http://mediamatters.org This link is for use by RSS-enabled software to retrieve the latest items from Media Matters for America. en-US Copyright 2009, Media Matters for America http://mediamatters.org/items/200901080016 <p>In a <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.foxnews.com%2Fvideo%2Findex.html%3FplayerId%3Dvideolandingpage%26streamingFormat%3DFLASH%26referralObject%3D3353507%26referralPlaylistId%3Dplaylist" title="http://www.foxnews.com/video/index.html?playerId=videolandingpage&amp;streamingFormat=FLASH&amp;referralObject=3353507&amp;referralPlaylistId=playlist">promotion</a> for his upcoming Fox News <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.foxnews.com%2Fglennbeck%2Findex.html" title="http://www.foxnews.com/glennbeck/index.html">program</a>, Glenn Beck claims: "I'm tired of the politics of left and right. It's about right and wrong. We argue back and forth -- 'If you haven't voted for the donkey, you're just a hatemonger.' The other side -- 'Oh, those donkeys trying to turn us into communist Russia.' Stop!" But on his CNN Headline News program, Beck repeatedly compared progressives -- including President-elect Barack Obama, Secretary of State-designate Hillary Clinton, and former Sen. John Edwards (D-NC) -- to Russian communists, Marxists, and socialists. For instance: </p> <ul style="text-align: left;"> <li>Beck said on <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200808060009?f=s_search" title="http://mediamatters.org/items/200808060009?f=s_search">August 4, 2008</a>: "The thing that I do find about Barack Obama is that -- and I think America is starting to catch on to this -- this guy really is a Marxist. He believes in the redistribution of wealth. He believes in the global government and everything else."</li> </ul> <ul> <li>On <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200804110006" title="http://mediamatters.org/items/200804110006">April 10, 2008</a>, Beck said of Michelle Obama: "I think there is hidden language in especially Michelle Obama. Her language is riddled with socialism." Beck further stated of the Obamas: "For months I've been telling you, Barack Obama, and more his wife than Barack -- I mean, at least looking at her language -- I believe there's a socialist agenda there for America."</li> </ul> <ul> <li>On <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200801250012" title="http://mediamatters.org/items/200801250012">January 24, 2008</a>, Beck said that Clinton's desire "to get back to the appropriate balance of power between government and the market ... sounds like the Soviet Union" and that "Comrade Clinton has railed against the excesses of the offensive executive pay packages and an out of whack tax code that favors the wealthy while holding down the middle class." He further called her "a liberal fascist ... who wants to redistribute the wealth in this country the way she believes is good for everybody." Beck added that "promising to steal from the rich and give to the poor" only worked for former Soviet dictator Josef Stalin "because he killed 50 million people to force them to live that way." Beck also said of Edwards: "Now, put a red star on his furry head. He's a communist."</li> </ul> <ul> <li>On <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200801230006" title="http://mediamatters.org/items/200801230006">January 22, 2008</a>, after Harvard University professor <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fksgfaculty.harvard.edu%2FJeffrey_Frankel" title="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fksgfaculty.harvard.edu%2FJeffrey_Frankel">Jeff Frankel</a> stated, "All of the past tax cuts have gone primarily to the rich, and I think it's -- it is time to give some of it to lower-income, working Americans," Beck replied: "Nice of you to join us, Stalin. I mean, that is the redistribution of wealth!"</li> </ul> <ul> <li>On <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200801100009?f=s_search" title="http://mediamatters.org/items/200801100009?f=s_search">January 9, 2008</a>, Beck said of Edwards: "I listened to him last night give a speech, and, I mean, why not just start wearing the Soviet star on your head and the Workers World Party?" Beck added: "Good Lord in heaven. Was it a mistake for him to go after her [Clinton] for crying and then also to join this great Soviet state?"</li> </ul> <p>Additionally, a February 13, 2008, <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.glennbeck.com%2Fcontent%2Farticles%2Farticle%2F198%2F5924%2F" title="http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/5924/">article</a> posted on GlennBeck.com -- headlined "The March to Communism" -- claimed: "We are on a collision course with socialism/communism here in the United States. With [Sen. John] McCain being the GOP nominee, Clinton or Obama will be the favorite in the general election. It's not just a fear slogan to say 'democrats are communist' -- just take a look at their own words AND policies and decide for yourself. ... We hope you think socialism/communism is neat -- because we are going to be waist deep in it about 36 months from now!" From the article: </p> <blockquote> <p>We are on a collision course with socialism/communism here in the United States. With McCain being the GOP nominee, Clinton or Obama will be the favorite in the general election. It's not just a fear slogan to say 'democrats are communist' -- just take a look at their own words AND policies and decide for yourself. </p> <p>[...]</p> <p><strong>March into Socialism/Communism</strong></p> <p>Other socialist countries (even Russia in some ways) are decentralizing their form of national healthcare -- Obama and Clinton seek to increase government's role in our medical care and treatment decisions and options; worse yet they plan on burying us in debt in order to do it;</p> <p>Socialist, communist and totalitarian regimes have always focused on harnessing the youth into national organizations. Within these organizations, ideological conformity can be imposed, future leaders can be groomed and political paybacks can be awarded to those who have donated generously in time or money to a particular candidate.</p> <p>We had over 60 MILLION Americans volunteer their time last year -- most likely without any government incentive for doing so. Do we really need the government sponsoring ideologically based charitable groups like Senator Clinton's US Public Service Academy or Obama's 5-E Youth Services Green Army?</p> <p>Glenn sums it up this way:</p> <p><em>'If you go back and you read history from just before Wilson all the way through FDR, what they were trying to do with these Progressives, which Hillary Clinton claims she is, an early 20th century Progressive. Go back and read about these people. They are telling you who they are, and Americans just won't do the homework. They don't believe in local level. This is the opposite of what our founding fathers set up. These people, all believers in Marxism. They all believed that the Soviet Union would succeed and so what they did was they were looking for something to unite nationally and Mussolini -- you have to put this into perspective. Mussolini was not hated for much of his term. In fact, he was idealized by the left here in America. They thought fascism, before it became about extermination of entire people, they thought, this is a good thing; we could just get the Government to tell people what's good, what's right. That's why the Progressives in the early 20th century brought you prohibition! It wasn't good for you to drink. It wasn't good for society to have alcohol available. And if you didn't agree with them, you were either in on it with big alcohol or you were too stupid and you needed to be retrained. And so they were looking for things that would unite the country but not war and so FDR, one of the projects he started was the Conservation Corps to help the environment, to save our forests. Does any of this sound familiar? Does anybody think that maybe possibly that's the real story behind going green, the environmental movement that now cannot be dissevered from global warming? Starting projects, little armies of the youth! Put them into a mindset that is one with the government, one with the environment, one with the Earth.</em></p> <p><strong>Depressing Summary</strong></p> <p>We hope you think socialism/communism is neat---because we are going to be waist deep in it about 36 months from now! </p> </blockquote> <p>Beck's promotion for his upcoming Fox News program: </p> <blockquote> <p>NARRATOR: On January 19th --</p> <p>BECK: I'm tired of the politics of left and right. It's about right and wrong. We argue back and forth -- "If you haven't voted for the donkey, you're just a hatemonger." The other side -- "Oh, those donkeys trying to turn us into communist Russia." Stop!</p> <p>Politicians -- do they know what they're doing? Are they just blatantly stupid? </p> <p>NARRATOR: Bold. Brash. Beck. </p> <p>BECK: Just the way I roll. Coming to Fox News Channel. January 19th. Be here. </p> </blockquote> http://mediamatters.org/items/200901080016 Thu, 8 Jan 2009 15:45:47 EST http://mediamatters.org/items/200901080015 <p>Recent articles by <em><a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwashingtontimes.com%2Fnews%2F2009%2Fjan%2F08%2Fholder-confirmation-wont-be-smooth-sailing%2F" target="_blank">The Washington Times</a> </em>and <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F2009%2FPOLITICS%2F01%2F07%2Fholder.confirmation%2F%3Firef%3Dmpstoryview" target="_blank">CNN.com</a> reported that Attorney General-designate Eric Holder has come under criticism from Senate Republicans and that Holder's confirmation hearings will be "bruising" and "grueling," respectively, without noting that at least one senior Republican member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sen. Orrin Hatch (UT), has <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Fwp-dyn%2Fcontent%2Farticle%2F2008%2F11%2F20%2FAR2008112003464.html" target="_blank">reportedly said</a> he will support Holder's confirmation. By contrast, a January 6 <em>New York Times</em> <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2009%2F01%2F07%2Fus%2Fpolitics%2F07holder.html%3Fbl%26ex%3D1231477200%26en%3D2ad0afc7c66dc92b%26ei%3D5087%250A" target="_blank">article</a> reported that "[s]ome Republicans, including Senator Orrin G. Hatch of Utah, a senior member of the Judiciary Committee, have voiced support for Mr. Holder," while a January 8 Associated Press <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.msnbc.msn.com%2Fid%2F28558253%2F" target="_blank">article</a> reported: "Republicans haven't said they'll ultimately vote against the nominee, and conservative Republican Orrin Hatch recently commented, 'I like Eric Holder.' "</p> <p>In a January 8 <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwashingtontimes.com%2Fnews%2F2009%2Fjan%2F08%2Fholder-confirmation-wont-be-smooth-sailing%2F" target="_blank">article</a>, <em>The Washington Times</em> reported: </p> <blockquote> <p>The battle lines have been drawn for what is shaping up to be a bruising confirmation battle for Attorney General nominee Eric H. Holder Jr., though even his foes acknowledge he probably will be confirmed to lead the Obama administration's Justice Department. Partisan posturing continued Wednesday with some Republicans attacking Mr. Holder's prior work in the Justice Department and questioning whether he will show the independence necessary to succeed in its top post. Democrats and civil rights leaders defended Mr. Holder as eminently qualified and accused critics of playing politics. </p> </blockquote> <p>Later, after quoting Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA) saying Holder's confirmation process won't be "smooth sailing," the <em>Times </em>further reported that "Republicans are gearing up to vigorously question Mr. Holder during the hearing, particularly about his time as the deputy attorney general, the Justice Department's No. 2 post, under President Clinton." </p> <p>Similarly, a January 7 CNN.com <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F2009%2FPOLITICS%2F01%2F07%2Fholder.confirmation%2F%3Firef%3Dmpstoryview" target="_blank">article</a> reported that "attorney general designate Eric Holder could face a grueling round of questions next week from Senate Republicans" and that "Holder has drawn heavy criticism from Republicans." The article also reported that "Republicans are targeting" Holder.</p> <p>Neither article mentioned Hatch. In his November 21, 2008, <em>Washington Post </em><a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Fwp-dyn%2Fcontent%2Farticle%2F2008%2F11%2F20%2FAR2008112003464.html" target="_blank">column</a>, "In the Loop," Al Kamen wrote that Hatch had told reporters of Holder, "I respect the man, and I intend to support him."</p> <p>From the January 8 <em>Washington Times</em> article: </p> <blockquote> <p>The battle lines have been drawn for what is shaping up to be a bruising confirmation battle for Attorney General nominee Eric H. Holder Jr., though even his foes acknowledge he probably will be confirmed to lead the Obama administration's Justice Department.</p> <p>Partisan posturing continued Wednesday with some Republicans attacking Mr. Holder's prior work in the Justice Department and questioning whether he will show the independence necessary to succeed in its top post. Democrats and civil rights leaders defended Mr. Holder as eminently qualified and accused critics of playing politics.