president and founder of European American Unity and Rights Organization, formerly known as the National Organization for European American Rights. Duke's website identifies him as "David Duke, Ph.D.," but his online biography lists an "honorary doctorate in political science from President's University of Kiev, Ukraine" as his only postgraduate degree.

From the April 18 edition of Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show:

LIMBAUGH: That would be the golden EIB microphone. Great to have you, Rush Limbaugh, the Excellence in Broadcasting Network. More details of this coming up in a moment, but everything you need to know for 2008 is encapsulated in this little blurb from ABC News' The Note: "The Rev. Al Sharpton's National Action Network begins its annual convention at the Sheraton New York Hotel. Every 2008 Democrat presidential candidate expected to address the convention over the next four days." Can I give you a similar headline that would cause havoc? "The Rev. David Duke's -- whatever, whatever organization -- begins its annual convention at the Sheraton New York Hotel, and every 2008 Republican presidential candidate expected to address --"

Several reports immediately following the Supreme Court's 5-4 decision upholding the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 noted Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani's statement applauding the decision, but did not note the apparent inconsistency between his April 18 statement and the position he took in 2000 against the "partial-birth abortion" ban passed by Congress in 1997. Reports by Fox News and the Associated Press and posts on the political weblogs of The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal all noted Giuliani's statement praising the court's decision while omitting reference to his previously expressed opposition to the ban.

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." But in 2000, Giuliani said he agreed with President Clinton's veto of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 1997, saying then -- in response to a question about whether if he, as a senator, would have "vote[d] with the president or against the president" -- that he would have "vote[d] to preserve the option for women." On the February 5 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, when Giuliani expressed support for the current law banning "partial-birth abortion," co-host Sean Hannity pressed him about the apparent reversal. Giuliani attempted to reconcile his two positions by stating that he supports such bans only when they contain a "provision for the life of the mother." But as Media Matters noted, several federal bills banning "partial-birth abortion" proposed from 1997 through 2000 -- including the one Clinton vetoed in 1997 -- also provided "an exception to save a mother's life who is endangered by a physical disorder, illness, or injury." So, while the presence of a life-of-the-woman exception was previously not enough to win Giuliani's support for a ban, such an exception is apparently now sufficient.

As media critic and blogger Greg Sargent wrote: "[I]t's worth noting yet again that Rudy's current opposition to late term abortion is a new addition to his repertoire. ...We'll see if these inconvenient facts make it into any of the press coverage carrying his statement." These facts were omitted from several April 18 reports that included Giuliani's statement after the decision.

• In an entry on the New York Times weblog The Caucus, Sarah Wheaton told readers to "[n]otice the differences between comments by Senator John McCain, a Republican who has said he opposes abortion except in cases of rape or incest, and Rudolph W. Giuliani, a Republican who has said he is personally anti-abortion but believes women should have the right to receive one." Later in the post, The Caucus reprinted Giuliani's statement without further explanation.
• A Fox News article stated simply that, like 2008 presidential candidate Mitt Romney, "Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani also said he agreed with the decision."
• An Associated Press article reported that Giuliani has said he "favors abortion rights" and "support[s] public funding of some abortions." But while the article suggested that his April 18 statement and his pledge to appoint judges like those in the majority in the "partial-birth abortion" ban decision might be in tension with his professed pro-choice views, it did not note that he appears to have reversed himself on the specific question of a "partial-birth abortion" ban:

In a statement issued by his campaign, [Sen. John] McCain [R-AZ] said, "It is critically important that our party continues to stand on the side of life."

The admonition seemed aimed at former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, other leading contenders for the GOP nomination.

Giuliani favors abortion rights and has drawn criticism for supporting public funding of some abortions. But he says he would appoint justices very similar to Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, President Bush's appointees. Both were part of the majority in Wednesday's ruling.

Giuliani said in a statement that he approves of the high court's action.

"The Supreme Court reached the correct conclusion in upholding the congressional ban on partial birth abortion. I agree with it," he said.

• An entry on The Wall Street Journal blog Washington Wire stated: "We took [McCain's statement] as a swipe at former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who has said he supports abortion rights but has also said he would appoint 'strict constructionist' jurists, like Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito. Giuliani didn't exactly expand on his views, issuing a terse statement: 'The Supreme Court reached the correct conclusion in upholding the congressional ban on partial birth abortion. I agree with it.' "

In the April 18 edition of his daily program notes, called Nealz Nuze and posted on his website, nationally syndicated radio host Neal Boortz asked: "How far have we advanced in the wussification of America?" Boortz was responding to criticism of comments he made on the April 17 broadcast of his radio show regarding the mass shooting at Virginia Tech. During that broadcast, Boortz asked: "How the hell do 25 students allow themselves to be lined up against the wall in a classroom and picked off one by one? How does that happen, when they could have rushed the gunman, the shooter, and most of them would have survived?" In his April 18 program notes, Boortz added: "It seems that standing in terror waiting for your turn to be executed was the right thing to do, and any questions as to why 25 students didn't try to rush and overpower Cho Seung-Hui are just examples of right wing maniacal bias. Surrender -- comply -- adjust. The doctrine of the left. ... Even the suggestion that young adults should actually engage in an act of self defense brings howls of protest."