</p> <p>Confirmation hearings by the Senate Judiciary Committee are scheduled to start Jan. 15.</p> <p>Sen. Charles E. Grassley, Iowa Republican and a member of the Judiciary Committee, told reporters Wednesday Mr. Holder's quest for confirmation will not be "smooth sailing."</p> <p>"He still may end up being attorney general. And I wouldn't say that I wouldn't vote for him because you can't say he's not qualified for it; he is qualified," Mr. Grassley said. "But there's a lot of people that are qualified. They have other reasons that maybe they shouldn't be in that position."</p> <p>Republicans are gearing up to vigorously question Mr. Holder during the hearing, particularly about his time as the deputy attorney general, the Justice Department's No. 2 post, under President Clinton. </p> </blockquote> <p>From the January 7 CNN.com article: </p> <blockquote> <p>While the Senate is expected to easily confirm the majority of the president-elect's Cabinet appointments, it increasingly appears that attorney general designate Eric Holder could face a grueling round of questions next week from Senate Republicans who are already emboldened by charges of "pay-to-play" politics against Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich and a federal investigation into Richardson, who Obama picked as his commerce secretary.</p> <p>"Republicans are seeing enough different stories in the taints of possible corruption around Democratic politicians lately," said Alexander Keyssar, a professor of history and social policy at the Harvard University Kennedy School of Government. "Where they can score some political points around this corruption issue, they will try to do it."</p> <p>Holder has drawn heavy criticism from Republicans over his involvement in former President Bill Clinton's last-minute pardon of Mark Rich, a major Democratic donor and billionaire financier charged with federal tax evasion.</p> <p>[...]</p> <p>Stephen Hess, a presidential scholar at the Brookings Institution, said it's not surprising Republicans are targeting a particular appointment.</p> <p>"There always seems to be one appointee where the Senate opposition directs its firepower," Hess said. "This year the designated fall guy seems to be Eric Holder. He's going to be made to grovel."</p> <p>Holder played a significant role in the heavily criticized Rich pardon, having communicated with Rich's lawyers frequently before it was issued, according to the New York Times.</p> <p>Critics have charged that the Justice Department should have blocked the pardon, and Holder later said he wished he had handled the matter differently.</p> <p>Supporters of Holder say his role in the pardon was limited, but Senate Republicans, seemingly eager for at least one high-profile fight with the incoming president, are set to put the Rich pardon front-and-center when his Judiciary Committee hearing kicks off next week. </p> </blockquote> http://mediamatters.org/items/200901080015 Thu, 8 Jan 2009 15:29:26 EST http://mediamatters.org/items/200901080014 <p>During the January 7 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Rush Limbaugh falsely asserted that Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) "created the problem" of the subprime mortgage crisis. Limbaugh claimed that Frank's "definition of affordable housing was to make sure that people who couldn't pay the loans back got the loans, the mortgages. He forced Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to do this." In fact, Frank has advocated for policies that emphasize low-income home rentals as opposed to homeownership and supported legislation to strengthen oversight over Fannie and Freddie. Indeed, in a <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.newyorker.com%2Freporting%2F2009%2F01%2F12%2F090112fa_fact_toobin%3Fprintable%3Dtrue" target="_blank" title="http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/01/12/090112fa_fact_toobin?printable=true">profile</a> of Frank for the January 12 edition of <em>The New Yorker</em>, staff writer Jeffrey Toobin wrote: "According to Frank, at the root of the real-estate crisis was a misguided notion that homeownership should be available to all people -- what President Bush has called 'the ownership society.' "</p> <p>In his profile of Frank, Toobin wrote:</p> <blockquote> <p>According to Frank, at the root of the real-estate crisis was a misguided notion that homeownership should be available to all people -- what President Bush has called "the ownership society." "The 'I told you so' here is that homeownership is a nice thing but it is not suitable for everybody," Frank said at Boston College. "There are people in this society who don't have enough money to be homeowners, and there are people whose lives are not sufficiently integrated for them to take on the responsibility to be a homeowner. And we did too much pushing of people into inappropriate mortgages and into homeownership." He said that many people would always be renters, and that there was nothing wrong with this. "We need to get back in the business of building rental housing and preserving the housing we have," he said.</p> </blockquote> <p>Additionally, as <em>Media Matters for America</em> has <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200810100022#documented" title="http://mediamatters.org/items/200810100022?f=s_search">documented</a>, Frank has supported efforts to strengthen oversight of Fannie and Freddie, including:</p> <ul type="disc"> <li>In 2005, Frank, then the ranking Democrat on the House Financial Services Committee, worked with committee chairman Rep. Michael Oxley (R-OH) on the Federal Housing Finance Reform Act of 2005, which would have <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Ffrwebgate.access.gpo.gov%2Fcgi-bin%2Fgetdoc.cgi%3Fdbname%3D109_cong_reports%26docid%3Df%3Ahr171p1.109.pdf" target="_blank" title="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_reports&amp;docid=f:hr171p1.109.pdf">established</a> the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) to replace the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) as overseer of the activities of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. After <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fthomas.loc.gov%2Fcgi-bin%2Fcpquery%2F%3F%26dbname%3Dcp109%26sid%3Dcp109PfdOE%26refer%3D%26r_n%3Dhr171p1.109%26item%3D%26sel%3DTOC_414931%26" target="_blank" title="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/?&amp;dbname=cp109&amp;sid=cp109PfdOE&amp;refer=&amp;r_n=hr171p1.109&amp;item=&amp;sel=TOC_414931&amp;">voting</a> for the bill in committee, Frank <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fclerk.house.gov%2Fevs%2F2005%2Froll547.xml" target="_blank" title="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2005/roll547.xml">voted</a> against final passage of the bill on the House floor, <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Ffrwebgate.access.gpo.gov%2Fcgi-bin%2Fgetpage.cgi%3Fdbname%3D2005_record%26page%3DH9176%26position%3Dall" target="_blank" title="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2005_record&amp;page=H9176&amp;position=all">stating</a> that he was doing so because an <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Ffrwebgate.access.gpo.gov%2Fcgi-bin%2Fgetpage.cgi%3Fdbname%3D2005_record%26page%3DH9172%26position%3Dall" target="_blank" title="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2005_record&amp;page=H9172&amp;position=all">amendment</a> to the bill <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fclerk.house.gov%2Fevs%2F2005%2Froll541.xml" target="_blank" title="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2005/roll541.xml">on the House floor</a> imposed restrictions on the kinds of nonprofit organizations that could receive funding under the bill. </li> </ul> <ul type="disc"> <li>In early 2007, as chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, Frank <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200809210007?f=s_search" target="_blank" title="http://mediamatters.org/items/200809210007?f=s_search">sponsored</a> <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fthomas.loc.gov%2Fcgi-bin%2Fbdquery%2Fz%3Fd110%3Ah.r.01427%3A" target="_blank" title="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:h.r.01427:">H.R. 1427</a>, a bill to create the FHFA, granting that agency "general supervisory and regulatory authority over" Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and directing it to reform the companies' business practices and regulate their exposure to credit and market risk. Among other things, Frank's legislation, titled the "<a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Ffrwebgate.access.gpo.gov%2Fcgi-bin%2Fgetdoc.cgi%3Fdbname%3D110_cong_bills%26docid%3Df%3Ah1427eh.txt.pdf" target="_blank" title="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=110_cong_bills&amp;docid=f:h1427eh.txt.pdf">Federal Housing Finance Reform Act</a> of 2007," <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Ffrwebgate.access.gpo.gov%2Fcgi-bin%2Fgetdoc.cgi%3Fdbname%3D110_cong_bills%26docid%3Df%3Ah1427eh.txt.pdf%23page%3D14" target="_blank" title="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=110_cong_bills&amp;docid=f:h1427eh.txt.pdf#page=14">directed</a> the FHFA director to "ensure" that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac "operate[] in a safe and sound manner, including maintenance of adequate capital and internal controls" and to <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Ffrwebgate.access.gpo.gov%2Fcgi-bin%2Fgetdoc.cgi%3Fdbname%3D110_cong_bills%26docid%3Df%3Ah1427eh.txt.pdf%23page%3D17" target="_blank" title="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=110_cong_bills&amp;docid=f:h1427eh.txt.pdf#page=17">establish</a> standards for "management of credit and counterparty risk" and "management of market risk." The FHFA was eventually created after Congress incorporated <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Ffrwebgate.access.gpo.gov%2Fcgi-bin%2Fgetdoc.cgi%3Fdbname%3D110_cong_bills%26docid%3Df%3Ah3221enr.txt.pdf" target="_blank" title="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=110_cong_bills&amp;docid=f:h3221enr.txt.pdf">provisions</a> that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Ffrwebgate.access.gpo.gov%2Fcgi-bin%2Fgetpage.cgi%3Fdbname%3D2008_record%26page%3DH7003%26position%3Dall" target="_blank" title="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2008_record&amp;page=H7003&amp;position=all">said</a> were "<a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Ffrwebgate.access.gpo.gov%2Fcgi-bin%2Fgetpage.cgi%3Fdbname%3D2008_record%26page%3DH7004%26position%3Dall" target="_blank" title="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2008_record&amp;page=H7004&amp;position=all">similar</a>" to those of H.R. 1427 into the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008, which the president signed into law on <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fthomas.loc.gov%2Fcgi-bin%2Fbdquery%2Fz%3Fd110%3AHR03221%3A%40%40%40R" target="_blank" title="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:HR03221:@@@R">July 30, 2008</a>. </li> </ul> <p>Indeed, in his profile, Toobin wrote:</p> <blockquote> <p>In 2005, while the Democrats were still in the minority, Frank contributed to a bipartisan effort to put his objectives -- tighter regulation of Fannie and Freddie and new funds for rental housing -- into law. At the time, Fannie and Freddie were regulated by a small agency within the Department of Housing and Urban Development; the bill proposed to create an independent agency to monitor their operations. Frank and Michael Oxley, who was then chairman of the Financial Services Committee, achieved broad bipartisan support for the bill in the committee, and it passed the House. But the Senate never voted on the measure, in part because President Bush was likely to veto it. "If it had passed, that would have been one of the ways we could have reined in the bowling ball going downhill called housing," Oxley told me. "Barney, to some extent, is misunderstood -- with this image of him as a fierce partisan. He is an institutionalist. He believes in the House and in the process. He eschews the grandstanding style that so many members use and prefers to work behind the scenes and get something done."</p> </blockquote> <p>Limbaugh's attack on Frank <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200810010014" title="http://mediamatters.org/items/200810010014?f=s_search">echoes</a> <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200812230007" title="http://mediamatters.org/items/200812230007?f=s_search">false</a> <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200810100004" title="http://mediamatters.org/items/200810100004?f=s_search">accusations</a> by media conservatives that proponents of the expansion of affordable housing are responsible for the financial crisis. Moreover, his attacks on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac promote a <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200810100022#4" title="http://mediamatters.org/items/200810100022?f=s_search">myth</a> that their activities caused the subprime crisis. In fact, as economist Dean Baker <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.prospect.org%2Fcsnc%2Fblogs%2Fbeat_the_press_archive%3Fmonth%3D09%26year%3D2008%26base_name%3Dmarket_place_misleads_the_publ" title="http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/beat_the_press_archive?month=09&amp;year=2008&amp;base_name=market_place_misleads_the_publ">noted</a>: "Fannie and Freddie got into subprime junk and helped fuel the housing bubble, but they were trailing the irrational exuberance of the private sector. They <em><em>lost</em></em> market share in the years 2002-2007, as the volume of private issue mortgage backed securities exploded."