In the April 17 edition of his program notes, Boortz had similarly asked: "Why didn't some of these students fight back? How in the hell do you line students up against a wall (if that's the way it played out) and start picking them off one by one without the students turning on you? You have a choice. Try to rush the killer and get his gun, or stand there and wait to be shot. I would love to hear from some of you who have insight into situations such as this. Was there just not enough time to react? Were they paralyzed with fear? Were they waiting for someone else to take action? Sorry ... I just don't understand."

In questioning the actions of Virginia Tech students involved in the April 16 incident, Boortz joined the ranks of various commentators, including National Review Online contributor John Derbyshire, Chicago Sun-Times columnist Mark Steyn, who also writes for the National Review, and right-wing pundit and Fox News analyst Michelle Malkin.

In an April 17 weblog post on National Review Online's The Corner, Derbyshire asked: "Where was the spirit of self-defense here? Setting aside the ludicrous campus ban on licensed conceals, why didn't anyone rush the guy? It's not like this was Rambo, hosing the place down with automatic weapons. He had two handguns for goodness' sake -- one of them reportedly a .22." Time.com Washington editor Ana Marie Cox criticized Derbyshire in an April 17 post on Time magazine's political weblog, Swampland.

Steyn and Malkin have made similar statements, as the weblog Think Progress noted. In her April 18 syndicated column, Malkin wrote: "Instead of encouraging autonomy, our higher institutions of learning stoke passivity and conflict-avoidance. And as the erosion of intellectual self-defense goes, so goes the erosion of physical self-defense." In his April 18 National Review column, Steyn suggested that Virginia Tech students were guilty of an "awful corrosive passivity" that is "an existential threat to a functioning society."

Thirty-two people were killed in the Virginia Tech shooting, described by the Associated Press as "the worst mass shooting in U.S. history."

From the April 17 broadcast of Cox Radio Syndication's The Neal Boortz Show:

BOORTZ: There are several questions about the Virginia Tech situation yesterday. One of them is the blame game. The other one is gun control. The other one is -- and this is one that I've been reading up on a little bit this morning and have gained some insight, and I'm hoping -- I would love to get some psychological or somebody in the business that can answer this question: How the hell do 25 students allow themselves to be lined up against the wall in a classroom and picked off one by one? How does that happen, when they could have rushed the gunman, the shooter, and most of them would have survived?

According to an April 17 Associated Press article, "Looking pretty is costing John Edwards' presidential campaign a lot of pennies." Citing campaign finance reports, the article reported that the Democratic presidential candidate's campaign committee "picked up the tab for two haircuts at $400 each by celebrity stylist Joseph Torrenueva," and that "Edwards also availed himself of $250 in services from a trendy salon and spa in Dubuque, Iowa, and $225 in services from the Pink Sapphire in Manchester, New Hampshire, which is described on its Web site as 'a unique boutique for the mind, body and face' that caters mostly to women."

The AP report followed Politico senior political writer Ben Smith's April 16 weblog entry, which first noted that Edwards "spent $400 on February 20, and another $400 on March 7, at a top Beverly Hills men's stylist, Torrenueva Hair Designs." Smith's entry was linked to on April 16 by Internet gossip Matt Drudge under the headline: "REPORT: John Edwards' $400 haircut..." The Los Angeles Times reported on April 17, "Two $400 stylings may cost John Edwards' campaign in shear mockery."

On April 17, blogger and media critic Greg Sargent wrote that AP's characterization of Edwards as "pretty" echoed Republican attacks:

But this is about the AP. It's a news organization, and it shouldn't be playing the "pretty boy" game in stories about Edwards, given the degree to which it's become a tried-and-true GOP and winger talking point, both against Edwards in particular and those wussy Dem males in general (remember the stories about Bill Clinton's and John Kerry's haircuts/stylists?). Labeling Edwards "pretty" in this context just isn't defensible for a news org like the AP. You already have a long history here, with assorted GOP operatives labeling Edwards the "Breck girl"; Ann Coulter calling him a "faggot"; and Rush Limbaugh asking whether Edwards might be our "first female President."

Salon.com blogger Glenn Greenwald noted on April 18 that the story had spread to CNN and The New Republic. He observed, "We have been treated in the last 48 hours to an extremely vivid illustration of how conventional political Beltway wisdom is created." Greenwald wrote that Smith's original blog entry on the subject was "plainly intended to fuel the principal right-wing anti-Edwards caricature -- his effeminate obsession with his hair." Greenwald further noted:

But none of this is substantive criticism. It is just petty, cheap personality-based mockery of the strain that dominates (and degrades and destroys) our political discourse -- it is Al Gore inventing the Internet and claiming to be the inspiration for Love Story, and John Kerry wind-surfing and speaking French. It is all just mindless gossipy shorthand intended to fuel right-wing caricatures and platitudes that have nothing to do with substance and everything to do with demonizing the personality of these political figures in order to render them ugly and embarrassing -- hence, Edwards is a girlish fop and [Sen. Barack] Obama [D-IL] is an intellectual lightweight who relies on empty fancy-sounding buzzphrases in lieu of substance.

An April 18 Associated Press article by Anne Flaherty on the standoff between congressional Democrats and President Bush over supplemental funding for the Iraq war reported that Democrats "remain divided" on whether to "cut off money" for the war, which, the article said, would "risk leaving troops in the lurch." The suggestion that legislation advocated by some in Congress "risk[s] leaving troops in the lurch" echoes recent comments from President Bush. But while some members of Congress support plans to eliminate funding for operations in Iraq, none has advocated abandoning U.S. troops now in the field. Indeed, Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI), who has sponsored a bill to end funding for combat operations after March 31, 2008, recently took issue with a similar claim made by CNN anchor John Roberts. On the April 15 edition of CNN's Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer, Roberts said that "it's very difficult to make an argument to cut off the funds in the middle of a war" for "the troops in the field." Feingold noted that his bill provides funding for troops and only "prohibit[s] funds for continued military operations after" March 2008. And, as Media Matters for America has noted, both Democratic-led houses of Congress have passed legislation providing funding to support the troops in Iraq, while Bush has promised to veto that funding if it doesn't meet his conditions.

Moreover, the AP article falsely claimed that the Senate's war funding bill "would require that Bush begin pulling out an unspecified number of troops right away." In fact, the bill calls for withdrawal from Iraq to begin 120 days after the bill is enacted.

From the April 18 AP article, headlined "Democrats weigh next step in Iraq challenge":

Congressional Democrats say there is no doubt President Bush will soon be confronted with legislation calling for an end to the Iraq war. But the new majority must decide how far to go in trying to tie Bush's hands and what will happen after the president's inevitable veto.

The debate is likely to expose fissures among Democrats, who remain divided on whether to cut off money for the unpopular war and risk leaving troops in the lurch.

In recent speeches, Bush has made similar claims, charging that Democrats' withdrawal plans "undercut our troops" and that "failure to fund our troops will mean that the readiness of our forces will suffer."

But no Democrat has advocated a plan that would abandon U.S. forces in Iraq. In fact, Feingold's bill, which was recently introduced in the Senate, would eliminate funds for "the deployment in Iraq of members of the United States Armed Forces after March 31, 2008" but would also allow funding "to provide security for United States infrastructure and personnel."

On Late Edition, Roberts also noted that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) co-sponsored Feingold's bill but added that he thought the move was a "real mistake" and that "the president is taking no end of glee in rubbing Harry Reid's face in that." Roberts claimed that "other Democrats" told him that Reid had "overstepped himself" by co-sponsoring the bill, adding that the disagreement is "looking like this real petty fight on the part of the Democrats." Similar to the April 18 AP article, Roberts then claimed that "when it comes down to this idea of funding the war, funding the troops in the field, it's very difficult to make an argument to cut off the funds in the middle of a war. It's never happened before."

In response, Feingold sent a letter to Roberts on April 18 saying he had "falsely implied that the Feingold-Reid Iraq redeployment bill would 'cut off the funds in the middle of a war' for 'troops in the field.' " Feingold continued: "Our legislation forces the safe redeployment of troops by March 31, 2008, by prohibiting funds for continued military operations after that date, with a few narrow exceptions. Troops in the field would continue to get their salaries, food, ammunition, weapons, and other supplies as they currently do." Addressing Roberts' claim that Reid's decision to co-sponsor the bill was a "real mistake," Feingold wrote: "Senator Reid recognizes that Congress has a responsibility to take this safe and appropriate step, as do the eight cosponsors of our bill and the countless Americans who are calling for an end to this war."