</p> <p>Later in the broadcast, Limbaugh played a parody song, titled "Banking Queen," featuring an impersonation of Frank by comedian and frequent <em>Limbaugh</em> contributor Paul Shanklin. In the parody, Frank, who refers to himself as "the banking queen," threatens banks to make loans or they'll "be fined," adding: "My friends at Fannie sure need it, do it my way or beat it." </p> <p>From the January 7 broadcast of Premiere Radio Networks' <em>The Rush Limbaugh Show</em>: </p> <blockquote> <p>LIMBAUGH: Barney Frank -- I want to go to yesterday's audio sound bite roster. Barney Frank -- actually, we have some stuff from today and yesterday. Yesterday, he was on with Chris Cuomo, <em>Good Morning America</em>. And I'll tell you, Barney is getting more and more contentious with his buddies. I mean, the people in the drive-by are Barney's buddies. And he's getting contentious with them, often for no reason, which means he's defensive. </p> <p>But first, from MSNBC today, Joe Scarborough's morning show. Scarborough said, how do we stop the next big bust on Wall Street? We had the '87 crash, we had the Asian crash, we had the dot-com crash, and the telecom crash, and now we've got the housing bubble crash. And I'll tell you, the next crash, as I just -- I just said, folks, we are insane. It was just two months ago that we learned that massive debt that can't be repaid causes bubbles to burst big time, and now we've got trillion-plus, billion, or trillion-dollar deficits promised by Obama for years. So that's the next one to bust. And -- and Scarborough is asking Barney Frank, how do we figure out what the hell we're doing on Wall Street?</p> <p>FRANK [audio clip]: Not deregulation that was the problem. It was a failure to adopt new regulations for a new phenomenon, the securitization. The biggest part of this problem was subprime loans -- money lent to people to make them homeowners who couldn't afford the loans, who should not have been considered to be, in many cases, capable financially of homeowning. You've got to recognize reality. We have begun to adopt legislation to prevent that. We can stop the last problem from recurring; nobody can know what the next problem will be.</p> <p>LIMBAUGH: This is -- I mean -- he created the problem. This -- folks, this is more than chutzpah. He created the problem. This is a sound bite that gets you out of your chair. I don't believe I just heard this. He created it. His definition of affordable housing was to make sure that people who couldn't pay the loans back got the loans, the mortgages. He forced Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to do this. ACORN was involved -- Obama's group. This was a Democrat [<a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200608160005" title="http://mediamatters.org/items/200608160005">sic</a>] Party operation through and through. And instead of answering questions from Joe Scarborough, Barney Frank ought to be answering them as a witness before some other congressional committee. </p> <p>So, now we have begun to adopt legislation to prevent this? I mean, all you can do is laugh. I know some of you people are put out with me because I'm laughing at this. Well, what are we going to do? I mean, you can't go through your life angry all the time like the liberals do, but this -- OK, let's move on to <em>Good Morning America</em> with Chris Cuomo and Barney Frank. </p> <p>[...]</p> <p>LIMBAUGH: Well, it certainly was the way the subprime mortgage thing went down. It certainly was the way Congress was in charge of telling Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac what to do. Barney Frank leading the way, folks -- he was, and is, the "Banking Queen."</p> <p>[begin audio clip] </p> <blockquote> <p>You can build<br /> You can buy<br /> Any house your heart desires<br /> Zero down<br /> Financing<br /> I am the banking queen </p> <p>Friday night and your cash is low<br /> I know a place that you can go<br /> Get your house and use it<br /> Go ahead abuse it<br /> You can do anything</p> <p>Go out and have a fling<br /> I am the banking queen<br /> Old and sweet<br /> Go ahead and do our thing<br /> Banking queen<br /> Don't complain<br /> Or you'll hear me scream, oh yeah </p> <p>You can build<br /> You can buy<br /> Any house your heart desires<br /> Zero down<br /> Financing<br /> I am the banking queen </p> <p>Told the bankers: Hey, you guys<br /> Make the loans or you'll be fined<br /> My friends at Fannie sure need it<br /> Do it my way or beat it<br /> While the stock's crashing </p> <p>That doesn't mean a thing<br /> I'm still the banking queen<br /> Never spanked for a single thing<br /> Banking queen<br /> Don't complain<br /> Or you'll hear me scream, oh yeah </p> <p>You can build<br /> You can buy<br /> Any house your heart desires<br /> Zero down<br /> Financing<br /> I am the banking queen </p> </blockquote> <p>[end audio clip]</p> </blockquote> http://mediamatters.org/items/200901080014 Thu, 8 Jan 2009 15:24:26 EST http://mediamatters.org/items/200901080011 <p>On the January 7 edition of Fox News' <em>Hannity &amp; Colmes, </em>co-host Sean Hannity led a discussion criticizing President-elect Barack Obama's appointment of Clinton White House chief of staff Leon Panetta as his CIA director because Panetta does not have intelligence experience "in a post-9-11 world" and has been "a staunch critic of the Bush anti-terror programs." As an example of Panetta's opposition to Bush's anti-terror programs, Hannity asserted that Panetta "wrote a piece back in August for <em>Washington Monthly</em>, 'No Torture. No Exceptions,' said we cannot and must not use torture under any circumstances." Hannity then stated that former CIA director George Tenet claimed that the waterboarding of accused Al Qaeda operative Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was "the single most effective tool in America's arsenal against Al Qaeda." But in singling out Panetta's <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonmonthly.com%2Ffeatures%2F2008%2F0801.panetta.html" title="http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2008/0801.panetta.html">column</a> detailing his opposition to torture, Hannity falsely suggested that Panetta's piece was the lone column advocating "No Torture. No Exceptions." In fact, it was part of a <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonmonthly.com%2Ffeatures%2F2008%2F0801.torture.html" title="http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2008/0801.torture.html">series of essays</a> in <em>Washington Monthly</em>, all under the headline "No Torture. No Exceptions," written by critics of the Bush administration's "enhanced interrogation techniques" from across the political spectrum. The series' authors included prominent Republicans, including former Sen. Chuck Hagel (NE), former New Jersey Gov. Thomas H. Kean, and Sen. Richard Lugar (IN). </p> <p>Indeed, in the introduction to the essay series on the <em>Washington Monthly </em>website, the editors write that "the writers of this collection of essays" include "a former president, the speaker of the House, two former White House chiefs of staff, current and former senators, generals, admirals, intelligence officials, interrogators, and religious leaders. Some are Republicans, others are Democrats, and still others are neither." From the <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonmonthly.com%2Ffeatures%2F2008%2F0801.torture.html" title="http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2008/0801.torture.html">introduction</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p>It is in the hopes of keeping the attention of the public, and that of our elected officials, on this subject that the writers of this collection of essays have put pen to paper. They include a former president, the speaker of the House, two former White House chiefs of staff, current and former senators, generals, admirals, intelligence officials, interrogators, and religious leaders. Some are Republicans, others are Democrats, and still others are neither. What they all agree on, however, is this: It was a profound moral and strategic mistake for the United States to abandon long-standing policies of humane treatment of enemy captives. We should return to the rule of law and cease all forms of torture, with no exceptions for any agency. And we should expect our presidential nominees to commit to this idea.</p> </blockquote> <p>In addition to Hagel, Kean, and Lugar, other conservative contributors to the essay series include: Kenneth M. Duberstein, former chief of staff to President Ronald Reagan; Richard Armitage, former deputy secretary of state under the Bush administration; Bob Barr, former Republican congressman from Georgia and 2008 Libertarian Party presidential candidate; Col. Lawrence B. Wilkerson, former chief of staff to secretary of state Colin Powell; and William H. Taft IV, general counsel and deputy secretary of defense in the Reagan administration. Other contributing authors include Paul R. Pillar, who served in the United States intelligence community for 28 years and who was the deputy chief of the Counterterrorist Center at the Central Intelligence Agency, and Carl Ford, who was the assistant secretary of state for intelligence and research from 2001 to 2003. </p> <p>From the January 7 edition of Fox News' <em>Hannity &amp; Colmes</em>:</p> <blockquote> <p>HANNITY: Let's start with Panetta. Let's see, he has managerial and political experience, which is all nice, but does he have any intel experience in a post-9-11 world, Tony?</p> <p>TONY BLANKLEY (Edelman executive vice president and former <em>Washington Times</em> editorial page editor): Well, no, he doesn't. He has limited experience as chief of staff to Clinton, at which time, by the way, he probably knew about the renditions that Clinton was authorizing, which may make some liberals unhappy if that comes out, if that's in fact the case. There's a strong suspicion he would have. But he doesn't have any intelligence experience. Now we've had experience with <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fquery.nytimes.com%2Fgst%2Ffullpage.html%3Fres%3D9D0CE2DD1F38F935A25751C0A967958260" title="http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D0CE2DD1F38F935A25751C0A967958260">John McCone</a>, who was the one former director of the CIA who did a very good job without experience. George Herbert Walker Bush was in for less than a year, did a decent job. Other than that, the best ones, like [Richard] Helms, have always had experience. So it's a dubious selection.</p> <p>HANNITY: Well, and, Chris, you know, Panetta has been and continues to be a staunch critic of the Bush anti-terror programs. For example, he wrote a piece back in August for <em>Washington Monthly</em>, "No Torture. No Exceptions," said we cannot and must not use torture under any circumstances. But, you know, remember, we had the former CIA director George Tenet, you know, pointing out that the waterboarding of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed as the single most effective tool in America's arsenal against Al Qaeda.</p> <p>CHRIS LEHANE (former Al Gore press secretary): Well, first of all, I mean, let's take a step back and talk about his experience. I mean, this is someone who was a chief of staff for the president of the United States --</p> <p>HANNITY: We went through this, Chris --</p> <p>LEHANE: -- one of the two or three most powerful positions -- one of the two or three most powerful positions in the federal government.</p> <p>HANNITY: I got it.</p> <p>LEHANE: He oversaw the situation in the Balkans. He had intelligence that he had to analyze every single day.</p> <p>HANNITY: But Chris, wait a minute --</p> <p>LEHANE: I mean, to suggest that he -- to suggest that he doesn't have the experience would be like saying that you cannot make a general a platoon leader because he hasn't been a platoon leader.