Feingold also took issue with Roberts' characterization of efforts to end the war as a "petty fight on the part of Democrats":

Public opinion polls consistently show that Americans strongly disapprove of the President's handling of Iraq and want a timetable of when we can bring the war to an end. It isn't "petty" for Congress to acknowledge the will of the American people by proposing such a timetable.

In addition, the article also mischaracterized the war funding bill passed by the Senate on March 29. According to the AP, the bill requires the withdrawal of U.S. troops "right away":

On March 29, the Senate voted 51-47 for a similar, but less sweeping measure. That bill would require that Bush begin pulling out an unspecified number of troops right away with the goal of ending combat by March 31, 2008.

Yet the bill states that withdrawal is to begin 120 days after the bill's passage, not "right away":

The President shall commence the phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, with the goal of redeploying, by March 31, 2008.

Media Matters for America has recently documented media outlets' characterizations of the House and Senate bills as efforts to "stymie[]" Bush's request for war funding and their claims that Democrats are "undercutting [the] troops" and will leave them "high and dry in the middle of the fight." But both houses of Congress have passed legislation providing funding for the troops in the field. The Senate and House are expected to reconcile the bills in conference and send a final version to the president for his signature. Bush, however, has promised to veto the bill if it includes a timeline for the redeployment of troops from Iraq. 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.

Media Matters also recently documented several other myths and falsehoods related to war spending bills.

From the April 15 edition of CNN's Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer:

BLITZER: Let's talk about President Bush for a moment. In our new CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll, "How is President Bush handling his job as president?" Thirty-six percent approve; 62 percent disapprove.

In this showdown he now has with the Democrats and some Republicans over funding for the war with Congress, who's got the upper hand?

ROBERTS: I think, right now, President Bush has got the upper hand. And I think he really got the upper hand a week ago, when Harry Reid, the Senate majority leader, said, "I might sign on to the Russ Feingold bill to cut off funding for the war." I think that was a real mistake. And I think the president is taking no end of glee in rubbing Harry Reid's face in that.

I've talked to a lot of other Democrats, too, who believe that Harry Reid overstepped himself, that he should have been more measured. Now it's looking like this real petty fight on the part of the Democrats. And when it comes down to this idea of funding the war, funding the troops in the field, it's very difficult to make an argument to cut off the funds in the middle of a war. It's never happened before.

In his April 17 column, Weekly Standard assistant editor Sonny Bunch suggested that Kenneth Y. Tomlinson, the former chairman of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), was "forced out" because his "efforts to create a ... less reflexively liberal system" were "rewarded by attacks in the New York Times and elsewhere." In fact, as Media Matters for America documented, Tomlinson stepped down as chairman when his term ended in September 2005 and subsequently left the CPB board of directors on November 3, 2005 -- a move CPB characterized as a mutual decision -- after CPB inspector general (IG) Kenneth Konz presented the board with the preliminary findings of his office's investigation into alleged legal and ethical violations by Tomlinson.

Twelve days after Tomlinson resigned, the IG issued his final report, alleging that Tomlinson violated federal law by dealing directly with Wall Street Journal editorial page editor Paul A. Gigot while the Public Broadcasting Service was negotiating with the Journal over the creation of what became The Journal Editorial Report. As Media Matters has noted, the report alleged, among other things, that the IG found "evidence" that Tomlinson "violated statutory provisions and the Director's Code of Ethics by dealing directly with one of the creators [Gigot] of a new public affairs program [The Journal Editorial Report] during negotiations with PBS and the CPB over creating the show." (The Journal Editorial Report has since moved to Fox News.) The report also added that Tomlinson's "involvement in selecting and funding of 'The Journal Editorial Report' " "raise[d] questions" about whether Tomlinson "breached his fiduciary responsibilities, was directly involved programming decisions, influenced the program format increasing the cost of the program, and exceeded his role as a Board member in directing the actions of CPB staff. "

The report also alleged that Tomlinson hired a consultant without CPB board authorization, a violation of CPB bylaws, initially to evaluate, for "objectivity and balance," PBS' NOW with Bill Moyers. The consultant's review was later expanded to include three additional programs -- one broadcast by PBS and two by National Public Radio. The IG also reported finding "evidence that suggests" Tomlinson employed, in violation of the Public Broadcasting Act, a "political test[]" in hiring former Republican National Committee co-chairwoman Patricia de Stacy Harrison as CPB president and chief executive officer.

By contrast with Bunch's column, other reports have noted the role of Konz's findings in Tomlinson's firing:

• In an April 11 article, The Washington Times reported that Tomlinson "was forced to resign the following year after an internal CPB [report] accused him [of] using a 'political test' to staff his top level administration and influence the content of some programming."
• In an April 10 article, The Arizona Republic reported that "CPB President Kenneth Tomlinson sought to eliminate what he saw as a liberal bias at PBS. He was forced to resign after an inspector general's report found that he violated federal rules and ethics standards in the process."
• On April 9, the Los Angeles Times noted that Tomlinson "resigned in November 2005 after the corporation's inspector general found that his efforts -- which included consulting with White House aides and monitoring the political leanings of guests on public affairs shows -- broke federal law and violated CPB rules.

From Bunch's April 17 Weekly Standard column:

IN THE WAKE of 9/11, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting attempted to examine the challenges facing America in the age of terrorism. CPB poured $20 million into the project, and threw the application process open to anyone who wished to participate. One of the implicit goals was to find more conservative voices willing to participate in a project associated with public broadcasting. "We would try to get diverse points of view, new filmmakers involved," Michael Levy, a CPB spokesman said in an interview. Jim Denton, a consultant on the series elaborated: "We wanted to be very proactive, to, you know, reach out and try to get 'new voices,' which of course is code for trying to have a little more diversity of opinion than is traditionally expressed on public television." When asked him if he meant "specifically, more conservative voices?" Denton replied "Sure, yeah. But not at the expense of fairness and balance. We wanted to have a fair representation of the serious views in America on the sort of post-9/11 issues."

During this time, CPB made serious efforts at conservative outreach. Kenneth Tomlinson became chairman of the Corporation in 2003, and immediately set out to balance the liberal tilt present in most of public broadcasting. Tomlinson went after liberal icon Bill Moyer [sic], describing his show to PBS executives as one that didn't "contain anything approaching the balance the law requires for public broadcasting," while simultaneously proposing the creation of a show for Paul Gigot, the editorial page editor of the Wall Street Journal. Around this time he came up with the idea for the "Crossroads" program. In 2005, Tomlinson's efforts to create a more nuanced, less reflexively liberal system were rewarded by attacks in the New York Times and elsewhere which claimed that his actions were tantamount to editorial interference. He was forced out of CPB.

The bureaucratic system governing America's public broadcast system is somewhat arcane. As Gaffney describes it, "CPB can give money, but they can't tell people to put things on the air; PBS can put things on the air, but they can't tell people what to put on the films; WETA, in this case, can help with editorial roles to a degree that CPB and PBS can't, but I think apart from their own air, they can't determine what's aired elsewhere." Part of the complication comes from the fact that PBS does not operate like a traditional broadcast system. Whereas CBS, NBC, ABC, and FOX set national lineups that local affiliates must carry during primetime viewing hours, PBS is far more flexible. Each station decides exactly what content it will air and when--and the majority of programmers remain rigidly liberal.

Anticipating a public debate over gun control in the wake of the Virginia Tech shootings, CNN's Bill Schneider, The Politico, and Time's Karen Tumulty all presented misleading reports about the political and public-opinion implications of gun control.

In an April 17 report posted on CNN.com, Schneider falsely suggested that Democrats have avoided campaigning on gun control since their 1994 midterm election losses, noting that then-Vice President Al Gore "rarely talked about gun control during the 2000 presidential campaign" and that "Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, the Democrats' 2004 presidential candidate ... defended 2nd Amendment rights." But Schneider omitted any mention of the 1996 presidential election -- the one immediately following those 1994 losses. During the 1996 campaign, President Clinton campaigned on -- and even ran ads touting -- the very same gun-control measures that Schneider says Democrats have run away from.

The Politico ran an April 17 article by reporter Josh Kraushaar that portrayed Rep. Ron Paul's (R-TX) position on gun policy as in step with public opinion. In fact, Paul opposes all federal gun-control laws, a position that places him among a tiny minority of the American public. The Politico referred vaguely to, but did not cite, "public opinion polls and reader feedback at Politico.com" to assert that Paul is "far from alone." In fact, public opinion polls show near-unanimous opposition to Paul's gun policy positions.

In an April 17 post on the magazine's Swampland weblog, Time's Tumulty described as "radical" a policy position -- mandatory registration of all firearms -- that has enjoyed the support of nearly 80 percent of the American public.

Schneider is a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank whose website touts More Guns, Less Crime (University of Chicago Press, 2000), a book by former AEI resident fellow John Lott, the widely discredited "scholar" who has been caught using fraudulent data and accused of lying about it and who created the fake online persona "Mary Rosh" to tout his own work.

Schneider's April 17 report about the politics of gun control stated:

In recent years, gun control has been an issue most politicians prefer to stay away from.

The last significant gun control measures to make it through Congress were the Brady bill in 1993 and the assault weapons ban in 1994.