</p> </blockquote> http://mediamatters.org/items/200901080011 Thu, 8 Jan 2009 14:38:19 EST http://mediamatters.org/items/200901080010 <p>During the January 8 edition of Fox News' <em><em>Fox</em></em> &amp; <em><em>Friends</em></em>, Fox News contributor and syndicated columnist Michelle Malkin claimed that "Al Franken simply outplayed and outhustled the [Norm] Coleman campaign" in the Minnesota Senate race and that "the bottom-line lesson here for the Republicans is they need to get in the game with these things. They need to put Republicans on these canvassing boards, put them in positions of power to make sure that there aren't the kind of shenanigans that they say appear to have happened here." Similarly, in a January 7 <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.newsmax.com%2Flowell_ponte%2FMinnesota_recount_Coleman%2F2009%2F01%2F07%2F168644.html" title="http://www.newsmax.com/lowell_ponte/Minnesota_recount_Coleman/2009/01/07/168644.html">column</a> on the conservative website Newsmax.com, contributing editor Lowell Ponte claimed that the "selection of the Canvassing Board and the recount were controlled by Secretary of State Mark Ritchie, an ultra-liberal Democrat with close ties to the controversial far-left activist group ACORN" and referred to the board as "the liberal Canvassing Board." In fact, contrary to Malkin's and Ponte's suggestions, Minnesota's State Canvassing Board is bipartisan. Additionally, Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, a Republican, said that the board Ritchie <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sos.mn.gov%2Fhome%2Findex.asp%3Fpage%3D10%26recordid%3D307%26returnurl%3Dindex%252Easp%253Fpage%253D10" title="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sos.mn.gov%2Fhome%2Findex.asp%3Fpage%3D10%26recordid%3D307%26returnurl%3Dindex%252Easp%253Fpage%253D10 http://www.sos.mn.gov/home/index.asp?page=10&amp;recordid=307&amp;returnurl=index%2Easp%3Fpage%3D10">named</a> was "<a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200811140015" title="http://mediamatters.org/items/200811140015">fair</a>," while a Coleman campaign lawyer <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.realclearpolitics.com%2Fnews%2Fap%2Fpolitics%2F2008%2FNov%2F13%2Fkey_panel_named_in_minnesota_senate_race_recount.html" title="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/news/ap/politics/2008/Nov/13/key_panel_named_in_minnesota_senate_race_recount.html">reportedly said</a> that the "state should feel good about who's on the panel." </p> <p>As <em>Media Matters for America</em> <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200811140013?f=h_latest" title="http://mediamatters.org/items/200811140013?f=h_latest">noted</a>, in a November 13 <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fnl.newsbank.com%2Fnl-search%2Fwe%2FArchives%3Fp_multi%3DSP%257C%26p_product%3DSP%26p_theme%3Drealcities2%26p_action%3Dsearch%26p_maxdocs%3D200%26s_site%3Dtwincities%26s_trackval%3DSP%26p_text_search-0%3DState%2520AND%2520law%2520AND%2520defines%2520AND%2520the%2520AND%2520canvassing%2520AND%2520board%2520AND%2520a" title="http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_multi=SP|&amp;p_product=SP&amp;p_theme=realcities2&amp;p_action=search&amp;p_maxdocs=200&amp;s_site=twincities&amp;s_trackval=SP&amp;p_text_search-0=State%20AND%20law%20AND%20defines%20AND%20the%20AND%20canvassing%20AND%20board%20AND%20a">article</a> (purchase required), the <em>St. Paul Pioneer Press</em> reported of the canvassing board: "Politically, the panel is diverse. [Minnesota Supreme Court Chief Justice Eric] Magnuson and [Minnesota Supreme Court Justice G. Barry] Anderson were appointed by Republican Gov. Tim Pawlenty. [Second Judicial District Chief Judge Kathleen R.] Gearin was elected in a nonpartisan race in 1986 and declined to say with what party, if any, she aligns herself. [Second Judicial District Assistant Chief Judge Edward J.] Cleary was appointed by Independence Party Gov. Jesse Ventura." Anderson is a <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fvote.kstp.com%2Farticle%2Fstories%2FS658538.shtml%3Fcat%3D10662" title="http://vote.kstp.com/article/stories/S658538.shtml?cat=10662">former attorney</a> for the Minnesota Republican Party, while Magnuson is a former <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fminnesota.publicradio.org%2Fdisplay%2Fweb%2F2008%2F03%2F17%2Fnewchiefjustice%2F" title="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fminnesota.publicradio.org%2Fdisplay%2Fweb%2F2008%2F03%2F17%2Fnewchiefjustice%2F">law firm colleague</a> of Pawlenty's. </p> <p>Further, contrary to Ponte's claim that "the selection of the Canvassing Board" was "controlled" by Ritchie, the <em>Pioneer Press</em> reported: "State law <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sos.state.mn.us%2Fhome%2Findex.asp%3Fpage%3D137" title="http://www.sos.state.mn.us/home/index.asp?page=137">defines</a> the canvassing board as two state Supreme Court justices, two district judges and the secretary of state. Ritchie asked Magnuson and Gearin to pick two from their respective pools. They picked themselves and their next-highest-ranking jurist."</p> <p>From the January 8 edition of Fox News' <em><em>Fox</em></em> &amp; <em><em>Friends</em></em>:</p> <blockquote> <p>STEVE DOOCY (co-host): Hey, Michelle, a Minnesota canvassing board has certified Al Franken as the newest U.S. senator, but there are some on your side who say he is stealing the election.</p> <p>MALKIN: There are, and there were clear signs through the recount that Al Franken had a lot of, at least, moral support and help from the folks who were conducting it. People who might have had conflicts of interest, who were involved with ACORN, which of course we know is notorious for voter fraud.</p> <p>But some of my favorite Minnesota bloggers, including Scott Johnson at Power Line and Ed Morrissey at my own HotAir.com, followed this very closely, did a lot of their own original reporting about the recount, and concluded that, ultimately, the election wasn't so much, quote-unquote, "stolen" from Norm Coleman as it was the case that Al Franken simply outplayed and outhustled the Coleman campaign. And I think that the bottom-line lesson here for the Republicans is they need to get in the game with these things. They need to put Republicans on these canvassing boards, put them in positions of power to make sure that there aren't the kind of shenanigans that they say appear to have happened here, but also so that they're not completely left out in the cold when these things get as close as they did.</p> </blockquote> <p>From Ponte's January 7 Newsmax.com column:</p> <blockquote> <p>The selection of the Canvassing Board and the recount were controlled by Secretary of State Mark Ritchie, an ultra-liberal Democrat with close ties to the controversial far-left activist group ACORN.</p> <p>[...]</p> <p>In dozens of Minnesota precincts that boosted Franken's totals, the total vote was higher than the number of people who signed in as voters or absentee ballots. The apparent reason, as even State Supreme Court Justice G. Barry Anderson, a Canvassing Board member, acknowledged, is that "very likely there was a double counting" of spoiled original and legally required duplicate ballots.</p> <p>But instead of challenging this, the liberal Canvassing Board simply accepted the vote totals -- both defective originals and duplicate doppelganger votes -- without questioning local officials.</p> </blockquote> http://mediamatters.org/items/200901080010 Thu, 8 Jan 2009 14:02:43 EST http://mediamatters.org/items/200901080005 <p>Fox News Washington managing editor Brit Hume joined the <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200811260002" target="_blank">ranks</a> of conservative media figures attacking President Franklin D. Roosevelt's response to the Great Depression as a failure that worsened the economic crisis of the 1930s, asserting on the January 7 edition of Fox News' <em>Your World</em> that "the New Deal -- everybody agrees, I think, on both sides of the spectrum now, that the New Deal failed. The debate is over why it failed." He later asserted that "President Roosevelt waged what could only be called a jihad against private enterprise." However, Hume's assertion that "the New Deal failed" has been flatly rejected by some prominent economists, including Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman, who has said that Roosevelt did not go far enough to end the crisis and that his attempts to balance the budget hindered recovery.</p> <p>In a November 10, 2008, <em><em>New York Times</em></em> <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2008%2F11%2F10%2Fopinion%2F10krugman.html%3F_r%3D2%26hp" target="_blank">column</a>, Krugman wrote that Roosevelt's policies included "long-run achievements" that "remain the bedrock of our nation's economic stability" and that Roosevelt's short-term successes were constrained because "his economic policies were too cautious." </p> <p>Krugman further wrote: </p> <blockquote> <p>Now, there's a whole intellectual industry, mainly operating out of right-wing think tanks, devoted to propagating the idea that F.D.R. actually made the Depression worse. So it's important to know that most of what you hear along those lines is based on deliberate misrepresentation of the facts. The New Deal brought real relief to most Americans.</p> <p>[...]</p> <p>F.D.R. wasn't just reluctant to pursue an all-out fiscal expansion -- he was eager to return to conservative budget principles. That eagerness almost destroyed his legacy. After winning a smashing election victory in 1936, the Roosevelt administration cut spending and raised taxes, precipitating an economic relapse that drove the unemployment rate back into double digits and led to a major defeat in the 1938 midterm elections. </p> </blockquote> <p>During a roundtable discussion on ABC's <em><em>This Week</em></em> on November 16, <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D3yAyQV8gOjo" target="_blank">responding</a> to <em>Washington Post</em> columnist George Will's assertion that "the first New Deal didn't work," Krugman stated, in part: "Roosevelt got the economy moving somewhat. By 1937, things were a lot better than they were in 1933." He continued, "Then he was persuaded to balance the budget, or try to, and he raised taxes and cut spending and the economy went back down again. And it took an enormous public works program known as World War II to bring the economy out of the Depression."</p> <p>Similarly, in a January 6 <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alternet.org%2Fstory%2F117537%2Frepublicans_fight_obama%2527s_stimulus_plans%252C_fearing_its_success_will_mean_years_of_political_oblivion%2F" target="_blank">column</a>, Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, wrote: "In reality, any careful reading showed that the New Deal policies substantially ameliorated the effects of the Great Depression for tens of millions of people. The major economic failing of the New Deal was that President Roosevelt was not prepared to push the policies as far as necessary to fully lift the economy out of the Great Depression." Baker continued: </p> <blockquote> <p>Roosevelt was too worried about the whining of the anti-stimulus crowd that he confronted. He remained concerned about balancing the budget when the proper goal of fiscal policy should have been large deficits to stimulate the economy. Roosevelt's policies substantially reduced the unemployment rate from the 25 percent peak when he first took office, but they did not get the unemployment rate back into single digits. </p> </blockquote> <p>Further, in a November 17 <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fdelong.typepad.com%2Fsdj%2F2008%2F11%2Flessons-from-th.html" target="_blank">post</a> on his personal blog, University of California-Berkeley economics professor Brad DeLong wrote, "Private investment recovered in a very healthy fashion as Roosevelt's New Deal policies took effect. The interruption of the Roosevelt Recovery in 1937-1938 is, I think, wel [sic] understood: Roosevelt's decision to adopt more 'orthodox' economic policies and try to move the budget toward balance and the Federal Reserve's decision to contract the money supply by raising bank reserve requirements provide ample explanation of that downturn."</p> <p>Progressive economists are not alone in crediting Roosevelt's policies for easing the economic crisis. As<em> Newsweek</em> senior editor Daniel Gross noted on his <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.danielgross.net%2Farchives%2F2006%2F12%2F31-week%2Findex.html%23a001266" target="_blank">blog</a> on January 4, 2007, Federal Reserve Chair Ben Bernanke -- appointed by President George W. Bush -- wrote in his <em><a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fbooks.google.com%2Fbooks%3Fid%3Dc2OSWhLjzJkC%26printsec%3Dfrontcover%26dq%3Dessays%2Bon%2Bthe%2Bgreat%2Bdepression%23PPA41%2CM1" target="_blank">Essays on the Great Depression</a></em>, "Only with the New Deal's rehabilitation of the financial system in 1933-35 did the economy begin its slow emergence from the Great Depression."</p> <p>As <a href="http://mediamatters.org/countyfair/200901070017?show=1" target="_blank">noted</a> in County Fair, during the "Mythbuster" segment on the January 7 edition of MSNBC's <em>1600 Pennsylvania Avenue</em>, host David Shuster highlighted Fox News' role in spreading the myth that Roosevelt's New Deal worsened the Great Depression. </p> <p>From the January 7 edition of Fox News' <em>Your World with Neil Cavuto</em>:</p> <blockquote> <p>NEIL CAVUTO (host): I'm wondering, too -- there is another argument, not advanced by too many economists these days, but a lot of economists missed the slowdown anyway -- but who have said we've thrown a lot of money at this through the Fed, and what -- it's backing up the banking system, et cetera, and the money it's been flushing the system with to help banks and financial institutions, period.</p> <p>And we're already seeing the fruits of that. Whether you agree or disagree with the wisdom of this sort of thing, we might already be seeing that, so why pile more on to this? I know that is a key Republican argument, but where does this whole debate stand?</p> <p>HUME: Well, I think that this debate fits in with the debate that's been raging sort of below the radar for decades now, really more than a half-century -- has been the debate over why the New Deal failed to lift the U.S. economy out of the Great Depression. It didn't come out, Neil, as you well know, until we had the massive deficit spending that accompanied the second World War. And that finally --</p> <p>CAVUTO: That's right. Eight years later. Eight years after that New Deal. Right.