And what happened? Democrats lost control of Congress for 12 years. President Clinton said the gun lobby had a lot to do with his party's defeat. Democrats have been gun-shy ever since.

Then-Vice President Al Gore rarely talked about gun control during the 2000 presidential campaign. Gore even went so far as to say he wouldn't restrict sportsmen or hunters, "None of my proposals would have any effect on hunters or sportsmen or people who use rifles."

Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, the Democrats' 2004 presidential candidate, went hunting during his campaign. He defended 2nd Amendment rights said during a campaign debate, saying, "I will protect the Second Amendment. I always have and I always will."

Schneider's assertions about the Democrats' approach to gun control since their defeat in the 1994 midterm election are misleading at best. Schneider asserted that the party has been "gun-shy ever since" and suggested that, since the 1994 elections, Democratic presidential candidates have avoided the issue. But Schneider's claims are undermined by the fact that, just months after the 1994 elections, President Clinton ran ads for his re-election campaign that touted his support for the very same gun legislation.

In fact, some of those ads can be viewed on CNN's own website. One ad boasted, "President Clinton ... signed a tough law to ban deadly assault weapons." Another ad touted the same ban -- and criticized Clinton's Republican opponent, Sen. Bob Dole (KS), for voting against it. During the July 1, 1995, edition of CNN's Inside Politics, host Wolf Blitzer played a portion of "what many are calling the kick-off to Bill Clinton's re-election campaign" -- an ad that highlighted Clinton's signing of the assault weapons ban. (Schneider gave an on-air version of his online gun report during the April 17, 2007, edition of CNN's The Situation Room. After listening to Schneider omit any mention of Clinton's assault weapons ads, Blitzer simply said, "All right, Bill. Thank you for that report.")

So, while Schneider claimed that the 1994 loss of control of Congress after banning assault weapons caused Democrats to become "gun-shy" about the topic and suggested that Democratic presidential candidates have avoided it, the reality is that just a few months after the 1994 loss, ads for Clinton touted that very same assault weapons ban. And the ban remained popular right up to the Republican Congress' decision to let it expire in 2004. An NBC/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."

Schneider went on to claim:

Support for gun control dropping

Public support for stricter gun laws has been declining since the 1990s, according to the Gallup Poll. In January 2007, the number of people who supported stricter gun laws was at 49 percent, less than a majority for the first time since at least 1990.

Again, this is misleading at best.

First, according to Gallup, "Fifty-one percent of Americans in a January 2007 poll say gun laws in the country should be more strict" -- not 49 percent, as Schneider asserted. Gallup also reported finding 56 percent support for making laws governing the sale of firearms more strict. Neither Gallup's April 17 summary of opinions of gun control nor pollingreport.com nor any other source Media Matters for America has found supports Schneider's claim that support for stricter gun laws "was at 49 percent" in January.

More significantly, by (apparently falsely) claiming there was "less than a majority" support for "stricter gun laws," but omitting any mention of the fact that only 14 percent favored "less strict" gun laws, Schneider misleadingly suggested the public is evenly split on the topic. In fact, polling consistently finds a majority in favor of stricter gun control laws, and a huge majority in favor of at least maintaining the laws we have now.

While Schneider asserted that "support for gun control [is] dropping," Gallup seems to contradict him: "Although it is unclear to what degree more rigid gun control laws might have prevented the Virginia Tech tragedy, Gallup's data suggest that the public is, in general, open to the idea of stricter laws governing the sale of firearms and more rigorous enforcement of gun control laws." Gallup also noted that, after a small uptick in support for stricter "laws covering the sale of firearms" following Columbine and a "slight" fall following September 11, "This January's 56% agreement with the 'more strict' alternative is roughly average for the last five times the question has been asked since October of 2003."

Schneider also distorted the opinions of gun owners:

After a shocking incident like the one at Virginia Tech, public anger over gun violence rises. So does support for gun control measures. ... But public anger is not usually sustained very long, whereas gun owners remember every gun control vote as a threat to their rights. Gun owners vote the issue.

Schneider's claim that "[g]un owners vote the issue" suggests that gun owners vote as a monolithic block in opposition to gun control. In fact, polling shows that is not the case:

• A July 1999 CNN/Time poll found that a majority of those who have a gun in their home oppose stricter gun control laws, but 46 percent were in favor. More specific questions found greater support for gun control laws among those with a gun in the home: 64 percent favored the federal government requiring registration of all handguns, and 64 percent also favored mandatory licensing for handgun owners. A slim plurality -- 46 percent to 42 percent -- of those with a gun in the home said they would be less likely to vote for a candidate who supports stricter gun laws.