</p> <p>HUME: That's right. Well, then, the New Deal -- everybody agrees, I think, on both sides of the spectrum now, that the New Deal failed. The debate is over why it failed. People on the left believe it failed because Roosevelt, at the end of the day, really didn't do enough spending, that it simply wasn't spending -- he was not spending, whether deficit spending or not, on a scale grand enough to lift the damaged U.S. economy out of that depression. </p> <p>There are people on the other side of the spectrum who would say, maybe, but look at this as well. President Roosevelt waged what could only be called a jihad against private enterprise. He prosecuted leading figures in it, Andrew Mellon being a conspicuous example. He prosecuted little companies, butcher shops in New York, as has been laid out in Amity Shlaes' book about the new -- book about the history of the Great Depression. </p> <p>It created a very uncertain, even poisonous atmosphere for business. That is not the atmosphere that you want, and I'm bound to say, Neil, that I don't think that's the atmosphere the Obama administration is seeking to create. The Obama administration is not showing any signs it wanted to wage the kind of war on private business that Roosevelt waged. The question, of course, still is whether the spending on the scale that we're seeing will end up doing more harm than good --</p> <p>CAVUTO: Or that it would tantamount to that, anyway. And that gets us back to the spending that is planned and waking up after the party of that spending.</p> </blockquote> http://mediamatters.org/items/200901080005 Thu, 8 Jan 2009 09:51:21 EST http://mediamatters.org/items/200901080004 <p>During the January 7 edition of Fox News' <em>The O'Reilly Factor</em>, syndicated columnist and Fox News contributor Dick Morris baselessly claimed that Al Franken is "cheating" in the Minnesota Senate race, that "Minnesota's doing it for him," and that "[t]his is outright larceny. It's a total theft." Morris made the comments while discussing the Minnesota Canvassing Board's certification of the recount, which shows that Franken finished with <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sos.state.mn.us%2Fdocs%2Frecount_summary_with_ab.pdf">225 votes</a> more than incumbent Republican Norm Coleman. As evidence, Morris again made the debunked claim that in Minnesota, "[t]here's a county where there are 177 more votes than there are voters."</p> <p>As <em>Media Matters for America</em> <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200901060015?f=s_search">noted</a>, Morris made the same claim -- which echoes an assertion in a January 5 <em>Wall Street Journal </em><a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB123111967642552909.html" title="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB123111967642552909.html blocked::http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123111967642552909.html">editorial</a> -- during the January 5 edition of Fox News' <em>Hannity &amp; Colmes</em>. After co-host Sean Hannity said of the recount, "We've got one county -- ended up with 177 more ballots," Morris added: "Yeah, Ramsey County -- 177 more ballots than people voted." In fact, according to a December 14 <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.startribune.com%2Fpolitics%2F36093364.html%3Felr%3DKArksLckD8EQDUoaEyqyP4O%3ADW3ckUiD3aPc%3A_Yyc%3AaULPQL7PQLanchO7DiUX">article</a> in the Minneapolis <em><em>Star Tribune</em></em>, which cited election officials explaining human and technological errors in the voting process, a "machine jammed in Maplewood, resulting in 177 ballots going uncounted until the final day of the recount in Ramsey County."</p> <p><em><em>Media Matters</em></em> further documented radio host <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200901050016?f=h_latest">Rush Limbaugh</a> and MSNBC host <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200901050012?f=h_latest">Joe Scarborough</a> also echoing the <em><em>Journal</em></em> editorial's unsubstantiated claims during their January 5 broadcasts.</p> <p>From the January 7 edition of Fox News' <em>The O'Reilly Factor</em>:</p> <blockquote> <p>O'REILLY: Al Franken -- you think he's cheating?</p> <p>MORRIS: Franken.</p> <p>O'REILLY: Think he's cheating?</p> <p>MORRIS: Yeah, I think there's funny business -- funny business going on in Franken's thing. Sure, he's cheating, and sure that Minnesota's doing it for him. I mean, there's no question that there's cheating going on. There's a county where there are 177 more votes than there are voters. There are 25 precincts where more votes are counted than people voted.</p> <p>The question is, which votes were counted, and which ones were right, and which ones were wrong? But obviously there are hundreds of illegal ballots in there. And the Democratic Party is riding roughshod over the state of Minnesota. And the National Republican Lawyers Guild -- you can go to dickmorris.com, and there's a link, give them money, because they don't have George Soros behind them -- they are litigating it, and this has to stop. This is outright larceny. This is just a total theft.</p> <p>O'REILLY: Are you -- are you willing to go -- are you willing to go so far --</p> <p>MORRIS: How can you have 177 more votes than you have voters?</p> <p>O'REILLY: Are you willing to go so far as to say that you believe Coleman won the election? </p> <p>MORRIS: I think obviously he won the election. He got 225 more votes, and the re-canvass and the recount has done nothing but obscure that reality by double counting phony votes. You know, there was one vote that was for Franken, and they crossed out Franken and wrote Frankenstein, and they counted it as a Franken vote?</p> <p>O'REILLY: All right. I don't know what's going to happen out there. I don't like the whole situation. I don't trust the secretary of state.</p> </blockquote> http://mediamatters.org/items/200901080004 Thu, 8 Jan 2009 09:17:56 EST http://mediamatters.org/items/200901080001 <p>In his January 7 <em>Conde Nast Portfolio</em> <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.portfolio.com%2Fviews%2Fcolumns%2Fwashington%2F2009%2F01%2F07%2FObamas-Potential-Labor-Union-Woes">column</a> about the "coming war" over the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA), Matthew Cooper wrote that "[p]olitical veteran Mark McKinnon, a former media adviser to George W. Bush, says he's 'never seen business this fired up.' " But Cooper did not identify McKinnon as a spokesperson for an organization opposing the legislation. As <em>Media Matters for America</em> has <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200812090004">noted</a>, McKinnon is a spokesman for the Workforce Fairness Institute (WFI), an organization whose website <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.workforcefairness.com%2Fabout">states</a> that it "is funded by and advocates on behalf of business owners" and is "[c]urrently ... focused on educating the public on the damaging effects of the deceptively named 'Employee Free Choice Act' or 'card check.' "</p> <p><em>Media Matters</em> previously <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200812090004">noted</a> that <em>The Washington Post's</em> Michael A. Fletcher quoted McKinnon criticizing the EFCA without identifying him as a spokesman for WFI. The <em>Post</em> subsequently <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Fwp-dyn%2Fcontent%2Farticle%2F2008%2F12%2F08%2FAR2008120803408.html">ran</a> the following correction: "This article about planned legislation to make it easier to organize unions should have identified political consultant Mark McKinnon as a spokesman for the Workforce Fairness Institute, which opposes the measure." </p> <p>From Cooper's January 7 column: </p> <blockquote> <p>The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is calling the coming war over the bill "Armageddon." Such corporate titans as former General Electric head Jack Welch, outgoing Wal-Mart C.E.O. Lee Scott, and Home Depot co-founder Bernie Marcus are denouncing it. At the World Business Forum, Welch was apoplectic: "If business leaders are not aware of this terrible piece of legislation, they should be. It would hurt us dramatically in our ability to be competitive globally." Political veteran Mark McKinnon, a former media adviser to George W. Bush, says he's "never seen business this fired up."</p> <p>On the other side, Andy Stern, president of the Service Employees International Union, tells me the legislation "is essential for workers to be able to share in the wealth of their employers." Stern matters, and he will continue to matter during the Obama administration. With 2 million members, the S.E.I.U. is the largest and fastest-growing union in North America, and its endorsement of Obama gave the first-term senator's campaign a big lift during the Democratic primaries in 2008. </p> </blockquote> http://mediamatters.org/items/200901080001 Thu, 8 Jan 2009 08:42:40 EST http://mediamatters.org/items/200901070016 <p>In a January 7 <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.newsmax.com%2Fpolitics%2Fcoulter_media_matters%2F2009%2F01%2F07%2F168594.html">article</a> on the conservative website Newsmax.com, purporting to provide a "point-by-point" response to <em>Media Matters for America</em>'s recent <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200901040002?f=s_search">analysis</a> documenting numerous falsehoods in her new book, Ann Coulter simply compounded the falsehoods. </p> <p><strong>Coulter's new source still doesn't support her claim that liberals "immediately praised" hoaxers for staging hate crimes</strong> </p> <p><em>Media Matters</em> <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200901040002#20090107">noted</a> that Coulter's claim in <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.randomhouse.com%2Fcatalog%2Fdisplay.pperl%3Fisbn%3D9780307353467"><em>Guilty: Liberal "Victims" and Their Assault on America</em></a> that two black Duke University students who engaged in a hoax by hanging a black doll from a noose were "immediately praised" by "liberals" was not supported by the sources she cited. In her Newsmax response, Coulter defended herself by falsely suggesting that <em>Media Matters</em> had actually faulted her for not citing any sources for her claim. In the Newsmax piece, Coulter wrote: </p> <blockquote> <p> "Just because something is not footnoted does not make it false. I am one of the few writers who includes footnotes as service to my readers. "But as long as you ask, among the praise for the perpetrators of the hoax hate crime was a statement by the president of Duke in a baccalaureate address reprinted in the Duke magazine. (Available at: http://www.dukemagazine.duke.edu/dukemag/issues/ 070801/depgar.html) President Nannerl Keohane cited the hoax as a 'protest,' listing it with other admirable protest activities pursued by Duke students that year. She went on to note that in response to the protests, '"[p]rogress has been made.'" </p> </blockquote> <p> In <em>Guilty</em>, Coulter asserted: "Two black students later admitted they were the culprits and were immediately praised for bringing attention to the problem of racism on campus." This was followed by a footnote citing a <em>Chronicle of Higher Education</em> <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fmcnsarticles.blogspot.com%2F2003_10_12_mcnsarticles_archive.html">article</a> and a <em>Weekly Standard</em> article. But neither source supported Coulter's claim that the students were "immediately praised" by "liberals." The <em>Chronicle</em> article did not report that the students were "praised," but rather that "[s]ome classmates defended the two students," while the <em>Weekly Standard</em> article cited the <em>Chronicle</em> article in writing that "some at Duke defended the act, claiming it high-lighted the problem of race relations on campus." Further, the "statement by the president of Duke" that Coulter cited in her rebuttal also does not support her assertion about the hoaxers. In fact, Keohane <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dukemagazine.duke.edu%2Fdukemag%2Fissues%2F070801%2Fdepgar.html">cited</a> the event as an example of how "[r]ace has indeed been relevant" during the graduating students' time at Duke: </p> <blockquote> <p> At your opening convocation in August 1997, I spoke on the theme of freedom -- the kind of freedom you might expect at Duke, and my advice on how to use it wisely. I also told you about some of the things you would need to grapple with, freely and responsibly, during your Duke years. One of those predictions was that race would surely matter in your lives. During your first semester, students hung a black doll in effigy on the quad to protest what they saw as our inhospitable environment for African Americans. The Black Student Alliance held an Allen Building "study-in," and Race Day in front of the Chapel drew some five hundred people. Now, in your senior year, several hundred students marched silently through the quad to present a petition demanding still more concrete action to address issues of tolerance, openness, and diversity. Race has indeed been relevant. Progress has been made; but there is still work to be done -- at Duke and in the world outside -- work that you can now begin to tackle with the strength of your degree. </p> </blockquote> <p> Additionally, Keohane's speech did not come "immediately" after the November 1997 hoax -- it was the baccalaureate address for the Class of 2001. Indeed, during the speech, Keohane noted that the event occurred during the audience's "first semester." </p> <p><strong>Coulter falsely claimed Swift Boat Veterans did not alter their website's account</strong> </p> <p><em>Media Matters</em> <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200901040002#20090107-2">noted</a> that contrary to Coulter's claim in <em>Guilty</em> that "the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth weren't forced to retract any part of their story," the group <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200409030012?f=s_search">altered</a> its <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.swiftvets.com/staticpages/index.php?page=Purple1">website's account</a> of the December 2, 1968, mission for which the U.S. Navy awarded Kerry his first Purple Heart three days after <em>Media Matters </em><a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200408270009">noted</a> that the account was inconsistent with that of retired Rear Admiral William L. Schachte Jr., the group's star witness. Coulter responded in the Newsmax piece: </p> <blockquote> <p> The Swifties did not alter their website's account of the December 2, 1968, mission. They always said Admiral Schachte was on the skimmer with Kerry. Schachte has so sworn in an affidavit. The correction of the website entry was to fix a mistaken description of Schachte as an enlisted man, rather than the lieutenant that he was. That is not a 'retraction.' </p> </blockquote> <p> In fact, the "correction" did not merely "fix a mistaken description" of Schachte's rank. The revision claims that the skimmer was "under the command of Lt. William Schachte" and that he and Kerry "were accompanied by an enlisted man who operated the outboard motor." The <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fweb.archive.org%2Fweb%2F20040803040901%2Fhttp%3A%2Fwww.swiftvets.com%2Fstaticpages%2Findex.php%3Fpage%3DPurple1">original</a>, however, referred to Kerry as "commanding a small, foam-filled 'skimmer' craft with two enlisted men" and made no mention of Schachte's presence on board the skimmer. The original description matches Kerry's own account, as well as the account of <a href="http://mediamatters.org/issues_topics/search_results?qstring=runyon">Patrick Runyon</a> and <a href="http://mediamatters.org/issues_topics/search_results?qstring=zaladonis">William Zaladonis</a>, two enlisted men who insist that: (1) Schachte was not on the skimmer; (2) that Kerry was in command; and (3) that Runyon and Zaladonis were the only other people besides Kerry on the small craft. </p> <p><strong>Coulter responded to debunking of her criticism of Kerry's "home-movie camera" by calling <em>Media Matters</em> "nuts"</strong> </p> <p><em>Media Matters</em> <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200901040002#20090107-3">noted</a> that Coulter's assertion in <em>Guilty</em> that Kerry "carrie[d] a home-movie camera to war in order to reenact combat scenes and tape fake interviews with himself" was a discredited charge <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200407290002?f=s_search">previously made</a> by Internet gossip Matt Drudge during the 2004 presidential election. <em>Media Matters</em> further noted that <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200407300013?f=s_search"><em>The New York Times</em></a> subsequently reported on the allegation without noting that executive editor and then-columnist Bill Keller had debunked it in a column two years earlier. In her response, Coulter wrote only, "Now Media Matters is accusing me of lying for believing what is printed in the New York Times. Can I please stop responding to these nuts now?" However, <em>Media Matters</em> faulted Coulter for repeating a long-since discredited allegation that has appeared in a <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200407300004">number of news outlets</a>, <em>The New York Times</em> among them. Further, as <em>Media Matters</em> noted in its analysis of <em>Guilty</em>'s falsehoods, Keller debunked the re-enactment charge in a 2002 <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fquery.nytimes.com%2Fgst%2Ffullpage.html%3Fres%3D9C01E1D9103EF934A3575AC0A9649C8B63">column</a>. After viewing 40 minutes of footage Kerry shot in Vietnam, Keller wrote: </p> <blockquote> <p> The first thing to be said is that the senator's movies are not self-aggrandizing. Mr. Kerry is hardly in the film, and never strikes so much as a heroic pose. These are the souvenirs of a 25-year-old guy sent to an exotic place on an otherworldly mission, who bought an 8-millimeter camera in the PX and shot a few hours of travelogue, most of it pretty boring if you didn't live through it. </p> </blockquote> <p> Keller also wrote that, according to the <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.swiftboats.org">Swift Boat Sailors Association</a>, "a group of veterans who manned" the kind of riverboat that Kerry commanded, "lots of enlisted men did the same." </p> http://mediamatters.org/items/200901070016 Wed, 7 Jan 2009 17:44:16 EST http://mediamatters.org/items/200901070013 <p>On the January 6 edition of Fox News' <em>The O'Reilly Factor</em>, host Bill O'Reilly <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200812100017">again</a> falsely claimed that the Army Field Manual "says, quote, 'You are not to make any captured person uncomfortable in any way.' " In fact, <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.army.mil%2Finstitution%2Farmypublicaffairs%2Fpdf%2Ffm2-22-3.pdf">it does not</a> say this; as <em>Media Matters for America</em> has noted, the Army Field Manual includes an entire section on "<a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.army.mil%2Finstitution%2Farmypublicaffairs%2Fpdf%2Ffm2-22-3.pdf%23page%3D89" title="blocked::http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http://www.army.mil/institution/armypublicaffairs/pdf/fm2-22-3.pdf#page=89 http://www.army.mil/institution/armypublicaffairs/pdf/fm2-22-3.pdf#page=89">Interrogation Operations</a>," as well as a chapter listing and describing "<a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.army.mil%2Finstitution%2Farmypublicaffairs%2Fpdf%2Ffm2-22-3.pdf%23page%3D139" title="blocked::http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http://www.army.mil/institution/armypublicaffairs/pdf/fm2-22-3.pdf#page=139 http://www.army.mil/institution/armypublicaffairs/pdf/fm2-22-3.pdf#page=139">Approach Techniques and Termination Strategies</a>" for use in interrogations of detainees, several of which make detainees "uncomfortable." </p> <p>These techniques include the "<a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.army.mil%2Finstitution%2Farmypublicaffairs%2Fpdf%2Ffm2-22-3.pdf%23page%3D148" title="http://www.army.mil/institution/armypublicaffairs/pdf/fm2-22-3.pdf#page=148">Emotional Fear-Up Approach</a>" ("identif[ying] a preexisting fear or creat[ing] a fear within the source ... then link[ing] the elimination or reduction of the fear to cooperation on the part of the source"); the "<a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.army.mil%2Finstitution%2Farmypublicaffairs%2Fpdf%2Ffm2-22-3.pdf%23page%3D151" title="http://www.army.mil/institution/armypublicaffairs/pdf/fm2-22-3.pdf#page=151">Emotional-Futility Approach</a>" ("convinc[ing] the source that resistance to questioning is futile," which "engenders a feeling of hopelessness and helplessness on the part of the source"); the "<a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.army.mil%2Finstitution%2Farmypublicaffairs%2Fpdf%2Ffm2-22-3.pdf%23page%3D154" title="http://www.army.mil/institution/armypublicaffairs/pdf/fm2-22-3.pdf#page=154">Rapid-Fire Approach</a>" ("ask[ing] a series of questions in such a manner that the source does not have time to answer a question completely before the next one is asked," which "confuses the source, and he will tend to contradict himself as he has little time to formulate his answers"); and the "<a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.army.mil%2Finstitution%2Farmypublicaffairs%2Fpdf%2Ffm2-22-3.pdf%23page%3D155" title="http://www.army.mil/institution/armypublicaffairs/pdf/fm2-22-3.pdf#page=155">Mutt and Jeff Approach</a>" ("involv[ing] a psychological ploy that takes advantage of the natural uncertainty and guilt that a source has as a result of being detained and questioned").</p> <p>O'Reilly's claim that the Army Field Manual states that soldiers cannot "make any captured person uncomfortable in any way" appears to refer to portions of the 1949 Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, otherwise known as the Third Geneva Convention, which is <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.army.mil%2Finstitution%2Farmypublicaffairs%2Fpdf%2Ffm2-22-3.pdf%23page%3D233">cited</a> in the Army Field Manual. </p> <p>During the discussion, O'Reilly also asserted that requiring the CIA to adhere to the Army Field Manual won't result in any "intel from any captured terrorist suspects at all." O'Reilly's assertion is contradicted by the experiences of the Air Force officer who led the team of interrogators that successfully hunted down Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq. Writing under the pseudonym Matthew Alexander in a <em>Washington Post</em> <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Fwp-dyn%2Fcontent%2Farticle%2F2008%2F11%2F28%2FAR2008112802242.html">op-ed</a>, he explained how he used the methods "listed in the unclassified Field Manual" to interrogate prisoners and that this "started a chain of successes that ultimately led to Zarqawi." He wrote:</p> <blockquote> <p>Amid the chaos, four other Air Force criminal investigators and I joined an elite team of interrogators attempting to locate Zarqawi. What I soon discovered about our methods astonished me. The Army was still conducting interrogations according to the Guantanamo Bay model: Interrogators were nominally using the methods outlined in the U.S. Army Field Manual, the interrogators' bible, but they were pushing in every way possible to bend the rules -- and often break them. I don't have to belabor the point; dozens of newspaper articles and books have been written about the misconduct that resulted. These interrogations were based on fear and control; they often resulted in torture and abuse. </p> <p>I refused to participate in such practices, and a month later, I extended that prohibition to the team of interrogators I was assigned to lead. I taught the members of my unit a new methodology -- one based on building rapport with suspects, showing cultural understanding and using good old-fashioned brainpower to tease out information. I personally conducted more than 300 interrogations, and I supervised more than 1,000. The methods my team used are not classified (they're listed in the unclassified Field Manual), but the way we used them was, I like to think, unique. We got to know our enemies, we learned to negotiate with them, and we adapted criminal investigative techniques to our work (something that the Field Manual permits, under the concept of "ruses and trickery"). It worked. Our efforts started a chain of successes that ultimately led to Zarqawi.</p> </blockquote> <p>From the January 6 edition of Fox News' <em>The O'Reilly Factor</em>:</p> <blockquote> <p>O'REILLY: But Colonel -- and you and I have disagreed on this one before -- you know, if you're going to say that you have to do the Army Field Manual, which you know very well, which says, quote, "You are not to make any captured person uncomfortable in any way" -- if that's going to be the standard that [CIA director-designate] Leon Panetta embraces, and he told the Monterey newspaper that's exactly his vision, then I don't think we are going to get intel from any captured terrorist suspects at all. Am I wrong? </p> <p>DAVID HUNT (Fox News military analyst): No. And the intel -- the Army intel manual is meant for Private Johnson in the field.</p> <p>O'REILLY: Right. Right. Right. But --</p> <p>HUNT: And that -- it's not a manual -- it should not be --</p> <p>O'REILLY: It was clear by --</p> <p>HUNT: -- adopted by the intelligence community. It should not be.</p> <p>O'REILLY: It was clear by the interview that Panetta did with the Monterey newspaper that this is the standard that he believes the CIA has to adhere to.</p> <p> HUNT: And then he's wrong, and so is the incoming president to even be on this issue.</p> </blockquote> http://mediamatters.org/items/200901070013 Wed, 7 Jan 2009 15:49:21 EST http://mediamatters.org/items/200901070012 <p>Revisiting the <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200810160021?f=s_search">common</a> <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200810240009?f=s_search">myth</a> from the presidential campaign that President-elect Barack Obama's proposed tax cuts would go to "people who don't pay taxes," Fox News <em>Studio B </em>host Shepard Smith falsely suggested that a $500 individual tax credit, included in Obama's proposed economic recovery plan, would benefit people who don't currently pay taxes. During the January 6 edition of <em>Studio B</em>, Smith asked Sen. John Ensign (R-NV): "Senator, the president-elect wants a big economic stimulus package ready to sign as soon as he take office. It's somewhere in the neighborhood of $800 billion over two years, $300 billion of that in what we're being told is middle class and business tax cuts. Senator, I know we don't know the details yet, but $300 billion in tax cuts -- how do you cut taxes on people who don't pay taxes?" In fact, all American workers are required to pay Social Security and Medicare taxes under the <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ssa.gov%2Fmystatement%2Ffica.htm" title="http://www.ssa.gov/mystatement/fica.htm">Federal Insurance Contributions Act</a> (FICA).