• An ABC News poll conducted in October 2002 found that 61 percent of gun owners supported "a law requiring every gun sold in this country to be test-fired first so the authorities would have its ballistic fingerprint in case it was ever used in a crime." (Newsweek also polled on ballistic fingerprinting the same month and found that gun owners opposed it by a narrower margin. The argument against ballistic fingerprinting included in the Newsweek poll question discussed concerns about the efficacy of fingerprinting, not the principle of it.)

• In an August 1999 poll, Newsweek found that 91 percent of gun owners favored mandatory waiting periods for handgun purchases so background checks can be conducted, 85 percent supported requiring child safety locks to be sold with all new handguns, 80 percent favored requiring handgun owners to attend gun safety courses, 66 percent supported requiring "all handgun owners to register with the government," 63 percent supported a ban on "the manufacture, sale, and possession of semi-automatic assault guns," and a large minority -- 45 percent -- favored requiring "owners of hunting rifles to register with the government." (The poll also found much lower support among gun owners for banning gun shows, penalizing manufacturers whose guns "fall into the hands of children," and banning the possession of handguns.)

Readers of The Politico's write-up of Republican Congressman Ron Paul's claim that the "lack of access" to guns "increases our crime rate" were even more badly misled. The Politico falsely suggested that Paul's opposition to gun safety legislation is in step with public opinion:

Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) has a simple solution to future shooting massacres such as the one that ripped apart Virginia Tech university Monday: more guns.

[...]

Paul, 71, is the kind of lawmaker, and presidential candidate, gun control advocates love to hate at moments like this. And, based on public opinion polls and reader feedback at Politico.com, he's far from alone.

Echoing the views of many Americans, he sees calls for restriction on guns as an affront to freedom.

The Politico article made no mention of any specific "public opinion polls." Nor did The Politico detail the "reader feedback" that supposedly informed the article. Presumably that feedback did not constitute a scientific assessment of public opinion -- and, given the frequency with which readers find their way to Politico.com via right-wing Internet gossip Matt Drudge, The Politico's readership likely skews conservative. Most glaringly, the Politico article did not in any way indicate that "many Americans" -- indeed, the vast majority -- disagree with Paul's opposition to restrictions on guns.

Paul -- who argues in a column on his website that the United States should withdraw from the United Nations, which he claims wants to "undermine Second Amendment rights in America" because "[t]hey believe in global government, and armed people could stand in the way of their goals" -- describes himself as "an opponent of all federal gun laws" and has introduced legislation to "repeal[] misguided federal gun-control laws such as the Brady Bill and the assault-weapons ban."

Contrary to The Politico's suggestion that Paul's gun views enjoy wide public support, the vast majority of public polling on the topic has found that the public favors gun control -- often by overwhelming margins. Paul's gun views constitute a fringe position, contrary to The Politico's vague assertion that "many Americans" agree with him.

For example, in 18 Gallup polls listed on pollingreport.com dating back to 1990, the percentage of Americans who favor making "laws covering the sale of firearms" less strict has ranged from a high of 12 percent to a low of only 2 percent.

Time's Tumulty wrote in an April 17 Swampland post:

But in talking to Democrats on Capitol Hill, I'm picking up no enthusiasm for a cause that many have deemed a political loser. Al Gore's relatively modest proposal in the wake of Columbine for licensing gun owners (as opposed to the more radical one of registering their guns) is still widely believed to have been a factor in costing him the election, losing him votes that he might otherwise have gotten from, for instance, gun-owning union members.

Despite Tumulty's description of mandatory gun registration as "radical," polls conducted in 1999 and 2000 found that an overwhelming majority of Americans favored mandatory handgun registration. Gallup/CNN/USA Today found 73 percent in favor in January 2000 and 79 percent in favor in February 1999. Likewise, an ABC News/Washington Post poll released in September 1999 found 75 percent in favor of handgun registration. A CNN/Time poll conducted in July 1999 found that 76 percent of Americans -- including 64 percent of those with a gun in their home -- were in favor of "the federal government requiring handgun owners to register each handgun they own with the government."

And a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll conducted in June 1999 found that the public's desire for gun registration was not limited to handguns; according to the poll, 79 percent of Americans supported "[t]he registration of all firearms."

On the April 16 edition of his television show, Bill O'Reilly invited Fox News contributor Tammy Bruce to comment on the firing of Don Imus, which, according to O'Reilly, "has metastasized into an ideological witch-hunt by evil forces." Bruce asserted that "small groups of people" are engaged in an "effort" to "silence[]" and "destroy[]" "people who are not intimidated" and that these groups "have a list of individuals that are to be targeted." She said to O'Reilly, "[W]ell, you're on it of course." She continued: "We start with [right-wing pundit Ann] Coulter a few months ago, and it's moved to Imus. And of course, they will move down their list, because we're moving into this election."