</p> <p>A January 4 <em>New York Times </em><a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2009%2F01%2F05%2Fus%2Fpolitics%2F05spend.html%3Fpagewanted%3D1%26partner%3Drss%26emc%3Drss">article</a> reported that Obama's proposal includes tax cuts of "about $270 billion to $310 billion" to individuals and businesses. The article continued:</p> <blockquote> <p>About half of that would go to workers under what Mr. Obama during his campaign called the Making Work Pay credit, worth up to $500 for individuals and $1,000 for families. The Obama campaign estimated that about 150 million Americans making less than $200,000 would qualify, including those who make too little to pay federal income taxes but would receive a check that would offset Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes. </p> </blockquote> <p>Indeed, the "<a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fobama.3cdn.net%2Fb7be3b7cd08e587dca_v852mv8ja.pdf%23page%3D2">Making Work Pay</a>" tax credit Obama included in his economic proposal during the presidential race would provide a "tax credit of up to $500 per person, or $1,000 per working family": </p> <blockquote> <p>This refundable income tax credit will provide direct relief to American families who face the regressive payroll tax system. It will offset the payroll tax on the first $8,100 of their earnings while still preserving the important principle of a dedicated revenue source for Social Security. The "Making Work Pay" tax credit will completely eliminate income taxes for 10 million Americans. The tax credit will also provide relief to self-employed small business owners who struggle to pay both the employee and employer portion of the payroll tax. The "Making Work Pay" tax credit offsets some of this selfemployment tax as well. </p> </blockquote> <p>Additionally, consumers in the United States are required to pay federal excise taxes, including <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnie.org%2FNLE%2FCRSreports%2F06May%2FRL30304.pdf%23page%3D16">18.4 cents</a> per gallon of gasoline. U.S. residents are also subject to state taxes, such as sales, income, and property taxes.</p> <p>From the January 6 edition of Fox News' <em>Studio B With Shepard Smith</em>:</p> <blockquote> <p>ENSIGN: At least make sure that you get all of the things that are -- the issues that are out there. Whether they're court issues, whether they're challenged-ballot issues, make sure that they're settled in a way that it doesn't seem like one side or the other stole the election. That's really important in cases like this because people turned out in record numbers in Minnesota. That's a really good thing.</p> <p>SMITH: They did indeed.</p> <p>ENSIGN: You don't want to discourage people from turning out because they felt like the race was stolen one way or the other.</p> <p>SMITH: Senator, the president-elect wants a big economic stimulus package ready to sign as soon as he take office. It's somewhere in the neighborhood of $800 billion over two years, $300 billion of that in what we're being told is middle class and business tax cuts. Senator, I know we don't know the details yet, but $300 billion in tax cuts -- how do you cut taxes on people who don't pay taxes? </p> <p> ENSIGN: Well, that is one of the discussions that's going to be had up here on Capitol Hill. What they want to do is give tax credits. It's basically like a welfare payment because it's up above and beyond whatever taxes that they pay right now. The business tax credits and some of the things they're talking about there, those are important things, because if businesses don't have money, a lot of these businesses are going to go out of business.</p> </blockquote> http://mediamatters.org/items/200901070012 Wed, 7 Jan 2009 15:34:15 EST http://mediamatters.org/items/200901070010 <p>A January 7 <em>Los Angeles Times </em><a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.latimes.com%2Fnews%2Fnationworld%2Fnation%2Fla-na-panetta7-2009jan07%2C0%2C2185954%2Cfull.story">article</a> claimed that former CIA official John Brennan "withdrew from consideration" as CIA director "after he was criticized by liberal groups because his tenure coincided with controversial Bush administration programs, including secret CIA prisons and disputed interrogation techniques." Similarly, on the January 6 edition of Fox News' <em>Special Report</em>, chief Washington correspondent Jim Angle asserted that "the left ... torpedoed Mr. Obama's original choice, John Brennan, because he was part of the war on terror over the last decade." Angle continued, "By acceding to their complaints, critics argued, the Obama camp boxed itself in and was almost forced to pick someone with no association with the past, meaning no knowledge of it either." In addition, a January 7 <em>Washington Post </em><a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Fwp-dyn%2Fcontent%2Farticle%2F2009%2F01%2F06%2FAR2009010603587.html%3Fhpid%3Dtopnews">article</a> stated that Brennan "withdrew his name from consideration over concerns that his association with interrogation and rendition policies under President Bush and then-CIA director George J. Tenet would taint Obama." However, Brennan was not simply at the CIA at the same time as these interrogation and rendition policies were instituted or carried out, or was merely "associat[ed] with" those policies. In fact, he has publicly supported the CIA's post-September 11 rendition policy and the agency's use of "the most serious types of enhanced" interrogation procedures.</p> <p>As one of Brennan's most prominent critics, Salon.com's Glenn Greenwald, has <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.salon.com%2Fopinion%2Fgreenwald%2F2008%2F11%2F16%2Fbrennan%2F">noted</a>, in an interview on the November 2, 2007, edition of CBS' <em>The Early Show</em>, Brennan defended the CIA's use of so-called "enhanced interrogation techniques":</p> <blockquote> <p>HARRY SMITH (co-anchor): If you know, this all becomes such a giant issue because the president has gone on record so many times saying the United States does not torture. If we acknowledge that this kind of activity goes on, you know, what does that -- what does that mean exactly, I guess?</p> <p>BRENNAN: Well, the CIA has acknowledged that it has detained about 100 terrorists since 9-11, and about a third of them have been subjected to what the CIA refers to as enhanced interrogation tactics, and only a small proportion of those have in fact been subjected to the most serious types of enhanced procedures.</p> <p>SMITH: Right. And you say some of this has -- has borne fruit.</p> <p>BRENNAN: There have been a lot of information that has come out from these interrogation procedures that the agency has in fact used against the real hardcore terrorists. It has saved lives. And let's not forget, these are hardened terrorists who have been responsible for 9-11, who have shown no remorse at all for the deaths of 3,000 innocents.</p> <p>SMITH: Yeah. John Brennan, we thank you very, very much for enlightening us this morning. We really do appreciate it.</p> </blockquote> <p>During the <em>Early Show </em>interview, Brennan did say that one particular technique, waterboarding, "is certainly subjecting an individual to severe pain and suffering, which is the classic definition of torture. And I believe, quite frankly, it's inconsistent with American values and it's something that should be prohibited."</p> <p>Greenwald also noted that, in a December 5, 2005, <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pbs.org%2Fnewshour%2Fbb%2Fterrorism%2Fjuly-dec05%2Frendition_12-5.html">interview</a> on PBS' <em>The Newshour with Jim Lehrer</em>, Brennan stated of rendition: "I think it's an absolutely vital tool. I have been intimately familiar now over the past decade with the cases of rendition that the U.S. Government has been involved in. And I can say without a doubt that it has been very successful as far as producing intelligence that has saved lives." In that interview, according to the PBS transcript, Brennan also stated:</p> <blockquote> <p>REUEL GERECHT (American Enterprise Institute fellow): I think we need to be honest here and say that one of the reasons we're sending them there is because they tend to be a little bit rougher in their interrogations and we are not objecting to that.</p> <p>MARGARET WARNER (correspondent): What about that point, Mr. Brennan? I mean, why would you not, if this -- if you have a suspect who is a danger to the United States, keep him in United States' custody? Is it because we want another country to do the dirty work?</p> <p>BRENNAN: No, I don't think that's it at all. Also I think it's rather arrogant to think we're the only country that respects human rights. I think that we have a lot of assurances from these countries that we hand over terrorists to that they will, in fact, respect human rights.</p> <p>And there are different ways to gain those assurances. But also let's say an individual goes to Egypt because they're an Egyptian citizen and the Egyptians then have a longer history in terms of dealing with them, and they have family members and others that they can bring in, in fact, to be part of the whole interrogation process.</p> <p>WARNER: But what about Mr. Gerecht's point that the CIA could bring them in to help?</p> <p>BRENNAN: Well, you can [sic] be transporting people all over the world, bringing family members and professional colleagues and others.</p> <p>Again, it has to be looked at in the instance -- the case-specific requirements, and a lot of times it makes more sense to have that person in a country where the local service, the intelligence and security service can in fact have a long process that's going to be able to elicit that information.</p> </blockquote> <p>Indeed, Angle's December 22, 2008, <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.foxnews.com%2Fvideo%2Findex.html%3FplayerId%3Dvideolandingpage%26streamingFormat%3DFLASH%26referralObject%3D3354415%26referralPlaylistId%3Dplaylist">report</a> on Brennan's withdrawal included a clip of <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.salon.com%2Fopinion%2Fgreenwald%2F2008%2F12%2F23%2Fbrennan%2F">Greenwald</a> saying, "The fact that he [Brennan] nonetheless supported rendition and all of the other enhanced interrogation techniques beyond waterboarding, nonetheless makes him unqualified for that position [of CIA director]." </p> <p>From the January 7 <em>Los Angeles Times </em><a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.latimes.com%2Fnews%2Fnationworld%2Fnation%2Fla-na-panetta7-2009jan07%2C0%2C2185954%2Cfull.story">article</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p>Early on, Obama was expected to offer the CIA job to one of his senior intelligence advisors, John Brennan, an agency veteran who had helped set up the nation's counter-terrorism center.</p> <p>But Brennan withdrew from consideration after he was criticized by liberal groups because his tenure coincided with controversial Bush administration programs, including secret CIA prisons and disputed interrogation techniques.</p> <p>Brennan was not directly involved in the programs. But once he dropped out, some intelligence officials think the Obama team had boxed itself in.</p> <p>"They ruled out a whole generation of people who had worked in intelligence," the former agency official said.</p> </blockquote> <p>From the January 7 <em>Washington Post </em><a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Fwp-dyn%2Fcontent%2Farticle%2F2009%2F01%2F06%2FAR2009010603587.html%3Fhpid%3Dtopnews">article</a> headlined "Obama Is Under Fire Over Panetta Selection":</p> <blockquote> <p>A widely held view among intelligence officials was that Obama's team had decided to automatically disqualify any candidate who might have been seen as tainted by association with the controversial interrogation and detention policies of the Bush presidency -- essentially anyone who held a management job in the past eight years. Former senior CIA official John O. Brennan, who headed the transition intelligence team, withdrew his name from consideration over concerns that his association with interrogation and rendition policies under President Bush and then-CIA director George J. Tenet would taint Obama.</p> <p>A number of Tenet-era officials have argued that they were simply carrying out orders that the president and the attorney general, as well as Congress, had approved. Hayden, the outgoing director, defended interrogation policies, including waterboarding, that many have labeled torture, saying they were necessary to break some terrorism suspects. Although he has told Congress that waterboarding has not been used recently, Hayden publicly supported Bush's decision to retain the option to use "enhanced interrogation techniques."</p> <p>But one former senior intelligence official noted that many of the people [CIA director-designate Leon] Panetta will be expected to lead would have participated in implementing the interrogation policy. Obama and Panetta "should think twice about pledges they make now" about the handling of terrorism detainees, another former senior official said, "because they may come back to haunt them in the future if some dire circumstances occur."</p> <p>The desire to retain [deputy director Stephen] Kappes and [intelligence director Michael] Morell, both of whom held senior positions under Tenet as well as with Hayden, however, indicated that Obama does not intend to clean house beyond the top leadership level.</p> </blockquote> <p>From the January 6 edition of Fox News' <em>Special Report with Bret Baier</em>:</p> <blockquote> <p>ANGLE: Democratic Senator Evan Bayh [D-IN], also on the intelligence committee, was supportive of Panetta, but not happy about the Obama forces' failure to consult</p> <p>BAYH: There was a snafu in the failure to notify Senator [Dianne] Feinstein [D-CA] and Senator [Jay] Rockefeller [D-WV]. That should have happened.</p> <p>ANGLE: Both Mr. Obama and Mr. Biden were working feverishly today to undo that damage, with both calling Feinstein to apologize. But it appeared the apologies were for not informing her before the decision leaked, not for failing to consult her at all before the choice was made. Mr. Obama praised Panetta's management skills today, then suggested he'll use them to make sweeping changes.</p> <p>OBAMA: I think what you're also going to see is a team that is committed to breaking with some of the past practices and concerns.</p> <p> ANGLE: That will please the left, which torpedoed Mr. Obama's original choice, John Brennan, because he was part of the war on terror over the last decade. By acceding to their complaints, critics argued, the Obama camp boxed itself in and was almost forced to pick someone with no association with the past, meaning no knowledge of it either.</p> </blockquote> http://mediamatters.org/items/200901070010 Wed, 7 Jan 2009 15:10:40 EST http://mediamatters.org/items/200901070005 <p>During her January 7 <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200901070001?f=h_latest">appearance</a> on NBC's <em>Today</em>, author and syndicated columnist Ann Coulter falsely claimed that "the Drudge Report has never had to retract a report." In fact, as <em>Media Matters for America</em> <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200811040016?f=s_search">has</a> <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200811190007?f=s_search">repeatedly</a> <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200812020009?f=s_search">documented</a>, the Drudge Report has a track record of posting items that were false on their face or were subsequently exposed as false. Moreover, on August 12, 1997, Matt Drudge did indeed issue a <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.techlawjournal.com%2Fcourts%2Fdrudge%2F70812ret.htm" title="http://www.techlawjournal.com/courts/drudge/70812ret.htm">retraction</a> regarding a false allegation he posted about former Clinton senior adviser Sidney Blumenthal's personal life. </p> <p>Recent examples of false Drudge claims include:</p> <ul> <li><strong>Pittsburgh "attack"</strong></li> </ul> <p>During the afternoon of <strong><strong><a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.drudgereportarchives.com%2Fdata%2F2008%2F10%2F23%2F20081023_202828.htm" title="http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2008/10/23/20081023_202828.htm">October</a> <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.drudgereportarchives.com%2Fdata%2F2008%2F10%2F23%2F20081023_195410.htm" title="http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2008/10/23/20081023_195410.htm">23</a></strong></strong>, 2008, Drudge seized on McCain campaign volunteer Ashley Todd's allegations that a black man mugged her and, after seeing a McCain bumper sticker on her car, carved a "B" into her cheek. At 2:54 p.m. ET, Drudge reported Todd's allegations as fact, posting on his website: "Shock: McCain Campaign Volunteer Attacked and Mutilated in Pittsburgh," along with another headline reading: " 'B' Carved Into 20-Year Old Woman's Face... Developing..."</p> <p>Drudge did not initially link to a news report for this claim. From the Drudge Report at <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.drudgereportarchives.com%2Fdata%2F2008%2F10%2F23%2F20081023_195410.htm" title="http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2008/10/23/20081023_195410.htm">2:54 p.m.</a> ET on October 23, 2008: </p> <p><img src=&#x22;http://mediamatters.org/static/images/item/drudge-20090107-1.gif" border="0" alt="Drudge 1" title="Drudge 1" /></p> <p>Drudge eventually added a link to an online <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thepittsburghchannel.com%2Fnews%2F17789356%2Fdetail.html">article</a> (since updated to include Todd's retraction) by WTAE-TV in Pittsburgh about the alleged attack. From the Drudge Report on October 23 at <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.drudgereportarchives.com%2Fdata%2F2008%2F10%2F23%2F20081023_202828.htm" title="http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2008/10/23/20081023_202828.htm">3:28 p.m.</a> ET:</p> <p><img src=&#x22;http://mediamatters.org/static/images/item/drudge-20090107-2.gif" border="0" alt="Drudge 2" title="Drudge 2" /></p> <p>He later <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.drudgereportarchives.com%2Fdata%2F2008%2F10%2F23%2F20081023_234003.htm" title="http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2008/10/23/20081023_234003.htm">posted</a> a picture of Todd with her purported injuries. From the Drudge Report on October 23 at <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.drudgereportarchives.com%2Fdata%2F2008%2F10%2F23%2F20081023_234003.htm" title="http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2008/10/23/20081023_234003.htm">6:40 p.m.</a> ET: </p> <p><img src=&#x22;http://mediamatters.org/static/images/item/drudge-20090107-3.jpg" border="0" alt="Drudge 3" title="Drudge 3" /></p> <p>As <em>Media Matters</em> <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200811040016#20090107-2">noted</a>, Todd's claims were proven to be false on <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Ftpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com%2F2008%2F10%2Freport_mccain_volunteer_who_cl.php" title="http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/10/report_mccain_volunteer_who_cl.php">October 24</a>, when Todd reportedly told police she made up her story. The <em><em>Pittsburgh Post-Gazette</em></em> <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.post-gazette.com%2Fpg%2F08299%2F922849-53.stm" title="http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08299/922849-53.stm">reported</a> on October 25 that "[a]lmost from the start, Pittsburgh police were skeptical about a young woman's claim that she had been mugged and a 'B' carved into her cheek by an attacker who was provoked by the sight of a John McCain bumper sticker on her car."</p> <p>On October 24, under a photo of Todd, Drudge <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.drudgereportarchives.com%2Fdata%2F2008%2F10%2F24%2F20081024_180118.htm" title="http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2008/10/24/20081024_180118.htm">posted</a> the headline: "She Made It Up!":</p> <p><img src=&#x22;http://mediamatters.org/static/images/item/drudge-20090107-4.jpg" border="0" alt="Drudge 4" title="Drudge 4" /></p> <p><strong><a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fkdka.com%2Flocal%2Fattack.McCain.Bloomfield.2.847628.html" title="http://kdka.com/local/attack.McCain.Bloomfield.2.847628.html">SHE MADE IT UP!</a></strong></p> <ul> <li><strong>Supreme Court "tragedy"</strong></li> </ul> <p>On <strong><strong><a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.drudgereportarchives.com%2Fdata%2F2008%2F10%2F27%2F20081027_062345.htm">October 27</a></strong></strong>, 2008, Drudge <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200811040016#20090107">featured</a> the following false headline: "2001 Obama: Tragedy That 'Redistribution of Wealth' Not Pursued by Supreme Court":</p> <p><img src=&#x22;http://mediamatters.org/static/images/item/drudge-20090107-5.gif" border="0" alt="Drudge 5" title="Drudge 5" /></p> <p>In fact, as the YouTube <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DiivL4c_3pck" title="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DiivL4c_3pck">audio</a> Drudge linked to demonstrates, during a 2001 <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.chicagopublicradio.org%2Faudio_library%2Fod_rajan01.asp" title="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.chicagopublicradio.org%2Faudio_library%2Fod_rajan01.asp">interview</a> on Chicago Public Radio station WBEZ, Obama did not say it is a "tragedy" that the Supreme Court has not pursued wealth redistribution. The "tragedy" Obama identified was that the civil rights movement "became so court-focused" in trying to effect political and economic justice. Obama stated: "And one of the -- I think the tragedies of the civil rights movement was, because the civil rights movements became so court-focused, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing, and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change."</p> <p>In addition, on August 12, 1997, Drudge issued a <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.techlawjournal.com%2Fcourts%2Fdrudge%2F70812ret.htm" title="http://www.techlawjournal.com/courts/drudge/70812ret.htm">retraction</a> regarding a false allegation posted about Blumenthal's personal life. A <em>Washington Post </em>article (retrieved from Nexis) reported that Drudge "based his report Sunday on anonymous sources" and "claimed that Blumenthal, who began work yesterday as an assistant to President Clinton, 'has a spousal abuse past that has been effectively covered up.' " The article continued:</p> <blockquote> <p>Drudge said last night that he is retracting the story. "I apologize if any harm has been done," he said. "The story was issued in good faith. It was based on two sources who clearly were operating from a political motivation." </p> <p>William McDaniel, Blumenthal's attorney, called the report "a despicable and cowardly attempt at political assassination. The Blumenthals are not going to stand for this. ... We don't want a retraction. This is drivel. This is garbage. We intend to prove there isn't a shred of truth in that report. ... He made this up. If he's got sources, they made it up."</p> <p>Blumenthal and his wife, Jacqueline, director of the White House fellows program, have been married for 21 years and have two children. They declined to comment.</p> <p>The publication and retraction in just 24 hours -- and a resulting spate of media inquiries -- underscored the dangers of unverified gossip when harnessed to the lightning speed of the Internet. Drudge, a conservative who does not claim to be a journalist, has admitted publishing wrong information in the past, such as his prediction that Hillary Rodham Clinton would be indicted last year.</p> </blockquote> <p>In a decision in the subsequent litigation between Blumenthal and Drudge, D.C. Federal District Judge Paul Friedman wrote: "After receiving a letter from plaintiffs' counsel on Monday, August 11, 1997, Complaint, Ex. 6, defendant Drudge retracted the story through a special edition of the Drudge Report posted on his web site and e-mailed to his subscribers."</p> <p>From the January 7 edition of NBC's <em>Today</em>:</p> <blockquote> <p>LAUER: Conservative commentator Ann Coulter is a best-selling author and syndicated columnist. Her latest book is <em>Guilty: Liberal "Victims" and their Assault on America</em>. Ann, good morning, nice to have you here.</p> <p>COULTER: Good morning. It's great to be here.</p> <p>LAUER: I want to talk about [Roland] Burris in a second, but let me just get to this little controversy. You've been all over the blogs in the last day or so. We canceled your appearance here on Tuesday, and from what I have been reading, you thought you were banned for life from the show. What did -- were you behind that report?</p> <p>COULTER: No. I didn't say that. That was from a reliable news report that, by the way, had never -- has never had to retract a report on exploding GM trucks. But I do know that -- like NBC -- </p> <p>LAUER: So, we're either dead, or you weren't banned?</p> <p>COULTER: It apparently took -- it apparently took eight hours for the <em>Today</em> show to remember that there was a Wednesday show that I could be invited back to. It took the Drudge Report posting that for the Wednesday invitation --</p> <p>LAUER: You see, but --</p> <p>COULTER: -- but I'm very happy to be here, Matt Lauer.</p> <p>[...]</p> <p>COULTER: No. I don't think I'd be sitting here now if it hadn't been a headline on Drudge. But let's get to the book --</p> <p>LAUER: Really?</p> <p>COULTER: -- because I do want to talk about the book.</p> <p>LAUER: But we've had you on so many times in the past. After every book, you've always been invited back. Why would you, all of a sudden --</p> <p>COULTER: Why would --</p> <p>LAUER: -- be banned?</p> <p>COULTER: Why -- I don't know.</p> <p>LAUER: We made it --</p> <p>COULTER: I mean, that's not for me to answer what your motives are.</p> <p>LAUER: We traded you out for [former Britain prime minister] Tony Blair yesterday, and I think that's a pretty good switch. </p> <p>COULTER: Well, you had more than Tony Blair on for four hours.</p> <p>LAUER: Yeah. Right. But you were --</p> <p>COULTER: It's a four-hour show.</p> <p>LAUER: In your slot, where you were supposed to be yesterday morning, was Tony Blair. </p> <p>COULTER: And [MSNBC host] Rachel Maddow, and various gossip columnists, and a bear -- </p> <p>LAUER: Afterward. Afterward. </p> <p>COULTER: The point i