Later, when O'Reilly asked how she would respond to those who questioned why liberals would "target Don Imus" since he "was essentially a liberal guy on the radio," Bruce claimed: "There is a civil war going on right now between the far-left individual extremists, as you have noted them to be, and the classical liberal basic Democrats." She added: "In order to be able to even go after Republicans eventually, or conservatives, these far-left forces need to purge our own House of Democrats like myself who speak the truth and will confront them on what they are. That's why Imus had to be eliminated and that's why they went after him first. And now they'll proceed down their list."

O'Reilly replied: "OK, now there's also a list -- and I don't know whether you're aware of this, but this is what [Fox News host] Sean [Hannity] and I are working on -- of mainstream media people like [New York Times columnist] Frank Rich and others who are used by these far-left websites, fed stuff directly to them." Bruce responded: "Oh yes, I used them." (In fact, as Media Matters for America noted, Rich described the ensuing controversy sparked by Imus' comments as a "lynching" and wrote: "I don't think the punishment fits the crime.")

As Media Matters has documented, Bruce is a self-described "openly gay, pro-choice, gun owning, pro-death penalty, voted-for-President Bush progressive feminist." Bruce has equated the election of former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean as chairman of the Democratic National Committee to "putting O.J. Simpson in charge of a battered women's shelter." Additionally, following the resignation of former Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL), Bruce asserted: "All I want, frankly, is a gay person in office who is not a sexual compulsive," as Media Matters noted.

From the April 16 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:

O'REILLY: Continuing now with the Imus controversy -- which has metastasized into an ideological witch-hunt by evil forces. Or am I overstating?

Joining us now from Los Angeles: radio talk show host and Fox News contributor Tammy Bruce.

Now, as the former L.A. president for NOW, National Organization for Women, you certainly know this world.

BRUCE: Sure do.

O'REILLY: And I am -- Sean Hannity and I are doing an investigation on this, and we should have it for everybody on Monday on the Factor.

BRUCE: Great.

O'REILLY: But I am seeing danger for this nation because of all of this dishonesty being fed out of this far-left swamp into the mainstream media. Am I overstating it?

BRUCE: No, you're not. And coming from the left, one of the agendas that we had of course was the realization that we had to at least make our agenda appear to be broader and more accepted than it was. We would create subgroups, separate special interest groups, making it appear as though there was a large mainstream movement occurring when in fact there wasn't.

Of course the argument was, was that the end justified -- was justified by the means. Now, in this instance, in what you've just talked about with Mr. DeLay, is what happened to you is what happened -- what I consider the test case -- back six, seven years ago to [nationally syndicated radio host] Dr. Laura Schlessinger -- with a word that is plucked out of a sentence used in an attempt to destroy one person.

That effort, Bill, was launched by about a half a dozen people only and facilitated through the Internet of well-financed, small groups of people who have literally -- and they did then and they still do, have a list of individuals that are to be targeted, because they know that -- well, you're on it of course.

It's people who are not intimidated, who will not be silenced of their own accord, and so they must be destroyed. We start with Coulter a few months ago, and it's moved to Imus. And of course, they will move down their list, because we're moving into this election.

O'REILLY: OK. Now the Laura Schlessinger thing you're talking about is she had a television show. She said something about gays and the Bible. They took it out. They ran with it. All the sponsors of her TV show bolted, and she didn't get a television show -- and that was the first one.

But, you know, people will say to you, "Listen, Don Imus was essentially a liberal guy on the radio. He gave platform to the far left."

BRUCE: Yes.

O'REILLY: "Why would they target Don Imus?"

BRUCE: Well, he's -- just the reason why I get targeted as, quote, "not being a," quote, "real Democrat." He is targeted because I see him as being the Lieberman, if you will, of the Democratic framework. There is a civil war going on right now between the far-left individual extremists, as you've noted them to be, and the classical liberal basic Democrats.

And that is where you saw the Lamont-Lieberman attack happened, the attempt to purge Lieberman. In order to be able to even go after Republicans eventually, or conservatives, these far-left forces need to purge our own House of Democrats like myself who speak the truth and will confront them on what they are.

That's why Imus had to be eliminated, and that's why they went after him first. And now they'll proceed down their list.

O'REILLY: OK, now there's also a list -- and I don't know whether you're aware of this, but this is what Sean and I are working on -- of mainstream media people like Frank Rich and others who are used by these far-left websites, fed stuff directly to them --

BRUCE: Oh yes, I used them.

O'REILLY: -- and then they put it in the papers.